Good luck, for sure! I'm a CCW holder in my state, and I'm certainly glad I'm not subject to California's various insane gun laws. x_x

I actually support quite a bit of gun control laws and i'm unfortunately forced to vote for the party that introduces and passes them but yeah. California has almost reached the point of self parody with many of them. Often they just wreak of being written by people who don't know the first thing about guns. They just look at whatever is being used to mow down people in the latest action flicks and go "That looks scary! Put it on the list." It's ridiculous.

Congrats! Hope Cali stays on this path!

Now, if they follow the Second Amendment and allow constitutional carry, that would be even better.

Well that's the whole point. The requirement to demonstrate an absolute need for CCW rights was ruled unconstitutional.

In Constitutional carry, the right to carry openly as well. Here in WA state you can carry openly with no requirements (barring the typical felony conviction, adjucated mentally unstable, ect). I have a concealed permit so I can carry where open carry is prohibited.

Well while i don't support it being banned or whatever, i personally think open carry is a terrible idea for normal people. I would never do it myself. I'm also not sure i support absolutely anybody being able to do it with no restrictions other than what you mentioned. I don't really support possibly inept and uneducated people carrying around guns for the same reason i don't support uneducated people on driving and safety driving around on highways with me. We make them demonstrate with a test and demonstration that they're educated and responsible enough to do so. I support the same for any sort of carry. I think both should be a privilege that should be earned and within the grasp of anybody that we should trust to be responsible enough to do it.

But if i have to choose between it being outright banned or being allowed with no restrictions, i'll take the latter any day.

Heres where we are going to differ. Let me state first that I do agree that if your going to carry in any capacity, having training is a good idea. Where it goes off kilter is that its not a privilege allowed by the government. The 2nd amendment (all of them actually but were focusing here on the 2nd) is not a right given to you by the government subject to their will and pleasure. It is a given right they are barred from trespassing. None of the articles in the document were wrtten as to be what the Gov allows, they were written as items the gov cannot touch.

Now, we have allowed this trespass and to a degree, its common sense stuff, (felons, mentally unstable folks...) And over time that has been used to make us think, and feel, that a right, can be taken away by legislation. Large mags, who needs them, a pistol grip looks scary, lets ban that, Lets make them rigister them and we wont use that to confiscate (the ink isnt dry on the NY SAFE act and they already started doing confiscations).

Enough is enough.

I open carry here because its a right, and a right ignored or let go by the wayside gets trampled. I meet up with a local group of open carry folks once a month and we open carry, have lunch, discuss issues, have a huge picnic every year, and give away guns as "door" prizes. The folks that attend run from a new carry guy that has only fired his once at the range, to the seasoned gal that teaches defensive tactics with a weapon in a life or death situation.

Not once has any in that huge span did something stupid. I wont say it cant or wont, but most folks do understand the responsibility of carry. Just like anything in life like driving, you could ace your test, ace your driving part of the test, and still do something stupid. Were human.

There are far less deaths from stupid gun owners ( not including criminals here. just law abiding gun owners) many many times over than to bad drivers.

For me, im not having a right pushed over and trampled one more inch by a nanny government. I havent for a long time, but over the last few years, its got worse. The Law of Unintended Consequences is slowly biting them on the ass at least.

Yeah, this is total bullshit. Every single part of the constitution is subject to interpretation by the supreme court. The constitution was kept vague specifically because they anticipated times to be changing, which they have.

I'll never understand this whole chest pounding about the constitution as a literal document while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the existence of the supreme court and their job of interpreting the constitution to enact and repeal laws is also IN THE CONSTITUTION.

If the supreme court determined that the constitution decrees that ANY regulation of firearms and ownership of them is unconstitutional, then you would have a point, but they have not interpreted it that way so you have no point.

Yeah, whatever happened to the "well-regulated" part of that well-regulated militia?

Well iirc, the well regulated militia is basically the national guard.

The bottom line is. The constitution says whatever the fuck SCOTUS decides it says and that's just how it is. This is usually great, but not always (citizens united).

Yes, thank you. "I can own and carry whatever arms I want whenever I want" is but one interpretation of the actual wording of the second amendment. Good luck with your hoop-jumping and thank you for being a conscientious citizen.

