Sanity rules again in California. Thanks Jerry!

[Starboard Tack]

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_19080574



Gov. Brown signs ban on open handgun carrying


SACRAMENTO -- California became the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed the ban into law amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect on Jan 1.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

1. Between this law...

...and the ultra-restrictive inconsistent granting of CCW permits, CA has just opened the door to a lawsuit they cannot win.

[aquart]

4. And I'm happy to have the NRA spend its money on it.

[gejohnston]

10. did they?

I know they had nothing to do with Heller (other than claim credit for fund raising)

[SteveM]

14. That's OK. The taxpayers of Cali will make it all worthwhile. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

15. Are you just as happy....

...that California will be reimbursing the NRA for the legal fees when the state loses?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Technically, as I understand it, the NRA-ILA has an endowment fund.

They doen't actually "spend" the money that people donate to the NRA-ILA.
It's put in an endowment and they spend the interest earned on the endowment fund.
It's very similar to how alot of universities & colleges operate.

It's not that hard to imagine considering that if there are 4,000,000 members...
And if each probably contributes $10-$20 then thats $40-$80 million PER YEAR.
Then think, how long has the NRA been around? :yoiks:

Basically, if donations STOPPED to the NRA-ILA tomorrow...
they could still spend the same amount of money FOREVER. Pretty cool, huh?
And the anti-gun folk wonder why they are losing :rofl:

[Glassunion]

17. This new law actually just gave the NRA some fodder...

C.D. Michel, a civil rights attorney for the National Rifle Association, said the group has a lawsuit challenging the concealed carry licensing system in San Diego. He said the federal judge in the case ruled the system wasn't a violation of the Second Amendment because residents still had the option of unloaded open carry.

"This strengthens our lawsuit because that option has been eliminated," he said.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. And I'm happy to give the NRA money to do it.

[S_B_Jackson]

49. When California loses - and they will - the NRA won't have to spend any money one it...

California citizens will be on the hook for both the State's legal costs as well as the plaintiff's BURDENED legal fees - much the same as Washington DC (Heller) & Chicago (McDonald) for their losses.

Considering the financial straits that the state of California is in, is this really the best way for them to spend their funds?

[Starboard Tack]

26. We shall see. Jerry is a pretty smart guy.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

72. How smart he may be...

...has no bearing on the outcome of the lawsuit.

The law will be struck down. CA will be on the hook for legal fees. Concealed and/or open carry will become easier to legally do in CA.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Then you'll have nothing to complain about, because obviously, we have no rights in California

to determine what we want or not. How's your problem working out?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

97. On some things, no you do not have the authority...

...to decide what you do or do not want.

Using that logic however, I will assume you support segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, job and housing discrimination, etc.

After all, those things were merely states deciding what they did and did not want...

[Starboard Tack]

100. Hmm! Using that logic...

"I will assume you support segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, job and housing discrimination, etc. "
Yeah, I guess, for toters. Kinda makes sense. Good suggestion. Thanks.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

106. It is the same logic.

You are specifically saying that you do not believe a state must recognize a constitutionally protected right if it does not wish to, regardless of the law.


Do you really not understand this? Do you really believe the 2nd Amendment does not have the same status as the rest?

[Starboard Tack]

120. It's your definition of 2A that is wrong IMO

Where does it say in 2A that you have a right to bear a handgun? Where does it say that you have the right to bear a loaded weapon of any kind?

[SteveM]

122. The Second says "arms"...

in the context of the day, that is a weapon capable of being carried and fired in one or both hands.

Your speciousness is staggering, but not surprising.

[Starboard Tack]

130. And where does it say your weapon may be loaded in public?

"In the context of the day" I like that. Amazing how you interpret something written at a time when dueling with flintlocks was a popular form of conflict resolution, as a license to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons to a bar. Don't stagger too much, you might fall over and then your gun might fall out and accidentally fire. I must practice that - making people stagger without surprising them. Maybe develop it as a new form of self defense. The "Specious Staggergun".

[We_Have_A_Problem]

133. Still the wrong question

Where does it say it may NOT?

You really need to learn how our laws work. The government operates under a system where permission is required to do anything - all else is forbidden. The people operate under the exact opposite - that which is not explicitly forbidden is permitted.

If i wish to carry a loaded firearm, it is no concern of yours unless and until I use it in an inappropriate manner.

[Starboard Tack]

145. Or until and unless it becomes illegal.

I suggest you learn how our laws work, because you'll be the one falling afoul of them with that mindset. However, carrying a loaded gun around and pulling it in public is more likely to get you killed rather than arrested.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

147. You're the one who asked...

..where permission was given in the Constitution for the people to be armed. I merely clarified it for you.

I couldn't care less how CA laws work. I don't live there. However, if they work from a perspective any different than what I described you have a real problem in your state.

I would love to see your proof on your statement that carrying a gun and pulling it in public is more likely to get me killed rather than arrested...Really - I'd LOVE to see that. Have a bunch of data on people legally carrying and using a firearm and get killed do you? No? Just more bullshit? Yeah - that's kinda what I thought....

