Sign in to follow this  
Cacoethesic Tom

Uncooperative Californicators

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

 

Why do partisans like you and Olsonist constantly refer to gun control in threads that are not remotely about it?

Do you have any thoughts on the confiscation program that is the subject of this thread?

Or is it just a convenient way to remind everyone that I'm the worst kind of scum: the kind who says bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs?

I'm open to alternatives theories on the source of your paranoia regarding people working to defend the nation against domestic terrorists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 2:05 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

 

Do you have any thoughts on the confiscation program that is the subject of this thread?

Or is it just a convenient way to remind everyone that I'm the worst kind of scum: the kind who says bad things about TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs?

Confiscation is NOT a deal breaker. Not if the facts mean anything.

According to the peer-reviewed version of history, the founding fathers confiscated guns on three levels: local, state, and at federal request. The latter was implemented by state militias, at the request of GW. The enforcement actions were based on political allegiances at that time. 

Gun Grabber Boogaloo.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am gob-smacked that some of you actually seem to be reading "Tom's" drivel-filled posts. 

You're making a big mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suit Challenges California's New Background Check Law for Ammunition

Quote

 

California's new statewide law requiring background checks to purchase ammunition is facing a legal challenge supported by the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Among other complaints, the suit says the law, which went into effect last month, violates Californians' Second Amendment rights.

A hearing to consider a motion to enjoin the state from enforcing the ammo background check is currently scheduled for August 19.

One sticking point involves the law's demand that a citizen present identification in order to go through the background check. The plaintiffs in the case, known as Rhode v. Becerra, complain that the state is enforcing more stringent requirements in this context than it uses for most other legal purposes, enforcing federal "real ID" requirements that go beyond what most Californians currently possess:

Under [the state's] regulation, a California driver license or identification card with the notation "FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY" is sufficient for virtually all other purposes, yet not to acquire ammunition….While this form of ID is issued by the State itself, as proof of both identity and residence, individuals possessing this state-issued ID must nonetheless present additional documentation (such as a valid U.S. passport or certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate) to purchase ammunitiion…Should this additional proof not match precisely the name appearing on the California ID, additional documentation must be provided explaining the reason for the name change.

 

If a state drivers license were considered insufficient for a right TeamD cares about, such as voting or abortion, I have a feeling many here would see the problem. But no burden on gun owners can be too great, so...

Why might the names not match? From my list of things I know, but should not:

When my parents married, my dad was a low level engineer in missile tracking in the space program. His elk didn't make much. My mother was a computer for the space program, back when that was a job title and not a device. Her elk made less. So when the state wanted twenty bucks to change her DL to her married name, they just didn't. And she never got a round tuit.

This became a giant pain in my ass after my father's death until just a couple of years ago, when I finally got her to change it. So the answer is: it costs money to change names and some people don't have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

 Suit Challenges California's New Background Check Law for Ammunition

 But no burden on gun owners can be too great, so...

Why might the names not match?  (snippage)

 

 

I know you, Tom.  I knew you when you had some traction, too.

  • Belligerence about gun violence has been something you were proud of.
  • I say "burdens" need a green light, and any burdens need to crush your NRA elk, after the carnage which has developed
  • Hmmm, the SAF clownshow has gone missing, what a class act, is Alan Gottlieb of Bellevue, WA!
  • To save the situation, you will give away to the NRA until it hurts, you are that stupid.

 

IMO, you will not hear, dogballs, you will not respond to anything less than crushing. This opinion was formed after encountering your elk, on PA.

 

A moderate voice will emerge from the gun sector. The grownups in the GVP movement will heed that voice, and will work with it.  The doors to federal research will open, and this will start to sort out. (You will become the baby screaming in the background...yo, my mother was a master over them. Each got a distant room of their own.)

The enormity of the problem lies in suicide, implicating guns in the home, so Heller has a sad future protecting guns in the home. Good luck with that combination. Ummm, rampant DV with gunz in the home will become exposed by the research, and will get media attention, IMO. 

Ollie North smells the best among the gun leaders at the moment, you should give him a ring, maybe he will click with you, after some race-baiting.

But let the track record show, you had opportunities to manage this gun mess, and you went belligerent, with joy and coyness.  You had a check list,  a bucket list, from Larry Pratt and Robert Levy, your elk.

