(California) Senate Votes to Ban the Open Carrying of Unloaded Guns (File under Backlash)

[jpak]

http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/14985125/senate-approves-ban-of-open-carrying-gun

SACRAMENTO - The California Senate voted Monday to ban the open carrying of unloaded guns in California. Assembly Member Anthony Portantino's AB 144 makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in county jail and/or a fine of $1,000 to carry an unloaded handgun in a public place.

The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence are calling on Gov. Brown to sign the bill into law.

"It is time to end the dangerous charade of open carrying lethal weapons in public by individuals who are unscreened, untrained, and unaccountable to the community," said Dr. Dallas Stout, president of the California Brady Chapters.

Last January, the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign announced their "Demand Gun-free Dining" project in response to a political movement of gun-rights extremists testing an old law -- which allows the open carrying of semi-automatic weapons with live ammunition magazines readily available -- by holding gun gatherings in local restaurants and on public property.

<more>

the Backlash will be televised

yup

[BigDemVoter]

1. FINALLY some damn sense!

I'm pleased to see this, but the RW will bitch, piss & moan about this, just wait. We haven't seen the last of this yet.

I, too, enjoy gun-free dining (or I really appreciate the fact that the other diners aren't carrying loaded guns!)

[gejohnston]

3. You do realize that the current law was

written by the right wing and signed by a right wing governor don't you?

[BigDemVoter]

9. I did NOT realize that. . .

But I don't really care who promulgated it, as long as it fits my needs, and getting shot @ dinner in a restaurant does NOT fit my needs!

[petronius]

16. Don't worry, it's already illegal for anyone to shoot you over dinner

;)

As I understand it, it's equally illegal for someone to stab, bludgeon, blow up, strangle or poison you over dinner as well...

[BigDemVoter]

18. yes it is

But I don't want a gun to discharge in a restaurant. I don't worry about a knife "going off" or getting bludgeoned by "accident."
:)

[PavePusher]

25. Accidental discharges in public (or anywhere) are damn rare.

You probably are in more danger from lightning, or falling off your roof.

[BigDemVoter]

27. but they DO

And when you have a lethal weapon on your person, things can happen. I remember when I was living in New Orleans in 1995, a tourist was in town, and his gun discharged in his backpack, and his daughter was killed. I don't think the man cared about how rare it was or how it shouldn't have happened.

We have NO fucking business bringing firearms into restaurants!

[PavePusher]

30. By that logic....

you have NO fucking business driving your car to a restaurant. Or riding your bicycle. Or going swimming. Or eating anything not purely nutritious. Or......

[BigDemVoter]

33. Oh, so it should be like the wild west here?

And we should have guns/cannons/all sorts of firearms loose because "Wild Bill Whoever" may be on the loose looking for some ass to shoot?

Sorry, I prefer the European version of gun control. If you don't believe it, check out murder rates & violence in the US versus Europe.

[PavePusher]

36. The "wild west"... wasn't.

Please cite to any of the States that have more permissable laws, that have resulted in your "wild west" assumption.

Should be easy, we'll wait....

P.S. I lived in England for 7 1/2 years. Nanny-stateism sucks ass.

[BigDemVoter]

37. But you didn't mention their murder rates

or other forms of gun violence. . . .

European countries do NOT have our problems with guns, and the reason is simple; they're illegal.

Anway, enough of this.

[eqfan592]

41. No, they just have OTHER problems..

...because, shock of shocks, there is nothing magical about firearms that convinces people to commit crimes.

[BigDemVoter]

42. Oh that's right, I forgot. . .

Guns don't kill; PEOPLE do!

:sarcasm:

[eqfan592]

58. You may think you are being clever...

...but unless you honestly believe that firearms just fly about magically killing people without people pulling the trigger, then the statement is absolutely accurate. People can and do kill others with other implements. Targeting the implement instead of the criminal is a completely ass backwards way of hoping to combat crime, one shown time and time again to be utterly ineffective.

The ignorance of org's like the Brady Campaign and the people that adhere to it only serves to stand in the way of fighting the REAL causes of crime. End of story.

[gejohnston]

46. actually no, each country is different

while they do have less gun violence, what they do have tends to use machine guns more than here. Like here, it is mostly the drug trade.

