Defensive Carry banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
607 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was given this by an NRA representative at the LAX parking lot ammo sale.

Front page.



Back side

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
607 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
oh, i'm SO glad i left California!!!!

good luck to all 2nd Amendment supporters who still live there.
All I have is Nevada or Arizona if I choose to leave lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
I was given this by an NRA representative at the LAX parking lot ammo sale. (CA Assembly bills by anti-gunners.)
That makes my blood boil and head hurt.

I have a hard time imagining that an upright, sentient biped could explain a coherent rationale behind such a collection of infringements of liberty, as to purpose and legitimacy. (Certainly few of the Assembly folk from CA.)

California: Beautiful land; great people outside the two primary "blue" hot spots (even many from inside those zones); but with politics and sense of Constitutional honor fouled up six ways from Sunday.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,068 Posts
Sounds to me like the Cali state flag needs to be changed to reflect the old Russian or China flag.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Sounds to me like the Cali state flag needs to be changed to reflect the old Russian or China flag.
The way things have been going the last 25+ years and more (lived there myself, for a number of years), something like this would be a more accurate representation (particularly since grizzlies have been elsewhere for quite awhile now). The proposed CA Roadkill state flag ...

Yellow Text Line Adaptation
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
It is truly disgusting how far they are going.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
Glad I left back in 2001.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
Yee (D) SB-108 Firearms: Lending and residential storage. FIREARMS LENDING/STORAGE RESTRICTIONS
This bill requires every person to have their firearms locked in CA DOJ safe or firearm safety storage device if you are not home and no lending it to a person in your home while you're not there. It will be a crime.
SCOTUS in Heller found unconstitutional a ban on a firearm ready to shoot in the home.

Let's bring the CA legislature back on topic. SCOTUS has to "test the constitutionality" of the “proper cause” requirement (self-defense in general doesn't count) for a license to carry. Since SCOTUS rejected its hearing of Kachalsky, et al. v. Cacace; Moore v. Madigan (resulting in the affirmation by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to let stand a judicial panel's ruling that IL has to have a CCW system for law-abiding citizens) is maybe the next most-likely candidate case for the SCOTUS to hear regarding this issue.
Perhaps more realistically is that SCOTUS may defer to states, especially in this political environment. But that would leave open some legal questions that SCOTUS is there to settle. I think that SCOTUS' hearing the issue of shall issue for general self defense is Californians' only hope to fulfillment of the US Constitution.

And it looks like we're going to have a worse than worthless legislature, except for their propensity to unintended consequences characteristic of worthless (or worse) politicians like Mayor Rahm Emmanuel who is doing us a favor by appealing to SCOTUS the circuit court's decision (as he seeks to defy the ruling to cease the ban on public carry). Their folly may be our best fortune.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,292 Posts
As a native of California, it makes me ill to see how far down the rabbit hole it has gone.

I left six years ago and it was crazy then. Now the inmates have total control of the asylum and anarchy will be the next level of insanity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
Looks like CA is looking to make laws that make CT and NY look reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Manderinobyebye

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Let's bring the CA legislature back on topic. SCOTUS has to "test the constitutionality" of the “proper cause” requirement (self-defense in general doesn't count) for a license to carry.
Yes, they do need to cover that question. And IMO the mere idea that self-defense in general "doesn't count" as a legitimate cause for being armed is ludicrous in the extreme. I can't imagine any fewer than 98% of people who do carry daily do so for exactly that reason, to improve the odds if the odds turn sour on them that day. To decide otherwise is the epitome of arrogant, arbitrary tyranny in action ... and it must be struck down as utterly unconstitutional (which, IMO, such arbitrariness absolutely is). If nothing else, it's practical implementation has proven beyond a shadow of any doubt that it's one of the most-effective tools of anti-gunners nearly everywhere it has been in the statutes, dictating, essentially, who lives and who dies in situations where a person has been debarred the use of arms to protect himself and his family.

I think that SCOTUS' hearing the issue of shall issue for general self defense is Californians' only hope to fulfillment of the US Constitution.
I agree. Same for the District of Columbia citizens, as well. And New York City, and everywhere else there's this arbitrary "standard" (aka, movable goal posts).

And it looks like we're going to have a worse than worthless legislature, except for their propensity to unintended consequences characteristic of worthless (or worse) politicians like Mayor Rahm Emmanuel who is doing us a favor by appealing to SCOTUS the circuit court's decision (as he seeks to defy the ruling to cease the ban on public carry). Their folly may be our best fortune.
One can only hope their own stupidity and arrogance buries them all ... once and for all.

Though, with the terrible track record that SCOTUS has on doing right by the liberties, in recent years, it's all a crap shoot. They could continue to allow the eviscerations just as they have the past 30 years. Their waffling on key aspects in the Heller and McDonald cases, both, don't bode well for that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
To clarify, I agree that general self defense is a valid reason for "may issue" states and anywhere else to issue because a stricter requirement is a definite infringement and breaking of the natural right to self defense which 2A protects. That's clear to me from recent decisions. With the facts and the quality of minds on our side, I am more optimistic than you about presentation before the court. It's sure up in the air with SCOTUS, but I anticipate a 2A-confirming opinion within the next couple of years that will strike down a lot of useless fluff in opposition in this country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,443 Posts
To clarify, I agree that general self defense is a valid reason for "may issue" states and anywhere else to issue because a stricter requirement is a definite infringement and breaking of the natural right to self defense which 2A protects. That's clear to me from recent decisions. With the facts and the quality of minds on our side, I am more optimistic than you about presentation before the court. It's sure up in the air with SCOTUS, but I anticipate a 2A-confirming opinion within the next couple of years that will strike down a lot of useless fluff in opposition in this country.
Or, turn the fluff into something useful.

I'm worried about the quality minds of which you speak, Pistology. We need a voice that gets on base every time be it curve balls, knuckle balls, sliders, you name it; the Supremes ask the darndest questions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
california is/has been hurting for money they where just chaffing at the bit to try and pass these taxes. :nutkick:

I think it will end up in the SCOTUS before long with all the additional fees as a barrier to ownership along with the more draconian laws on gun bans.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top