Get Ready to Take on the State of California: Recommended Actions to take NOW


freethink

freethink
For years we have been sometimes quietly, sometimes loudly opposing the State of California's incremental approach to chipping away (and sometimes chainsawing away) our rights to keep and bear arms. The problem, as I see it, is that we have been tolerating it.

And what do we get for our toleration of this state of affairs?

Every year, no matter what passes or what doesn't, there's a new raft of gun control proposals. It's simple, really: We haven't been effective here. We haven't drawn a line in the sand and told California that we will refuse to comply with any more. We need an effective way to tell California: Stop. No more. We live here. We have rights.

This has to end. I propose that we end it right now, this year, before any more gun control measures pass. We're literally staring down the business end of very serious proposed laws this year that, if they are signed into law, would result in most of our family members being designated as criminals and sent to jail merely for doing what is right now, completely legal, from both federal and state perspectives, in California.

As some of you who read this forum have noted, I posted a poll in February that asked who'd be willing to sue the State of California to protect your rights. 100% of respondents to that poll said that you "would do it with a lawyer's help, but I don't have money so it would have to be "pro-bono" (free)." You can see the results of the poll here.

People, we have to do better. Do you have legal insurance with a bunch of unused hours credited to you? I do (I have hundreds of hours credited to me that I can use in the event I am sued or if I choose to sue), and I can tell you I will be using those hours if I'm convicted of disobeying (and I will disobey) any or all of the proposals that are about to be signed into law. Every one of us should right now be gearing up to sue the State of California. Right now. Today. Do you have one of those legal protection plans from USCCA that you pay for monthly that provides you with a huge amount of legal protection so that you have lawyers that will stand up in court for you and protect your rights? I don't have a USCCA plan, but I know that there are those of you that do in California. Get ready to use the legal hours that are part of your plan, now! Start contacting whoever is in charge of your USCCA benefits and explain to them what we are going through and that it's going to go to court.... because it will!

We can't sit here with our heads in the sand any longer. It's time to get ready for the tough battles.

So with that, here are the recommended actions:

1) Complete noncompliance with the latest raft of proposed California laws. Don't support them in any way, shape, or form. If any of them pass, don't comply.
2) Contact the Governor to indicate that you will not comply with any of the latest gun control proposals, and if you are convicted for violating them, you will be seeking a Gubernatorial Pardon (which happens to be a service that is provided through the Governor's website in California).
3) Start contacting your legal insurance provider, or your USCCA plan provider, or if you have a lawyer who helps you with whatever you have to deal with, contact that lawyer now. Today. No matter what the outcome is this time around, we are all going to need legal counsel - and since AB 1609 has been signed into law, even people outside of California are going to be directly affected, so if you're not living in California, you should get ready with your legal solution too - California is now preparing to go after people who are outside the State. Yes, it has gone that far. We need to get ready for court battles. If you don't have a lawyer or legal insurance, get it now - one resource is Link Removed, which gives you legal support for as little as 13 dollars per month. (I have no affiliation with USCCA and don't have their insurance, as I have my own personal legal insurance seperate from them, but if you don't have any, get some now.)

4) Read up on California's law which allows you to sue. If only one percent of us in the State of California would launch our own lawsuit against the State of California, it would overwhelm the State.
After all, one percent of 10 million gun owners in California, is 100,000 people.

As you may or may not know, California Civil Code 52.1(b) states that:
"Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights
secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been
interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in
subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name
and on his or her own behalf a civil action for damages, including,
but not limited to, damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and
other appropriate equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise
or enjoyment of the right or rights secured."

There are some directions for how to bring a motion to a court here and also (more comprehensive list) here. This is not legal advice but rather a suggestion to just swamp California with lawsuits pertaining to its constant violations of the Constitution.

There are already plenty of unconstitutional laws on the books (shown below), which I documented in a post titled "Explainer: What happened in California, and why millions will sue or leave the State." If you're prosecuted for any of them would provide cause to sue the State and overturn the laws. They are unconstitutional as of the moment of their application. Ones already passed from the last legislative session, which were signed into law, are:

