Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-09-2019, 4:43 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Win win win win
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 8,503
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default CRPA ALERT 09/09/19: AB 61 & 879 PASS ASSEMBLY FLOOR, MOVE ON TO GOVERNOR’S DESK

https://crpa.org/news/legislation/cr...overnors-desk/

Quote:
This is a life or death week for some of the worst anti-gun owner bills that the CRPA has ever seen.

AB 61 (Ting) would initiate the expansion of Gun Violence Restraining Orders so that co-workers, teachers, and employers would have the right to take away your guns without due process.

AB 879 (Gipson) would effectively redefine “firearm” to include precursor parts that are sold often amongst gun owners. More government over lording and less freedom for the gun-owning community.

These bills that threaten Californians’ rights, were just voted off the Assembly floor this afternoon and are advancing toward the Governor’s desk.

How can you help?

Call Governor Newsom and urge him to follow in former Governor Brown’s footsteps in vetoing these scrupulous bills that would do nothing but create more work for government employees and restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Contact:

https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/gov40mail/

Governor Gavin Newsom
1303 10th Street, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160


Calguns.net discussion threads on each of these bills are here:

2019 AB 61 Ting - Gun violence restraining orders.

AB 879, Gipson, 2019 - 'firearm precursor parts'

Last edited by readysetgo; 09-13-2019 at 11:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-09-2019, 6:35 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,961
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

"these scrupulous bills"?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-09-2019, 6:37 PM
Helmut Helmut is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah...no. Be prepared for these to become law.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-09-2019, 7:15 PM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 1,084
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Gavin vetoing gun control? LOL. Will call tomorrow and do my part. But expect these to become law asap.
__________________
"Ya dude just bought my 67th gun today"......
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-09-2019, 7:38 PM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,961
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Totalitarian Marxists with EuroTrash Characteristics.

They own academia, law schools, the courts in the coastal states and unless the SCOTUS grows a pair all hope of salvaging this Republic is lost. So Very Sad - my forebears spilled their blood for a dream that has been destroyed in the last 75 years, I guess Stalin really won after all.

Greasy Gavin is not going to listen for one millisecond.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-09-2019, 7:44 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,398
iTrader: 92 / 100%
Default

Let them push, at this point the only hope is they push too much.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-09-2019, 7:50 PM
H0rnman H0rnman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 25
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
Let them push, at this point the only hope is they push too much.
Unfortunately I think you are right.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-09-2019, 8:03 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 827
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For those calling concerning the expansion of GVROs (AB-61), I'd emphasize that the ACLU has opposed the bill since its inception and continues to oppose it. From the most recent Assembly Floor Analysis from 9/5:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...=201920200AB61

Quote:
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ''The ACLU of California does not oppose gun control measures that regulate the acquisition or use of guns – so long as those regulations contribute to public safety and do not raise civil liberties issues. Additionally, we do not oppose laws that authorize protective orders to remove guns from people who pose a risk to themselves or others, provided there are nondiscriminatory criteria for defining people as dangerous, and a fair process for those affected to object and be heard by a court.

''AB 61, however, poses a significant threat to civil liberties by expanding the authorization to seek ex parte orders, with all the ensuing consequences, without an opportunity for the person to be heard or contest the matter.

''The statutory scheme creating the Gun Violence Restraining Order (Penal Code Sections 18100-18205) was established in 2014 (AB 1014, Skinner). Under this scheme a family member, or any law enforcement officer, who has reason to believe a person owns a gun and poses a significant danger to themselves or others, may petition the court for an ex parte order to prohibit the subject from possessing a gun for up to 21 days, at which time a hearing is held to determine whether to extend the order for to one year.

