New Political Coalition - California Common Ground Coalition

[Ro-bo]

This is why I've narrowed to good governance and administrative law over ideological outsourcing, alongside building out the permitting structure and opening DES. I think that way you can appeal to the broadest swath of Democratic leaning voters. The Dem leaning gun owners need to own this, and the legislators need to feel the heat from their side. Think they give a damn about hearing it from outside their voting base? Unlikely.

Not that I think you lost sleep over this, but I should've prefaced my post with something along the lines of "you're on the right track". Just so we're clear, I wasn't disagreeing with the concept, only some of the specifics.

The big flaw I notice is the belief that there's a large enough contingent of "Dem leaning gun owners" (or any specific subcategory of such) to actually affect any change on legislative attitudes of the current hivemind that runs this state. That's what I was getting at when I said that if you put such-and-such gun owners together with this-and-that gun owners, you still just have plain 'ol gun owners and our numbers are negligible in terms of political pull.

I don't think any of those gun owners backing some alternate issue is going to bring broader appeal to our own cause either. But that's where you're on the right track, because success *does* greatly hinge on broadening our base. But broadening that base has to mean doing so in a way that people with no direct vested interest in the 2A/guns are sympathetic to our position.

 

[Ro-bo]

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.

The 2A wasn't always heavily political though. Specific to California, the state legislature has not always been an amoeba the way it is today. I've pointed out before, people like Rod Wright or Carol Ruth Silver, who have been tangibly supportive of the 2A in the past.

What you're saying about guns being a plank of the right wing is undeniable, and undeniably a detriment to the cause. And that's exactly why I reject the "like it or not" refrain. I don't like it because it's become a setback. Without derailing this thread too much, this began with the founder of GOA/GOC during his stint in the state senate, and riding Deukmejian's coattails. This mass politicization of guns didn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[bbp00]

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.

What is the purpose of gun laws? What would improvements be with so called "better" gun laws?
Firstly, all gun laws are inherently restrictive, complex, or an ineffective necessary evil. You can't have "good" or "better" gun laws.

Nationwide, gun crimes per 100,000 people are largely the same today as they were back in 50s, 60s, early 70s when you could purchase guns everywhere, in hardware stores, mail orders from catalogs and so on. Adds for surplus semi-automatic military rifles everywhere. No background checks, no federal purchase forms.

Gun crimes were up and down with other crimes, the only thing that changed is sharp increase in mass shootings since about early 2000s, some put blame on semi-automatic rifles, yet rifles like AR-15 were available since mid 60s. How comes that often most mass shootings happen in states with most restrictive gun laws?
Fact: history shows no clear or consistent relationship between the ease of acquiring firearms and the frequency of mass shootings.

There's no "retrace and redo" for the recent supreme court rulings with the same exact people sitting on the court.

We're talking California gun laws. Existing, upcoming and hypothetical "better" ones. For those, retrace and redo is available. Of course, in current political and ideological climate here in California, well, that's another story.

I mean, look at this forum. About half (if not more) of caguns.net members are pro-gun control, some are openly against 2A, against US constitution and openly quote Karl Marx as something positive.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

What is the purpose of gun laws? What would improvements be with so called "better" gun laws?
Firstly, all gun laws are inherently restrictive, complex, or an ineffective necessary evil. You can't have "good" or "better" gun laws.

Nationwide, gun crimes per 100,000 people are largely the same today as they were back in 50s, 60s, early 70s when you could purchase guns everywhere, in hardware stores, mail orders from catalogs and so on. Adds for surplus semi-automatic military rifles everywhere. No background checks, no federal purchase forms.

Gun crimes were up and down with other crimes, the only thing that changed is sharp increase in mass shootings since about early 2000s, some put blame on semi-automatic rifles, yet rifles like AR-15 were available since mid 60s. How comes that often most mass shootings happen in states with most restrictive gun laws?
Fact: history shows no clear or consistent relationship between the ease of acquiring firearms and the frequency of mass shootings.


We're talking California gun laws. Existing, upcoming and hypothetical "better" ones. For those, retrace and redo is available. Of course, in current political and ideological climate here in California, well, that's another story.

I mean, look at this forum. About half (if not more) of caguns.net members are pro-gun control, some are openly against 2A, against US constitution and openly quote Karl Marx as something positive.