AB 48 - An unconstitutional bill which would criminalize, imprison, and fine ($1000), anyone who lends, buys or receives magazines above 10 rounds. SIGNED
AB 170 - An unconstitutional bill which attempts to make 'assault weapons' illegal to own for any "entity." This bill violates ATF trust regulations. SIGNED
AB 231 - An unconstitutional bill which attempts to fine and imprison gun owners who have children. SIGNED
AB 500 - An unconstitutional bill, attempts to enforce "ammunition vendor permits" and establish databases on gun owners. SIGNED
AB 538 - An unconstitutional bill, which attempts to selectively infringe upon 1st Amendment rights for persons also exercising 2nd Amendment. SIGNED
AB 539 - An unconstitutional bill, which attempts to use FFLs to "store" guns unconstitutionally seized from gun owners. SIGNED
AB 711 - An unconstitutional ammo ban bill (bans all use of lead ammo for hunting across all of California) which disregards case law and fails to provides any habitat-specific nexus to its ammo requirement. SIGNED
AB 1131 - An unconstitutional bill which attempts to make five-year bans based on recommendations of psychologists who act as State agents. SIGNED
SB 127 - An unconstitutional bill. Original language proposed "removing authority of the court," modified to accelerate State data collection. SIGNED
SB 363 - An unconstitutional bill which would make it a criminal act to walk briefly away from an unloaded firearm when one is cleaning or repairing it. SIGNED
SB 683 - An unconstitutional bill, would impose a firearms safety certificate requirement even on antique / Curio and Relic long guns transfers. SIGNED

More recently, we've observed AB 1798 get signed into law by the Governor (on July 9, 2014). This bill demands that the AG conduct permanent surveillance by retaining dealers' records of sale, forever. This is unconstitutional. This should have been vetoed and our response to it should be total noncompliance and lawsuits.

In essence, what the Governor has done is criminalize the exercise of the 2nd Amendment in California, while vetoing only some of the unconstitutional bills that hundreds of thousands (at least) of Californians demanded be vetoed. But that was just the last legislative session. Let's take a look at the current legislative session and see what the proposed bills have in store:

AB 2310 - If this bill becomes law, anyone in the counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, would be evicted from their homes if they ever are discovered to violate any of the unconstitutional gun laws in California. In addition to targeting gun owners, it also targets any users of "any ammunition" - that's a quote from the proposed law.
AUG. 26, 2014 POST EDIT: A complaint has been filed with the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice against certain California legislators, in connection with the discriminatory acts they have committed relative to their activities facilitating AB 2310.
August 30, 2014 post edit: AB 2310 has passed the Assembly and Senate. Link Removed to demand that he veto this horrible "Eviction Bill" which is patterned on past "pilot bills" which are similar in nature.
September 16, 2014 POST EDIT: AB 2310, THE "EVICTION LAW," HAS BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE GOVERNOR. IF YOU LIVE IN LOS ANGELES, ALAMEDA, OR SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, I RECOMMEND YOU EITHER CONSULT YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY OR IF YOU HAVE LEGAL INSURANCE THAT YOU CAN CONSULT INITIALLY, CALL THEM UP. THIS IS SERIOUS AND YOU SHOULD SET ASIDE TIME TO EVALUATE THIS BILL'S EFFECT ON YOU WITH A QUALIFIED LEGAL PROFESSIONAL. THIS BILL IS A REPEAT (ON STEROIDS) OF PILOT BILLS THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN PUSHED THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE WITH THE INTENTION OF REMOVING YOU FROM YOUR HOME.
SIDE NOTE: IF YOU ARE DISABLED OR A PERSON OF COLOR YOU MAY WISH TO HAVE YOUR LAWYER CALL UP THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION WHERE THERE IS (AS OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2014) AN ACTIVE FEDERAL COMPLAINT AGAINST AB 2310 WITH THE FILE NUMBER CTS 454606, AT THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OR YOU CAN FILE ONE YOURSELF.


SB 108 -- authored by a known criminal and gun control advocate, Sen. Yee, who has been kicked out of the Senate for gunrunning and campaign finance violations. Proposes an unconstitutional "gun safe study." All safes in California meet or exceed federal and state regs at the point of manufacture. This bill needs a VETO and our response if it passes must be TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS against the State.
August 28, 2014 edit: SB 108 has died in committee (got smacked by Joint Rule 62(a) and was sent to Committee on Rules for "further study") - effectively it has been defeated for this legislative session.

SB 808 -- This bill would require serialization and registration of anything you make as a receiver in your own home. Unconstitutional. Needs a VETO. Our response if it passes must be TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS against the State.
August 30, 2014 post edit: SB 808 has passed the Assembly and Senate. Link Removed.
Sept. 30, 2014 post edit: This bill has been vetoed by the Governor. De Leon's "Ghost Gun" bill has been defeated.


AB 1609 -- Would make anyone inside or outside the State of California a criminal merely because they desire to move across state lines into the State with a legally owned weapon. Makes no exception for CCW holders. Needs a VETO. If it passes, our response must be TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS.
August 30, 2014 post edit: AB 1609 has passed the Assembly and Senate.
September 30, 2014 post edit: AB 1609 has been signed into law by the Governor. Get ready for massive court battles people.


AB 187 -- Unconstitutional taxation for so-called "mental health" fund which would tax all sales of ammo. Needs a VETO. If it passes, TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE, and LAWSUITS are the only acceptable response. This is an infringement on our use of ammunition, which is incidental to our right to keep and bear arms.
August 28, 2014 edit: After being put in the Assembly suspense file, AB 187 died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution of the State of California. It's been defeated (but keep your eyes out for something like it in the next legislative session as legislators love to sneak failed proposals back in under different names).

