PDA

View Full Version : Is California really that bad regarding gun rights?


calnurse
01-25-2010, 8:58 PM
Good evening every one!! I am really getting tired of all the out of state individuals bashing California regarding gun rights. Are we really that bad regarding gun rights compared to other restricted states (NY, HI, CT, NJ)?

Just thought I would add this: my friend is coming back from Nevada (gun free state). He says there are lots of guns that we Californians could only dream owning. But there is one reason why he is coming back: he says there are no jobs in Nevada. He states that those out-of-state people who say get out of California because of gun rights can talk if they can promise those who move out a good paying job. If not, keep quiet.

383green
01-25-2010, 9:05 PM
CA is pretty bad, but from what I've read, there are much worse places. While CA has long been a leader in new gun-control law development, it's now becoming a leader in fighting for 2nd-amendment rights.

I grew up in NV, and the lower cost of living and greater degree of freedom there look appealing... but CA is where I can make good money doing what I know how to do, and where there's enough industry in my field that I have options to change employers when I want to or need to. So, I stay here and fight, rather than moving somewhere else and coasting.

jamesob
01-25-2010, 9:07 PM
if you have to ask, then yes it is.

bodger
01-25-2010, 9:10 PM
Bad enough.
And that's not the only reason people and businesses are pulling out of here.

Shotgun Man
01-25-2010, 9:14 PM
CA is ranked 47th at 12.7%, only slightly ahead of Nevada, ranked at 50th with 13%. That's .3% difference. I would imagine that's even with the margin of error. Hardly a reason to move to CA.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm

Pyrodyne
01-25-2010, 9:16 PM
Good evening every one!! I am really getting tired of all the out of state individuals bashing California regarding gun rights. Are we really that bad regarding gun rights compared to other restricted states (NY, HI, CT, NJ)?


1) "Assault Rifle" ban.

2) High Capacity Standard Capacity magazine ban

3) Handguns must be submitted for special, largely unnecessary tests and annual fees paid - raises cost in CA for most handguns.

4) Unclear legalities on many firearms that can be obtained (dangerous if a DA wants to make a point)

5) AB962

6) CADOJ won't issue "Assault Weapon" permits

7) CCW is not "shall issue", and in many counties you will be denied unless you are of the elite or of LE/Military background. Nevermind if you are frequently in danger of attack due to any factor at all.

8) Frequent limitations on CCW and UOC - 1000 feet from a school area

9) Many vendors won't deal with California due to FUD regarding unclear laws.

10) Many vendors will not sell firearms to California due to extra paperwork required.

11) Backroom legislation by CADOJ and LE - see any number of posts in this forum.

I'm sure I missed alot, but those are my personal top 11 peeves.

MP301
01-25-2010, 9:19 PM
If I could get my wife to move, we would both have jobs in NV before we were done packing. It all depends on what you do. Not enough trees for her she says. I love southern Nevada and have a great time there 4-5 times a year. I like the islands off the washington coast (Seattle & the Puget Sound) and would consider living there as well.

That said, people bash Ca for more resons then just gun rights...cost of living, over regulation on everything, excessive number of hippy peacenikcks (no offense if someone reading this is a hippy who made a wrong turn at the forums!), stupid funny talking two faced governor, the Feinstien and Palosi idiots come from here...whatever, I could go on. Other places have a version of problems as well.

Ca is probubly in the top 5 or so most restrictive in gun rights, but I dont think that is the sole bashing reason..its one of many, but manafests itself in the gun arena because, well, your talking to gun people!

I agree to a point that its not as bad as it could be, but its no where near what it should be either. But yes, we could have it worse!

As far as people leaving, most are just blowing smoke. They either cant move because of thier finances or job and not being able to find a comparable work...or wont, because all thier friends of family are here, etc.

I say, let them scream and moan and threaten to move if they want to...its not hurting anything. Id start to worry if they actually were able to move in large numbers because that would leave us with less gunnies to fight the fight! And we are making great headway in our battle....

Colt-45
01-25-2010, 9:25 PM
According to the enemy we have the strictest gun control in the nation. That's coming straight from the brady bunch themselves . Check their website and you'll get their national rankings for each state. According to them Kentucky and Oklahoma have the least gun control. Most strict gun control 3.Massachusetts 2.New Jersey 1.California

oddball
01-25-2010, 9:27 PM
Bad enough.
And that's not the only reason people and businesses are pulling out of here.

My words exactly.

CCWFacts
01-25-2010, 9:34 PM
California is among the states are the very bottom, along with NY, NJ and a couple of others. In some ways we're the very worst. I think we have the worst AW / mag ban in some respects. Our CCW system is, in some ways, the best in the country, with the fewest restrictions on where a CCW is valid. Unfortunately it's may-issue, and it's bad in any of the liberal areas.

