California Bill Aimed at Gun Advertising That Supposedly Targets Children

The bill, AB 2571, is discussed here; the discussion is of a proposed narrower version of the bill (the official, broader, draft is here). I just testified this morning against the bill; I was limited to two minutes, so the oral testimony had to hit just the main points (I expect to put together some more detailed written testimony later):

I think even the bill as proposed to be amended would be unconstitutional, for three reasons.

[1.] It would cover fully protected political speech, not just commercial advertising. A gun magazine publisher, for instance—or a gun advocacy group that publishes a magazine—would likely be covered as a "firearm industry member," because it was formed to advocate for use or ownership of guns, might endorse specific products in product reviews, and might carry advertising for guns. That publisher or advocacy group would be forbidden from using cartoon characters even in its fully protected political advertising urging gun ownership.

[2.] Even as to commercial advertising, the law is unconstitutionally vague: It covers any ads that are "attractive to minors," even if they are equally attractive to legal adult buyers. And the specific examples don't resolve the vagueness problem: They are only listed as examples, prefixed with the phrase "including, but not limited to."

[3.] And the law also covers constitutionally protected commercial advertising, such as the use of caricatures of minors or cartoon characters in ads that are clearly targeted at adults who lawfully buy guns that their children could use for legal hunting or target shooting. Indeed, California law expressly allows parents to have their children use guns this way under parental supervision. Parents may well wish to buy guns for their children to use for these purposes.

Here are the relevant excerpts from the proposal:

[This bill p]rovides that a firearm industry member shall not advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.

[The bill r]equires a court, in determining whether marketing or advertising of a firearm-related product is attractive to minors, to consider the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, whether the marketing or advertising:

a) Uses caricatures that reasonably appear to be minors or cartoon characters to promote firearm-related products.

b) Offers brand name merchandise for minors, including but not limited to, hats, t-shirts or other clothing, toys, games, stuffed animals, that promotes a firearm industry member or firearm-related product.

c) Offers firearm-related products in sizes, colors or designs that are specifically designed to be used by, or appeal to, minors.

d) Is part of a marketing or advertising campaign designed with the intent to appeal to minors.

e) Uses images or depictions of minors in advertising and marketing materials to depict the use of firearm-related products.

f) Is placed in a publication created for the purpose of reaching an audience that is predominately comprised of minors and not intended for a more general audience comprised of adults….

"Firearm industry member" shall mean one of the following:

i) A person, firm, corporation, company, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity or association engaged in the manufacture, distribution, importation, marketing, wholesale, or retail sale of firearm-related products.

ii) A person, firm, corporation, company, partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other entity or association formed for the express purpose of promoting, encouraging, or advocating for the purchase, use, or ownership of firearm-related products that does one of the following:

A) Advertises firearm-related products.

B) Advertises events where firearm-related products are sold or used.

C) Endorses specific firearm-related products.

D) Sponsors or otherwise promotes events at which firearm-related products are sold or used.

Comments

[Dilan Esper]

It’s an unanswered question (the tobacco settlements were obviously First Amendment waivers), but I think the cartoon characters provision could pass First Amendment muster if limited to advertisements promoting the sale of guns or ammunition. I think the commercial speech doctrine would have some effect here- such a regulation, if limited to advertisements, need only satisfy the Central Hudson test.

[DaivdBehar]

Gun safety should be taught in high school, as driver ed is. All law abiding adults should conceal carry and be fined $100 if they fail to fire on a violent criminal.

[shawn_dude]

Gun safety should be taught in high school, as sex ed is in red states–abstinence only.

[AmosArch]

I think thats a reasonable compromise. A minimum age to own guns and no need for complicated consent rules from others to do so. Good idea.

[Clayton Cramer]

I live in Idaho. Our sex ed classes (at least when our son was in high school) taught what Santa Rosa, Cal. schools did: abstinence BEST. You ignorance is leading you down the path a Republican majority of both Houses.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Gun safety should be taught in high school, as sex ed is in red states–abstinence only.