SB 1354 -- Would create a delay of 90 days instead of the current mandatory of 10 days to release handguns or other weapons subject to background check. Case law has already deemed the maximum permissible delay to be 10 days by any stretch of the imagination. This is unconstitutional. Requires a VETO. If it passes, TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS are the appropriate response.
August 28, 2014 edit: SB 1354 was held in Appropriations suspense file, held in committee and under submission. It's been defeated but may return in the next legislative session. However, it will be difficult for the Legislature to justify bringing it back because a Federal court has now ruled that California's mandates of a 10-day delay violate a constitutional standard and thus the proposed law fails completely on the basis of case law.

SB 293 -- The Legislature is getting ready to pull this one out of its hat the moment that more than one manufacturer makes "owner-authorized handgun" technology available. Their proposal? That at the moment that "owner-authorized technology" is available, per SB 293, ALL OTHER HANDGUNS WITHOUT THE TECHNOLOGY WOULD BE BANNED IN THE STATE. This runs contrary to the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision. It is unconstitutional. It requires a VETO and if this or any bill like it every passes, the only appropriate response is TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS against the State.
August 30, 2014 edit: SB 293 was approved by the Senate but didn't make it past Appropriations Committee in the Assembly. It may be brought back again next legislative session. Continue to oppose this bill and anything like it by writing your legislators about it. Link Removed, if SB 293 or anything like it ever crosses his desk.

SB 199 -- Would require all BB guns in the state to be colored bright orange or similar across the entirety of the BB gun. Deletes references to federal law. Unconstitutional restraint on free speech (mandates by the State on color and appearance are a violation of both the State and Federal Constitutions' provisions relating to protection of speech). Would cause police to interpret black, camo, or transparent BB guns, including those with an "orange tip," as prohibited weapons. SB 199 would likely lead to more officer-involved shootings of both adults and children, and it must be VETOED. If it passes, the appropriate response is TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS against the State.
August 30, 2014 post edit: SB 199 has been approved by the Assembly and Senate
September 30, 2014 post edit: SB 199 has been signed into law by the Governor. It must be fought in the courts now.


AB 1014 -- "Gun violence restraining order" bill. This is patently unconstitutional, and is designed to flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits as it would pit therapists, family members, and neighbors against each other in a legal context. It must be VETOED and the only appropriate response is TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS against the State which has created this insane proposal.
(Note regarding AB 1014: I will comply with the similar provisions which were signed into law as part of AB 499 (2013), as that law (AB 499) anticipated "constitutionally protected activity," whereas AB 1014 does not, and is thus unconstitutional.)
August 28, 2014 edit: AB 1014 became subject to Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended - was not a straight pass through the Legislature. Had been sent back to the Committee on Public Safety.
August 30, 2014 edit: AB 1014 has passed the Assembly and Senate.
Sept. 30, 2014 edit: AB 1014 has been signed into law by the Governor. Get ready for massive lawsuits and court battles folks, there will be many fights with the State before this law is overturned.


SCR 118 -- Would require "21 seconds of silence, monthly" instead of a 21 gun salute for veterans. This is a slap in the face to veterans and must be opposed.
August 30, 2014 edit: SCR 118 was passed by the Assembly and Senate and because it was a concurrent resolution it did not require the Governor's signature or veto. It has been chaptered and is now law.
SCR 49 -- Similar to SCR 118. Introduces provisions that disrespect constitutional rights and frame them in a "mental health" context rather than respecting the Constitution. This also should be opposed.
August 30, 2014 edit: SCR 49 has been defeated. It failed to pass in the Senate and never even made it to the Assembly. Good riddance!

SB 53 -- This is an infringement on our use of ammunition, which is incidental to our right to keep and bear arms. It is an unconstitutional bill which would require permits, fingerprint scans, and background checks merely to buy ammo, and would prohibit our ability to purchase ammunition online. This bill is a horror. It must be VETOED, but if it is not, TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS are the only appropriate response.
August 30, 2014 post edit: SB 53 has been DEFEATED. Despite multiple desperate attempts by the Legislature to pass it, even continuing up through 2:30 AM on Saturday on the beginning of Labor Day weekend, it repeatedly failed by a six-vote margin.
Link Removed to demand that any bill or regulatory action which is ever proposed in the future at all like SB 53 (in any of its amended forms) be vetoed by the Governor or rescinded by the Governor's order. You may also want to look up the legislators who voted against SB 53 and thank them.

