All Is Not Lost in California

By Yih-Chau Chang

“Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy.” – Sun Tzu

One might be forgiven to believe that the fight over the Second Amendment is all but lost here in California. In fact, this is a sentiment that is echoed almost universally, not only in the gun rights community throughout the country, but also by our political opponents, who believe that the massive onslaught of unconstitutional gun control legislation that they flood the state with year after year with the intent to gut lawful firearms ownership has been unmatched in its political success.

Any efforts to restore the Second Amendment, many believe, will wind its way far too slowly through the courts to make any real or meaningful difference long term.

Take, for instance, the recent and disastrous implementation of certain elements of Prop 63. The new law required a background check and Department of Justice authorization in order to purchase ammunition starting on July 1st, 2019. One might reasonably conclude that the state government would have rolled out the new background check system, beta tested it under stress, and trained all state ammunition vendors with the new procedures prior to the law taking effect.

However, as has been widely reported throughout the mainstream media, this was clearly not the case. For instance, ABC News reports:

“I’ve had one customer, and I had to turn them away because I couldn’t get into the system,” Don Reed, owner of DGS Ammo & Airguns in Sacramento, said at midmorning. “He seemed a little bit perturbed. … There’s a lot of people feel like they’re being held hostage suddenly — punishing the people who’ve been doing it the right way.”

He was reading through dozens of pages online as he tried to log in, but he groused that “it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure it out…”

“So far it doesn’t work at all. My system doesn’t let me access it,” said Steve Converse, a longtime clerk at Ade’s Gun Shop in Orange, 30 miles southeast of Los Angeles.

Scott Emmett, the manager of the Ammo Bros store in San Diego, said the system was down for the first 45 minutes.

“I sat on the phone for about 40 minutes and no one answered” at the Department of Justice, he said after hanging up in frustration.

Emmett had a single customer by midmorning whose transaction took about 10 minutes instead of the couple minutes it would previously have taken to run a credit card.

“I can’t believe the amount of paper it wastes,” he said. “This one transaction for two types of ammo was almost eight pages long.”

These restrictive rules regarding the purchase of ammunition are certainly far from the only draconian gun control laws that law-abiding California gun owners have been forced to endure. Not even mentioning the hundreds of increasingly obstructive gun control laws that have already been passed in the past several decades, the new governor, Gavin Newsom, has promised to revisit gun control bills that his predecessor, Jerry Brown, vetoed.

But all hope is not lost. While the gun control Democrats have enacted may create the impression that they have been successful in gutting lawful firearms ownership in California, thanks to a narrowly-focused and strategically-executed public relations and communications campaign, legal gun ownership has actually grown dramatically by over 150% in the Golden State, even after adjusting for population growth during the past decade.

According to California Department of Justice data, the number of known firearms owners in California grew from 927,686 in 2008 to 2,516,836 in 2018. That’s a 171.3% increase in just a decade in the most anti-gun State in the Union.

So, despite the Democrat’s best efforts to discourage and virtually eliminate law-abiding gun ownership long-term in California, their efforts were effectively thwarted at every turn. Instead of gun owners becoming a shrinking political base in the Golden State, they have actually grown dramatically in number and power as a voting bloc.

The only problem is, most Americans, even within the Second Amendment community, are largely unaware of this development. It’s the duty of every law-abiding gun owner to inform them.

You might be wondering how this is possible. How did lawful firearms ownership, the one true north of all gun ownership metrics, almost triple in California over the past decade despite the annual passage of dozens of ever-more-draconian gun control bills being signed into law–laws that were specifically designed to openly discourage and criminalize firearms ownership?

What changed?

To answer that question, let’s look back into the history of Second Amendment activism in the Golden State over the past decade.

Ten years ago, the hot topic regarding gun control in California raged around the Unloaded Open Carry Movement.  As a refresher, the State Legislature was attempting to ban the unloaded open carry of handguns and Second Amendment advocates were showing up at Starbucks and other venues all over California in groups with unloaded handguns on their hips in order to protest this bill.

Being the most anti-gun state in the union, this caused quite the uproar throughout California and the buzz inspired an explosive intensity of media curiosity about the Unloaded Open Carry Movement.

Reporters were showing up at each of these Unloaded Open Carry events and trying to interview anyone they could get in front of their cameras. Being a freshman political movement, the Second Amendment advocates featured during these early news segments were often caught off guard and the resulting coverage of these events left viewers with the impression that these gun rights activists were disorganized, not unified, and often spoke out with conflicting messages about their goals.

Meanwhile, veteran Second Amendment organizations like the NRA, CRPA, and Gun Owners of California virtually never spoke to the media and their leadership warned the fledgling movement to steer clear of the anti-gun news networks as well.

These traditional gun rights organizations had learned the hard way—with their quotes intentionally taken out of context and their video segments dishonestly edited or dramatically shortened when compared to the airtime afforded to gun control advocates within the same news story.

However, something had to be done. Law-abiding gun owners had been losing ground for decades and there didn’t appear to be anything that could stop the leftist onslaught against the Second Amendment in California.

According to Einstein, insanity was doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. It was long past time for the Second Amendment community to improvise, adapt, and overcome.

But where would the 2A community focus its change management efforts? After all, it would be nearly impossible to shift the political balance of the state government from an anti-gun Democrat to a pro-gun Republican majority, especially in the short term. And while legal challenges to unconstitutional gun control laws were both critical and necessary, they were slow in moving and simply could not keep up with the pace, quantity, and intensity of the gun control laws being passed in Sacramento year after year. Something else had to be done.

So the only real opportunity left was to take the gun rights message directly to the people. There was always a significant delta between the facts surrounding gun rights and the electorate’s knowledge of that information. It was time to bridge that gap.

Doing that meant gun rights groups had to make an objective assessment of the 2A community’s current PR and Communications strategies, identify their weaknesses, create tactics to address these deficiencies, and then execute on the agreed-upon solutions.

That’s precisely what the movement did.

Like many localized grassroots political movements, the Unloaded Open Carry Movement started as disparate groups scattered in their activism throughout the state.

Law-abiding gun owners all over California were deeply concerned about the state’s plan to ban the unloaded open carry of handguns. Lacking any type of centralized leadership at the outset, they started showing up on their own at local Starbucks in order to exercise their First Amendment rights in defense of the Second.

After a few tenuous encounters with the anti-gun, left-wing media, leaders within each of these groups began to understand that the movement needed a centralized PR and communications strategy. There were simply too many people giving too many different answers to the same questions from journalists. So, the leaders contacted each other and organized meetings with the goal of unifying the movement under the same banner.

Due to initial geographical constraints, Unloaded Open Carry activists unified under the South Bay Open Carry banner in Southern California and Northern California activists came together to fly the flag of Responsible Citizens of California (RCC).

Harley Green, the President of South Bay Open Carry, led the PR and communications efforts in Southern California. Yours truly was elected press secretary for Responsible Citizens of California with Jeff Dunhill acting as the Deputy Press Secretary.

Occasionally, Adnan Shahab, President of Responsible Citizens of California and a Republican candidate for California State Assembly, would also make public statements or participate in political debates on the organization’s behalf.

