Posted on 06/02/2010 4:59:08 AM PDT by marktwain
SACRAMENTO — Assembly Democrats on Tuesday pushed through a fiercely contested gun-control measure that would ban Californians from carrying unloaded weapons in public.
The “open carry” measure, which passed without a vote to spare, 41-25, now goes to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has yet to take a position.
“With rights come responsibilities,” said Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, who is the author of Assembly Bill 1934. “Carrying a gun simply because you can is not responsible ownership.”
The measure failed to attract support from Republicans, who argued that it was tantamount to an attack on law-abiding citizens, it would violate Second Amendment rights to gun possession, and that there have never been any criminal problems associated with open-carry advocates.
“This is a backhanded, even acute way, of implementing gun control,” said Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Biggs. “I assure you that criminals don’t worry about this. They have the guns, and they know how to conceal them, how to use them.”
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
If you can't vote them out and the Courts are sympathetic to their cause, then more extreme measures may be necessary.
Must have needed 60% to pass, which would mean it needed 41 votes out of 66.
She has quite a warped understanding of the definition of freedom. But would she agree that “speaking an opinion simply because you can is not responsible citizenship”?
Chances are, you'll both be in motion and you won't be in a nice Weaver stance, but likely on the ground and in pain, having exhausted all other non-lethal options. Your heart will be racing, adrenaline will narrow your field of vision and make your breathing irregular. Your hands will be clammy, moist and unsteady.
And in those circumstances, you'll need to make a terrible decision that may well affect the course of your life. I'm convinced that you can't train enough - and for their part - most police officers probably do not. But having committed to the responsibility of carrying a gun, it's necessary to have a plan to use it at all times if you can't walk away, which kinda assumes the darned thing is loaded. ;-)
There are quite a few things about California (and America) that don’t seem to make a great deal of sense to me these days...
“I wonder if there are exemptions for hunting, plinking?”
There are exceptions! It’s called “be a criminal!”
As long as you are a criminal, then you are allowed to buy guns under the table, carry them loaded, oh and use them without regard to the results of your actions. These are the acceptable standards of living in the Great State of Kalifornia!
“I guess if there’s a situation that arises you’ll probably have to await commands from the line officer.”
Oh great Devil Dog! Why don’t you just give them more stupid ideas!?!?
I can see them not allowing you to carry ANY weapon; however, if you do break this law, YOUR (the legal, law-abiding citizen) rules of engagement require that you: must have been shot at least three times OR critically shot once OR shot at a minimum of two clips (you must be able to verify that a clip change was made) AND no return fire is allowed without the express written consent of the State Board of ROE! /s
A liberal is nothing more than a conservative that hasn’t been mugged yet.
(As long as they survive the encounter.)
I got two beefs with you.
One is your screen name. There are no ex Marines!!
Two, you wrote clips instead of magazines and twice!!!!
Semper Fi brother.... : )
>I assume locked container carry.
Apparently.
“One is your screen name. There are no ex Marines!!
Two, you wrote clips instead of magazines and twice!!!!”
See, that is a miss-nomer! It stands for Excellent Texas Marine!
And we are talking street gangs and Kalifornia! “Magazines” are what people read on all the excellent public transportation systems; “clips” are what common criminals load up with lead with which to mow down the dumb-a$$, tax-paying, unarmed law-abiding citizens!!
Semper Fi!
Locking a gun up in a safe that requires a key, a four digit combination lock with at least one hundred million possible combinations, and the biometrics from two people to start a timer to open the door is responsible ownership. As for the "shall not be infringed" suggestion in the obsolete Constitution, that's not what today's leaders would have written for today's situation, and it's not what other nations' laws say, so it has no legal force.
What makes those republicans think that having a right to keep and bear arms means that they are actually permitted to do so? Working people who carry firearms for self-defense are nothing like armed Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia, so Dems aren't going to ignore their weapons.
>There are no ex Marines!!
Really? John Murtha, anyone?
...it could also mean Ex-Texan Marine.
This looks exactly like something John Semmens would write, but sadly, this isn't satire.
She actually put into words what they all think.
I think this is what they are going after. They just can’t help themselves
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2009/jul/15/cover/
“...it could also mean Ex-Texan Marine.”
Oh no! It would take a team of wild-horses and a small brigade to drag me out of Texas (unless they were taking me to Arizona)!!
I am hoping we can drag some of the Senators and Congressmen from Arizona to here! Oh, and a real conservative Governor!
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.