Weigh In on Winchester Gun Club

Comments Now Accepted on Permit for West Camino Cielo Shooting Range

Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Years ago, when the Winchester Canyon Gun Club tried to renew a 20-year special use permit for its shooting range on West Camino Cielo, concerns about the disruption of sacred Chumash sites nearby as well as the pollution from lead ammunition forced the Los Padres National Forest officials back to the drawing board to produce a more thorough analysis.

This week, that work was released, showing a reduction in permitted size from 140 acres to 96, the permanent elimination of the long-bore range over the Chumash sites while minimizing impacts to the “greatest extent possible” in that area, and a new plan for minimizing the spread of lead and managing its regular cleanup. Public comments are now being accepted on the plan, and can be sent to Los Padres National Forest, 6755 Hollister Avenue, Suite 150, Goleta, CA 93117, Attention Jeff Bensen, emailed to, or faxed in to (805) 561-5729.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Give me a break...lead ammunition pollution? really? I go up there pretty often and every time I see people picking up their spent shells and the club does a great job of cleaning up the bullets on the range.

Muggy (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is probably the cleanest most well kept shooting range I have ever been too. Besides, if it is eliminated that will just force more of the irresponsible types to go shoot illegally in the wilderness.

Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In terms of legal issues regarding the Chumash it can be said that every square inch of this (Santa Barbara County in general--if not entirely) is Chumash ground.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After years living in "soft" Europe amid a civil democracy, no guns and much less violence, I'd like to ban the Winchester Gun Club. I have been hiking in the area. I accept the 4th Amendment, and this shooting thing is an historic American individual right dating at least to 1791. Until the 4th Amendment is changed, Winchester Gun Club's reduced range to 96 acres and other limitations makes extension of their special use permit seem OK. And since this area is already full of scattered lead and shot, let's keep polluting the same range, and accept citizens' utilizing one of their constitutional rights.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This seems like another attempt by anti gun people to express their outrage over the fourth amendment. As far as I can tell these folks keep the place in good shape and they're not hurting anyone except the sensibility of people who hate this particular right. For this we need extensive public comment?
It's interesting to me that if you do not like guns, do not own one and leave gun owners alone. Just like with abortion, if you abhor the practice do not get one and leave the folks alone who want to exercise that right. Meanwhile stay out of other peoples business...

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Give me a break...lead ammunition pollution? really?"
-- Muggy


Causes lead poisoning in wildlife (e.g. scavengers eating shotgun pellets in carrion) and ground water contamination.

I used to work for the Army's largest ammunition factory in the U.S. (it's actually the world's largest small calibre manufacturer in the world located in Lake City, Missouri). That site is massively polluted from lead at the testing range, etc. Same thing at the Picatiny Arsenal in New Jersey.

Google "EPA lead cleanup lake city picatiny" for more info.

One of the most important engineering projects for the Army when I was there was the lead-free bullet project (for the M855 5.56mm cartridge used in M-16 rifles, etc.).

There is now lead-free ammo for sports shooters and hunters too.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It would be nice if new comers would study our Constitution. The writings or John Locke, the fears of Thomas Jefferson, reason for the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10), and just about everything Jefferson feared has come to pass.

"The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it."

The issue at hand is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which all of the other Amendments stand on.

The SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution against the States as a ,Civil Right, through the use of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gun Control in California is rooted in RACISM.

Latinos, Chinese, and Blacks

May 2, 1967 started the current round of laws.

Just like the South, California passed Laws of Fear.

As a child I carried a .22 rifle through town, on a regular basis, and no one batted an eye, wonder what changed?

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)


The EPA has twice been petitioned, last time this year, to Regulate Small Arms Ammunition and has passed.

WCGC was required to spend $60K+- on a lead study and submit it to the LPNF the last go round. I believe they met all the requirements.

The M855 Ball (Green Tip) was first developed to penetrate hard targets such as Eastern Block helmets was it not?

Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, M855 (United States): 5.56×45mm 62-grain FN SS109-equivalent ball cartridge with a steel penetrator tip over a lead core in a partial copper jacket. [Green tip]

Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, M855 Lead Free (United States):62-grain bullet with a steel penetrator tip over a tungsten-composite core in a partial copper jacket[36]. Primarily used during training in countries with strict lead disposal laws. [Green tip]

Cartridge, Caliber 5.56 mm, Ball, M855A1 (United States):62-grain bullet w/ a 19-grain steel penetrator tip over a bismuth-tin alloy core in a partial copper jacket. [Green tip]

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I haven't blogged for a while as my pod and I were recovering from a case a mercury poisoning. ("Fish full of mercury" in the words of Marvin Gaye in the song "Mercy Mercy Me")

Anyway, I have this important link to share with you regarding the use of firearms, and it's only about eighteen (18) seconds long.

fivedolphins (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is the point of that video?

Gun ownership is legal, even in a state that takes a phone book sized document to list its regulations.

The range is REALLY remote and well marked to ensure the safety of hikers (who, c'mon, have tens of thousands of acres to hike in).

I use the range regularly. Solid safety rules are in place and rigorously observed and enforced. How many accidents have occurred at WCGC in its history?

And yes, there are people who WILL use public lands (some do already, rather than pay gun club fees). Is that better? Or controllable?

To all antigunnuts: leave my rights alone and I'll do the same for you. The Chumas argument is pc bs.

BTW, the Police Chief in Ventura and the Sheriff in Ventura County are on record welcoming the establishment of a new gun club/shoorting range in Ventura as an IMPROVEMENT to public safety.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you "Howgreenwas" for the correction; yes of course it's the Second Amendment, and the Congressionally passed version states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't see how gun control is rooted in RACISM in California and your website proves little.
I too carried a .22 a bit as a kid in southern Illinois, so what? What has changed, you ask? What has changed is that there are now 310 million of us, the "Arms" have changed incredibly since the 1790s (far more firepower), and becoming more "civil" we don't need all these weapons. Clearly the Founding Fathers were describing the long weapons of their times and not all the automatic and semi-automatic weapons now available. They did not mean this! Luckily, open carry is now out in Calif., and soon will include rifles.
What do you mean when you state about Amendment 2, it's the one "which all of the other Amendments stand on."? If any Amendment is crucial or more vital that the others, even newcomers to Constitutional studies know it's the First Amendment (freedom of press, religion, speech and so on).

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"What is the point of that video?"

Dear Mr. Locke: Perhaps if you should take the liberty to peruse my previous post you will then understand my post,

fivedolphins (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"What has changed is that there are now 310 million of us"

Why is this arbitrary number relevant?

"the 'Arms' have changed incredibly since the 1790s (far more firepower), Clearly the Founding Fathers were describing the long weapons of their times and not all the automatic and semi-automatic weapons now available."

A valid point, worthy of discussion.

" Luckily, open carry is now out in Calif., and soon will include rifles."

Question: Are open and carry laws in violation of the intent of the Founding Fathers? If not, do you favor the part about not being able to carry openly rifles? If this is so, then you oppose what the Founding Fathers intended.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've been in that area many times to hike, ride mountain bikes, and drive down the fire road. The only thing that concerns me is as I'm going down the dirt road away from the range, or coming up it very slowly towards the range, is the shotgun wads and bullet ricochets I hear going over my head! Nothing's ever happened, but it makes me think it could. Suppose a round clipped some foliage and went off course into me?

cycleboy (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)


That's right, the bismuth-based no-lead bullet was the version under development when I was involved with upgrading the Army's ammo factories a few years ago. At the time, they were resolving problems with its flight characteristics. That was a very high priority project and Lake City spent a lot of money on some very expensive high-tech lab equipment to support it. The lead 5.56mm rounds cost about 25 cents each to make, don't know what the non-lead cartridges cost.

The factory is quite amazing. They make all the cartridge components from basic materials except for the gunpowder which I believe comes from Picatiny. The automated line is fascinating for an engineer like me, rounds are transported in various stages of completion on a chain transport that moves rounds past you so fast .. they look like a blur. There's a test range where ball and tracer rounds are fired from fixtured M-16's onto paper targets. Talk about low-tech.

