Defensive Carry banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, I ordered my Taurus 709 from gunsandsupply.com, just waiting for it to show up. While waiting for the Taurus to arrive, I found an old Russian 1895 Nagant pistol for $80, so I buy that also. I spoke with my local FFL dealer today at breakfast, and he tells me that per California law, I can only purchase one firearm per month. He said he'd hold onto the Nagant until February before I can take possession of it.

That's a real bummer. Not sniveling, just bummed out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,142 Posts
I don't understand, are you in California?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
497 Posts
It's not just the gun laws here. The tax codes are rather repressive as well.

It's the result of electing Democrats to public office. California has 10% of the nation's population and 13% of the nation's welfare recipients. Self-perpetuating system, that's called.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
I left in 2006. I miss the beauty of the state, my friends and the weather. I DON'T miss the attitudes, the lack of values, the high taxes or the repressive laws.
I had more shooting opportunities than any other state I lived in but the laws are REPRESSIVE!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Well, I ordered my Taurus 709 from gunsandsupply.com, just waiting for it to show up. While waiting for the Taurus to arrive, I found an old Russian 1895 Nagant pistol for $80, so I buy that also. I spoke with my local FFL dealer today at breakfast, and he tells me that per California law, I can only purchase one firearm per month. He said he'd hold onto the Nagant until February before I can take possession of it.

That's a real bummer. Not sniveling, just bummed out.

Your location shows you reside in Texas, so why rant about CA (granted the gun laws are repressive in CA)?


-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
And gunsandsupply is in Missouri. Either way, yes, CA gun laws do suck. I was stationed there for 5 years and couldn't have been happier to get out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,182 Posts
Your Avatar shows "Texas" , but you talk about "California".... ??????

If you left Texas for California...... well, you knew better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
well dont take this the wrong way please, but CA laws do suck. I also must say that living in CA must suck also.. You guys have it worse than we do here in Tn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
me 2

I left in 2006. I miss the beauty of the state, my friends and the weather. I DON'T miss the attitudes, the lack of values, the high taxes or the repressive laws.
I had more shooting opportunities than any other state I lived in but the laws are REPRESSIVE!
I left in 2005. I miss the beauty of the state, my friends and the weather. I DON'T miss the attitudes, the lack of values, the high taxes or the repressive laws.

merry CHRISTmas...:santaclaus:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,019 Posts
Why would the guns laws in Kommiefornia impact your ability to buy a gun in TX. Even if the gun was coming out of Kommiefornia the laws governing your taking position are fed and TX state laws :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
Hard to believe that CA was once a solid republican state under the Great Gipper Ronald Reagan.

Today it is a snapshot of what National Socialism looks like and what the current administration wants to model the rest of the USA.

What a shame, such a beautiful place, now has turned out to be a state that is bankrupt, corrupt, and repressive to citizens liberties.

Thanks for ruining the state of CA Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi, Barbara "anti military" Boxer, Diane "Frankenfeinstein", and of course The Arnold "Jerk-inator". Great job these political hacks and losers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,171 Posts
The only way we can get a Repub. in office here is if they used to be an actor. You know, phony world like the Terminator. (and they can't tell me that his influences don't come from a Kennedy either) The voters here think that they MUST be a great person that does GREAT things because they've been on TV, which is where they get most of their reality. :rolleyes: Add that to TV also being the place where they get their outdoor experiences and news.....Bingo! Bills get signed that supposedly are in the best interest of the metropolitan areas. (not talking about Reagan though, he sorta slipped through the cracks. But see? He's been on TV so even California fell for it.)

I'm in California sure, but I'm glad that I live in an area that is a little more traditional than in the big cities. We do have to put up with restrictive laws like that though. And I'm sure not going to argue with any of you who say that California gun laws aren't the best. But at least it's better than WI or IL. I can CC here. The law that the OP was talking about doesn't apply to long guns though........yet. Let's hope our next Gov. is Meg Whitman (sp??) She has awesome business sense, (proven) and she SEEMS to have common sense as well. And I don't even care if she's R or D, just someone please pull our state out of it's state! I just wish she was an actress.

California...... Home of Obama bumper stickers and UC Berkeley :hand1:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
^^^^ Umm, Meg Whitman is ANTI GUN! Has been for a long time regardless of the hoops she's trying to jump through to get elected and what she's saying now.

The answer to our problems isn't voting in a new governor. It's voting OUT the entire buncha bums in our legislature who don't respect our rights and who can't seem to balance a checkbook.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,171 Posts
^^^^ Umm, Meg Whitman is ANTI GUN! Has been for a long time regardless of the hoops she's trying to jump through to get elected and what she's saying now.

The answer to our problems isn't voting in a new governor. It's voting OUT the entire buncha bums in our legislature who don't respect our rights and who can't seem to balance a checkbook.
Well I'm glad you brought that up because I didn't know where she stood on gun laws. That's why I said it SEEMS like she had common sense. Usually common sense has nothing to do with any new gun laws and I was hoping for the best. Agreed on the voting out the entire bunch of bums! Her stance on guns aside, she does seem to hold the creditials to balance our checkbook though. Truthfully, I don't think we'll ever get the perfect combination of brains in office. Maybe we could get Sarah Palin to run? :embarassed: Someone like her wouldn't be the "entire bunch" but at least they would have that almighty VETO stamp on their desk! :bier:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Boy I'll tell ya, its ridiculous when the criminals can obtain, carry, and wreak havoc with guns so much in Cali, but the law abiding citizens are so scrutinized and made to jump thru so many hoops in order to arm themselves in protection from the gangbangers and homeland terrorist that reside there. YES, Gang-bangers ARE TERRORIST!

