(OT?) Free California (stop the gun grab)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Preparation Forum : One Thread

ROLLING OUT THE PETITION TO FREE CALIFORNIA FROM GUN GRABBERS

Here is today's SITREP (situation report) on the FINAL wording and position on our attack directly on the enemies of the constitution and common sense in California. Enjoy.

Let s get ready to rumble!

We have received Title and Summary from the Attorney General and the petition is now complete. However, before we release it for distribution and signature gathering, we are first flying it by the Secretary of State s office for final confirmation that all the "I s" are dotted and all the "T s" crossed. I expect to release it Tuesday 1/12/00. It will be available on line in an easily printable .pdf file and at hundreds of locations throughout the state.

We will be providing a FAQ (frequently asked questions) guide and numerous supporting documents. This amendment is not just about guns. It is about correcting a deficiency. It is about freedom. It is about liberty. And it is about abuse of power under the color of authority.

It is interesting that our proposal is only 142 words in length, yet the Title and Summary from the AG is 159 words.

Despite the protracted delays, we have frankly been remarkably lucky. There are several significant benefits we have achieved kinda by accident as an unintended consequence of the extended delays.

All our claims and charges regarding SB-23 are finally being confirmed. SB-23 was, and is, a bad law, which is SO broadly written as to make virtually ANY centerfire rifle that accepts a magazine an "assault weapon". That is why two large California gun retailers have stopped selling product which (according to the letter of the law) have been re-defined as assault weapons.

We just received a copy of The Joint Legislative Budget Committee analysis of our amendment, which was sent to Attorney General Bill Lockyer. There are several significant surprises included, which are huge.

The committee wrote, "The U.S. Constitution s Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and has been subject to significant court review for years. Currently, the State Constitution has no equivalent provision. While the Second Amendment confers specific rights regarding the right to bear arms, the courts have allowed federal, state and local governments to establish prohibitions and restrictions on firearm ownership."

In fact, the committee acknowledges "The experience of other states enacting similar measures has been an initial increase in requests for concealed weapon permits, resulting in an increase in the number of background checks." "Under existing law, state and local government actions regulating firearms have generally been tested under the "rational relationship" test. This test presumes the legislation to be valid if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. The burden of proof is on the challenging party to show the law is unconstitutional."

The committee s analysis of Fiscal Effects is equally revealing. They note under Direct Effects. "The strict scrutiny test could remove perceived barriers to challenging firearm laws in the courts, resulting in increased legal expenses to the state for defending firearm laws, as well as additional court costs."

The committee analysis admits, "The net fiscal impact is unknown. Specifically, while the request for concealed weapons permits could increase, resulting in additional processing costs, the number of concealed weapons violations would likely decrease, resulting in savings to local law enforcement. This measure could also increase legal expenses to local governments, resulting from an increase in the number of challenges to local firearm ordinances."

We have a unique opportunity to stop the epidemic of anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-liberty socialist Handgun Control minions. NOW is the time to do something other than b###h and moan. NOW is the time for concentrated dedicated, committed ACTION.

I recently wrote someone who wanted more than we propose. I told him this amendment has been vetted, re-vetted, amended, massaged and stroked. Everybody 'kinda' likes it but everyone has a better version. THIS IS IT! This is what we are peddling (because it CAN WIN). More stringent, more in your face language flat out ain't gonna fly.

Some of the troops don't think this amendment is strong enough...HOWEVER, the bill mill is fearful it is TOO strong because it opens the door on ccw's and flips the responsibility for denying firearms to the government instead of the citizen.

This is OUR camel s nose in the tent, to reverse the war of incrementalism we have been losing, and we need every warm body we can muster to support and peddle it. We need each and every one of you to commit to getting ten people to get ten people to get ten people to sign this petition.

nobody@vetothegovernor.org

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." --Thomas Jefferson

Protect your rights: www.vetothegovernor.org

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message: [ Go post a new message ] Message subject (required):

Name (required):

E-mail address (optional):

