• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

CA Governor Brown Bans Gun Purchases by 18-21 yo: GRAVE Implications for America

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
California Governor Jerry Brown signed several gun control bills into law on Friday, including one measure that raises the minimum age for buying rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21.

U.S. Constitution: "...the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed." This is an absolute imperative and applies not merely to Congress but to every level of local, county, state, and federal legislative, executive, and judicial branch, as well as to every level of law enforcement throughout our nation.

In response to Obama's January 2013 issuance of 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearms violence, the interventions that might prevent it, and strategies to minimize its public health burden, the Centers for Disease Control and the Institute of Medicine, in collaboration with the National Research Council convened a committee of experts.

They found that implementing gun control which only serves to punish law abiding citizens does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to curb gun violence.

Here's what we DO know (as noted in the report):

- The risk of homicide by firearm is not distributed equally across the U.S. population. Individuals living in urban areas experience higher rates of firearm-related homicides than individuals in rural areas (Branas et al., 2004).

- Both victims and perpetrators of firearm-related homicides tend to be male (Cooper and Smith, 2011).

- In the vast majority of murders for which the victim–offender relationship is known, the victim is a member of the same race as the offender and is acquainted with the offender (Cooper and Smith, 2011).

- Homicides by a stranger, friend, or acquaintance are more likely to involve a gun than those committed by an intimate partner or family member (Cooper and Smith, 2011).

- The risk of homicide by firearm varies by race and ethnicity. In 2010, the firearm-related homicide rate was significantly higher for blacks than Asian/Pacific Islanders, whites, and American Indian/Alaskan Natives.

- Younger populations represent a large proportion of homicide victims and perpetrators (Cooper and Smith, 2011).

The problem with attempting to deny firearms to the latter, Governor Brown prevents the law-abiding citizens (95%) of the latter from defending themselves against the law-breaking 5%. EVERY time governments have taken this approach, violent crime EXPLODES. The clearest example is the UK's TRIPLING of violent crime rates per capita immediately following their country-wide firearms ban. The law-abiding citizens could no longer defend themselves against criminals, so the criminals beat the snot out of them with bats, bars, knives, and yes, shot them with illegally obtained firearms. Their violent crime rate is still 2.4 times higher than it was before the ban, whereas here in "gun-happy America," it's less than half of what it was 25 years ago.

We kept our guns, even strengthening our gun rights, and our violent crime rate is HALF of what it was in 1992. The UK, meanwhile, banned all firearms and their violent crime rate remains more than twice as it was in 1992.

Again, Governor Brown, banning the ability of any class or the population as a whole from defending themselves ALWAYS results in HIGHER rates of violent crime. Furthermore, strengthening gun rights and science-based policing ALWAYS results in lower rates of violent crime.

California has become a textbook example of how NOT to run a state, or a country, for that matter, into the ground.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
431
Location
Planet Earth
Brown (aka "Moonbeam") is just another brain-dead liberal, that group of people that don't realize that only HONEST people obey the majority of our laws. "Criminals" don't obey most laws so any "new" law will likely be ignored as well.:banghead:
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Brown (aka "Moonbeam") is just another brain-dead liberal, that group of people that don't realize that only HONEST people obey the majority of our laws. "Criminals" don't obey most laws so any "new" law will likely be ignored as well.:banghead:
I really get tired of listening to honest/good people obey the law. Good people obey LAWFUL laws. Not all laws are LAWFUL.

The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “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.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

Police officers take an oath to the constitution.

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

So, when the police officer says that state law says you can't do XYZ, refer the officer to holdings of the Supreme Court.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
... So, when the police officer says that state law says you can't do XYZ, refer the officer to holdings of the Supreme Court.
I'll be sure to refer a cop to that XYZ he can't do. I'll let you know how that works out for me after a likely lengthy period of time where I will not have access to a computer. ;)

I suspect that The British Empire, UK, Canada, Australia do not recognize a citizen's right to defend themselves regardless of the tool at hand, or no tool at all. The Empire appears to have a reasonable approach to self-defense. Then again...

