New Political Coalition - California Common Ground Coalition

[gorgothmog]

We need a "sportsman's exemption" that would allow magazines, off roster pistols and semi automatic rifles with pistol grip use and acquisition.

This is the exact kind of thinking that's needed. We have four pieces of licensing that can be used to create different tiers of licensing: CCW, CO, FFL03, and FSC. Realistically, I could imagine that someone with all 4 would get access to purchase off-roster handguns, with some stupid caveat that you can't resell the firearm for 5 years, or that there's a 2 per year limit on them. The DROS Entry System can facilitate this, I would think.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

There's a lot going on in your post. Feel free to correct me if I'm misreading anything, trying to put all the pieces together. I don't want to parse the thing to death.

To answer the question above and the adjacent one in the poll, I'd have to say no. But it's a qualified no. Letting the 2A become political is what's driven us down the dark road we've been on for several decades. Doing more politics isn't the ticket out of this jam. Further, a coalition of "liberal and conservative gun owners" is still just a coalition of gun owners at the end of the day. That said, gun owners, as I figure it's defined here, means people who are passionate about the 2A, etc. and not just simply those who own a gun/guns. The two are distinct. However, gun owners are completely marginalized and are a very fringe minority bloc of votes no matter how you slice it. That in turn means that the power to influence something big, like a candidate for a high profile state office such as AG, is outside the scope of their abilities.

Lastly, organizing (as in people) is an art. If you take a look at successful social movements, they all tend to flourish when they capture swathes of the population with no vested interest. Same sex marriage is a good example. The tipping point was a broad change of heart throughout the population and that only happened because they forged alliances outside of their own tent. The 2A crowd hasn't done that, and at times have actively discouraged growing the base for various stupid reasons, mostly due to politics.

As for the more specific task of addressing, or just identifying root causes of violence, it's not a novel concept. But it's also a trap because lawmaking may state that such-and-such bill is meant to do just that, but in reality, the disconnect is heavy. That's not on accident either. Framing everything as an attempt to "reduce violence" is just words; the preface of lot's of terrible bills enrolled by the state over many sessions in the legislature. In other words, take those words with a giant grain of salt. For us as 2A advocates to engage that concept, the other side has to first be honest about their intentions, which they aren't.

More to the point here, for a long time the pro-gun community beat the drum of dO-sOMeThINg-AbOUt-mENTaL-hEalTH!!!! as a reaction to various high profile mass murders. The problem is, the other side listened. They listened so well that they came up with things like ERPOs (aka red flag laws) as the answer to that request.

The lesson is, be careful what you wish for.

like it or not, politics is at the backbone of policy. Now most people think of politics as team sports and that's bad, but policy comes from, is voted and passed by politicians engaging in politics. There's plenty of marginalized groups that have a seat at the table in Sacramento for policy, we need a better voice. Right now guns are lumped into right wing politics which makes it smell bad to 70% of Californians because it comes with a side of racism and taking healthcare away from people. If it instead could be colored in a way that's more palatable and relatable to centrists you are gonna have a better chance at being listened to and a better chance we will have politicians that would vote for better gun policy. The fastest growing demographic of gun owners is non-traditional and non conservative.

 

[gorgothmog]

like it or not, politics is at the backbone of policy. Now most people think of politics as team sports and that's bad, but policy comes from, is voted and passed by politicians engaging in politics. There's plenty of marginalized groups that have a seat at the table in Sacramento for policy, we need a better voice. Right now guns are lumped into right wing politics which makes it smell bad to 70% of Californians because it comes with a side of racism and taking healthcare away from people. If it instead could be colored in a way that's more palatable and relatable to centrists you are gonna have a better chance at being listened to and a better chance we will have politicians that would vote for better gun policy. The fastest growing demographic of gun owners is non-traditional and non conservative.

Which is why I'm going after regulations based on outsourcing to interest groups as bad lawmaking. We need rational administration left to experts, not moving ideological goalposts that the Cal DoJ has to kick a field goal through. If you let the Cal DoJ come up with their own laws to effectively govern firearm law, I bet you would still see substantive laws, but laws that people could wade through and make sense of.

 

[Deleted member 6005]

Rational licensing system is an oxymoron.

 

[gorgothmog]

Rational licensing system is an oxymoron.

Got something better in mind? I'm open to ideas.

 

[couragewolf]

Where do u look to figure out each candidates values and record?

You’re probably going to think I’m insane but I literally go line by line through the voting pamphlet and do an exhaustive research and OSINT analysis of each individual position down to the dumbest judge and clerk role every time it’s time to vote and make a personal character assessment based on the values I observe completely ignoring the political associations.