''An ex parte order means the person subject to the restraining order is not informed of the court proceeding and therefore has no opportunity to contest the allegations. We support the efforts to prevent gun violence, but we must balance that important goal with protection of civil liberties so we do not sacrifice one in an attempt to accomplish the other. We believe AB 1014 was crafted in order to properly strike that balance. By expanding the parties that could apply for such an ex parte restraining order to include all the parties listed above, many of whom lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment, AB 61 upsets that balance and creates significant potential for civil rights violations.''
ACLU doesn't normally oppose gun control laws, however when they see other civil rights endangered they will oppose them, and I'd think that the mention of ACLU opposing it would carry more weight, and at least give Newsom an excusable reason to veto the law in the eyes of his voting base.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 09-09-2019 at 8:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-10-2019, 8:16 AM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,210
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
For those calling concerning the expansion of GVROs (AB-61), I'd emphasize that the ACLU has opposed the bill since its inception and continues to oppose it. From the most recent Assembly Floor Analysis from 9/5:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...=201920200AB61



ACLU doesn't normally oppose gun control laws, however when they see other civil rights endangered they will oppose them, and I'd think that the mention of ACLU opposing it would carry more weight, and at least give Newsom an excusable reason to veto the law in the eyes of his voting base.
Yeah, but will the UCLU file a lawsuit after Newscum signs it? I highly doubt it.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-10-2019, 8:43 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,712
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I see lawsuits filed before Gavin's signature is dry.... Seems like the only people doing well in the "gun debate" are the lawyers.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-10-2019, 10:30 AM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 587
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oh for ****s sake...so a grip would need a background check?
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-10-2019, 10:53 AM
deebix deebix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 720
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

ITS OK GUYS! JUST FOLLOW THE LAW RIGHT?

I laugh at how anyone is surprised. Wait until they demand a public website of all gun owners in the state, because "OUR RIGHT TO SAFETY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR LITERAL RIGHTS."

God damn this state and government into the hell.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-10-2019, 11:42 AM
tehDiceman tehDiceman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 74
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
Oh for ****s sake...so a grip would need a background check?
Pretty sure it's a lot less restrictive than that. You should read the synopsis of what is included, you might be surprised.

Last edited by tehDiceman; 09-10-2019 at 11:42 AM.. Reason: I'm not supporting this bill, but most items aren't named in the bill.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-10-2019, 11:51 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 827
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Yeah, but will the UCLU file a lawsuit after Newscum signs it? I highly doubt it.
Mainly its a talking point when you call in. Not sure if they would. If crpa filed they'd probably write an amicus. I imagine they'd wait for the right case to come along for someone who was charged by a school employee or coworker or whatever before filing a lawsuit.

Though I could totally be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-10-2019, 12:07 PM
prkprisoner's Avatar
prkprisoner prkprisoner is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vacaville
Posts: 352
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Pre-cursor parts1) An unfinished receiver, including both a single part receiver and a multiple part receiver, such as a receiver in an AR-10- or AR-15-style firearm. An unfinished receiver includes a receiver tube, a molded or shaped polymer frame or receiver, a metallic casting, a metallic forging, and a receiver flat, such as a Kalashnikov-style weapons system, Kalashnikov-style receiver channel, or a Browning-style receiver side plate.
(2) An unfinished handgun frame.

So they are trying to regulate chunks of metal now.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:17 AM
TheGood's Avatar
TheGood TheGood is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 95
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prkprisoner View Post
Pre-cursor parts1) An unfinished receiver, including both a single part receiver and a multiple part receiver, such as a receiver in an AR-10- or AR-15-style firearm. An unfinished receiver includes a receiver tube, a molded or shaped polymer frame or receiver, a metallic casting, a metallic forging, and a receiver flat, such as a Kalashnikov-style weapons system, Kalashnikov-style receiver channel, or a Browning-style receiver side plate.
(2) An unfinished handgun frame.

So they are trying to regulate chunks of metal now.
So does that mean a buffer tube, or stock assembly needs to DROS? What about the upper receiver half of an AR?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-12-2019, 8:41 AM
ldsnet ldsnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGood View Post
So does that mean a buffer tube, or stock assembly needs to DROS? What about the upper receiver half of an AR?
Upper Receiver yes, the way the synoposis is worded, buffer tube, bcg, barrel would be a no.

Not need a DROS, they tacked it to the same legislation as the a ammo purchasing check process; so if you are already in the system, pay your extra $1 tax and away you go.