Is being ignorant your super power?

[Longtobefree]

An infringement is an infringement, and all violate the US Constitution.

[Frank Drackman]

No Red Ryder, carbine action, 200-shot, range model air rifle, with a compass for Ralphie this Christmas, He’ll put his eye out!

[Halt and Catch Fire]

Would this make all NRA ‘Eddie Eagle’ firearm safety materials and products illegal in California?

See https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

A cartoon character, designed to appeal to children, promoting a firearm-related message (but not a product, unless you consider the safety program itself a product), produced and distributed by the NRA, certainly an entity covered under the description of a ‘Firearm Industry Member’ and one that does promote firearms and firearm related products…

[Dilan Esper]

You indicated yourself why it doesn’t apply- Eddie Eagle promotes gun safety, not guns.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Don’ be so naive, don’t even pretend it. It’s no stretch at all to say that the only reason for promoting gun safety for children is to sell more guns to children.

[AmosArch]

Yup, nobody needs gun safety unless they want to buy a gun. Just ask Alec Baldwin!

[Don Nico]

Touché.

[santamonica811]

Off-topic: How did you add the accent mark above the “e”? (ie, Is there a keystroke for this? Or does one need to cut-and-paste?)

[Brett Bellmore]

Spell check will do that for you. Touché!

[BadLib]

Depending on the operating system, web site and the application, there are several ways to insert characters from the extended ASCII set where this character lives. A list of such characters can be found here (note that there are variations on the extended ASCII code set). There are a few other useful characters to be found there (such as ©, ®, ±, ¼, ½, ¾, ¢, £, ¶) in addition to those meeting your grave, acute, circumflex, tilde, diaeresis, etc. needs.

If the site supports it, entering the ‘HTML Name’ for the character is probably the easiest. I’m not sure if Reason supports HTML names in comments (and it doesn’t support preview or have a “sandbox” that I’m aware of so I have to commit to trying it for all to see – success or failure). The HTML code for é is (delete the spaces):
& eacute ;
or if this site supports HTML names, just:
é

Or the site supports (again, not sure if this site supports it) it, you can enter the ‘HTML Number’. The HTML number for é is (delete the spaces):
& #233 ;
or if this site supports HTML names, just:
é

If you’re on Windows (and the application doesn’t get ‘in the way’ – emacs does, Firefox does not), you can set NUMLOCK on and using the numbers on the numeric keypad (rather than the ones across the top row), hold down the ALT key while typing the four digits 0233 (the decimal ASCII code) and then let up the ALT key (nothing will appear while typing the digits, the desired character should appear when you let up the ALT key).

One can (although this is cut and pasting which was not desired apparently) on at least Win 8.1 open the Character Map (can be found by [WINDOWS]S and typing ‘CHARACTER MAP’ and selecting the app that matches that name). Then find the character(s) you want (perhaps using the filtering by checking the ‘Advanced view’ box), selecting them via the SELECT button and then clicking on ‘Copy’ and (of course) paste them wherever you want.

Of course, the web page you’re commenting on needs to use (or at least offer) a font that has your desired characters in it. Most of the common ones will have most of the symbols commonly used that match your intentions but note that the “input” font is not necessary the “display” font used to show your comment so, on sites that offer a preview button, check.

And emojis (from Unicode so outside the extended ASCII set) may look quite different depending on the viewer’s platform and the font. For example a ☎ will look rather different to users in different environments (some get a dial phone, some will get a touch tone, some get a red phone possibly implying the ‘doomsday’ phone, others may see a black or turquoise phone). Similarly, a ‘pile of poo’ (????) will look quite different to different users (some see “happy poo”, some see flies around the pile, some will see an editorially bland pile of poo).