True history, exposed within Peruta II, was the end of the line for the Libertqrian checklist. Moore vs. Madison was not celebrated, since Sandy Hook happened a few days later...

As for my view,  let the burdens be applied. I feel they are justified by your glibness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 6:09 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

District Court permanently enjoins California magazine confiscation law

Quote

Previously, Judge Benitez had issued a preliminary injunction against the confiscation law, and the preliminary injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, as discussed in this post. Today's decision follows cross-motions for summary judgment, and makes the injunction permanent. The next step in Duncan v. Becerra will be an appeal to the Ninth Circuit by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

...Under heightened scrutiny, laws restricting constitutional rights must be "tailored"--in strict scrutiny, "narrow tailoring"; in intermediate scrutiny, "a reasonable fit." But the confiscation statute "is not tailored at all. It fits like a burlap bag. It is a single-dimensional, prophylactic, blanket thrown across the population of the state."

So the people whose property has become illegal can continue to safely keep it for now.

Now the people who have been allowed to keep their magazines are suing, saying they should also be able to actually use them.
 

Quote

 

Three San Diego County residents and the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee filed a lawsuit against the attorney general and the chief of the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms in San Diego federal court Thursday on Second Amendment grounds.

The gun owners point to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s ruling in a separate lawsuit in the same court in March, which held that the state’s ban on possession of magazines that hold more than 10 bullets was unconstitutional.

If ownership of such magazines is legal, then use of them should be legal as well, argued the gun owners’ attorney, John Dillon.

 

Trying to imagine the reaction if we were allowed to own, but not use, printing presses. No first amendment problem at all. You can own it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Now the people who have been allowed to keep their magazines are suing, saying they should also be able to actually use them.
 

Trying to imagine the reaction if we were allowed to own, but not use, printing presses. No first amendment problem at all. You can own it!

The first amendment limits the second in many ways. The first wins the coin toss every timer, because differences are better settled by discussion and debate, rather than by insurrection, intimidation, or force. In American culture, our discussions and politics don't involve gunz, they each reject them.

Quote

Speaking Truth to Firepower: How the First Amendment Destabilizes the Second

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2009125

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Judge Uphold’s CA ‘Assault Weapons Ban
 

Quote

 

...

When Scalia wrote about “M-16 rifles,” he was making it clear that the Heller ruling was not an indictment of the National Firearms Act. Right or wrong, that’s manifestly what was intended by the language.

In the intervening decade since Heller, however, that piece of dicta has time and again empowered anti-gun judges to uphold categorical bans on any firearm the state argues is “like an M16.”

That’s what this week’s ruling in California was based on. Rupp v. Becerra is a challenge to the California Assault Weapons Control Act on Second Amendment grounds. California’s Attorney General moved for summary judgment, which was granted this week. Judge Josephine Stranton reasoned that the semi-automatic rifles banned in California “may be banned because they are, like the M-16, ‘weapons that are most useful in military service.'”

...

 

Sounds like she's ignored that militia clause. Shouldn't a militia have weapons that are "most useful in military service?" Appearing with a useful gun and ammo was required in Colonial times, now that same usefulness is reason to ban guns.

And, of course, reason to claim that ordinary squirrel shooters are also "like an M 16" because that means they can be subject to the bans and confiscation programs too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New gun restrictions coming to California in 2020. Here’s what lawmakers passed this year

Quote

Most of this this year’s gun laws expand existing regulations, but the changes they enact could have sweeping repercussions for gun owners. They increase fees, expand the state’s “red flag” and gun-storage laws, raise the legal purchase age and set caps on the number of guns Californians can buy.


 

Most of the changes are pretty unremarkable but this one caught my eye:

Quote

Suicide warning labels must be on gun packages and in gun stores by June 1, under Irwin’s AB 645. The handgun safety certificate test also will cover the topic of suicide.

I'm not sure that warning suicidal people that a gun might actually work is a great idea, but at least they're DOING SOMETHING about the vast majority of "gun violence," right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

New gun restrictions coming to California in 2020. Here’s what lawmakers passed this year


 

Most of the changes are pretty unremarkable but this one caught my eye:

I'm not sure that warning suicidal people that a gun might actually work is a great idea, but at least they're DOING SOMETHING about the vast majority of "gun violence," right?

