That makes my blood boil and head hurt.I was given this by an NRA representative at the LAX parking lot ammo sale. (CA Assembly bills by anti-gunners.)
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 ...Sounds to me like the Cali state flag needs to be changed to reflect the old Russian or China flag.
SCOTUS in Heller found unconstitutional a ban on a firearm ready to shoot in the home.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.
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.As former solicitor general Paul Clement – who represented the NRA in McDonald v. Chicago - put it, ”They’re eventually going to have to take it.”
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.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.
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).I think that SCOTUS' hearing the issue of shall issue for general self defense is Californians' only hope to fulfillment of the US Constitution.
One can only hope their own stupidity and arrogance buries them all ... once and for all.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.
Or, turn the fluff into something useful.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.