Eventually, the Unloaded Open Carry Movement in both Northern and Southern California united under the banner of Responsible Citizens of California. Once this happened, all of the PR and communications messaging for the Unloaded Open Carry Movement became singularly focused, concise, and uniformly delivered by the same small circle of representatives.

Responsible Citizens of California’s PR and communications strategy was carefully crafted after long and detailed deliberation. I was elected by the Board of Directors as press secretary due to the fact that I had studied the gun control question in detail for nine years prior to speaking publicly on the issue.

I was intimately familiar with both the peer-reviewed academic studies on the subject as well as those published by gun control groups who funded and cited their own research. I had also conducted a years-long study into the history of the Second Amendment as well as achieved a solid understanding of its relevant legal developments throughout the courts, both in California and on the federal level.

This knowledge would prove invaluable during political debates and press interviews that challenged the conventional thinking on gun control.

Furthermore, Responsible Citizens of California was able to develop a PR strategy that specifically addressed each of the deficiencies gun rights groups faced when confronted with a communications vacuum in dealing with the media.

First off, Unloaded Open Carry advocates knew that they would not be receiving equal airtime with the gun control side in news coverage. So they devised a strategy that would address this reality directly–all of the messaging would be developed and refined to be delivered within nine seconds.

When the PR representatives gave nothing but a series of tightly focused and concise answers, it became difficult to deceptively edit those segments. Reporters also appreciated these short slices of truncated video as they proved to be easy to insert into their news coverage with very little if any editing required.

Secondly, in order to make certain that they were not deceptively edited, RCC’s PR representatives recorded every encounter they had with each journalist and made sure it was obvious to every news crew that they did so.

When meeting reporters, RCC usually had one person delivering the message on camera and one or two other officers recording the entire encounter on their own cell phones or cameras.

Thirdly, they made certain that activists who showed up to these events with an unloaded handgun on their hip would also be relatively well-dressed, usually in business casual clothes. As the one who was usually speaking on camera, I would be dressed more professionally, either with a tie or suit on, so as to reinforce the image of law-abiding gun owners being responsible professionals who were only there in the public sphere to stand up and defend their own sacred civil rights.

Fourth, Unloaded Open Carry advocates augmented their PR and communications strategy with the news media by also leveraging the most popular social media platforms, where they could deliver bleeding-edge political developments in real time.

A decade ago, prior to Trump’s election campaign, it was considered taboo to talk about politics on Facebook. Activists ignored this unspoken rule and promoted their cause openly between members and organizations within the Second Amendment community anyway.

This decision helped to build support for their cause nationwide and allowed them to network with other gun rights and Open Carry groups that were also flexing their political muscle all across the nation.

Finally, one of our most effective strategies was also one of the most basic—RCC representatives greeted and treated each reporter with smiles on their faces and got to know each of them on a personal level prior to every on-camera interview. As a result, RCC was able to develop positive and friendly working relationships with each journalist and this rapport translated into more positive coverage of our movement.

The movement’s messages would be positioned specifically as educational, non-threatening, and delivered in a calm, clear, consistent, and measured demeanor.

The optics surrounding the Unloaded Open Carry Movement also played in the activists’ favor. The gun rights side of the debate was represented by a well-dressed, professional, and diverse group of individuals who were Asian, Latino, Black, and Caucasian. When news cameras cut away to our opponents at the Brady Campaign, they featured a large group of white seniors holding up picket signs while wearing t-shirts and jeans.

Even without an overt, conscious, and intentional contrast taking place in each viewer’s mind, subconsciously, one couldn’t help but to beg the question–which side better represented the demographic reality of California? Which side could most Californians identify themselves with more personally?

Whether one was comfortable admitting it or not, it appeared as if the history behind Jim Crow was repeating itself with the Unloaded Open Carry Movement, where a group of older white Americans were afraid of a growing minority population and were trying to control and restrict their diverse demographic power by attempting to restrict their Second Amendment rights and deny them their basic, fundamental, and enumerated civil right to self-defense.

The fact that this was happening in California, a supposedly liberal bastion of diversity and inclusion, stood in stark contrast to the reality of what was once considered Jim Crow’s racist South. Then, as before, this attitude reflected the positions of Democrats.

As time passed and RCC appeared hundreds of times on camera, not only in California, but also throughout the entire country, and also in Europe. This PR and communications strategy proved to be extremely effective.

Everyday Americans started to identify with the movement and realized that gun rights were really an issue about being better educated on the subject and the gun control side of the equation increasingly appeared to be outdated and monolithic while preying upon Americans’ fears and emotions.

Over the years, even after the Democrat-led California State Legislature banned the open carry of both unloaded handguns and rifles, the media still reached out to Responsible Citizens of California to have the organization weigh in regarding various gun control developments and RCC’s PR and Communications strategy remained the same. Long term, the positive effect inspired more and more law-abiding Californians to become legal gun owners.

And while Responsible Citizens of California certainly represented law-abiding gun owners publicly, there were other legacy gun rights organizations that RCC had close working relationships with in their collective goal to restore Second Amendment Rights in the Golden State. These organizations also spoke very effectively to the press.

For instance, Craig DeLuz, from the Firearms Policy Coalition, was frequently in the news and in Sacramento speaking calmly and eloquently about gun rights. Brandon Combs, from the same organization, has also done an outstanding job discussing gun owners’ concerns in the media. Then you also have Sam Paredes, from Gun Owners of California, who has always been a measured voice when talking to journalists.

In fact, it was because of this close partnership with other Second Amendment organizations in California that gun rights groups were able to defeat every single gun control bill proposed in the California State Legislature in 2010. This was a historic victory–a feat that had not been accomplished in decades.

Together with other Second Amendment organizations, this is how gun rights advocates were able to almost triple lawful firearms ownership over the past decade in the most anti-gun State in the Union, despite the Democrats’ best efforts to reduce and eliminate Constitutionally recognized gun rights long term.

So, as much as there is to despair about in California regarding the erosion of Second Amendment Rights, the Democrat-controlled Legislature has been unable to staunch the one true metric of success—the dramatic growth in the number of law-abiding gun owners in the Golden State over time.

Just make sure to remind everyone about this fact every chance you get. And that as a voting bloc, law-abiding gun owners have gained political power by almost tripling in number over this past decade and should, therefore, not be shy about asserting themselves with this newfound reality at the polls.

 

About the Author:

Yih-Chau Chang is the Press Secretary for the Right-to-Carry advocacy organization, Responsible Citizens of California. He has been featured in all mainstream local press in the San Francisco Bay Area and also in Southern California (KTVU 2, KPIX 5, ABC 7, NBC 3, Bay Area News Group, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Los Angeles Times, The Fred Roggin Show, etc.) as an expert in the area of Second Amendment Rights in California. He also established a national presence with NPR, Fox News, The Daily Caller, Business Insider, Opposing Views, UPI, Yahoo! News, and internationally with various news agencies in Europe. Mr. Chang graduated with a B.A. in American Studies from the University of California at Berkeley in 1998.

Follow him on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/yihchauchang/

comments

  1. avatar pg2 says:

    Laughable pedantry. RIP CA.

    1. avatar Pg2's Momma says:

      You tell ’em, Pookie. Those silly Californians don’t know as much like my snookums. I always tell all my friends that my boy knows more than anyone. You’re the real deal.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Still humping my leg?