In other ways, we have huge problems: fairly high taxes, anti-business environment, and our state gov't teeters on the brink of insolvency.

We certainly have better gun laws than the UK and Japan, and lower taxes than Sweden, better public services than Mexico, and more financial stability than Greece.

bohoki
01-25-2010, 9:38 PM
i think its not too bad

look at the stuff for sale it could be a lot worse

we have no limit on ammo purchasing

we can possess and use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

Quiet
01-25-2010, 9:41 PM
NY is worst than CA.

scr83jp
01-25-2010, 10:06 PM
According to the enemy we have the strictest gun control in the nation. That's coming straight from the brady bunch themselves . Check their website and you'll get their national rankings for each state. According to them Kentucky and Oklahoma have the least gun control. Most strict gun control 3.Massachusetts 2.New Jersey 1.CaliforniaYou can't rely on any of the propaganda the brady bunch publishes: NY,NJ,Mass plus others are far worse than CA.I lived in NYS so I got acquainted with NY laws.I was a peace officer in Orange County New York but my ccw wasn't legal in NYC. My CA CCW is legal statewide

1JimMarch
01-25-2010, 10:44 PM
Hawaii, New York (esp. NYC), New Jersey and Illinois are all worse than California...but, with the exception of NYC, California is BY FAR the most "insulting" about it.

The corruption in the CCW process is most obvious in Cali over any other state, period. Only NYC matches us. The "permits for the wealthy and connected" tendency is just...nauseating.

Even once this crap is cleaned up post-McDonald, there's no forgiving what those rat barsterds in both the legislature and law enforcement have been doing.

kf6tac
01-25-2010, 11:04 PM
As others have said, there are states (and specific cities within states) where the situation is as bad or worse, but I can probably count those jurisdictions on my fingers.

gravedigger
01-25-2010, 11:20 PM
NY is worst than CA.

Are you comparing New York CITY to California STATE? New York STATE is fairly conservative, considering the hopeless status of their biggest city.

Syntax Error
01-25-2010, 11:27 PM
Compared to other countries like in Europe, California ain't so bad.

But there are other really annoying things about this state. The number 1 for me is the shenanigans that occurs in Sacramento. This state is mismanaged to hell, and this recession has only made it worse for job opportunity and friendliness towards business - both of which this state seems to be lacking at the moment.

Lagduf
01-25-2010, 11:29 PM
It could be worse, you could live in Canada, Australia, England, or the host of European countries where firearms are all but banned.

RideIcon
01-26-2010, 4:39 AM
just check our brady campaign rating, lol

dadoody
01-26-2010, 4:51 AM
Good evening every one!! I am really getting tired of all the out of state individuals bashing California regarding gun rights. Are we really that bad regarding gun rights compared to other restricted states (NY, HI, CT, NJ)?

Just thought I would add this: my friend is coming back from Nevada (gun free state). He says there are lots of guns that we Californians could only dream owning. But there is one reason why he is coming back: he says there are no jobs in Nevada. He states that those out-of-state people who say get out of California because of gun rights can talk if they can promise those who move out a good paying job. If not, keep quiet.

Yeah it's bad here.

The job issue is a separate issue. This is a good state with a great landscape and fertile soil in many places. This is a good state to make money in and do international business; however, along with the population boom are misguided/stupid left-wing morons who think they can regulate out crime, by regulating out self-defense.

They've had rifles and pistols over 10 rounds banned, certain configurations of guns they don't like banned, and certain calibers banned.

The criminals and gangs in this state continue using guns in whatever configuration they want, and hand guns as cheap and as stolen as they can find.

forgiven
01-26-2010, 5:32 AM
Good evening every one!! I am really getting tired of all the out of state individuals bashing California regarding gun rights. Are we really that bad regarding gun rights compared to other restricted states (NY, HI, CT, NJ)?

Just thought I would add this: my friend is coming back from Nevada (gun free state). He says there are lots of guns that we Californians could only dream owning. But there is one reason why he is coming back: he says there are no jobs in Nevada. He states that those out-of-state people who say get out of California because of gun rights can talk if they can promise those who move out a good paying job. If not, keep quiet.

Good paying job is the same lame reason that my so-called union brothers use when asked by me and others about why they coerce other members to vote democratic fully knowing their anti-second amendment. What really ticks me off is they take a part of my dues without my consent and fully knowing how I feel and give it to the democratic party. And yes, I have to be a member!

BadIndianSwamp
01-26-2010, 6:26 AM
I have lived in NY and NJ...both have FAR more restrictions on gun ownership than California does.

In NJ - I remember when I went down to my local NJ police station to fill out the form that would hopefully lead to a permit to purchase "rifles and shotguns" the officer sat there and read my lengthy application, then asked "why do you want to have a rifle?" Another officer came up, looked over his shoulder, then said "who is this?" "What do you want a gun for?"