I've actually done prototype testing of ammo-related equipment @WCGC for the Army. Good to hear their lead mitigation plan was approved.

Open carry ... what a joke. I bet most open carry proponents have inferiority complexes and channel the founding fathers on a regular basis.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill, with FAR more people than the approx 3 million in 1791, in fact 100x times as many, and with FAR less frontier and wild varmints to contend with, I think the case for needing guns is less and the chances of random violence with semi-automatic weapons hurting bystanders is much greater. That's the point. 310 million isn't arbitrary, it's how many Americans live here.
I don't think we can know if the Founding Fathers would have supported open carry, handguns or rifles, since they couldn't foresee the emergence of incredibly powerful semi-automatic weapons and handguns like Glocks etc., the 310 million Americans living in a highly urbanized society. The Founding Fathers did not regularly go around carrying weapons openly when in cities like New York or Philadelphia to the best of my knowledge. I am opposed to open carry of rifles or handguns, whatever wise men in 1791 thought.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I think Open Carry laws are as nutty as the Occupy movement, I'm hard pressed to understand how DrDan knows what was in the mind of our Founding Fathers. Obviously they did not anticipate shoulder mounted grenade launchers but brandishing firearms appears to have been historically, relatively common.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Dr Dan,

Yes Gun Control in California is rooted in Racism.

More on the Mulford Act.


Before Blacks it was Chinese, do a search on running the Chinese out of California after the railroad was complete.

Before that it was Latinos - please do some searching, I will try to compile a timeline to help you.

I also draw your attention to the Jim Crow laws of the South and the basis of modern Drug Control laws, can't have those wild Coked up Black Men running loose can we.

History is your Friend it Speaks the Truth.

Europe and its "Civil Democracy"?

My Grandfather spent his young life in WWI and my Father spent 5 years of his young life in WWII, Civil?

Brought to our shores by two Progressive Presidents, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.


20ea Commercial 44 magnum cartridges bought local with all copper bullets will set you back $37.00+tax. Cheaper on the Internet. California Legislature passed a law banning Internet purchase of ammunition a couple of years ago but the Court declared the law unconstitutional.

So a practice season of 200 rounds would cost you $370.00=tax for no-lead.

Commercial No-Lead rifle rounds local cost $2.00-2.50 each.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

These Guys and what they did is amazing in "Civil Europe".

The 2006 History Channel documentary has one survivor saying, "A Rifle was Life Itself"

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)


A Gay Man with AIDS lived in San Francisco Section 8 housing, because of his minority status and infirm medical condition he wished to purchase a firearm for personal protection. The City of San Francisco forbade residents from keeping firearms in Section 8 housing, violation of CA Preemption Law.

Its called Discrimination.

He filled suit and won the Right to own/keep a firearm on City owned Property.

The MacDonald Case above, Otis MacDonald is a Black Man and he wished to posses a firearm in the City of Chicago for the protection of himself and his wife.

The SCOTUS confirmed his basic Civil Right to do so.

Currently working its way up the chain is "Scrutiny", when "Strict Scrutiny" is applied to the Second Amendment, as already is the First Amendment, its game over.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding the comment how we don't know what was in the Founding Father's heads....actually, we do. Read some letters from Thomas Jefferson. The reason we have the 2nd Amendement is to 1. Protect the citizens from tyranny 2. Protect from foreign invaders. 3. Self defense. The 2nd Amendment is so important, it's number 2!! Does anyone research how gun control got started? It was started by Democrats trying to keep firearms (not weapons) out of the hands of Blacks and other minorities so they could not defend themselves. Open carry or concealed carry is a Constitutional right that we cannot afford to allow CA or the federal government to disregard.

Muggy (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SEE, we can have civil discourse here!
@Howgreen...obviously I'd be talking about post World War II...
@Muggy... I have read a few letters of Jefferson and it's enlightening reading, Library of America volume JEFFERSON'S WRITINGS contains just a selection and that Letters sections runs pp. 709 - 1518 and there are thousands and thousands more pages of his letters elsewhwere. Have fun...I tried the excellent Index of this book and it also wasn't much help. Those "Democrats" you speak about were Dixiecrats, and if we're discussing Jim Crow Laws they began at the end of Reconstruction in 1876.
Open carry is NOT a constitutional right, you just want it to be one; you won't find it referred to in the document.
@Italiansurg I accept this point about the Mulford Act, good website, but not sure just how critical this is...