SB 1154 -- Contains references to "gun violence restraining order" (which was not defined in any California law at the time of its passage and signature into law, as this occurred prior to AB 1014). Allows SFBART Police to confiscate weapons from anyone who resides in or visits San Francisco. Unconstitutional, requires a VETO, and from us, needs TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS.
August 30, 2014 post edit: This bill has been chaptered and enrolled, having been approved by the Assembly and Senate and signed into law by the Governor. Link Removed to inform him that the unconstitutional "gun violence restraining orders" which are part of SB 1154 will be opposed vigorously in the courts!

SB 580 -- Raid on fees, takes from a background check account and would redirect the funds to the flawed APPS program. Oppose. Requires a VETO and statements that will communicate that our intent is TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS with respect to fees in connection with purchases that would be collected if SB 580 is signed into law.
August 30, 2014 post edit: SB 580 has been defeated, although it passed the Senate it died in Assembly Appropriations Committee. It may be brought up again next legislative session. Link Removed to tell him to veto any proposal similar to SB 580 if it comes to his desk in the future.

SB 505 -- Gun registration upon welfare check. Targets the economically disadvantaged, the elderly, and those without fiscal means to sue the State of California. Requires a VETO, the only logical response if it passes is TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE and LAWSUITS. It's likely that most of those who would be affected by this will require pro-bono assistance as they won't be able to afford legal insurance. That's the State's objective here, to target those that are most in need. We need to fight this, folks.
August 30, 2014 post edit: SB 505 has passed the Assembly and the Senate and is awaiting the Governor's signature or veto.
Oct. 1, 2014 post edit: SB 505 was signed into law by the Governor. Prepare to fight it in the courts.


AB 1598 -- Under this bill, officers would be trained without respect or regard for the presence of CCW permit holders. This bill should be vigorously opposed by those in the law enforcement community. Demand that the Governor VETO this proposal and sherriffs must communicate their intent to NOT COMPLY with this training requirement unless it is modified to include and respect CCW.
August 30, 2014 post edit: AB 1598 has passed the Assembly and the Senate.
Oct. 1, 2014 post edit: AB 1598 was signed into law by the Governor.

5) Link Removed to advise him that we will not comply with unconstitutional laws. The following is suggested as a form letter:

"Dear Governor Brown,

Via this message, I am signaling my intent to exercise request of a Gubernatorial Pardon, as with passage of certain laws which I have no intention of complying with, I anticipate that I may be convicted if I remain in the State of California, and I presently have no intention of moving out of California.

As you failed to veto these bills as was your duty based on your oath of office, I am indicating here and now that I do not plan to comply with any of them. I am requesting a Gubernatorial Pardon be granted to me and to all else who refuse to comply with the bills (and would be convicted under them).

The Gubernatorial Pardon that I request for my noncompliance with the laws will apply to (at minimum) the following which have been signed into law:

AB 2310
AB 1609
SB 199
AB 1014
SB 1154
SB 505

And to the following, which were not signed into law:
SB 808 ("ghost gun" bill, in any future form)
SB 293 ("smart gun requirement," in any future form)
SB 53 ("ammo background checks," in any future form)

Since you failed to veto the bills signed into law mentioned above, I thank you in advance for your Gubernatorial Pardon for me relating to any conviction which results from my noncompliance with these unconstitutional bills."


OK, that's it. Time to get to work. Don't anticipate avoiding court... get ready for it. It's time to beat back this errant Legislature and send a message to it (and to any future legislators) that we are drawing a line in the sand.

final note:
(from the decision text of Marbury vs. Madison, as issued from the US Supreme Court)
"Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void."

That's right.

VOID.

It's time to take the State of California to task. The principles are simple:
1) TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE
2) LAWSUITS against the State

Let's get to it, NOW.
 

Last edited:
That is a long laundry list but if people want to live there who am I to tell them shame shame shame. People have to vote with their feet now. You in California have been letting this go on for a long long time. You in California have no rights of citizenship just ask prop 8. This is what happens when folks start watering down a moral society...the unintended consequences...now you want to ***** about it. It is way too late!!
 
Living in California vs... Not.

That is a long laundry list but if people want to live there who am I to tell them shame shame shame. People have to vote with their feet now. You in California have been letting this go on for a long long time. You in California have no rights of citizenship just ask prop 8. This is what happens when folks start watering down a moral society...the unintended consequences...now you want to ***** about it. It is way too late!!

Jim,

I think your statement deserves an in-depth response. You have raised various issues which must be taken into account, so I want to take a moment to honor what you've written with a response of my own after having reflected upon your statement.

The idea of voting with our feet has been raised before in this forum - many times. It may interest you to know, that indeed, Californians are voting with their feet. In fact, I have pointed this out before, in a prior post on this forum where I cited a study that measured exactly how Californians are fleeing California and moving to other states. Please feel free to read this past comment of mine on the forum for further details on our outward migration to states that impose less restrictions upon us.