Your whole bit is going down in flames, especially in CA. Poor dogballs, the indoor militia argument fails, a lot.

About the OP, about this thread. Whatever became of Big Temporary?  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

New gun restrictions coming to California in 2020. Here’s what lawmakers passed this year


 

Most of the changes are pretty unremarkable but this one caught my eye:

I'm not sure that warning suicidal people that a gun might actually work is a great idea, but at least they're DOING SOMETHING about the vast majority of "gun violence," right?

Do you think danger disclosures are bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Do you think danger disclosures are bad?

Do you think providing tips on effectiveness to suicidal people is bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Do you think providing tips on effectiveness to suicidal people is bad?

Do you think that spinning suicide is willful ignorance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Do you think providing tips on effectiveness to suicidal people is bad?

I think we have different definitions for "tips"

Do you agree that guns can be dangerous tools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
9 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Do you think providing tips on effectiveness to suicidal people is bad?

I think we have different definitions for "tips"

Do you agree that guns can be dangerous tools?

 

Hanging has become the most common method for suicide in Australia since our 1996 gun laws, can we say a length of rope can be a dangerous tool for a suicidal person who cannot get a gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

About the OP, about this thread. Whatever became of Big Temporary?

@Plenipotentiary Tom. ^^^ serious question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I think we have different definitions for "tips"

Do you agree that guns can be dangerous tools?

I think we have different definitions for "dangerous tools."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Your whole bit is going down in flames, especially in CA. Poor dogballs, the indoor militia argument fails, a lot.

About the OP, about this thread. Whatever became of Big Temporary?  :(

Do you mean Duncan v Becerra? It continues to grind along.

Although I agree that it fails, the appellants continue to push the idea that we had indoor militias.

Quote

Whether and how to limit magazine capacity presents a policy question for the political branches of government (provided, of course, that the restrictions do not severely burden the core right to self-defense in the home).

They also continue with the line that owning scary guns or gun parts is a public nuisance and the State

Quote

has a high degree of control over protecting the public from harmful and noxious property; thus, owners of personal property should also expect that government regulation may impact their use and enjoyment of potentially injurious property without paying compensation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted over a urinal at the Annals of Epidemiology and reviewed by peers

 

 

Quote

 

A study of the effects of California's institution of Universal Background Checks, along with a state ban of firearms ownership for people who had committed a violent misdemeanor, has been published in The Annals of Epidemiology, volume 30, February, 2020.

The study covered a decade before the laws were passed to a decade after the laws was passed. It found the laws had no effect on firearms homicides or suicides. Here is the abstract of the paper,  from Science Direct:

Purpose

In 1991, California implemented a law that mandated a background check for all firearm purchases with limited exceptions (comprehensive background check or CBC policy) and prohibited firearm purchase and possession for persons convicted within the past 10 years of certain violent crimes classified as misdemeanors (MVP policy). We evaluated the population effect of the simultaneous implementation of CBC and MVP policies in California on firearm homicide and suicide.

Methods

Quasi-experimental ecological study using the synthetic control group methodology. We included annual firearm and nonfirearm mortality data for California and 32 control states for 1981–2000, with secondary analyses up to 2005.

Results

The simultaneous implementation of CBC and MVP policies was not associated with a net change in the firearm homicide rate over the ensuing 10 years in California. The decrease in firearm suicides in California was similar to the decrease in nonfirearm suicides in that state. Results were robust across multiple model specifications and methods.

Conclusions

CBC and MVP policies were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide. Incomplete and missing records for background checks, incomplete compliance and enforcement, and narrowly constructed prohibitions may be among the reasons for these null findings.

 

Heh. Typical response to a government failure. We need to do much more of what has failed!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Posted over a urinal at the Annals of Epidemiology and reviewed by peers

 

Heh. Typical response to a government failure. We need to do much more of what has failed!

Posted over a urinal at Ammoland, is what you mean. I have a few bits for the same wall space.

You just opened the door to any conclusive peer reviewed work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2019 at 3:19 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

the appellants continue to push the idea that we had indoor militias.

INTO THE GREAT WIDE OPEN,  gun grabbin' we did go...