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Phone makes the P capital, Laptop doesn’t. Sorry to disappoint you, but I leave the attention getting trolling to the no life losers who use multiple names and follow me, humping my leg, because they have no life.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Good on ya TTAG to take down the fools post who I responded to. So many trolling leg humpers here TTAG.

        3. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Okay, so what in the world did I say that necessitated my post being deleted? It was rather bland compared to so much otherwise seen on this site. I was simply asking why Pg2’s name appears with different capitalization.

          Or does Pg2 perhaps have friends in high places and is pushing a “Facebook/YouTube” method of deletion of comments he/she doesn’t like?

          Deletion of normal (legal and conversational) comments on TTAG is a scary and slippery slope.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          Your post was so stupid I assumed you requested it to be deleted to save yourself from embarrassment.

        5. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          ah…okay. At least your true colors are on display for everyone to see. I still think you’re playing games, but I have better things to do.

          Looking forward to reading your next immature comments in future articles.

        6. avatar Pg2 says:

          Either you or TTAG pulled your ridiculous comment accusing me of using 2 usernames because sometimes the p is capital, and sometimes it’s not. Can’t make that shit up.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      We gun owners in relatively free states ignore the gun-control states at our strategic peril. Brother PG2 seems to be unaware of the SCOTUS cases:
      – Heller v DC, a staunch control jurisdiction
      – McDonald v Chicago, IL the last state to strike NO-issue
      – Caetano v Massachusetts, the 2A is not just for muskets anymore
      – NYSRPA v NYC, can’t take your handgun out of the city
      (While the last of these has not yet been briefed there is a consensus on the holding. The only thing to be revealed is how much damage will be done to the gun control movement.)

      Where do we expect to begin 2A court cases that could reach SCOTUS and win? Vermont? How far do we think we could get fighting Vermont’s infringement on the God-given right of 15-year-olds to carry concealed?

      It is PRECISELY in the WORST gun-control states where we will find the most ABSURD laws. It is precisely such laws that are most likely to be considered by SCOTUS and most likely to be struck down. If every gun-owner in the 42 free states put all his resources behind court cases in the 8 control states we would make more progress than the reverse.

      Tragically, we fellow/sister PotG just are NOT very clever politically nor do we understand the judicial system. We firmly embrace the strategy of the tiger eating us last; a losing strategy so clearly illustrated by the oft-mentioned metaphor.

      The cleverest people don’t hang out in bars; we find them elsewhere. We tend to find them in state/national capitals; they organize in large and powerful groups. It’s very likely that the greatest reservoirs of gun-rights strategy and tactics are to be found in NRA and SAF; whether either organization is actually using its resources effectively is worthy of debate and difference of opinion. One might be squandering its talent while the other exploiting its abilities to maximum effect.

      The OP points out the wisdom of collecting our resources in more centralized batallians. If we are to defend the 2A without bloodshed this makes sense. There will always remain the opportunity to resist should the 2A be abolished or diluted by legislative subterfuge. The instincts of PotG are to divide and be conquered. Progressives sweep their differences under-their-run and consolidate on a strategy of lock-step solidarity.

      1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

        There is a lot of truth and wisdom here. The factor I don’t think you’re taking into account is that the Judiciary in California is shifting. Holding the Senate and the Presidency in 2020 are both critical. Yes Trump is not the ideal gun person if anything I’d say meh at best but if the Judiciary shifts enough a lot of the activism that enables these people will go away.

        If NYSRPA goes well I could see the next target being the handgun roster. It’s EXPLICITLY covered in Heller/Mcdonald because those guns are in common use.

      2. avatar Draven says:

        I *do* understand the judicial system, and i also understand that NY and CA (etc) aren’t going to consider Heller and McDonald until they are directly told by the Supreme Court that they have to. CA legislators are actively ignoring *both* and they are not even a consideration at this point.

    3. avatar Newshawk says:

      “Laughable pedantry”? Then what do you propse, PG2? Anyone can be dismissive with a wave of the hand but unless you have a better solution, there’s no reason to pay any more attention to your opinion than I already have.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      it was never meant to work…that’s the whole idea…..

  2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    Okay, as a lifelong native Californian, here goes…

    This article is a nice try, but lacking. An *Unloaded* open carry movement? I’m only aware of the full *Loaded* open carry movement and lawsuit (link to webpage and donation portal below):

    http://tokeepandbear.com/index.php/the-law-suit/

    Why in the world would we want to beg permission to carry an unloaded gun? It’s only good when it has rounds in the magwell and one in the pipe. You know why our former Gov. Jerry Brown outlawed open carry when he took office back in 2011? Not because of any wrong doing on the part of gun owners…he said it was to avoid confrontations between innocent gun owners and untrained LEOs. Can you believe that?!

    There is a very strong 2A community here in CA, and believe me when I say hundreds of thousands are refusing to comply with Sacramento’s labyrinthine maze of gun control laws. And this new ammo registration nonsense? The lawsuit that’s spearheading the overturn of AB 63 (2016) is moving forward. This asinine law will eventually be enjoined:

    http://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/

    1. avatar Draven says:

      Naah, the UOC movement was a big thing in CA before the legislature made unloaded open carry in areas of over 150k population illegal- so, like… 4 years ago? 5?

    2. avatar User1 says:

      California outlawed loaded bearing of arms in the sixties because minorites were carrying guns to protect themselves. Cali residents could only carry loaded guns concealed with permission.

      So in the early 2000s gun owners decided to bear arms the only way they could. They followed the law as written, which meant they carried their guns unloaded. When they couldn’t carry their pistols they switched to long guns.

      Eventually the government banned everything. Now you need permission to carry a gun in California. You must be licensed, which comes with restrictions.

      The government of California doesn’t want the federal government to require them to handout licences on request. They fear a huge number of gun owners will start carrying the!r guns, which will end up changing the culture of police reliance/worship.

  3. avatar possum says:

    I think as long as the Fed Gov can make money off gunm sales tax and stuff related to firegunms We the People will have gunms. Cigarettes and, booze kills more humans then gunms and it’s all good because the money is there.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      It’s ultimately not about taxing firearms. As long as the people remain armed, they have a chance at liberty. That is a threat to all governments.

      In Nazi Europe, I’m sure there were plenty of people who couldn’t believe that they were to be exterminated because, after all, “they need us”.

  4. avatar Dude says:

    “Being the most anti-gun state in the union, this caused quite the uproar throughout California…”

    Look up Hawaii gun laws.

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Please don’t say that: Proconsul Cuomo-the-Younger will have to try to retake the title.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        He is going for it anyway but if the courts keep inching back to sanity he may get some restrictions he can’t ignore on rights that are supposed to be for everyone and out of the scope for state level laws. Plus with the compliance rate for any laws here it’s just commie dick measuring anyway.

    2. avatar Widdler says:

      👍👍 don’t forget to mention Gov Ige just vetoed bill 748…. Ige vetoes asset forfeiture reform
      By JOHN BURNETT Hawaii Tribune-Herald | Wednesday, July 10, 2019, 12:05 a.m.

    3. avatar Jared says:

      As bad as Hawaii is, it’s still better than CA.

