California and it's future gun laws.

[JackOSU]

I say blow the state off of the mainland and let them sink into the abyss!

[alvincullumyork]

They need to stay in the mess they created and stop spreading their politics and screwed up economics to other states. kalifornias are rarely welcomed into eastern Oregon. A guy I worked with went so far as to flip the bird to all kali plates while driving, not saying this was a good idea but that is an attitude held by quite a few in that area.

[pilotguyo540]

They need to stay in the mess they created and stop spreading their politics and screwed up economics to other states. kalifornias are rarely welcomed into eastern Oregon. A guy I worked with went so far as to flip the bird to all kali plates while driving, not saying this was a good idea but that is an attitude held by quite a few in that area.

Irish used to not be welcomed as well, and sicilians, and chinese, and on and on. Now its californians. As true as these antiquated hillbilly sentiments may be, please understand what an idiot you make yourself look like with over generalized statements like that. Most of us feel robbed of our beloved state. I PAY taxes, and I vote. I did not create this mess, and so help me god, I will fight against it as hard as I can. Some things are worth fighting for, my home is one of them.

[Irish]

Irish used to not be welcomed as well

Leave me out of this

I did use to live in CA after my time in the military was up, Huntington Beach for 3 years, and I loved it! The weather, the girls, the beach side bars... However, I moved to Vegas and could afford to buy a nice new house for a reasonable price, a lot less traffic to deal with and less liberal bullshit to listen to from people around me and that's not including the very high state taxes I was paying that I got rid of. I also didn't have to possess "illegal guns" any longer and am free to shoot them where I like, within the law and reason of course.

I miss the weather and my friends but neither one enough to ever move back. Besides, I'm there about once a month for work as it is and hate being there without a means of legally carrying concealed.

[alvincullumyork]

Irish used to not be welcomed as well, and sicilians, and chinese, and on and on. Now its californians. As true as these antiquated hillbilly sentiments may be, please understand what an idiot you make yourself look like with over generalized statements like that. Most of us feel robbed of our beloved state. I PAY taxes, and I vote. I did not create this mess, and so help me god, I will fight against it as hard as I can. Some things are worth fighting for, my home is one of them.

I need to apologize. Their is a lot of truth in your statement I'm just a little more worked up lately than usual. It was an over generalization and a hi jack to the thread, sorry for that too. You have some great country in your state and much like mine the populated areas dominate the politics.

And Irish with all you add to a discussion your always welcome, oh ya and your avatar always helps.

[Grayling14]

Welcome to the PRK? People's Republic of (K)California? If so, that is fitting. California is one of the most liberal states in the Union, to our detriment.
The Progressives, (i.e. Liberals), among the political elite in both parties are moving our country, (not just California), down the road towards socialism where government control expands at the expense of personal freedoms and personal responsibility.

In the article Assemblywoman Lori Saldana said that CA's open-carry law is a "threat to public safety". Automobiles, bicycles, scissors, baseball bats and even sharpened pencils can be a threat to public safety if used improperly, shall we restrict those items? If so, where does it end?

Saldana also said, "What I'm concerned about is people who have no training can carry a gun for no other purpose than to make a public statement".
Translation, "What I'm concerned about is people exercising their Second Amendment rights for no other purpose than to exercise their First Amendment rights".
Gun-restriction advocates make the fallacious claim that restricting firearms will make society safer. Their MO is to demonize firearms/operators so as to scare the electorate, manipulate the argument by labeling it as a public health/public safety issue, and then pass gun-ban legislation under the guise of saving the masses from themselves. The truth is that firearms bans only penalize law abiding individuals, because criminals by definition disregard our laws.

The problem is that too many elected officials, at all levels of government, are more concerned with getting re-elected than upholding the Constitution that they swore to protect. At every election we need to vote out Progressives/Liberals and vote in Conservatives.

[pilotguyo540]

I need to apologize. Their is a lot of truth in your statement I'm just a little more worked up lately than usual. It was an over generalization and a hi jack to the thread, sorry for that too. You have some great country in your state and much like mine the populated areas dominate the politics.

And Irish with all you add to a discussion your always welcome, oh ya and your avatar always helps.

I apologize for my rash reaction. I had a pretty crappy day yesterday. Hating californians though is such a waste of time. I don't really blame people for those prejudgements. My point I am trying (poorly) to convey is that if this shit does not stop here, it will cascade to your area. Oregon has just as many libtards per capita as us. Especially the western state.

[Irish]

http://www.turnto23.com/news/23213512/detail.html

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- The California Assembly is moving closer to banning gun owners from being able to carry their unloaded weapons openly in public.

Over the last few months there has been an increase in the number of open carry rallies and meetings in Northern California. on Tuesday a committee moved closer to ending such practices.

Several dozen protesters took to the steps of the Capitol on Monday, guns in holsters and rifles strapped to their chests. The gathering was in part a demonstration of Second Amendment rights and a protest of a bill that passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday. The bill would ban carrying an unloaded weapon in public and make California the fourth such state to do so.

It's an effort that doesn't sit well with some local gun owners.

"In my opinion it's a law that's been on the books for quite some time to allow open carry, it's never been a problem," said Ken Quarnberg of Valley Gun on Chester Avenue. "A lot of these politicians who are against it probably never knew about it and now that the whole subject has been brought up, suddenly it's a problem."