[Starboard Tack]

152. " I couldn't care less how CA laws work" Then why are you participating in this thread?

"I would love to see your proof on your statement that carrying a gun and pulling it in public is more likely to get me killed rather than arrested...Really"
I think you are in a much better position to prove or disprove my statement. Go out and try it. If you don't get back to us, I guess I'll have proved my point. Have fun!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

154. I didn't make the claim.

You did. Therefore, the onus is upon you to support your claim.

If your claim is accurate, I am certain you could find hundreds of stories to offset the stories of a legal CCW holder pulling a gun in public and stopping a crime...after all, that does happen quite a few times a month.

[Starboard Tack]

157. I made a statement, not a claim.

Be my guest, be the one to prove me wrong. You claim to see the future. I go with common sense scenarios.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

165. You made a statement...

...claiming something to be true. Here, read your own words and tell me how else we should interpret this:

"However, carrying a loaded gun around and pulling it in public is more likely to get you killed rather than arrested."

Note, there are no qualifiers such as "I believe..." or "I would think..." or "In my opinion...". You stated very plainly that one is more likely to get killed using a legally carried firearm in public than he is to be arrested.

Prove your claim or retract it. Simple as that.

[Starboard Tack]

166. I don't need to prove what appears to be obvious. You countered my statement. Feel free.

You have the opportunity to prove me wrong. Please. And don't forget to have the event documented. If you survive, then you will have demonstrated that you, personally, are LESS likely to get yourself killed. That will be a great victory for you. But your reticence belies your confidence. Oh, dear!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

167. It does not appear obvious.

If it did, I would not have been asking you to prove it.

[Starboard Tack]

169. You are challenging me. It's your job to disprove what I said.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

170. Nope.

Its your claim. Substantiate it.

[Starboard Tack]

172. I think I just did, or I should say "You did it for me". Thanks!

[PavePusher]

135. Please repost your messages on hand-made parchment, by hand-powered printing press....

tacked up on the town hall door, riding there on a horse.

The horse is the tricky part, trust me....

[Starboard Tack]

146. I have a bike. It eats less than a horse and it's harder to kill.

[PavePusher]

168. Sorry, modern technology not allowed.

Them's the rules....

[Starboard Tack]

171. Your rules maybe. My bike folds, that's fairly modern.

I can carry it concealed without a permit. And it's great transportation.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

131. Minor correction...

it need not be carried or fired in one or both hands. Remember, private citizens owned cannon and battleships. In modern terms, that would be no different than owning a 155mm howitzer, a tank or an armed warship.

[SteveM]

139. My take is different. While citizens can own the weapons you...

describe, the context of "arms" when the Second was written meant a weapon which could be carried and fired in one or both arms/hands; an infantry weapon. The right to keep and bear THIS arm is what the Second says shall not be infringed. The possession of field, naval and aeronautical weapons may be owned, but the "right" to own them is much more circumscribed, as it does not fall under the definition envisioned by the founders. I think that definition of "small" arms still holds, despite 225 years.

I readily concede that the old/new definition of infantry weapons does include full-auto, and seen in THAT context, the Second has been infringed.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

140. The term "arms" actualy has no such distinction.

The arms v. ordinance thing is a relatively new concept brought out by pro-gun control activists as a way to appear to support some ownership while actually working to reduce it.

Arms means any weapon. Ordinance are a subset of arms typically referring to larger crew-served weapons.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

129. Wrong question

Where in the Constitution is government given the authority to prevent it?

I don't need permission from the government to exercise my rights. Government needs a reason to restrict them.

Now, armed with that new information, perhaps you can explain to us all how the 2nd Amendment grants government the authority to prevent me from carrying a weapon.

We'll wait...

[Starboard Tack]

143. Not all rights are granted by 2A.

The government gets to restrict all kinds of rights by passing legislation on either a local or national level.
Here's a small example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel#State_constitutional_provisions_and_military_laws_prohibiting_duelling
State and territorial laws prohibiting dueling

20 states, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have some statute(s) (including constitutional provisions) specifically prohibiting duelling. The remaining 30 states either have no such statute or constitutional provision, or limit their duelling prohibition to members of their state national guard. This does not necessarily mean, however, that duelling is legal in any state, as assault and murder laws can apply.

States which specifically prohibit members of the state national guard from duelling are Arizona, Arkansas,<40> Connecticut,<41> Georgia,<42> Iowa,<43> Kansas,<44> Missouri,<45> Hawaii,<46> Ohio,<47> Oregon,<48> Pennsylvania,<49> Washington<50> and New York.<51>

States and territories which have statutory prohibitions on duelling for all citizens are Colorado,<52> District of Columbia,<53> Idaho,<54> Kentucky,<55> Massachusetts,<56> Michigan,<57> Mississippi,<58> Nevada,<59> New Mexico,<60> New York,<61> North Dakota,<62> Oklahoma,<63> Puerto Rico,<64> Rhode Island<65> and Utah.<66> California previously prohibited duelling, but this was repealed in 1994.<67>

Virginia passed the Anti-Dueling Act in 1810, creating civil and criminal penalties for the most usual causes of duelling, rather than for the act itself. It is still on the books. Virginia Code §8.01-45 creates a Civil Action for insulting words. Virginia Code §18.2-416 makes it a crime to use abusive language to another under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Virginia Code §18.2-417 makes certain slander and libel a crime.<68>

You may find this more appealing
http://www.thebatt.com/opinion/right-to-duel-1.1183559

[We_Have_A_Problem]

149. No rights are granted by the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment recognizes a right.

Citing laws which prevent dueling as an example of what the 2nd does not protect is retarded. Dueling easily results in someone being dead and as such is an obvious problem.

Nobody ever said the 2nd Amendment granted the ability to use a weapon indiscriminately and without consequence. In fact, everyone on the pro-gun side has been quite clear in that the 2nd recognizes a pre-existing right to be armed, and just because you're armed doesn't mean you are not responsible for what you do with a weapon.

You just keep on building those strawmen, and I'll just keep knocking them down. Eventually we may get to a point where you offer actual facts backed up by real data.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. ....according

....to you.

[Starboard Tack]

53. Bring it on! We're just shakin' in our Havaianas

[AtheistCrusader]

79. You might review the legal costs passed on to the citizens of Chicago

last month. Not like California has a lot of loose change in it's pockets to be paying for things like that.

[Starboard Tack]

88. I don't think the state needs to hire any lawyers for this, but the toters might.

But this isn't about money, it's about principle and what kind of society we want.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

98. Doesn't matter how many they hire

Precedent is precedent, and the law is the law.

CA has just decided the 2nd Amendment does not apply within the borders of the state, and it has decided regardless of what the US Supreme Court has clearly stated, CA will do things their own way.

The lawsuit is coming. CA will lose. That, my friend, is a prediction you can bet on.

[Starboard Tack]

104. We'll see

[AtheistCrusader]

101. You misunderstand.

The state will lose, and will be required to pay legal costs for the plaintiffs when the inevitable lawsuits are launched.

[Starboard Tack]

105. You must be a seer.

Maybe we'll just secede if we lose this one.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

107. Might want to get started on that secession movement now...

The state will lose. Frankly, I wont be surprised if the state Supreme Court tosses the law. I'd lay even money the 9th Circuit would find it unconstitutional as well. The US Supreme Court is very likely to get even more explicit in its judgement on this than they did on McDonald.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Would you like to know how secession will end?

[SteveM]

123. Are you a...

Rick Perry supporter? You did mention "secede." Just clarifying.

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[Hoyt]

3. Good for Brown . . . . . .and society.

[Gman]

5. They included a sanity clause?

[ileus]

6. On sad day for individual freedom and society....I thought Ca was supposed to be progressive.

[Starboard Tack]

29. This is what most of us in California deem progressive.

You can still go play bang bang in lots of other places like Texas and Somalia and you don't even need a passport for Texas, yet.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Got to interrupt your prejudice with a correction- Texas doesn't allow open carry of handguns.

Once again, I am proved correct: You don't have to be factually inaccurate to promote gun control- but it helps.

[Starboard Tack]

39. I was aware of that, but Texas makes up for it by allowing defensive brandishing and shooting

miscreants in the back as they are fleeing. And any idiot can get a CCW permit. My observations are not based on prejudice, but experience. Personally, I respect OC for it's honesty, but handguns have no legitimate place in society. Period.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. "Any idiot can get a CCW permit" No, I don't think so, and here's why:

TITLE 37 PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
PART 1 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
CHAPTER 6 LICENSE TO CARRY HANDGUNS
SUBCHAPTER B ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICATION PROCEDURES
RULE §6.11 Proficiency Requirements

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) The proficiency demonstration course will be the same for both instructors and license applications. The course of fire will be at distances of three, seven, and fifteen yards, for a total of fifty rounds.

(1) Twenty rounds will be fired from three yards, as follows:

(A) five rounds will be fired "One Shot Exercise"; two seconds allowed for each shot;

(B) ten rounds will be fired "Two Shot Exercise"; three seconds allowed for each two shots; and

(C) five rounds will be fired; ten seconds allowed for five shots.

(2) Twenty rounds will be fired from seven yards, fired in four five-shot strings as follows:

(A) the first five shots will be fired in ten seconds;

(B) the next five shots will be fired in two stages:

(i) two shots will be fired in four seconds; and

(ii) three shots will be fired in six seconds.

(C) the next five shots at seven yards will be fired "One Shot Exercise"; three seconds will be allowed for each shot; and

(D) the last five shots fired at the seven-yard line, the time will be fifteen seconds to shoot five rounds.

(3) Ten rounds will be fired from fifteen yards, fired in two five-shot strings as follows:

(A) the first five shots will be fired in two stages:

(i) two shots fired in six seconds; and

(ii) three shots fired in nine seconds.

(B) the last five shots will be fired in fifteen seconds.