According to the UN, Finland has the highest gun ownership rate (households with guns). From there it is US, Norway, Canada, Switzerland.

[PavePusher]

47. Their murder rates have always been lower than ours....

both before and after they implemented their various gun controls.

The Big Question is: did their gun control efforts cause the crime/murder rates to go down?

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

[beevul]

44. But but but...

"its for your own good".

[gejohnston]

43. You know why Europeans passed those laws after World War One don't you?

Had nothing with crime control, civilized society or any of that bullshit. Their crime rate was just as low then. Let's just say it was more about keeping guns away from Amy Goodman than Jared Loughner. For example, when the Dutch police do background checks for gun permits, they do not look at nor receive mental health records.

[Abq_Sarah]

99. You might accidentally

Drive your car into the restaurant. BAN CARS!

[eqfan592]

31. Sorry, but that is not at all a rational argument.

"No matter HOW MANY TIMES people defend themselves with a legally concealed firearm, simply because there is the very slim chance of an accidental discharge then it should NOT be allowed!"

This is your argument. It is one based on irrational fear. You can fix that if you choose.

[beevul]

38. Who is "we"?

"We have NO fucking business bringing firearms into restaurants!"


Who is "we"?

Does "we" include police and security or do they not have negligent discharges?

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you should perhaps think twice, whether its a good idea that others be compelled to conform to it.

[BigDemVoter]

45. And the same could be said for you, honey.

"You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you should perhaps think twice, whether its a good idea that others be compelled to conform to it."

[PavePusher]

48. No-one wants to compel you to carry a gun.

With your attitude, it's the last thing I want you to do.

[beevul]

93. And thats where the difference lies.

Those on one side of this debate seek to have EVERYONE comply with their belief in the way things should be,

while those on the other side simply wish to be allowed freedom of choice.


Almost sounds like the abortion debate doesn't it?

[gejohnston]

53. gun discharged in his backpack?

There has to be more to the story than that. They don't go off for no reason.

[petronius]

57. Reached in to get a camera - I presume no (or poor) holster, and the gun floating loose in the bag

At least, I assume this is the event he means: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/news-of-the-weird/Content?oid=887702

[mikeb302000]

80. I agree

with BigDemVoter. Guns in public do far more harm than good.

[Straw Man]

77. Cognitive dissonance exemplified:

The California Senate voted Monday to ban the open carrying of unloaded guns in California.

But I don't want a gun to discharge in a restaurant. I don't worry about a knife "going off" or getting bludgeoned by "accident."

[S_B_Jackson]

85. How does one discharge an unloaded gun?

I ask because the current statute only allows the carrying of an unloaded firearm. It is already illegal to carry a loaded firearm openly

[rl6214]

22. "I really appreciate the fact that the other diners aren't carrying loaded guns!)"

And how do you really know this?

[BigDemVoter]

29. I guess you can't. . .

But at least the state isn't sanctioning this behavior by officially allowing it to continue.

By the same token, there are lots of things that are illegal for common sense reasons, and we don't always know what the compliance rate is amongst the public, but I'd rather live in a state that understands this than one that implicity condones it.

[PavePusher]

32. Yeah, freedom and liberty are risky stuff.

We should ban them....

:nuke:

[spin]

55. Are you aware that California does allow concealed carry?

California is a "may issue" state which means if you are rich, famous, and possibly the right skin color you MAY be able to get a license to carry. In some areas of the state you have fewer problems obtaining a carry permit than in others.

California gives wide latitude to the county authorities in issuing permits. In California, the usual issuance of the permits ranges from a No-Issue policy, such as San Francisco, to an almost Shall-Issue environment in rural areas. However, a permit to carry is generally valid statewide, although local ordinances may prohibit open or concealed carry with or without a permit in some jurisdictions, usually by circumventing state uniform firearms laws by restricting the possession, purchasing, and transporting of ammunition in such jurisdictions.