Half the time it’s split right down the middle but sometimes it’s all over the place whether they’re Rs, Ds, libertarians, s etc. I really don’t give a damn what they say. Look at the national stage these clowns just tell people whatever they want to hear and then deliver a bunch of showy faux victories for sound bytes and focus on their real objectives that are often contrary to their adherents interests.

I vote for people that have principles even sometimes when they are contrary to my own. A principled candidate with integrity is sort of the bare minimum. They’re hard to spot it takes homework.

 

[couragewolf]

Ballotpedia

Ballotpedia is the digital encyclopedia of American politics and elections. Our goal is to inform people about politics by providing accurate and objective information about politics at all levels of government.

ballotpedia.org

This page is semi helpful but unfortunately comes up short a lot

 

[Deleted member 6005]

Got something better in mind? I'm open to ideas.

Quit thinking it's a good idea to volunteer incrementally giving up a given right! Quit voting for progressives and continue using the courts.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Quit thinking it's a good idea to volunteer incrementally giving up a given right! Quit voting for progressives and continue using the courts.

Regulation isn't going anywhere. Even in Bruen which gace us back ccws, Kavanaugh made a point to state that the existing permitting systems in place were constitutional. He's not a "progressive" but you can thank him for the 1000 dollar permit process. There's only two and a half 2a absolutists on the court. If this court still allows regulation then there's no way you will ever see the kind of freedom on firearms you envision.

 

[gorgothmog]

Quit thinking it's a good idea to volunteer incrementally giving up a given right! Quit voting for progressives and continue using the courts.

The court battles are long, and while they present some victories, they often feel hollow as the injunctions are partial. The way you're thinking about this assures that you prefer tribal infighting as opposed to passing laws that stakeholders work with politicians to pass. Out of state gun grabbers are not stakeholders, local businesses are. Who is making the laws right now? Everytown... not the governor, not the AG, not your reps... they all sign off on the theatrics, and this is what we get. So you can either fight for a place where we have laws and licensing that makes sense, and that everyone can easily follow, or purposeful chaos.

 

[DB>)>]

"rational administration left to experts"

AKA the administrative agency state we have now, where the DoJ and ATF make up whatever rules (or interpretations thereof) whoever appointed them tells them to... Pretty much what we have now, with memos determining that you can't get the most basic of spare parts because "GUNS BAD". We are already witnessing once again the MESS that these so called "experts" can create when given some vague legislative guidance by our clueless "representatives"... don't really need more of THAT!!!

The so called "experts" usually barely know which end of the firearm the bullet comes out of, let alone any actual, factual things other than clips that shoot 30 bullets a second because the thing that goes up and the extra pistol grip and grenade launcher make it extra "salty"...

If you hand your fate to idiots who are only interested in how to get re-elected now that they are elected, you deserve what you asked for.

 

[gorgothmog]

"rational administration left to experts"

AKA the administrative agency state we have now, where the DoJ and ATF make up whatever rules (or interpretations thereof) whoever appointed them tells them to... Pretty much what we have now, with memos determining that you can't get the most basic of spare parts because "GUNS BAD". We are already witnessing once again the MESS that these so called "experts" can create when given some vague legislative guidance by our clueless "representatives"... don't really need more of THAT!!!

The so called "experts" usually barely know which end of the firearm the bullet comes out of, let alone any actual, factual things other than clips that shoot 30 bullets a second because the thing that goes up and the extra pistol grip and grenade launcher make it extra "salty"...

If you hand your fate to idiots who are only interested in how to get re-elected now that they are elected, you deserve what you asked for.

Somewhere I mentioned that regulation creation and lawmaking should be done by local stakeholders and lawmakers, and not with Bloomberg funded groups. Would you rather have your LGS or the CRPA or the compliance department at Sportsman's working with the Cal DoJ, or Everytown dictating terms? Tell me who you would rather have the lawmakers and Cal DoJ engage with?

 

[BCar777]

This isn't about electing a pro-gun AG, it's about electing an AG that won't make things hard or intentionally difficult for law abiding gun owners. It's about truly finding common ground in reworking a system that fails us as law abiding gun owners. The gun grabbers dream of a total gun ban, and we dream of building SBRs on our front porches on a sunny day. What we really have is a dystopia where people eke out impoverished existences and turn to violent crime using guns, or suicide using firearms when they have no hope. IF YOU PROMOTE A STABILE SOCIETY YOU ARE INHERENTLY GOING TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE AND GUN-RELATED DEATHS. There are MOUNTAINS of evidence to back this up. So you can get on board with this or not, but this is the way you start to swing the pendulum of power in California, and get Every Town and Moms Demand Action away from the Cal DoJ. Given California's jungle primary, we could be a big enough of a force to get an AG that won't pass or enforce performative legislation.

