Open carry soon to be banned in California.

[fskimospy]

Seems to me that the 10th Amendment is pretty straightforward. If a power is not given to the federal government specifically in the Constitution, then that power is reserved for the states. I've read through it and I'm not seeing anywhere where the Constitution says the federal government has the right to require its citizens to purchase something, namely healthcare. That being the case, its for the states to decide, and since some have decided that its illegal for the government to require its citizens to purchase something then the federal government can't go back and require it. That is, of course, unless there is another amendment passed, ratified by the states, that changes this.

If you go look at the Constitution there's also no specific mention of having a national air force, requiring a national retirement plan, or many other things that are explicitly constitutional. None of those things are for the states to decide, and they can rule them illegal as often as they like. They will be ignored.

Simply put, the Constitution doesn't work the way you think it does.

EDIT: Words have meaning. When you talk about passing a law and an amendment you mean very different things.

 

[fskimospy]

Thomas Jefferson in today's USA would just be some redneck buffoon with a tinfoil hat on while polishing his gun muttering that the gub'mint is out to steal his freedoms.

Nothing to fear anymore though, just ask eskimospy.

.... ok.

 

[xBiffx]

If you go look at the Constitution there's also no specific mention of having a national air force, requiring a national retirement plan, or many other things that are explicitly constitutional. None of those things are for the states to decide, and they can rule them illegal as often as they like. They will be ignored.

Simply put, the Constitution doesn't work the way you think it does.

EDIT: Words have meaning. When you talk about passing a law and an amendment you mean very different things.

Perhaps you need to reread a bit. Look specificly at Article One, Section Eight where the powers granted to the Congress are listed. Fairly certain a national air force falls within these powers. The 1937 rulings on the Social Security act are still in question to this day, albeit not as much in the limelight at the current healthcare issue. Also, this has been defended as simply another tax, in which the 16th Amendment is often cited.

Seems the Constitution does work strange as it may be.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps you need to reread a bit. Look specificly at Article One, Section Eight where the powers granted to the Congress are listed. Fairly certain a national air force falls within these powers. The 1937 rulings on the Social Security act are still in question to this day, albeit not as much in the limelight at the current healthcare issue. Also, this has been defended as simply another tax, in which the 16th Amendment is often cited.

Seems the Constitution does work strange as it may be.

Well by all means go quote me the line that mentions an Air Force. There's an Army and Navy in there, but certainly no Air Force. Of course a reasonable person could interpret the Constitution to mean that Congress could raise whatever armed forces were necessary to defend the country, but that's not what the text says.

The rulings on Social Security are not in question outside of lunatic fringe internet message boards.

 

[woolfe9999]

The rulings on Social Security are not in question outside of lunatic fringe internet message boards.

And one or two GOP presidential candidates, including the current front runner...

 

[davmat787]

Just put your Glock in a brown paper bag, seems to work for those needing to conceal their streetside Mad Dog 20/20 consumption.

 

[Bateluer]

Nothing wrong with open carry. Should be perfectly legal everywhere, if not actively encouraged.

 

[trenchfoot]

Gee...just think of all those fella's that are feeling secure with an open carry unloaded sidearm and a hidden loaded one.....juuuuuuust in case.

Best of both worlds. Ya get to show off your deadly looking dressed to the hilt 'lil amigo and live your dream of accessorizing your wardrobe the way you like with something that you spent $2k+ on AND feel safe and secure that nobody is going to jack that very expensive bling off of you without a shootout occurring first.

Come to think of it...how do you open carry sidearms when wearing a long jacket, raincoat, trenchcoat, etc. without actually hand carrying it and still look cool?

FYI, I do own pistols, rifles and a shotgun and yes I do target shoot, skeet/trap and hunt. I also free-dive/scuba spearfish for that matter.

 

[J-Money]

I propose a test.

Some Californian here walk into a busy bank holding an unloaded handgun. Glock or whatever you have. Walk up to the teller and place it there next to you and do some normal banking. Like withdraw some cash or something.

Record this though.

Post video here so we can see if anyone reacts. Since it seems this law is more aimed at eliminating the uncomfortable panic feeling people probably have seeing someone walking around with a gun

If no, open carry is proven to be no problem.

 

[Kalvin00]

I propose a test.

Some Californian here walk into a busy bank holding an unloaded handgun. Glock or whatever you have. Walk up to the teller and place it there next to you and do some normal banking. Like withdraw some cash or something.

Record this though.

Post video here so we can see if anyone reacts. Since it seems this law is more aimed at eliminating the uncomfortable panic feeling people probably have seeing someone walking around with a gun

If no, open carry is proven to be no problem.

You can't draw and exhibit the handgun, since that would be brandishing a firearm. It has to remain in it's holster.

 

[J-Money]

You can't draw and exhibit the handgun, since that would be brandishing a firearm. It has to remain in it's holster.

