It's Happening!! Confiscation and Door to Door Compliance Checks

[trikerdon]

Read More

 

[rick benjamin]

Been happening in CALI for a few years.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I clicked it and think that fella is a scumbag for using a clickbait thumbnail.
thanks

 

[trikerdon]

Who is a "scumbag?"
This just started happening in Calif. Check on it!

 

[Certaindeaf]

Who is a "scumbag?"
This just started happening in Calif. Check on it!

clickbait boi.. the fella that made the video

 

[trikerdon]

He has had a youtube gun channel for years now. He isn't "clickbait"
Calif. is as anti-gun as you can get. They just started to have AR'S either made into a stripped down rifle or you have to register them as "assault" rifles. Now they are going door to door to make sure of it. Check it out.

 

[Certaindeaf]

He has had a youtube gun channel for years now. He isn't "clickbait"
Calif. is as anti-gun as you can get. They just started to have AR'S either made into a stripped down rifle or you have to register them as "assault" rifles. Now they are going door to door to make sure of it. Check it out.

Yea, whatever. He used clickbait to get people to click. anyway

 

[trikerdon]

I give up! Talking to you is like trying to talk to a troll on one of my political forums.

 

[Connor Murphy]

I clicked it and think that fella is a scumbag for using a clickbait thumbnail.
thanks

Wait a minute, you clicked on something? What kind of a bizarro universe have I stumbled into?

 

[ob1]

​

 

[RogerJ]

I am not in your area but found out about a recent initiative that will likely be on the ballot. I haven't found any info on this on your site so I posting part of the article.

Proving that money can't buy everything, Washington State's most recent anti-gun ballot initiative may end up being derailed over a failure to comply with mandatory legal requirements, despite seven-figure funding through hefty donations from local billionaires and other big donors.

Under state law, the sponsors of a ballot Initiativee must collect signatures using a prescribed petition format and process. The State constitution requires that every petition must "include the full text of the measure so proposed," which is echoed in a state law that mandates all petitions circulated for signatures must have "a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition." This guarantees that every voter being asked to sign the petition has an opportunity, beforehand, to review the complete text of the measure, so as to reduce misinformation, deception, or fraud regarding what is actually being proposed and supported by the signer. The Secretary of State's Handbook on initiative laws confirms that the "Office of the Secretary of State must ascertain that the signer, at the time of signing the petition, had the opportunity to read the complete text of the measure. Otherwise, the Office of the Secretary of State cannot verify the signatures on that petition."
The group behind Initiative I-1639, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility (AGR), has turned gun-control initiatives in Washington State into a cottage industry, with two previous ballot initiative campaigns. According to the AGR, I-1639 represents its "most comprehensive" initiative in Washington State to date. The Initiative document itself consists of 30 pages of wide-ranging and extensive changes to the state's firearms laws on rifle sales and transfers, "assault rifles," training requirements, gun dealer compliance, age to purchase or possess restrictions, new purchase and transfer fees, new firearm storage crimes, and more. This shows changes to the existing law in the traditional legislative manner, with underlining for additions and strikeouts for deletions.

Each petition sheet circulated to the signing public reads that the "undersigned citizens and legal voters…direct that the proposed measure known as Initiative Measure No. 1639… a full, true, and correct copy of which is printed on the reverse side of this petition, be submitted to the legal voters…" Not only were 30 pages of changes (now reduced to teeny text) crammed onto the back of each petition page but – unlike the original Initiative document – the petition pages lacked any indications, by way of strikeout or underlined text, to show the actual amendments being proposed to existing state law.

Concerned citizens initially raised these compliance issues in June. In their application seeking a court injunction to prohibit Washington's Secretary of State from accepting the signed petition, the court declined to intervene, concluding that court review was "authorized only if the Secretary [of State] refuses to file the petition." In the meantime, I-1639's sponsor continued to use the same petition pages to collect signatures.

