Posted on 09/30/2003 1:04:48 PM PDT by Korth
Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't know the basics of California gun laws.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent appearance on the Sean Hannity Show regarding gun control suggests that he is amazingly ignorant of current gun laws in California.
Hannity asked Schwarzenegger what he thought of the "assault-weapon" ban and the Brady Bill. Schwarzenegger replied, "Yes I do support that. And also I would like to close the loophole on the gun shows."
While the federal ban on so-called "assault weapons" is scheduled to sunset in September 2004, the much more severe California prohibition has no sunset date. The federal and the state law are both based on cosmetics — on the idea that a gun is bad if it has a bayonet lug, or other small features that have nothing to do with the gun's firepower.
Schwarznegger also endorsed the Brady Bill — which never affected California gun sales, because the state's gun laws were more restrictive than the requirements of the 1993 Brady Bill. And these California restrictions are why Schwarzenegger's comment about gun shows was so appallingly uninformed.
In 1989, the California legislature passed, and Governor George Deukmejian signed, a bill that abolished gun-owner privacy and eliminated private gun sales. As a result, every gun transfer must be routed through a licensed firearms dealer, and must receive prior approval from the government. This even applies if a man wants to buy a Christmas present for a friend, or if two members of a target-shooting club want to trade guns, of if a retired hunter wants to give his old gun to a young friend as a college graduation present.
There are a few small exceptions to the California law against private transfers; gifts among close relatives are still allowed. However, the law contains no exception for gun shows.
So, for example, if a hunter owns five shotguns, and decides to sell three of them to help pay for his family's summer vacation, he might rent a table at a gun show one weekend. Under federal law, the man is not in the business of selling firearms, so the laws about firearms dealers do not apply to him: He does not have to fill out federal paperwork, nor is he required to call the FBI for permission to sell a gun to a particular buyer.
The laws of most states, like federal law, distinguish firearms dealers (who are engaged in the business) from occasional, casual sellers (who are not in the business). These federal and state laws apply equally no matter where a gun sale takes place. If you are engaged in the firearms business, then the federal and state requirements apply to you regardless of whether you sell a gun from a storefront, from a home business, or at a gun show. Conversely, if you are not in the firearms business, the laws applying to you are the same whether you are at a gun show, a gun club, a home, or anywhere else.
Thus, the "gun-show loophole," is a fiction invented by the gun-prohibition lobbies. Gun shows are not some kind of armed Brigadoon, where gun laws magically vanish for the weekend. The laws about selling guns at gun shows are exactly the same as the laws for selling guns anywhere else.
In California, where privacy for gun sales was abolished 14 years ago, there is certainly no "gun-show loophole." If a Californian who owns one gun wants to sell it at a gun show, he will have to pay a fee to a licensed firearms dealer at the gun show; the dealer will contact the California Department of Justice, and if the DOJ approves, the sale may be consummated a few weeks later. The same procedure would apply to any other firearms transfer by a California citizen.
So in other words, the "loophole" that Schwarzenegger "would like to close" was actually closed 14 years ago. How much more contemptuously ignorant can a candidate get? Surrounded by high-priced advisers and consultants, Schwarzenegger apparently cannot hire anyone who will explain to him the elementary facts of California gun law.
On The Larry Elder Show, Schwarzenegger said that he thinks there should be a law for mandatory gunlocks. Apparently Schwarzenegger has no idea that California enacted such a law several years ago. It was this law which led directly to the death of two children in Merced, California, in August 2000. When an insane killer with a pitchfork attacked their home, their older sister — who was a trained shooter — was unable to protect them because the family guns were locked in a safe.
If during the campaign Schwarzenegger will not bother to learn simple facts about gun law, what is the likelihood that he would pay any more attention after being elected governor?
California's gun laws are over 158,000-words long (about twice the size of all the federal gun laws, combined). When the California legislature passes a gun bill, the bill often involves technical changes to an already hyper-complex law. A governor making a decision to sign or veto the bill must be able to understand the legal analysis of the bill, and to make his own evaluation of his staff's recommendation. Given Schwarzenegger's willful obliviousness to the easy part of the California gun laws, it is unlikely he could ever make a well-informed decision about the law's many complexities. It seems more likely that he would just go along with his vehemently antigun wife, and sign any antigun bill the legislature passed.
Schwarzenegger does claim to support the Second Amendment, but do Charles Schumer and Rudolph Guiliani, both of whom find their support of the Second Amendment compatible with their support of every antigun law which has any political viability.
Of course most of Schwarzenegger's competitors (past and present) in this recall race haven't been very impressive on the gun issue either. According to veteran firearms lobbyist and activist Neal Knox, Peter Ueberroth "did his best to torpedo all Olympic shooting when he headed the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics."
