New Political Coalition - California Common Ground Coalition

[Ro-bo]

Bruen is finally taking hold in the courts, and we are finally seeing it play out.

You think so? I don't think so. It lost its balls when a near unanimous court agreed in Rahimi that the constraints on "text, history and tradition" were elastic and that laws needn't be "trapped in amber". On top of that, there's so many unresolved instances of vagueness in Heller, that the combination of the two has given way to some really terrible lower court decisions since.

I appreciate optimism, but man, I don't think California is too worried about any of this. They'll just keep plugging along with the 9th circuit serving as the relief valve if anything gets too hot.

 

[gorgothmog]

I wonder if other states have discussions like this?

 

[Ro-bo]

Well like for instance if you had to take a class and get a license to have a pistol grip, buy an off roster pistol and standard cap mags, wouldn't that be better? We all want to have the supreme court just come and say that Thomas Jefferson intended for 40 round magazines to be shot as fast as humanly possible, that would be a lot easier. At this point it seems unlikely. But promoting "responsible gun ownership" is the alternative to the perception of the "right wing gun nut". Like even Everytown has to admit that guns aren't going away, having a culture of safety and training does actually solve a lot of the issues they have with guns because so many gun deaths are from bystanders, accidents, freaking out and shooting people because they have no training and you were scared.

I guess, but what would the state gain from that other than it being another licensing scheme to collect money? I still don't see how we'd have leverage to accomplish gun control lite when staying the course of iron-fisted gun control is readily available to any member of the state legislature who proposes it, with near 100% success rates.

Interestingly enough since you brought up safety training, you probably don't realize it, but what eventually became BFSC took root even before the first iteration of the state's assault weapon laws. It was years in the making because training requirements were an appeasement policy that was supported by NRA/CRPA in the late 80s. It's actually a great example of this coalition thinking, where everyone comes together and negotiates gun control on their own terms. Sounds great... until you watch history unfold. They certainly didn't stop with BFSC, right?

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I guess, but what would the state gain from that other than it being another licensing scheme to collect money? I still don't see how we'd have leverage to accomplish gun control lite when staying the course of iron-fisted gun control is readily available to any member of the state legislature who proposes it, with near 100% success rates.

Interestingly enough since you brought up safety training, you probably don't realize it, but what eventually became BFSC took root even before the first iteration of the state's assault weapon laws. It was years in the making because training requirements were an appeasement policy that was supported by NRA/CRPA in the late 80s. It's actually a great example of this coalition thinking, where everyone comes together and negotiates gun control on their own terms. Sounds great... until you watch history unfold. They certainly didn't stop with BFSC, right?

Well with a strong enough lobby that can say "we won't sue you on this issue if we meet in the middle with this" that's what they gain. I don't actually think most of these legislators care about guns, they care about the people that harass them for things. Plus, like I said, actual training is actually good for preventing safety. It's crazy how many gun incidents are due to lack of training whether it's not clearing the gun etc. That documentary The Perfect Neighbor was an interesting watch because you can see how the case unfolds. But firearms training is for the public good, we have a million firearms sold here a year, something like 10 million households with guns. But we have like 1 and a half organizations that actually give pushback.

 

[cali_jazz]

That’s fine. But you’re still missing the point. Democrats are a sub category of Progressives. There are progressive democrats, and there are progressive liberals. However, Liberals as a whole often align with conservatives, I’ll keep saying this until it gets through: PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS or just progressives are the problem. The Democrats have gone so far left they’ve become progressives, NOT liberals, they’re 2 very different things. Progressives are a more ‘direct’ category of liberals, and the democrats (a uniquely American thing btw) are a part of that group.

“Democrats are members of the political party in the U.S. that encompasses a range of ideologies, including liberals and progressives. While liberals generally advocate for government intervention through gradual reforms, progressives seek more systemic changes and grassroots activism to address social and economic inequalities.”

Also: why are we editing my previous post?

I understood your point completely and was not arguing against it, just providing the voting data around these bills.