A gun-owner may apply for a concealed carry permit in a county outside of his or her residence if the applicant's place of business is located there. However to prevent residents of areas with restrictive issuing policies from obtaining permits from jurisdictions with more permissive rules, a business carry permit is only valid in the county where the permit was issued, and the jurisdiction issuing the permit must notify the applicant's home jurisdiction that he or she has a business carry permit in the jurisdiction where his or her workplace is located. For example, a resident of Yolo County (which is effectively a "No-Issue" jurisdiction) with a place of business in nearby Yuba County (which is a "Shall-Issue" jurisdiction in practice), can obtain a business carry permit in Yuba County. The permit is valid only in Yuba County, and the issuing authority in Yuba County must notify Yolo County that the person has been issued a business weapons carry permit in that county.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

You may well have been in a California restaurant sitting at a table right next to a person who was legally carrying concealed.

[SteveM]

114. California's Jim Crow-type "may issue" laws mean few can carry concealed...

except if you are a thug or Dianne Feinstein.

[oneshooter]

125. " But at least the state isn't sanctioning this behavior by officially"

"This behavior" being the open carriage of firearms? How about the state sanctioning the carriage of concealed firearms, by non LE individuals? Also known a concealed carry.
Do you condone this practice?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rl6214]

34. People carry guns in restaurants in Texas every day (and other

states as well) and as far as I know there haven't been any issues in Texas.

[BigDemVoter]

35. Oh Texas embodies exactly what we should be like (NOT)

[gejohnston]

49. How about Vermont? Besides

I lived in California in the SFO area. I met more racists, assholes, and right wing cranks there than I did in Texas or South Carolina combined.

[BigDemVoter]

51. Well, you get universal health coverage in VT now. . .

I can assure you that you won't be getting anything of the sort in TX.

Simply stating that there are "more" assholes, wingnuts, gun nuts, racists, etc, in one state than another is not objective. Have you counted them?

On edit-- spelling correction

[gejohnston]

54. I only said I ran into them, If that was not clear, my bad.

Texas has stricter gun laws than Vermont. In fact, Wyoming has stricter gun laws than Vermont. There was a time when Texas was stricter than California. Single payer in TX, not anytime soon but don't count it out. Five to ten years. Before you know it, we will be like Switzerland of North America, universal health care and an assault rifle in every home, kids riding their bikes to the shooting range. Of course violent video games are illegal there.

[rl6214]

67. And other states as well

missed that part did you?

And I could (and do) say the same of Commiefornia.

[SteveM]

115. I think the issue was your comfort in a restaurant, not an entire state. nt

[oneshooter]

126. Why? Are you afraid that the people of California could not handle that much freedom? n/t

[eallen]

129. Actually, Texas law bans open carry. This state is too "liberal" for some gun owners.

Go figure.

:hippie:

[PavePusher]

40. Arizona now too.

The carnage has been horrific.

The next time we went out, my girlfriend made me use utensils with my steak.

[Katya Mullethov]

56. NH just dumped all their knife laws

Not exactly making the news is it ?

[PavePusher]

75. 'Tis being most studiously ignored in all the right circles....

whilst the spot between their shoulder-blades itches.

[eallen]

128. I've never seen it. Likely because it is against the law.

Texas doesn't allow open carry of handguns.

Unless you are a peace officer or have a CCP, the law here requires guns to be unloaded and cased when transported in public.

:hippie:

[oneshooter]

131. Handguns only. The public carry of long arms is legal.

There is no legal statute specifically prohibiting the carry of a firearm other than a handgun, although there is debate as to whether doing so constitutes "disorderly conduct" (which defines an offense, in part, as "displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm").

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Francis Marion]

109. History repeating itself. Another incremental assault on our rights.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6285843

[John Paul Jones]

2. So, they just have to load their guns to be legal?

[jpak]

4. No, that would be illegal as well

yup

[gejohnston]

6. Wow, I thought you hated all things right wing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act


:wtf:

[jpak]

10. Nope - GOP/NRA morans brought this on themselves

dumbsasses got what they deserved

yup

[gejohnston]

26. You didn't read the link did you?

This one puts it in context

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

If these guys are NRA, I'm an NFL draft pick.

[pipoman]

50. ROFL

You think this is the end of it? Nope..just the beginning. Before Cali could claim they were not encroaching on 'keep and bear arms', now they have opened the door to a case which will ultimately define what 'keep and bear' means...you may not like the answer..