Governor Gray Davis has signed a string of very repressive laws restricting gun-owner rights. Neal Knox reports that if Davis survives the recall, California Democrats will make a push for handgun prohibition, and may succeed.
The only serious candidate in the California governor's race who supports Second Amendment rights is State Senator Tom McClintock. As demonstrated by McClintock's June 2001 speech on freedom and firearms, McClintock analyzes the gun issue in a very profound way.
He accurately connects the gun-control movement to the "despotic principle" popularized by the 19th-century German philosophers Marx, Hegel, and Nietzsche: "rights come not from God, but from the state. What rights you have are there because government has given them to you."
McClintock rejects this philosophy, and he recognizes the right to arms to be one of those inalienable rights "endowed equally to every human being by the 'laws of nature and of nature's God.'" If a man has "no right to self-defense," then he is a slave, for his "rights are at the sufferance of his master — whether that master is a state or an owner."
Could you imagine Schwarzenegger talking like that? Of him speaking from his heart about freedom, without having to check his remarks with his political handlers?
Arnold Schwarzenegger knows how to pretend to use guns in childish action movies which glamorize gun violence. Tom McClintock understand that responsible gun ownership is one of the pillars of a free society.
— Dave Kopel is coauthor of the new book Supreme Court Gun Cases.
Rush has done an excellent job of staying neutral. I know my Rush, and he is setting himself up for a collasal "I Told You So" (So am I)
I wish he would have taken the strategy of fighting openly for McClintock. He dropped the CA issue pretty much after (R)nold "right turn" press conference that got all the True Believers clappin' and stompin' along with the music. I think he knew that the Celebrity Worship going on might be bigger than his influence to overcome. I think he might have been wrong.
One thing is clear, Medved, Hannity, OReilly et al are truely second tier Conservative thinkers and strategists, as they demonstrate on (R)nold/Tom issues daily...
I'd settle for 50%. Arnold is maybe 20%, and that depends on how the wind is blowing on economic issues that day.
Ray Haynes Endorsement[snip]...Tom was not at those meetings, and Darrell asked me what I thought Tom would do if he financed the recall. I told him I didn't know, but Darrell would have a persuading argument to ask him to step aside, since Tom could not have made it work without Darrell's help. I know Darrell talked to Tom about not running. Tom ultimately decided not to reconsider. Issa is a strong conservative, and was, more than any other, responsible for the success of the recall, but Tom's believed he should be Governor. That was one of the principal reasons (though not the only one) Darrell chose not to run. We lost a solid conservative, who could have financed his own campaign, and got a solid conservative who could not, because Tom believed he was entitled to the Governor's office. [end snip
Molon Labe!
You need to take a civics lesson. Tom has been an Assemblyman and a Senator. Neither has the authority to veto anything. He does have a perfect record casting his votes bad gun legislation.
Go Cruz Go, eh?
My points are as follows:
In 20 years plus, he has the voting record,which in itself does not sway the legislation in this state.For that,you must either be in the majority or hold the executive branch reins.
Therefore,Tom Mclintock must actually win the plurality vote to become the governor, and THEN veto stuff.
He must also work with the deeply entrenched leftist legislature to get anything more than a veto to effect legislation. Simply vetoing stuff for four years may in itself appeal to many, it is not a well managed way to lead, and get things done.
Now, if Tom's supporters doubled, no doubt from arnold supporters, because I doubt any arriana or busty or comeho (sp) supporters will be won over to your side, he may have a chace to win, therefore exercise veto power. So,in effect, what you are asking, is for the front runner in the election, by substantial numbers,to drop out, so that a person who consistantly polls third may have a chance to win.
Do you seriously believe that your brand of political view is acceptable to the majority of voters in this state?
Would you like for me to show up at your door and force you to march down to the polls and vote my way or don't vote? How about if I call you a (fill in the blank)for disagreeing with me, then ask you to support my candidate,you know, the one that is polling a distant third,because almost 80% of the voting block do not wish to vote for him on one pretext or another,
You may have sufficient merit in your views,but wishes do not win elections.In this state,this October, I submit a great many voters, indeed the majority, do not see things the exact same way you do, and will vote accordingly.
Is it right or wrong? Does not matter.It will still happen that way.
How do you change it? Certainly not by belittleing those who disagree with you politically.
I'm still looking for the ONE ISSUE I can agree with Schwarznkennedy on. Haven't found it yet. Go, McClintock!!!
BINGO!
Judging by your attitude towards illegal immigration on other threads, I'm not surprised you're a Cruz fan.
I'm now a one issue voter. Arnold is the issue.
The fact that Arnold is anti-2nd Amendment, anti-life, and has questionable advisors at best when it comes to taxes.(Riordan, Buffett, the Kennedys)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.