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Does anyone research how gun control got started? It was started by Democrats trying to keep firearms (not weapons) out of the hands of Blacks and other minorities ..."
- Muggy

Assemblyman Don Muggy was the author of the bill you're referring to (see link in howgreenismyvalley's post). Muggy was a lifelong Republican. In fact, he was caucus chair for the Republicans in the California Assembly. The Muggy Act repealed open carry and was signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan, also a Republican.

I'm not convinced the motivation of Muggy's bill was based so much on racism as it was against his broader disdain for the anti-Vietnam War and civil rights protest movements of the time. In the bay area, ground zero for the Black Panthers and the Berkeley protestors, Muggy is best known for his conflict with UC and the war protestors:

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Thinking about it. So the population has increased to 310M and that means the 2nd Amendment should be diminished?

Does that mean the 1st should be diminished?

The 4th Amendment was just recently Stabbed in the Heart by a Democratic President, Democratic Senate and Republican House in the Defense Authorization Bill. I guess it has been diminished.

I can assure you the same Libertarians that brought you Heller, MacDonald and soon "Strict Scrutiny" for the 2nd Amendment, will be filing Suit for the 4th as well, after the 2nd is protected.

I never said open carry is Constitutional. In California before Mulford, Loaded Open Carry was Legal, I did it everytime I got on my horse, we did not have cellphones or SAR Units in those days.

Un-Loaded open carry was Legal until this Year, is was stupid to me but Legal.

Constitutionally, California will have to recognize some form of carry and I prefer Concealed.

The Republican Sheriff of Santa Barbara Country only issues LTC to his cronies and is violating State Law. The Ventura County Sheriff got his rear-end dragged into Court and LOST.

I cannot wait until it happens in Santa Barbara County.

The Sheriffs have been violating State Law in the LTC arena for a long time, which caused the Unloaded Open Carry Protest.

A Lesbian Activist in Sacramento County, President of the local Pink Pistols, LGBT Group started the LTC reform. She applied and was denied because her Good Cause (GC) was rejected.

Sac County Sheriff got sued and LOST.

With uniform LTC across the State instead of the Cronyism in place. People will be able to LTC without upsetting the hoplophobic.

The Natural Right and Constitutional Right of Self Preservation will be restored.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan: While your point is well taken about varmints and frontier creatures, I believe their thoughts were focused on personal protection.

I would also posit that given the increased chance of violence (paradoxically perceived by the anti-gun contingent to be justification for gun confiscation) it is all the more important to level the playing field.

What about the woman whose crazy ex-boyfriend doesn't respond to the restraining order? What protection does she have? What about the person living in the inner city whose much more likely to get carjacked? Isn't it also interesting that with more gun laws in place, there are more schoolyard shootings? (Unheard of back in the days when the average home on the frontier had guns)

While howgreenwasmyvalley takes this in a different direction, I find it interesting that he/she brings up Woodrow Wilson, the putative darling of pre-WW1 progressives. Wilson in fact was a major enemy of Black people and made sure to squash the progress that Blacks were making at that time, whether he did it because of racism, or political opportunity, is unknown.

While the anti-2nd Amendment folks (Barbara Boxer being a good example) may think the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and while the arrant hypocrisy of many of the Founding Fathers is sickening, those "Dead White Males" as some in the halls of academia deem them understood human nature and how it relates to the concept of how power corrupts; the purpose of the constitution was to limit the power of government hence the right to bear arms.

The irony of it is, if the anti-2nd amendment side gets its wish, their mandate will be enforced by people carrying guns.