No mention of serial numbers or registration in the synoposis that I found.

This could all be different in the final signed text and we wont know until after it is signed and publushed. Then DOJ gets to add their rules ... who knows what this will end up looking like.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-12-2019, 8:50 AM
ECG_88's Avatar
ECG_88 ECG_88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 708
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Think about when employers fire and employee, it is standard industry policy to do it on certain days and have security on hand to escort them from the building.

Imagine corporate policy in the future to also do a GVRO on employees the day before they are terminated as part of the security procedures. Employers now have the power to end your livelihood as well as your rights.
__________________
Emotional appeal is a marketing tactic and not a foundation for effective argument.

Nulla Fatere, Omnia Nega, Accusatorem Accusa
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:24 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,128
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECG_88 View Post
Think about when employers fire and employee, it is standard industry policy to do it on certain days and have security on hand to escort them from the building.

Imagine corporate policy in the future to also do a GVRO on employees the day before they are terminated as part of the security procedures.
I hadn't even thought of that angle, but I think you're right.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-12-2019, 12:48 PM
Zero M Zero M is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 11
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So, does this mean an *employer* can now request whether as an *employee* you have a gun at home? And answering is a conditioning of employment. For fear, or not, of being sued by another employee, because they (coworker) don't feel safe with coworker with a gun?

Unfortunately, I can see employers, like doctors now keeping a database of gun owners, and as suggested earlier, submitting a GVRO prior to any "resource action" as deemed a danger to the employee, employer, or coworkers.

Am I missing something here...does there actually have to be any evidence, or even hearsay...

Is there any punitive action for false statements from the party falsely filing? And once a person filed against...does that exclude all new purchases... as there is already something about restraining orders...

The more you think about this the worse it gets...
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-12-2019, 1:01 PM
ECG_88's Avatar
ECG_88 ECG_88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 708
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero M View Post
So, does this mean an *employer* can now request whether as an *employee* you have a gun at home? And answering is a conditioning of employment. For fear, or not, of being sued by another employee, because they (coworker) don't feel safe with coworker with a gun?

Unfortunately, I can see employers, like doctors now keeping a database of gun owners, and as suggested earlier, submitting a GVRO prior to any "resource action" as deemed a danger to the employee, employer, or coworkers.

Am I missing something here...does there actually have to be any evidence, or even hearsay...

Is there any punitive action for false statements from the party falsely filing? And once a person filed against...does that exclude all new purchases... as there is already something about restraining orders...

The more you think about this the worse it gets...
I fear there would be no penalty against an employer. There have been incidents of employees lashing out violently upon hearing bad news(termination). So they have an argument to believe a soon to be terminated employee "could" be a danger to the company and all they have to do is articulate that fear and that they made the GVRO is good faith to protect their other employees. Also if they have any documentation of you discussing weapons at work, or hunting, its just more to add to their reasoning. What California court would disagree with them?
__________________
Emotional appeal is a marketing tactic and not a foundation for effective argument.

Nulla Fatere, Omnia Nega, Accusatorem Accusa
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-12-2019, 1:14 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero M View Post
So, does this mean an *employer* can now request whether as an *employee* you have a gun at home? And answering is a conditioning of employment. For fear, or not, of being sued by another employee, because they (coworker) don't feel safe with coworker with a gun?

Unfortunately, I can see employers, like doctors now keeping a database of gun owners, and as suggested earlier, submitting a GVRO prior to any "resource action" as deemed a danger to the employee, employer, or coworkers.

Am I missing something here...does there actually have to be any evidence, or even hearsay...

Is there any punitive action for false statements from the party falsely filing? And once a person filed against...does that exclude all new purchases... as there is already something about restraining orders...