Knowing that my permit to purchase rifles and shotguns was to be issued only at the discretion of my local Police Chief, I replied to all questions quickly and politely. BTW, at that time I was 22 years old and had lived in that town my entire life...never arrested...never in trouble, etc They asked me several more questions and then told me that they didn't know when this would go through...they would call me.
After a couple of months, I got some calls from my " required personal references" saying that they were grilled by police about their relationships with me. I was sorry to have dragged my friends into this.
A few weeks later, I had to go back down to the police station where I was told that my permit had been granted by the Chief of Police!!!!! YAHOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
As I was being fingerprinted, I asked about getting a permit for a handgun. "What do you want a handgun for?", I was asked. " (sigh)...Never mind", I said.
I left the police station and I ran down to Ramsey Outdoor (the store featured on The Sopranos) and bought a Remington 870 that I still love.
This was 1985.

pullnshoot25
01-26-2010, 6:31 AM
It is too early to come up with a clever analogy for this thread.

aGunForEachHand
01-26-2010, 6:53 AM
California has the most comprehensive gun control initiative in the country. According to the Brady bunch, CA has the most gun control of any US state.

Asmodai
01-26-2010, 7:22 AM
As Rodney King said,

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? ... We'll, we'll get our justice....Please, we can get along here."

:p

forgiven
01-26-2010, 7:33 AM
Illinois is pretty tough. You have to have a license just to touch a gun at a gun store.

EastBayRidge
01-26-2010, 8:02 AM
The thing that REALLY sucks about a lot of the other states with horrendous gun control is they don't have state level preemption, so every hamlet pretty much is a law unto itself. The paperwork requirements for a rifle permit in NYC and the hoops you have to jump through were/are just ridiculous.

Chris M
01-26-2010, 8:03 AM
8) Frequent limitations on CCW and UOC - 1000 feet from a school area


I thought this was a Federal law, not CA law.

mcholak
01-26-2010, 8:17 AM
Because somewhere else is worse than CA doesn't make our laws less bad. If you believe the 2nd Amendment truly means our rights should be unabridged then CA is horrible.

gbp
01-26-2010, 8:28 AM
It could be worse, you could live in Canada, Australia, England, or the host of European countries where firearms are all but banned.

what's the problem with australia?

Milsurp Collector
01-26-2010, 9:39 AM
Good evening every one!! I am really getting tired of all the out of state individuals bashing California regarding gun rights. Are we really that bad regarding gun rights compared to other restricted states (NY, HI, CT, NJ)?



Why do you limit your comparisons only to other oppressive states? That's like asking "Is living in Haiti really that bad compared to living in other horrible places like Somalia and North Korea?" What difference is there really between being in the worst state, the second worst state, or the third worst state?

Yes, it's bad. I guess after living under oppression long enough one gets used to it and rationalization sets in, like the frog in the simmering pot whose temperature is slowly creeping upward. "Hey, this isn't so bad, could be worse" thinks the frog as he is slowly cooked.

vantec08
01-26-2010, 9:48 AM
I'm going to answer you this way, calnurse. Is it ok with you that you must submit your posts to this forum to the government FIRST . . . then pay a tax on it?

Peaceful John
01-26-2010, 9:49 AM
Yes, it's that bad.

The Brady Campaign ranks states by gun restrictions (www.StateGunLaws.org), with the fewest restrictions
getting the lowest marks. In their 2007 ranking Kentucky and Oklahoma were tied for 49th among the states with
a Brady Point score of 2. That same year California had 79 Brady Points, making it number 1 in the nation from
the Brady viewpoint. Second place among the states was New Jersey with 63 Brady Points. So, yes, it's that bad.

forgiven
01-26-2010, 9:55 AM
what's the problem with australia?

Years ago after a mass shooting spree where a gunman killed a lot of people the powers to be ordered that all guns be confiscated and destroyed. There might of been a few exceptions, but I really can't remember any.

ripcurlksm
01-26-2010, 10:01 AM
I've moved from NJ to CA for ~5 years now and here are some of the laws to the best of my knowledge.

+ NJ you can not have a telescoping stock on your AR15 (unless pinned), but you can have a normal mag release and 15 round mags

- one handgun per month and must obtain a handgun safety card which requires two letters of recommendation from upstanding citizens, background check and usually ~2-3 month wait to get your card from the state

- must have handgun safety card to purchase ammo, its cataloged. good thing my dad got his card so we could get 308 ammo for the M1A

rp55
01-26-2010, 10:34 AM
According to the enemy we have the strictest gun control in the nation.