Gays, Jews, and women also support the 2nd Amendment. I'd like to share these links to disprove the myth that we who support the 2nd amendment are idealistic testosterone-crazed Rednecks.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lest some nitpicker jump on me for generalizing, I should have worded my post that "Gays, Jews, and women are among those who support the 2nd Amendment". Obviously, no one demographic is 100% for or against the 2nd Amendment.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)


First up a Site about the 2009 California Apology to the Chinese.

Second up Site on the Elusion Act

Third Site Chinese Timeline

Pay Attention to the Exclusion Act of 1924.

Fourth Site Article from the San Francisco Chronicle on July 15, 1923.

This article mentions that California's CCW law was passed specifically to prevent Chinese, Latinos and legal immigrants (non-naturalized permanent residents) from being armed. (Emphasis added.)

Fifth up Site shows the Timeline of California Firearms Laws

Notice the reporting of Firearms Transactions (DROS) is in lock-step with the CCW Law, all August 7, 1923.

The start of the Regulation of Firearms in California was Racist to the Core.

Add the Mulford Act and you get a very clear picture.

We could go into California Case Law on the subject, but I leave that for you to self-educate.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

will check some of these sites; yet our discussion morphs into "origin of gun control laws in Calif." and I see your point howgreenwas, e.g. Mulford Act. However, whatever the origin and some of it very unsavory, this nation and Calif need more stringent gun control. We won't agree on this however much you "self-educate" or I self-educate. Winchest Gun Club should get the lease extension with the reductions noted (e.g. down to 96 acres).
Bill, I do agree "the purpose of the constitution was to limit the power of government hence the right to bear arms" but as Americans mature they may be able to give up their intense need to go armed. It's the power of gov't we are in disagreement about: I want the cops etc. to reduce violence and eliminate the need of so many Americans to have their guns. I do not think Europe is better, but from years living in Germany it felt physically safer and the statistics show it IS safer. When some posts went off about violent Europeans and WW I and II, this MADE my point: they got over their weapon-idolization and preoccupation with force. That someone may force you to do something (so you carry) or that you need to force someone else. It does feel pretty primitive. I backpack solo quite a bit and only one time (of hundreds) did I rue my rule never to take guns into the local wildernesses.
Sure, there was plenty of hypocrisy in the Founding Fathers, they weren't perfect [Jefferson made a living selling off his slaves, Washington, too], nor are we. As stated above, I do accept the validity of the Second Amendment.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 11, 2012 at 5:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)


As Europe struggles with its Economic Morass I think you may find it is not as Civil as you Think. Riots are not Civil.

Germany is the one Economically Stable country but the others are experiencing massive unemployment. The Euro is doomed, the countries need their own fiat currency that they can inflate to pay for the socialist state. The next leg after the Euro dies will be hyperinflation.

Europe has not had any real burden of financing a Military since WWII, no guns, just butter and the USA has been stupid and arrogant enough to provide it for them.

Withdrawing our Military from Europe, which I support, would produce a giant sucking chest wound in their economy.

If Europe is your Blue Print, it is only because it was artificially produced by US.

I really doubt thousands of years of European History has been eclipsed in the 67 years since WWII.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 11, 2012 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)


Last Night.

LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- "A suspect picked the wrong person to rob when he pulled a knife on a man at a restaurant near Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Thursday night.

The would-be victim was a retired police officer, who responded by pulling out a handgun."

So in your World only the Elite are allowed the Natural Right of Self Defense?

One further, last year in the same City a Man and his minor daughter exited a fast food restaurant on a weekend , out of the blue a transient having having a Psychotic Episode, hit the Man breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground. The Psychotic continued to pummel the Man in front of his screaming daughter. Just before the Man passed out, he was able to draw a concealed weapon and shoot the Psychotic. The Man was an off-duty Police Officer.

In both cases if I had been the Victim, 1st, I might have been stabbed, 2nd, I would have been killed in front of my minor daughter.

Sorry, you do not have the Right to Infringe on my Natural Rights, Rights that existed before Government no matter how unpleasent firearms are to you.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 11, 2012 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The reason I support the 2nd Amendment is the same reason I oppose the War On Drugs which is to say that no matter how many laws we pass the bad guys still get the guns and drugs so I would rather have a level playing field.