[SteveM]

117. I was thinking the same thing. Beware of what you wish. nt

[SteveM]

116. Take a look at #109: Those are the roots of modern gun control...

...same as the roots of the old gun control.

[gejohnston]

5. no you can thank a right wing state assembly and a

right wing governor for that. All because some people of color decided to stand up to racist and corrupt cops.

[John Paul Jones]

7. Right wing...? I thought this was California...

[gejohnston]

28. see post 24

and google Mulford Act and Black Panther Party.

[jpak]

8. Democrats sponsored and passed this law - and a Dem Gov. will sign it

((((((reality))))))))

yup

:rofl:

[gejohnston]

39. You don't know Jerry Brown very well do you?

He is not that predictable.

[petronius]

13. No, if the bill is signed the only way to legally carry a firearm in CA would be

with a concealed-carry permit. Since CA is a may-issue state, these are difficult to impossible to get in many areas. As I understand it, the current OC law is sort of a trade-off for the difficulties of getting CC permits, so it's not at all a stretch to think that the long term outcome of this decision will be court cases that move CA to a shall-issue CCW state, which would be good...

[PavePusher]

11. Assuming Gov. Brown signs this (debateable)....

it will immediately open the door to not just "shall issue" licencing, but pretty much will require no-licence-required CC to satisfy Constitutional issues.

Congrats, California, you are about to get your asses handed to you in Federal courts. I wonder how you'll pay for that, since you are already a bankrupt (fiscally and legally) state.

[jpak]

14. the Waaaaahmulance is on the way

yup

[eqfan592]

15. lol, no crying at all.

He's pointing out the realities that your "backlash" is going to create.

If THIS is your backlash, then please, bring it on! lol

[PavePusher]

20. Best pack your toothbrush....

and a change of panties.

[Hepburn]

12. I love my state!

Good...guns are solely impliments of violence. All this bullshit about glamorizing them is sick.

[eqfan592]

17. This bullshit about vilifying them is what is sick.

Firearms provide a means for self defense for millions of Americans. That you choose to ignore that and instead continue to attempt to vilify them and their users says a great deal about you.

Oh, and as has been pointed out, your state is about to kick open the door for shall-issue carry permits thanks to this law (assuming it is signed). So basically, you fail in every way possible.

[Hoyt]

59. And hundreds of millions don't feel the need for the dang things in public.

[eqfan592]

61. And that makes literally no difference whatsoever.

Especially when the majority of them support the right to carry, even if they choose not to partake in it.

But hey, nice try.

[Hoyt]

71. Majority supports right to carry -- Don't think so, but will be glad to read any evidence you have.

[eqfan592]

73. 49 out of 50 states now have some form of legal carry.

And these aren't hold-over laws from some distant past, but new laws that have been getting pasted over the last couple of decades. That's some pretty solid evidence there.

Do you have some evidence to the contrary you'd like to produce?

[gejohnston]

21. The state that tells

a single mother being threatened by a stalking abusive ex husband tough shit, but hands CCWs to celebrities with a history of violence and no valid need?

[PavePusher]

23. You are incorrect. You can educate yourself on defensive gun use here:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

And then you can continue by researching into hunting and competitive target shooting.

[mikeb302000]

81. Thanks for the links

PavePusher. Those happen to be two of the most biased sites on the entire internet. The fact is DGUs are extremely rare. Gun misuse on the other hand, is not. I would guess the ratio is about 100/1, just read the news.

[gejohnston]

88. And you base this on what?

A some criminologists would disagree with you on that. Most of the time, the bad guy takes off after seeing a gun pointed at him, and the cops rarely get called. As for reading the news, did you know that the "summer of the shark" had the lowest number of shark attacks in several years?

[mikeb302000]

95. what the gun guys forget is

the many criminal brandishings of guns that don't get reported. In fact many of the so-called DGUs are really criminal acts. A gun should come out only when there is lethal threat.

[SteveM]

120. "The Yellow Bunting is sometimes called the Yellow Hammer, a corruption of..."

[PavePusher]

92. Biased? Perhaps... but they give direct links to the original news stories.

"I would guess..." Oooookaaaayy.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubw5N8iVDHI


Cite to evidence, if you please. "Iwould guess...." is not evidence.