I think it is worthy to note here that in a previous legislative session, the State of California attempted to assert, with a bill that is now signed into law, its ability to control what anyone, anywhere in the United States or in fact in the world, could put on their website or blog relating to guns (2nd amendment related content expressed within the context of your 1st Amendment rights). There is nothing that "voting with your feet" can do when you are faced with an attempt by states such as California and NY, that have both enacted laws that attempt to control what is happening on a worldwide internet. You can see my post on that here.

I think it's pretty clear that nobody anywhere is paying any attention to that California law (as cited in the above paragraph) since it was first adopted, although I could be wrong, but for all the websites I've seen, California's attempt at censorship (of 2nd amendment content expressed within the context of our 1st amendment rights) has failed. This is a classic example of how law fails when it attempts to censor us, regardless of our location. In like manner, we can choose to ignore unconstitutional laws that are void. Naturally this will come as a consequence, for myself and others who choose to do so, but it presents us with the opportunity to not simply disobey the laws but also to challenge them in court, whether or not we are convicted of violating them. Someone will always find a way to keep the content up that they desire on the web, so it should be obvious that such laws are doomed to failure.

On the other hand, there are laws which people aren't going to be able to easily ignore, such as AB 1609. This is actually a bill, not a law, but if it passes, it would result in some California police actually targeting people who visit California for arrest and prosecution merely for transporting a legally owned firearm across state lines. The resulting legal tangles that would inevitably ensue would be remarkably similar to what is happening with the Pennsylvanian woman who is being unconstitutionally prosecuted in New Jersey and faces an 11 year jail term merely for her having crossed State lines as a CCW holder. In addition, there is case law which establishes that it is your constitutional right to transport yourself wherever you desire regardless of what state you are in ~ Texas, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. As you may already be aware, anyone in the United States has the constitutional right, established by the US Supreme Court, no less, to move about in cars, trucks, vans, and motorcycles, and any other "ordinary and usual conveyances of the day," within the meaning of Teche Lines vs. Danforth, "for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business" (Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra). Indeed, "The right to travel...(is) a 'fundamental' one, requiring the showing of a 'compelling' state or local interest to warrant its limitation" (Demiragh v. DeVos, 476 F.2d 403, 405 (2nd Cir. 1973)). Finally, per 11 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, Sec. 329, pg. 1135, " The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
Thus, laws such as the ones applied to Shaneen Allen in New Jersey as well as California's proposed AB 1609 which would have a similar effect if signed into law, are unconstitutional and void on the basis of violation of the right of travel, even before taking into account the infringements upon the 2nd Amendment right. I am not a lawyer and cannot provide legal advice (indeed, nothing I post here should be construed by anyone as legal advice), but one hopes that Shaneen Allen's lawyer observes and uses the concept of constitutional right of travel to the benefit of Shaneen and her family with respect to her court case. There is a very useful post, on how to respond when stopped by an officer, which involves the use of simple statements such as "Am I being detained?" (No.) "Am I free to go?" You can find Link Removed ~ it can also be found in many instructive videos which provide guidance on how to safely get back on your way after being stopped. Educate yourself before you are asked to stop.

With that said, I am also reminded of California's SB 53, which attempts to extend the reach of California's proposed ammunition restrictions to anywhere across the internet. It's not simply a law that if passed would result in Californians being subjected to an unconstitutional law that attempts to "require" a permit, fingerprints, and background check for anyone who buys ammunition. It goes even further than that: by prohibiting online sales to Californians as part of SB 53, if that bill becomes law, that means anyone who sells ammunition online, regardless of where they live in the United States, and regardless of whether they are an individual or a business, would have their business impaired. There are well over 10 million gun owners in California, although no study has conclusively determined how many of us there are, it is plainly obvious based on known sales that we are second only to Texas per capita in terms of gun ownership. That is a market that cannot be ignored by anyone in the United States. At the same time, there are gun manufacturers that have simply refused to send their products to the California market, due to a microstamping rule that is hotly contested and is expected to eventually be challenged further in the courts (see, for example, Pena v. Cid, 09-cv-01185, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento)), although the outcome of the various cases contesting the Safe Handgun Roster and California microstamping regulation is unclear. (Many weapons that Californians have owned for a long time, including but not limited to C&R semiautomatic pistols and rifles, and nearly all guns produced inside or outside California before last year for California sales, do not have microstamping technology and never will, and it's fairly easy to get firing pins that aren't microstamped. I live in California, and none of my firing pins are microstamped, and they never will be.) The fact that California has stubbornly tried to implement this microstamping rule, and Smith & Wesson and Ruger's response, is a clear indicator that California has interfered with commerce in an unconstitutional way, in addition to the constitutionality problems relating to impairment of the 2nd Amendment right ~ this doesn't only affect Californians, but any manufacturer anywhere in the US who might want to sell to persons in California. Thus the effect of California laws cannot be ignored or dismissed by suggesting that one should just "go elsewhere." There is an outward migration of Californians to other states which have less restrictions, as I mentioned earlier. But the argument that "Californians should just vote with their feet" as a method of fighting unconstitutional law is not one that works. Does it work as a method to serve a particular individuals' interests? Yes. But does "voting with your feet" work to defeat the unconstitutional laws themselves that affect us all? No. The way to defeat those laws is through a combination of civil disobedience (which must include refusal to comply with unconstitutional law) as well as strategic use of our court system. Californians can argue they are particularly affected as a class and so could be part of a class action suit in addition to any civil suits they pursue as individuals. Manufacturers and business owners outside of California who are affected by California's laws can and should sue California at the earliest possible opportunity. Legal challenges are a necessary component of resistance. California is not going to empty out. People are going to continue to live here. Our population grows daily. And, the percent of Californians who are gun owners is growing steadily - not declining. That is a mathematical fact which cannot be brushed away by any piece of legislation nor by any argument.