Also, absolute power corrupts so giving guns only to a select few (such as cops--and we know about police abuse and corruption) means there is no defense against our government becoming totalitarian. Also: Switzerland is a highly armed country and they seem quite civilized.

I'm not averse into looking at ways to make our society less violent, but ironically the same people who want gun control are those same naïve Social Engineers who despite their good intentions fail to see the correlation between the changes they've succeeded in making and the increasing violence in our culture.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 11, 2012 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)


I found the links on the history of Chinese discrimination in the U.S very interesting. I took a class in Asian American Studies when I was an undergrad and had forgotten much of it. A good refresher.

I will have to disagree with your 4th link however:

It is a real stretch to say that AB263 was motivated by racism towards the Chinese immigrants solely on the basis of the one SF Chronicle article cited in the link.

I came to that conclusion after noting your 5th link contains a reference to a background analysis of the history of AB263 found on Gene Hoffman's website (Gene is the chair of the CalGuns Foundation):

I read the entire analysis of AB263. It says in 1922-1923, there was a nationwide effort to standardize state gun laws around a Senate bill introduced by Senator Capper of Kansas (R, 1919-1949). This effort was supported by the gun industry and gun enthusiasts of the day apparently because there were "worse" ones out there. The result was 3 new state gun laws adopted by CA, ND, and NH.

AB263 contains ~15 sections depending on which version you read (it was amended in committee 3 times). Only one section deals with gun ownership by non-citizens and no specific races are spelled out. This is unlike other state and national legislation that has been enacted over the years to specifically target immigrants and U.S. citizens of Chinese, Japanese, and Fillipino descent.

All the other clauses in AB263 deal with non-race-related gun issues. Those other clauses can't be ignored because they represent a lot of legislative muscle.

The analysis also says that no records survive to document the legislative debate that lead to the passage of AB263. So we have no details of the arguments for/against. All we have is a newspaper article appearing in the July 15, 1923 issue of the SF Chronicle that references a letter written to the governor.

The logic used in the 4th link is quite frankly, horrible. It cites the letter from the president of a Sacramento gun club named McKissick to the governor endorsing AB263. McKissick acknowledges that the clause preventing non-citizens from owing guns may not pass future constitutionality tests. But he opines that (1) AB263 could stand even if the citizenship clause was struck down, and (2) should the clause stand, it would have a:

"salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of Latin descent."

In other words, McKissick is saying that having a law which prevents non-citizens from owning guns might help with policing or lessoning of the gang wars of the time.

(continued below)

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 11, 2012 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But the 4th link abuses McKissick's quote and uses it as a basis for making inflammatory statements like:

1. "The law was passed in the 1920s to deny permits to Latinos, Chinese and non-naturalized residents."

2. "... California's CCW law was passed specifically to prevent Chinese, Latinos and legal immigrants (non-naturalized permenant residents) from being armed."

In summary, there is no doubt horrible discrimination was perpetuated against Chinese immigrants leading up to the adoption of AB263. And it would be fair to say that those with anti-Chinese sentiments welcomed and took advantage of the citizenship clause in AB263.

But it would be dishonest to claim or infer that AB263 was motived primarily by racism. There was clearly a lot more to AB263 than that.

That 4th link is an example of what's wrong with the gun rights / gun control debate. Too much rhetoric and not enough thinking.

Note: These comments are limited to AB263.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 11, 2012 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Finally, I'll add my opinion that the race angle is a red herring and is simply inflammatory. Nobody these days is proposing any gun legislation that is race-specific as far as I know.

A law prohibiting blacks from owning chain guns may seem racist, but that doesn't mean a law prohibiting everyone from owning chain guns is a bad idea.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 11, 2012 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Handguns were around when the 2nd Amendment was written.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2012 at 3:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People may think because “It’s in the Constitution,” that the 2nd amendment will always be safeguarded. For these people, I suggest they read Senator Barbara Boxer’s autobiography “Strangers in The Senate.” On page 179, Boxer writes “Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced a bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns or handgun ammunition; the only exception would be for law enforcement, military guards, or antique collectors and regulated handgun clubs. Senator Chafee calls his bill the ‘Public Health and Safety Act,’ and that’s an appropriate name.” For the next four pages she quotes Chafee after which Boxer writes “Waiting periods may well help and I support them, but I do believe that Senator Chafee’s approach will lead to a better America.” (funny how she doesn’t mention this on her website)

In other words, here is a politician who supports the constitution only when it fits her agenda.