Again, the supreme Court has recently ruled in favor of gun laws. This hypothetical fantasy of no gun laws only exists in your mind.

 

[bbp00]

This hypothetical fantasy of no gun laws only exists in your mind.

You can talk about my mind when you can quote me where I expressed that fantasy. Until then, stop making stuff up.

Again, the supreme Court has recently ruled in favor of gun laws.

No s**t Sherlock. We had gun laws since the beginning.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

You can talk about my mind when you can quote me where I expressed that fantasy. Until then, stop making stuff up.


No s**t Sherlock. We had gun laws since the beginning.

Well all you've said is that gun laws are infringement and wanting better gun laws is dumb so I don't know what your point is.

 

[DEADPOOL1977]

No this sounds like liberal bullcrap. It’s simple you deserve nothing because nothing is free. Others have their money stolen via taxation by government to pay for everything that is free and those people don’t get any of it because they work to pay for all of it so they make too much.

It’s all politicians way to buy votes and make you dependent on them to stay in office.

 

[bbp00]

Well all you've said is that gun laws are infringement

Are they not?
By definition, they all are.
Some are necessary evil, like restrictions for violent felons and similar (which I don't oppose), though, one could argue how effective these really are, since it seems criminals always find a way to acquire guns regardless.

wanting better gun laws is dumb so I don't know what your point is.

Because
better gun laws = oxymoron
The best we can do is get rid of some, so gun ownership becomes less restrictive.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Are they not?
By definition, they all are.
Some are necessary evil, like restrictions for violent felons and similar (which I don't oppose), though, one could argue how effective these really are, since it seems criminals always find a way to acquire guns regardless.


Because
better gun laws = oxymoron
The best we can do is get rid of some, so gun ownership becomes less restrictive.

by definition, the court decides what is infringement of rights and they have decided over and over that most gun laws are not infringement with rare exceptions. It would not suprise me if the current court, if they actually even hear the cases, will decide that states can regulate certain guns (assault weapons and pistols) and limit capacity. But we will have to see, I would certainly prefer that they define very specifically what they meant in the past when they spoke of "common use" weapons, like does that matter in a state like CA that has banned "assault weapons" for a long time even though we have functionally the same thing? another thing, on paper we have only sold "safe pistols" so "unsafe pistols" are not in common use (which we know isn't true, really).

All that to say that CA passed prop 63 by voter referendum at 63%. We all know the roster is bull, it's actually made guns less safe because it increased the amount of switchable glocks by orders of magnitude. But the only thing that will sell here is an actual alternative. regulation that is too restrictive works in the opposite way as intended, like since the roster was closed due to the microstamping requirement then zero guns were on the roster with the required safety features. An alternative set of regulations would indeed replace the roster with something meaningful. There's no world where CA legislatures are just like, yeah we need more guns in the hands of the public. So what that alternative legislation is, I don't know but that's really the option here. The legislators have zero reason to repeal gun laws unless we can come up with meaningful alternatives.

 

[gorgothmog]

by definition, the court decides what is infringement of rights and they have decided over and over that most gun laws are not infringement with rare exceptions. It would not suprise me if the current court, if they actually even hear the cases, will decide that states can regulate certain guns (assault weapons and pistols) and limit capacity. But we will have to see, I would certainly prefer that they define very specifically what they meant in the past when they spoke of "common use" weapons, like does that matter in a state like CA that has banned "assault weapons" for a long time even though we have functionally the same thing? another thing, on paper we have only sold "safe pistols" so "unsafe pistols" are not in common use (which we know isn't true, really).

All that to say that CA passed prop 63 by voter referendum at 63%. We all know the roster is bull, it's actually made guns less safe because it increased the amount of switchable glocks by orders of magnitude. But the only thing that will sell here is an actual alternative. regulation that is too restrictive works in the opposite way as intended, like since the roster was closed due to the microstamping requirement then zero guns were on the roster with the required safety features. An alternative set of regulations would indeed replace the roster with something meaningful. There's no world where CA legislatures are just like, yeah we need more guns in the hands of the public. So what that alternative legislation is, I don't know but that's really the option here. The legislators have zero reason to repeal gun laws unless we can come up with meaningful alternatives.

California libs want gun laws. We can have Everytown satisfy that thirst for them, or we can have the actual stakeholders like trade associations, local gun stores, and compliance departments work with the Cal DoJ and legislators to push out Every Town.