      No handgun roster

      You can still own decked out rifles in HI with no magazine restrictions on them.

      1. avatar Widdler says:

        Up until last year on the big island most handguns were illegal to discharge, you could buy them just not shoot them.

  5. avatar Dan says:

    What’s going on with Young vs Hawaii in the 9th Circuit court? We don’t want unloaded open carry. We need loaded carry.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      So far, it’s upheld by the Ninth Circuit, and by their own previous rulings, they’re bound by any of their own precedent opinions. So technically, all states within the Ninth jurisdiction are now able to open carry (do you hear that, Sacramento?). Here’s the timeline:

      http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

      1. avatar Jeff says:

        I’m not a lawyer, but it looks like the decision in Young’s favor (open carry) was stayed pending an en banc hearing, which is in turn waiting on NYSRPA.

        So probably won’t be settled for two years.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          There was a request for an en banc for reconsideration, but the Ninth hasn’t decided if it will proceed, as far as I know. A full en banc would ultimately be a lose-lose for gun controllers.

      2. avatar LKB says:

        From my reading of the docket sheet, en banc reconsideration appears to have been granted. While I do not see an order granting reconsideration en banc, the Court did enter an order scheduling the case for en banc oral argument (which it can’t do absent reconsideration en banc being granted), but then turned around and almost immediately stayed the case pending Los Supremos’ decision in NYSRPA.

        So, what does that mean? Long and short, 9th Circuit is stalling.

        (1) If, as appears to be the case, en banc reconsideration has in fact been granted, then the mandate (the “official” decision of the Court) has not issued and cannot issue. Ergo, the panel opinion is not binding or precedential.
        (2) The order scheduling en banc oral argument came down *after* the writ was granted in NYSRPA. My read is that this was an easy way for the 9th Circuit to put the Young case on ice for as long as possible — now, they can sit back and wait for the Court’s decision in NYSRPA to come down (the case probably won’t even be argued until early 2020, so a decision probably won’t come until late Spring 2020), and then they can delay things even more by dragging their heels on setting it for oral argument, and then even more by delaying issuing a decision in that case.
        (3) Indeed, as I discussed in an earlier TTAG post on Young, in practice CTA9 could sit on releasing an en banc decision in Young almost indefinitely, as the sole remedy for such a tactic would be to file a petition for writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court (which would likely not be granted unless / until CTA9 had sat on the matter for several years).
        OTOH, if Thomas writes the opinion in NYSRPA and the opinion of the Court really beats on lower courts for deliberately ignoring Heller / McDonald, then I could see the Supreme Court granting such a motion if CTA9 appears to similarly be ignoring the Court’s latest 2A opinion.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      I believe an en banc request by the State of Hawaii has been sought. but the case has been stayed pending the decision in NYPRA v. NYC.

  6. avatar Andy says:

    Mr Chang is in denial. The one statistic he hangs his whole argument on is simply the result of the state closely tracking more gun owners via more invasive means, and closing off all other routes of acquiring guns. Anyone who works in the industry will tell you overall sales to CA are at a per capita low, less than half of what they were in the 90’s.

    I get it, moving is hard but you need to vote with your feet.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      “This PR and communications strategy proved to be extremely effective.”

      Don’t you see? Dressing sharp and speaking calm and short is so extremely effective, that all infringements on the RTKBA were overturned and California is elbowing Arizona out of gun owner’s heaven position.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Don’t you see? Dressing sharp and speaking calm and short is so extremely effective, that all infringements on the RTKBA were overturned and California is elbowing Arizona out of gun owner’s heaven position.”

        Agree with the point of this sarcasm. Looking, speaking, acting like a sensible person is futile. We expand/recover our rights more effectively looking like an unruly mob of raggedy-ass cadets. We deplorables should never shed our image. Public’s gotta know that every scary-looking person they meet might have a gun, and go off on a shooting spree. We get further scaring the horses. That has worked pretty well so far.

        ‘Murica.

  7. avatar Arandom Dude says:

    In California, it is more socially acceptable for a man to insist on using the women’s locker room than it is to own a gun. That tells you all you need to know. It’s time to frak the San Andreas fault.

    1. avatar Arandom Dude says:

      Or just let them secede. That’s probably a better way to do it.

      1. avatar Joe says:

        Perhaps one can hope that the entire state will fall off into the ocean with a few good, long-overdue “big one” earthquakes. They can take part of Mexico, too, while they are at it. California can be their own little, anti-gun, Communist-loving community. Maybe then, those states that have not been wrecked and ruined by former Californians (Montana, Colorado, and now Texas) can breath for a few minutes, until Californians figure out how to swim.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Joe,

          The estimated 5+ million conservative, 2A-supporting gun owners here consider out-of-state people like you who have abandoned us to be as big of a problem as the Demtards in Sacramento. Because of your lack of support for our gun rights and your wish for all of us to secede, leave, fall into the ocean, or whatever, you show yourself as not caring what happens to your 2A brethren who are under attack.

          No matter. We’ve been fighting for our (and your) rights for a long time, and will continue to do so.

        2. avatar Joe says:

          The fact that gun owners have been under attack for so long in California, and that absolutely no headway has been made with regards to Second Amendment rights, should show you that you have far larger problem than some gun owner in another state. Attacking me is not going to solve your problem. But if it makes you feel better about yourself….

        3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          It is my understanding (but I am not a geologist) that it is not geologically possible for even a significant part of CA to fall into the ocean.

        4. avatar Joe says:

          I realize that. One can dream, however.

        5. avatar MaddMaxx says:

          Actually, there are cliffs along the PCH (yeah it’s not all sandy beaches) that could potentially break free and fall into the Pacific if the shake was hard enough, not a very significant part of Ca, but still a part…

        6. avatar daveinwyo says:

          I stopped caring about commiefronia some time age.
          When I do think about commiefornia, I think of saltwater fishing just west of Tahoe.

      2. avatar Newshawk says:

        How about both? Both is good…

      3. avatar Kyle says:

        That would be awesome! CA succeeds and then the central valley marches on Sacramento and burns it to the ground. The only thing keeping Sacramento in power is Washington DC.

      4. avatar Someone says:

        The state’s secession question was solved in 1860s.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          so was the idea of a state splitting in two….

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” in response to Someone:

          The state’s secession question was solved in 1860s.

          so was the idea of a state splitting in two….”

          Actually, no.

          West Virginia was split from Virginia in 1863, and entered the union. The entire affair is a bit curious in that the federal government was offended by several complete and existing states deciding to leave the union, but that same federal government was content to allow the separation of half of the state of Virginia (which the federal government considered to still be part of the union). The only possible rationale would be that malcontents in a state can separate from an entire existing state, but no state is permitted (enforced by military power) to leave the entire union.

          Note that in the case of West Virginia, the existing state of Virginia did not consent to the split. Perhaps that has application today, where certain segments of existing states hold that new states cannot be created from an existing state without the expressed permission of the existing state.

    2. avatar possum says:

      Be careful of what you wish. Fracking will only scatter the roaches, best to have them all in one place.

    3. avatar Pg2 says:

      Same logic in CA…kids with active HepB infection can’t be denied school, but a a healthy kid who doesn’t have the HepB vaccine can’t go to school in CA.