(NOTE: This is in addition to a 10 hour classroom course and a closed-book test)

(b) A student must score at least 70% on the written examination and shooting proficiency examination, in order to establish proficiency. A student will have three opportunities to pass the written examination and shooting proficiency examination.

(c) An instructor must submit failures of the written examination or shooting examination to the department on the class completion notification and must indicate if the failure occurred after the student had been given three opportunities to pass the examination.

(d) Upon successful completion of both the written and shooting proficiency examinations, the qualified handgun instructor may certify that the concealed handgun license applicant has established his or her proficiency, in a manner to be determined by the department....

Also discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=397055#397105

I guess "any idiot" means "too many people that I don't like", eh?

[Starboard Tack]

51. You got it. Any idiot.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. You can console yourself with the knowledge the OCers will now be toting rifles and shotguns.

instead of those uncivilized handguns:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x467867

I'm sure you're pleased by this development- after all, it's what you wanted...

[Starboard Tack]

64. Yes, I'm pleased. Not everything I want, but a step in the right direction.

I have no problem with rifles and shotguns. As long as they keep them either at home or where hunting or target shooting is allowed, that's just fine. Not that I've ever seen anyone open carry any kind of firearm anywhere in California in the 20+ years I've spent here. Unfortunate exceptions being LE and NG during the LA riots.

[oneshooter]

71. What else would you like in California? n/t

[Iktomiwicasa]

81. complete disarmament of everyone...

...excepting cops, military and government officials?

[oneshooter]

82. He wants the cops disarmed also. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

89. Lots of things like solar panels on every structure, car free zones, no handguns in the state.

More fish, more whales, more dolphins. Fewer power boats, suvs and assholes.

[SteveM]

124. Ah, a prohibitionist of the highest order. nt

[gejohnston]

156. these we agree on

Lots of things like solar panels on every structure More fish, more whales, more dolphins. Fewer assholes.

ambivalent about power boats. Solar panels on them and DC electric motors would be cool. Depends on the SUV. Some actually get better mileage than some sedans and sports cars.
What I hate are drunks on wave runners.

[Starboard Tack]

174. Hey, I'm for electric power boats. I'm researching a possible replacement for my diesel auxiliary.

But I hate fuel guzzling pleasure craft, especially PWCs. All have valid purposes, like S&R but there are too many wankers out there, endangering themselves and others.

[rl6214]

68. I scored a 249/250 when I took my Texas CHL course

While not exceedingly difficult it is by no means easy. My son took the course at the same time I did and he scored a 247/250. We were the two highest scores in the class.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

47. but the trend started by

right wing regressives from the 1920s-1960s. Progressive? I lived in California when Mike Savage was local ranter on KSFO, and San Francisco cops had a habit of shooting brown teenagers in the back. Seems that I remember something about gay marriage on the ballot once..... Then there is Orange County.
Actually, Somalia does not have a very high gun ownership. The people you see in the pictures are warlord thugs, and I doubt they like their subjects being armed assuming they could afford guns. That is one reason libertarianism does not work, defacto governments will be formed. Established, warlords, corporations (see company towns) or drug cartels will fill the vacuum.
Israel (where anyone can check a sub-machine gun from the local police armory, just like getting a book from the library) would be closer to what you are talking about.

[Starboard Tack]

65. What does any of that have to do with handguns?

You want to walk around with one, don't choose California as your home.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

73. You're a black man and want to vote?

Fine - just don't choose Alabama as your home.

Same concept, and just as offensive.

[Starboard Tack]

91. WTF are you talking about?

Are you saying that black people still can't vote in Alabama? Or you just shoot them if they try voting? You are really weird. What does blacks voting in Alabama have to do with gun legislation in California?

Are you trying to make some kind of analogy here? If so, it's not working and your feet might catch fire soon.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

99. I see the analogy was lost on you...

You have stated that if one wants to exercise their right to be armed, they need to stay out of the state of California and go someplace else.

I was pointing out the direct equivalency of the attitude of many whites in the south in the 50s and 60s saying it was perfectly OK for blacks to live there, but if they actually wanted to exercise their rights, they might want to move somewhere else.

A right is a right, and our system of government does not allow 50%+1 of the population to vote a right out of existence.

[Starboard Tack]

102. You can exercise your right to carry a gun in CA

Just make sure it isn't a handgun and it isn't loaded. What's that got to do with voting rights in Alabama in the 50's. That's not an analogy, it's a strrrrrrreeeeeettttcchhh beyond comprehension.

Why would you compare a very positive move in 2011 California to one of the darkest times in our nation's history? Flame bait!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

109. You could exercise your right to vote if you were black...

...in those times as long as you could pass a literacy test and pay the poll tax. Just because you were given a paper written in Mandarin and the poll tax exceeded your annual income by a factor of 100 doesn't mean your rights were infringed...


Same thing ST. Same EXACT thing. Not any different than what Chicago just got smacked over.

You may not like people being armed, but that sir, is YOUR problem. You do not have the right or the authority to dictate to others what rights they may or may not exercise.