It's this kind of back and forth with the "Shall not infringe" purist mindset (which I respect) that I don't need to battle. I just need to convince the 2-4 million California Dem gun owners to voice their opinions to their legislators.

 

[Jimi Jah]

About the only option here for those that can't live within California's vast collection of laws is to either ignore them or move to another state.

The California democrat majority will continue to increase as more people here vote with their feet. The liberal mindset combined with Marxist government schools and colleges plus a unified liberal news and entertainment industry will assure there will be no improvement here.

The Supreme Court has signaled that they are done taking on gun cases or making any substantial changes. What you see is what you get.

 

[gorgothmog]

About the only option here for those that can't live within California's vast collection of laws is to either ignore them or move to another state.

The California democrat majority will continue to increase as more people here vote with their feet. The liberal mindset combined with Marxist government schools and colleges plus a unified liberal news and entertainment industry will assure there will be no improvement here.

The Supreme Court has signaled that they are done taking on gun cases or making any substantial changes. What you see is what you get.

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.

 

[Ro-bo]

So what that alternative legislation is, I don't know but that's really the option here. The legislators have zero reason to repeal gun laws unless we can come up with meaningful alternatives.

Soooooo... in order to come up with an alternative to the gallows, we need to suggest the guillotine?

Setting aside the fact that the legislature doesn't typically repeal a lot of laws in the first place, I seriously doubt we can send some sort of "smart" delegation to negotiate better laws in exchange for removing the crushing level of ones already imposed upon us. That's not how things work. Even if it was, what would any state representative stand to gain from this? There's nothing marketable about it.

We've lost substantial 2A ground over the last few decades due in large part to the successful lobbying of lawyers who were inspired by the Petit & Martin law firm shooting. There's decidedly little we've ever won back since. About the only setback the other side has suffered is Heller and only because prior, courts would simply disregard 2A challenges based on the erroneous collective right model. But that's it. We don't have the type of negotiating power that's necessary to force the legislature to ever even begin to want to change course. Oh, but we can sue! *yawn*

 

[Ro-bo]

rational administrative firearm law that vendors/trade associations/FFLs and the government created

I'm genuinely asking this: What would this look like?
Give me an example of a coalition-friendly gun restriction.

 

[gorgothmog]

by definition, the court decides what is infringement of rights and they have decided over and over that most gun laws are not infringement with rare exceptions. It would not suprise me if the current court, if they actually even hear the cases, will decide that states can regulate certain guns (assault weapons and pistols) and limit capacity. But we will have to see, I would certainly prefer that they define very specifically what they meant in the past when they spoke of "common use" weapons, like does that matter in a state like CA that has banned "assault weapons" for a long time even though we have functionally the same thing? another thing, on paper we have only sold "safe pistols" so "unsafe pistols" are not in common use (which we know isn't true, really).

All that to say that CA passed prop 63 by voter referendum at 63%. We all know the roster is bull, it's actually made guns less safe because it increased the amount of switchable glocks by orders of magnitude. But the only thing that will sell here is an actual alternative. regulation that is too restrictive works in the opposite way as intended, like since the roster was closed due to the microstamping requirement then zero guns were on the roster with the required safety features. An alternative set of regulations would indeed replace the roster with something meaningful. There's no world where CA legislatures are just like, yeah we need more guns in the hands of the public. So what that alternative legislation is, I don't know but that's really the option here. The legislators have zero reason to repeal gun laws unless we can come up with meaningful alternatives.

These are good points, but I'd also like to add that California also knows that they are slowly teetering on the brink of the roster falling apart, mag bans potentially going, and other defeats around the corner. Bruen is finally taking hold in the courts, and we are finally seeing it play out. The reason Every Town went after the supply chain is because we were getting partial victories in a lot of cases. Also, one of the main reasons SSE exists is actually to keep the roster alive as it functions as a pressure release valve that would otherwise give more clean plaintiffs to strike the whole system down. It's all shakey, but we don't know when it will all be gutted. The biggest case that actually had me scratching my head was LA County vs CRPA. The court found that California's refusal to issue out of state CCWs was so egregious, and without remediation, that the court essentially ruled into existence, essentially legislating from the bench, a system for out of state travelers to get CCWs. Wild from a judicial perspective. What I can tell you is that a rational licensing system using infrastructure that's already there is far better than the sandwich they make us eat every single time we buy a new one.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Soooooo... in order to come up with an alternative to the gallows, we need to suggest the guillotine?

