US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns in Southern California

US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns in Southern California http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20702041 en Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:11:13 EDT Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:11:13 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001954 sholling :

said by jig

:

one always hopes that they aren't dying needlessly.

Absolutely!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001954 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:56:07 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001946 jig :

said by sholling

said by jig

:

let us call him... constitutional fodder. something has to fill the canon hole, i guess.

How about we call them U.S. Marines, Marines once again risking their future for our freedom.

one always hopes that they aren't dying needlessly.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001946 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:53:27 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001943 jig :

said by jig

:

i could probably legally walk down Vermont with 1 peso bills lacquered to my cherubic body (taking care around the floppy bits) all the way from the 10 to the 405, but it doesn't make me a brave soul.

let us call him... constitutional fodder. something has to fill the canon hole, i guess.

;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001943 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:52:18 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001941 sholling :

said by jig

:

let us call him... constitutional fodder. something has to fill the canon hole, i guess.

How about we call them U.S. Marines, Marines once again risking their future for our freedom.

--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot. [img]»www.vpsingles.com/pics/nyah.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001941 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:51:46 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001927 Steve :

said by jig

:

i could probably legally walk down Vermont with $50 bills lacquered to my cherubic body

You don't have enough money to do that safely :-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001927 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:45:54 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001905 jig : i could probably legally walk down Vermont with $50 bills lacquered to my cherubic body (taking care around the floppy bits) all the way from the 10 to the 405, but it doesn't make me a brave soul.

let us call him... constitutional fodder. something has to fill the canon hole, i guess.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001905 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:39:17 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001080 sholling :

said by jig

:

if any of you have ever been in direct contact with the laguna PD, you'll know why i say that you're an idiot if you walk around with a gun holstered at your waist anywhere in their eyesight, loaded or not. the same goes for most of the other PDs, just more so in Laguna. in fact, since you have a death wish already, it's probably less stupid to keep it loaded so you can get at least some theatrical shots off before they execute you.

money doesn't compensate you when you're dead.

I'm not advocating it. On the contrary I hope people wait! I'm just pointing out that the challenge is being made by a few brave souls. Really about a year sooner than they should. But Sacramento PD have reportedly gone so far as to circulate a memo reminding officers that it is not illegal to openly carry an unloaded firearm and cautioning them not to overreact least they be filmed violating rights. It's up to each department to ensure that their officers do not shoot or otherwise abuse anyone that is lawfully minding their own business.

The answer is really simple. Switch from our current Boss Hogg & Roscoe P. Coltrane level of corruption may-issue concealed carry permit ($$$$) system to the shall issue system favored by 41 states. The only ones that will be hurt are the sheriffs that use the current system extort funds for their campaigns.

BTW I haven't heard any more updates on the other Marine. The one arrested on the 4th of July weekend in San Clemente.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001080 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:16:08 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000933 jig : dammit.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000933 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:48:54 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000826 No_Strings : I never keep a gun holstered at my waste.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000826 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:19:25 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000775 jig : if any of you have ever been in direct contact with the laguna PD, you'll know why i say that you're an idiot if you walk around with a gun holstered at your waist anywhere in their eyesight, loaded or not. the same goes for most of the other PDs, just more so in Laguna. in fact, since you have a death wish already, it's probably less stupid to keep it loaded so you can get at least some theatrical shots off before they execute you.

money doesn't compensate you when you're dead. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000775 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:03:06 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999029 Bloominite :

said by sholling

:

I once heard a traffic court commissioner (after dismissing a case) tell a courtroom full of people to buy a copy of the vehicle code because he'd long ago lost count of the number of citations that he'd seen for violations of laws that existed only in the officer's imagination.

And the complete hard copy is available at every DMV office for the very reasonable price of $3.00. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999029 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:14:16 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20996848 sholling : I once heard a traffic court commissioner (after dismissing a case) tell a courtroom full of people to buy a copy of the vehicle code because he'd long ago lost count of the number of citations that he'd seen for violations of laws that existed only in the officer's imagination. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20996848 Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:03:03 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20996831 RangerTX : thanks for posting that shooling, learn something new everyday. Reading that, certainly makes it not a crime. The only question is, how many times will cops arrest same person for crime just because they think it's a crime.
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20996831 Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:59:34 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20996811 sholling :

said by RangerTX

:

Carrying unloaded pistol is not a crime so would have been surprised if he was charged with that. Regarding loaded magazine that might a crime but it's likely DA decided that it's worth prosecuting.

I'm not a lawyer but here's a general legal analysis from from opencarry.org...

quote:
** In “People v. Clark” (1996), the California Court of Appeal clarified that in order to be “loaded” a firearm must have ammunition “placed into a position from which it can be fired”. It even went so far as to point out as an example of what is not loaded to include shells attached to a shotgun inside a buttstock shell carrier.

** There is a common misconception that merely possessing both a firearm and ammunition in close proximity legally equates to loaded. This mistake stems from several PC sections that do not apply to the law-abiding gun owner. 12001(j) only applies to 12023 (carry with intent to commit a felony). 12021.5 only applies to street gang crimes as defined in 186.22. 12022.2 only applies to armor piercing ammunition. 12025(b)(6)(A) is a sentence enhancement which only applies if one violates 12025 (carrying concealed). 171e only applies inside the State Capitol, legislative offices, or office or residence of the Governor.

--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20996811 Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:56:25 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20996792 RangerTX :

said by sholling

:

Well while we're reopening this, an update. The charges against Marine cited in Chino for openly carrying an unloaded pistol on his belt were quietly dropped by the DA. It seems that they couldn't find a violation of the law. By the way he also had a loaded magazine on his belt.

Carrying unloaded pistol is not a crime so would have been surprised if he was charged with that. Regarding loaded magazine that might a crime but it's likely DA decided that it's worth prosecuting.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20996792 Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:50:46 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20996762 sholling : Well while we're reopening this, an update. The charges against Marine cited in Chino for openly carrying an unloaded pistol on his belt were quietly dropped by the DA. It seems that they couldn't find a violation of the law. By the way he also had a loaded magazine on his belt.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20996762 Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:41:19 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20995277 nirvansk815 : sorry... wrong thread.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20995277 Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:52:25 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20741377 sholling :

said by Steve

:

Some guy thinking "I'll just carry the bullets in my pocket" would find himself with an unhappy surprise.

What will be interesting is that the Heller decision states that the right to bear arms means carry arms, while still recognizing restrictions on concealing arms. Assuming that the 9th Circus recognizes that there is a higher court that itself (iffy), or doesn't just tell the SCOTUS to pound sand (a possibility) the right to carry will be coming to our little peoples republic within a few years. That will leave our commissars (after they tell the people and the SCOTUS to pound sand and lose) only the options of open carry or mandating concealed carry. A careful reading of the decision makes it pretty obvious that this is exactly what the majority had in mind.