[mikeb302000]

96. no, not evidence

"I would guess" is a phrase that often preceeds a statement of thinking and common sense. When you rely on cherry-picked stats or NRA talking points you can be much more authoritative in your remarks. It's much harder to think and consider and reason than to mindlessly repeat the gun-rights schtick.

[Bold Lib]

102. Translation. You don't have anything to back up your BS. Zip, natta, zilch.

You just know what you want and that's all you'll accept. Speaking of authoritarian. . .

[SteveM]

119. "care should be taken when removing lug nuts on many Japanese cars, the soft..."

[gejohnston]

24. I hated your state

I used to work for a guy that was pulled over for driving while black on a weekly basis, something that he said never happened to him or his wife even in Alabama. That was when Mike Savage was just a local clown at KSFO in San Francisco. Given the level of stupidity and racism I have seen there, you have business lecturing Texas or Arizona about anything.

[oneshooter]

64. I carried a weapon almost daily for two years in your state.

And never had a permit!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[hack89]

69. This puts them firmly on the path to "shall issue" CCW

you haven't been paying attention - this will trigger law suits that will blow apart CA gun laws. The NRA is loving this piece of legislation.

[TheWraith]

76. No. Let me tell you here what is sick.

What's sick is telling a 110 pound woman that if she can't afford to live somewhere with police on every corner all the time, then she has to be at the mercy of the 250 pound rapist who can physically overpower her.

Sick is telling a woman that she's not allowed to defend herself against a psychotic ex-boyfriend, because the state doesn't approve of armed self defense by the law abiding.

Sick is saying that the lives of the rich and powerful, who can afford fees, permits, and greasing the path with the sheriff, are more valuable than the life of a guy who has to walk home though a bad part of town from the night shift he takes to feed his family.

Sick is saying that average people shouldn't be trusted with the means to protect themselves, because there are other people morally or socially superior to them who know better, and are going to decide how they live "for their own good."

[mikeb302000]

82. Oh you're so dramatic

The Wraith, please lighten up with all that persecution nonsense. For every one of those "sick" examples you give we could easily come up with 10 in which that poor 110-pound woman would have been better off without the damn gun, you know when her 2-year-old gets ahold of it, or when she shoots herself in the leg while cleaning it, or when the thief steals it from her nightstand and kills someone with it.

Guns do more harm than good and I suspect you know that and respond with excess in order to compensate.

[TheWraith]

86. Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Because the alternative is that you don't realize that even by the most cautious and restrictive criteria, the number of defensive gun uses per year outnumbers accidents, firearms thefts, and murders by a factor of twenty.

[PavePusher]

91. The poster you are responding to seems to believe his own drivel.

He's post such nonsense repeatedly on DKos, and his own blog.

[mikeb302000]

97. of course it does

if you cherry pick the ones you like.

Think of it this way. Any DGU that was NOT triggered by a lethal threat was itself a criminal act. Some of them are murder disguised. Some are simple aggression. So, I can't accept what you call "the most cautious and restrictive criteria." Sorry.

[PavePusher]

103. No, you do not know the law.

The threat does not have to be "lethal".

In most places in the U.S it is essentially "reasonable fear of bodily harm" and frequently damage or theft of property. You can look this stuff up quite easily, but I doubt you will.

[SteveM]

121. "Torque requirements for aluminum cylinder heads can be less than half..."

[SteveM]

118. "Glamorizing?" YOUR state is the font for that sort of thing: Hollywood.

'Heard of it?

[rl6214]

19. "The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence are calling on Gov. Brown to

sign the bill into law"\

Would that require all three of it's members to approve such a move or would 2 out of 3 members suffice?

[SteveM]

122. Oh, yeah. The GOP-lead, GOP-founded Brady Campaign...

...now there is an example of unbiased sourcing and veracity.

[ileus]

52. Wonder why they're scared of their fellow citizens?

[Hoyt]

60. You mean like the 3/4% of the population that can't leave home without a gun?

The other 90% or so, do just fine in public without a gun.

[eqfan592]

62. Yet the majority of them still support the right to choose to do so.

Simply because they don't partake in the right does not mean they think they do not wish to have the right to choose to partake in it at some future time. You constantly talk about the small percentage of people who carry as though you are making some sort of profound point. You're not, in any way, shape or form.

[Hoyt]

68. Majority -- do you have anything to support that, or are you just saying that to keep pipeline open?

[eqfan592]

74. See post 73. nt

[ileus]

65. no the grabbers that are scared of citizens with firearms...

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

83. You been looking at my pants again?

naw my LCP will not be noticed by anyone anywhere I may travel.


When I do OWB it's during the winter where people couldn't tell if I had a baby hanging off my belt.

When I do OC it's either hunting/fishing or riding the jeep where having a sidearm isn't uncommon.

And like last week when I was in SC I carried a kimber pepper blaster my CHP doesn't count there.

[jpak]

84. Because they are assholes who openly carry guns to intimidate their fellow citizens

to further their RW GOP/NRA political agenda

yup

[PavePusher]

90. Your failure of omniscience is palpable.

That's not why I O.C. at all.

[ileus]

101. How does OC intimidate anyone? A: it doesn't

[rl6214]

104. Blah, blah, blah

You and your GOP/NRA shtick is hilarious. Next your are going to blame the non-war against Gaddafi? Kadafi? Qaddafi? on the NRA and the GOP/NRA definately have something to do with the Mavericks beating the Heat in this years NBA finals.

You are a laugh a minute.

[SteveM]

123. You prefer the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Camp. Gotcha. nt

[Blown330]

63. It's ok really...

...California is just setting itself up to make a generous donation to the SAF's and NRA's legal funds. And a law struck down is VASTLY more difficult to replace than one simply halted in the first place.


Oh, and to point out the obviously lack of fact checking by the OP, this has NOT cleared the California Senate. It still has at least two Senate committees to go through before it can go to the floor for a final vote. Similar bills have died in the Senate already so this bill is far from safe.

[ileus]

66. Have they ever explained why they're wasting tax dollars passing this law?

Like someone around here said why worry about .30% of the people? How many people Open carry? 15? Why do these law makers feel so threatened by something they've never seen or will see.

[Serve The Servants]

79. Attempts at increasing gun legislation make our lawmakers still appear relevant

There are far, far, more important issues they should be focusing on at the moment.

[krispos42]

72. Unloaded guns in public?

So... they can carry loaded guns in public still?



I'll refrain from falling out of my chair laughing until I get an answer... :-)

[SteveM]

124. My guns got loaded last night, but I stopped them at the door. nt

[Kurska]

78. The scourge of mass bayonetings can not be underestimated. n/t

[Logical]

87. I do not like Open Carry myself, if CC is available I would ban Open Carry. n-t

[gejohnston]

89. should still be legal around the farm and in the woods.

[eallen]

130. Open carry laws are about where the public is, not where hunting and shooting are done.

Texas prohibits open carry, but not carrying a gun on your ranch or farm or where you might hunt.

:hippie:

[eqfan592]

94. Didn't seem to be that huge of an issue in Wisconsin...

...outside of the occasional over-zealous cops trying to force their will on the public with no legal standing whatsoever.

[jpak]

98. Kicking for Teh Backlash

:bounce:

[eqfan592]

100. Yes, the "backlash" that will open the door for shall issue.

lol, oh poor jpak. Even when you honestly believe you win, you loose. :P

[rl6214]

105. "Teh Backlash"?

What are you, twelve?

[Blown330]

106. Have you read his posts?

I'd say 9 is closer to the truth.

[Jaypeace14]