[Starboard Tack]

121. Wrong! The same EXACT thing would be free guns and ammo for those who want them

I neither like nor dislike people being armed. The idea of routinely arming oneself is what most of us find disturbing. I don't have a problem and never claimed to have a problem. It is you who has a problem as you advertise so succinctly. So, why don't we try addressing your problem(s)?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

137. Who's asking for free guns and ammo?

Certainly not I. Advocating the restriction of a civil right is advocating the restriction of a civil right - and no, it really doesn't matter how you justify it.

Saying CA should be able to restrict the right to keep and bear arms if it wants to is exactly the same as saying Alabama should have been able to prevent blacks from attending white schools or vote, if it wanted to. After all, if the blacks wanted to do those things so much, they could move.

[Starboard Tack]

142. You need to make up your mind

You don't believe in restrictions, like literacy tests, for those who wish to vote. (And I agree with you there). However, you want guns to be available only to those who are wealthy enough to buy them and have not been convicted of a crime and are in the country legally. Your elitist position disenfranchises a huge underclass, not unlike it was in Alabama.

[PavePusher]

144. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Whew!

So, what other items should we get for the asking?

Where do you people invent this stuff from?

[Starboard Tack]

148. Stumped you again didn't I?

But, while you're here
"So, what other items should we get for the asking?"
How about basic health care for everyone.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

151. You stumped no one.

You did, however, manage to make yourself look pretty stupid.

[Starboard Tack]

153. Butting in again!

You aren't the only person here I converse with. Go start your own thread.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

155. Ahem....

...this subthread is mostly you and me. Once again though, since you apparently missed it, this is an open forum. ANYONE can reply to ANY posting. If you don't like it, tough. Carry on your conversations via PM.

[PavePusher]

159. No, actually I agree with him. You're starting to look silly.

Unless you are proposing a tax to fund the effort... but you seem to imply they should be pulled from.... thin air.

Hint: You don't seem to understand economics either.

[Starboard Tack]

163. Agree with whom? What are you talking about?

[Straw Man]

162. Excuse me, but your authoritarian streak is showing.

You ought to cover that thing up.

[Starboard Tack]

164. I know. It's scary isn't it? I should start inserting those little face doodads instead of assuming

that others have the ability to pick up on my scathing wit. Oh, well. I think I'll load up my trusty Nikon and go shoot some folk now.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

150. Not hardly.

You have a right to have weapons, but you have no right to obtain them at someone else's expense.

If you've been convicted of a crime, of course you should not be armed while in jail. On a personal level, I firmly believe a criminal, upon completion of his sentence, should regain ALL of his rights immediately - including the right to keep and bear arms.

As far as illegals, I never said they don't have the natural right to be armed.

[Starboard Tack]

173. Hallelujah! We agree on something.

:toast:

[gejohnston]

85. You described Somalia as a

being like Texas where everyone has guns. It does not. Only what passes for "militaries" and thugs have guns, so California is closer to Somalia in that regard than Texas.

[Starboard Tack]

92. I didn't describe Somalia at all.

I used it and Texas as comparisons to California in terms of which might be a preferable sandbox for gun fetishists to play in. In Somalia, toters can get all the excitement they want killing pirates and rescuing hostages. Lots more fun than paint balls on the weekend. Then, in Texas, you can point your gun at oglers and if they touch your shit you can shoot them in the back. Now, that's progressive.

[SteveM]

125. speciousness compounded with sophistry. neat.

[Starboard Tack]

132. Ah, go on. Admit it. You're just envious.

[SteveM]

138. Well, more bored, if you must know.

[PavePusher]

134. Someone's been taking lessons from Canada. n/t

[oneshooter]

160. Just as progressive as you telling lies. n/t

[cleanhippie]

74. Read your emotional, irrational, nonsensical response again and tell me just what it "progressive".

[rl6214]

7. DUPE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=467589&mesg_id=467589

Unrec

" makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or IN VEHICLES(?),"

[gejohnston]

8. Did you remember to thank Reagan too?

Until now it was legal only if they were unloaded, that has been since 1967 when Ronnie signed the Mulford Act, named after the right wing speaker of the house who authored the bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

[TheWraith]

24. And don't forget why he signed it: armed black people protesting police brutality.

The lily white elites were worried that "those people" were allowed to protect themselves. Scary how some people on our side now subscribe to the same belief, only "those people" have expanded into a belief that every American is a potential murderer if only they have a gun.

[spin]

9. What California needs is "shall issue" concealed carry ...

[Glassunion]

11. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and make a prediction.

This will have absolutely ZERO effect on making the public any safer than they were before the ban. In fact I will go further and predict that this will also have ZERO effect on reducing the number of murders and/or assaults.

The only people following this new law are folks who already follow the law. The criminals, gang members, drug dealers and general fuck-heads will still carry their guns around as they always have. It was already illegal for them to do so before the gov signed the bill.

This law does absolutely NOTHING for the public or for safety.

Stupidity...

[jpak]

12. K&R - the backlash cometh

yup

:thumbsup:

:bounce:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

19. The backlash cometh indeed....

CA has just set themselves up for a bitch-slapping by the US Supreme Court.