You will also be seeing challenges to the two tier system of an "exempted class" under the 14th amendment. This was a moot point while the 9th Circus refused to recognize the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Now that it is, the court will be forced to place everyone that is not otherwise restricted on the same level. And if you think the police unions are going to give up automatic concealed carry for their retirees you're nuts. They will force the legislature's hand.

FWIW, my understanding (possibly wrong) is that the more common way of dealing with people excersizing their right to openly bear a holstered arm is to use 'creating a public disturbance' not brandishing. Expect see people pushing this point in the very near future.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20741377 Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:12:09 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20741224 Steve :

said by cmaenginsb

:

Wrong, carrying a non-concealed gun can be considered brandishing a firearm which is a misdemeanor under the Penal Code.

If you have an unloaded firearm but have bullets on your person or within easy reach, it's consider a loaded firearm by the law (at least in CA).

Some guy thinking "I'll just carry the bullets in my pocket" would find himself with an unhappy surprise.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20741224 Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:38:50 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20741060 cmaenginsb :

said by RangerTX

said by Steve

said by nirvansk815

:

I'm getting closer...

Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to strap on a gun, go up to a cop, and read the section number on your indictment?

Carry non conceal gun is not illegal if that gun has no bullets. So likely nirvansk815 would not get section number from the indictment.

Wrong, carrying a non-concealed gun can be considered brandishing a firearm which is a misdemeanor under the Penal Code. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20741060 Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:07:08 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731915 MotherNature :

said by Steve

said by nirvansk815

:

I love reading through 54 pages of penile pictures. :D

Fixed it for ya ;-)

Fixed your fix.
--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731915 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:03:18 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731912 nirvansk815 : »ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/code/p···20-12040

Article 2. Unlawful Carrying and Possession of Weapons ..... 12020-12040

and some results:

12025. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when
he or she does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her
control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he
or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
.
.
.

12025.5. (a) A violation of Section 12025 is justifiable when a
person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is
in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a
current restraining order issued by a court against another person or
persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her
life or safety.
.
.
.
12026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen
of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
who carries, either openly or concealed, anywhere within the citizen'
s or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on
private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal
resident any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.
(b) No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or
carry, either openly or concealed, shall be required of any citizen
of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to
purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed,
a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person within the citizen's or legal resident's place of
residence, place of business, or on private property owned or
lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the
application of Section 12031.
.
.
.
12026.1. (a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any
citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or
is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted
classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or
Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, from
transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the
following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than
the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any
motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm,
the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the
otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in
accordance with this chapter.
(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device.
.
.
.
12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
.
.
.
12034. (a) It is a misdemeanor for a driver of any motor vehicle or
the owner of any motor vehicle, whether or not the owner of the
vehicle is occupying the vehicle, knowingly to permit any other
person to carry into or bring into the vehicle a firearm in violation
of Section 12031 of this code or Section 2006 of the Fish and Game
Code.
.
.
.

--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731912 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:03:00 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731907 Steve :

said by nirvansk815

:

I love reading through 54 pages of penile codes :D

Fixed it for ya ;-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731907 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:01:53 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731812 nirvansk815 :

said by No_Strings

:

Send up a flare if this goes anywhere. Meanwhile, I'll be watching paint dry.

at least post some pictures... jeez :D
--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731812 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:47:15 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731804 nirvansk815 : Yeah but that's no fun! I love reading through 54 pages of penal codes :D
--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731804 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:45:40 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731803 RangerTX :

said by Steve

said by nirvansk815

:

I'm getting closer...

Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to strap on a gun, go up to a cop, and read the section number on your indictment?

Carry non conceal gun is not illegal if that gun has no bullets. So likely nirvansk815 would not get section number from the indictment.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731803 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:45:13 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731776 Steve :

said by nirvansk815

:

I'm getting closer...

Wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to strap on a gun, go up to a cop, and read the section number on your indictment?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731776 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:40:16 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731732 No_Strings : Send up a flare if this goes anywhere. Meanwhile, I'll be watching paint dry.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731732 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:32:24 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731718 nirvansk815 : California Penal Code

TITLE 2. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS
CHAPTER 1. FIREARMS
Article 1. General Provisions .............................. 12000-12003
Article 1.5. Prohibited Armed Persons File ................. 12010-12012
Article 2. Unlawful Carrying and Possession of Weapons ..... 12020-12040
Article 3. Licenses to Carry Pistols and Revolvers ......... 12050-12054
Article 4. Licenses to Sell Firearms ....................... 12070-12086
Article 4.5. Firearms Safety Devices ..................... 12087-12088.9
Article 5. Obliteration of Identification Marks ............ 12090-12094
Article 6. Permits ......................................... 12095-12099
Article 7. Juveniles ............................................ 12101
CHAPTER 1.3. UNSAFE HANDGUNS ................................ 12125-12133
CHAPTER 2. MACHINE GUNS
Article 1. General Provisions .............................. 12200-12201
Article 2. Unlawful Possession of Machine Guns .................. 12220
Article 3. Permits ......................................... 12230-12234
Article 4. Licenses to Sell Machine Guns ................... 12250-12251
CHAPTER 2.3. ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS CONTROL ACT OF 1989
Article 1. General Provisions .............................. 12275-12278
Article 2. Unlawful Activities ............................. 12280-12282
Article 3. Registration and Permits ...................... 12285-12289.5
Article 4. Licensed Gun Dealers ................................. 12290
CHAPTER 2.5. DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES ............................ 12301-12316
CHAPTER 2.6. AMMUNITION ..................................... 12320-12325
CHAPTER 3.2. BOOBYTRAPS .......................................... 12355
CHAPTER 3.5. BODY ARMOUR CERTIFICATION ...................... 12360-12370
CHAPTER 4. TEAR GAS WEAPONS
Article 1. General Provisions .............................. 12401-12404
Article 2. Unlawful Possession and Sale .................... 12420-12422
Article 3. Permits ......................................... 12423-12426
Article 4. Licenses to Sell
Article 6. Oleoresin Capsicum
CHAPTER 5. FIREARM DEVICES
Article 1. General Provisions .............................. 12500-12501
Article 2. Unlawful Possession of Firearm Silencers ............. 12520
CHAPTER 6. MISCELLANEOUS
Article 1. BB Devices and Imitation Firearms ............... 12550-12556
Article 4. Blowguns ........................................ 12580-12583
Article 5. Picketing ............................................ 12590
Article 6. Less Lethal Weapons ............................. 12600-12601
Article 7. Stun Guns ....................................... 12650-12654
Article 8. Handgun Safety Certificate ...................... 12800-12809

»ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/code/pen/
I'm getting closer...
--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731718 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:29:17 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731530 nirvansk815 :

II. Weapons Use

1.08.080 Sections 22.011--22.020 repealed.

Sections 22.011 through Section 22.020, inclusive, of the county code, heretofore adopted by reference by Article I of this chapter, are repealed. (Ord. 60 § 5, 1979)

I'm diggin...
--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731530 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:54:32 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731504 nirvansk815 :

1.04.060 Prohibited acts include causing and permitting.

Whenever in the ordinances of the city, any act or omission is made unlawful, it shall include causing, allowing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering, or concealing the fact of such act or omission. (Ord. 116 § 6, 1980)

--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731504 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:50:22 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731476 MotherNature : Keep looking. It's there.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731476 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:44:43 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731451 nirvansk815 : I hate when mother nature is always right :D I'm looking but I don't see anything specific.
--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731451 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:39:35 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731413 MotherNature : That says nothing about open carry. Go back to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731413 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:34:16 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731352 nirvansk815 : Looking through the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code I found these:

Chapter 9.04 WEAPONS

9.04.010 Discharging firearms prohibited.

It is unlawful to fire or discharge, or cause to be fired or discharged, within the city any firearm, rifle, pistol, shotgun, cannon, air rifle, air gun, b.b. gun, pellet gun, gas operated gun, spring gun, or any weapon designed to discharge any dangerous missile; provided, however, the provisions of this section shall not apply to peace officers when acting in the line of duty, and, provided further, that this section shall not apply to any person otherwise lawfully acting in the due protection of life or property. (Ord. 60 § 1, 1979)

9.04.020 Discharging arrows prohibited.

It is unlawful for any person to discharge, release, or shoot any arrow or shaft from any bow, crossbow, or similar device within the city except upon a range or other area approved by the city council for such activity. (Ord. 60 § 2, 1979)

9.04.030 Possession of weapons by minors.

It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen years to have in his or her possession, custody, or control any of the weapons described in Sections 9.04.010 and 9.04.020 unless he or she either possesses a valid California hunting license, or is accompanied by a parent or guardian. (Ord. 60 § 3, 1979)

9.04.040 Violation--Penalty.

Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail, not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (Ord. 60 § 4, 1979)

MotherNature

was right on.
--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20731352 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:24:08 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20729684 The Duck : Sorry, I should have also included this:»opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=2487.

Please take a look at »www.californiaopencarry.org/ to get more detail. You will also find more info at »www.calguns.net. Every now and again groups of guys will meet up somewhere publicly for open carry gatherings, they will sometimes post details there.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20729684 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:15:11 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20729076 jig :

said by Kylemaul

:

Its a shame to compromise your views via your lack of knowledge of the difference between tenants and tenets.

a little snarky with the delivery, but fixed. i hate f-ing up words like that.

on the subject of douchebaggery:

»www.holytaco.com/2008/06/27/the-···history/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20729076 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:40:11 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20729020 Kylemaul : Thanks dogma, I'll take option 3!
F in the CA!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20729020 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:29:34 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20728965 dogma :

said by Kylemaul

:

How many reading will understand the context of the intended word, only to ape the incorrect word in its place?

And by all means please do go on fining all of my errors--it's been so long since I've had a good audit after all... :D

The way I see it, ya' got three choices in this forum:

1.) Post your ideas, thoughts, or opinions as it relates to the spirit of the OP or same regarding another posters response. (preferred)

2.) Get out.

or

3.) Get the hell out.

...or post a damn good recipe]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20728965 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:20:19 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20728845 Kylemaul : As I appreciated jig's dialogue, I was merely trying to help identify the word that was intended. Posts are an interesting mix of conversational and written meaning. Conversationally, I easily would have compensated for the slight difference in pronuncination. Written, the word used is a word with a completely different meaning, is contextually awkward, and when used literally, makes the flow of ideas become muddled.

How many reading will understand the context of the intended word, only to ape the incorrect word in its place?

And by all means please do go on fining all of my errors--it's been so long since I've had a good audit after all... :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20728845 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:52:19 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20728750 Steve :

said by Kylemaul

:

Its a shame to compromise your views via your lack of knowledge of the difference between tenants and tenets.

Oh please: at best it's a typo, at worst he didn't know how to spell a word whose concept he clearly understood and used correctly.

Shall we look for your incorrect use of language?

Should be Attorneys General
It's "uninstall"
... shall I go on?

This kind of thing is just mean-spirited and petty.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20728750 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:32:05 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20728740 No_Strings : It's right in line with his capitalization, though. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20728740 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:31:10 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20728587 Kylemaul : Its a shame to compromise your views via your lack of knowledge of the difference between tenants and tenets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20728587 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:54:19 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20726071 No_Strings : There's nothing more irritating than an ex ... ex-smoker, ex-drinker, ex-sinner, ex- well, you know. Being an ex-mod means you've reformed, huh? (Actually, even though I wasn't around back then, I'll bet you were just as brutal on mods when you were one.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20726071 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:43:19 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20725986 Steve :

said by No_Strings

:

Please leave my relatives out of this. Now, talk about some stupid people ...

Seeing a mod snicker at stupid people is like watching David Duke snicker about bigots :-)

(... or me snickering about arrogance?) :-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20725986 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:29:16 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20725721 No_Strings : Please leave my relatives out of this. Now, talk about some stupid people ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20725721 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:47:12 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20725696 jig :

said by Steve

said by jig

:

i've pretty much been clear that what i'm worried about is stupid people.

If you're worried about stupid people, this place must put you over the edge ;-)

it's all relative, dontchaknow :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20725696 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:42:53 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20725209 No_Strings :

said by Steve

:

If you're worried about stupid people, this place must put you over the edge ;-)

Hey, Steve, I tried to click on "this place," but nothing happened. Must be a broken link.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20725209 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:07:37 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20725191 Steve :

said by jig

:

i've pretty much been clear that what i'm worried about is stupid people.

