Skip to comments.
Proposed easing of concealed-weapons law draws fire
Sacramento Bee ^
| Mar. 23, 2009
| Stan Oklobdzija
Posted on 03/23/2009 7:46:05 AM PDT by CarmichaelPatriot
What issue could unite a Republican lawmaker from Southern California and a 46-year-old lesbian from Natomas?
Guns, of course.
A bill introduced in the state Assembly last month aims to make it easier for Californians to obtain a concealed weapons permit.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; california; ccw; concealed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
To: MSF BU
They must not live in Virginia.
41
posted on
03/23/2009 10:57:41 AM PDT
by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
To: gc4nra
“Chiefs and Sheriffs are not LEOs, they are first and foremost politicans looking to further their own cause.”
Exactly right. Chiefs usually serve at the whim of the mayor.
Also in SF Sheriff Mike Hennesey is supposedly not a LEO but a lawyer. He was serving as sheriff when the law changed to require LEO status for the sheriff position and he was grandfathered in. If anyone knows differently please correct me.
To: MSF BU
“Why do they need a targeting test?”
It’s part of the requirement to get a CCW permit in CA.
43
posted on
03/23/2009 11:08:39 AM PDT
by
ScottinVA
(Christian and armed)
To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...
44
posted on
03/23/2009 11:38:42 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
To: ScottinVA
Oh, that I understood intuitively. If it's like the scams they run in Massachusetts, it's at the discretion of the chief. In Randolph Massachusetts, you had to go through a program run by the Chief's pal, at a steep cost. Prior military training, courses run by the NRA or even the Mass State Police didn't count. The farce got so bad that you had decades long gun owners, many of whom had seen combat in one or more of the major wars, having to waste half a Saturday and several days pay for the privilege of owning a gun. Ridiculous.
45
posted on
03/23/2009 1:21:36 PM PDT
by
MSF BU
(++)
To: chuckles
Yeah, if personal protection isn't enough, what would be? Saving your own life isn't sufficient to carry a gun?
It's for the GREATER GOOD.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." ~Hillary, now Sec/State.
46
posted on
03/23/2009 2:14:28 PM PDT
by
Zeppelin
To: hoppity
Personal protection is an insufficient reason to have a CCW, according to the Sacramento County Sheriff. What a surprise. Chiefs and Sheriffs dont want us carrying.Please.
There are sheriffs and chiefs who are happy to have law abiding citizens carry.
Maybe not where you live, but that's what U-Haul is for.
47
posted on
03/23/2009 2:17:15 PM PDT
by
mountainbunny
(Mitt Romney: Collect the whole set!)
To: TPluth
Among supporters of Knight's bill is Deanna Sykes, co-founder of the Sacramento chapter of Pink Pistols, an international group that advocates gun ownership by gays and lesbians. Their slogan: "Armed gays don't get bashed."Now this is a new twist on gay rights and the 2nd ammendment. The gay lobby just might be the ones to get this bill passed.
To: EGPWS
If the changes proposed by the bill were already in effect, even O.J. Simpson would have been eligible for a concealed weapons permit in California prior to his recent felony conviction in Nevada, McGinness said.This seems to miss the point that, even with complete gun control preventing OJ from getting a gun (and which exists only in FairyLand), Nicole Brown Simpson & Ronald Goldman would have been just as dead.
They were slaughtered with knives, not guns.
See, people who wish to do you harm will find a way to do it, regardless of whether they have a gun or not.
Against a much larger combatant, say... an ex-professional football player, for example, someone small and female would have only had anything approaching a sure chance with a gun.
So, while OJ could have had a gun before or after the murders, he didn't have to have one to brutally slaughter two innocent people. Nicole Brown Simpson and/or Ronald Goldman could have used them, but didn't have them to use.
49
posted on
03/23/2009 2:32:15 PM PDT
by
mountainbunny
(Mitt Romney: Collect the whole set!)
To: TPluth
I hope it survives and thrives, but California tends to be quite a bit zany when it comes to preserving pertinent individual freedoms.
50
posted on
03/23/2009 2:34:33 PM PDT
by
Patriot777
(guns, freedom, law, California)
To: mountainbunny
They were slaughtered with knives, not guns. See, people who wish to do you harm will find a way to do it, regardless of whether they have a gun or not.
Thank you mb!
Somebody finally gets it's.
51
posted on
03/23/2009 2:35:52 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, Question everyone else)
To: EGPWS
"Somebody finally gets it."
That's better.
52
posted on
03/23/2009 2:38:22 PM PDT
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, Question everyone else)
To: hoppity
FREE men don’t need permits!
53
posted on
03/23/2009 4:56:32 PM PDT
by
unixfox
(The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
To: TPluth
Shall Issue in California? Dream on... the odds of it happening are slim to none.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
54
posted on
03/23/2009 8:43:00 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: TPluth
Is she part of the Pink Pistols group?
55
posted on
03/24/2009 5:52:15 AM PDT
by
2harddrive
(...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
To: TPluth; Ernest_at_the_Beach; goldstategop; CAluvdubya; CyberAnt; Syncro; Citizen James; ...
bump & a BANG!
56
posted on
03/24/2009 12:42:03 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(Xin loi minh oi)
To: TPluth
they pulled the article and archived it .
To: TPluth
By the way, the Full Auto Ban Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act never REALLY passed! It was just on a voice vote, and the Nays WAY outweighed the Yeas on the Amendments adoption ballot! I heard it! Tip ONeal just PROCLAIMED that it passed, to the GASPS of many in attendence, and the minority Repubs could not challenge him because of the parlimentary rules in effect at the time! HONEST! History!
58
posted on
03/27/2009 10:08:29 PM PDT
by
2harddrive
(...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson