From the Trenches
Voters in Sunnyvale, California will decide next week on a strict new gun control measure that has already set off both sides of the debate on gun laws in the United States.
The ballot initiative, known as Measure C, would affect gun possession and ammunition sales. Gun owners would have to report firearm theft to the police within 48 hours, lock up guns at home, get rid of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and provide a thumbprint when purchasing ammo. Gun dealers would also have to keep records of ammunition sales, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.
“Our federal government can’t seem to set aside the (partisanship) and deal with this, so it’s got to start from the bottom up. Why not Sunnyvale?” Mayor Tony Spitaleri, 69, a retired Palo Alto fire captain, told the Chronicle. “Why not Mountain View next? We’ve got to start somewhere.”
The NRA says it will sue if the Nov. 5 measure passes, claiming it overlaps with state laws and violates the Second Amendment.
Of course, it won't count for much until the rest of the state and country follow suit.
So mike, this law will be in direct conflict with the state preemption law. The only difference is is that local police might start enforcing it. How exactly is this different and more noble that the laws that have been passed forbidding the enforcement of any new federal gun control laws?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, maybe it's similar. But, this is a smaller government wanting stricter laws, which makes them right.
DeleteAre stricter laws always right Mike?
DeleteAbout guns, yes.
DeleteMikeb, the committed statist.
DeleteWhy do you think it is ok for states to violate preemption laws? Bad laws be damned, huh?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you just told me that California has the same levels of violence and murder as Arizona, because criminals can just drive a few hours to Arizona or Nevada. But Sunnyvale criminals can't drive a few minutes to go to Mountain View? You don't think local laws work. That's what you always say when you talk about Chicago. So is the only purpose here is to screw with gun owners and their culture?
The fact that you never oppose any gun control measure, no matter how stupid, tells me everything I need to know about your ultimate goal.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the support for a community doing what they feel is best for their community?
ReplyDeleteIt's against the law.
DeleteAre you the one who is always on Greg about promoting lawbreaking?
"Where is the support for a community doing what they feel is best for their community?"
DeleteAnon,
Does that mean you support laws that have been passed stating that any new federal gun laws wont be enforced in their jurisdiction, be it county or state? If not, how are those laws any different than Sunnyvale's?
What's against the law?
DeleteYes, Greg clearly is into law breaking, he said so.
DeleteSo Anonymous, did you support Jim Crow laws? That was the communities doing what they felt was best. How about laws against gay marriage? Laws can be unjust, but you statists will never admit that.
DeleteBy the way, just because you post anonymously doesn't mean that you can commit libel. Prove that I break the law, or admit that you're a liar.
State law says that locales can't pass gun laws more strict than state law. It's called preemption.
DeleteGreg's statements on ignoring, breaking the law:
DeleteGreg Camp November 4, 2013 at 2:39 AM
When the law is unjust, it is no law at all. Home invasions are a violation of privacy, and yes, I call these actions invasions, "legal" or not.
So you decide which laws you will follow, or not? Sounds like breaking the law to me.
________________________________________________________
Greg Camp October 5, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Mine gets carried concealed. And yes, if I ever have occasion to go to Starbucks, it will be with me.
This was after Starbucks asked their customers to leave their guns at home. Seems another example that Greg will defy anyone's rules and regulations.
_________________________________________________________
Greg Camp October 8, 2013 at 6:31 AM
I think the United States should invade California and impose regime change on that failed state.
I'd say that's a promotion for breaking the law.
_________________________________________________________
Greg Camp October 5, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Stupid rules require increasing cleverness to circumvent.
Seems he's actively looking for ways to break the rule of law.
________________________________________________________
Anonymous September 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM
Some people would call assaulting a drug dealer civic minded.
Greg Camp September 8, 2013 at 5:17 PM
Agreed.
I would call it a thug assaulting another person. Call the cops.
_________________________________________________________
Greg Camp September 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM
In an ideal world, beating up someone is the wrong action, but we don't live in an ideal world, and I have more feeling for the friend struggling with addiction than I do for the dealer.
It would be one thing if this happened in front of you, but you said you would go looking for him. Doesn't sound like a law abiding citizen to me.
_________________________________________________________
Greg Camp August 30, 2013 at 8:07 AM
I've said it before: He should be given a lethal injection of boiling lard.
That's not what the law prescribes. Greg has his own ideas.
________________________________________________________
Greg Camp August 27, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Revenge is justice. This man is a traitor and a terrorist. He deserves a far more gruesome death than our law allows.
Going outside the law to get his bloody revenge. Revenge is not justice.
_________________________________________________________
Greg Camp August 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM
When the law makes no sense by banning or restricting something that should not be covered by law, good people don't expect such foolishness or resist the violation. The responsibility lies with the criminal legislators and executives who push these laws in the first place.
Blame the people. They elected these criminals into office. You change law in a civil society, not ignore, or break it.
________________________________________________________
These kind of statements can only be read as the author having disregard for the law, promoting illegal acts, and clearly stating he would participate in such illegal behavior.
Ok, Jim. So are you going to add yourself to this list for speaking support of a measure that is against the law?
DeleteJim's back
DeleteI understand your embarrassment.
DeleteI found out who Jim was reading the archives. I am not Jim, but you keep telling yourself that.
More to the point, you challenged me by suggesting you would sue me:
"By the way, just because you post anonymously doesn't mean that you can commit libel. Prove that I break the law, or admit that you're a liar."
So I did some homework. I read the archives. I asked you guys to give me a name, if you preferred I don't post anon. No response, but my offer stands. I will use any moniker you want me to, it does not matter.
I found out many things reading the archives. Mostly, that the pro gun people that post here are rather nasty. The dozens of posts I read, almost every one had the pro gun guys swearing, lying about, and treating the author of this blog with disdain, not an acceptable conversational debate style.
These are your own words. If you are angry at me for posting them after you challenged me; I understand your response, especially after reading the many posts on how you mistreat people here. I don't quite understand why Mike puts up with you, and if he dislikes what I have done (printing the truth) he can ban me as he has obviously banned others. I am surprised that he never banned some of you pro gun guys, that's his business.
So again, would you like to explain some of your comments, or just blame Jim because you have no response to such statements?
I do know now, who I am dealing with.
Anon,
DeleteAs you might have noticed when I mistook you for a different Anon, using the default name, for whatever reason you choose to might result in you being mistaken for someone else.
While you have every right to choose to not name yourself, you should consider cutting folks a little slack when you're mistaken for someone else.
As for the conversations Mike has here, who he bans is his business, and from my observations he gives as good as he gets. It isn't a one sided conversation here by any means.
"I asked you guys to give me a name, if you preferred I don't post anon. No response, but my offer stands. I will use any moniker you want me to, it does not matter."
DeleteLet's call you Steve.
Fine, any particular reason?
DeleteA rose by any name.................
No idea, but there is at least one famous person named Steve Rogers. *grin*
DeleteI have no idea who Steve Rogers is ssgmarkcr, so I don't get the grin.
DeleteHey, Greg and Mike, are you OK with Steve? Great. That major problem is solved. Thanks TS.
It's too much to ask "Steve" to use the name his mama gave him? But "Steve," perhaps you noticed in those many quotations that I'm not calling for law-breaking, except in cases in which government becomes tyranny. Do you support submission to a tyrant? In other examples, I'm suggesting that the law doesn't allow what would be a morally justifiable response. You should look up the word, nuance, and get back to me.
DeleteSteve Rogers is the secret identity of Captain America. Just joshing.
DeleteI'm ashamed to admit I did not know Captain America's real name.
DeleteGreg, I left my moniker up to you guys. Do you disagree with Steve? I would give you naming rights, but that might cause a problem with TS.
I'll let your words speak for themselves, and await your attorney's letter about the pending lawsuit.
Steve, I don't care what you're called. How about you answer the points that I raised?
DeleteYou said that you did care what I was called.
DeleteAlready answered. I will let your words speak for themselves.
In other words, "Steve," you have no answer. Typical. And by the way, I'm not embarrassed, so let's drop that claim, shall we? You're standing for the state, no matter whether that entity become tyrannical or not. I stand for individuals. To each his own, so long as you never gain power.
DeleteHere we go, your lies start. Your statements show you are a law breaker and discussing tyranny with a law breaker, is ridiculous. Your words speak for themselves and we know where you stand on respecting others liberty, you would ignore their liberty in favor of your own, now that's tyrannical. Of course you are not embarrassed by your statements, you promote breaking the law. You see nothing wrong with breaking the law and entice others to do the same. You have a strong criminal personality.
Delete"Steve" who sounds a lot like Jim and many others who worship the state no matter what it does, you're the one lying. You're the one shoving a twisted interpretation of what I've said. But I've given up expecting gun control freaks to be honest. How could such a person act honorably while seeking to violate the rights of others?