It always cracks me up how the same people DEMANDING a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment are usually the same people that totally ignore the constitution when it comes to issues like discrimination and gay marriage, and the establishment clause.

rather see law abideing open carry then have to hide it. when one hides a gun it shows to me the stigma of doing somthign wrong. and armed socity is polite one

Uh, no, when you show off your gun you're not only giving away your biggest defensive advantage, the element of surprise but anybody can just walk up behind you and grab it.

Open carry is a stupid fucking idea.

actualy arjuna most holsters have a belt clip and a latch that holds gun in place if they yank it they will yank your belt and pants off with it and that point you should be decking them across the floor. thing is the stigma of open carry shows that person least to most know how to use it and thus trying to sneak up and steal it would lead to them getting shot. intimidation is also a key as well.

Karno actually has a good comic about how unrestricted open carry has made his life a great deal better.

Every day I give thanks to the universe that I was born and live in Canada.

Apparently we have just as many guns in Canada just they aren't all for personal protection or whatnot. My dad had rifles but he was a hunter.

When I was down in South Carolina the guy I was visiting kept a huge knife in his car's glove box and even that made me extremely uncomfortable. I can't imagine being out with someone who had a gun on them, unless they were a police officer.

Fear of an inanimate object is covered under obamacare here.

I don't fear the gun itself, my worry is over the person who owns it and why.

For most, the why is self defense is one of the most basic human rights. Im going to repeat that - one of the most basic of human rights- A gun is one tool for that, as well as fists, ball bats, knives...

So, you were brought up thinking guns are evil, but are really no more or less a tool than a plowshare. Of course you suspect anyone with a gun is evil or has bad intentions except for the police.

Perhaps thats right in Canada, a cop with a gun never violates his position, never used his position wrong, or violated whatever standard they might have oathed, sweared, or affimed on.

But here, and I dont want it to sound like its a big issue, but it is still an issue...

Just because they are supposed to act in a way, does not mean they will do so correctly, or honestly.

Having a knife, gun, or ball bat to remind the ones out to do evil that they will have to meet me on a level field is the most honest way to keep them in check.

My being armed is not that I expect the "gov" to come after me, but the fact I am armed, and they know it, means they will think twice before trying it especially if they have no right to do so in the first place.

If its not an issue there, then cudos, but its a different world here of sorts. its funny that we follow Common British Law moreso than anyone else in the world now, even as fucked up as we are.

I agree with you that we have the right to defend ourselves. I guess then how defenseless you feel is dependent on where you live and personal experiences. Where I am, I don't need a gun to defend myself or feel safe. If someone lives in a higher crime rate area or they've been victimized then perhaps a gun is now how they feel safe. I just hope that people who want to defend themselves look into other means as well before jumping the gun (self defense courses, home security systems, a dog, not making stupid choices to walk dark alleys late at night and alone etc).

Please stop assuming I was brought up thinking guns are evil or that people who own one are evil. I said I would feel uncomfortable around someone who had a gun on them with the sole purpose to 1) inspire fear in another and failing that 2) harm them if their safety was threatened. In my opinion, there are some crimes in which someone would hope to have the upper hand (ex. rape), however there are other situations where shooting someone in defense doesn't warrant the crime (ex. trespassing, robbery).

Our officers are human just like the rest of us and I'm more than confident that we have a few of those bad apples that you mentioned above. However, it is the job of our police officers to serve and protect the public and to do so they NEED the upper hand in ALL situations. They also have a ton of policies and rules and regulations and testing and reviews that they must follow and pass to use a gun as well as keep it. If civilians had to go through all that as well, then maybe I wouldn't worry as much.

Also are you saying that if the government "came after you" that you would stand and literally fight them? That just sounds like a losing battle man and I highly doubt the government would be threatened whatsoever by the fact that you own a gun if it came down to you vs. them (please ignore this comment however if I completely misread your statement).

I feel that I'm starting to ramble now so I'll just say that being raised where it is not a right to own a gun makes it very weird to hear about places where it is a right. It also doesn't help that all the news being fed to Canada about American gun violence makes all Americans sound like trigger happy individuals who'd shoot someone for stepping onto their lawn just as quickly as if they were holding a knife to their child's throat.

What does this have to do with being threatened or needing to feel safe?

it has everything to do with not liking the idea of being forced to be subservient and defenseless to any of the hundreds of thousands of bad people lurking around who do bad things to other people.

Is there ANY good reason to be defenseless? Shit, my landlord's brother in law and his wife were both stabbed to death in their own home 20 years ago. Do you think they didn't feel safe walking around?

seikox if they trespass and enter home castle law. who says the guy is only there to steal. that thief could easly come back there and rape kill what ever. the key is not to let that happen period. and be armed you come in the ngiht and see down barrel of a 12 gauge if your smart you be hitting the door. and reason you don't hesitate is cause what if theif is armed? suddenly your wounded and he grabs shot gun and now hes a bigger threat. when you tress pass your at mercy of the castle owner. but 90% time hearing it rack up is enough to make thieves run like hell.

I'm sorry but I don't fully understand what you are trying to say in your statement. If you're saying I should have a gun because a thief might break into my house and might rape and kill me I still say I don't need one just because there's the threat that this might happen. I would rather take other precautions to protect myself.

Again, this choice would be affected on where you live. If I lived in New York, then hell yes I would look into more radical methods of protecting myself because the crime rate there compared to where I live now is much higher.

I'm commenting on your insinuation that the reason to want own or feel you should be allowed to own a gun is due to feeling threatened and unsafe. It's a hobby as well as a self defense implement. I'm not a criminal, there is simply no reason I should not be allowed to.

I don't feel unsafe or threatened, but i can assure you both times when i diffused a situation with a gun, I sure as hell did at that moment and I was glad it was there.

It really just all comes down to this, do you desire to be defenseless? I don't. And there really aren't any other real options in a world filled with guns. I simply do not like the idea that if somebody wished to do it they could do ANYTHING to me or anybody i'm with if they have a gun. I just think it's too much power to have not in the hands of more responsible people than terrible people.

As for the impression in canada that americans are blood thirsty hicks who can't wait for somebody to step on their lawn so they can kill them within their rights. The reason you get this perception is because to a certain extent, it's disgustingly accurate. I frankly despise the major gun culture in america, the Trayvon case made me despise them twice as much.

Shit, when tell the story to "gun people" of how i walked in on a meth addict who had broken into my house and totally caught me by surprise, approached me with his hand on something in his pocket till i pointed a pistol at him (he ran of course. Since he cut through our screen i assume his hand was on the knife he used.), almost EVERY time I tell that story to "gun people" they say i should have killed him. Every fucking time. Doesn't matter that i didn't need to kill him, i had a right to kill him so I should have done it. It's disgusting how little respect for a human life so many of these people have.

Glad you were able to keep a level head in that situation. It makes you wonder about people who don't value another person's life, even if that other person is someone like a meth addict.

The way i see it. It's my job to stay safe, it's the cop's job to "get" the bad guys. They usually suck at it but yeah, that's not my job. I just wanted him out of my house, i'm not trying to shoot anybody.

Logic

God forbid any government on earth has a healthcare system that works.

Oh wait.

X3

Hey ours works. It just works really fucking terribly and costs almost twice as much as yours and kills thousands of people a year who can't afford to use it. At least hte latter most of those has now been resolved. It's a step in the right direction at least.

Per capita, Canadians have about a third (30.8 per 100) as many guns as the US (89 per 100), and about 1/10th the population of the US.

Just out of curiosity, what makes it that much better for an officer to carry a gun, but not a civilian? Police have, statistically, a greater number of accidental shootings than lawful gun owners, and often have a significantly reduced sentence if they're ever found guilty of misusing them.

Sadly, I'm sure they'll implement it just as fast as Illinois has after they lost their court case (which is to say, ignoring court mandates and doing what the fuck they want anyway).

Not really sure what's going on in illinois, isn't that still tied up or waiting for a higher court? that could very well happen here in CA.

On June 28, 2010, in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the handgun bans of Chicago and Oak Park to be unconstitutional.