  8. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    I misattribute quotes frequently myself so this is not ill spirited criticism. The ‘definition of insanity” quote has not been verified to have come from Einstein.

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    Its great so many more gun owners now live in CALIFORNIA but they still vote for the left.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Its great so many more gun owners now live in CALIFORNIA but they still vote for the left.”

      Yes, quite a chasm between gun owners, and POTG.

  10. avatar Biatec says:

    I would say the 2nd amendment is like 80- 90% infringed already in general. If we have to pass a background check to buy a gun, have to send fingerprints and pay a big tax and register things like explosives, automatic weapons, and such we are really hanging on by a thread.

    Restoring second amendment rights would only mean repeal of the nfa and any other restrictions on ownership. Assault weapons bans I oppose but it’s not a huge leap. The bulk of our right to self preservation is heavily infringed on.

    In European countries I would say it’s completely infringed on. I don’t care if people still have access to guns in those countries they can’t carry, or defend themselves or train much. It’s treated entirely like a privilege.

    That is what we are fighting at the moment. We are fighting for a right while the republicans and democrats are fighting to make it a privilege they just disagree on how much we should be privileged. This is a philosophical fight. It’s about rights vs privileges.

    Most Europeans I know personally believe in privileges. This is why I think we lost. Trump believes in privileges so do most republicans. There is no party pushing for rights. America has been steadily Europeanizing for a century and I despise it.

    1. avatar possum says:

      Yup, the things the Founders ran from are creeping up on US , and as far as I’m concerned it started with ” the Kings” game. Here in America it’s become that only the rich can hunt and that’s sad because the poor are the ones needing fed.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        You have excellent insight there, now go play in traffic for giving words to one of my worst fears.

    2. avatar MaddMaxx says:

      And therein lies the problem… The U.S. has placed so much emphasis on diversity and immigration that we have immigrated ourselves right out of the picture. We expected immigrants to come here and embrace our way of life and our values, that they would assimilate with our culture, instead they came here in droves and set up small versions of the countries they just left and eventually just lapsed back into what they were before. Now there are more people at the high ends of government who were either not born here or was raised by someone not born here and they are trying to remake the U.S. into a system they are more comfortable with and I believe the end of the “baby-boomers” will open the door to a whole new level of assaults on the Constitution which will be made much easier through the on going indoctrination of the children through the schools, colleges and universities.. Our “history” is being rewritten while we watch, everyone who disagrees with THEM is a racist (regardless of political party) and when they finish writing the “new” history they will go after that outdated rag once lovingly referred to as the U.S. Constitution pounding at it until it is as worthless as any other Restraining Order ever issued….

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The U.S. has placed so much emphasis on diversity and immigration that we have immigrated ourselves right out of the picture.”

        I have a long-held theory that the leftists and ethically challenged businesses welcome unlimited illegal immigration because both factions believe they can control the ignorant masses forever. One current happening may be proving, as suspected, the elites cannot control the campesinos: Pelosi and the Agitated Four. The Four are not going to sit still and be controlled by “those who know”.

        Neither are the illegals.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          I second the notion. The first lesson for anyone migrating to this country is: The gubmint is not your friend. Given that an adversarial relationship gets established right from the start, it’s not likely to wither away with time. Especially true when the immigrant figures out the neither party– Democrat or Republican– has even a small interest in doing anything about issues of race or poverty– they’re billion-dollar industries.

          The Democrat open-borders vote grab is very short-sighted.

    3. avatar FlyingFish says:

      Europeans never had any gun rights. So, they feel no pain when rights they never had in the first place are “stripped” away. Australians and New Zealanders never had any gun rights, so don’t cry when they throw them away. In USA, we have inalienable rights backed by a Constitution that recognizes them, even if it took an Amendment to that Constitution to recognize them.

  11. avatar Pg2 says:

    CA is about to pass a law of its first kind in the nation, unelected bureaucrats will make medical decisions for the public instead of their own personal doctors. Good luck.

    1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

      Top-Down, State-Planned, Command and Control Economics, and healthcare is the Trojan Horse to usher it in………..Don’t you just love “Progressives”?

    2. avatar Dr in Florida says:

      Because politicians are more qualified than your trained licensed and certified (by the same state that undermines our authority) to make informed decisions about your healthcare.

  12. avatar Turd Furgusson says:

    The alleged increase in “known” gun owners during that period is more likely to do with increased registration requirements than an actual increase in ownership.

  13. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “All Is Not Lost in California”

    Nope, 2-3 more big quakes and they’ll forget all about gun “control”…

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Yep. That’s one of the reasons many of us (legally) have our guns at close hand in our homes, vehicles, offices, etc. If/when another big quake hits, civility will be out the window and LE will not be able to handle the massive chaos.

    2. avatar C.S. says:

      I’m sorry, even after Venezuela has turned into a third world ***, the populace still didn’t have the majority balls to vote out Maduro… And you think Commiefornia will be any different?

      1. avatar WI Patriot says:

        Difference being, the “citizens”(hostages) of venezuela don’t have the access to guns that we do…

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          If the people lack the will to even openly carry them in defiance, let alone use them, then the deterrent to tyranny is lost. The end result will be that the people will have to fight a bloody war from behind the eight ball or just bend over and take the last of it.

  14. avatar CliffG says:

    I’m sorry, but if you think in a state of 58 million people, of which a minimum of 5 mil. are there illegally, there are only 2.5 mil. gun owners, you are certifiable. The good news in Cali. is that during the 1990s, before all the gun laws were in place, homicides dropped by some 75% thanks to the end of the crack epidemic. So, you have the weird situation of a problem largely being solved, and the government still pushing for more. Meanwhile, the problems that have been getting worse, homelessness being #1, they just pretend really don’t exist, because law avoiding people just don’t pay any attention to laws. Go figure.

    1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

      California has a higher homicide rate than the US National Average in the present date…….My State, Ohio, has crime rates lower than the National Average, including homicides.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        They’re coming for your vaccination rights in OH. Kids or not, it won’t stop there.

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Um…try 40 million. Even with all the millions of illegals here, no official estimate has ever been higher than 40 million. Not sure where you get 58 million from.

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        2.5 million out of 40 is still 6%.
        58 probably refers to previous electoral votes.

  15. avatar LibertyToad says:

    RE: One might reasonably conclude that the state government would have rolled out the new background check system, beta tested it under stress,

    No, that isn’t how it works. You do not beta test in a production environment. Stress testing is better performed in a test environment designed for that purpose. Also, testing in production statistically only reveals about 80% of the bugs.

    Having said this, it is clear the system was never properly tested–typical government work. Do this in the private sector and you won’t last long in IT.

    1. avatar MaddMaxx says:

      The SYSTEM was not intended to work… The purpose of the SYSTEM is to obfuscate, frustrate and discourage any further attempts at its use… The intended result is fewer people trying to use the SYSTEM and thus fewer viably armed individuals in the Communist Republic of California…

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Having said this, it is clear the system was never properly tested…”

      Design feature.

  16. avatar MaddMaxx says:

    So now you have 2.5 million people with guns who can’t buy a bullet… congrats, keep up the good work…

  17. avatar OBOB says:

    Thanks Reagan you fucked cali twice

    once with your anti gun laws ‘aimed’ at the black panthers, that happened to HIT everyone ELSE in the state!

    then 2! with the illegal alien amnesty and no laws to back so called “employer enforcement” up…all that ‘amnesty did was fire the starting gun for the next wave of illegals!