Thus, it is our responsibility and duty for those of us who are in California as gun owners (and as I pointed out earlier, that's more gun owners per capita in California than any state except Texas) and who plan on remaining here for any length of time to engage the state based on two principles, at least:

1) Total Noncompliance
2) Lawsuits

By doing so we are defending not only our federal constitutional rights within California, but as well we will be defending yours, because these rights are for everyone. My philosophy is largely voluntaryist with some cryptoanarchy thrown in for good measure, but I do understand the utility of using the courts to defend principles based on well-understood rights that rightfully are to be enjoyed by everyone, not just by some. And rest assured, I will be using the courts to defend "my rights," which are really not mine, but everyone's.

Regarding that part of your statement which mentioned California's Prop. 8, which has a long and convoluted history, the result of that proposition was overturned by the US Supreme Court. Those are matters outside of the scope of this forum and I don't presume to tell anyone how to live their life, I merely ask that they respect others and the rights that we share, and in this forum I've generally advocated for a mixture of civil disobedience and usage of the courts with respect to methods for emphasizing and restoring for all practical purposes, our rights to keep and bear arms (and other rights). I will continue to do so. I will remain here in California for the time being to fight these unconstitutional laws until such time as I am successful in court or I am forced to leave. No-one can tell me that our rights only apply in "some places" and that I should "just go away."

Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your statement.
 
100,000 armed citizens should show up at the state capitol bldg and persuade legislators to change their mind and rescind all these asinine laws OR everyone just move the hell out and let the commie state govt suffer under the current criminal content and massive reduction in income from lost taxes. We can then put a fence around Commiefornia and send all the illegals and other pond scum their way.
 
Against Me

100,000 armed citizens should show up at the state capitol bldg and persuade legislators to change their mind and rescind all these asinine laws OR everyone just move the hell out and let the commie state govt suffer under the current criminal content and massive reduction in income from lost taxes. We can then put a fence around Commiefornia and send all the illegals and other pond scum their way.

I support the use of arms as an exercise of a constitutional right. I personally appreciate what this right confers and I maintain ownership of arms for self-defense, hunting, and other purposes. I understand the revolutionary background and the manner in which the Constitution was developed to contemplate this and case law that has largely transformed, but upheld, such rights since then. See, for example, Link Removed, which contemplates not only the right to bear arms and expressly contains a right of revolution, but as well expresses the notion of a right of conscience as an inalienable right.

But if I don't agree with you that 100,000 armed citizens should show up at the state capitol building, then are you willing to shoot me?

Will you take up arms against me?

(credit in part to Stefan Molyneux and his video statement, 'Against Me')

Just as an fyi, I don't want you or anyone dead, and like a lot of people, I'm not willing to shoot you due to my own ideological desire and what I wish to have happen in the context of the state and what it does or does not demand. I advocate against the use of violence by the state, and violence is how the state maintains its power. I thus also advocate for personal sacrifice, which requires that I suppress any violent tendencies I might have. I nonetheless train (with martial arts and firearms) to prepare for defense of my person. I understand that a commitment to nonviolence means that I accept an increased risk of death at the hands of those who do not understand the problems that are inherent to violence. I am willing to defend myself, my family, and my home, from those who would attempt to destroy us (our lives). But if you care to know whether or not my own political, ethical, or philosophical ruminations would be used by me to justify shooting you or anyone else who does not agree with me... the answer is an emphatic NO.
 
The other option is to vote with your feet and let California sink into the slime. When I say California I mean the progressives that believe what they are doing is good work. de Leon is the poster child for California politics and California money will continue to get that guy and other carbon copies elected. The wealthy will fund the elections because they will keep the "commoner" separate from the elite. As long as they can throw money over the fence into the cesspool of the very poverty they created it will absolutely keep the "degenerates" off their lawns. You are now under the complete control of those that are willing to buy the votes of non producers with your stuff. Take your stuff, leave California, and wait for the fire to burn itself out...then return and like the Phoenix you will rise from the ash heap left behind.
 