If you're worried about stupid people, this place must put you over the edge ;-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20725191 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:01:46 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20724507 jig :

said by sholling

:

So you want unnecessary delays on the ability to defend ones life? Delays that might take just long enough for the crime victim to be raped or dead before getting the lock off? I think that should be a voluntary decision.

i have a close friend that thinks motorcycle helmets should be a voluntary decision. i often tell her she's crazy, and that she's never taken a decent sized bug (let alone road debris) full in the face at 70mph and that if she had, she'd mandate full face helmets for anyone even looking longingly at a motorcycle. you see, once you take a bug under similar circumstances, you know, viscerally, that anyone that gets hit like that can't possibly stay on the road, which means probably killing themselves or taking out someone else. your internal balance point goes from worrying about a sweaty head to properly worrying about more important things, like survival.

the point is, you've chosen to worry about rape and sundry when it's clear even in florida that women, the vast majority of rape victims, just don't buy guns - trigger lock or not. further, women with husbands nearby, with or without guns, are almost never victims of rape purely because rapists don't like a crowd. well, unless you think movies are reality (people making your argument often do). how about instead, lets worry about the freaked out wife that shoots her husband in the head at her surprise party. or the kid that shoots his pal in the head because he thinks it's cool to dry-fire a gun, but doesn't know enough to check the chamber? which situation do you think is more prevalent, the stupid kid or the raped woman who had a gun handy but just couldn't get the key in the trigger lock quick enough to scare some retard off who decided to keep coming when she yelled: I have a gun!

so, to what do we attribute the drop in violent crime around here? i've pretty much chalked up all drops in crime in the past decade to the general largess and healthy job market (up till recently). aside from that, i'm not predicting blood flowing in the streets, i'm just not a fan of a lot of the general pop having a gun at the drop of a hat. even just the 3 day waiting period and a booklet read is better than nothing.

Textbook hopoliteophobia. I respectfully suggest getting some therapy soon.

i'm not sure how what i've written amounts to attributing evil towards the gun itself (if that's the word you meant to use)... i've pretty much been clear that what i'm worried about is stupid people. i doubt i'd be committed for that.

Anyway I absolutely respect your right to go unarmed, to live unarmed, or to wear a kick me sign on your back. But I also absolutely reject the idea that anyone has the right to impose victim status on myself or anyone else.

if you absolutely need a gun without a trigger lock in less than three days, then you absolutely have problems i can't hope to help you solve.

who said i was unarmed?
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20724507 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:01:34 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20720378 nirvansk815 :

said by sholling

said by No_Strings

:

I certainly feel the burden of supporting them, but a damned sure wouldn't call it slavery nor would it be if I had to help support her should the fairy tale end.

You guys are sooooooo well trained. Ready to rollover and play dead on command. Well I hope it works out well for you. Especially since so many of you seem to place so little value on your own freedom. Maybe those all those married men as whipped puppies TV commercial aren't as far off as we free men thought. Give your ladies a big thumbs up from me. :D

Being single is easy. I prefer challenges... and besides, ~~slaves~~ have way more potential benefits.
--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20720378 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:52:01 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718963 No_Strings :

said by sholling

:

You guys are sooooooo well trained. Ready to rollover and play dead on command. Well I hope it works out well for you. Especially since so many of you seem to place so little value on your own freedom. Maybe those all those married men as whipped puppies TV commercial aren't as far off as we free men thought. Give your ladies a big thumbs up from me.

Ironically, I feel as sad for you as you do for me. Enjoy your ~~solitude~~ freedom.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718963 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:18:08 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718824 sholling :

said by drjim

:

The closest I could come to finding the author of the "Morally Superior" quote you used is this page:
»www.geocities.com/Liberalgunfarc···003.html
I have no clue if the page author generated the quote, or got it someplace else.....

Thank you. I've seen it in one form or another in enough places and signature lines that proper attribution is probably impossible.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot. [img]»www.vpsingles.com/pics/nyah.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718824 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:16:25 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718767 drjim : The closest I could come to finding the author of the "Morally Superior" quote you used is this page:
»www.geocities.com/Liberalgunfarc···003.html
I have no clue if the page author generated the quote, or got it someplace else.....
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718767 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:02:25 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718754 sholling :

said by MotherNature

:

You caught it. I was just about to post this.

I'm a proud product of the California public schools and couldn't spell to save my life. That's how I wound up in computers - spell check. :D

But unlike the current generation I can make change. ;)
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718754 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:58:34 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718718 MotherNature : You caught it. I was just about to post this.
--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718718 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:47:54 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718685 sholling :

said by No_Strings

:

I certainly feel the burden of supporting them, but a damned sure wouldn't call it slavery nor would it be if I had to help support her should the fairy tale end.

said by jig

:

if they are just for show, then their only utility is the delay involved. i'm still not sure that's a horrible thing, might give someone a chance to run (it would me).

So you want unnecessary delays on the ability to defend ones life? Delays that might take just long enough for the crime victim to be raped or dead before getting the lock off? I think that should be a voluntary decision.

i'm talking about the data specifically from DC after this gun ban is officially without effect (which may be now). apples to apples, or as close as possible, as it were. oh well, there are politicians, bold face liars, and statisticians. hopefully some day we will know.

Of course we have to ignore existing data that might be inconvenient to a point of view. The drop in Florida's crime rate that was directly attributable to shall-issue couldn't possibly be useful in predicting future results could it. Especially when all the dire prediction of blood flowing in the streets if people went armed turned out to be a crock. ;)

Textbook hopoliteophobia. I respectfully suggest getting some therapy soon. The Heller decision went to great pains to recognize that bear arms meant carry a gun. What that will probably mean for California is that our commissars will soon have a choice between open carry and legalized concealed carry in place of open carry. Something currently reserved for the rich and powerful.

Anyway I absolutely respect your right to go unarmed, to live unarmed, or to wear a kick me sign on your back. But I also absolutely reject the idea that anyone has the right to impose victim status on myself or anyone else.

As someone who's name I have yet to locate put it...
"Gun control is the notion that a woman found dead in an ally, raped and then strangled with her own panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman that takes up arms to defend her own life."
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718685 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:34:55 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718462 drjim : A 3-day wait is still no guarantee that the person buying the gun has any training. It's just a waiting, or 'cooling off' period, and that's about all it's meant to be. Getting a Handgun Safety Certificate is astoundingly easy in California. Read the book, take the test, pay the fee, and get issued the card. Having taken over 100 hours of training in the last year, I can attest to how poorly some new gun owners are in the proper safe handling of firearms.
Fortunately the instructors straightened them out some, but as I've always read (and seen), you will NOT 'rise to the occasion', but rather will default to your level of training. If you haven't had any *real* training, you might as well use the gun for a club.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718462 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:45:01 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718389 No_Strings : I don't consider your PMs asking me what I'm wearing to be infidelity.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718389 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:33:11 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718385 Steve :

said by No_Strings

:

a wonderful monogamous relationship

She's always thought it was quaint that you still think that ;-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718385 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:31:59 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718337 jig :

said by sholling

:

Locks only slow the honest. They do nothing to block the dishonest with the will to defeat them. The top of the line padlock on your garage can be defeated in less than 10 seconds with a pair of paper clips. I've seen it done. The vast majority of deadbolts and others pin tumbler locks can be bumped. Something taught in most jails and juvenile halls.

that's the mantra. i thought trigger locks were built to be unbumpable, but maybe that's just the good ones. if they are just for show, then their only utility is the delay involved. i'm still not sure that's a horrible thing, might give someone a chance to run (it would me).

it will be interesting to see what crime numbers show in the coming decades.