The Secretary of State acknowledged that "significant" constitutional concerns had been raised regarding I-1639's petition format and confirmed that the "petition sheets presented a text of the measure that lacked underlining and strikethroughs to explain its changes to existing law," but Initiative 1639 was, regardless, certified for inclusion on the November 2018 ballot.

Early this month, the NRA and Alan Gottleib of the Second Amendment Foundation filed two separate lawsuits against the Secretary of State, seeking to enjoin the certification under state law. By incorrectly labeling the petition information as the actual text of I-1639, the Initiative sponsor violated the explicit, mandatory statutory direction that a "readable, full, true, and correct" copy of the Initiative be included with the petition pages. More significantly, this was also false, misleading, and unfair to voters. Under this "I-1639 bait-and-switch," not only were voters asked to sign a petition containing a copy of the proposed measure that was almost impossible to read, the text made it impossible to distinguish between current law and the changes being proposed. "None of the voters who signed the Submitted Petition had a copy of the actual text of I-1639 on the petition that they signed, and there is no proof that any of the voters who signed the Submitted Petition had an opportunity to review the text of the initiative to be placed on the ballot."

 

[trikerdon]

I'm not in Calif. but what is happening in Calif. could happen here or in Org. if we let it. I was just trying to keep you updated on what they are doing there. Oh well...

 

[Jeedia]

That was 100% click bait. Without sighting a single source he says "door to door confiscation is happening" WTF. If it is happening cite sources and cases. If someone is charged there is a record of that pending. Links are not difficult.

 

[Tarawa86]

I clicked it and think that fella is a scumbag for using a clickbait thumbnail.
thanks

You... actually... clicked....
This is going in my super secret diary

 

[Krinkov]

Yea, whatever. He used clickbait to get people to click. anyway

That's the only reason I started watching. Baited

 

[Diamondback]

I am not in your area but found out about a recent initiative that will likely be on the ballot. I haven't found any info on this on your site so I posting part of the article.

Proving that money can't buy everything, Washington State's most recent anti-gun ballot initiative may end up being derailed over a failure to comply with mandatory legal requirements, despite seven-figure funding through hefty donations from local billionaires and other big donors.

Under state law, the sponsors of a ballot Initiativee must collect signatures using a prescribed petition format and process. The State constitution requires that every petition must "include the full text of the measure so proposed," which is echoed in a state law that mandates all petitions circulated for signatures must have "a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition." This guarantees that every voter being asked to sign the petition has an opportunity, beforehand, to review the complete text of the measure, so as to reduce misinformation, deception, or fraud regarding what is actually being proposed and supported by the signer. The Secretary of State's Handbook on initiative laws confirms that the "Office of the Secretary of State must ascertain that the signer, at the time of signing the petition, had the opportunity to read the complete text of the measure. Otherwise, the Office of the Secretary of State cannot verify the signatures on that petition."
The group behind Initiative I-1639, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility (AGR), has turned gun-control initiatives in Washington State into a cottage industry, with two previous ballot initiative campaigns. According to the AGR, I-1639 represents its "most comprehensive" initiative in Washington State to date. The Initiative document itself consists of 30 pages of wide-ranging and extensive changes to the state's firearms laws on rifle sales and transfers, "assault rifles," training requirements, gun dealer compliance, age to purchase or possess restrictions, new purchase and transfer fees, new firearm storage crimes, and more. This shows changes to the existing law in the traditional legislative manner, with underlining for additions and strikeouts for deletions.

Each petition sheet circulated to the signing public reads that the "undersigned citizens and legal voters…direct that the proposed measure known as Initiative Measure No. 1639… a full, true, and correct copy of which is printed on the reverse side of this petition, be submitted to the legal voters…" Not only were 30 pages of changes (now reduced to teeny text) crammed onto the back of each petition page but – unlike the original Initiative document – the petition pages lacked any indications, by way of strikeout or underlined text, to show the actual amendments being proposed to existing state law.