The other option is to vote with your feet and let California sink into the slime. When I say California I mean the progressives that believe what they are doing is good work. de Leon is the poster child for California politics and California money will continue to get that guy and other carbon copies elected. The wealthy will fund the elections because they will keep the "commoner" separate from the elite. As long as they can throw money over the fence into the cesspool of the very poverty they created it will absolutely keep the "degenerates" off their lawns. You are now under the complete control of those that are willing to buy the votes of non producers with your stuff. Take your stuff, leave California, and wait for the fire to burn itself out...then return and like the Phoenix you will rise from the ash heap left behind.

Jim, I must admit your proposal is tempting, and states such as Arizona and Nevada are but a few hours' drive away. Believe me, I've considered it, and as I've revealed in other posts of mine in this forum, I do not anticipate remaining in California for the rest of my life.

Be that as it may, for the short-term at least, I am here, where I will remain to stay and fight for all of us. I do not presume to speak for everyone, but when I maintain that I shall conduct a personal struggle through the non-compliance and the courts (which, though the state itself relies on violence, I need not do so, and am I more than capable of engaging the court system productively and nonviolently and through persistent use of legal processes), I hope that the results of my efforts (and those of others here) will be to preserve the rights for all of us no matter where we are.
 
NOTE / UPDATE: Regarding AB 2310, the "Eviction Law" (one of the bills signed into law by the Governor in 2014 as described in the post starting this thread), this law initially is designed to target residents of Los Angeles, Alameda, and Sacramento counties, and remove disadvantaged persons from their home, by targeting persons of color or disabled, and scheduling for removal entire familes via eviction when a single person in a household has violated a firearm or ammo related law.
I will repeat: IF YOU ARE DISABLED OR A PERSON OF COLOR, who has been harmed via eviction or threated eviction due to AB 2310, YOU MAY WISH TO HAVE YOUR LAWYER CALL UP THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION WHERE THERE IS (AS OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2014) AN ACTIVE FEDERAL COMPLAINT (against AB 2310 and the legislators that created it) WITH THE FILE NUMBER CTS 454606, AT THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OR YOU CAN FILE ONE YOURSELF.

In addition, the US DOJ has referred this matter (FILE NUMBER CTS 454606) to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. If interested in the process of HUD inquiry into the unconstitutional Eviction Law known as AB 2310, you should contact the Link Removed and inquire about the status of HUD Inquiry No. 397668.

If you are still reading: Get on over to FPC and take action against new proposed laws in CA. FPC has made some good improvements to their website recently. (They are in need of donations and are preparing to, or are, filing legal briefs on around 10 2A cases - help them out if you haven't already!)
 
A bit of good news: Only three anti-gun bills remain to be defeated in this session. Bad news is the language of the bills has gotten worse, not better (proposed limits on where CCW holders can carry for example) so if any of the bills pass it would be worse than originally anticipated.

The FPC has made a tool to oppose all three of these all at once: Fight gun control bills SB 707, SB 347, and AB 1134! | Firearms Policy Coalition
Go there and fill out the form to oppose all three bills - takes about thirty seconds (and one push of a button, so that you don't have to repeat an action three times).

You can also ask the Governor to veto SB 707, SB 347, and AB 1134, by contacting him here:
Link Removed

When enough people have contacted the Governor asking for a veto, there have been various gun bills vetoed in the past. One notable example was SB 808, which would have required serialization and registration of anything we would make as a receiver in our own home in California. Significant pressure was placed in the form of requests to the Governor to veto it, and it was vetoed over the whines, howls and cries of the Legislature.

Thanks in advance for opposing these bills and for taking action to stop them! Please share the links above in this post with others.
 
I believe that no amount of grassroots efforts will convert the masses in anti-gun states that are screaming bloody murder. They lie, cheat and twist the facts. It seems the majority of people in places like L.A., NYC, Boston, etc want it that way. Their population likely influences the entire state elections in these states. Look at NJ. Governor Crispy Kreme is a republican who has the nerve to run on a GOP platform when he clearly panders to the left anti-gun progressives. He is governor of the only state that doesn't allow anyone to carry. That's the only way a republican is getting elected in NJ. He actually believes this isn't a problem for him in a national election. Maybe he could praise Obama a little more.
 
Strength in numbers.

Massive civil disobedience.

Vote the politicians out who foul the public trough. I know, hard to do with politicians on the, "take" in that state...you have way too many stupid (yes, I said something nice) liberal politicians who are entrenched in the, "good ol' boy (and girl)" network. Voters in that state have to be bathed in blatant stupidity to allow this to go on, unimpeded.

N R A and ACLU backing (I don't side with the ACLU normally, but this needs done), along with every single gun resource business in those counties affected by those neo-Marxist/Alinsky Socialist communists.