I moved to California to get away from Hawaii's gun control. I guess that was moving from the fire to the frying pan. That was in 1989 and CA has gone down a bit then but it still better than Hawaii. Light years ahead of Hawaii for that matter. But don't believe everything (anything?) the Brady bunch says. From the perspective of real gun buyer, owner, and active shooter CA is much better than HI and NY. Not to say that it doesn't suck but it's not the worst and actually much better than the worst.

gbp
01-26-2010, 10:36 AM
Years ago after a mass shooting spree where a gunman killed a lot of people the powers to be ordered that all guns be confiscated and destroyed. There might of been a few exceptions, but I really can't remember any.

was just there in june, after a red stag hunt in NZ, guns are alive and well. they did have aperiod of turn in which resulted in a lot of people turning in old guns or guns they did not want anymore, then they just went out and bought new ones. several people also made a 'killing' going around and collecting old guns from people that were not interested in shooting and selling them back to the government during the buy back. plenty of places there where it's open carry (loaded) especially in the northern territories

originally i too was wondering how australians would ever let the gov do that to them, it did not last long they have a thriving shooting community.

thread hyjack over

WhoDat
01-26-2010, 11:05 AM
Recently moved to Texas, after 16 or so years in California. I have nothing against California, and found myself at home there... Great people, beautiful scenery, and lots to do. I miss the mountains, the Pacific Ocean, and the SF Bay. I didn't run from California, I moved to another state. Having originally come from Louisiana, I'm now closer to where I grew up. But I left a lot of great friends in Cal.

The way I see it, a few reasons I moved to Austin:
1. Economy doing relatively well here... Lots of Californians moving to Austin.
2. Really good public schools.
3. Austin area has a lot going on (music, culture, hunting, etc.)
4. Affordability - getting ready to buy a nice almost-new house, within walking distance of many shops/bars/restaraunts for less than $200k... About 1/4 what i would've paid for a similar house in the Bay area. The pay here is probably ~95% of bay area wages, but the costs are significantly less.

#4 was probably the main reason, but gun ownership is a nice perk. The gun laws here are sooooo lenient. Face to face transfers, no magazine restrictions or list, no waiting periods or fees, carry conceal, silencers, etc. My only warning, if you're considering a move, is the kid in a candy store effect... Damn, I bought lots of guns, at first.

Anyhow, I still do love California. I have lots of friends there, and will probably visit often. But the affordable thing will probably keep me here.*

Those were the main reasons, but the lenient gun laws are also a nice perk.

Milsurp Collector
01-26-2010, 11:11 AM
Just thought I would add this: my friend is coming back from Nevada (gun free state). He says there are lots of guns that we Californians could only dream owning. But there is one reason why he is coming back: he says there are no jobs in Nevada. He states that those out-of-state people who say get out of California because of gun rights can talk if they can promise those who move out a good paying job. If not, keep quiet.

Since when did it become the responsibility of other people to "promise" good-paying jobs to your friend? Isn't it his responsibility to find work for himself?

By the way, the job situation in California isn't much better than in Nevada. Latest unemployment rates (Dec. 2009)


Michigan 14.6%
Nevada 13.0%
Rhode Island 12.9%
South Carolina 12.6%
California 12.4%


Overall US unemployment rate 9.7%

johnny_22
01-26-2010, 11:28 AM
MA, like NJ, has the requirement to get permission from the Chief of Police to own a handgun. Also, MA has the safe handgun roster, just like CA.

To me needing to ask permission from the COP to buy a firearm should rank those states higher than CA.

dbldblu
01-26-2010, 12:48 PM
I used to live in California, I now live in Nevada. Let me give an example of the difference between the two states. A while back I went to a gun show here in Reno. I bought a .22 rifle from a private party. I gave him cash and he handed me the rifle. This would be illegal in Ca. I put the uncased rifle in the passenger side of my truck and drove home with it. This would be illegal in Ca. It could have been loaded (but wasn't). This would be illegal in Ca. On the way home I drove through a school zone. This would be illegal in Ca. And, in closing, I was able to obtain a CCW permit here whereas it would have been all but impossible where I used to live in San Jose.

Chris M
01-26-2010, 1:16 PM
On the way home I drove through a school zone. This would be illegal in Ca.

GFSZ is federal - not CA...It's illegal in NV, too.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones#Federal

Crazed_SS
01-26-2010, 1:18 PM
CA is probably the worst. At least in NY and NJ, they can have ARs with pistol grips and detachable mags in some form. They have to go through much more hassle to get a handgun though.. I guess it's sort of a draw.

Aldemar
01-26-2010, 1:22 PM
Darn right it is.

By the way, Nevada is a free gun state - not a "gun free state"...that's what the pols want it to be!

qaz987
01-26-2010, 5:32 PM
Depends on how many guns are already in your safe.

Mitch
01-26-2010, 5:36 PM
How bad can California really be if I can legally possess over 100 firearms, include 30 handguns and about 20 "high powered" semi-automatic rifles?

dantodd
01-26-2010, 6:55 PM
How bad can California really be if I can legally possess over 100 firearms, include 30 handguns and about 20 "high powered" semi-automatic rifles?