  18. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Well I look at it this way. Out of over 1.3 million rifles, only 66K were registered roughly.
    I am sure boarder state gun shops will do a brisk business on ammo. Yeah yeah legal smeegle my ass.
    Listen it is cheaper to go in with friends and buy bulk out of state, take a weekend in Reno over it.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I was in NV for July 4th and bought plenty of ammo there. They never even cared that my ID was from CA. Of course, I shot it all while there in the desert before returning home, but I saw absolutely no LE the entire way back. Not a single officer or vehicle. If I had brought any back with me, nobody would have known.

      Makes one think of just how many people are probably already bringing ammo in with them in defiance of our new unconstitutional law.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        They did not even ask for id in the utah gun shop. And I brought some back. And I will next trip, also.

  19. avatar B.D. says:

    Sad that these idiots result to unloaded carry a d have to dress nice.

    It shouldn’t matter. Shall not be infringed. stop compromising with the enemy and stay d your ground … And do it in shorts and a tee if you so chose. With one in the chamber.

    you can sit there and act like you’re winning because the number is increased 150%, but so is the population. So show us the population increase for that same time period.

  20. avatar Draven says:

    One reason for the ‘increase in gun owners’ that the DoJ is seeing is because of the long gun registration that started in 2014. Therefore, a Fudd buying a new Mossberg or a rich guy buying a new double barrel to shoot skeet are suddenly a ‘new gun owner’ according to their computer.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Very astute to observation! Also, remember that selling a gun does not take you off the rolls even though you may no longer be a gun owner.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Thanks for the link, the news is now showing up in SoCal media outlets. So yeah, add gang violence and police corruption to the list of CA issues that trump the need for more gun control.

  21. avatar SoCalJack says:

    I’m not getting this article. As far as gun rights go, it will be over once CA becomes like Australia. US Consritution supersedes the CA constitution. CA has a many more pressing issues to address, e.g. water, homelessness, high income taxes, housing crisis, immigration, earthquakes, education, environment. The extreme far left Dem Gov keep f’n up because gun “control” is their high priority while most of CA voter do not. The moderates and Independents votes will keep adding to the Republican votes. The Dem Gov is leaving an opening for us flank them.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      To stop the California Democratic machine you have to stop the source of funding!
      Let everyone know about the Janus decision so they don’t pay into the unions that will take their dues and support local Democrats.

      https://www.optouttoday.com

      Starve the Democratic funds!

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        I suspect that every person paying taxes in CA (NY, WA, NJ, MA etc) is funding anti constitutional efforts with their taxes and their census bulk then they are fighting them with their advocacy for and donations to pro liberty causes. I posit they they are indeed feeding the beast and doing it because their life is comfortable there for one reason or another and moving is a hassle. That is their choice.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I suspect that every person paying taxes in CA (NY, WA, NJ, MA etc) is funding anti constitutional efforts with their taxes…”

          Indeed….

          Californication Court of Appeals has a theory of jurisprudence that explains the entire modus operandi of the Left:
          “We do not look to the Constitution to determine whether the legislature is authorized to do an act, but only to see if it is prohibited.” – Judge Kenneth Yegan. Concurring: Judge Steven Perren and Principal Judge Arthur Gilbert of the California Court of Appeals (Boyer v. Ventura County et al No. B289919 Second Appellate District Division Six – Published March 18, 2019)

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I’m not getting this article.”

      And I am not “getting” most of the comments.

      The important message (to me) was that multiple pro-2A organizations were able to see the advantage of merging. This runs counter to the conventional wisdom that a bunch of disparate pro-gun organizations cannot build political power (whatever it may be) such as the NRA has. Many comments disparage the idea that smaller organizations can ever replace “the great one”. This article does seem to provide a guide to building a replacement for NRA.

    3. avatar Toni says:

      with this new law it is already worse than some parts of commiestralia in some ways. most places here to get ammo you just have to show your license but no details are recorded let alone reams of paperwork and background check as seems to be the case from what i am reading here in commifornia. About the major difference between there and here i see is semi autos and pump shotguns are still allowed which is no small thing though with the restrictions for fixed mag etc makes them slower than a bolt gun with a detachable mag.
      yes i detest the way this country is going. I detest what i see going on over in parts of the US but like you i celebrate the wins as few and far between as they seem to be. I tried to tell people what these assholes had planned pre 96 before it all went down but i got poohoo’d and “that could never happen here”. Now they are starting to listen…. Starting…..

  22. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “Any efforts to restore the Second Amendment, many believe, will wind its way far too slowly through the courts to make any real or meaningful difference long term.”

    The long game favors tyranny.

    Your efforts with the media are indeed the way to handle that trap. Many groups across the nation discovered this same tactic; albeit, perhaps the media isn’t quite as rabid elsewhere as it is in places like CA. I applaud what you are doing and I would probably do something similar *if* I were stuck there with no way out. However, it seems like the patient is bleeding to death from multiple cuts. Hopefully, y’all aren’t trying to save the Titanic with teaspoons.

    Again, the long game favors tyranny. If your efforts remain butterfly effects and don’t increase with exponential leaps, utilimately leading to belligerently demanding the recognition of your rights, then those efforts will be in vain over generations.

  23. avatar American Patriot says:

    You are Wrong…Calif is a total loss. The only thing that could bring it back to almost total destruction!

  24. avatar SurfGW says:

    California is rapidly becoming 2 States. Statistics about increased gun ownership don’t list locations.
    Many gunstores in formerly pro-gun San Diego and Orange County closed and retailers stop selling ammo. How is that possible if there are more gunowners?
    Meanwhile, rural Central Valley and desert counties stock up on guns before Sacramento bans them.
    Urban areas along the coast are close to gun free while rural areas are tooling up.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      The youth are buying the guns. They live in the cities. They don’t talk openly about their ownership of guns because of the targeting that will follow. There’s a lot more guns in the cities than you think.

      The government knows this. So they make it harder to buy and carry there. They don’t worry about the few old white people that have guns in tiny towns.

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        What is your data based on?
        The youths I know only love guns in Call of Duty and are some of the most anti-gun anywhere. Those that are pro-gun, quickly get rid of their guns when they have children because they don’t want their pediatricians, schools, and neighbors making them pariahs.
        The youths I know think a gun is an accident or crimes waiting to happen and just aspire to pay off their college debt and buy a place in a gated community to be safe.

  25. avatar Ing says:

    Everything the anti-gun regressives do is top-down and their public support is lukewarm at best. They seem more powerful than they are because they know how to play both politics and — most importantly — the media and PR game. They succeed not because Americans truly want them to, but because their organizers are very, very good at playing those games.

    We’ve got grassroots: a hundred million people to draw from. We’ve got passion, facts, natural rights, the Constitution, and the unique American ethos on our side. What we DON’T have is an organized approach.

    If the three largest state/local orgs in each state approached their legal and PR issues like Chang has done, we’d be looking at a sea change. By himself, in a state like California, his impact is severely limited. 150+ pro-gun grassroots organizations using the same effective tactics *everywhere* could crush the so-called progressives like a steamroller.