Type your message here: > ROLLING OUT THE PETITION TO FREE CALIFORNIA FROM GUN > GRABBERS > > Here is today's SITREP (situation report) on the FINAL > wording and position on our attack directly on the > enemies of the constitution and common sense in > California. > Enjoy. > > Let s get ready to rumble! > > We have received Title and Summary from the Attorney > General and the petition is now complete. However, > before we release it for distribution and signature > gathering, we are first flying it by the Secretary of > State s office for final confirmation that all the "I > s" are dotted and > all the "T s" crossed. I expect to release it Tuesday > 1/12/00. It will be available on line in an easily > printable .pdf file and at hundreds of locations > throughout the state. > > We will be providing a FAQ (frequently asked > questions) guide and numerous supporting documents. > This amendment is not just about guns. It is about > correcting a deficiency. It is about freedom. It is > about liberty. And it is about abuse of power under > the color of authority. > > It is interesting that our proposal is only 142 words > in length, yet the Title and Summary from the AG is > 159 words. > > Despite the protracted delays, we have frankly been > remarkably lucky. There are several significant > benefits we have achieved kinda by accident as an > unintended consequence of the extended delays. > > All our claims and charges regarding SB-23 are finally > being confirmed. SB-23 was, and is, a bad law, which > is SO broadly written as to make virtually ANY > centerfire rifle that accepts a magazine an "assault > weapon". That is why two large California gun > retailers have stopped selling product which > (according to the letter of the law) have been > re-defined as assault weapons. > > We just received a copy of The Joint Legislative > Budget Committee analysis of our amendment, which was > sent to Attorney General Bill Lockyer. There are > several significant surprises included, which are > huge. > > The committee wrote, "The U.S. Constitution s Second > Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep > and bear arms and has been subject to significant > court review for years. Currently, the State > Constitution has no equivalent provision. While the > Second Amendment confers specific rights regarding > the right to bear arms, the courts have allowed > federal, state and local governments to establish > prohibitions and restrictions on > firearm ownership." > > In fact, the committee acknowledges "The experience of > other states enacting similar measures has been an > initial increase in requests for concealed weapon > permits, resulting in an increase in the number of > background checks." "Under existing law, state and > local government > actions regulating firearms have generally been tested > under the "rational relationship" test. This test > presumes the legislation to be valid if it is > rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. > The burden of proof is on the challenging party to > show the law is unconstitutional." > > The committee s analysis of Fiscal Effects is equally > revealing. They note under Direct Effects. "The > strict scrutiny test could remove perceived barriers > to challenging firearm laws in the courts, resulting > in increased legal expenses to the state for > defending firearm laws, as well as additional court > costs." > > The committee analysis admits, "The net fiscal impact > is unknown. Specifically, while the request for > concealed weapons permits could increase, resulting in > additional processing costs, the number of concealed > weapons violations would likely decrease, resulting in > savings > to local law enforcement. This measure could also > increase legal expenses to local governments, > resulting from an increase in the number of challenges > to local firearm ordinances." > > We have a unique opportunity to stop the epidemic of > anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-liberty socialist Handgun > Control minions. NOW is the time to do something other > than b###h and moan. NOW is the time for concentrated > dedicated, committed ACTION. > > I recently wrote someone who wanted more than we > propose. I told him this amendment has been vetted, > re-vetted, amended, massaged and stroked. Everybody > 'kinda' likes it but everyone has a better version. > THIS IS IT! This is what we are peddling (because it > CAN WIN). More stringent, more in your face language > flat out ain't gonna fly. > > Some of the troops don't think this amendment is > strong enough...HOWEVER, the bill mill is fearful it > is TOO strong because it opens the door on ccw's and > flips the responsibility for denying firearms to the > government > instead of the citizen. > > This is OUR camel s nose in the tent, to reverse the > war of incrementalism we have been losing, and we need > every warm body we can muster to support and peddle > it. We need each and every one of you to commit to > getting ten people to get ten people to get ten people > to sign this petition. > > nobody@vetothegovernor.org > > "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will > not be > needed until they try to take it." > --Thomas Jefferson > > Protect your rights: www.vetothegovernor.org

-- Vlad (Strelok60@yahoo.com), January 10, 2000

Answers

Minor point of correction: January 12 is a Wednesday, not a Tuesday...

Good luck on your petition...I'd sign to get it on the ballot, but I am not exactly a California voter...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), January 10, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