Open carry events at coffee shops in the Bay and Sacramento Areas made news in February, but such gatherings have also, in years past, taken place in Bakersfield, usually in parks.

"They're allowed to carry an unloaded firearm in public as long as they're not in a public building which is broadly defined in the Bakersfield Municipal Code," said Sgt. Allan Abney of the Bakersfield Police Dept.

The department does not take positions on pending legislation, but has responded to resident's reports of such open carry events in the past. Officers will make sure citizens are complying with the law in an effort to keep the peace. Abney suggests that anyone who chooses to openly carry in the city review the law before doing so, to make sure they're complying.

The open-carry ban proposal is backed by the California Police Chiefs Association, as supporters see it as a public safety issue. But opponents disagree.

"I'd rather have an honest citizen carrying an unloaded weapon in the public, then a criminal carrying one concealed," Quarnberg said.

The proposed bill, which passed committee by a four to two vote, would not impact carry and concealed laws if it is signed by the governor into law.

While the City of Bakersfield does have an ordinance regarding open carry weapons, the County of Kern does not.

[Irish]

FYI - I haven't researched any and all CA gun laws cause I don't have the time or energy. I started this due to the fact of how many laws they are still attempting to pass now and in the future after having some of the most stringent in the country already. Here's another interesting one: http://www.ammoland.com/2010/04/21/e...ns-gun-stores/

Emeryville City, CA - -(AmmoLand.com)- Prompted by the prospect of a gun store opening in town, on April 6, 2010, the Emeryville City Council (”ECC”) adopted an ordinance that, among other things, requires firearm vendors to obtain a permit from the Chief of Police and conduct a biannual inventory of all firearms possessed by the vendor, and also prohibits those between the ages of 18 and 21 years from entering a gun store where handguns are kept.

The ordinance is a variation of the Legal Community Against Violence’s (”LCAV“) model ordinance for firearm vendors, which was pushed in San Mateo and Oakland in the past few months.

The City passed these ill-conceived ordinances despite promises of lawsuits from the NRA and CRPA. These suits are forthcoming.

The ECC originally considered an almost identical version to that of LCAV’s model ordinance, and even passed it on first reading. That version has virtually the same useless restrictions for ammunition vendors as those placed on firearm vendors. Once they reviewed a letter prepared by NRA/CRPA attorneys, however, the Emeryville City Attorney admonished the ECC to remove any mention of the term “ammunition” prior to voting on the ordinance at second reading (See Letter). The ECC voted unanimously to remove all references to “ammunition” in the ordinance, but to keep the remaining provisions.

Interestingly, the City Attorney apparently did not find the remaining arguments raised by NRA/CRPA lawyers to be convincing, despite the vast, legal authorities supplied supporting NRA/CRPA’s position.

Those who spoke in opposition ranged from members of NRA Members Councils and frequenters of the pro-gun web forum Calguns, to random, unaffiliated residents of Emeryville. The public speakers helped to convince the ECC that the threat of litigation was legitimate, prompting the ECC’s rejection of the provisions regulating ammunition.

The ECC’s rejection of portions of LCAV’s ordinance constituted an amendment, which required them to restart the legal process for passing an ordinance. ECC reconsidered the Tuesday, March 16, 2010 hearing to be the first-reading of the amended LCAV ordinance. The remaining provisions had to be heard for second reading on April 6, 2010.

Before that heairng, NRA/CRPA attorneys submitted another letter opposing the amended version of the proposed ordinance; specifically, the two unlawful provisions that prohibit those between the ages of 18 and 21 years from entering a gun store where handguns are kept, and that require a biannual inventory of all firearms possessed by the vendor (See Letter).

These provisions are preempted by state law and infringe on constitutional protections, including the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Specifically, 18-21 year olds are permitted to purchase long-guns under both state and federal law. The Legislatures understood when making that law that most long-guns are sold alongside handguns, but the Legislature neither placed any limits on 18-21 year olds entering gun stores nor conferred authority upon local governments to do so. And, since 18-21 year olds have the right under state and federal law to purchase long-guns, they have a right under the Second Amendment to obtain at least long-guns, and a right under the Fourteenth Amendment to not be treated differently than other groups of people with respect to that right unless the government has a compelling interest that can only be achieved by prohibiting 18-21 year olds from gun stores; a ridiculous proposition.

Sadly, the ECC nonetheless voted unanimously to adopt the ordinance (See Staff Report for dealer ordinance). In addition, the ECC adopted a 10 month, 12 day extension of its moratorium on the establishing of any business selling firearms or ammunition. Originally, this was a 45 day moratorium with the purported purpose of providing the City an opportunity to assess zoning issues associated with establishing a firearm retailer. Now the moratorium appears to be an intentional roadblock to any party wishing to establish a firearm store within Emeryville. The zoning issue was merely a pretext (See Staff Report for Moratorium).

Getting Emeryville to back off its ammo ordinance was a partial victory for pro-gun advocates not only because ammunition vendors were exempted, but also because this matter provided a glimpse into how the anti-gun advocates operate. This entire exercise was prompted by someone merely expressing interest in opening a firearm store in Emeryville. That explains the moratorium and the sudden desire to adopt LCAV’s ordinance that makes running a profitable firearm store nearly impossible.

This type of blatant, outrageous attempt to hinder lawful gun ownership must be stopped. A NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project lawsuit challenging this and other LCAV-inspired ordinances is inevitable. Careful strategic planning and the pending McDonald decision being the only cause for delay.