Bravo, good sir, way to punch above your weight.
So that’s 3 million (maybe, depending on various factors). Where did you get the “60+ million guns” number?
I suppose a few states adjoining the Great Lakes would agree to it as sort of a “Get Lost!” message.
For new sales, or transfers, or both? CA requires the background check on PPT too. This doesn’t get to the 60M figure you used. From what I’ve seen, household ownership rates are around 20% for CA, which is about 8M households. That’s an average of 7.5 firearms per household that owns a firearm. And while in theory I could be among the people that outperform, I’m skeptical of the figure. Somewhat irrelevant point though. The only way it’s relevant is to say that some portion of those 8M households would be opposed to the proposal on the table.
Once CA is in position to solicit support for it’s independence several things will have happened, not the least of which is the state will have voted for independence.
There are a few legal strategies already explained in the thread that will be employed. Time will be on CA’s side. We can chip away at the opposition one chip at a time.
Plus, the US already signed the UN charter. Chapt. 11 provides for support of independence seeking nations. Yes, there’s a list of countries which is not, as many would like to think, all inclusive. Adding CA’s name to that list might be relatively easy post independence vote.
The Deseret News reports we own guns at a staggering rate of 88.8 firearms per 100 people in the US. Owning and reporting are two different things.
While I agree that the national average is probably the result of some under-reporting / old data, is it your belief that Californians own guns at roughly double the national average?
And why didn’t you include a link here? If you’re going to cite a specific news source, couldn’t you include the link to the article you read this in?
Why do you keep posting this bullshit? It’s been debunked a dozen times already.
Chapter 11 of the UN charter provides support for colonies seeking independence. California is not a colony, was not considered a colony when Ch11 was written, doesn’t meet the UN’s conditions for being considered a colony, and isn’t considered a colony by anyone, including Calexit supporters (Morgenstern typically gets annoyed when you mention ‘colony’ in conjunction with the UN charter). Adding CA to that list would require first that CA start referring to itself as a colony of the US, then convincing other countries that it’s a colony and not a self-governing state, then getting the US to agree not to veto adding it to the list.
There’s a certain tendency in Calexit ideas to ignore that 3/4 of the US would have to approve independence, that the US can veto any UN security council resolution (including Calexitfornia’s application for membership), and that other countries are not keen on the idea of letting dissatisfied regions secede.
What legal strategies? Where were they explained? Can you give a post # or a link to these explanations?
Also, you call them “legal strategies”. Do you not understand that there’s a massive PR campaign you’re going to have to undertake here to convince 38 states to support your independence? It’s not a legal argument for a judge to rule on, it’s approval from the legislators in each of those 38 states that you’re going to have to win. They’re far less interested in the “legal strategies” and Chapter 11 of the UN charter than whether voting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the #CalExit amendment is the more popular position among their constituents. Saying ‘we have a long time’ doesn’t hardly begin to explain how you plan to utilize that time you have to convince people in 38 states to support California’s independence.
“All we have to do is vote for independence and the rest will just fall into place because of course it will.”
He’s jumped on a mistake like this before with great glee, so I’ll point out that it’s actually only 37 states - one assumes that if CA is actually pushing for Calexit, they have already been convinced to support the amendment.
As far as I can tell, it goes: “Well, see, Chapter 11 of the UN charter and we’ll be NATO members and stay US Citizens but not and Russia and China will support us and we’ll charge rent on naval bases that the US owns.”
True. The number of states needed to pass an amendment is 38. Presumably California would be one of these if the referendum passes, leaving an additional 37 states that need to ratify it.
Given the trouble the UK seems to be having in getting its parliament to vote to ratify their #Brexit referendum, I don’t think it’s entirely inconceivable that the CA legislature might choose to delay, deflect, or just not ratify the #CalExit amendment, but it’s probably unlikely.
This is just the most recent drought. There were also droughts 1929 - 1934, 1976 - 1977, 1987 - 1982, and 2012 - 201?. That is a lot of unavailable water for an area that cannot survive without it.
And the current snowpack is still not regarded as sufficient to ease current restrictions.
10% from a serious drought would be catastrophic.
Your pipe dreams seem to blind you to the differences between rejecting Donald Trump as bigot-in-charge and actually choosing to separate from the U.S. – Whatever.
(I have found this amusing:
A Calexit leader lives in Russia.) 
Have you been in a coma for the last three months? Welcome to our Brave New World! Whether something is factual, plausible, unfactual, implausible, fantastic or preposterous is all irrelevant now.
[QUOTE=George Orwell]
The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I accidentally cut this off when I responded to the lower part of this before - if you’re expecting well thought out legal strategies, you should know that according to Morgenstern there’s only one single lawyer working on Calexit right now. That was the similar mistake that he jumped on someone for, they foolishly presumed that a movement seriously intending to perform a huge, unprecedented political and legal change within the next few years would have multiple lawyers working for them.
Why should the legal issues surrounding the separation of a state from the most powerful country in the world need more than one lawyer working those issues?
Sure, this question might take armies of screenwriters, producers, social media moguls, and internet fora to hash it out. But really, this isn’t complicated: just one lawyer needs to say in court (sans gold fringed flag, of course) “Under the UN Charter, CALIFORNIA is no longer the fictional persona of California, and we declare ourselves sovereign under the Uniform Commercial Code!”
Then the bullies in the Federal government will either have to flee running or have their faces melt like at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Easy!
And anyone who says otherwise is engaging in SPECULATION and OPINION and ADDING EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE TO A DEBATE WHERE THOSE THINGS DON’T BELONG!
Is the lawyer in Russia?
Would it be possible to write out a possible scenario as to how California’s exit might unfold? Not necessarily how it will, just how it might. I’m not appraised of the issues but it’s unclear to me that 37 other state governments could be convinced permitting California to leave would be in their best interest.
That leaves other legal solutions, but even if (say) California were added to chapter 11 of the UN charter what would be the ballgame? Is there a plan?