Once again, how is a woman supposed to protect herself against a psychotic stalker? (Cops can't get there in time when the door is already broken down and she doesn't even have time to call them)

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2012 at 3:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

how is anyone supposed to protect him- or herself from a psychotic stalker -- it isn't a Robert Crais novel, don't see the application here. And the first Ten Amendments are especially sacrosanct among the Amendments, I'd not be worried about Chafee or Boxer getting rid of guns anytime soon.
The handguns in 1791 were laughable in firepower compared to those available today! Not a good comparison.
I dispute the need for a level playing field, if the bad guys are trained in weapons etc. very very few Americans are actually at all ready, Bill, to take them on.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2012 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"how is anyone supposed to protect him- or herself from a psychotic stalker -- it isn't a Robert Crais novel, don't see the application here."

Then you're truly blinded by your well-meaning but intractable stance. Perhaps you should access the links I posted and interact with those people and tell them why they are wrong.

Clearly, we disagree on this issue but we've make our points.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2012 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yep, good dialogue, part of this democracy is exercising one's brain and debating a bit. For example, five years ago I would've been completely against extending this gun club's lease...

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2012 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)


I had a friend murdered by a Psychopath, the Psychopath had just turned age 18. The Psychopath needed a car so he could kidnap a 16 year old girl he knew. Kellie was a feisty redhead in a Katherine Hepburn kind of way, she was buff. I saw her on Sunday with her Fiancee at a social gathering, she was tired having run a 26 mile marathon on Saturday. Tuesday she was dead around Noon, having been driven to a remote location and murdered, for a car.

The Psychopath was small in size and to this day I do not understand why she did not fight him. When her 6 year old son took the stand at the trial, I cried.

After the fact the Psychopath has been sitting on Death Row for the last twenty years.

When society finds a way to prevent Psychopath's, Violent Psychotic Behavior and Pathological Criminals - then I will gladly melt my 'Swords into Plowshares"

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2012 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I regret this incident and the pain it caused all. I don't think there are any easy answers. I agree, "When society finds a way to prevent Psychopath's, Violent Psychotic Behavior and Pathological Criminals - then I will gladly melt my 'Swords into Plowshares'" but we both know that will never happen. So you will never give up your right to a lethal weapon. QED
You do this your way, I do it mine. Usually, flight is the acceptable response.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2012 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan: Usually, women can't outrun men.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Glad you found Gene's website. Here is the Foundations :

Gene is the spear tip in California and with all due respect to his record and all he has done, if you read his bio, he was born and raised in the South.

Many records were lost in the 1906 quake, my family had a city lot that disappeared in the rubble.

As a Californian I have other resources that I have collected over the years that should add support to my claim other than oral history.

I am a little pressed for time at the moment, but will endeavor to
to get into my library for citations.

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2012 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)


You hit the nail on the head. In a Society that recognizes Freedom, Liberty and Civil Rights, you are free to make your decisions and I am free to make mine, it is what is all about.

Neither one of us wishes to harm another, but in the 'Gravest Extreme" I demand my inalienable right to have the option.

The two Police Officers did not have the option of Flight. One was sitting at a table the other blindsided.

Kellie was in a hurry, did not lock her car door and went into a pet store to buy parrot food, rushing as females do, on the way to pickup her son from school.

The Psychopath entered the backseat of the SUV and hid in wait, she re-entered the car and flight might have been an option, and to this day I don't understand why she went passive but she did. Is it her fault that she did not flee?

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
May 15, 2012 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is just an excuse, a pretext, the government uses in order to curtail the rights of the people. The rights of the people is the frog in the pot of water that the government is slowly bringing to a boil.

sicjedi (anonymous profile)
November 25, 2012 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: