How can California outlaw possession of magazines...

[Frank Ettin]

Well, I'm not a lawyer but aren't we discussing ex-post facto adjudication? The Constitution already provides for that, it's felonious.

No we're not. This has nothing to do with ex post facto laws (which the Constitution specifies that Congress has no power to enact -- it doesn't make them "felonious").

Let's have a look at some court opinions on whether a law is or is not ex post facto and why or why not.

So in Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)) the First Circuit told us why the the Federal Firearms Act is not expost facto (at 920 -921, emphasis added, footnotes omitted):

...The Federal Firearms Act is prospective only. That is, under it no one in the class described may be convicted for having transported or received either a firearm or ammunition at any time prior to its passage. In the ordinary sense, then, it is not an ex post facto law. But the appellant contends that it is an ex post facto law as applied to him because it imposes upon him an additional penalty for a crime which he committed and for which he was convicted before the Act was passed. The cases upon which he relies are [Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 18 L.Ed. 356; Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 377, 18 L.Ed. 366, and Pierce v. Carskadon, 16 Wall. 234, 21 L.Ed. 276.

The Supreme Court in Cummings v. Missouri and in Pierce v. Carskadon struck down as ex post facto laws and therefore unconstitutional under Article I § 10, provisions of a state constitution and of a state statute, respectively, requiring the taking of a test oath containing affirmations of past loyalty to the United States in acts and deeds, and even loyalty in words, desires and sympathies, in the first case as a pre-requisite to pursuing certain professions and avocations, and in the second case as a prerequisite to filing a motion for a rehearing in a judicial proceeding of a specified type. In Ex Parte Garland the Supreme Court struck down as an ex post facto law, and therefore unconstitutional under Article I § 9, an act of Congress requiring the taking of a similar but less far reaching oath as a prerequisite to admission to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. At first glance these cases may seem to support the contention of the appellant, but an examination of the opinions shows that they do not. In these cases the Supreme Court held the legislation invalid because it concluded that the test prescribed was not a test of fitness to practice the professions or avocations in question or to file a motion in court, and so that the legislation, in effect, imposed either an added punishment for a past crime or a punishment for a past act which was not punishable under the law as it stood when the act was done. In the dissenting opinions in these cases it is cogently argued that the statutes under consideration were not ex post facto laws at all, but we need not enter that controversy because even under the rule established by the court in those cases, as it was later developed, we do not think that the Federal Firearms Act is ex post facto.

In Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 128, 9 S.Ct. 231, 235, 32 L.Ed. 623, cited and quoted with approval in Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 198, 18 S.Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002, the Supreme Court, after noting that the doctrine of Cummings v. Missouri had been affirmed in Pierce v. Carskadon, said with reference to the Cummings and Garland cases "They only determine that one who is in the enjoyment of a right to preach and teach the Christian religion as a priest of a regular church, and one who has been admitted to practice the profession of the law, cannot be deprived of the right to continue in the exercise of their respective professions by the exaction from them of an oath as to their past conduct, respecting matters which have no connection with such professions". The court then went on to say: "The constitution of Missouri and the act of congress in question in those cases were designed to deprive parties of their right to continue in their professions for past acts, or past expressions of desires and sympathies, many of which had no bearing upon their fitness to continue in their professions."

In Hawker v. New York, supra, a case in which the Supreme Court upheld as valid a statute of New York which prevented one who had been convicted of a felony from thereafter practicing medicine, even though the conviction ante-dated the passage of the statute, the test is indicated by which the validity of a statute of the sort under consideration may be determined. In this case the court clearly indicates that the test is not the form in which the legislation is cast, but its substance, and that if, regardless of form, the statute in substance inflicts an additional punishment for a past offense, it is bad as an ex post facto law. But, on the other hand, this case establishes that if the statute is a bona fide regulation of conduct which the legislature has power to regulate, it is not bad as an ex post facto law even though the right to engage in the conduct is made to depend upon past behaviour, even behaviour before the passage of the regulatory act. This case also establishes that conviction of a crime may be made the conclusive test of past behaviour.

Thus if the past conduct which is made the test of the right to engage in some activity in the future is not the kind of conduct which indicates unfitness to participate in the activity, it will be assumed, as it must be, that the purpose of the statute is to impose an additional penalty for the past conduct. If, however, the past conduct can reasonably be said to indicate unfitness to engage in the future activity the assumption will be otherwise. So, in conformity with this principle, the cases cited above establish that a state cannot make past loyalty to the United States extending to words, desires and sympathies a test of fitness to teach, preach, practice law, or file a motion in court, and Congress cannot make such loyalty the test of fitness to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. The constitutional provisions which prevent the passage of ex post facto laws by either a state or the federal government bar the way. But, on the other hand, a state can make conviction for a felony a test of fitness to practice medicine.