Concerned citizens initially raised these compliance issues in June. In their application seeking a court injunction to prohibit Washington's Secretary of State from accepting the signed petition, the court declined to intervene, concluding that court review was "authorized only if the Secretary [of State] refuses to file the petition." In the meantime, I-1639's sponsor continued to use the same petition pages to collect signatures.

The Secretary of State acknowledged that "significant" constitutional concerns had been raised regarding I-1639's petition format and confirmed that the "petition sheets presented a text of the measure that lacked underlining and strikethroughs to explain its changes to existing law," but Initiative 1639 was, regardless, certified for inclusion on the November 2018 ballot.

Early this month, the NRA and Alan Gottleib of the Second Amendment Foundation filed two separate lawsuits against the Secretary of State, seeking to enjoin the certification under state law. By incorrectly labeling the petition information as the actual text of I-1639, the Initiative sponsor violated the explicit, mandatory statutory direction that a "readable, full, true, and correct" copy of the Initiative be included with the petition pages. More significantly, this was also false, misleading, and unfair to voters. Under this "I-1639 bait-and-switch," not only were voters asked to sign a petition containing a copy of the proposed measure that was almost impossible to read, the text made it impossible to distinguish between current law and the changes being proposed. "None of the voters who signed the Submitted Petition had a copy of the actual text of I-1639 on the petition that they signed, and there is no proof that any of the voters who signed the Submitted Petition had an opportunity to review the text of the initiative to be placed on the ballot."

Old news here, State Supremes basically wiped their arses on the lawsuit over it.

 

[ob1]

You... actually... clicked....
This is going in my super secret diary

You guys need to get service moles...Sniffy does all my clicking for me.

​

 

[DuneHopper]

I'm not in Calif. but what is happening in Calif. could happen here or in Org. if we let it. I was just trying to keep you updated on what they are doing there. Oh well...

So of course no one will let it happen, but opposed to whats already being done what is your suggestion to " not let it happen here " ?

 

[U8395279]

100% pure fake news. Absolute Bunko. No mention of any sources, and no details whatsoever, such as what city this is supposedly happening in.

Dude, don't be so gullible, that you would immediately believe anything said by anyone on the Internet. Always look for verification from some credible sources.

Do you honestly believe that if this was really going on in California, that groups like Gun Owners of California, the CRPA, and the NRA, WOULD ALL HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THIS POSTED ON THEIR WEBSITES?

Its time to stand back and take a reality check of what this fellow is saying. The California Department of Justice is still working on developing regulations for the new Assault Weapons ban. This was in the news just a couple of weeks ago. So how on earth could California DOJ possibly be doing anything at all, much less doing door to door searches, when there are no regulations yet even in place, defining how the new law is to be enforced? Any new regulations and procedures have to first be approved by the California Office of Administrative Law, where groups like the NRA and CRPA can oppose them. The reality here is that they cannot do anything yet, until new regulations have been submitted and approved, in a long legal review by the OAL.

The guy that made this video is a blatant con artist and rumour-monger. I would never waste any time watching any of his videos ever again.

.

 

[U8395279]

I am not in your area but found out about a recent initiative that will likely be on the ballot. I haven't found any info on this on your site so I posting part of the article.

There has been a great detail of discussion here about this website about this initiative, so it is a bit difficult to believe that you made any serious attempt to look for it.

And it is most highly improper, to quote a news source anonymously, as you have done here. When doing that, you should always provide details on the source of anything that you quote. Not having that totally undercuts the credibility of what you are posting. You simply need to be transparent, and explain where it came from.

Finally, it is considered to be very poor Netiquette, to interject a totally different topic, into an existing discussion thread. That is commonly referred to as "hijacking" a discussion. Instead, the more proper thing to do, would be to simply create a new discussion topic, and start your own discussion thread on that subject. That tends to work much better, compared to mashing two separate discussions together, in the same discussion thread. That often turns into a real mess.