I have family there in the WATTS/So Central LA areas. They consider there neighborhoods warzones, and often feel there is no way to avoid falling victim to so much of the negative crap there. Only way to avoid being a victim is to join the predators. Unless you have the ability to actually move to the suburbs or another state. Some of my relatives did this to give there kids a chance. I used to wanna live in Cali when I was a child. Now I realize that TEXAS is the place for me...PERIOD!

GLOCK - COCKED - READY 2 ROCK!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
I read an article on another forum where California leads the way in declining population. Next of course comes New York. Michigan and Ohio were mentioned as well. Seems all the states are pretty liberal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
Well I'm glad you brought that up because I didn't know where she stood on gun laws. That's why I said it SEEMS like she had common sense. Usually common sense has nothing to do with any new gun laws and I was hoping for the best. Agreed on the voting out the entire bunch of bums! Her stance on guns aside, she does seem to hold the creditials to balance our checkbook though. Truthfully, I don't think we'll ever get the perfect combination of brains in office. Maybe we could get Sarah Palin to run? :embarassed: Someone like her wouldn't be the "entire bunch" but at least they would have that almighty VETO stamp on their desk! :bier:
Sara Palin isn't the answer to our problems either. Don't get me wrong, I like her and I think she'd have made a great VP. But she's not the right person for the job for California Governor (even if she could run here).

We don't need someone who is an extremist on either side of the pendulum right now. We've got that now and we're going to get the opposite of it after the next election. We NEED more legislators who are in the middle. Legislators who understand that they serve ALL the people not one voting block or another.

The "greatest good for the greatest number" isn't equal to "pork for my constituents."

We need a "hero." Someone to believe in and who can actually do the job. Someone with the smarts to keep the party politics out of the decisionmaking. Someone who represents the views of the PEOPLE not special interests. Someone who is supposed to be our last defense against government excesses and who is willing to actually DO THAT regardless of the political fallout.

In short, we need a thinking and intelligent Governor. Not a politician or big biz whizbang wannabe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
what will happen to all this crap if the supreme court rules favorably in the Chicago case ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
what will happen to all this crap if the supreme court rules favorably in the Chicago case ?
Most likely scenario is that nothing much will happen. Yeah, some cities and counties are going to have their laws struck down but the big picture isn't going to change that much. There are lots of folks out there who seem to think things are going to change in a big way but in reality they're just hoping and praying. It's likely that change won't happen or very quickly.

Take California (because this is the Calfornia laws suck thread) for example. California has an assault weapons ban, an approved handgun roster, an open carry ban for loaded weapons, a ban on gunshows at public fairgrounds, a magazine limit restriction, and an ammo ban.

If McDonald results in incorporation, then Heller will mean that guns cannot be required to be unloaded or ammo to be unavailable which renders the weapon unuseable for immediate self defense. Ergo the ammo ban will have a legal challenge which will take a year to get through the courts.

The open carry ban for loaded weapons will survive. States have the ability to determine what method of carry will satisfy both self defense/security and public safety. If a State chooses concealed carry as the preferred method and OC is prohibited then that prohibition is OK so long as the other method is available. Requiring good cause before allowing CC is something that a State can lawfully do (Heller) so long as they do not make it unduly restrictive to the point that no one will qualify. However, legal challenges will take at least a year AFTER the State makes it impossible to get a CCW and creates enough of a paper trail to prove that the rules are unduly restrictive. The challenges will also not be successful at first so this will take many many years and the outcome is not certain.

The approved handgun roster is going to stay since it was enacted as a public safety measure to get rid of Saturday Night Specials. A legal challenge is possible but the outcome doesn't look good in my opinion. Mostly because there are legitimate mfg's on the list, the State can impose standards on goods sold in the State, and the list really did get rid of some of the flimsiest and dangerous handguns.

The gunshow ban will go away. The courts are waiting on McDonald to see which way the wind blows and that's the way that they will vote. Unless the County can classify the fairgrounds as a "sensitive place" requring a ban on ALL firearms at ALL times there is no basis to ban gun shows there.

The assault weapons ban will stay. You will NEVER get it to go away unless the SCOTUS specifically says that an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional. Then the State will merely re-label the guns as something else and ban them again. We cannot win here but there are folks who will continue to fight this lost cause. If that makes them happy, fine. But, I do not believe they will ever win.

The 10 round magazine limit will stay. There is no constitutional challenge possible that I can see. The State could limit magazines to one round and that would be allowable under the constitution.

So, the result will be that States/local governments cannot ban weapons from public property absent the property being a "sensitive place" which the fairgrounds are not. The State cannot limit or ban ammo. The State can/must choose between OC and CC but cannot ban both. Since most states laws already fall in this area there isn't much to change. The laws which fall outside the self defense area (assault weapons, handgun rosters, magazine limits, etc) aren't going to change.

These are my personal thoughts. You may disagree if you choose.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top