By the test indicated the Federal Firearms Act is clearly not an ex post facto law invalid under Article I, § 9, of the Constitution. Looking at the Act as a whole it is abundantly plain that in enacting it Congress was in no way interested in imposing an additional penalty upon those who at some time in the past had been convicted of a crime of violence. In the Act Congress sought to protect the public by preventing the transportation and possession of firearms and ammunition by those who, by their past conduct, had demonstrated their unfitness to be entrusted with such dangerous instrumentalities, and certainly no one can seriously contend that the test of unfitness which Congress established is irrelevant to this purpose. Surely it is reasonable to conclude that one who has been convicted of a crime of violence is the kind of a person who cannot safely be trusted to possess and transport arms and ammunition, and the fact that he may have reformed or that in some cases the test may operate harshly, does not invalidate the test. Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 197, 18 S. Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002. See, also, McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311, 21 S. Ct. 389, 45 L.Ed. 542....

In De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 80 S.Ct. 1146, 4 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1960), The Supreme Court distinguished between a law enacted to punish past conduct and a law intended regulate present conduct (at 160):

...Finally, § 8 of the Waterfront Commission Act is neither a bill of attainder nor an ex post facto law. ...The mark of an ex post facto law is the imposition of what can fairly be designated punishment for past acts. The question in each case where unpleasant consequences are brought to bear upon an individual for prior conduct, is whether the legislative aim was to punish that individual for past activity, or whether the restriction of the individual comes about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation, such as the proper qualifications for a profession. See Hawker v. People of State of New York, 170 U.S. 189, 18 S.Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002. No doubt is justified regarding the legislative purpose of § 8. The proof is overwhelming that New York sought not to punish ex-felons, but to devise what was felt to be a much-needed scheme of regulation of the waterfront, and for the effectuation of that scheme it became important whether individuals had previously been convicted of a felony....

Rejecting a challenge on ex post facto grounds of the Lautenberg Amendment, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia wrote (National Association of Government Employees v. Barrett, 968 F. Supp. 1564, at 1575 - 1576):

...Plaintiffs' claim that § 922(g)(9) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause fails because § 922(g)(9) is not retrospective.

Plaintiffs' argument that § 922(g)(9) is retrospective is based on the fact that § 922(g)(9) prohibits an individual convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm even if the individual's conviction occurred prior to the effective date of § 922(g)(9). Defendants counter this argument by pointing out that the activity prohibited by § 922(g)(9) is the post-enactment possession of a firearm, not the pre-enactment misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Defendants' argument comports with the decision of United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 894, 115 S.Ct. 246, 130 L.Ed.2d 168 (1994) In Brady, the Second Circuit addressed an ex post facto challenge to § 922(g)(1) whereby a defendant argued that his 1951 felony conviction could not serve as a an element of the offense prohibited by that section of the gun control laws. In rejecting defendant's challenge, the court held:

Regardless of the date of [defendant's] prior conviction, the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm was not committed until after the effective date of the statute .... by [the date of defendant's conviction under § 922(g)(1), defendant] had more than adequate notice that it was illegal for him to possess a firearm because of his status as a convicted felon, and he could have conformed his conduct to the requirements of the law. Therefore, the Ex Post Facto clause was not violated by the use of a 1951 felony conviction as a predicate for a violation of § 922(g).

Brady, 26 F.3d at 291. Cf. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 269 n. 24, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1499 n. 24, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) ("[A] statute `is not made retroactive merely because it draws upon antecedent facts for its operation.'") (quoting Cox v. Hart, 260 U.S. 427, 434-37, 43 S.Ct. 154, 157, 67 L.Ed. 332 (1922)); United States v. Allen, 886 F.2d 143, 146 (8th Cir.1989) ("So long as the actual crime for which a defendant is being sentenced occurred after the effective date of the new statute, there is no ex post facto violation.")....

Ex post facto essentially means being subject to criminal sanctions today for an act performed in the past which was legal when performed. That is different from from being subject to criminal liability for the continued possession of a thing after the effective date of a law making that thing illegal for you to possess.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Aguila, I'm guessing your angle is representation leads to due process, correct?

