http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2010m6d7-Ban-on-open-carry-passed-in-California-Assembly

It isn't law yet, but it would ban open carry (handguns) in California. I realize that other states also have open carry bans, but all those states also have a right to concealed carry, Californians don't. This would mean that Californians have no legal means or rights to "bear arms", which seems pretty unconstitutional. My thoughts on open carry are on the fence at best (I think concealed is usually better for everybody) but I can't see how this law would be even REMOTELY legal if it passes.

I would think that the political right that is so big on state's rights would be happy that California is regulating based on their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. They can do this because there's still a question over whether or not the 2nd amendment is held to apply to state & local governments. McDonald v. Chicago may end up clearing this up a bit. 2nd amendment issues aren't as cut & dry as many people think.

Arguments on both sides are dumb. Proponents of ban claim that everyone is basically a criminal because they have a gun strapped to themselves. Opponents claim it is their God given 2nd Amendment right and that they wear them for self-defense or what not.

before anyone thinks "where's jim7" i avoid discussing california's gun laws whenever possible because any time i do i start to get a headache

o u know i was just going 2 say where is jim7

Although open carry seems strange to us now I think that is due to the sissification of America.



Well, considering that their interpretation is wrong... Government at any level in the US cannot restrict rights that are formally recognized in the Constitution.



There's no legitimate question. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are clearly specific individual rights that were believed so important as to require specific amendments to protect. I'm always amazed that one of the most simply worded amendments can be so "confusing". "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



Only because there are no shortages of governments in this country that want to limit our freedoms.

Maybe it's due to a lot of people simply not recognizing the importance &/or significance of carrying guns around in public. It's quite possible that when people don't see the practicality of something that they question its purpose &/or validity.


Right. The political right is only in favor of state's rights when they agree w/ the state.


False. The intent of the 2nd amendment is debated because it isn't as clear as those on your side of the fence want people to believe. There's a legitimate question when one considers the history & philosophy (foreign & domestic) of the concepts involved as well as the intent of the framers (amongst other things).


All governments limit freedom.

:-/ I think legal open carry is a symptom of a disease.



Are you a REAL man, wookie?

Wookie, you're forgetting that your rights aren't really rights. They're privileges bestowed upon you generously by your fellow man.

Mentat: So, you're saying that YOU'RE in favor of states' rights even if they infringe upon individual rights? Why, YOU'RE A TRUE DEMOCRAT!

I didn't state a position & I'm not a Democrat.

Your particular views are not the point. But if "someone" was not in favor of states' rights, then shouldn't "they" agree that they should not be able to do this? Or would "this person" also be against individual rights, or rights in general?

That would be really stupid! I mean seriously, nobody carrying a gun? That means that people can't defend themselves with projectiles reaching such amazing speeds that they will blast right though a person's bone and tissue, crippling that person for life. I mean seriously, who would want to walk around on a street feeling perfectly safe because nobody is carrying a gun?!

giant error in logic. Just because guns are illegal doesn't mean they're gone, and even if guns were gone that doesn't mean no one would hurt or kill anyone else.

P.S. carrying a gun != using a gun on innocent people any more than driving a car == running people down on the sidewalk. I'm going to tell you guys a super-duper secret okay. Don't tell anyone. I have had a gun on my side for just over a year now. It has yet to draw itself and blow anyone away.

This is bull****. I'm moving; the legislators in this state suck dick.

Why does no one ever talk about the "A well regulated militia" part

I personally find that to be one of the more interesting aspects.

Some people do. I can sum up the discussion for you in the manner of Bill Clinton:

Nobody can agree on what the definition of "well regulated" or "militia" is, nor can anybody agree on how this affects the last (important) part, or whether or not it does at all.

I know, just like there are people with knives who can use the thing properly. I know quite a few guys who carry knives mostly for their own safety and who have never pulled the thing on someone. I've just seen too many people getting stabbed and shot in a drunken barfight.

I'm sorry to express myself in such an extreme way when it comes to weapons. But there wouldn't be any need for weapons if people could just control themselves around other people. Clearly, people can't, so wouldn't it be better if people wouldn't carry weapons around at all?

And you're right: People won't stop getting hurt when guns are gone. And one way or another, people are always going to be able to get 'stuff'. Drugs are forbidden, still they are sold. But why would you want to carry around a lethal firearm. They do not function in a useful way. Cars can kill people, but they also bring people to other places quickly. Machines can kill people, but mostly they're manufacturing stuff. Even knifes, used in fights, they're still pretty useful tools to have on you! Firearms are a completely other story! Their soul purpose is to kill or hurt people.

There's always been debate about what the 2nd amendment means. I'd argue that it doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to walk around with a gun, but the right to have weapons and organize a militia. The framers of the constitution were more concerned about oppression and giving people the force to overthrow the government than they were about self defense in public. I don't think that means guns shouldn't be allowed to be carried in public but that's not really what the second amendment says. If you want something more concrete you should probably look at court rulings over the years.

firearms have no soul

No, the political right is in favor of state's rights that don't violate the federal constitution. The second amendment is a hard issue to have this particular discussion about because pretty much every anti-gun law at all levels of our government are unconstitutional.

It seems more likely that framers recognized the fact that the government can't protect everyone (See Katrina) and wanted us to be able to protect ourselves in situations of social anarchy or invasion. Further, the 'ability to overthrow an oppressive government' argument doesn't make any sense in modern times. No amount of hand guns will enable the American people to defeat the American military. Our only chance would be to get the military on our side.. and then we wouldn't need to have our own guns anymore.

But, does the second amendment say anything about what kind of guns you have a right to have? Banning hand guns doesn't mean you can't have a rifle or a shot gun. It's the guns that have no purpose beyond killing people that get banned.

No, it's the "scary" guns that get banned.

As a member of the military, I am quite confident that the population of America has the capability to defeat the military. Whether or not they can actually organize to do that is another question.



I can't for the life of me imagine what those guns are. I contend that if guns have no purpose other than killing people, then neither do bows.

Oh also, any attempt to create permits for the carry of weapons outside of secure areas and private property is, to me, an infringement of my 2nd amendment rights.

A hunting rifle has a purpose beyond killing people.

A glock does not.

It looks cool.

Wanna know a secret? Getting shot doesn't mean "death." Further, video games and movies have led a lot of people to get overly scared of firearm deaths. It's hard to fire a handgun and hit a target more than 15 or 20 feet away without much practice. Similar for rifles. Moving targets are damn near impossible for anyone not trained to do so.

This is incorrect. Glocks are not uncommonly used in shooting competitions. While not the purpose of the 2nd amendment, a very legitimate use for a firearm. And for many people, the only reason they own one.

Even recreational target shooting is a legitimate purpose that can, in the case of many people, have absolutely nothing to do with killing people.

Too bad the second amendment doesn't say: A well fed populace, being necessary to the welfare of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes. As I said, all the sporting uses of 'arms' are purely a benefit that happens to fall under the protective umbrella of the right to bear arms.

But I want everyone to consider the fact that IF, in the past, the amendment only referred to state militias, that those state militias are now decidedly part of a federal standing army. Now, more than ever, the individual right to bear arms carries weight because a huge chunk of the national guard is in Iraq or Afghanistan when cities get flooded and civil unrest sets in.

Uh, Wookie, this:



is wrong.

Yes, I should have said "Government at any level in the US cannot legally restrict rights that are formally recognized in the Constitution."

That kind of talk will just get you labeled a paranoid Glenn Beck Tea Partier. And, let's not forget, Louisiana took care of that problem by disarming the criminals during Katrina.

I use glocks to shoot paper and endeavor to do so more accurately than my friends can so that I can brag about it although i never am able to do so

I'm going to assume you're talking about pistols kept for the purpose of self and family defense and not hunting firearms or standoff weapons. And to that I say: ddduuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I like the way things are done in Canada.

You have non-restricted firearms, like long rifles and shotguns, which you can carry anywhere and do pretty much anything with. You do need a license to buy one, which I disagree with.

Then you have restricted firearms, like short rifles and pistols, which you can only use on a firing range. They must be transported in a locked case with another secondary lock (like a trigger lock or a cable lock,) and you need to get a permit from the local constabulary (Authorization to Transport.)

Finally you have prohibited firearms, which are people-hunting rifles and guns that look scary.

So the farmers are allowed to own their shotguns, the hunters are allowed to own their rifles, and we're all safe from incredibly dumb civilians who think they can protect us.

Well fortunately that's how it's done in Canada.

The way it's done in Switzerland is pretty good. You get a SiG-500 something when you serve, and you're allowed to keep it (and carry it anywhere) when you get out. I think that's a pretty comfortable medium.

Did you know that it is illegal to be drunk with a firearm? Or to even be in a bar with one? Because DUH. But if I'm sober walking to my car and some drunk ******* pulls a knife or a gun on me because he thinks I said something snarky, then I sure as hell think my having a firearm is completely valid.


Well, sure, and there'd be no need for traffic control devices if everyone paid attention, drove slowly, and was conscientious of others. But as you point out, that will never ever happen. It'd be great if nobody carried weapons, and no one was big enough or strong enough to beat me to death, and there were no sharp corners for them to slam my head on. Not going to happen. People get shot. People get stabbed. People get beaten to death, people get raped. This is because some people are crazy, some people are violent, and some people are stronger than others. Until this is not true, thanks, I'll continue to argue for my right to carry the great equalizer that is a pistol, and I will continue to try to make it MORE than an equalizer by knowing how to use it well.


They stop people from doing what they're doing pretty good. More reliably than most other options, anyway. And when "what they're doing" is trying to hurt me or my loved ones, I think the threshold of what means I am not willing to pursue is pretty low.

To be honest, as time goes on, I have begun to take it more and more personally that someone would strip my ability to defend myself to improved their own flawed illusion of personal security.