[BadLib]

Okay, for whatever reason, (perhaps user error) my attempt to use HTML Names to show the exact text to use when using HTML Numbers to show the character didn’t work (and ended up with the targeted character itself)

(Trying again in case it was a user error:
é
)

And, no poo at least in my environment, in the font used by Reason to display comments!

[Hey Skipper]

If you are using a Mac, holding the key down for a second brings up a selection of diacritical options for that character.

Then either click on the desired option, or type its number.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The bill specifically applies to communications that “market or advertise” actual “firearm[s], ammunition, or reloaded ammunition”, not communications that could increase interest in them.

The actual law is plenty unconstitutional as is; there’s no need for strawmen.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

It’s not a strawman. It’s just a typical example of how politicians and statists stretch everything they can so as to bring it under government control.

[shawn_dude]

And here I was agreeing with your earlier comment, but from the opposite direction–using instructional communications as a sly form of marketing. Tobacco companies do this.

“Before yout have a LOT OF FUN with this brand new blue lightening .22 rifle, make sure follow these simple instructions for loading ‘er up and getting ready to shoot your favorite target!”

[David Nieporent]

I’m not clear why you think that “communications that increase interest” in firearms would not constitute “marketing” of firearms.

[DonP]

OMG! “Stop, Leave the area, Tell an adult” is gun selling? You are quickly approaching the density of depleted uranium. If you don’t know, and obviously have never seen the subject, shut your pie hole before you shame yourself again.

[Clayton Cramer]

So doing so to prevent accidental deaths by kids who do not realize that they are holding a gun, not a toy, is not a good reason?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You indicated yourself why it doesn’t apply- Eddie Eagle promotes gun safety, not guns.

So you’re saying that the VPC and other similar groups saying similar things are a bunch of lying liars?: https://vpc.org/investigating-the-gun-lobby/eddie-eagle/

[TwelveInchPianist]

Eddie Eagle, or as the Violence Policy Center calls him, Joe Camel with feathers.

[AmosArch]

Eddie Eagle is bannable that would set a pretty big precedent to start carving off a lot more of the first amendment since people would start going around and finding commercial connections to whatever political speech they don’t like. We would be able to start banning all the woke advertising campaigns that might appeal to children. Hey maybe you guys are on to something.

[shawn_dude]

Does Eddie Eagle also have a male phallus for a face like Joe Camel?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Does Eddie Eagle also have a male phallus for a face like Joe Camel?

Atta’ boy, come on out of that closet.

[Bubba Jones]

The video game industry is in deep shit.

[dwb68]

The will just relocate out of California. People are going to demand their cool guns in Call of Duty MCMXII

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you perhaps unclear about how silly it is to expect the avowed enemies of one constitutional right to respect another?

The whole point here is to infringe an explicit constitutional right. So we already have established out of the starting gate that we’re dealing with people who don’t care about constitutional rights!

[Dilan Esper]

There’s no right to sell guns in the Constitution, “explicit” or otherwise. You made that up (ironic, given you are always accusing others of making up rights).

Indeed, one implication of the militia language in the Second Amendment is that the government could take it upon itself to arm the populace.

[DWB]

Is there a right to sell books in your constitution?

[Rossami]

By that logic, it’s not an infringement of the First Amendment if we require all printing presses to be licensed or outlaw the sale of all pens, pencils, crayons, paintbrushes, typewriters and computers.

In fact, there is a right to sell guns in the Constitution. It’s inherent in the right to have guns since you have to be able to buy them before you can have them. And that means someone must be allowed to sell them.

Okay, yes, there is a recent Ninth Circuit decision (which SCOTUS declined to take up on appeal) that says there is a right to buy guns but no independent right to sell guns – but that decision was made in the context of a zoning decision – a gun store that sought a license to open and was denied because there were already 10 gun stores in the area. I think the dissent had the better argument in that decision but even if you fully agree with the majority, it would not apply to the situation above.

[Brett Bellmore]

That’s the sort of reasoning only somebody who wants to render a right moot engages in.

