Ammo For Sale

« « On Julia | Home | Jeanne Assam will be on NRA News » »

Reap, sow

In Cali, you used to be able to carry unloaded handguns openly and people did. The nannies didn’t like that so they made that illegal. So, in protest, people there started carrying rifles. So, now the legislature is looking to make that illegal.

25 Responses to “Reap, sow”

  1. Sparky Says:

    So they should have zero options for self defense? 2 Amendment N/A in Kali, just suck it up?

  2. Rivrdog Says:

    Cut to the chase: because they can.

    Solution: fix it so they can’t.

    Implement solution: put right to self-defense directly into the CA Constitution where the libleges can’t touch it. Change out the judges who try to.

  3. Jack Says:

    And the unloaded part is because the nannies didn’t like that people used to carry loaded weapons openly.

    But don’t say Gun Control is a Slippery Slope.

    If they ban carrying rifles openly next they’ll add more restrictions to the transport and movement of cased unloaded weapons.

  4. mikee Says:

    Looks like another win for Gura, et al., whenever they can get around to it.

    Regulation of a fundamental right is supposed to be narrowly tailored to meet an actual and significant requirement. Either CA gets to become shall issue for concealed carry, without undue burdens on the citizens, of this foolishness goes away.

    Either way, another payday in the lawsuit for whoever wins for the pro-rights side.

    Has nobody in California ever been to Chicago, or talked to the DA there?

  5. Bubblehead Les Says:

    Rivrdog: Won’t work. Even if it’s in the Kali Constitution, some Judge steps in and says the will of the People is unconstitutional. Just look at the Marriage Amendment. And the way they Gerrymandered their State, it’s Marxist for Life.

  6. DirtCrashr Says:

    I think it’s a payday for Alan Gura in the offing…

  7. Jacob Says:

    This is what happens when a bunch of supposedly pro-gun activists go on a crusade without bothering to think of any consequences their actions might have. Had those very same people shown the same dedication to their cause in the voting booth this would not have happened.

  8. S Lee Says:

    I think this is a good thing for pro-2A in California, in the long run. The legislature is basically painting itself into a corner.

  9. Sigivald Says:

    Jacob said: This is what happens when a bunch of supposedly pro-gun activists go on a crusade without bothering to think of any consequences their actions might have

    Well, if nobody acts because there “might” be negative consequences from a legislature, we’d never have gotten Heller, would we?

    It’s impossible to get anything done without risk.

  10. Jacob Says:

    That isn’t what I said. I said they did not think of any consequences, and it appears that nobody actually did because I have not seen anything from any CA gun group as to what the plan is now to fix the mess they have created for themselves.

  11. Mike Says:

    Jacob — You actually believe that the voting booth actually means anything in CA? Seriously?

    For every gun-totin’ yahoo in the Central Valley, I’ll raise you four Teamsters/SEIU meatbags, three illegals, two dead people, one radical environmentalist/feminist, and one out-of-state college student in (pick one) LA County, San Francisco County, San Diego County. People like you are outnumbered, outmaneuvered, and out of luck.

    CA is gone, and it isn’t coming back. They’re moving “Forward”, right over the cliff, hot on the heels of the Telemprompter Jesus. The sooner gun owners in CA make peace with that and get the hell out, the better it will be for them.

  12. Chris Says:

    Thank you CA… With this move, you will ensure that Gura and the CalGuns guys will win their court cases.

  13. Kristopher Says:

    Jacob: These actions were sanctioned by

    Who are at least fighting here, as opposed to rolling over like pro-gun folks do in NY and NJ.

    These laws will now be fought on first amendment grounds, since the obvious objective to banning unloaded open carry by protesters is restriction of the first amendment.

  14. Jacob Says:

    I got ballistic fingerprinting repealed in New York. You got open carry banned.

    When you go to court, remember that judges are either elected by gun owners who aren’t voting their issue or they are appointed by those same legislators who passed the OC ban in the first place.

  15. ATLien Says:

    Screw it. Californians, quit carrying your rifles and start using them.

  16. Robert Says:

    So, I’m assuming that carry inside of a case is fine then? If so, then a soft carry bag with a sling and a zipper gets around this new law with no problem.