[jpak]

22. Sorry - the militia is now "well regulated" just like the Holy 2A intended

no court would deny that

yup

[ManiacJoe]

25. If you only knew what "well regulated" meant...

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. ...or could read Supreme Court opinions.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

27. You keep using that phrase...

...i do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes jpak, courts will deny it, and in fact, the one the matters already has.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Read the Constitution

......the word MILITIA is there for a reason.

[gejohnston]

45. ummmm so what?

The "being part of a militia" did not exist until the mid 20th century. It was a product of the enlightenment. The right to own guns is not unique to the US.

In France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the abolition of the privileges after the french revolution guarantee the right for all French citizens to possess firearms. But several recent laws considerably limit this right. Currently, full automatic weapons are banned and to bear weapons is prohibited. Firearms are identified by gauges and classified in different complex categories (Principally, military, civil and hunting weapons). For example, according to French legislation, 9mm is a military gauge, .357 Magnum is a civil gauge and .22LR is a hunting gauge. In France, there are legally 762,331 military and civil weapons and 2,039,726 hunting weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law

[PavePusher]

60. Please explain how the word "militia" in a dependent clause....

is a limitation on "the people" in the independent clause.

Please use evidence from grammar, history and context when making your argument.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

112. False Premise

...it's not. It's the purpose for which the right is given.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

114. Oooh - sorry - you lose

If you believe otherwise, we, and the US Supreme Court await your actual proof on the matter.

Besides the fact that the right is not given but recognized to be pre-existing, the 2nd Amendment restricts GOVERNMENT, not the individual.

The grammar, sentence construction, logic and basic legal document construction do not agree with your assessment. You are of course free to provide actual proof to the contrary.

[PavePusher]

117. I ask again: please cite your evidence. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

77. I have read it

Perhaps you can explain to the Supreme Court what that reason is. They don't seem to agree with you and in fact, never have.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

113. LOL

Wouldn't be the first time I disagree with them but Keller was VERY narrow in it's ruling for DC. Haven't seen other statues overturned as a result...have you?

PS- the one gun store open in DC is struggling to stay open. Not enough business and can't' get a lease.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

115. Ahem....

Actually it was Heller, not Keller, and while many, like you, believed Heller only applied to D.C., McDonald cleared THAT idea up rather quickly.

D.C. is also facing another lawsuit as a result of the zoning bullshit they're pulling with gun stores in the city, but hey, you just go right on believing you have a clue. You don't, but it gives the rest of us something to laugh at.

[SteveM]

127. ...probably confused "Heller" with "Kellerman." nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

158. Hog Wash

Yea...we have zoning laws just like everyone else but they were NEVER written exclusively to impede the sale of guns. Shows what you know. The city is giving space rent free until he can find a n affordable lease.

By the way, did that dealer disclose why he left the place he originally leased that was properly zoned? He couldn't pay the lease with the truly pathetic number of guns he sold.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Yes it is.

Let me re-phrase it for you, and maybe you'll understand what it means.


"A well-read electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed".


'Well regulated' means 'equipped'. And it is not a limitation, or restriction, it is WHAT is desired: an armed populace (being necessary to the security of a free state). The militia is formed of the people in times of need. Need varies considerably.

[SteveM]

126. Yes, now explain it for us. nt

[rl6214]

69. 6pak, you're back

You must have been posting using one of your other screen names lately.

[SteveM]

13. Have no problem with open-carry ban if a concealed-carry law is enacted...

This would recognize the Second Amendment's protections for the "right to keep and BEAR arms." (emphasis mine.) If California does not enact a concealed-carry law, then they will be subject to unreasonable restrictions on the RKBA, and could be sued for violating provisions of both the Second and the Fourteenth Amendments.

[one-eyed fat man]

20. You are aware there is a Catch-22?

The Federal judge who ruled last May in favor of California's "may issue" CCW system based his decision in part on the fact that California had open carry as an alternative.

As the California law now stands, the county sheriff's have absolute discretion on concealed carry permits. In LA, if you are a millionaire or a movie star, even a felony record is no problem. In Orange county, if you make a big enough contribution to the sheriff's reelection, things get easier. Some counties if you are of legal age, and have no criminal record, you can qualify. Once you have the permit, it matters not where you go from Stockton to Sacramento, Bakersfield to Fresno.

So what happens now that California has banned open carry and the disparity and discriminatory application of concealed carry is challenged again?

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. They're prepared to fight the NRA to the very last taxpayers dollar

And the NRA will put the California taxpayers dollars that they will receive to good use, I'm sure...

[PavePusher]

21. "Sanity" how?

Are the states surrounding California awash in insanity?

If so, can you cite evidence to support your claims?

[Starboard Tack]

31. Hmm! Lemme think. How could fewer guns being toted be consdered sanity?

Damn, you got me. What the fuck is wrong with me? Of course it isn't sane. It's crazy! How are we supposed to deal with road rage now? How are we expected to resolve conflicts now? How do we get to be heroes now? Holy shit, we're on the slippery slope towards an unarmed police state like the UK. Man the life rafts!