“Freedom of the press doesn’t imply any right to buy or sell books, or paper or ink! ” How would that be any different? Do you think the government can shut down publishers by banning the sale of the supplies they need?

Yes, the government could take it upon itself to arm the populace. What it can’t do is prevent the populace from being armed. Not by ANY transparent gimmick.

[Dilan Esper]

Wow, you guys are quick to rush to penumbras and emanations!

But no, a clause that refers to “well regulated militia” does not imply a right to traffic in arms for profit simply because another clause that refers to “freedom of the press” (newspapers, of course, were sold in the private sector) implies a right to traffic in speech.

And as I said, the hypocrisy is rank. You guys are constantly crapping on liberals. “Abortion is not in the Constitution. Penumbras and emanations, hah hah.” The BS you guys believe in is no more in the Constitution than abortion is. You need to do some inference and construction and social policy to get your rights, just as you do to get rights you don’t like.

[AmosArch]

I can find the right to bear arms written in ink in the constitution. Because of this I can argue that the infrastructure necessary to bear arms is included. Show me where the right to an abortion is in the constitution explicitly in ink. You need an extra step to invent it or assume it first. Thats the difference.

You really don’t understand this or are you just playing dumb?

[Brett Bellmore]

“But no, a clause that refers to “well regulated militia””

And also states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As I say, this is the sort of reasoning nobody who didn’t want to violate a right would engage in for an instant. You’re not fooling anyone.

[Dilan Esper]

LOL, Brett. You and the others are just weaseling here.

The fact of the matter is that the Constitution DOES NOT SAY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUY OR SELL A GUN. If you want to argue it’s in the penumbra of the Second Amendment, you can argue that- in fact, it’s a reasonably good argument, although there are counters (that as long as the government ensures availability of guns, private commerce can be banned or restricted). But IT’S NOT A TEXTUAL ONE. There is literally NOT ONE WORD ABOUT SELLING GUNS IN THE CONSTITUTION. Not a word. You made it up and called it “explicit”.

And, trapped, you don’t want to admit this, because then you would have to admit that your entire line against liberal interpretations is something you don’t actually believe in. That in fact, you believe in rights not stated in the Constitution too. That you believe that specific protections can be found in penumbras, and that a specifically right can be recognized as necessary to secure a more general concept. And then we’re just haggling over price, as Churchill might say.

[Brett Bellmore]

In terms of literal interpretation, I take that “shall not be infringed” literally.

Infringe: “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on”

You don’t infringe a right when you finish obliterating it. You infringe a right when you first start encroaching upon it, limiting or undermining it.

This, of course, is a right you WANT infringed, so you’re playing silly games you’d never tolerate with a right you wanted intact.

[StellaLink_the dog]

“This, of course, is a right you WANT infringed, so you’re playing silly games you’d never tolerate with a right you wanted intact.”

Do you not want the right to bear arms to be infringed in any way? I know your nuts, but are you that nuts?

[DWB]

Without due process of law???? You’re damn right!!!!

[Brett Bellmore]

What I want is for it to be treated in the manner real, enumerated, basic rights are supposed to be treated. With all the implications any real right carries with it.

Not treated with the sort of contempt Dilan proposes.

[StellaLink_the dog]

“real, enumerated, basic rights”

Except what we are talking about is not a real, enumerated, basic right”, it is an implied right found initially in Heller which overturned the basic understanding of what the “right to bear arms” means.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it is a flat out real, enumerated, basic right, has always been understood to be so, even if a portion, and ONLY a portion, of the legal community, got caught up in a fad or wishful thinking, or maybe wishcasting, of pretending otherwise.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you really want the equivalent of time place and manner, fighting words/defamation, and forum analysis applied to gun rights?

[StellaLink_the dog]

“No, it is a flat out real, enumerated, basic right, has always been understood to be so, even if a portion, and ONLY a portion, of the legal community, got caught up in a fad or wishful thinking, or maybe wishcasting, of pretending otherwise.”