  17. Mark Says:

    This is a strategic move on the part of They had their challenge to the may issue CCW laws tossed out because open carry was “available.” Now that it isn’t, calguns can go back to court and get the charlie foxtrot mess that is the CCW permit system in California straightened out (read: made shall issue).
    This is a strategic thing, two steps back for a half mile forward.

  18. markofafreeman Says:

    Jacob, you can’t be serious. Sadly, I think you are.

    Have you been even paying attention to what Gura and friends have been doing? This is a gift. Think Rosa Parks: not a random arrest, but planned. I don’t *know* that the protesters planned it this way, but I have trouble believing that I’m the only one thinking this way. They *must* have known it would come to this, setting up a great case against CA.

    And it’s pretty presumptuous for you to charge that these activists have been doing nothing.

    Oh, and losing in court at the district level means nothing. Both Heller and MacDonald were lost at the lower levels. They mostly likely *will* lose at first in CA.

    Just like the AG in Maryland is our new best friend. Go ahead and appeal and screw it up for every other may[not]-issue state out there.

    I’m not naive. The situation in Cali is grim and court cases can be risky. But the question I, and I think others would like to know is, what evidence do you have that the activists weren’t thinking about the consequences? I *know* for certain I’m not the only one thinking about the fact that the only way to get this turned around is through higher courts, outside of the reach of the state politicians in CA.

    Give people some credit, man.

  19. Jacob Says:

    I did not say they were doing nothing. I said they did not plan for the consequences of their actions. I don’t always agree with what NRA or other gun groups do, but never once did I believe they were out to deliberately make things worse. If calguns set this up with the intention of failing that is simply astounding.

  20. TJwyrm Says:

    Jacob, I think this was more a case of “don’t throw me in to that briar patch b’rer fox”. Their earlier case against may-issue had been dismissed because OC was allowed. Now with both Handguns and Rifle OC banned, they can go back to court and the banners won’t be able to toss it out.

  21. Jacob Says:

    Is there any evidence that this was set up by calguns?

  22. ed Says:

    I don’t know all the associations between groups out there, but i’d say setting up the confrontation is part of somebody’s plan. I think it’s pretty obvious that someone pre-planned moving to long guns, and I bet big sticks or something after that. Well, that’s what I thought when I saw:!

    Really, the usual political process is fail out there, making something that gets beyond the state is all that may have results soon. Long term, yeah, you need to play nice and re-educate the masses of the Republik. Maybe for your grandkids.

    As an attorney (disclaimer: not constitutional law, take it for what it’s worth)this is a move that makes sense, change the conditions that lost the first case and then go back to it. Especially since all the work has been done once. rinse, repeat.

  23. Mycroft Says:

    Whether Calguns anticipated the new law that eliminated open carry of unloaded pistols or the proposed law against open carry of rifles is irrelevant. If exercising their rights (privileges?) under the law was stupid because it encouraged the state legislature to change the law, then their rights were worthless from the start.
    A right that cannot be exercised is already null and void.

  24. Brad Says:

    Visit and see for yourselves what they wanted and expected.

    The fact is the movers and shakers at calguns have strongly advised AGAINST open carry protests in California. The litigation strategy of the calgunsfoundation is a careful plan of advancement that the lawyers don’t want anyone to upset by needlessly provoking the anti-gun politicians.

    But the few pro-gun activists left in California are not members of some rigid hierarchy who unquestioningly follow orders, they are more like cats. Willful angry cats. And they are going to do what they want to do.

    And in case anyone is interested, the California constitution already has language that protects the right to self-defense. But there is nothing about the RKBA. That vital element is missing from the California constitution, sadly.

    So litigation in Federal Court is the last hope Californians have of restoring their gun-rights, and that litigation will take time. D.C. v Heller was only back in 2008, and McDonald v Chicago was as recently as 2010. California has built up it’s anti-gun laws over a period of decades, and all of that mess won’t be overturned overnight.

    However, a favorable ruling by the U.S. Supreme court on the issue of CCW permits is expected no later than June 2014.

  25. Cymond Says:

    “So, I’m assuming that carry inside of a case is fine then? If so, then a soft carry bag with a sling and a zipper gets around this new law with no problem.”

    Nope, that would be considered concealed. The gun must be unloaded and the case must be locked. Even then, there are limits to where you can go with it. Californians call this LUCC for ‘Locked Unloaded Concealed Carry’ if anyone wants to look into the subject deeper.