The data is already readily available. John Lott was an anti-gunner until he looked dispassionately at the actual numbers.
»www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Cr···26493636

The rioters turned back every time they spotted armed resistance. So yes I do. Do you think it's a good idea to mandate through force of law that law abiding families (including non-english speakers) be victims of rape, murder or robbery? That seems to be what you are calling for. In each case the state becomes an accomplice to that rape, murder and/or robbery. Sorry my friend but the right to self defense and the means to defend ones self is near absolute. Only a narrow exception can be drawn for the mentally ill and those that have lost their rights through the abuse of that right - felons.

having been on vermont and jefferson (and living a block away) when the riots went down, i'm just going to have to disagree. maybe it's walking though beverly hills every other day and seeing how people react to any innocuous black guy walking down the street... i just don't trust enough people to be accurate about who and why they are shooting. put another way, i have faith in most people being tremendously stupid and irregular. adding more and more guns to the equation, without a 3 day wait (which is what we were discussing), in other words guaranteeing a bunch of people with guns but no training whatsoever, just seems ludicrous. the police wouldn't know who to shoot first, and i think that makes EVERYONE less safe.

steve has pretty much said what i would say about alimony. your pal had a poor atty, poor judgment in who he married, or just plain bad luck. no reason to disadvantage the rest of us just because he couldn't work a good bargain somewhere along the way.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718337 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:22:32 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718109 No_Strings : I met a lady whose support, caring and willingness to give up a lucrative sales career enabled me to earn far more than I would have otherwise, plus enjoy a wonderful monogamous relationship and have two, healthy, handsome boys (they got their looks from her, obviously). I certainly feel the burden of supporting them, but a damned sure wouldn't call it slavery nor would it be if I had to help support her should the fairy tale end.

This, from a guy who's been down the alimony & child support path.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718109 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:32:07 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718027 Steve :

said by sholling

:

Great, we need a law ending slavery.

Well, you know you can avoid this by either:

1) choose your partner wisely
2) don't get married

See? No slavery!

Though your far-out views may route you through door #2 automatically :-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20718027 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:16:28 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20717789 sholling :

said by Steve

:

I think that's called "The Rule of Law".

Steve

Great we need a law ending slavery. When the marriage is over each goes their own way with their half and no responsibility to support the ex for the rest of her life.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot. [img]»www.vpsingles.com/pics/nyah.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20717789 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:12:29 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20717512 Steve :

said by sholling

:

I'm not talking about the case of a woman putting a man through school.

There is no way to define the rules so they can't be gamed by one party or the other: I know an OC Sheriff's deputy who said that he'd rather give his money to his attorney than to his soon-to-be ex-wife - there's just bad behavior everywhere.

I believe that it's more important to have predictable rules that everybody knows in advance than it is to have the rules say one particular thing or another.

I think that's called "The Rule of Law".

Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Tustin, California USA | my web site]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20717512 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:05:28 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20717250 sholling : I'm not talking about the case of a woman putting a man through school. I'll give a great example. A man I know is is 100% disabled from combat wounds suffered in Vietnam. He is perfectly capable of taking care of himself and has done so since the war. Just under 10 years ago he married a woman that of her own free will cut back to very part time employment. Under the current slavery system she has a right to continue in that lifestyle for life because she has become accustomed to his income and she demanded a percentage of his disability pay to continue her life style. Thats BS but under our 'sleep with her and she owns you for life' system she was entitled. As far as I'm concerned she can go peddle her poo poo on main street if she doesn't feel like getting a job. She has no right to a lifetime of support. In the end she wound up with most of the equity in the home in exchange for dropping her claim on his disability.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot. [img]»www.vpsingles.com/pics/nyah.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20717250 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:56:52 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716870 MotherNature :

said by Steve

:

In many marriages, the wife takes care of the home while the man brings home the bread.

I'd change "many" to "scarce few".
--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716870 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:21:49 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716850 Steve :

said by sholling

:

It is most certainly slavery. This is not 1850 where a woman cannot get out and get a job.

I'm pretty much as thoroughgoing a libertarian as they come, and even I think you're nuts on this, and it's simply unfair.

The law assumes that both partners contribute equally in a marriage, though not in the same way. In many marriages, the wife takes care of the home while the man brings home the bread.

In a real sense, she's taken a personal pay cut (perhaps down to $0) in order to put him through "career school" - she benefits when he advances.

This is why a man's income usually rises after marriage -- he has a helper -- while a woman's usually drops. This arrangement is a perfect merge of contributions to the relationship, but only the man is building a career asset that he can take with him, at least in financial terms.

If the partnership dissolves, spousal support recognizes this imbalance in investment.

Shame on men who think they got their career all on their own.

Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Tustin, California USA | my web site]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716850 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:58 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716666 sholling :

said by jig

:

alimony isn't slavery because it's all a relationship developed under contract. it's not unconscionable because everyone knows or is expected to know the risks, AND, it's clear that you can mitigate that risk by an explicit pre-nup. plus, it's more appropriate to think of alimony as reparations for the almost slavery that went on before (typical wife jobs). if that wasn't the situation and the guy still got stuck with alimony, then he had a bad lawyer.

It is most certainly slavery. This is not 1850 where a woman cannot get out and get a job. You also neglect to mention that a judge may ignore a prenup and award a woman continued ownership of her ex husband through alimony, and that lifetime alimony is pretty much automatic after 10 years. It is involuntary servitude pure and simple unless spelled out in a written marriage contract.

are trigger locks too easy to pick if you have time to work at it? so there is no truth to the claim that it would block the viability of stolen and locked handguns? also, i wasn't thinking in the context of the DC ban.

Locks only slow the honest. They do nothing to block the dishonest with the will to defeat them. The top of the line padlock on your garage can be defeated in less than 10 seconds with a pair of paper clips. I've seen it done. The vast majority of deadbolts and others pin tumbler locks can be bumped. Something taught in most jails and juvenile halls. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_bumping

it will be interesting to see what crime numbers show in the coming decades.