Universal healthcare anything is a disaster

 

[cali_jazz]

I just finished with both a CA politics class, and a US Government class this past semester. That said: Liberals as the dictionary describes them are not the problem. It’s the PROGRESSIVES that are the problem. Liberals and Conservatives actually have a lot in common, not just here, but around the world too. They’re both pro smaller government, they both believe in the rule of law, and for the most part, they both support constitutional limits on government. People correlate Liberalism with Progressivism, much like they correlate Conservatism with Populism, and while they can both be a sub category of the larger movement, they’re not the same, both Progressivism and Populism are more ‘direct’ (for lack of a better term). People get so emotional and heated that they never bother to actually LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCES and just toss ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ around as insults, and frankly, it’s really a sign of how our education system has failed as a whole. As for the CA side of things: again, it’s the Progressives that are causing the majority of the problems within the state, not the true Liberals. If we’re going to blame someone, blame the Progressive idiots in the Assembly and Senate, and the people who voted for them.

In the 2025–2026 California legislative session, both AB 1263 and SB 704 passed the Assembly with strong Democratic support and were signed into law by Governor Newsom in October 2025

AB 1263 (Firearms: Ghost Guns)

This bill, authored by Assemblymember Mike Gipson, regulates "ghost guns" by broadening the definition of unlawful firearm manufacturing and imposing rules for manufacturing machines and digital code.

• Assembly Concurrence (Sept. 12, 2025): Passed 62–13.
  • Yeas (62): 60 Democrats, 2 Republicans.
  • Nays (13): 13 Republicans.
  • Absent (5): 5 Republicans.
• Assembly Third Reading (June 3, 2025): Passed 63–10.
• Committee Votes: Passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (11–2) on May 23 and the Public Safety Committee (7–0) on April 8, 2025.

SB 704 (Firearms: Firearm Barrels)

Authored by Senator Jesse Arreguín, this bill requires all standalone firearm barrels to be sold or transferred through a licensed dealer, with background checks and eligibility verification starting in 2027.

• Assembly Third Reading (Sept. 8, 2025): Passed 57–20.
  • Yeas (57): 57 Demo
  • In the final Assembly vote for
    AB 1263 (Ghost Guns) on September 12, 2025, two Republicans crossed party lines to vote Yea.
    
    The Republicans who voted in favor of the bill during its legislative path in 2025 included:
    
    • Assemblymember Juan Alanis [R]: Voted Yea on the final Assembly concurrence on September 12, 2025. He also supported the bill during its third reading on June 3, 2025.
    • Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez [R]: Voted Yea on the final Assembly concurrence on September 12, 2025.
  • 
    
  • Additional Vote Details:
    
    • Assemblymember Tom Lackey [R]: While he voted Yea during the initial Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing on April 8, 2025, he was recorded as Absent or not voting during the June floor vote and the final September concurrence.
    • Senator Suzette Martinez Valladares [R]: Though in the Senate, she was the only Republican in that chamber to vote Yea on AB 1263 during its third reading on September 11, 2025
  • Nays (20): 20 Republicans.
  • Absent (3): 3 Democrats.
• Committee Votes: Passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (11–4) on August 29 and the Public Safety Committee (7–2) on July 15, 2025.

 

[DB>)>]

Somewhere I mentioned that regulation creation and lawmaking should be done by local stakeholders and lawmakers, and not with Bloomberg funded groups. Would you rather have your LGS or the CRPA or the compliance department at Sportsman's working with the Cal DoJ, or Everytown dictating terms? Tell me who you would rather have the lawmakers and Cal DoJ engage with?

There already is a degree of granulation - CCW go through LOCAL agencies, with a VERY wide range of "rules" - how's that working out for those areas where getting a licence is almost impossible, even AFTER SCOTUS has addressed it???

Firearms SHOULD come under the US CONSTITUTION, not a patchwork of opinions and massively differing local rules... That would be WHY 2A is right there, early in the history of a country that so many are increasingly willing to give away to "experts" and "representatives"... "Gun free zones" have proven to provide IDEAL opportunities for lunatics, yet the "answer" is to make even more restrictive geographies... Absolute insanity.

There are already "lobbying" groups on BOTH sides, Everytown (IIRC) recently started their own gun safety and training program, the anti-gunners have literally lost their minds when announcements for that program posted to FaceBook... It would be funny, except it's a lobbying group actually trying to make gun ownership safer rather than "BAN GUNS", and the grabbers lose their !