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      ^This^

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Ing,

      They seem more powerful than they are because they know how to play both politics and — most importantly — the media and PR game.

      I disagree. Gun grabbers seem more powerful than they are because legacy media is ardently on their side and radically opposed to the masses owning firearms.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Fair enough. It’s a lot easier to win the game when the referees practically play it for you.

        We’ve got to be just as organized and twice as good if we’re going to avoid getting skunked on this tilted playing field.

  26. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    [Taking the gun rights message directly to the people] meant gun rights groups had to make an objective assessment of the 2A community’s current PR and Communications strategies, identify their weaknesses, create tactics to address these deficiencies, and then execute on the agreed-upon solutions.

    Sounds like an effective strategy.

    Make sure you don’t suggest this to Mr. Boch: he will blow a gasket and regard you as evil incarnate for being critical, or something.

  27. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    So, California has 2.5 million known firearm owners in a population of 39.5 million. That is a paltry 6% of the population.

    Compare that to my state which has a mediocre firearm ownership culture and 10% of the population between the ages of 21 and 100 years old have concealed carry licenses. And many more people legally own firearms without concealed carry licenses. I would conservatively put firearm ownership at 20% of the population.

  28. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    That ammo law seems like stealth banning by other means.

    Heller decision touched on that, too.

    This seems a candidate for a “Jethroe Crow” challenge?

    (Stealth ban by regulation n implementation, civil rights, n disproportionate impact. Simply filing will make them bonkers, win or lose. Getting the arguments out there in the meme stream will be clarifying, like the D-party “debate.”

    *We* know that the point is a stealth ban they can’t get straight up, that armed self-defense is a right they’re infringing, and these things have disproportionate impact by several demo categories, especially poorer people. *Most people don’t get it.*

    The case is a P R exercise, whatever the outcome. If knly tbere were an interest group membership organization that went after such things…)

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Ammo background check is stealth registration. Part of the bill not yet implemented is limiting ammo purchase only for weapons you have registered —> no registration = no ammo.
      Wonder what they do with T/C Encore or Contender owners. Got rid of my guns to avoid headaches

  29. avatar Will Drider says:

    Population of CA is 36.5 million in 2018 which means 2.5 million gun owner votes won’t change a damn thing. At that “powerful growth rate” it will take 100 years to reach a 50% gun owner population, with normal die of attrition: probably a longer wait. Unless Fed Tyranny starts a revolution, CA will not change and the exodus of dems to WA. and OR. Are already dragging those States toward CA anti-gun levels!

    CA Gov doesn’t care if the new ammo background check doesn’t work. Let’s not forget “To obstruct” is a WIN for them.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Many of those 2.5 million have sold their guns but are still counted.
      Many neighbors are ex-military and had guns until their kid’s schools started telling people to ask parents if they own guns before children visit a home. They just sold their guns to not have their kids be a social pariah.
      Conservatives are discussing boycotting the census to lower the electoral vote cancer in the 2020 election.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        SurfGW,

        Conservatives are discussing boycotting the census to lower the electoral vote cancer in the 2020 election.

        Hmm. Now that is a really interesting idea. I’ll have to ponder that a bit.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” SurfGW,

          Conservatives are discussing boycotting the census to lower the electoral vote cancer in the 2020 election.

          Hmm. Now that is a really interesting idea. I’ll have to ponder that a bit.”

          Not getting this idea, at all. #1, refusing to respond to the census (boycotting) has negative legal implications, #2, the Census will be completed in Sep, 2020, and the results reported to President on 31 Dec. Electors are directly related to the number of members of Congress each state is allotted. The popular election will be over before the Census results are posted. The number of congressional members would need to be approved and allocated, and the positions filled (?) before the EC meets in 2021. The number of Senators will not change, and the new (if any) Representatives cannot be appointed, so special elections would need to be conducted prior to the EC vote.

          And, as to #1, it will be impossible to have enough Census resisters refuse to participate to make up for the flood of illegals the Dimwitocrats are going to claim as a boost to their power.

        2. avatar MaddMaxx says:

          Never mind that you put yourself at risk of a $5000.00 fine and a personal visit from a couple of smartass part time workers carried away with the authority of their TEMPORARY position, like the little shithead that called my home after the 2010 census demanding that I answer the same questions over the phone.. I declined, asked for his name, ID number and personal phone number which he declined… I explained to him that I did not feel comfortable giving that information to an unidentified caller and wanted to speak to his supervisor but before I could tell him I was recording the conversation he blew up asking me if I realized who I was talking to and screamed about all the shit he could do to me if I continued to resist his questioning.. When he finished I calmly told him exactly who I was quite certain I was talking to and that I would be happy to provide him and his supervisor with a copy of the recording of our conversation… Then I terminated the call and never heard from that asshole or anyone else about it again…

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        SurfGW,

        Many of those 2.5 million have sold their guns but are still counted. Many neighbors are ex-military and had guns until their kid’s schools started telling people to ask parents if they own guns before children visit a home. They just sold their guns to not have their kids be a social pariah.

        Rather than selling their firearms, why didn’t those California firearm owners simply commit to lying to visitors who ask whether they own firearms? (And if necessary, create an outstanding hiding place for their firearms, which is a good idea anyway to reduce the possibility of theft through burglary.)

        My recommendation: if any parent asks whether or not you have firearms, reassure him/her that your home is an extremely safe environment for children and that you do not discuss with neighbors and acquaintances your home’s security measures nor whether you have possible items of significant value.

        If a parent seems flummoxed with that answer, explain the following.
        (1) If the public knows that you have firearms, that is valuable information to people who are inclined to steal those firearms when you are away from home and increases the risk that they steal your firearms.
        (2) If the public knows that you do NOT have firearms, that is valuable information to people who are inclined to assault your family when they are home and increases the risk that they assault your family.

        Thus, there is significant risk when the public knows that you have firearms and there is significant risk when the public knows that you do not have firearms. As a consequence, the lowest risk occurs when the public definitely does NOT know whether or not you have firearms. Why? The people who are inclined to steal firearms are much less likely to burglarize your home if they have no idea whether you own firearms. And the people who are inclined to assault your family when you are home are much less likely to assault your family when they do not know if you have firearms. Therefore, you do NOT tell the public your firearm ownership status.

  30. avatar Mad says:

    When it goes hot it’s going to be spectacular guns coming out of shadows everyone shooting at each other cops will go into hiding I don’t live in California but do in the other commie run Oregon

  31. avatar Alan says:

    Having been a wandering Engineering-Design type, many years ago I ended up in California, The Bay Area as it was and still is known. This was in the late 1960’s. Spent a couple of years on the West Coast, California mostly, Washington State too, doing design work and climbing around in oil refineries. Managed to do a lot of competitive rifle shooting in The Bay Area. There was a nice short range course, 200 yards as I recall, Chabot Park, in the hills above Oakland. We also fired National Match Course type competition, 200, 300 and 500/600 yards on the Marine Corps base at Vallejo , and also at Fort Barry, just above San Francisco. We sometimes had to chase deer off the range at Fort Barry, problems everywhere. Remembering, as well as memory serves, California as it was then, compared with California as it is now, I sometimes wonder as to what happened.