I edited your post because you accidentally left a few letters off the end of a word, my ocd couldn't handle it given how perfect your writing otherwise was

 

[ef9boy88]

If an honest conversation can be had. The issue is less about resisting change, or conservatism bad and more about how many times we've been down this road of "comprimise". You want to make a deal with the people who say "As a gun owner I support XYZ law."

 

[gorgothmog]

If an honest conversation can be had. The issue is less about resisting change, or conservatism bad and more about how many times we've been down this road of "comprimise". You want to make a deal with the people who say "As a gun owner I support XYZ law."

Laws are going to be made regardless. Do you want them to be coherent, rational, and have easy to understand pathways to compliance? Or you can have Every Town write them for you where compliance pathways are vague/overbroad, with safeharbors only appearing after you have endless court battles. Your choice, because that's the reality. If you're going to have a SERIOUS conversation, it just seems to me you need to have that viewpoint. This is about Dem gunowners holding the Dem brass accountable for outsourcing responsibility. If you're a conservative gun owner, and you can't delineate the point that I'm trying to make based on the reality California finds itself in, I would suggest reading other replies I've made in this forum. If I get around to circulating things I'd like the support of all gun owners to pressure for better laws that aren't outsourced, but it's much more powerful coming from inside the Democratic party. I just can't take the Every Town circus from corrupting our politics. We have rational regulatory frameworks for everything from toxic waste to how we license doctors to practice, but when it comes to firearms, why can't we ask the same thing?

 

[gorgothmog]

You think so? I don't think so. It lost its balls when a near unanimous court agreed in Rahimi that the constraints on "text, history and tradition" were elastic and that laws needn't be "trapped in amber". On top of that, there's so many unresolved instances of vagueness in Heller, that the combination of the two has given way to some really terrible lower court decisions since.

I appreciate optimism, but man, I don't think California is too worried about any of this. They'll just keep plugging along with the 9th circuit serving as the relief valve if anything gets too hot.

That's also a really fair take. Bad cases make bad precedent. Rahimi was a bad case to have gone to the Supreme Court. He was a complete moron. I can only pray Duncan gets granted cert.

 

[ef9boy88]

Laws are going to be made regardless. Do you want them to be coherent, rational, and have easy to understand pathways to compliance? Or you can have Every Town write them for you where compliance pathways are vague/overbroad, with safeharbors only appearing after you have endless court battles. Your choice, because that's the reality. If you're going to have a SERIOUS conversation, it just seems to me you need to have that viewpoint. This is about Dem gunowners holding the Dem brass accountable for outsourcing responsibility. If you're a conservative gun owner, and you can't delineate the point that I'm trying to make based on the reality California finds itself in, I would suggest reading other replies I've made in this forum. If I get around to circulating things I'd like the support of all gun owners to pressure for better laws that aren't outsourced, but it's much more powerful coming from inside the Democratic party. I just can't take the Every Town circus from corrupting our politics. We have rational regulatory frameworks for everything from toxic waste to how we license doctors to practice, but when it comes to firearms, why can't we ask the same thing?

You seem to be misunderstanding that the goal of the politicians is disarmament. Many "liberal gun owners" basically bought them out of fear, and then locked them away. I've actually spoken with several in person, and they don't have any issue with the BBAW, handgun roster, ammo background checks, mag restrictions or 11% "sin tax". So tell me, what laws are you looking to add with "common sense" and "clear pathways to compliance"

 

[gorgothmog]

You seem to be misunderstanding that the goal of the politicians is disarmament. Many "liberal gun owners" basically bought them out of fear, and then locked them away. I've actually spoken with several in person, and they don't have any issue with the BBAW, handgun roster, ammo background checks, mag restrictions or 11% "sin tax". So tell me, what laws are you looking to add with "common sense" and "clear pathways to compliance"

It started with the 11% tax, but AB 1263 has REALLY F-ing burned me. Arreguin, Gipsom, Newscum, they can all eat a FAT d*ck. Gipsom is an America last California hating moron. He's terming out, and I can't wait to see him leave. Just an FYI, I've got stuff cooking, already. I've also got calls down the pipeline with some fellow CAGuns members that have experience in state regulation. This will pick up steam before long, I hope. I mean, I've shifted and refocused my target area for advocacy, doesn't mean I won't again, or that I'm not open to suggestions/ideas.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