Very.

Pyrodyne
01-26-2010, 6:57 PM
Originally Posted by Pyrodyne View Post
8) Frequent limitations on CCW and UOC - 1000 feet from a school area

I thought this was a Federal law, not CA law.

If you have a CCW permit, it can be left off the permit and you can carry within 1000' but not on the grounds proper (IIRC). Most issuing offices stamp your CCW with the restriction.

Milsurp Collector
01-26-2010, 8:40 PM
How bad can California really be if I can legally possess over 100 firearms, include 30 handguns and about 20 "high powered" semi-automatic rifles?

Hmmm....how many of the following things could I do in California?


When I decided to get an AR-15 type rifle last year I decided I wanted a Colt AR-15 SP1 because it is the closest thing I could get to a Vietnam-era M16. I went to a local gun show, found a 1971 Colt AR-15 SP1, went through the instant background check, paid for it, and took it home directly from the gun show (no waiting period). Here it is:

http://i48.tinypic.com/2rxjzh0.jpg

Could I buy a Colt AR-15 SP1 in California even if I was willing to wait 100 days? 200 days?
Another time I went to the same gun show (same location, different date, happened to be the same seller) and saw a 1918 Colt M1911. After the background check I paid for it and walked out the door with it. No Handgun Safety Certificate or waiting period required.
If I went back to the same gun show or to a local gun store the next day I and wanted to buy more handguns, I could. I could buy as many as I want without having to wait 30 days between purchases. And, I am not limited to handguns on some government-approved list. And, I don't have to have a gun lock.
I could go to the same gun show or any local dealer and take my pick of Evil Black Rifles, none of which would have bullet buttons, or grip fins, weird-looking pretzel stocks etc. and take it home the same day.
At the same gun show someone had a box of military surplus 30-round M16/AR-15 magazines for $10 each. I bought a bunch of them. Picked up some genuine Colt 20-round magazines too.
I have M1 Carbines, and last year the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) was selling USGI 15-round carbine magazines for $10 each. I ordered 10 and they were shipped to my door. I've bought dozens of 15-round USGI carbines magazines, and a couple of 30-round magazines too.
If I got a M1A1 folding stock for one of my carbines I could install it and keep it fully functional so I could fold it and unfold it all I want.
When I go to the range with my "fully featured" AR-15 or L1A1, I can pop in a 20 or 30-round magazine, fire away, press the mag release button to drop the magazine, put in a fresh "high capacity" magazine, and keep shooting. I don't have to carry around flow charts, copies of legislation, PowerPoint presentations, etc. so I can explain to some LEO about bullet buttons (what's that?), fully featured vs. featureless, etc. I can concentrate on improving my skills and enjoying myself.
That same gun show I mentioned has a couple of vendors that sell NFA items (fully automatic weapons and silencers). Only the prices keep me from buying, not the law.
A gun club in my state has an annual machine gun shoot where the public (even non-members) can fire any one of dozens of fully automatic weapons for only the cost of the ammo. The .50cal M2 machine gun ammo cost $4 a round so I skipped that, but I did fire a MP-40 submachine gun, and my Dad and my son and I enjoyed watching other people fire away.
If I wanted one, I could easily get a concealed weapon permit (my state is "shall issue"). If I don't want to bother with that, Loaded Open Carry is legal except in a few cities. But even then, concealed weapon permit holders are exempt from those city ordinances. UOC? Why bother? :confused:
Online vendors and sellers on Gunbroker are more than happy to sell me anything I want to buy. When I see those "No sales to California" warnings I ignore them, they don't concern me.
If I buy handgun ammo on February 1, 2011 or any day after, I won't have to give a thumbprint or be entered into any database.


These are not hypothetical situations, these are things that I have done that would make me a criminal if I had done them in California. I don't list these things to gloat, really I don't, but to shake up those people in my formerly great home state who say "it aint so bad here in California", and remind them of just how much of the freedom that I enjoy they have lost, little by little, bit by bit, through insidious incrementalism. After reading threads like this one (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=241171) where a Colt AR-15 SP1 like mine has to be disassembled and the receiver destroyed, just because of the markings on it, I give my Colt a reassuring pat, and feel thankful that it won't have to be destroyed. :)

A guy who has a fat homely girlfriend who only lets him hold her hand and kiss her on the cheek might think he doesn't have it so bad, as long as he tries to forget that the guys in most of the other apartments in his building are having wild parties with college cheerleaders and strippers. :p

Lagduf
01-26-2010, 9:17 PM
Years ago after a mass shooting spree where a gunman killed a lot of people the powers to be ordered that all guns be confiscated and destroyed. There might of been a few exceptions, but I really can't remember any.