On July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allowed the possession of handguns with certain restrictions. Residents were required to obtain a Chicago Firearms Permit. To get the permit they were required to complete a firearms training course, pass a background check including fingerprinting, and pay a $100 permit fee. Chicago's gun registration requirement was still in effect. Possession of firearms was permitted only inside a dwelling, not in a garage or on the outside grounds of the property. Only one gun at a time was allowed to be kept in a usable state.

On July 9, 2013, Illinois enacted the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, which set up a permitting system for the concealed carry of firearms. Another provision of this law is state preemption for "the regulation, licensing, possession, and registration of handguns and ammunition for a handgun, and the transportation of any firearm and ammunition". This invalidated Chicago's requirements for gun registration and for an additional permit for the possession of firearms.

On September 11, 2013, the Chicago City Council repealed the law requiring the registration of firearms and the law requiring a city issued firearm owners permit. They also changed the law to allow the carrying of firearms on the grounds of one's property outside as well as inside the home.

On September 12, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court, in the case of People v. Aguilar, also ruled that the state's Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon law, which completely prohibited concealed carry, was unconstitutional.

Illinois enacted concealed carry on July 9, 2013. The State Police will begin accepting permit applications within 180 days of that date. (They are in violation of that right now and have not begun issuing)

As of right now, the law permits concealed carry... buuuuuut, licenses are being issued (catch 22). Basically, it's been a huge pissing match between the state, county, city, state police, and courts to make it happen... now four years later, it's not resolved.

Wikipedia is your friend for making sure you have timelines right... heh.

typo:

buuuuuut, licenses are not being issued (catch 22).

yea the license not being issued violates cause its being used to infringe. and law banning open carry is unconstitutional as it infringes own and BARE arms thus any stat that bans open carry is in violation of constitution of united states

California, New York, and Illinois are the anti-gun bastions of the country, regardless of what laws are passed, they will not allow legal carry unless their hand is forced and it's a fight for every step forward.

New York recently lost on their seven round limit law, isn't stopping them in other ways.

If you ever get bored, look up "Peaceable Journey Law New York". That state doesn't care what laws it violates for it's own goals.

then every one should challenge them to federal court and basicly get a watcher or what ever that makes sure they abide.

The problem with challenging laws like this is that you have to break the law first. That's called the rule of "Standing". So, find someone willing to knowingly commit a felony under the chance that they may win.

Generally, the cases that have gone through are individuals with heavy backing from the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation)... but even then, the individual who's name is on the case is betting their entire life that they'll win. In years past, that bet would not have been good, though the public opinion in swinging gun-rights again for the first time in several decades.

well one can take the law to court with out breaking it and challenge it constitution wise. that is power of we the people to call out all government if they place stipulation must be effected by the law to challenge it then that is also a violation of speech and protest and grievances

Sadly, no. That's not how our court system works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29

The problem is, that Standing is the first thing that any decent defense lawyer for the state is going to use... and once the court dismisses the case, it cannot be brought again (double jeopardy)... so you end up with an additional risk from the prosecuting side that your case will be completely torpedoed.

This is why so many major laws never get challenged or repealed.

but the law was not properly ruled and thrown out thus not ruled on thus can not trigger double jeapordy cause judge never ruled it was just thrown out.

A dismissal counts as a tried case, sadly.

Well to play devils advocate, it sounds like there was a long running series of cases that incrementally got you guys to where you are now. This one is a pretty sweeping one.

It sounds like they followed the rulings, they just needed a whole lot of them to really make anything even a little bit different.

It was a little more than that, mostly head-butting between each level of government... and the state doesn't have a per-emption law like a lot of others (which would force localities to abide by state law instead of making things more stringent).

Well either way, i hope we both get our right to pack. I"m actually really surprised with how liberal the country has been incrementally shifting how much it's swung the opposite way on the gun issue for the most part.

Personally i almost think that gun rights SHOULD be a liberal issue. We're the ones that want the gov't off our backs to let us do what we want to do, decriminalization of drugs, keeping the gov't off our bodies and out of our bedrooms, civil liberties and all that. The tight gun restrictions always seemed so at odds with so much else of what the left wing espouses as far as personal freedoms.