Well, you’re wrong. If you disagree, find someone who thinks their rights were violated by either Chicago or DC and get them to file a 1983 suit and see how far they get.

Also, look around the US and see the various gun control laws that you cranks think violate the 2d amendment. Connecticut, for example, has some pretty strict laws — all constitutional. Of course, that may change given the current composition of the SC and their seeming penchant to find implied gun rights protections in the 2d Amendment which, quite plainly, does not explicitly contemplate rights outside the context of a well regulated militia.

[Brett Bellmore]

The states got away with an awful lot they shouldn’t have, due to the courts following the Supreme court’s lead in misinterpreting the 14th amendment. Gun control was hardly the only component of Jim Crow. And it’s not as though nobody was aware that the Slaughterhouse Court had set out to kill the 14th amendment, and those precedents were garbage.

Look at how long it took before the federal government actually tried banning a gun, instead of taxing them, and throwing various bureaucratic obstacles in the way. The first federal gun ban wasn’t until 1994!

Even as some prominent judges and legal scholars were busy wishcasting, we had acknowledgement that the 2nd amendment actually did prohibit gun control. Indeed, the wishcasting was part of a campaign to change that by persuading the public that they were wrong to think they had a constitutional right to own guns.

It didn’t work.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

“the Constitution DOES NOT SAY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUY OR SELL A GUN.”

Nor does it say you have the right to buy or sell a printing press.

[Dilan Esper]

Do you think there’s a constitutional right to sell printing presses?

[DWB]

Do you think the constitution grants rights or the ones listed are the only rights that exsist????

[Ridgeway]

Unless I am completely missing something, the answer to that is an obvious “Yes!!!”

Do you really think the government could outlaw printing presses? Or license them such that only “responsible” pubishers could own them?

[Dilan Esper]

Why do you assume “outlawing the sale of printing presses” is the same as “outlawing printing presses”?

In some places, only the state sells liquor. The right to drink still exists in those places, doesn’t it?

Plus, there are other ways to publish besides a printing press. Indeed, given the existence of the Internet and of desktop publishing, I would assume regulation of printing presses might be fully constitutional.

In any event, the point is, the words “freedom of the press” don’t answer that. You have to get to the penumbra. And you guys claim not to like penumbras.

[Brett Bellmore]

Drinking isn’t a constitutional right. Explicitly so! We actually have an amendment saying that! States are constitutionally empowered to do anything up to and including banning drinking entirely.

So, terrible analogy.

[StellaLink_the dog]

“Drinking isn’t a constitutional right. ”

Hey! It’s a blind hog!

[Brett Bellmore]

Damn straight I think there is.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Yes.

[Absaroka]

Does the right to an abortion include the right to hire a doctor to help, or can you be limited only to doing it yourself?

Texas might like that, if you are right.

[Michael Ejercito]

Very good point!

[StellaLink_the dog]

I love this logic. If the right to bear arms does not include the right to market guns to children, there is no right to medical care.

[shawn_dude]

Plan B pill. Do it yourself. Texas outlawed that too which suggests they aren’t interested in that logic.

[Michael P]

There’s no constitutional right to buy or sell a Plan B pill, obviously.

[Don Nico]

C’mon, Dilan. You’re making an analogy with abortion is a huge stretch.

[Ridgeway]

I wonder if the weekend started very early (or ended very late) for Dilan. That kind of “gotcha” always seems clever to me right after I start that second bottle of wine.

[Dilan Esper]

I’m not making an analogy about abortion. I’m pointing out that Brett Bellmore and others spend a lot of time accusing liberals of making up rights and using penumbras, and they do it too.

[Brett Bellmore]

The 2nd amendment is literally there in the Constitution. You’re making excuses for the government taking actions to make it difficult, perhaps impossible, to exercise it.