Yeah, it's that bad.

He just needs to do a search of "Gun Laws in Australia Wiki" and he'll see that Australia has the most asinine firearms legislation.

What annoys me is that they're completely reactionary.

ENVYGREEN
01-26-2010, 9:34 PM
Is California really that bad regarding gun rights? YES

rero360
01-26-2010, 9:48 PM
I just moved from NY, Buffalo to be exact, you really can't get any farther from NYC and still be in the state, go any further and you'll be in Canada.

Most people think NYC laws are the same as the rest of the state, totally untrue.

In NY I bought a handgun from a friend, cash, face to face transfer, only cost me a few bucks to put it on my permit.

I drove down to PA and bought a rifle, walked in, paid for it and drove home with it that day. Same went with every other firearm purchase I made it NY, in and out.

As far as ARs go, you can only have 2 evil features, pistol grip and magazine, so unless you lose the pistol grip you can't have a collapsable stock, bayo lug or flash hider, but muzzle brakes are ok. So my AR had muzzle brake, pistol grip and used regular mags.

Now there is the deal in NY regarding magazines with capacity of greater than 10 rounds being forbidden unless they were manufactured prior than when that gay law went into effect but I never worried about it as being military I got all my mags for free. That law also doesn't apply to LEO

Also AOWs are legal in NY and class III is legal too if you are LEO and can get a letterhead for the purchase, buddy of mine is a cop and built himself a nice little SBR and is waiting on his suppressor.

Overall, both states are crappy, I want suppressors for my rifles bad. lame as laws.

Lagduf
01-26-2010, 10:43 PM
I'd love to have an SBR and a Suppressor.

How fun that would be!

Seesm
01-26-2010, 10:52 PM
As others have said there is other reasons to move from Ca. other than gun laws... If Nevada had some trees I might think about getting a place over there but mostly it's just desert.

We are winning some key battles here in Ca. and I think it will get better. I have big faith in what the CGF is doing for ALL of us.

ap3572001
01-27-2010, 9:44 AM
Is CA really bad when it comes to gun rights? Compare to most fo the counrty? Yes.

dark45
01-27-2010, 11:05 AM
honestly cali is bad when it comes to gun laws, and i hate it when people say cali is so bad don't live there and so on. im here fighting for everyones rights on the front lines with all of you good people. while they live in places that may change due to many people not doing there part in cali or suporting cali. yes from what i heard it can be linked to some of our fault with voting or lack there of. but in anycase thats the past and we ALL must fight for the future for every state. and personly i love cali in almost everyway weather the dessert to woods snow moutins camping to surfing on a beach. most of the people, some polititions and laws i don't like and the gun restritions i don't like. but we are working on that arent we?

PaperPuncher
01-27-2010, 11:29 AM
CA is ranked 47th at 12.7%, only slightly ahead of Nevada, ranked at 50th with 13%. That's .3% difference. I would imagine that's even with the margin of error. Hardly a reason to move to CA.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm

I would have to say to use "per capita" math on this one. For easy maths sake:

if there are 50 people in the state of nevada and 13% are unemployed that means there are only 43.5 jobs to be had in that state.

if there are 5000 people in california and 12.7% are unemployed that means there are almost 4400 jobs to be had in that state.

Since we have vastly far more people residing in this state than Nevada does and a lower unempoyment rate, then yes, this is a good reason to move to Cali. Not to mention those jobs pay more here.

Remember a percentage is part of what makes up the whole number. Population varies state by state and that must be factored in when determining what state has jobs to offer not just what state has the lowest unemployment rate.

Milsurp Collector
01-27-2010, 12:34 PM
I would have to say to use "per capita" math on this one. For easy maths sake:

if there are 50 people in the state of nevada and 13% are unemployed that means there are only 43.5 jobs to be had in that state.

if there are 5000 people in california and 12.7% are unemployed that means there are almost 4400 jobs to be had in that state.

Since we have vastly far more people residing in this state than Nevada does and a lower unempoyment rate, then yes, this is a good reason to move to Cali. Not to mention those jobs pay more here.

Remember a percentage is part of what makes up the whole number. Population varies state by state and that must be factored in when determining what state has jobs to offer not just what state has the lowest unemployment rate.

Your analysis is faulty. The fact that there are more employed people in California vs. Nevada is irrelevant to the unemployed person because those "jobs to be had" are already filled. What matters is jobs available, not jobs already filled. A lower unemployment rate means a relative scarcity of workers available vs. jobs available. A higher unemployment rate means a relative scarcity of jobs available vs. workers available. The unemployment rates of California (12.4%) and Nevada (13.0%) are very close and both are significantly above the national rate (9.7%). Neither state is preferable to the 90% of states that have lower unemployment rates if one is seeking work.