The data is already readily available. John Lott was an anti-gunner until he looked dispassionately at the actual numbers.
»www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Cr···26493636

3 day waiting period - oh my god, do you really think it would have been a good idea for a large number of random people to have even more guns during the riots? people without training, scared shitless, half not speaking english?

that sounds like Armageddon to me.

Again I refer you to Raging Against Self Defense By Sarah Thompson, M.D. »www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot. [img]»www.vpsingles.com/pics/nyah.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716666 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:17:52 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716592 MotherNature : That sounds like people able to protect their property to me. Remember the Korean shop owners? The main group of people having to worry about Armageddon would be the rioters, and in my world, who gives a shit if they live or die? In fact, I'd rather they die.
--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716592 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:55:35 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716521 jig : sholling: the bill of rights initially applied only against the federal government. what makes it potentially effective against the states is the 14th amendment, passed so that states couldn't force people into slavery (or what looked like slavery). each and every amendment (well, more like each and every clause of every amendment) has to be incorporated, by the Supreme Court, as against the states. incorporation defines how an amendment (or clause) limits the rights of the states to govern their people how they see fit. it's a very big, important thing when the court incorporates parts of the bill of rights as against the states, and all we know now is that the 2nd amendment is NOT incorporated, at all, as against the states. you mention the 1st amendment, and that HAS been incorporated as against the states, and that's why CA can't ban the press.

it's not a hard concept, you just don't know the history.

further muddying the waters is the fact that many state constitutions have incorporated the bill of rights into their own state constitutions by reference. but, state constitutions are interpreted by their state supreme court, so there's the potential for a fight there with no real resolution without voters getting involved.

anyway, alimony isn't slavery because it's all a relationship developed under contract. it's not unconscionable because everyone knows or is expected to know the risks, AND, it's clear that you can mitigate that risk by an explicit pre-nup. plus, it's more appropriate to think of alimony as reparations for the almost slavery that went on before (typical wife jobs). if that wasn't the situation and the guy still got stuck with alimony, then he had a bad lawyer.

steve and sholling: the basic tenant of Roe v Wade is that an individual has a right. most if not all the other rights embodied in the bill of rights are not thought of as individual rights, at least legally (certainly at the time Roe v Wade was decided). individuals can assert them on behalf of a collective, but not just because their rights alone were infringed. it's a bit like suing the city for a civil rights violation - you can't win unless you show that there is some kind of institutional, pervasive infringement against a class of people. this gun decision recognizes an individuals right (from what i've read so far), and as such, it bolsters the same idea in every other decision recognizing such a right, regardless of whether it emanates from penumbras or not.

are trigger locks too easy to pick if you have time to work at it? so there is no truth to the claim that it would block the viability of stolen and locked handguns? also, i wasn't thinking in the context of the DC ban. it will be interesting to see what crime numbers show in the coming decades.

3 day waiting period - oh my god, do you really think it would have been a good idea for a large number of random people to have even more guns during the riots? people without training, scared shitless, half not speaking english? that sounds like Armageddon to me.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716521 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:38:43 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716382 Steve :

said by jig

:

i like the idea of a trigger lock

Sure, but lost on many is that the DC gun ban was so complete that it was against the law to remove the trigger lock even if you hear a burglar breaking into your house.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716382 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:56:53 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716355 Bill : I was responding to RFC's remark about the LAPD, not OCSD.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716355 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:49:13 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716353 MotherNature :

said by Bill

:

The fact that they continue to promote some based on race and gender, not performance, worries me more than bringing in people from other cities.

Bratton's a white male... I'm not getting your point.
--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716353 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:48:45 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716343 dogma :

said by Bill

:

The fact that they continue to promote some based on race and gender, not performance, worries me more than bringing in people from other cities.

What proof do you have that Sandra Hutchens is not fully qualified for this position?

Or is it by some God given virtue of race & gender that you believe OC should maintain the status quo:

Carona's indictment in October was the crowning blow in a series of scandals that included the conviction and jailing of one of his assistants, the highly publicized gang rape trial of another assistant's son, and a grand jury investigation that depicted Orange County's largest jail as nearly barbaric, with inmates enforcing the rules and some jailers napping or watching television instead of making their rounds. In one instance, an inmate was beaten to death as a jailer watched the television show "Cops."

Additionally, Federal investigators charged the county’s top lawman with seven felony counts for using his elected office to “enrich” himself and offer “favors to friends who paid bribes.” Carona illegally accepted money, high-priced gifts, tickets to exclusive sporting events and loans for his wife and for his “longtime mistress,” the indictment said.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716343 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:44:58 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716326 sholling :

said by jig

:

but that leaves open the question whether states can. DC isn't a state, after all.

If we are going get nit picky a strict reading of the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law" vs the 2nd's "shall not be infringed" would seem to imply that California for example could ban non-state run news outlets and declare the official religion of California to be the Catholic Church. After all it would not be an act of congress. I don't think anybody buys into the idea that the 1st doesn't apply to the states. But then again we haven't even been able to get the 13th Amendment applied to the states as evidenced by the continued existence and enforcement of alimony laws which are nothing but orders of involuntary servitude.

there's a fun argument that recognizing an individual's right to own a gun necessarily means recognizing an individual's right to choose to abort a fetus (at least as against the federal govt). i doubt very seriously if anyone can attack the basic tenant of Roe v Wade after this decision...

That is more than a bit of a stretch. The right to an abortion was completely made up in the original Roe V Wade decision and cannot be intelligently interpreted as anything but judicial legislation... However now that abortion is a common practice it is probably protected under the 9th Amendment.

but we'll see how they come down when the question is whether a state can choose to regulate handguns out of existence.

This will be decided in Chicago.

i like the idea of a trigger lock,

probably a good idea for those with kids. Useless for those without.

registration and licensing,

do you like the idea of discretionary licensing to post your opinion or to vote? The right of self defense is at least as fundamental.

3 day (or longer) waiting period,

oh you mean the law that forced the vast majority of the people of Los Angles to remain helpless during the Rodney King riots? I know that the socialists in the media and the legislature were livid that Korean shop owners took up arms and defended their homes and business when the police pulled out of the area. Something about abridging the rioters' right to loot and pillage and rape and murder.

For further analysis I suggest this bit of light reading.
»www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot. [img]»www.vpsingles.com/pics/nyah.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716326 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:41:25 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716248 Bill : The fact that they continue to promote some based on race and gender, not performance, worries me more than bringing in people from other cities.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716248 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:18:29 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716239 Steve :

said by MotherNature

:

I wish LAPD would promote from within like LAFD does, instead of bringing in scary talent from back East, such as that former park policeman Wee Willie Winkie.