[gejohnston]

33. huh?

How are we supposed to deal with road rage now?

what does road rage have to do with open carry an unloaded pistol? How many road rage problems turned in to gun fights?

How are we expected to resolve conflicts now?

Same way you resolved them before. You are equating defending yourself against a sociopath on the same level as arguing about the neighbor's tree branch hanging over your fence. how absurd.

How do we get to be heroes now?

see above

we're on the slippery slope towards an unarmed police state like the UK.

Actually, Japan is a police state. Democratic yes, but still a police state. Which part turns you on more, "unarmed" or "police state"?

[Starboard Tack]

38. Are you suggesting we shoot sociopaths in California?

That would probably be bad for our state's economy, as we probably attract more sociopaths than any place on earth. We find it more productive to accommodate them by allowing them to entertain the rest of the nation rather than toting unloaded, or loaded, guns around. Trust me, we feel much safer here in California knowing that very few people carry guns. Sorry, we just don't need them or want them.

[gejohnston]

43. given the statistics

I feel much safer in Vermont or Wyoming. One of those statistics things.
How are you safer if you keep attracting so many sociopaths? Very few people carry guns? Very few people legally carrying maybe, but they are not the ones killing each other (along with children who are "collateral damage" for market share for the neighborhood pot and coke heads. But that is a small price to keep bong bowls filled isn't it?

[Starboard Tack]

50. I would feel just as safe in Vermont or Wyoming

But California is a different kind of place. It is a magnet for all kinds of folk, including an inordinate percentage of sociopaths. Try to see this as a win-win situation. We get your sociopaths and try to keep them distracted and disarmed. We offer them surfboards and promises and you get to tote in peace. We trade in The Governator for Governor Moonbeam, so don't the same rules to apply. We can grow skunk weed, but not industrial hemp. Go figure.
Not sure where you're going with "Very few people legally carrying maybe, but they are not the ones killing each other (along with children who are "collateral damage" for market share for the neighborhood pot and coke heads. But that is a small price to keep bong bowls filled isn't it?"

Are you suggesting that adding more handguns to the equation would somehow protect "children who are "collateral damage""? What are you basing this on?

[petronius]

55. Your characterization of CA sounds a lot like the 'fruits and nuts' BS we hear

from RWinger types. You don't actually live here, do you? :shrug:

[gejohnston]

57. Not what I meant

I did a couple of years at Travis, and found (at least the Vacaville area) to be more right wing than I imagined. I was actually disappointed.

Edit to add, I hope I did not offend, but that was my experience in that area at that time.

[gejohnston]

56. I am saying

gangsters and sociopaths don't apply for CCWs and are mostly in "no issue" counties.
When I lived in "progressive" California, my boss and his wife were pulled over for driving while black (in the SFO area) far more often than they ever did in Alabama. As far as California being a open minded and liberal paradise, it is over rated.

[Starboard Tack]

58. Oh yeah. I forgot about the driving thing. I stick to the bicycle. Much safer.

.

[Starboard Tack]

67. You're absolutely right. Enjoy Alabama - wonderful place

Your boss must have confused San Francisco with one of those liberal places like Birmingham or Mobile. "Driving while black"! Really! Definitely not something to consider doing in San Francisco, our bastion of white supremacy. How dare they?

[gejohnston]

90. No, not at all.

Like I said, at the time SFPD had the habit of shooting brown kids in the back with no backlash. We were mostly in the Fairfield/Vacaville area.
He was from Alabama and old enough to remember segregation as a kid. I would accept his experiences as reality over your over generalized assumptions.

[Starboard Tack]

93. I'm hardly defending SFPD or any other cops. So, what's your point?

[gejohnston]

136. I am saying

while there are pockets of California that is very liberal and progressive, as there is every place else in varying degrees, most of it is not that different than anyplace else. There were things about the state I liked, but its image as a liberal paradise full open minded forward thinking people is greatly over rated.

[Starboard Tack]

141. I couldn't agree with you more.

[PavePusher]

61. "...can you cite evidence to support your claims?"

But I repeat myself....

[Starboard Tack]

66. What claims?

[rl6214]

70. Please cite where open carried unloaded guns were used :

to deal with road rage

to resolve conflicts

to be heroes

We'll wait...

[Starboard Tack]

87. Who said they were. That's the whole point. We don't need them.

We aren't real cowboys. We just play them in the movies.

[PavePusher]

94. What is this infatuation you have with this mythical "cowboy" characterisation?

I suggest you dump some of your fiction tropes.

[Starboard Tack]

96. Maybe when I hire you as my agent, I'll ask for your advice.

Until then, keep your spurs sharp Kemo Sabe

[PavePusher]

103. So your entire "arsenal" is stereotypes, bigotry, false memes and broadbrushing?

Good luck with that.

[Starboard Tack]

108. Damn, and I thought it was my sense of humor. What a loser I am.

Gonna have to find me some monotypes, true memes and a sharp stylus so I can express my prejudices more poignantly. Look at me, I'm so bigoted I hate myself.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

116. You are pretty bigoted.

Nobody said you were a loser. You're welcome to be as bigoted and stupid as you like. Its a free country. Of course, we're free to ridicule you and point out the gaping holes in your argument.