In part, yes.

The other part is that the law outlaws possession. If you are found to be in possession of now-contraband "high capacity" or "large capacity" ammunition feeding devices, you would be arrested and charged under the law. You would then be tried in a court of law, presumably with the aforementioned "large capacity" ammunition feeding devices entered into evidence. The trial is your due process. If you prevail at trial, you should then be given back your property. Since you would, in all likelihood, NOT prevail at trial, your magazines would then be forfeit as a result of the trial (your due process) confirming that they are unlawful for you to possess.

 

[WeedWacker]

The other part is that the law outlaws possession. If you are found to be in possession of now-contraband "high capacity" or "large capacity" ammunition feeding devices, you would be arrested and charged under the law.

This would be assuming that said law was enacted and the grace period (if any) had expired and you were to be found with said contraband after the law went into effect. I agree.

However, when possessing a once legal item while it is still legal to possess and possession continues into sunset of the law without representation in courts seems to lead to loss of property by command of law without due process unless you are arrested and face criminal charges (possibly a felony). It seems very serious and overreaching to me, especially concerning an item valued at less than $100 when it was legal to possess, without allowing due process with immunity to criminality (or some such legal particulars) where all that happens is the item must be destroyed following arguments if you lose.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

WW --

I didn't say I think the new CA law is fair or just. I simply don't think it runs afoul of due process. First, the law was enacted by duly elected legislators, and signed by a duly elected governor.

Next, as I mentioned earlier i this thread, the state's response to claims of uncompensated taking could be that they didn't "take" anything, owners are at liberty to sell the magazines out of state.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It seems very serious and overreaching to me,...

Here's yet another example of the most common sort of error folks make when thinking about or discussing the law. Bluntly, it doesn't matter how it seems to you. Your perspective on things isn't how the courts will rule.

As I wrote in post 6:

...People think a lot of thing are true that aren't true -- especially, it seems, with regard to legal matters. And unless you reached your conclusion based on a sound understanding of the law and some solid research, there's an excellent chance that what you think is true isn't true -- unless you managed to make a lucky guess.

Most people really don't understand the law because they have not studied it. And to understand the law, one needs to actually study it. Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just by trying to "reason it out."....

There has been an enormous amount of litigation on due process, both under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. So courts have written a great deal about what due process means and how principles of due process apply (or don't apply) in various contexts.

Any useful understanding of due process must be based on those court decisions. While you can sit in your easy chair and think about what due process means, your ratiocinations will not be well calculated to lead you to an understanding of what due process means in law, i. e., how the concepts of due process are applied by courts to decide matters in controversy.

 

[Spats McGee]

Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have Due Process clauses which require "notice and an opportunity to be heard" life, liberty or property" may be taken. There are confiscatory takings and regulatory takings and there's a whole body of law called Takings Jurisprudence in which this stuff has been litigated.

I haven't looked at the law in question, but the body of this discussion leads me to believe that CA didn't actually, physically take the magazines, so it's not a confiscatory taking. So let's turn to regulatory takings.

IMHO, Question #1 needs to be: "Was it a Taking?" Obviously, the State will argue that it was not, and I'm going to play the Devil's Advocate for a few minutes.

I would turn to the Due Process Clause of the A14 for guidance, because that's where the bulk of the Takings litigation has occurred. I would argue that Due Process occurred in the legislative arena, and that every person charged with possession of hi-cap mags, gets Due Process in the form of a criminal trial, as well.

On the issue of compensation, were I defending the legal challenge to this, I would try to frame the issue as a "public health, safety and welfare" issue, and would argue that the State acted under its police power to protect the public health, safety, and welfare when it outlawed those evil, dastardly, high-capacity, death-dealing magazines.

The “harmful or noxious uses” principle was the Court's early attempt to describe in theoretical terms why government may, consistent with the Takings Clause, affect property values by regulation without incurring an obligation to compensate—a reality we nowadays acknowledge explicitly with respect to the full scope of the State's police power. See, e.g., Penn Central Transportation Co., 438 U.S., at 125, 98 S.Ct., at 2659 (where State “reasonably conclude that ‘the health, safety, morals, or general welfare’ would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land,” compensation need not accompany prohibition); see also Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S., at 834–835, 107 S.Ct., at 3147 (“Our cases have not elaborated on the standards for determining what constitutes a ‘legitimate state interest[,]’ [but] [t]hey have made clear ... that a broad range of governmental purposes and regulations satisfy these requirements”). . . . . These cases are better understood as resting not on any supposed ‘noxious' quality of the prohibited uses but rather on the ground that the restrictions were reasonably related to the implementation of a policy—not unlike historic preservation—expected to produce a widespread public benefit and applicable to all similarly situated property.” 438 U.S., at 133–134, n. 30, 98 S.Ct., at 2664, n. 30.“Harmful or noxious use” analysis was, in other words, simply the progenitor of our more contemporary statements that “land-use regulation does not effect a taking if it ‘substantially advance legitimate state interests'....” Nollan, supra, 483 U.S., at 834, 107 S.Ct., at 3147 . . . .

Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1022–24, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 2897, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1992) (edited for brevity)

 

[Frank Ettin]

Thank you, Spats -- particularly the citation for Lucas. The part of the opinion quoted helps us understand how we need to approach challenge to a law like a large capacity magazine ban.

As the Court wrote in Lucas (from Spat's quotation):

...These cases are better understood as resting not on any supposed ‘noxious' quality of the prohibited uses but rather on the ground that the restrictions were reasonably related to the implementation of a policy—not unlike historic preservation—expected to produce a widespread public benefit and applicable to all similarly situated property.” 438 U.S., at 133–134, n. 30, 98 S.Ct., at 2664, n. 30.“Harmful or noxious use” analysis was, in other words, simply the progenitor of our more contemporary statements that “land-use regulation does not effect a taking if it ‘substantially advance legitimate state interests'....” Nollan, supra, 483 U.S., at 834, 107 S.Ct., at 3147 . . . ..

The question becomes whether government had the power to further a legitimate interest in the particular way. So while government has a legitimate interest in suppressing the counterfeiting of currency, attempting to do so by broadly prohibiting ownership of printing presses is arguably outside the power of government as repugnant under the First Amendment.

So the thrust of a challenge to large capacity magazine bans or regulation will need to be that such would be impermissible regulation of a right protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[xcc_rider]

I realize this is the law and civil rights section but the question was "how can California outlaw the possession of magazines", not "how can California legally outlaw the possession of magazines".
It had\has little to do with the law or civil rights imho. The challenges will but not the "how".

The simple answer is,

WE LET THEM!!!

The sad truth is only a small percentage of the gun owners of the state bothered to sign the petition to place a proposition on the ballot to protect our rights.
What that percentage was that voted, I don't know but based on the petition drive it couldn't have been that high.


So we did it to ourselves...

 

[Wyosmith]

xcc-rider is 100% correct.

Here are 2 principals that people seem to forget.

#1. All governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.
Consent is give with every tax dollar.
People seem to think the exercise of rights is free and safe. History and even the founders of this nation prove beyond doubt that it is neither.
Organized resistance is not unlawful. The government will tell you it is "illegal", but that too falls under the principal above. George Washington wrote extensively about this very thing. One of his more famous quotes is this: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

Cowards will do all the can to stay "safe" including censoring those that would set them free. And that is how you loose your liberties.

#2. All statutes are presumed legal until their lawfulness is challenged.

This is the foundation for existence of appeals proceedings in the 1st place. If this principal was to be removed there is no longer any reason for any appeal, and never a reason for a jury. In fact, there would be no reason for open courts at all. Just cops and politicians would be fine.

Yup, the folks of Kalifornia let them do it, and let them do it every day.

 

[jdc1244]

...the folks of California let them do it, and let them do it every day.

Troubling the inconsistent application of “states’ rights.”

California’s firearm regulatory measures reflect the will of the people, consistent with the democratic (political) process, and a republican form of government, regardless how unwarranted, useless, or ill-conceived those measures might be, where the will of the people should be acknowledged and respected.

And the people of California likewise have the right through the political process to repeal such measures; or failing that, those adversely affected are at liberty to challenge firearm regulatory measures in court.

Until such time as the State’s firearm regulatory measures are invalidated by the courts, they are in fact Constitutional, where no Second Amendment rights have been violated.

What’s troubling is that when the states seek to violate other rights and protected liberties – where the Supreme Court has in fact ruled that such efforts are un-Constitutional – advocates and defenders of the Second Amendment are nowhere to be found, claiming that the ‘will of the people’ should be acknowledged and respected.

If the courts have the authority to invalidate measures perceived to be in violation of the Second Amendment, where the states and the will of the people are subordinate to the courts and the rule of law, and discarded accordingly, then so too do the courts have the authority to invalidate other measures that violate the rights of citizens, setting aside the will of the people.