[Dilan Esper]

The Second Amendment says nothing about the right to sell a gun. It lists two rights, keeping and bearing them. If “selling” is covered, it’s penumbral and structural and based on the notion that in a capitalist 21st Century society, you have to be able to get your arms somewhere. You might call that a “living” Constitution.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The Second Amendment says nothing about the right to sell a gun.

So if a governmental entity enacts legislation banning the selling of books, declaring that to be a violation of 1A would be a case of making up rights?

You really do seem eager to look like a complete idiot whenever this issue comes up.

[Absaroka]

“it’s penumbral and structural and based on the notion that in a capitalist 21st Century society, you have to be able to get your arms somewhere.”

Ditto for the agrarian society of 1776. People typically don’t made their own weapons after things progressed past stone arrowheads. Romans and Vikings didn’t individually make their own swords, and the Minutemen weren’t going out to the barn and forge welding barrels.

This discussion seems profoundly silly to me. It reminds me of a couple of years ago when the anti-gun types thought they were being ever so clever by saying ‘if we can’t ban guns, we’ll just ban ammunition!’. But rights are an actual thing, not some kind of pro forma pretense. The government can’t dodge the 1A by saying ‘you can only speak against the government when you are alone in a soundproof box’, and it can’t say ‘freedom of the press means the only newspapers allowed are Pravda and Izvestia’.

There are any number of restrictions that are legal, but not ones that make a nullity of the right.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Keep in mind, the “militia” is defined by federal statue as “Every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45…”

[Bruce Hayden]

Keep in mind that the term “militia” predates the statute, which cannot be used to limit a fundamental enumerated right. The “militias” at the time that the 2nd Amdt was adopted included the sorts of non state authorized groups that fought the British in April of 1775 in Lexington and Concord – because many of the same people were involved in both.

*Yes – at one point the MA Commonwealth may have authorized those town militias, but by the time that they engaged the British, the latter had taken over the government of the colony, and had essentially declared the town militias illegal.

[ThePublius]

That is ridiculous, and a progressive trope for some time now. Of course there must be a right to sell guns, and make them, too, if there is a right to keep and bear them. This has been decided in cases before.

And in fact, your second paragraph is exactly opposite of the history and the law. Did you know that militia members are required, when called up, to present themselves armed with the weapons in common service at the time? Explicitly militia-member supplied, not government supplied.

[BadLib]

So, you’re good with banning anyone from performing an abortion and being paid for it. Sure, you can have abortion, but no one can be paid to do it (perhaps a coat hanger and your bathroom – maybe with a friend?). And that’s for a “right” that appears nowhere in the Constitution, even peripherally.

Obviously though, even with your position, we are all free to make any arm (including machine guns) we want and can give them away if we want. And, obviously, one can rent time on a CNC machine to make something (unless, of course, we ban CNC machines) and buy materials (unless we ban ownership of metal and plastic) to make firearms.

Congratulations. You are now the (I think) fifth person I’ve muted because trolls who raise, apparently just to get a reaction, disingenuous arguments that lack all logic are a waste of everyone’s time. You are joining the Reverend in the Island of Muteland (and some of his comments in the old days before some form of dementia seemed to have set in occasionally made valid points).

[Clayton Cramer]

Certainly protected by 9th Amendment.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

There’s no right to sell guns in the Constitution

What is it about this issue that makes you feel compelled to make a complete fool of yourself at every available opportunity?

[Ed Grinberg]

With the currently ongoing assault on due-process rights of “insurrectionists” (by which they mean most (all?) Republicans), are there any Bill of Right rights that Democrats still care about?

[shawn_dude]

Clearly not, which is why *some* elected Republicans felt it was necessary for DJT to declare martial law while getting Pence away from Congress to prevent the peaceful transition of power. And nothing says “totally not an insurrection” like plans to stop the transfer of power in order to keep DJT as an unelected president.

Other Republicans called this for what it was, an insurrection or coup.