The fact that median household income is higher in California ($51,185) than Nevada ($44,646) can't be pointed to as an advantage without considering the cost of living in each state. For example,

Median home price:
California $452,000
Nevada $309,995

Price for a gallon of regular gasoline:
California $3.024
Nevada $2.825

State income tax rate:
California 9.3% marginal rate for income above $47,056
Nevada 0%

State sales tax rate:
California 8.25%-10.75%
Nevada 6.85%-7.725%

PaperPuncher
01-27-2010, 1:37 PM
Your analysis is faulty. The fact that there are more employed people in California vs. Nevada is irrelevant to the unemployed person because those "jobs to be had" are already filled. What matters is jobs available, not jobs already filled. A lower unemployment rate means a relative scarcity of workers available vs. jobs available. A higher unemployment rate means a relative scarcity of jobs available vs. workers available. The unemployment rates of California (12.4%) and Nevada (13.0%) are very close and both are significantly above the national rate (9.7%). Neither state is preferable to the 90% of states that have lower unemployment rates if one is seeking work.

The fact that median household income is higher in California ($51,185) than Nevada ($44,646) can't be pointed to as an advantage without considering the cost of living in each state. For example,

Median home price:
California $452,000
Nevada $309,995

Price for a gallon of regular gasoline:
California $3.024
Nevada $2.825

State income tax rate:
California 9.3% marginal rate for income above $47,056
Nevada 0%

State sales tax rate:
California 8.25%-10.75%
Nevada 6.85%-7.725%

I'm sorry but are saying that in a place that has thousands more jobs to begin with there are less likely to be openings there than a place that has thousands less? Again, apply the "per capita" math to your statement.

And, math is math. The beauty of math is that it purely not flawed.


A lower unemployment rate means a relative scarcity of workers available vs. jobs available.

No it doesn't.

One states unemployment rate has nothing to with another's to start with. This is why I gave the "per capita" example in the first place and stated that the guy was making a wise decision to move to a state where he had a better chance of getting a job.

"scarcity of workers available"... what, where?

And all those other numbers you posted below your statement are irrelevant when income = zero. The only relevant thing is your ability to obtain income. My best plan would be to move where there are jobs.

Glock22Fan
01-27-2010, 3:11 PM
Since when did it become the responsibility of other people to "promise" good-paying jobs to your friend? Isn't it his responsibility to find work for himself?

I know what you mean, but it pi$$es me off when out of staters glibly say "Get out of California. You can easily get another job elsewhere." Many of us are held captive by either family or our job. I could work anywhere with a nearby airport and DSL lines (I'm on a satellite at present - never again) but my wife is stuck here (elderly mother, other family and an executive level job that really isn't transferrable). And, personally, I do like the weather. Had enough of the cold and wet in England.

Glock22Fan
01-27-2010, 3:14 PM
honestly cali is bad when it comes to gun laws, and i hate it when people say cali is so bad don't live there and so on. im here fighting for everyones rights on the front lines with all of you good people. while they live in places that may change due to many people not doing there part in cali or suporting cali. yes from what i heard it can be linked to some of our fault with voting or lack there of. but in anycase thats the past and we ALL must fight for the future for every state. and personly i love cali in almost everyway weather the dessert to woods snow moutins camping to surfing on a beach. most of the people, some polititions and laws i don't like and the gun restritions i don't like. but we are working on that arent we?

If you want me to read your posts (and I suspect many others agree with me), then please learn how to use the shift and enter keys and punctuate your posts. It is far too hard to read them as they are.

7x57
01-27-2010, 3:16 PM
We certainly have better gun laws than the UK and Japan, and lower taxes than Sweden, better public services than Mexico, and more financial stability than Greece.

I like a man who can slip a bowie knife between the ribs while giving the appearance of patting them on the back. :thumbsup:

7x57

Milsurp Collector
01-27-2010, 3:46 PM
I'm sorry but are saying that in a place that has thousands more jobs to begin with there are less likely to be openings there than a place that has thousands less?

Exactly. The flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming that just because there are more people currently employed in a state it follows that there are also more open/unfilled jobs available in that state. You can't assume that. If there are many people employed and there is low turnover in the workforce there will be few jobs available, even though many people are employed.



No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.


One states unemployment rate has nothing to with another's to start with.


I never said it did.


"scarcity of workers available"... what, where?

North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. All have unemployment rates below 5%. That means less than 5% of their workforces are not employed (small amount of excess labor), compared to California's 12.4% of its workforce unemployed (large amount of excess labor). When you don't have a lot of something, it is scarce, by definition. If you have a lot of something it isn't scarce, by definition.


And all those other numbers you posted below your statement are irrelevant when income = zero. The only relevant thing is your ability to obtain income.

My response was to your statement


Not to mention those jobs pay more here.

You can't look at income in a vacuum. You can't just say "jobs pay more here" without also considering the cost of living "here". What good is making more gross income if high taxes and high living costs suck away most of that higher income?

