Uncooperative Californicators

[Pertinacious Tom]

My rifle is not illegal. ...

Not yet, but it is an assault weapon as defined by your elk's proposal and you haven't convinced yourself to get rid of it.

The proposed legislation is here.

Here is the definition:

Quote
d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

There is no exemption to it.

 

[jocal505]

Not yet, but it is an assault weapon as defined by your elk's proposal and you haven't convinced yourself to get rid of it.

You are adding to your credibility problems. We have both posted the exemption. Here it is again.

Your quote is taken from line 27. You used this very dishonest, cherry-picked snippet, "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition

Let's continue inclusively, quoting lines 28-37: "Large capacity magazine" means an ammunition feeding device 29 with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition, … but shall not be construed to include 33 any of the following: line 37  A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device;

 

[jocal505]

T9m, it's been an eye-opener for me to see the key role of the milita to the English Parliament, and to the founding fathers. I know you feel quite bonded to the militia. But you have a goofy interpretation of self-endowed militia rights IMO. The "hue and cry" went through government channels during Colonial times.

These are tense times in CA. The thread is about massive lawbreaking which will occur in CA. For perspective, let's jump to the tensions in Shay's rebellion in colonial MASS. The militia came to the rescue, did it not?

 Take for instance the following statement, which was drafted by the Massachusetts Assembly in the midst of Shays’ Rebellion:

Whereas in a free government, where the people have a right to bear arms for the common defence, and the military power is held in subordination to the civil authority, it is necessary for the safety of the State that the virtuous citizens thereof should hold themselves in readiness, and when called upon, should exert their efforts to support the civil government , and oppose the attempts of factious and wicked men, who may wish to subvert the laws and Constitution of their country . . . .84  p1745

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

What was the problem? After the revolutionary war, many of the militia were BK and in foreclosure, and the peace had made many civil actions over debts active.

That militia confronting the rebels reported to state officers, with accountability to the governor and Congress, per the constitution.  The rebels had less right to confront an elected government than to attack a foreign ruler. They had no militia standing, just a mobocracy, basically. When escaping, most went North to NH, and Joyce Malcolm would mangle certain legal phrasing which resulted from their presence there.

The awesome point is that today in California, such a militia would challenge you and your boys with the illegal guns, who subvert the laws and Constitution of their country.

No Californian can be protected by the same constitutional structure which he is opposing with lawbreaking or armed force.

Lastly, if AW guns are illegal, these guns are now incriminated by, and excluded by, the Miller ruling, i.e. their use is not lawful.

 

[jocal505]

Even The Trace is anticipating Uncooperative Californicators
 

Of course compliance is low when people are required to give up their property or sign up to have it confiscated at a later date. Heck, jocal can't even convince himself to give up his assault weapon. How's he going to convince anyone else?

You are subverting constitutional laws, again, with Kolbe called "popularity test" constitutionality. Popularity does not drive constitutionality.

Your core of such civics is disloyal, and not sustainable. If you build a craft on a rotten keel, you will build an unseaworthy craft.

If these citizens must have their battle guns they can move to a state where AW's are more welcome. They chose felony behavior for guns instead.

Your mangled Miller principles now exclude these felons, since the use of the gun in CA is no longer lawful.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

You are adding to your credibility problems. We have both posted the exemption. Here it is again.

Your idea that we can take pieces of definitions and exceptions from various parts of legislation and copy/paste them wherever we want to make the law read in a way that is defensible is risible but doesn't create any credibility problem for me.

I'm aware that legislators, not internet posters, write the laws and I know that an exception to one definition can't just be applied to another because it would be nice or reasonable.

Your gun is an assault weapon under the definition I posted. There is no exception in the law to that definition.

And you still can't even convince yourself to give it up. Keep on wondering why you fail to convince others.

 

[jocal505]

Your idea that we can take pieces of definitions and exceptions from various parts of legislation and copy/paste them wherever we want to make the law read in a way that is defensible is risible but doesn't create any credibility problem for me.

I'm aware that legislators, not internet posters, write the laws and I know that an exception to one definition can't just be applied to another because it would be nice or reasonable.