The problem is that the Liberals (large L) have been traditionally the ones against gun rights. See, the biggest problem I have with the concept of Liberals being for personal freedoms is that they aren't... they want to go nanny-state on everyone and regulate what they want them to do. Look at regulating fast food and such in New York, gun rights nationwide, health-care, etc. They meddle. If it's about a personal freedom, they're all for it... but when it's someone else's personal freedom, they want to regulate it.

Yeah, that's completely bullshit. When it comes to regulation, they're protecting our freedom to not get fucked by a financial system we have no say in that effectively runs our government now, they're protecting our kids freedom to not inherit an uninhabitably polluted and warm planet (they're not doing shit on the latter, but at least they want to). And if you're talking about bloomberg in new york's fast food nonsense, that guy isn't a liberal at all and he was absolutely no friend of personal freedoms, bloomberg and all of his policies are despised on the left.

But yes, they're protecting our civil liberties to have the freedom to lose our jobs and not die because we suddenly can't afford our heart medication, besides, that healthcare reform is from the right anyways. We wanted single payer, we did not want the conservative bill that is the ACA, but we'll settle for it because it is an improvement.

There isn't really any distinction between our personal freedom and somebody else's personal freedom, theres only freedom and liberals generally seem to be the only ones looking out for them other than the gun issue considering that every personal freedom at some point infringes on somebody elses freedom.

On the flip side we have conservatives trying to forcibly indoctrinate our kids into their religion, force women to have babies they don't want, tell 10% of the population they do not deserve the same rights they do, fighting against equal pay for women, fighting for permission to discriminate.

From my perspective, the gun issue is about the only real thing i view as a civil liberty that liberals aren't the champions of.

I fully agree that it's bullshit, but the fact of the matter is that it's true... Nanny-statism is a hallmark of the liberal agenda, getting involved in a person's affairs instead of letting them be. While on the other side of the fence you have Conservatives who are only about money and generally come from bible beating areas, so they have anti-gay agendas.

The problem that I have personally is that you have gay-rights on one side and gun-rights on the other, so our lovely two party system in the US screws me. It's one of the reasons I'm a Centrist.

Good luck. I'm in LA, haven't (yet) been threatened enough to consider carrying a gun, but I wouldn't answer no to "do you see yourself carrying in five years?" meanwhile I have mace on me at all times.

I've been in 2 situations now where I can honestly say I don't know whether i would have been seriously harmed or killed if i hadn't had access to a pistol. Maybe it's because I grew up in a shitty area or i grew up with people who became really shitty people but I frankly can't find a reason not to carry a gun if the law lets me.

crazy that self defense is a basic human right yet in some cases in CA it's conditional to the whims of the sheriff issuing the "permit", and sometimes "I have been robbed at gunpoint" isn't a good enough reason for you to be "permitted" to defend yourself.

i thought the same when i read the article

americans and their guns waaaah waaaah waaah so paranoid

What's this got to do with paranoia?

Now if we can just arm fetuses, we can end abortion! Instead of Christians blowing off the doc's head, the Glock-armed zygote will do it! Why is the NRA so communistic that it isn't pushing for that?!?!

Sorry about you being in Commiefornia. True. Steps have been made in the right direction . but Governor Moonbeam will certainly do his damnedest to "keep the people safe" from those trigger happy gun nuts that reside there.
I have a ccw myself and find myself rarely carrying unless I get that "tail twitchy". I did open carry in Arizona for 6 years, I stopped 11 crimes just having a gun on my hip. Mostly potential armed robberies and a few burglaries plus two retail thefts. And of the 11 times, only withdrew from the holster once. And that was an attempted murder I prevented.
Amazing what looking down a barrel of a 1911 does to the criminal element.

You are aware our governor vetoed a bunch of gun control laws right?

I moved to CA from IL. IL has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. In fact, the state didn't have CC until last year or so, and then grudgingly so. Chicago is horrible. Then there are towns like Oak Park where owning a firearm is illegal. No clue how that works, 2nd Amendment and all.

My guess is they just haven't challenged it. Wouldn't be surprised if nobody in the town WANTS to own guns.

I remember when SF banned handguns and man did that get shot down so fast. I think it was only up for about 10 days when the courts shot it down.