Damn that sucks.

 

[Lithium381]

I propose a test.

Some Californian here walk into a busy bank holding an unloaded handgun. Glock or whatever you have. Walk up to the teller and place it there next to you and do some normal banking. Like withdraw some cash or something.

Record this though.

Post video here so we can see if anyone reacts. Since it seems this law is more aimed at eliminating the uncomfortable panic feeling people probably have seeing someone walking around with a gun

If no, open carry is proven to be no problem.

i have worked multiple retail jobs that required an armored car pickup, the guy openly carried and NOBODY panicked. In'n'out burger has brinks come.... that guy open carries, i don't see the patrons in line or outside at the tables panicking....

 

[J-Money]

i have worked multiple retail jobs that required an armored car pickup, the guy openly carried and NOBODY panicked. In'n'out burger has brinks come.... that guy open carries, i don't see the patrons in line or outside at the tables panicking....

Strangers know armored car personnel and Brinks employees. They expect them to have guns. I'm talking normal clothes normal guy.

 

[Jaepheth]

Could you still open carry a replica pre-1898 firearm that uses percussion caps?

I know the Feds don't technically consider them firearms, but has California restricted them?

EDIT: Nevermind, it looks like that exemption in the California penal code only applies to sections 12070 - 12072 which look like they only apply to sales, not carrying.

 

[Moonbeam]

California attracts the cream of the crop from around the world and are genetically and intellectually superior. Smart people don't have ego problems they have to compensate for by packing rods. Cowboys became surfers, bikers, and soccer players, etc, and all those California girls:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...n_880153.html#s294897&title=Alyssa_Campanella

Ouch!

 

[spidey07]

Strangers know armored car personnel and Brinks employees. They expect them to have guns. I'm talking normal clothes normal guy.

Well that's a problem of perception. When you change the perception of "It's just a gun and a citizen there to protect himself and possibly others" the game changes.

When the perception changes to "it's just a gun on a law abiding citizens hip" then we have made real progress.

The only reason people think "oh, they have a reason to open carry, the security guards, the police, etc" is because of conditioning. "OMG!!!! A guy not in uniform trying to protect something (let alone his life or the life of others). Let's change that conditioning.

I say your conditioning believes protectors of money are expected to be armed. My point is protectors of their own life should be as well. Which is more important?

 

[trenchfoot]

California attracts the cream of the crop from around the world and are genetically and intellectually superior. Smart people don't have ego problems they have to compensate for by packing rods. Cowboys became surfers, bikers, and soccer players, etc, and all those California girls:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...n_880153.html#s294897&title=Alyssa_Campanella

Ouch!

Yeap, I'd much rather have a coup'la those hanging off both sides of me ANY time. And besides, what those girls are packing are the most deadly weapons any man can face. :wub:

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

You, of course, can't keep your mouth shut because of it. But, of course, being constipated, the shit has to come out somewhere.

You're so predictable, you hack.

 

[Munky]

About time I say. There is no reason to open carry other than to intimidate those around you. Hope it passes the assembly soon and the governor can sign it into law. [/COLOR][/LEFT]

Nonsense. Is that what the libtards in Calimexifornica preach? Next, they'll tell you to roll over and assume the fetal position as a way to prevent crime.

 

[xBiffx]

Nonsense. Is that what the libtards in Calimexifornica preach? Next, they'll tell you to roll over and assume the fetal position as a way to prevent crime.

Well, Illinois already says that a tongue depressor is the key to rape prevention for women. So the fetal position seems like the next logical step.

 

[QuantumPion]

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

About time I say. There is no reason to open carry other than to intimidate those around you. Hope it passes the assembly soon and the governor can sign it into law. ​

I agree Police should be banned from carrying guns. They just use them to intimidate criminals around them.

 

[QuantumPion]

You can't draw and exhibit the handgun, since that would be brandishing a firearm. It has to remain in it's holster.

Also there may me laws against bringing a gun into a bank, or at the least the private bank would not allow them by policy.

 

[Texashiker]

About time I say. There is no reason to open carry other than to intimidate those around you. Hope it passes the assembly soon and the governor can sign it into law.

I think the volunteers that fought against the British during the revolutionary war would disagree with you.

If anything, open carry is to intimidate the government, and not the citizens.

It is the right of the people to peacefully protest, and it is the right to the people to keep and bear arms. Only an oppressive government would object to either right.

 

[Zargon]

[/COLOR][/LEFT]

About time I say. There is no reason to open carry other than to intimidate those around you. Hope it passes the assembly soon and the governor can sign it into law. ​

so because you cant think of a good reason to do it, it should be banned?


fail.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the volunteers that fought against the British during the revolutionary war would disagree with you.

If anything, open carry is to intimidate the government, and not the citizens.

They would probably have very little to say, as they've been dead for 200 years. We probably shouldn't ask people who have been dead for two centuries how to run our government.