Irreconcilable differences-the state version

[Eastex]

The California thread is great but sad reading and it seems to be heading into practical responses to what they've done. Since I'm in one of the free states my thoughts have been running more into the abstract. When I see California racing towards the statist gun control side and the free states running in exactly the opposite direction its only leading me into dark thoughts. I just don't see a peaceful resolution to this. There's no middle ground that I can see, no compromise that I know of . The statists in California won't be happy with running that one state, they'll want the big federal state to enforce their will on the free states. It seems like there has been such a rush to cover up and try to forget our history in the name of political correctness that we've nearly gotten to the point of repeating it. Somebody help me see a way out of this mess if you can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shane45]

IMO an answer might be to legally assault these states relentlessly as constitutional violations. It concerns me that it seems the NRA writes off some states as lost causes (like NJ). I think that ignoring states under siege gives that ilk a tactical beach head. They should be treated as the front line that they are. The violation of constitutional rights never seems to be the will of the people in these states, just the abuse of power by those in charge. I can state from a strong body of experience, that is the case here in NJ.

[joshs]

IMO an answer might be to legally assault these states relentlessly as constitutional violations. It concerns me that it seems the NRA writes off some states as lost causes (like NJ). I think that ignoring states under siege gives that ilk a tactical beach head. They should be treated as the front line that they are. The violation of constitutional rights never seems to be the will of the people in these states, just the abuse of power by those in charge. I can state from a strong body of experience, that is the case here in NJ.

In my experience, (I've only been in ILA for six years) we don't write off any states, especially California where we still have a lot of members and gun owners. You have to keep in mind that the source of NRA's power is its membership. If we cannot deliver as many votes in a particular state, then it gets pretty difficult to stop bad legislation.

[shane45]

You cant win at the polls in states like NJ. The lib dem inner cities always outweigh the "productive" rest of the state. Additionally 2a issues just don't have much influence here. This allows the Lib Dems in power here to ABSOLUTELY violate the law and do what they want! So voting isn't the way IMO. Legal action and forcing legal compliance is. We have successfully recovered some rights here by going this route. As a side note for an example, at a state hearing on voting on gun laws, the committee first said they would hear arguments AFTER the vote (wait what did he just say???!!!!). After even they couldn't escape the pure idiocy of that approach many members of the committee flat out told our groups "this isn't a democracy, we don't care what you think, we are voting for every gun control measure". This was after we put over 700 people at the capital, on a work day, after they changed the date and time several times to throw us off. The pro gun control crowd was like 12 people.

[Eastex]

Sounds like "trust the law/legal system" but I'm way past pessimistic on that approach. I hope I'm wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shane45]

Not what Im saying. And we have come up against that being contrived as well. However, it has been the tool that has garnered the most success so far IMO. Suits brought against towns individually and the state have been successful. Small gains, but gains nonetheless where there were non before.

[Drang]

I would also suggest that gun rights is not the only issue at stake.

Look at the way California spends money, and allocates money it doesn't have, and may never have.

WA's gas tax just jumped as of yesterday, we are now paying the highest tax on a gallon of gasoline in the nation. Why? Because our commie progressive politicians want to spend money to fix shit that isn't broken.

This is part of why Californians move north, and why Washingtonians and Oregonians cringe whenever a Californian moves in: We're afraid they're going to move the state further into the red to support all the crap they left California to escape from.


(Although TBH, some of this shit does need fixing, but God forbid they should cut spending elsewhere.)

[Suvorov]

This is part of why Californians move north, and why Washingtonians and Oregonians cringe whenever a Californian moves in: We're afraid they're going to move the state further into the red to support all the crap they left California to escape from.


(Although TBH, some of this shit does need fixing, but God forbid they should cut spending elsewhere.)

Which is why when I move - every vehicle will proudly display a University of Wyoming sticker in the window.

[Tamara]

Shilling, from 2013...

Any Californians reading this, please don't take it personally; I'm sure you're not part of the problem.

As some of you may know, California is the state where a Tijuana drug mule can take a break in LA to get that disc he herniated while hauling bales of Sinaloa dope treated and send his kid to school on the taxpayer dime, while the state government vigilantly mans the ramparts at the Nevada border, ever alert for invasive avocados. This demonstrates a shocking lack of a sense of proportion when it comes to threats to the state's economic viability.

Meanwhile, during the first decade of this century, we in the rest of the country allowed Californians to sell their 1br/1ba 750sq ft cinder block cracker boxes to each other for $1,000,000 and then come spend that Monopoly money on the housing market in the rest of the country like it was real cash.

California has border checkpoints because they're worried about invasive species? How do you think Coloradans are feeling about "invasive species" right about now? A generation's unfettered immigration has almost finished waxing Colorado's hairy chest and is about to start on giving the old mountain man a mountain mani-pedi; you have to flee to the far corners of the state to get away from the latte fumes emanating from the statehouse these days.

I think the rest of the nation would take it as a kindness if Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon were to seize those California Department of Food and Agriculture border checkpoints and turn their guns the other way and start shaking cars down for signs of dangerous invasive species, like voter's registration cards and real estate brochures.

[GardoneVT]

The problem isn't that simple, IMO.

I grew up in Chicago back when handguns were still totally banned in-city, and when home rule gun laws meant driving to the range was gambling with your freedom.

It's a mindset issue. Not to pimp my blog, but I wrote an entry about this problem months ago. The reason legislators in CA do stuff like this is because their constituency wants it.

Why does their uneducated constituency want to ban guns? Because they don't know jack about them: or the few folks who do are scared enough to want the laws.

All I knew about firearms before my military stint was what the TV said. To someone whose sum total of gun knowledge is seeing a Glock in a cops holster, restricting something that can easily kill someone makes basic sense. Banning it save for state employees, even more so.

Then there's the folks who know enough to be scared.
Folks like a friend I from college, whose first exposure to gun ownership was when a cheese dick pointed his dad's .357 Ruger at her and dry fired the gun as a joke.
Folks like the first timers who are told about the Four Rules only to see them callously disregarded at the nearest gun shop.
Folks like the people in line at Starbucks getting coffee only to see some fat neckbeard coonfingering his loaded AK .

I can't honestly fault someone with little life exposure to violence and firearms for thinking that letting Joe Public own guns isnt a good idea. The fact many of us try to oppose this attitude with Constitutional citations doesn't help- when was the last time a business tried to sell you something by citing the Constitution that WASNT a gun related enterprise?

We have to fix that core problem of public ignorance about the benefits of gun ownership. No, red dawn fantasies ain't the way. We need to sell gun ownership to Jane Soccermom with the Escalade and four kids, and fast.

Otherwise the antis have already won. It's just a question of time.

If we don't get our collective marketing wits about us fast, we'll all end up old crones watching our kids and grandkids happily vote for banning guns. This isn't a Democrat vs Republican or Leftie vs Rightie problem- it's a public education and social dynamics dilemma.