I'm not against a national system registering gun OWNERS, with background checks at the level of the 4473 form, and probably a reasonable knowledge test of some sort. Once licensed, you can get whatever gun(s) you want... If anything, have a couple of tiers of ownership for those that might want a full auto or a canon or an F15 or something (since some politicians seem to like to threaten American citizens with fighter planes and such...)

FFL? A buyer shows his license, FFL checks it against the licensed to own list, if it checks, good to go. PPT, give access to private sellers to that same cross check, again, fast, easy and ensure that the OWNERS of firearms meet reasonable criteria. Personal responsibility, something horribly missing when "administrative agencies" get into the mix!!!

The whole blaming and demonization of inanimate objects (that interestingly cannot fight back, because well... inanimate objects) is a fools errand, conducted mostly by fools!! You cannot fix a problem when you have failed to correctly diagnose the cause.

 

[Deleted member 31158]

In the 2025–2026 California legislative session, both AB 1263 and SB 704 passed the Assembly with strong Democratic support and were signed into law by Governor Newsom in October 2025

AB 1263 (Firearms: Ghost Guns)

This bill, authored by Assemblymember Mike Gipson, regulates "ghost guns" by broadening the definition of unlawful firearm manufacturing and imposing rules for manufacturing machines and digital code.

• Assembly Concurrence (Sept. 12, 2025): Passed 62–13.
  • Yeas (62): 60 Democrats, 2 Republicans.
  • Nays (13): 13 Republicans.
  • Absent (5): 5 Republicans.
• Assembly Third Reading (June 3, 2025): Passed 63–10.
• Committee Votes: Passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (11–2) on May 23 and the Public Safety Committee (7–0) on April 8, 2025.

SB 704 (Firearms: Firearm Barrels)

Authored by Senator Jesse Arreguín, this bill requires all standalone firearm barrels to be sold or transferred through a licensed dealer, with background checks and eligibility verification starting in 2027.

• Assembly Third Reading (Sept. 8, 2025): Passed 57–20.
  • Yeas (57): 57 Demo
  • In the final Assembly vote for
    AB 1263 (Ghost Guns) on September 12, 2025, two Republicans crossed party lines to vote Yea.
    
    The Republicans who voted in favor of the bill during its legislative path in 2025 included:
    • Assemblymember Juan Alanis [R]: Voted Yea on the final Assembly concurrence on September 12, 2025. He also supported the bill during its third reading on June 3, 2025.
    • Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez [R]: Voted Yea on the final Assembly concurrence on September 12, 2025.
  • 
    
  • Additional Vote Details:
    • Assemblymember Tom Lackey [R]: While he voted Yea during the initial Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing on April 8, 2025, he was recorded as Absent or not voting during the June floor vote and the final September concurrence.
    • Senator Suzette Martinez Valladares [R]: Though in the Senate, she was the only Republican in that chamber to vote Yea on AB 1263 during its third reading on September 11, 2025
  • Nays (20): 20 Republicans.
  • Absent (3): 3 Democrats.
• Committee Votes: Passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee (11–4) on August 29 and the Public Safety Committee (7–2) on July 15, 2025.

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?

 

[bbp00]

This is the exact kind of thinking that's needed.

Like "Some are more equal than others"? How about NO to turning rights into privileges via licensing schemes.

Seriously, I don't get it how some lack understanding of the long-term consequences of incremental restrictions.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Like "Some are more equal than others"? How about NO to turning rights into privileges via licensing schemes.

Seriously, I don't get it how some lack understanding of the long-term consequences of incremental restrictions.

as I said above the conservative supreme court has ruled in two recent rulings that 1. ghost guns are guns regulated by same system as any other serialized gun and 2. that ccw permitting systems are constitutional. What you want is a fantasy for California, there's no future where they just take away gun regulations. But there could be a future where we can have a bit more stuff. If I cared that much about these things I would just move honestly.

 

[bbp00]

What you want is a fantasy for California, there's no future where they just take away gun regulations. But there could be a future where we can have a bit more stuff.

Somebody mentioned 70's, so don't tell me it's not possible. Retrace and redo.

If I cared that much about these things I would just move honestly.

See, you don't get it. It's not only about 2A, but life in general. On that note, how about you pro control folks move to Cuba or some other place where restricting freedom is customary.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Somebody mentioned 70's, so don't tell me it's not possible. Retrace and redo.

See, you don't get it. It's not only about 2A, but life in general. On that note, how about you pro control folks move to Cuba or some other place where restricting freedom is customary.

I literally don't know what you are trying to say, no one here is saying they like gun laws they are saying that our best chance is better gun laws. There's no "retrace and redo" for the recent supreme court rulings with the same exact people sitting on the court.