The Constitution and its case law are meaningless unless applied consistently; Second Amendment advocates can’t have it both ways.

 

[ATN082268]

What’s troubling is that when the states seek to violate other rights and protected liberties – where the Supreme Court has in fact ruled that such efforts are un-Constitutional – advocates and defenders of the Second Amendment are nowhere to be found, claiming that the ‘will of the people’ should be acknowledged and respected.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that people, in general, who support the 2nd Amendment have little to no regard for other rights in the U.S. Constitution and are O.K. with the will of the majority that tramples those rights.

 

[44 AMP]

– advocates and defenders of the Second Amendment are nowhere to be found, claiming that the ‘will of the people’ should be acknowledged and respected.

Which makes them what? Human???

Perhaps the reason you don't see advocates and defenders of the 2nd Amendment "defending" other citizen's rights issues is..

1) they don't identify themselves as pro 2ndAM supporters while working for (or against) OTHER issues.

2) Organized pro 2A groups don't have a voice (or standing) in other issues. Doing anything outside of 2A issues is outside of their charter, ethically if not legally.

I think the state of our laws today does not actually reflect the will of the people, but the will of agenda driven political groups, and the apathy of the people in general. In general, I think that we get these laws not because the majority said "yes, do this!" but because a minority said yes, do this, and the majority didn't say "no".

IF, for instance, you want to make it the law that one can no longer purchase and play with a left handed golf club over 23" in length, because it is now classified as a "high impact driver", I'm OK with that, because...

#1) I don't play golf
#2) I'm not left handed

So, since the law does not affect me in the slightest, either I don't vote against it, or I vote for it, because I agree with the sound byte propaganda about how the law will make things better for all of us, or because my PARTY supports it.

AND, possibly because I realize that in the long run, my individual vote doesn't really matter, and the govt is going to do what they want anyway, one way, or another.

CA is famous for their government (at various level and locations) supporting SOME voter passed laws, and tying up others in court challenges for decades.

Want the right to marry your pet turtle? OK. Want to roll back a specific tax? See you in court. After court, until you either get tired (and broke) and go away, or we get a ruling we like.

Other states do it, too. Its just that CA gets more press and is better known for doing it.

My state passed an initiative some time back, to set the fee for our car tabs (registration fee) at $30. So, to comply with the law, they did set the fee at $30.

last month, when I registered my little econobox car, it cost $60. If I had been registering a truck, it would have been $80-120+, depending on the weight class of the truck.

The DID set the car tab fee at $30. THEN they added various NEW taxes and fees (which we didn't get a public vote on) to make up for what they lost due to being legally required to only charge $30. One way, or another, they get what they want, and most people realize this, so they don't fight very hard, if at all.

Some times, we do win, and positive and lasting change is effected. But only sometimes. If more people cared and took a more active role advocating AND voting, it might be more than just sometimes.

 

[xcc_rider]

If more people cared and took a more active role advocating AND voting, it might be more than just sometimes.

That's just my point, if you don't stand up and be counted then you lay down and be rolled over.

Iirc less than a 1/3 of the registered gun owners signed the pro gun petitions. The total signatures was less than half of what they needed to place them on the ballot.

Doesn't matter in the end though, if all the registered gun owners would have voted to strike down the antigun proposition that was on the ballot if would have failed overwhelmingly.

They didn't and it passed.
Really sad isn't it?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

]I think the state of our laws today does not actually reflect the will of the people, but the will of agenda driven political groups, and the apathy of the people in general. In general, I think that we get these laws not because the majority said "yes, do this!" but because a minority said yes, do this, and the majority didn't say "no".

Precisely.

 

[ATN082268]

I think the state of our laws today does not actually reflect the will of the people, but the will of agenda driven political groups, and the apathy of the people in general. In general, I think that we get these laws not because the majority said "yes, do this!" but because a minority said yes, do this, and the majority didn't say "no".

The special interest groups do seem to overwhelmingly drive lawmaking today than the much larger numbers of other people that lawmakers are supposed to represent. In general though, the lawmakers are the ones who vote on laws especially like the ones designed to circumvent voter approved laws on the ballot.

The DID set the car tab fee at $30. THEN they added various NEW taxes and fees (which we didn't get a public vote on) to make up for what they lost due to being legally required to only charge $30. One way, or another, they get what they want, and most people realize this, so they don't fight very hard, if at all.

Some times, we do win, and positive and lasting change is effected. But only sometimes. If more people cared and took a more active role advocating AND voting, it might be more than just sometimes.