    Back then, it was generally accepted that most people in California were from somewhere else, I certainly was, as were just about everyone I ran into, which leads to the following question. Obviously, the state legislature is anti gun/ anti gun rights, as is, it seems, state government. How did this less than desirable situation ever come to pass?

    1. avatar User1 says:

      The people that created California were not good people; they were greedy wealth seekers. That has not changed. A lot of corrupted people from around the country and world come to California for fame and money. Eventually immorality seeps everywhere. I hear during the holidays California empties out and it’s nicer for those few days.

      It’s not like the government of California was ever a good one for all peoples. If you were white it was awesome. If you were black, Asian or native American it was never good and only got worse as the whites lost their domination of society. Because whites are no longer the same supremacist/racist people of the past the government now goes after them too. It has become a state of two classes instead of using racial divisions.

      With all the foreigners/outsiders moving to California it makes it much easier for that small ruling minority to take control of the state and never lose its control over it. Eventually the government’s socialist school system creates more communists that will worship a large parental government. Communism/enslavement is the end game of elitists/statists.

      It seems the states that foreigners move to the most become communistic. If you let a lot of unfiltered “westerns” into your country they turn those places into socialist areas. When you let a lot of South Americans into your country they continue where the “westerns” left off by turning things communist. California, New York, Oregon, Washington, Florida, etc.

      America has to get rid of their socialist indoctrination/school system and filter the people they allow into the country. They have to stop raising statist kids and stop allowing people who support socialism/communism to live in their country.

      Unfortunately, Republicans are closet national socialists who do not mind controlling the populace with their religion. Which means America cannot fix its problem with communism through government action because both parties support statism. Standing armies and police are not supposed to exist in America like they do, but they won’t be going anywhere with the Republican party being what is it.

      Once Americans start acting like Americans instead of Republicans or Democrats government can start to change. When they raise their kids as Americans instead of a socialist or communist society can start to change.

  32. avatar Casdeyrn says:

    And just be aware that as soon as the state thinks there is a real threat of their dominance being challenged, they will start cross-referencing gun records against criminal and traffic infractions, age records and anything else they can think of and start confiscations like the have already done in Maryland.

    There are already facial recognition cameras everywhere. Do you think they haven’t been placed near gun ranges? The Washington Post ran an article just last week when they discovered that the FBI and NSA have accessed state drivers’ license databases and incorporated all of those photos into their facial recognition software. Do you have any reason to think they haven’t done this with prison records? Military records? Law enforcement, government, and first responder IDs?

    They know where you are. They know what you have. They are waiting for an excuse to take them.

  33. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    Oh Brother I never read such a long winded bunch of bullshit in years. This article has to be a real classic and will appeal only to the “unwashed” not anyone with and gray matter between their ears.

    SOME FACTS NO WITH NO BS.

    FACT ONE.
    The California Supreme Court declared that concealed carry is a danger to judges and all law enforcement personnel. They upheld bans on concealed carry while not ruling against former laws that banned “open carry” which effectively prevents people from carrying loaded guns outside their own homes. An empty gun on you is about as useless as tits on a bull when you are attacked out on the street.

    FACT TWO Despite the hot air Republicans often give once an anti-gun law is passed its going to be in place until the Universe implodes some day. Gun control means people control and the Republicans love it as much as the Democrats do. The gun owners have got and will continue to get the shaft in California and no bizarre article like this one will fool anyone who has any grey matter between their ears.

    And as far as carrying a gun empty and openly, I hate to break the bad news to you but the cops can arrest you on a variety of charges such as inducing panic and about a 1/2 a dozen others. I once had a cop tell me this and he rattled off all the charges so fast I almost fell into a dead faint.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      You are not far off. California Republicans are low tax people at heart with pro-gun positions grudgingly accepted for a loyal donor base and to keep the voting block from shrinking below the 20% they held in the state for almost 20 years.
      After Wilson pushed 187 to blame budget deficits and taxes on illegals, the courts quickly found 187?unconstitutional and the Republican Party folded because it ran out of tax issues to rally around; no serious Republican candidate at State level made gun-rights a major platform point.

  34. avatar Ronald West says:

    No person or person’s have any rights to take any constitutional right from the people of any state, the people is free because our forefathers made it that way that no elected government or organization has the power to control or remove the amendments of the people of this nation, they were made to keep America free, and to give the people of America the right too put those that try to take our freedom from us out of this country by any means necessary. No matter who they are.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      “No person or person’s have any rights to take any constitutional right from the people of any state, the people is free because our forefathers made it that way that no elected government or organization has the power to control or remove the amendments of the people of this nation, they were made to keep America free, and to give the people of America the right too put those that try to take our freedom from us out of this country by any means necessary. No matter who they are.”

      Mostly but not quite correct. You are only as enslaved as you allow yourself to be. Personally i stand for what is right and just and fair. I have been known to disregard the law when it is not just and fair and that includes matters of self defense which in my country are highly restricted. Luckily for me because i dont care to go out much (which avoids trouble to start with) and because of my stature (6′ tall and size 14-16) i have rarely had to use any means of self defense as most dont regard me as an easy target. Even so most of the time i keep my head on a swivel which also cuts likelihood of needing self defense.

  35. avatar Florida Man says:

    “After all, it would be nearly impossible to shift the political balance of the state government from an anti-gun Democrat to a pro-gun Republican majority, especially in the short term”
    How much more time do you want? I bet when Hitler asked his scientists how much longer for an “Atomic” Bomb and when Stalin asked his scientists how much longer for an “Atomic” Bomb, they answered we’re almost there, just a little more time. When Truman asked, the answer was where do you want THEM?

    1. avatar User1 says:

      It takes about 15 years to raise a new generation. Then another 15 to get them in positions of control. The problem with that is Republicans are losers and they like it. So, there is no good chance to get Republicans into control, but there is a chance to get people to stop being typical Democrats.

      If the federal government would enforce the law in the U.S. (as it is their duty) things would change throughout the country much sooner than that. However, it is clear the federal government wants to finish the transition away from the Bill of Rights.

      Americans are so passive they will not fight back when the times is up. Technology makes them too comfortable to risk leaving all of that behind for a grave or cage.

  36. avatar IM THE MEDIA! U BE THE MEDIA TOO! says:

    https://www.instagram.com/2020americamatters/

    We see the nut jobs running for Potus and that party has gone full retard on gun confiscation.

    If people vote in any from the anti-gun party to be POTUS then America will fall like Europe overrun with open borders.

    Many people don’t realize there are more gun owners in Cali than any other state.

    But, are they engaged and active and voting out antigun Commies?

    All the gun rights groups in the world can’t do it all…don’t be the problem be the solution.

    We the people are the new media..if u know a gun owner who is not on Social Media show them how and show them the power it has.

    Every like,view,share u get is that many people who may be NOW informed!

    Gun owners are on the right side of things and we have the facts to back it up…the other side just makes up BS 4 the sheep to inhale & we know the average Person does not fact ck news on failbook or other leftist agenda sites.

    IM THE MEDIA
    U BE THE MEDIA TOO!

  37. avatar BusyBeef says:

    TL;DR

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “TL;DR”

      Such proclamation doesn’t speak well of we POTG.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email