[SteveM]

128. Sounds like you are losing it yourself. Why not take a sarcasm pill...

...they'll make you feel better.;-)

[alp227]

23. As much as I will defend the 2nd amendment,

what's the point of openly carrying an UNLOADED gun? what if someone decides to pick a fight, self-defense via weapon becomes impossible.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

32. You can (could) carry a loaded magazine as well. Takes about 3 seconds to load a magazine. n/t

[aikoaiko]

34. These things happen.

I'll take this loss in the context of all the other awesome wins.

Its not the first time CA has disappointed me with anti-rkba laws.

We'll keep fighting the good fight and win more than we lose.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. BRAVO

Thank you California!
Thank you Jerry!

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Jerry just finished what Ronald Reagan started with the Mulford Act.

Still happy, now that you know that?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. Gosh....ok...if you say so.

LOL.

Bravo to EVERYONE who made this happen.

[gejohnston]

44. You also realize Mulford was

just as right wing as Reagan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

[fightthegoodfightnow]

110. So What?

I'm suppose to hate Jelly Beans because Reagan liked them. Good grief......

[PavePusher]

118. No, you should hate the law because it was based on a rather nasty streak of bigotry....

and fear of african-americans having the termerity to exercise Civil Rights and defend themselves from abusive police actions.

And now you seem to be applauding the descendent of that very law.

WHY?

[PavePusher]

62. Yes, piggy-backing on virulent racism is so fucking Progressive, ain't it?

Fucking sarcasm, if you didn't get it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. And not very

........effective or relevant.

[gejohnston]

59. Are you sure about Jerry's motives?

maybe he signed it to instigate a lawsuit to get shall issue? He did urge SCOUS to overturn Chicago's handgun ban.


"I have respect for the Second Amendment," said Brown, who owns three guns and targets shoots occasionally on his ranch east of Chico, Calif. "Gun ownership is a fundamental right."
http://www.daylife.com/quote/06FldY72hrbNa
the original Boston Globe article is no longer up.

According to this gun blog, you might have like Meg Whitman more. As for me, she was wrong on guns as she was about labor, trade, and the environment.

I have been asked to comment on the up-coming CA gubernatorial election: Of the Republican candidate, an immensely wealthy woman named Whitman, I know nothing except that she is alleged to be anti-gun by some people who claim to know and that the allegation is not surprising to anyone.

SPECIFICS: Whitman recently gave an interview to the SF Chronicle in which it reported her as believing "tough gun laws like assault weapon bans and handgun control are appropriate for California." Under her stewarship of E-Bay it adopted a policy of refusing to advertise gun or ammo sales.

Whitman has no interest in meeting w/ gun groups to solicit their support; Whitman has supported Barbara Boxer; Whitman supports "environmental" lawsuits that are anti-hunting but makes no attempt to gain the aid of gun groups on environmental issues.

In contrast, I do know Jerry Brown. We went to law school together though we were not big buddies. And when I contacted him about supporting the pro-2d Am position in the McDonald case, he filed an influential pro-2d Am brief w/ the S Ct. I know that he personally made the decision to do this, overruling his staff; and he wrote the brief himself. (He is an able lawyer.) When he was assailed by anti-gun forces, his response was that the 2d am is a "civil rights issue."

This is not to say that Brown is "pro-gun."He just thinks – as does everyone rational and informed on the issue – that gun control does not help reduce crime; indeed, that it has nothing to do w/ crime.

Based on the foregoing, I unreservedly recommend Jerry Brown for CA governor.

http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/che-talk/865-jerry-brown.html

[PavePusher]

63. I hope you are right, but it saddens me that he believed he had to throw half of a Civil Right....

into the shredder to get the other half by slow litigation.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

76. Really?

You're happy that he just signed a blatantly unconstitutional law which is going to be tossed out by the courts, perhaps even just the state supreme court, and cost the state a crap-load of money both in the legal defense and when they have to pay the plaintiff's legal fees? You call that a GOOD thing?

You have a very twisted view of good...

[krispos42]

48. So now we can sue for shall-issue concealed carry?

Excellent!

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Got news for you: The OCers have already said they're switching to long guns:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x467867

True, they are far more dangerous than handguns- but they're not as tacky, I suppose...

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Wierd. In WA we can open carry loaded weapons.

Not really been a problem. Wonder what is wrong with Californians?

[GreenStormCloud]

83. It won't be long until a National Reciprocity bill pass.

Then CA will have to honor legal concealed carry by civilians. Since CA rarely issues a CC license then their citizens will get out of state permits from FL or UT which will be valid in CA.

[Iktomiwicasa]

84. Unless California says that ..,

...the CCW holder be licensed in his state of residence.

[GreenStormCloud]

95. The National law would override CA.

The only way that CA could get out of it would be to ban CC completely.

[gejohnston]

161. have to ask about the title

when did sanity rule before? When did it end?