Massive citizens backing lawsuits against the illegal juggernaut of California public service criminals.

Good luck! If none of the above and suggestions from others in this thread don't work-out, get out of Commiefornia, and let them slowly drown in their own excrement.

They've had it coming for years.
 
Strength in numbers. Massive civil disobedience. Vote the politicians out who foul the public trough.
Absolutely. But some people have no faith in any candidate so they don't vote. I once tried to get people to withhold their property tax payments until the very point where the state would start foreclosure and then pay them plus penalties. If 5 million people withhold the tax for 6 months they can impact government function pretty well. They show how "the people" hold the purse strings. Let the states spend massive amounts of money trying to collect their taxes. Do it every year until change occurs.
 
Status update: From the last legislative session, SB 707 and AB 1134 were passed and signed into law, while SB 347 was vetoed.

The situation is California is dire. As I've documented in this as well as another related thread, there have been from October 2013 through October 2014, 20 gun control bills that ended up getting signed into law (by the State alone, not counting any local laws), over the course of two legislative sessions, leading many people without recourse except to challenge the state in the courts or hope that the laws would be overturned by organizations that take take legal action to defend the 2nd amendment in a more general sense. Fortunately, 2015 went pretty well, and most of California's newly proposed gun control bills stalled out or were vetoed. However, as mentioned, two more bills (SB 707, AB 1134) were signed into law during that year.

The statists and gun-controllers are back in full force for this legislative session and have pulled out all the stops for 2016. So far, they've introduced seven anti-gun bills and more are likely on the way - fortunately, FPC has a handy page for opposing them quickly (which takes just a few minutes of your time): https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
Note that FPC has also included a link to oppose California's bill which proposes to ban your cell phone encryption. Make sure and act to oppose all these bad bills!

The FPC also has a distinct organizational unit to help stop Gavin Newsom's ballot initiative (Newsom having launched a gun control ballot initiative because he is sad that gun control stuff he wanted to see get passed was getting vetoed by Brown). So please spread the word to help "Stop Newsom" here, via Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/FPCSADC/posts/165295273819992

Or via direct link:

Link Removed

Thank you!
 
Less than 10 days left to raise the funds necessary to overturn these anti-2A laws in court. The lawsuits are going to happen but as of today, November 21, 2016 the organizations responsible for getting the funding together are still needing 45,000 dollars to be donated to the legal fund before the end of November.

Let's make it happen. Link here for further details:

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/poli...-knock-down-worst-anti-2a-laws-your-help.html

If you've already donated please spread the above link (or spread the links below) via your social media as time is of the essence!

1) Gunpocalypse - Firearms Policy Foundation

2) Link Removed

Thank you!
 
As an update to this, today (about 4 hours ago) I got an unsolicited e-mail from the Coalition for Civil Liberties (I'm on their e-mail list since I've donated to them before).

Their e-mail update stated in part,

"we’re filing lawsuits to fight back against Prop 63 – and other Second Amendment issues – in court. And with your help, it’s going to happen this week."

I'm not donating any more until I see those lawsuits filed. If they say it's happening this week they can file it this week, then I'll donate some more. But I do get tired of hearing that it's going to happen, going to happen, going to happen. I've donated enough and have spent a lot of time spreading the word about FPC / FPF, Calguns, and Coalition for Civil Lliberties fundraising campaigns which are supposedly intended to raise fees for legal cases to overturn Gunpocalypse laws signed into law July 2016, and to overturn Prop 63.

So I'll wait and see if they do in fact file lawsuits this week. Until they do file the lawsuits to actually overturn the laws themselves (not just the policies or regulations), I will continue to ask and suggest if anyone else, like me, has been investigating into doing it themselves (challenging these (CA) laws in federal court (possibly under 42 USC § 1983), or developing a bill of peace / class action lawsuit).
 
100,000 armed citizens should show up at the state capitol bldg and persuade legislators to change their mind and rescind all these asinine laws OR everyone just move the hell out and let the commie state govt suffer under the current criminal content and massive reduction in income from lost taxes. We can then put a fence around Commiefornia and send all the illegals and other pond scum their way.

The Black Panther Party already tried this when Reagan was governor.

What happened was that the Legislature and Reagan outlawed open carry.

So, not a good idea.
 
The other option is to vote with your feet and let California sink into the slime. When I say California I mean the progressives that believe what they are doing is good work. de Leon is the poster child for California politics and California money will continue to get that guy and other carbon copies elected. The wealthy will fund the elections because they will keep the "commoner" separate from the elite. As long as they can throw money over the fence into the cesspool of the very poverty they created it will absolutely keep the "degenerates" off their lawns. You are now under the complete control of those that are willing to buy the votes of non producers with your stuff. Take your stuff, leave California, and wait for the fire to burn itself out...then return and like the Phoenix you will rise from the ash heap left behind.

Exactly.

This is why I moved away.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top