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I'll be sure to refer a cop to that XYZ he can't do. I'll let you know how that works out for me after a likely lengthy period of time where I will not have access to a computer.

Your negotiation skills must be rusty. Either that or your local law enforcement has no sense of humor, much less a sense for the law, specifically, "the supreme Law of the Land."

With a little tact and a little persuasion, I've changed a handful of sworn officers' minds on various issues. It's not particularly easy, but it's certainly not impossible. Most of them are, after all, interested in upholding the law while honoring the oath they swore to become a "sworn officer."

But hey, if you're more likely to wind up in the pokey, as you alluded, then perhaps you might not want to refer a cop to provisions in our Constitution.

I suspect that The British Empire, UK, Canada, Australia do not recognize a citizen's right to defend themselves regardless of the tool at hand, or no tool at all. The Empire appears to have a reasonable approach to self-defense. Then again...

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime

Hmm... "The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367)."

Has the British Empire forgotten how to spell? That should be "...both questions are to be answered on the..."

Oh, gee... Look at that. It appears I've stumbled across a reference indicating that The British Empire, UK, Canada, Australia actually does recognize a citizen's right to defend themselves.

OC, I'm not trying to anger you. You did, however, claim that citizens rights aren't being recognized only to provide a link which clearly says they are.

The problem your link raises, however, is one of subjectivity.

In Colorado, castle laws allow the use to deadly force in one's own domicile against unknown intruders with almost near impunity, recognizing in law that an unlawful intruder's intentions may assumed to be hostile. It's rather objective, and if one should find themselves in the unfortunate position of having helped an intruder depart this life, then they can at least have a reasonable degree of confidence that their actions will be supported by local law enforcement. Indeed, since I moved here nine years ago, we've had half a dozen such cases handled in precisely that fashion.

By contrast, the UK's approach is to put every incident up for a subjective vote by jury: "To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive. It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814)."

In short, every time someone in the UK defends themselves, they're not judged by an objective law, but by their subjective peers.

Therein lies our gain and their fallacy. That and the fact they deprived their citizens of the only reasonable means of defending themselves again threats regardless of the threat's strength. That was just stupid, not only on the part of their government, but also on the part of the people for having allowed their rights to be taken away in the first place.

California is merely copy-catting their failed approach, but they're not alone. New York, D.C., Chicago, and others have done much the same.
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
353
Location
Planet Earth
I really get tired of listening to honest/good people obey the law. Good people obey LAWFUL laws. Not all laws are LAWFUL.

And what is likely to happen if a citizen decides he isn't going to abide by a "law" that has not yet been declared "unlawful" by the courts?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
And what is likely to happen if a citizen decides he isn't going to abide by a "law" that has not yet been declared "unlawful" by the courts?
Protest, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are thousands of laws that are NOT enforced.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
And what is likely to happen if a citizen decides he isn't going to abide by a "law" that has not yet been declared "unlawful" by the courts?

In answer to your question, at minimum, a discussion. The next step is arrest, jail, booking, and trial, and unless you have a stellar lawyer, it's a crap shoot as to whether or not the system of justice in your location will follow the law or follow their limited or skewed understand of the law. Even if you had the $2 to $3 million and multiple years it takes to run it all the way through to the Supreme Court, there's no guarantee the law will be held up there, either.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Your negotiation skills must be rusty. Either that or your local law enforcement has no sense of humor, much less a sense for the law, specifically, "the supreme Law of the Land."

With a little tact and a little persuasion, I've changed a handful of sworn officers' minds on various issues. It's not particularly easy, but it's certainly not impossible. Most of them are, after all, interested in upholding the law while honoring the oath they swore to become a "sworn officer."