[ThePublius]

Then why, with a Democratic executive, congress, and senate, has nobody – nobody – been charged with insurrection???

[Toranth]

What transfer of power was occurring on January 6th?

[David Nieporent]

So that definition goes far beyond commercial speech.

[Jimmy the Dane]

In other California news, I wonder how funny the author would think it is if a group of people threw eggs and assaulted say BLM protesters….

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Peoples-Convoy-chased-out-of-Bay-Area-17122881.php

And this is precisely why when the time comes, no one on the right is going to care when the left finally gets it.

[shawn_dude]

Because children throwing eggs is “the Left.” Maybe they were young conservatives pissed off because a bunch of assholes created such a racket in their neighborhood that they couldn’t study for their Liberty University entrance exams.

Picketing private homes deserves its own spot in hell.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The flippant nature to which you have responded validates exactly what I said above. Thanks.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Since when does driving through a neighborhood on your way to somewhere else constitute picketing?

[StellaLink_the dog]

They were looking for Pelosi’s house so they could trespass, not driving through on their way to somewhere else, Bell End.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, they were going to Pelosi’s house so they could break in, or stand in the backyard?

[StellaLink_the dog]

Read the article where you will find that they were looking for her property for “the planned activity of placing flags in her yard.” That would require trespass. It may be that they might be able to conduct that trespass without incurring criminal liability (though I doubt it) but it would still be a trespass.

[MatthewSlyfield]

“the planned activity of placing flags in her yard.”

Which is still not picketing.

[StellaLink_the dog]

“Which is still not picketing.”

Which has nothing to do with what I wrote. Jeez, I’ve fallen into a nest of numpties.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/383087512046733529/

[MatthewSlyfield]

You didn’t. This sub thread started with the following from shawn_dude:

“Picketing private homes deserves its own spot in hell.”

[StellaLink_the dog]

No, this sub thread started with:
“Since when does driving through a neighborhood on your way to somewhere else constitute picketing?”

I pointed out that they were not ” driving through a neighborhood on [their] way to somewhere else.” I neither explicitly or implicitly said anything about picketing.

[Clayton Cramer]

At least not unlicensed parading!

[StellaLink_the dog]

How about conspiracy to litter?

[Jimmy the Dane]

So it is ok to assault and throw eggs at people who are looking to protest at a private residence???? Yeah….OK…..

And do you think the people who committed this act of violence were aware that was what was going on????

This is a pretty lame attempt to justify political violence.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Why are “you people” trying to use up all the question marks?

“So it is ok to assault and throw eggs at people who are looking to protest at a private residence???? Yeah….OK…..”

No. Handling cranks and crackpots when they violate the law is a police issue.

“And do you think the people who committed this act of violence were aware that was what was going on????”

I have no idea and don’t care.

“This is a pretty lame attempt to justify political violence.”

That’s a pretty lame (and unintentionally ironic) comment from a dimwitted wingnut who has advocated violence in this very thread.

I did not, and do not, advocate nor justify political violence.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yes you did advocate political violence by insinuating it was justified since these people might have been looking to protest at Nancy Pelosi’s house. Any fair and reasonable person would read that into your statements.

Guess you think it is funny because “the other guy” is getting eggs thrown at him. Wonder what you will think when/if the tables ever turn….

[StellaLink_the dog]

“Yes you did advocate political violence by insinuating it was justified since these people might have been looking to protest at Nancy Pelosi’s house. ”

I insinuated no such thing you blithering idiot. Anybody with an above room temperature IQ could figure that out.

“Guess you think it is funny because “the other guy” is getting eggs thrown at him.”

More fuckwittery. I expressed no joy at anyone getting eggs thrown at them. I was simply responding to one of your compatriots falsely characterizing the event.
What a bunch of mental defectives.

[Clayton Cramer]

Putting up signs is political violence? What is CNN?