This coin has two sides: when there is a perception of widespread corruption or malfeasance, there's some benefit to bringing in an outsider without any particular loyalties to the status quo.

I think many applaud the selection of the new OC Sheriff for that very reason; whether it actually helps or not will be left to history.
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Tustin, California USA | my web site]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716239 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:15:52 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716041 Steve :

said by jig

:

i doubt very seriously if anyone can attack the basic tenant of Roe v Wade after this decision...

I don't so.

The very question in Hellar revolved around individual versus collective rights in a very specific area - there was even an amicus brief by Linguists regarding the use of language at the time. The Court held that the prefatory clause was merely stating a reason for the operative clause, not restricting it.

And the Second Amendment very specifically addresses gun use.

I don't see how Roe has anything to do with this:

1) Roe is not a debate over the narrow meaning of a few specific words

2) Roe's "right to privacy" was found in the penumbra of the Constitution, not in any particular wording.

3) In Roe, there's not even agreement over how many sets of rights are involved.

Steve -- who's read most of the opinion already, finishing today]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20716041 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:19:25 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20715269 jig : just to start the tone off right - you are all crazy, gun-toting separationists with impotent death-wish fetishes. don't take it personally. ;)

said by dogma

:

The SCOTUS reaffirmed the right for individuals to own firearms. Seems like it maintains States rights to regulate firearms...just not ban them altogether like the D.of C. did.

this decision had nothing to do with states rights. this was about the federal government's power to ban handguns and an individual's right to own a handgun, as against the federal government. so, the feds can't regulate a handgun out of existence, but that leaves open the question whether states can. DC isn't a state, after all.

the interesting bit is that they recognized this as an individual right. they don't do that often, and there's a fun argument that recognizing an individual's right to own a gun necessarily means recognizing an individual's right to choose to abort a fetus (at least as against the federal govt). i doubt very seriously if anyone can attack the basic tenet of Roe v Wade after this decision... but we'll see how they come down when the question is whether a state can choose to regulate handguns out of existence.

i like the idea of a trigger lock, registration and licensing, 3 day (or longer) waiting period, age limits (both young and old) and maybe even ammunition limits. what i'd really like is some very draconian laws with regards to "losing" a gun, or shipments of guns. i don't think it should be easier to own and operate a gun than it is to own and operate a car (though i don't mind it being cheaper).

smart people shouldn't be kept from owning a gun just because stupid people shoot each other or let their children shoot each other or allow their guns to be stolen, but the stupid people should really feel the burn.

which reminds me, are we going to have a week of hot weather over the 4th of july week? i've been hearing a lot of fireworks around here lately.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20715269 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:44:48 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20712490 MotherNature :

said by The Duck

said by MotherNature

said by CatSnak

:

You can open carry just about anywhere

Subject to local regulations, and there ain't many cities/towns/whatever that allow open carry. On private property or out in the middle of nowhere, different story.

Not quite right. Read here: »www.californiaopencarry.org/

I admit I have a tendency to get glassy eyed with boredom when reading statutes and laws, but I did manage to notice the following:

No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed, shall be required of any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state … to purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed, a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person within the citizen's or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident.

Isn't that basically what I said a few posts upthread?

EDIT: Lifted from here, Section 12026: »www.californiaopencarry.org/Cali···arry.pdf

--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20712490 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:17:12 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20711567 RangerTX : While i don't support this ruling i do have a question. Will the current rules on getting concealed gun permit be invalided by the court being how impossible it's to get a permit.
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20711567 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:13:40 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20711565 MotherNature : He doesn't grant the permits, Sheriff Baca does.
--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20711565 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:09:09 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20711336 sholling :

said by Steve

:

Why? Now that he's been shown to be an actual cop, is that not good enough?

What's not good enough for me is his attitude. His calls for gun control and his refusal to grant carry permits. Not that I live in LA but I still have to listen to that jerk on the news.

BTW here is a NPR interview with Heller's attorney.
»www.npr.org/templates/player/med···91975501
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20711336 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:55:01 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20711082 The Duck :

said by MotherNature

said by CatSnak

:

You can open carry just about anywhere

Subject to local regulations, and there ain't many cities/towns/whatever that allow open carry. On private property or out in the middle of nowhere, different story.

Not quite right. Read here: »www.californiaopencarry.org/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20711082 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:12:07 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20709756 MotherNature : I wish LAPD would promote from within like LAFD does, instead of bringing in scary talent from back East, such as that former park policeman Wee Willie Winkie.
--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20709756 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:13:10 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20709707 Steve :

said by sholling

:

Bratton.

Why? Now that he's been shown to be an actual cop, is that not good enough?
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Tustin, California USA | my web site]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20709707 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:04:44 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20709678 sholling :

said by Steve

said by sholling

:

Interesting reading. Time to ship that politician SOB back to whatever rock he crawled out from under.

Which politician SOB?

Bratton.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot. [img]»www.vpsingles.com/pics/nyah.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20709678 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:59:43 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20708401 Steve :

said by sholling

:

Interesting reading. Time to ship that politician SOB back to whatever rock he crawled out from under.

Which politician SOB? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20708401 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:35:43 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20708395 sholling : Interesting reading. Time to ship that politician SOB back to whatever rock he crawled out from under.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20708395 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:33:54 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20706988 Steve :

said by sholling

:

Team Billy Jack is the leading attorney specializing in suing cities and police officials for illegally withholding permits. The latest being the the city of Torrance. It's his job to keep track of such things. Here is a Billy Jack posting as of 3/08.

But reading later we see a post saying that Chief Bratton did in fact get his POST cert in 2004.

said by LA Police Commission :

...
At the Police Commission Meeting on October 5, 2004:
...

Commissioners' Reports: President Cunningham presented Chief Bratton with his POST certification.

This is a State requirement which can't be waived by local officials.

Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Tustin, California USA | my web site]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20706988 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:47:29 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20706220 sholling :

said by Steve

:

Source, please?

Team Billy Jack is the leading attorney specializing in suing cities and police officials for illegally withholding permits. The latest being the the city of Torrance. It's his job to keep track of such things. Here is a Billy Jack posting as of 3/08.