The more you think about this the worse it gets...
That all seems totally plausible to me.
Certain groups/entities have no business knowing what firearms (if any) you own. If you are fortunate to have "undocumented" firearms, so much the better. This potential law will only increase the desire for such.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-12-2019, 1:16 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECG_88 View Post
I fear there would be no penalty against an employer. There have been incidents of employees lashing out violently upon hearing bad news(termination). So they have an argument to believe a soon to be terminated employee "could" be a danger to the company and all they have to do is articulate that fear and that they made the GVRO is good faith to protect their other employees. Also if they have any documentation of you discussing weapons at work, or hunting, its just more to add to their reasoning. What California court would disagree with them?
In corporate (and public agencies as well) it's called Risk Management.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-12-2019, 3:07 PM
javalos's Avatar
javalos javalos is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Valley Springs, CA
Posts: 956
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsnet View Post
Upper Receiver yes, the way the synoposis is worded, buffer tube, bcg, barrel would be a no.

Not need a DROS, they tacked it to the same legislation as the a ammo purchasing check process; so if you are already in the system, pay your extra $1 tax and away you go.

No mention of serial numbers or registration in the synoposis that I found.

This could all be different in the final signed text and we wont know until after it is signed and publushed. Then DOJ gets to add their rules ... who knows what this will end up looking like.
and it appears that it doesn't take effect until 2024.
__________________
Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
__________________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-13-2019, 9:14 AM
ESPONDA's Avatar
ESPONDA ESPONDA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 368
iTrader: 55 / 100%
Default

If you talk about guns at work like weekend target shooting or the latest guns on the market or how you collect military and cowboy guns or trapshooting and skeet.....you could offend someone to the point you make them uncomfortable hostile work environment.... file complaint because you are guilty of guns and shooting up the place therefore .... restraining order... confiscation... termination of employment... scary stuff indeed....
__________________
...it's for the kids...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:36 AM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,885
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well at least they aren't banning all parts.. They could technically all be considered "precursor" parts. Will still be able to purchase springs, rods, extractors etc through Numrich.. At least for now.

I am really amazed that Newsom and the state legislature haven't come up with the all draconian laws everyone thought they would before his election....

I think they believe the federal government will do that for them now the way things are going nationally.

Last edited by Dan_Eastvale; 09-13-2019 at 11:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-18-2019, 1:59 AM
Weyoun Weyoun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 151
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First it's 80%, then it's 1/2, then 1/4, then 1/8th. Sound familiar?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-18-2019, 9:17 AM
madmike88 madmike88 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 146
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weyoun View Post
First it's 80%, then it's 1/2, then 1/4, then 1/8th. Sound familiar?
Yep... This is their final Target: https://www.80percentarms.com/0-bill...ower-receiver/
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-18-2019, 11:33 PM
Weezard Weezard is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Eastvale View Post
Well at least they aren't banning all parts.. They could technically all be considered "precursor" parts. Will still be able to purchase springs, rods, extractors etc through Numrich.. At least for now.

I am really amazed that Newsom and the state legislature haven't come up with the all draconian laws everyone thought they would before his election....

I think they believe the federal government will do that for them now the way things are going nationally.
Newsom cares more about becoming President than Governor of California. I think he's trying to develop a record of being somewhat moderate to set up for a presidential run.

I have a conspiracy theory that this is why the train project wasn't cancelled under Brown. They wanted to let Newsom do it so he can brag about fiscal responsibility when he runs for president.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-19-2019, 7:57 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 13,878
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

With the Minority Report the "pre-crimes" must be adjudicated. Due process, if any will come much later. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-19-2019, 3:25 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,617
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I don’t care if it’s futile or not. I have written and will continue to write and call in opposition to these bills. I can’t sleep at night if I don’t. They need to know we are still here.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-19-2019, 5:14 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 162
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ESPONDA View Post
If you talk about guns at work like weekend target shooting or the latest guns on the market or how you collect military and cowboy guns or trapshooting and skeet.....you could offend someone to the point you make them uncomfortable hostile work environment.... file complaint because you are guilty of guns and shooting up the place therefore .... restraining order... confiscation... termination of employment... scary stuff indeed....
According to the left, words are violence, so simply saying there are 2 genders can get a GVRO I'm guessing.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-19-2019, 7:49 PM
KatMan53's Avatar
KatMan53 KatMan53 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut View Post
Yeah...no. Be prepared for these to become law.
Yep. There is no appeal to the "Governor's Office." He will sign everything anti-gun that comes across his desk.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-20-2019, 11:04 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,896
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So now, gun owners will need to speak in code. Never admit to owning any type of firearm. Hide your love of the Second Amendment and freedom. We are the Jews of Nazi Germany; Waiting for the "Party" to knock on our doors...
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-20-2019, 2:51 PM
JohnBrian's Avatar
JohnBrian JohnBrian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bakersfield, Checnyfornia
Posts: 1,145
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
So now, gun owners will need to speak in code. Never admit to owning any type of firearm. Hide your love of the Second Amendment and freedom. We are the Jews of Nazi Germany; Waiting for the "Party" to knock on our doors...
QFT
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnailed Saint View Post
As for the "don't leave CA you coward" sentiment: I don't fault anyone for feeling that way. I felt that way myself for years. In the end though, CA is a lost cause and the poor people of rural CA will be ruled by the pink-clad fist of San Francisco for the foreseeable future. Living the rest of my life in misery and denying my children freedom won't change that.
WTB: Remington R51 Second Generation

WTB: Ruger GP100 .357 3" Seven shot
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-20-2019, 6:05 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,571
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
So now, gun owners will need to speak in code. Never admit to owning any type of firearm. Hide your love of the Second Amendment and freedom. We are the Jews of Nazi Germany; Waiting for the "Party" to knock on our doors...
I wish you were wrong...but I'm afraid thats how it looks.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-20-2019, 6:35 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: backing up into Nevada
Posts: 1,529
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

It is a little late for second thoughts. I think if you look back through the early threads on this site over the last few years many sounded the alarm but no one listened because they were too busy pretending they knew everything while debating in all the wrong places instead of banding together in each locality and forming close contacts. Your enemies have taken over the legislature, most courts, and are offering men like newsome unrestricted power over you. But then I am NOT telling you something you don't know. was that a knock I heard next door?

Last edited by warbird; 09-20-2019 at 7:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-20-2019, 8:37 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,128
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warbird View Post
was that a knock I heard next door?
They got the Morrisons. Figures- Mike spoke up at work. Let's hope he doesn't rat anyone out.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-20-2019, 10:12 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: backing up into Nevada
Posts: 1,529
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Practical experience- In the future get SIREN like ADT has. Some house sirens are designed to drive a thief out of your house when set off by braking in. DOJ loves to raid late at night when their actions would not be observed normally and your confused from waking up. It also meaning no neighbor witnesses. Buy one of these extremely loud sirens and place it out of reach (in the eves or on the roof) by your front door with a manual switch inside the front door. DOJ comes to your front door and knocks and you set it off. every neighbor in a one block radius is wide awake wondering what the he-- is going on. Oops, sorry officer i thought you were home invaders and they dress like cops. Now they have no privacy and everyone is watching. might not stop the search but you will have plenty of witnesses and less chance of them getting rough. You as a citizen just made a simple innocent mistake (so sorry officer). something to think about and they will be a little hard of hearing so don't forget your ear plugs.

Last edited by warbird; 09-20-2019 at 10:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-20-2019, 10:38 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 695
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by warbird View Post
It is a little late for second thoughts. I think if you look back through the early threads on this site over the last few years many sounded the alarm but no one listened because they were too busy pretending they knew everything while debating in all the wrong places instead of banding together in each locality and forming close contacts. Your enemies have taken over the legislature, most courts, and are offering men like newsome unrestricted power over you. But then I am NOT telling you something you don't know. was that a knock I heard next door?
Amen Warbird. This is exactly why I took issue with people going after the NRA the way they are right now in the other thread. It sounds like you get it. So I take back my statements discounting your view. But, I just ask that you think about your statement here in that light. Our enemies have undeniably taken over a lot and are coming for us, and people on our own side are focused on NRA's ALLEGED problems. Again, I'm not suggesting people blindly follow any group. But think about what is more important to focus on at this time.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:30 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.