Possibly. Most people I know have full time jobs with precious little time to spend with their families, much less trying to also do the job of a lawmaker who is being paid to and should be doing their own job in the first place. But even if you managed to replace all the lawmakers with different ones, what makes you think the end result will be any different?

 

[Koda94]

Ill just throw this out here regarding passing laws reflecting the will of the people. Here in Oregon we now have Universal Background Check (SB941 "passed" last year) that was not voted on by the people. The anti-gun majority knew it wouldnt pass here and so pushed the law under our Emergency Clause specifically so the public would not be able to vote it down.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The special interest groups do seem to overwhelmingly drive lawmaking today than the much larger numbers of other people that lawmakers are supposed to represent.....

We are a special interest group. Gun owners and firearms related businesses belong to and contribute to various organizations, like the NRA-ILA, the NSSF, the GAO, the SAF, etc., which hire professional legislative advocates to promote our interests in state legislatures and in Congress.

...In general though, the lawmakers are the ones who vote on laws especially like the ones designed to circumvent voter approved laws on the ballot....

Very few laws are "voter approved laws on the ballot." The vast majority of laws are enacted by legislatures, i. e., bodies of representatives elected by the voters.

On the other hand, universal background checks are now legally required in Washington State and in Nevada because of laws adopted directly by voters on the ballot. The Nevada law was just approved in this recent election. The Washington State law was adopted a while ago, and RKBA advocates have been lobbying for legislative relief or clarification.

....Most people I know have full time jobs with precious little time to spend with their families, much less trying to also do the job of a lawmaker who is being paid to and should be doing their own job in the first place. But even if you managed to replace all the lawmakers with different ones, what makes you think the end result will be any different?

We elect our legislative representatives, and those legislative representative tend to do what the folks who elected them want them to do. Anti-gun legislators promote gun control because the voters who put them into office want them to promote gun control.

As long as we are ineffective at supporting and getting elected representatives who will support our values and interests, our opponents will be putting into office representatives who will further their values and interests.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As long as we are ineffective at supporting and getting elected representatives who will support our values and interests, our opponents will be putting into office representatives who will further their values and interests.

^^^ And that about sums it up.

 

[Koda94]

Anti-gun legislators promote gun control because the voters who put them into office want them to promote gun control

Are you shur about that? Most of our legislators are voted in because of their stand on many other issues that are much more important to people than guns. Half of America doesnt own guns, and more than half of the gun owners are not single issue voters. The result is virtually all of the gun control laws are ineffective knee jerk reactions from the legislatures already in office....

 

[Frank Ettin]

Anti-gun legislators promote gun control because the voters who put them into office want them to promote gun control

Are you shur about that? Most of our legislators are voted in because of their stand on many other issues that are much more important to people than guns. Half of America doesnt own guns, and more than half of the gun owners are not single issue voters. The result is virtually all of the gun control laws are ineffective knee jerk reactions from the legislatures already in office....

I admit that I oversimplified the situation. It's a lot more complicated than that.

It's true that the vast majority of people are not "one issue" voters. Each candidate has a platform -- an assortment of positions on a variety of issues such as gun control, minority rights, welfare, immigration policy, gay rights, women's issues, foreign policy, free trade, etc. To some extent a candidate's platform is defined by the platform of the party with which he's affiliated.

Different voters have different core, or defining, interests. For example, someone might have a very strong interest in minority rights and will favor a candidate whose platform position on minority rights most closely aligns with his own. He will do so even though that candidate's pro-gun control position is inconsistent with the voter's [weak] pro-RKBA view.

In many ways, in a number of States especially, the RKBA community has severe "packaging" problems as far as available candidates go. Too often a pro-RKBA candidate's position on various social issues make him an unacceptable choice for some voters who are pro-RKBA but also more liberal on various social issues. I see that a lot here -- where I know some shooters who just can't seem to bring themselves to go along with the one reasonably pro-RKBA candidate because of his positions on other issues.

But "packaging" is also an issue on the voter side as well. An anti-RKBA viewpoint seems to go along with what is for many voters the right assortment of positions on other issues. And even beyond that, for some people and anti-RKBA position is the litmus test.

But at the end of the day it's still the reality that we elect our representatives; and those representatives get into office because their positions on a variety of issues, including the RKBA, are acceptable to a majority of voters. If we could have succeed in electing pro-RKBA candidates, we'd get pro-RKBA laws.