Your gun is an assault weapon under the definition I posted. There is no exception in the law to that definition.

And you still can't even convince yourself to give it up. Keep on wondering why you fail to convince others.

The exception, which you say doesn't exist, was posted again. The law, when presented as a whole, protects tube feeders. 

This explains why there is no alarm in the RKBA community in Washington State. Dave Workman has never mentioned the tube feeder concerns.coming from FL.

But if you want to be worked up about it, and manic for another six months, be my guest.

Look around. The U.S. courts seem "convinced" of my POV  since they regulate armed confrontation in 95% 0f their gun decisions.  Managing violence has a deep and successful tradition in civilized countries. Self defense is a good thing but armed self defense has been illegal since before 1385.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...

If these citizens must have their battle guns they can move to a state where AW's are more welcome. They chose felony behavior for guns instead.

...

That may not be a conscious choice.

They may be people who don't realize their guns are banned assault weapons since they're not very good at reading laws and keeping track of which exemption was in which section.

That was part of the reason the topic law was stayed by the judge. He said Cali firearms law was so complicated that people could not understand it well enough to obey. You know, people like yourself.

 

[jocal505]

Thanks, as far as that goes. Was there similar ignorant confusion in NY and CT? These guys shell out for three AW's each, but are clueless about the legal status of their hobby? They don't hang with gun guys at gun places? Being so out of touch, where do they buy ammo? When they go to the range, is their AW unseen in use?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Cali Ban Causes Spike In Sales Of Featureless Rifles

They're also buying up the last of the "bullet button" guns and gunsmiths are working on alternative ways to reload almost as easily as people in the free states.

 

[jocal505]

Cali Ban Causes Spike In Sales Of Featureless Rifles

They're also buying up the last of the "bullet button" guns and gunsmiths are working on alternative ways to reload almost as easily as people in the free states.

You are not macho, affluent AW shooters with three AW's each, on the national average (as per the NSSF info in Kolbe).You are poor little victims, oblivious to laws, and subjugated by constitutional legislation. You are whiners AND victims, victims who need AW's, and concealed handguns too.

And your proposed armed-confrontation behavior is new territory for any advanced country,  contrasting 1)self defense legal basics, 2)"thou shalt not kill" and 3)Justice William Blackstone. 

Your name in Tom Ray. You are a Libertarian hotshot who can't discuss CATO's brief work in Heller?

Okay. Let's see the next chapter.

 

[jocal505]

Your article (from FOX) tells how the many legal "workaround" gimicks will be dealt with in the future. But we learned soething.  By 2013 we presented a tighter definition and format than in the '94 AW restrictions. Tom, these law cheater gimicks will flow, but I think that the GVP types will fail and bumble their way to a better situation anyway;

For example, we "anti's" got trashed by the terms of the '94 AW ban. The gratuitous terms of Manchin-Toomey were a similar debacle.Yet each would have improved the overall situation (and the former has numbers which are measurable enough to be significant). My sorry-ass, disorganized GVP side learned from each. Kinda like the day Gabby Giffords dusted herself off and moved forward with her life. Manchin Toomey was a trojan horse package which presented six fatal BC flaws, but was still better than chaos in the private gun market. Just part of a long, steep, failure-prone, uphill obstale course.

How long? The goal of of the GCA '68 was coached by Frank Sinatra (in a boat eventually steered and motivated by Billy Jack, seriously).  Since they had set out for gun registration, there was little celebration in that group upon the adoption of the GCA '68 . They felt they failed overall, yet their modest bit has somehow firmly withstood the forty year assault of the gun lobby. (It's minimal terms were reniforded line for line in Heller: the low-key FFL system remains). I humbly suggest that we dysfunctional "anti's"  fail our way to the goal line okay in this gun issue, however clever the bypass for the bullet buttons.

At the moment, the worst enemies of the gun extremists may be the economy, the dis-interested millenium generation, and the higher courts.

 

[jocal505]

Your idea that we can take pieces of definitions and exceptions from various parts of legislation and copy/paste them wherever we want to make the law read in a way that is defensible is risible but doesn't create any credibility problem for me.