But hey, if you're more likely to wind up in the pokey, as you alluded, then perhaps you might not want to refer a cop to provisions in our Constitution.
The Supreme Law of the Land? Does Colorado have any form of firearms permitting scheme? Anywhere in the state? Do you OC with regularity in Denver? Will negotiation mitigate all cop actions in Colorado, Illinois, New York State, New Jersey, Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina (my home state), Texas, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Washington State, Oregon, Pennsylvania.

The various SCOTUS rulings have not null/voided the Sullivan Act, nor California's ongoing assault on individual liberty...ect.

Hmm... "The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367)."

Has the British Empire forgotten how to spell? That should be "...both questions are to be answered on the..."

Oh, gee... Look at that. It appears I've stumbled across a reference indicating that The British Empire, UK, Canada, Australia actually does recognize a citizen's right to defend themselves.

OC, I'm not trying to anger you. You did, however, claim that citizens rights aren't being recognized only to provide a link which clearly says they are.

The problem your link raises, however, is one of subjectivity.

...
You state that they recognize then go on to illustrate, quite correctly, that the Empire does not recognize. Which is it?

You, nor any other esteemed member, would anger me. I value all of the member's views and insights. I may know quite a lot, but I do not know all.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
Brown (aka "Moonbeam") is just another brain-dead liberal, that group of people that don't realize that only HONEST people obey the majority of our laws. "Criminals" don't obey most laws so any "new" law will likely be ignored as well.:banghead:

If you think this has anything to do with "criminals", you're being misled.
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
353
Location
Planet Earth
If you think this has anything to do with "criminals", you're being misled.

Of course not ! It's all about "controlling the masses". They just MIS-use the "crime control" moniker to confuse and disguise their true intentions.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Of course not ! It's all about "controlling the masses". They just MIS-use the "crime control" moniker to confuse and disguise their true intentions.

FONTS REMOVED DUE TO GROSS OVER-AGGRESSION OF MESSAGE SPACE:

Of course not ! It's all about "controlling the masses". They just MIS-use the "crime control" moniker to confuse and disguise their true intentions.

There! Now isn't that so much better? I think so!

Seriously, people, get a grip. If you have key info, then highlight the key information and not "EVERYTHING YOU SAY." That's just rude, and please note I used precisely the same emphasis as used by CJ4wd.

Back to CJ4wd's comment (finally, after wading through all the riff-raff, fanfare, and other junk), yes, the left purports "crime control" as justification for gun control, despite the fact that England's attempt at the same resulted in a tripling of their national crime rate.

HOW-PIERS-MORGAN-LIES-UK-Firearms-Ban.jpg
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The British Government did not disarm the subjects of The Crown, the subjects of The Crown disarmed themselves. Shed not one tear for the subjects of The Crown, they are comfortable in their serfdom and servitude.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
431
Location
Planet Earth
That's it's size on the server (https://ryoc.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/HOW-PIERS-MORGAN-LIES-UK-Firearms-Ban.jpg).

Besides, if it were downsized, no one would be able to read the Comparison Between UK and USA Crime Statistics section. ;)

Bull. If somebody is interested enough, all they have to do is click on either picture. The "Comparison" is the same size as the original, just cropped. The main picture is reduced and the chart in the bottom right IS too small, hence the separate picture of it.

HOW-PIERS-MORGAN-LIES-UK-Firearms-Ban.jpg

COMPARE.jpg
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Bull. If somebody is interested enough, all they have to do is click on either picture. The "Comparison" is the same size as the original, just cropped. The main picture is reduced and the chart in the bottom right IS too small, hence the separate picture of it.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.
 
Last edited:

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
431
Location
Planet Earth
That makes absolutely no sense at all.

I put your original picture in Photoshop, cropped out everything except the bottom right corner, the "comparison" and left it the same size. Then I used the original and merely reduced the overall size of the image, keeping the proportions constrained so the vertical and horizontal were the same percentages. This way, if anybody is interested, they click on the image and read what they want.
Easy peasy.
And doesn't take up so much "real estate".
 
Top