The militia could roll outdoors, in broad daylight, once under the authority of state officers. The militia went outdoors in Pennsylvania to confiscate the guns of the "non-associators." They did so per the "resolves" of the Continental Congress. The founding fathers had their reasons.

Quote

Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:

 

  [Section I.]  Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention, That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms...

Passed July 19, 1776.  Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania, Vol. IX.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now THAT'S an Uncooperative Californicator
 

Quote

 

I hate the overuse of the term “bad optics.” But when you’re running for another term as L.A. County district attorney and your husband stands in the doorway of your house with a gun and threatens to shoot someone, the day before the election, that can fairly be described as bad optics.

...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

RACE BAITER ALERT, and the benefit of the doubt has left the building

Quote

let's play WHEEL OF RACE-BAITING with our host, Tom "dogballs" Ray

 

  1. Aussie Apartheid, then the NAACP; 
  2. MLK's gun permit denial, the NAACP;
  3. MLK's church, smearing Rev. Mosteller, the NAACP;
  1. Bloomberg and stop and frisk, the NAACP; 
  1. Gangstas dealing drugs, sheer scapegoating,  and the NAACP; 
  2. Stacy Abrams, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP;
  3. Louis Farrakhan, Darren X, the NAACP;
  4. Judge Taney is coming, thirty times. the NAACP;
  5. Dred Scott fifteen times, as a code for gun rights, and the NAACP
  6. Cooing Chicago (instead of noticing multiple epidemics of violence), the NAACP;
  7. Claiming black gun stats disprove white gun ownership problems;
  8. Did I mention the NAACP… for more than 125 mentions?

 

Tom's BLM figure.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oral Arguments heard in California Magazine Ban Appeal at Ninth Circuit
 

Quote

 

On 2 April, 2020, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the Duncan v. Becerra case. The District Court had decided the outright ban of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds violated the Second Amendment. The opinion, by Judge Roger T. Benitez, was brilliant and extremely well written.

...

The attorney representing Duncan and Second Amendment supporters, generally, simply reiterated the Heller and McDonald decisions. Weapons in common use which are used for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment. In particular, a complete ban is off the table.

When asked if the ban violated the “takings clause” of the Constitution, Murphy said it was primarily an issue of compensation.

The State made the claim that limiting magazine capacity was merely reasonable regulation that did not impact the Second Amendment.  It relied on several court cases from other circuits.

...

 

The article notes that whatever the panel decides will then probably go before the full 9th Circuit and possibly on to the Supreme Court.

Other states have decided 7 rounds is the limit and Puerto Rico had a 5 round limit last I checked but they have passed new gun laws since then that I haven't read.

The "issue of compensation" is more an issue of no compensation since the magazine ban requires owners to surrender them. The justification is that they are a public nuisance and taking those requires no compensation.

I really don't see possession of a 20 round magazine by people like billybackstay as a public nuisance but I'm nutty that way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's priceless the things that pop up here when you have most of the players on Ignore. I'm not gonna look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DustyDreamer said:

As if fornicatin' is bad. What are they, nuns?

Perhaps you misunderstood the thread title. I have no problem with fornicators nor with the vast majority of owners of previously-legal property who have been Uncooperative about handing their property over to the state.

I disagree with Murphy about the "takings clause" thing being an issue of compensation. Even when grabbers call the takings a "buyback" and offer compensation, compliance rates in other countries have been low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steganographic Tom said:

Perhaps you misunderstood the thread title. I have no problem with fornicators nor with the vast majority of owners of previously-legal property who have been Uncooperative about handing their property over to the state.

I disagree with Murphy about the "takings clause" thing being an issue of compensation. Even when grabbers call the takings a "buyback" and offer compensation, compliance rates in other countries have been low.

You are confused, a lot. You claim that gunowners are a spotless lot, a cut above law enforcement, blah blah. Then you celebrate, and encourage, massive lawbreaking by AW owners, repeatedly, state by state, in six different states (and Canada). Boating accidents until I hate boats, mate.

You have a forked tongue a lot, and I see a sneaky and disturbing theme here. Your crowd can't be spotless, exemplary, and copasetic if the their (many) battle guns are in unlawful use at the time. (And sorry, the time is now.)