I'm aware that legislators, not internet posters, write the laws and I know that an exception to one definition can't just be applied to another because it would be nice or reasonable.

Your gun is an assault weapon under the definition I posted. There is no exception in the law to that definition.

And you still can't even convince yourself to give it up. Keep on wondering why you fail to convince others.

You may have a technically solid point, or may not. If so, it involves technical language (rimfire vs. centerfire) and the actual  intention of that language, and the chosen terms' acuity. Within the law you are quoting is a provision exempting tube feeding .22's, and i suggest that exemption would be cited loudly in court (based on appearances if nothing else) IF I REPEAT IF massive tube feeder confiscation occurred. In your cynicism, you assume that court would back confiscation. In my hope for our system I assume the judge would be considerate of the express exception, and use his common sense, balancing merits. 

Which would lead to the issue of the seventeen round capacity. I hate to feed your .22 Caliber Whinerama, but that's a lot of shots. Many could see the public health benefit of toning that down, considering. So there's that.

I want to weigh in that nine months of the .22 caliber outrage crap is puhlenty, my friend. Is there some way you could go back to Bloomberg or tools or something?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Which would lead to the issue of the seventeen round capacity. I hate to feed your .22 Caliber Whinerama, but that's a lot of shots. Many could see the public health benefit of toning that down, considering. So there's that.

If you were among those "many" you'd be more convincing.

But you won't give up your AW. You just want others to give up theirs.

 

[jocal505]

If you were among those "many" you'd be more convincing.

But you won't give up your AW. You just want others to give up theirs.

I don't own any AW, going by my state's statutes. Only a disfigured Gollum under a bridge would maintain that I do.

 

[jocal505]

Sorry, I cant find public health benefit in my copy of the Constitution

It seems that you aren't reading these court cases. One primary obligation of the state is to protect its citizens. It's responsible for that.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I don't own any AW, going by my state's statutes.

Careful, Joe. You're stepping very close to the line of saying NJ's classification of your gun is too strict. Break the main taboo of the left by saying a gun control policy or group has gone too far and you'll soon be demonized like I am.

 

[jocal505]

Careful, Joe. You're stepping very close to the line of saying NJ's classification of your gun is too strict. Break the main taboo of the left by saying a gun control policy or group has gone too far and you'll soon be demonized like I am.

You are demonized for good cause, because you come here to annoy.

 

[BeSafe]

Sorry, I cant find public health benefit in my copy of the Constitution

It's in the preamble between common defense and blessings of liberty.

From Wikipedia for example: "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"[22]

Whether that concept applies in this case is a debatable point.  Whether the concept of public health benefit exists isn't debatable at all, it's enshrined in the constitution.

 

[jocal505]

It's in the preamble between common defense and blessings of liberty.

From Wikipedia for example: "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"[22]

Whether that concept applies in this case is a debatable point.  Whether the concept of public health benefit exists isn't debatable at all, it's enshrined in the constitution.

The "debatable point" is whether gun restrictions are effective, or not.  Each court case cites the public safety benefit of restrictions, as per the studies presented on our forums. No modern cases claim the public health benefit of RTC.

This 2017 study has been added to the Wrenn briefs. It uses four models (including Lott's and Moody & Marvel's) to examine this question. Over fourteen years in 11 new RTC states, the states with firm gun restrictions experienced a 42% drop in crime, the states with loose restrictions show 9%.

States that have enacted right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws have experienced higher rates of violent crime than states that did not adopt those laws, according to a Stanford scholar.

(...)Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue found that states that adopted right-to-carry laws have experienced a 13 to 15 percent increase in violent crime in the 10 years after enacting those laws.

(...) “There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Donohue stated in the paper.

http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

 

[Raz'r]

Careful, Joe. You're stepping very close to the line of saying NJ's classification of your gun is too strict. Break the main taboo of the left by saying a gun control policy or group has gone too far and you'll soon be demonized like I am.

Demonized? Hah. Mocked? Absolutely!