»www.calguns.net/calgunforum/show···?t=92001

Other interesting links.
»californiaccw.org/posts/list/4212.page
»www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot. [img]»www.vpsingles.com/pics/nyah.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20706220 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:39:40 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20706134 RR Conductor : While I do support a right to bear arms, I also do not believe that should be a blank check to do whatever you want, there needs to be regulation and restrictions on arms. As for my feelings on the NRA, I'll that detailed discussion for another day, suffice it to say I don't like them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20706134 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:55:21 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20706042 Steve :

said by sholling

:

That's right the chief hasn't been able to pass the required test and any time that he is seen in uniform wearing a badge he is impersonating an officer.

Source, please?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20706042 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:23:12 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20704695 sholling : I see that LA TV news is showing their usual level of balanced coverage on the Supreme Court ruling. First Ch9 news interviews an anti 2nd Amendment relative of a victim of the gang wars, then for "balance" they interview an anti 2nd Amendment law professor and Chief Bratten who opposes private gun ownership yet carries a gun even though he is not a police officer. That's right the chief hasn't been able to pass the required test and any time that he is seen in uniform wearing a badge he is impersonating an officer.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot. [img]»www.vpsingles.com/pics/nyah.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20704695 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:12:46 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20704044 MotherNature : I divided up all my guns between the boys contingent upon each of them securing a quality gun safe firmly bolted to the floor.

That requirement was met, and my entire collection is now out of my hands. All I kept was a short pump 12ga.

Now they're all trying to lay claim on various pieces from my collection of antique cast iron cookware, most of which are still in regular service in my kitchen.

Buzzards.

--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20704044 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:48:29 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703994 dogma : The Sig is smaller, much lighter & 10mm ammo was expensive.
Besides, at the time, a "Glock" carried a certain stigma of sorts.

I know you mentioned it a while back, but which sidearm(s) do you own? Or are you only using the "Lupara"?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703994 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:34:16 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703794 MotherNature : Didn't like the Glock?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703794 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:54:48 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703788 dogma : I don't know if you recall from about 4-5 years ago, but it was upon YOUR recommendation that I traded a 7.62mm semi-auto for a Glock-20/10mm. Which I later traded for this.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703788 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:53:56 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703764 CatSnak :

said by MotherNature

said by CatSnak

:

You can open carry just about anywhere

Subject to local regulations, and there ain't many cities/towns/whatever that allow open carry. On private property or out in the middle of nowhere, different story.

True and also why I don't recommend carrying downtown or in general public areas.
--
Founding member, 2002-2003, 2005-2006 Director of Communications, 2004-2005 Secretary for the Crunchenstein Project]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703764 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:48:44 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703730 sholling : So next comes the 14th Amendment law suits to force the commissars to choose a) disarm judges as well as off duty and retired police, or b) institute a shall issue law to bring us all equal protection/rights. Either way finally brings an end to a discriminatory system that places a higher value on the lives of the politically connected than it places on the lives of us peons. This wasn't possible as long as the 9th Circus refused to recognize any right to keep and bare arms. Now that the individual right is affirmed it must be applied equally.

Since the police unions will never allow their minions on the legislature to disarm them shall issue will likely come to the PRK within just a few years. I'm sure ylen is already packing for a move to the UK where he will feel safe.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT--
Proud recipient of the Sean Hannity lifetime boot. [img]»www.vpsingles.com/pics/nyah.gif[/img]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703730 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:43:18 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703693 MotherNature : Dark Earth combat finish so you can guarantee you'll lose it if you drop it out in the boonies?
--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703693 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:36:16 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703674 dogma : No pics.
But it's a P226 DAK 9mm like this:
»www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCa···uctid=89
It had been modified with the NATO Dark Earth Combat finish, which makes it look just like this:
»lundestudio.com/thumbnail/p220-c···full.jpg

With respect to training, I support full law enforcement based training like: »www.nrahq.org/law/training/training.asp (although I am not a big fan of the NRA)
for a license to carry concealed or open.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703674 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:32:52 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703589 sanfranson :

quote:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias. - NY Times

This is a really big deal. The question of whether ownership of firearms is a state right granted only to the militiamen that the state chooses or an individual, personal right of each citizen is, finally, answered.

I am surprised that it was so close.
--
Cordially,

SANFRANSON]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703589 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:18:59 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703430 MotherNature :

said by CatSnak

:

You can open carry just about anywhere

Subject to local regulations, and there ain't many cities/towns/whatever that allow open carry. On private property or out in the middle of nowhere, different story.
--
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703430 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:50:44 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703349 CatSnak : You can open carry just about anywhere but I wouldn't recommend doing it downtown or at the mall or someplace like that. I wear mine almost always at the ranch and when riding the horses unless we are riding in an area such as a county park that strickly prohibits firearms.

My rifles:

Ruger 10-22 semi auto
Mauser 6.5x55 Swedish bolt action
12 gauge bolt action shot gun

Hand guns:

Chinese Tokarav 9mm
A. Uberti Cattleman (Colt replica) .45 revolver www.uberti.com
Crossman 1845 .177 cal revolver (bb gun)
--
Founding member, 2002-2003, 2005-2006 Director of Communications, 2004-2005 Secretary for the Crunchenstein Project]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703349 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:31:59 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703235 nirvansk815 : OK... found the beef... enjoy.

»www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/···-290.pdf
--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703235 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:08:05 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703203 nirvansk815 : (I'm patiently waiting for RangerTX

's response) :D
--
There's so much to be thankful for...How can anyone be sad?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703203 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:01:31 EDT Re: US Supreme Court says individuals have right to own guns http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20703099 nirvansk815 :

said by sholling

:

This essentially overturns the 9th Circus (not a typo) ruling that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right. That 9th Circus ruling has been the basis for upholding most of the state's draconian gun laws. My reading of the entire majority opinion leads me to believe that the state ban on military style weapons cannot stand. And my reading also leads me to believe that our commissars will have to make a choice between the shall issue concealed carry laws favored by forty plus states or open carry. That's because the right of citizens to bare arms was reaffirmed to mean carry in the majority discussion.

Fear not, our commissars will work tirelessly to find ways to get around the your rights, just as they have marginalized your vote. We can also count on the 9th Circus to ignore Heller to the best of their ability. Our own pistol packing Dianne Feinstein is very angry that the justices believe that constitutional rights apply to the people and not just the politically powerful such as herself. I think that we can count on her to redouble her efforts to shutdown all of those on talk radio that oppose her will.

said by CatSnak

:

I agree about registering the guns. My pistols are registerd but my rifles aren't (I've had them for years before I moved to CA).

With the exception of evil looking rifles California has never required registration of rifles. When you go in the store to buy a rifle all they do is run your ID for a background check. They do not register the rifle or report the serial number to the state.

Fienstein's Office Responce
»www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/···edff7133

And I h