Setting aside the fact that the legislature doesn't typically repeal a lot of laws in the first place, I seriously doubt we can send some sort of "smart" delegation to negotiate better laws in exchange for removing the crushing level of ones already imposed upon us. That's not how things work. Even if it was, what would any state representative stand to gain from this? There's nothing marketable about it.

We've lost substantial 2A ground over the last few decades due in large part to the successful lobbying of lawyers who were inspired by the Petit & Martin law firm shooting. There's decidedly little we've ever won back since. About the only setback the other side has suffered is Heller and only because prior, courts would simply disregard 2A challenges based on the erroneous collective right model. But that's it. We don't have the type of negotiating power that's necessary to force the legislature to ever even begin to want to change course. Oh, but we can sue! *yawn*

Ok so I guess do nothing then. I work for the state and I can tell you that the state actually doesn't like to be sued. That's what we should actually be doing, they don't actually have unlimited funds to fight everything. I can't go into specifics but in my field the people that sued the state get treated with kid gloves and the people with less power often got treated worse because we knew they wouldn't fight it. We don't have a strong lobby, Everytown does. If we had people in Sacramento being annoying there there could be traction. There's real issues with the gun rules, it's not just "we don't like them because they are restictive", like the barrel laws and the parts laws are gearing up for microstamping. Microstamping doesn't work if you don't keep track of the barrels. A lack of access to parts means broken guns that malfunction, a froezen roster means less safe guns unsing old technology. We need common sense gun lobby that can put these things to legislators.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

These are good points, but I'd also like to add that California also knows that they are slowly teetering on the brink of the roster falling apart, mag bans potentially going, and other defeats around the corner. Bruen is finally taking hold in the courts, and we are finally seeing it play out. The reason Every Town went after the supply chain is because we were getting partial victories in a lot of cases. Also, one of the main reasons SSE exists is actually to keep the roster alive as it functions as a pressure release valve that would otherwise give more clean plaintiffs to strike the whole system down. It's all shakey, but we don't know when it will all be gutted. The biggest case that actually had me scratching my head was LA County vs CRPA. The court found that California's refusal to issue out of state CCWs was so egregious, and without remediation, that the court essentially ruled into existence, essentially legislating from the bench, a system for out of state travelers to get CCWs. Wild from a judicial perspective. What I can tell you is that a rational licensing system using infrastructure that's already there is far better than the sandwich they make us eat every single time we buy a new one.

the new laws are gearing up for microstamping, that's why we are seeing them go after the supply chain

 

[Ro-bo]

The California democrat majority will continue to increase as more people here vote with their feet.

If gun control wasn't such an easy sell, this wouldn't be an issue. This is why it's been such a loser to let the 2A become a "other side" issue. And it's undeserved at that. It's not like the other side (i.e. the Republicans) have done us any favors, in fact, they've done plenty of damage to the 2A along this long path to where we're at now.

Advocacy for the 2A is a giant PR exercise, and one that's been terribly mishandled. That bungling first took shape as unelectable supporters being "the only option!" in a thousand different seats from local government on up. We're here because 2A became synonymous with all sorts of other unpopular positions on hot button issues that were and still are baggage. The people who voted with their feet aren't actually a loss because we were never going to win this by attrition (of the other side) anyway.

 

[Ro-bo]

Ok so I guess do nothing then.

Those are your words, not mine. Ignoring the straw argument, I hear what you're saying about getting the actual stakeholders involved in the process. But the process can't be helping craft clever new ways to F- us all to death with new laws. Nobody on either side is going to go for that, and I don't see a scenario where Everytown and whatever LCAV calls itself these days, voluntarily back out of the picture and give up lobbying too. It only takes one or two sympathetic representatives to charter legislation.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Those are your words, not mine. Ignoring the straw argument, I hear what you're saying about getting the actual stakeholders involved in the process. But the process can't be helping craft clever new ways to F- us all to death with new laws. Nobody on either side is going to go for that, and I don't see a scenario where Everytown and whatever LCAV calls itself these days, voluntarily back out of the picture and give up lobbying too. It only takes one or two sympathetic representatives to charter legislation.

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.