107. Bill of Rights

What everyone on this or any other forum who is anti-gun, or
pro gun control is missing is not that we are debating the
second amendment right to keep and bear arms, but the Bill of
Rights itself. From what I have read from those anti-gun
folks, they argue that there is no place for gun ownership,
concealed carry or open carry in today's America or
California. I think those folks should go back and read the
Bill of Rights. You know the document that includes free
speech, due process, freedom of religion, freedom from illegal
search and among others the right to keep and bear arms. You
should never forget that the Bill of Rights was created after
this country had been established and after the Constitution
was written. Our founders created the Bill of Rights, not to
"GIVE" us citizens anything, but to GUARANTEE that
the government of the United States would NEVER be able to
take these rights away from it's citizens. Never. Because they
knew how easy it would be for a government backed by military
and legislature to take away these rights. The founders also
believed that the rights that are included in the Bill of
Rights were ALL so important that something had to be done to
ensure that every citizen of the United States would always
have these rights, ALL rights contained in the document. You
may think it is a far fetched conspiracy theory to say that
once one of these has been taken away from us, then all of
them can be taken away, but it is not as far fetched as you
may think. There is not one country in the world, not one that
has the freedoms that we do in this country. Not one! the
reason is that document, the Bill of Rights. And furthermore,
I would argue that the more direct reason why our citizens
enjoy such freedom is specifically the 2nd amendment, or more
specifically a population of citizens that is armed. I would
also argue that this group of armed citizens represents a
fourth branch of government, you remember that branch right?
The one that our government is by and for? The people? As
afraid as you are of a random pistol going off in someones
backpack, is nothing compared to the fear that I have that
someday our great country could be turned into something other
than what it was intended to be, and I believe the 2nd
amendment and the Bill of Rights is the only thing standing
between us and a life lacking freedom.

On a side note to BigDemVoter, I assume from the flag you use
as an icon that you are either gay or lesbian? Again an
assumption. Whether you are or not doesn't matter to me, at
all. However if you are a gay or lesbian citizen of the United
States I cannot fathom how you could in anyway want to take
any right or rights away from any of your fellow citizens or
think that it would be ok to do so. Not when the LBGT
community has fought so hard for so long to realize the same
freedoms that others have, and are still fighting. All
freedoms are precious, this is something I have learned in my
life, and once any one of them is taken away, you never get
them back. As there are a finite number of freedoms, we should
treat each of them as if our very existence depended on each
one.

[iverglas]

108. wowsers

How deep did you have to dredge for this one?

And .......... why?

Since BigDemVoter will have no idea you have addressed remarks to them in this thread two months later, would you like me to send a PM on your behalf letting them know how you have attempted to exploit the GLBT community in service of your agenda, when the vast majority of them oppose it and would find your efforts offensive in the extreme?

[gejohnston]

110. did the US GLBT

folks appoint you to be their spokesperson? Straight white guys are diverse in their views, GLBT are equally diverse in their views on various issues.

[iverglas]

111. sorry -- did the US GLBT

community invite your new little friend to be its spokesperson?

Your new little friend was addressing someone who apparently IS part of that community, did you notice?

Diverse is one thing. A group that is composed of 97 Xs, 1 Y, 1 Z and 1 elephant is diverse. It is also overwhelmingly X. Which, I believe, is what I said.


But while we're on the subject, why will no one ever simply click their way over to a GLBT forum right here at DU and ASK their opinions????

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. The GLBT members are perfectly free to express themselves about guns *here*

BigDemVoter did so in this thread. Nothing is stopping anybody else from doing so.

So why do you presume to speak for them? That's rather paternalistic of you.

[iverglas]

113. why do you presume to make false statements about me?

What's wrong with your copy and paste finger? If you want to accuse me of saying something,

QUOTE ME

This forum is about firearms policy.

If someone wants to pretend that firearms policy is a GLBT issue, then the GLBT forum is where that belongs.

Just like the racism inherent in gun militancy, as expressed by the daily dishonesty in this forum about the racism of firearms control and its advocates, needs to be taken out for a stroll in an appropriate forum.

The cowardice of those who use this forum to propagate those ugly and false claims is glaringly obvious.

[rl6214]

127. What utter bullshit

Nothing else to add, this post is just utter bullshit.

[X_Digger]

132. Appears to be dead.. can anyone confirm?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110830_status.html

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 08/30/2011
LAST HIST. ACTION : Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator De León.

I haven't seen this mentioned in the press lately, but I happened to check the status today.

[LAGC]

133. Hmm, it would appear "the backlash" will not be televised after all.

Damn California Senate Democrats foiling the antis' plans once again...

[X_Digger]

134. "Mostly dead.. is partly alive.." -Miracle Max

http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2011/08/31/open-carry-ban-bills-author-says-its-not-dead/

“AB 144 is not dead; it’s a procedural move, it will be taken up soon,” Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, said today.

They have until 9/9 to take it up.