DeleteYour words speak for themselves, and you cannot justify them. Let others characterize your words, I already have. I do not worship the State. I do not side with your kind of criminal thinking. You look bad, so by all means claim I'm someone else. That would some how discredit your criminal expressions. Good luck convincing rational people.
Delete"Steve," my words speak for themselves, but only when you take them as a whole. You're quoting out of context of what I've said and what I was responding to. But since you won't address my points, we can take it as read that you would return fugitive slaves to their masters, hand over Jews to the S.S., and aid your government in violating many other rights. Or do you admit that an unjust law is no law at all?
DeleteSlave and Jews? What are you babbling about? The dates are there anyone can read the context. Those statements need no context. They are quite clear about how you feel and what you would do. It does sound bad, but that's you.
Delete"Steve," in your view, apparently, if the law requires something, you'd do it, no matter how evil. Yes or no, do you agree that the law at times becomes immoral? If yes, do you agree that at those times, it's the duty of good people to fight it?
DeleteYou like to throw around the word evil. I think it is criminal, thus evil, for a person like you to promote law breaking and violence against other people, which is exactly what your words do. Amazing how you defend your own criminality.
DeleteAnytime you want to explain your comments. I'm waiting.
DeleteBy the way, there is only one gun dealer in Sunnyvale. A gunsmith with a small store front. It's kind of mean to pass a law where "that guy" has to do all this special fingerprinting and records keeping that no one else has to do.
ReplyDeleteSounds like he needs to move just outside the city limits if this is not overturned.
DeleteThe man who owns the store might become the very first plaintiff in a suit challenging the law since he would definitely be an aggrieved party.
Delete"Measure C, which asked Sunnyvale voters to approve four city ordinances related to gun safety and the controls on ammunition sales, passed with more than 66 percent of the vote, far more than the simple majority it needed to become law, according to unofficial election results."
ReplyDelete"Sunnyvale Citizens for a Better Community, the group that opposed Measure C, warned that if passed the measure could lead to civil suits filed against the city."
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/11/06/sunnyvale-voters-approve-gun-control-by-wide-margin/
I wonder if the city got any legal advice up front about the state preemption law before they put this on the ballot. I suppose in the next election cycle, they will be asking for higher taxes in order to pay the legal fees for the lawsuits.
I don't know anything about the "pre-emption laws." Can someone briefly explain?
ReplyDeleteMikeb, why is it that you gun control freaks feel qualified to demand laws when you know so little about the subject in question?
DeletePre-emption laws with regard to guns means that a city or county or other subordinate entity cannot pass laws that go beyond the limits on government power set by the state. For example, if the state government says that guns are allowed in parks, a community in that state can't pass a ban on guns in parks. See Florida for an example of this.
Well, obviously the folks in Sunnyvale didn't get the memo. Either that or you're twisting the meaning of that law to fit your agenda.
DeleteMikeb, why must you be so stubbornly ignorant? This is exactly what pre-emption means. This town has to know that it's violating the law, but since it's California, I don't expect the state government to take action. Thank the gods for the NRA.
DeleteFortunately, the court system does work on the Left coast. Another bad law written by ignorant people bites the dust.
Delete"In a setback for gun-control advocates, a state appeals court has barred enforcement of a California law that would require all purchases of ammunition "principally for use" in handguns to be made in person rather than by mail order or on the Internet.
The law, which has been blocked by court orders since 2011, would require buyers of ammunition to be thumb-printed and sellers to keep records of the transactions.
Most types of ammunition are not limited to handguns, but can be used in rifles and other firearms, the Fifth District Court of Appeal said in a 2-1 ruling Wednesday. As a result, the court said, those affected by the law would not have fair notice of whether it applies to their transactions and when they might be at risk of prosecution."
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-ammunition-sales-limit-overturned-4965809.php
Thanks, I posted that one with the observation that the law was overturned for being too vague, not for anything substantial.
DeleteFirearms preemption is a state level law that forbids counties and cities from passing gun laws that are more strict than state law. Obviously, both sides of the gun control debate have differing opinions on this practice. One example of a state with no preemption law is Illinois.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA's opinion is,
"Where no uniform state laws are in place, the result can be a complex patchwork of restrictions that change from one local jurisdiction to the next. But it is unreasonable to require citizens, whether residents of a given state or persons passing through or visiting a state, to memorize a myriad of laws."
The gun control lobby bills preemption as a law that doesn't allow cities to pass laws for their unique situations. Sort of like Chicago has.
But smaller entities within the cities can? No guns allowed in certain places is OK?
DeleteI'm not sure what you're referring to mike. Perhaps Greg's description above is clearer.
ReplyDelete