[StellaLink_the dog]

Who said putting up signs constitutes political violence?
CNN?
What’s wrong with “you people?”

[MatthewSlyfield]

Nope. We shouldn’t just expel California, making them independent. We should give California back to Mexico.

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t think people did worse than that to BLM protestors?

Some fools pointed guns at them. One of those fools is now running for office on a GOP ticket. While you may feel victimized by proxy, this counterfactual is not a game you will win.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I know you are actually not as ignorant as the ignoramus you are playing here Sarcastro…..

[Michael P]

Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

You don’t think people did worse than that to BLM protestors?

Some fools pointed guns at them.

And yet the only BLM protesters who were actually fired at (unprovoked) were fired upon by other BLM protesters. Oh, and there was the ANTIFA BLM-sympathizer who followed and executed a pro-Trump protester by shooting the latter from behind.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Sarcastro also conveniently left out that the BLM “protestes” who had guns pointed at them were trespassing, had destroyed a gate, were earlier engaged in rioting and vandalism, and probably would have continued doing so if guns had not been pointed at them.

That is a pretty big difference from just driving through a neighborhood with some signs on cars only to be egged and assaulted because of the political content of those signs. Then to have some asshat liberal columnist think it is funny.

Also in the BLM incident, the two individuals who did display firearms were arrested, charged, and plead guilty to a crime (whether or not people think they were actually guilty or committed a violation of law). Here is appears that no one who perpetuated the assaults and vandalism is going to be held accountable.

[David Nieporent]

Sarcastro also conveniently left out that the BLM “protestes” who had guns pointed at them were trespassing, had destroyed a gate, were earlier engaged in rioting and vandalism, and probably would have continued doing so if guns had not been pointed at them.

None of that is true.

[Jerry B.]

“I was limited to two minutes…”

How long did the gun grabbers get per person?

[Flight-ER-Doc]

California should be expelled from the Union. They don’t appear to be familiar with the Constitution, the law, or common sense.

[Longtobefree]

Which border is longer/harder to fence, the one with CA or the one with Mexico?

[defaultdotxbe]

Mexico is longer, but California might be easier, since the federal government already owns like 80% of Nevada they probably won’t have to deal with eminent domain as much.

[shawn_dude]

Putin’s been trying to get Californian’s to do that for years. Kremlin-backed secessionist organizations have tried repeatedly. The last one failed and its leader moved to Russia.

Putin would love to carve off one of the largest economicly successful states in the Union. There are more Republicans in California than populations in many red states. If California is so bad, why are they still here?

[Krayt]

Pretty much this. Don’t be stupid and weaken the economic might of the US by splitting it into pieces. I’m fine with throwing our weight around. What’s the alternative? See Ukraine, or maybe Tiawan in a few years.

Also, as politicians are kleptocrats, they always have an interest in creating a new layer of government to infest like ticks.

[Nisiiko]

Weather, family reasons, and so on. Same reason liberals are in Texas. California has gone down the tubes because of its immigrants.

[Sarcastr0]

Don’t be lame. It’s lame when the other side says that about Florida and Texas, and it’s lame from you and all the ‘I also hate California’ performative wankers as well.

[Brett Bellmore]

In my case, it’s more a matter of feeling sorry for Californians, even if that sorrow is limited by knowing that they actually voted for the stupidity they’re subject to.

The problem for the rest of the nation is that, as those policies bear their noxious fruit, the people who voted for them flee the fruit without understanding that they planted it, and go someplace else to start the cycle again.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots and lots of Californians really like living there.

I also think your Californization theory is more narrative than borne out. Every state has their nemeses from a nearby state that come in and vote badly, and drive badly, and whatever other nonsense.

[Harvey Mosley]

I live in California. The last Democrat I voted for was Gary Condit. I refuse to leave my home just because of the idiots in charge (at least for now). But with the courts ruling that both the state assembly and the state senate had to be elected from districts of the same size population California will never get better.