You seem to be misunderstanding that the goal of the politicians is disarmament. Many "liberal gun owners" basically bought them out of fear, and then locked them away. I've actually spoken with several in person, and they don't have any issue with the BBAW, handgun roster, ammo background checks, mag restrictions or 11% "sin tax". So tell me, what laws are you looking to add with "common sense" and "clear pathways to compliance"

I don't hang out with a lot of conservatives in real life and I've never met anyone that owns a gun and is ok with those things, even this hypothetical "liberal gun owner" is a lot closer to being annoyed with the current laws once they actually try to shoot their gun. I have met a lot of people that say "why do you need weapons of war" and I've taken them to public land to shoot an AR15 and they are like, yeah this is rad and it's not really a weapon of war. You really described the average gun owner, buying a gun out of fear and not shooting it. That applies to conservatives too. Mag disconnects and micro stamping are literally from a Republican governor LOL. The ideological lines are topsy turvy, historically "law and order" i.e. gun control was a conservative idea but now big C conservatism pretends like they are about "freedom". Many mondern Liberals just care about safety, the old ideas of just no gun laws won't work in that environment and I can't say I completely disagree. But more importantly we gotta drop the Us vs Them mentality because people don't actually follow ideology. They mostly follow their feelings and the cheer for their teams.

Conservatives Privately Support Several Firearm Policies, but Don’t Publicly Demand Them

www.rutgers.edu

 

[couragewolf]

Either way, whatever your stripes, you are all patriots of this Republic for simply engaging with me, and I wish you all a Merry Christmas!!!

I appreciate the open minded discourse this is what actual healthy conversation looks like.

 

[couragewolf]

I reject the premise of the question. Or the underlying bases put for for the reasoning behind the issue to be delt with.

Your coming at it from a far left view on what is the problem and what the solution is.

I vote no as it's not a workable solution and continues the false assumptions behind crime

Therefore I vote no

Can you explain the far left view of what the problem and what the solution are?

One of the handful of things the far left and the far right seem to clearly agree on is that citizens right to be armed in order to protect themselves from the government should not be infringed in any way. I don’t think op is espousing that viewpoint.

 

[Jimi Jah]

So this is exactly the kind of framing that won't win or change anything. I would hope that if it came down to it, you would be for rational administrative firearm law that vendors/trade associations/FFLs and the government created, and not vague outsourced frictional law cooked up by Every Town.

I would be for any cancelation of current oppressive California gun laws but the math is not there. The democrat party here is fully invested in gun control, which equates to people control which equates to power. They will not give up that power.

If you are looking for rationalization you will find that at the California/Arizona border.

 

[ef9boy88]

It started with the 11% tax, but AB 1263 has REALLY F-ing burned me. Arreguin, Gipsom, Newscum, they can all eat a FAT d*ck. Gipsom is an America last California hating moron. He's terming out, and I can't wait to see him leave. Just an FYI, I've got stuff cooking, already. I've also got calls down the pipeline with some fellow CAGuns members that have experience in state regulation. This will pick up steam before long, I hope. I mean, I've shifted and refocused my target area for advocacy, doesn't mean I won't again, or that I'm not open to suggestions/ideas.

The 11% tax is just another shot at us though.
PPT through FFL only on pistols
10 day wait
10 round magazines
PPT through FFL on long guns and C&R pistols.
No shipping C&R to home
Handgun roster
CA AW Ban
CA BBAW Ban
1 in 30
Ammo background check

 

[Talent310]

I just read through all the replies in this thread. I wrote a few paragraphs trying to summarize what I read but didn’t see a point to posting.

I guess I’ll just say I’m glad this discourse is happening. OP is approaching this in a solutions based manner instead of just ranting about gun laws bad with no path to improvement. Thank you OP for an engaging discussion.

 

[Ro-bo]

But firearms training is for the public good, we have a million firearms sold here a year, something like 10 million households with guns. But we have like 1 and a half organizations that actually give pushback.