I think you are a redneck outlaw type, using a silver tongue (when not race-baiting a dozen different ways on Political Anarchy).

 

But setting all personal jousting aside, ten years ago, after 2010's McDonald decision, you stated that we would know what the Second Amendment looks like in ten years. Sorry, after ten years this California look is the look, in four District Courts. And not one disctict court accepts, blesses, or defends AW ownership.

That's where we are, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You have a forked tongue a lot

Joey, why are you running away from questions about your DGU? Is it because it doesn't mesh well with your "it has been illegal to defend yourself with a firearm since the 14th century" line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Joey, why are you running away from questions about your DGU? Is it because it doesn't mesh well with your "it has been illegal to defend yourself with a firearm since the 14th century" line?

In fairness, I think a stump snuck into his home, where having a gun is OK, and threatened him. Castle Doctrine, baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2020 at 12:58 AM, Ishmael said:

It's priceless the things that pop up here when you have most of the players on Ignore. I'm not gonna look.

That's too bad because it seems California could use some wise guidance on how Canadians run a confiscation program.
 

Quote

 

The number of people in the state’s database who have guns though they are barred from owning them totaled 22,424 as of Jan. 1, down just 798 from 23,222 a year earlier because nearly as many people were added to the list as were removed by state Justice Department agents

...

At the start of this year, 54% of people in the APPS database were barred from owning firearms because of a felony conviction, 24% because of federal law involving gun violations, 19% because they were subject to a restraining order, and 18% were banned from having a gun because of mental health problems.

Others were on the list because of serious misdemeanor convictions or as a condition of probation.

Advocates for gun owners have sued the state in recent years to remove nonviolent felons and misdemeanants from the list of prohibited persons, and three of the cases are pending in the court of appeals, according to the Firearms Policy Coalition, which is supporting the litigation.

“Our position is that nonviolent felons should not be prohibited from possessing or acquiring arms, and that California’s APPS program is a dismal failure that does little but give politicians a topic for press releases,” the group said in a statement Wednesday.

 

I wonder how many of those 54% who have a felony conviction are felons only because of the stupid drug war.

The 22,424 figure seems way low, as does the "24% because of federal law involving gun violations" because it's illegal under federal law to possess a gun if you're a cannabis user. That suggests that there are only a bit over 5,000 people in the whole state who use cannabis and have a gun. I suspect the real number is in the millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge tosses California ammunition purchase law

Quote

 

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, issuing a sharply worded rebuke of “onerous and convoluted” regulations that violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego ruled in favor of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which asked him to stop the checks and related restrictions on ammo sales.

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” Benitez wrote in a 120-page opinion granting the group’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

...

While it is intended to keep ammunition from criminals, it blocked sales to legitimate, law-abiding buyers about 16% of the time, he wrote. Moreover, he ruled that the state’s ban on importing ammunition from outside California violates federal interstate commerce laws.

...

Benitez ruled that the ammunition law illegally locks out-of-state vendors out of California’s market, and that it conflicts with a federal law allowing gun owners to bring their firearms and ammunition through California.

 

I'm pretty sure that last sentence is referring to the FOPA, a law that grabbers learned to love recently in the NY Supreme Court case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steganographic Tom said:

Judge tosses California ammunition purchase law

And the 9th circuit stayed that ruling the next day.

Endless mayhem in CA if their law isn't enforced ya know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2020 at 7:26 AM, bpm57 said:

And the 9th circuit stayed that ruling the next day.

Endless mayhem in CA if their law isn't enforced ya know...

Yes, I saw that last night. San Jose Mercury News
 

Quote

 

...Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a court filing earlier this month that the background checks stopped more than 750 people from buying bullets illegally from July 2019 through January 2020, not including those who didn’t even try because they knew they weren’t eligible.

...

 

Uh huh. It stopped some sales in stores but I'd bet at least a few of those people are Uncooperative types who managed to buy ammo illegally anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2020 at 11:58 PM, Ishmael said:

It's priceless the things that pop up here when you have most of the players on Ignore. I'm not gonna look.

It must be difficult to follow what’s going on when “most of the players” are on ignore. 
This place cracks me up, and the people that spend all day every day here are some of the funniest. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this