If the state was truly interested in safety, they could easily siphon off the bloated dros fees or the 11% sin tax, and create a fund to provide that training free for the asking. Nobody in their right mind takes issue with gun training. What they *do* take issue with, and I'm including myself here, is weaponizing training requirements as a means to hinder people's access to guns. So far, that's been the path the state legislature has been following since BFSC debuted. And as I said above, the concept for that had the blessing of the NRA/CRPA way before it became legislation. There wasn't any push back. They (we) welcomed it with open arms.

Giving a green light to lawmakers to take it even further isn't going to change the actual dynamics of safe handling. All they're going to do is continue to make the process more onerous to discourage ownership. It's like you said, they aren't going to have an epiphany one day and decide "gee, let's put more guns into everyone's hands".

 

[Ro-bo]

That's also a really fair take. Bad cases make bad precedent. Rahimi was a bad case to have gone to the Supreme Court. He was a complete moron. I can only pray Duncan gets granted cert.

But not making bad precedent is also a reason not to try to negotiate a better brand of gun control right now.
If we were to approach lawmakers and say, "hey, could you do this instead of that, pretty please" and they complied, and those laws weren't consistent with the spirit of what Bruen should be, all we will have done is upend that decision even more. If Bruen were taken at full face value, prior to the walk-back in Rahimi, things like licensing schemes wouldn't survive honest appraisal in an honest court. Stacking a bunch of gun owner endorsed gun laws into the public record would be shooting ourselves in the foot. We would be giving the state exactly what they need to justify ignoring the principles of Bruen with respect to "text, history and tradition".

 

[Ro-bo]

If you are looking for rationalization you will find that at the California/Arizona border.

For now, maybe. But Arizona falls under the umbrella of the 9th circuit, so... I wouldn't count on all that FrEEdOm! being a permanent fixture. Look at Oregon. Look at Washington.

 

[cali_jazz]

Laws are going to be made regardless. Do you want them to be coherent, rational, and have easy to understand pathways to compliance? Or you can have Every Town write them for you where compliance pathways are vague/overbroad, with safeharbors only appearing after you have endless court battles. Your choice, because that's the reality. If you're going to have a SERIOUS conversation, it just seems to me you need to have that viewpoint. This is about Dem gunowners holding the Dem brass accountable for outsourcing responsibility. If you're a conservative gun owner, and you can't delineate the point that I'm trying to make based on the reality California finds itself in, I would suggest reading other replies I've made in this forum. If I get around to circulating things I'd like the support of all gun owners to pressure for better laws that aren't outsourced, but it's much more powerful coming from inside the Democratic party. I just can't take the Every Town circus from corrupting our politics. We have rational regulatory frameworks for everything from toxic waste to how we license doctors to practice, but when it comes to firearms, why can't we ask the same thing?

Here's who is behind SB53 and I'm sure many/most of these new laws. I have not heard of anything nearly as organized like this by 2A groups. CPRA asked us to write our legislators and provided a form which I filled out and sent to mine, what about you guys? I doubt we had anything like 18,000 messages. Does anyone actually even keep count for pro 2A?

The California firearm storage law,
SB 53 (officially part of the 2023–2024 legislative session), was heavily backed and in several cases sponsored by major national gun control organizations.

The primary groups behind the legislation include:

• Brady (formerly the Brady Campaign): Brady was the lead sponsor of SB 53. They advocated for the bill as part of a "triple" of sponsored laws aimed at mandating home safe storage, strengthening dealer oversight, and ensuring the destruction of seized firearms.
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence: This organization identified SB 53 as a "top priority" for California's gun safety movement and worked closely with the state legislature to secure its passage.
• Moms Demand Action & Students Demand Action: Both groups, which are part of the Everytown for Gun Safety grassroots network, actively campaigned for the bill. Their volunteers reportedly sent over 18,000 messages to lawmakers in support of the 2024 gun safety package.
• Silicon Valley Alliance for Gun Safety & SAFE: Local advocacy groups and healthcare providers, specifically the Silicon Valley Alliance for Gun Safety, were also cited as key proponents who worked with lawmakers on the bill's technical details