Say someone in North Dakota makes $100,000 a year, and his basic living costs (housing, food, utilities, etc.) and taxes consume $40,000 of his income. Say someone else in California doing the same job makes $120,000 a year but his living costs and taxes consume $70,000 of his income. Which guy is better off, the guy making $100k or the guy making $120k? If the cost of living is "irrelevant" as you claim, and "The only relevant thing is your ability to obtain income" as you said, then I guess you would say that the guy in California is better off because "jobs pay more here" and he makes $20,000 a year more than the guy in North Dakota.

But guess what: the guy in North Dakota has $60,000 a year of disposable income after expenses and taxes, while the guy in California has only $50,000 a year of disposable income after expenses and taxes, so who is better off, financially speaking?

Again, since you keep mentioning "math", you can't just look at one side of the equation (income), you have to look at the other side (expenses) too.


My best plan would be to move where there are jobs.

Not just "jobs", but unfilled jobs. Imagine going to a bustling factory and looking in the window and seeing thousands of people working. By your way of thinking, you would think "there are lots of jobs at this factory, it will be easy for me to get a job". Then you go to the personnel office and they say "no help wanted". You go back again, same thing. Next week you go back, same thing. For the next month, same thing. Now imagine there are hundreds of other unemployed guys hanging around the personnel office who are also hoping to find a job. If there is low turnover at that factory, and a lot of excess labor, the fact that there are "a lot of jobs" there doesn't mean you will get a job. Now put a sign that says "State of California" on the factory and maybe you'll get it.

That is why saying


Since we have vastly far more people residing in this state than Nevada does and a lower unempoyment rate, then yes, this is a good reason to move to Cali. Not to mention those jobs pay more here.

is bad advice, because California has high unemployment (despite the large number of people who have jobs there aren't many open jobs) and moving from Nevada to California is like going from the frying pan to the fire.

PaperPuncher
01-27-2010, 4:09 PM
Exactly. The flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming that just because there are more people currently employed in a state it follows that there are also more open/unfilled jobs available in that state. You can't assume that. If there are many people employed and there is low turnover in the workforce there will be few jobs available, even though many people are employed.




Yes, it does.



I never said it did.



North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. All have unemployment rates below 5%. That means less than 5% of their workforces are not employed (small amount of excess labor), compared to California's 12.4% of its workforce unemployed (large amount of excess labor). When you don't have a lot of something, it is scarce, by definition. If you have a lot of something it isn't scarce, by definition.



My response was to your statement



You can't look at income in a vacuum. You can't just say "jobs pay more here" without also considering the cost of living "here". What good is making more gross income if high taxes and high living costs suck away most of that higher income?

Say someone in North Dakota makes $100,000 a year, and his basic living costs (housing, food, utilities, etc.) and taxes consume $40,000 of his income. Say someone else in California doing the same job makes $120,000 a year but his living costs and taxes consume $70,000 of his income. Which guy is better off, the guy making $100k or the guy making $120k? If the cost of living is "irrelevant" as you claim, and "The only relevant thing is your ability to obtain income" as you said, then I guess you would say that the guy in California is better off because "jobs pay more here" and he makes $20,000 a year more than the guy in North Dakota.

But guess what: the guy in North Dakota has $60,000 a year of disposable income after expenses and taxes, while the guy in California has only $50,000 a year of disposable income after expenses and taxes, so who is better off, financially speaking?

Again, since you keep mentioning "math", you can't just look at one side of the equation (income), you have to look at the other side (expenses) too.



Not just "jobs", but unfilled jobs. Imagine going to a bustling factory and looking in the window and seeing thousands of people working. By your way of thinking, you would think "there are lots of jobs at this factory, it will be easy for me to get a job". Then you go to the personnel office and they say "no help wanted". You go back again, same thing. Next week you go back, same thing. For the next month, same thing. Now imagine there are hundreds of other unemployed guys hanging around the personnel office who are also hoping to find a job. If there is low turnover at that factory, and a lot of excess labor, the fact that there are "a lot of jobs" there doesn't mean you will get a job. Now put a sign that says "State of California" on the factory and maybe you'll get it.

That is why saying



is bad advice, because California has high unemployment (despite the large number of people who have jobs there aren't many open jobs) and moving from Nevada to California is like going from the frying pan to the fire.

Bottom line, more jobs in a state means more jobs available. Law of averages. You get this one in statistics. Try reading the post as well since by your comments I can tell you missed quite a bit.

Milsurp Collector
01-27-2010, 4:24 PM
Try reading the post as well since by your comments I can tell you missed quite a bit.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you. :rolleyes:

cobracommander1991
01-27-2010, 5:06 PM
The approved roster of handguns is pretty restrictive. It's rationale is that it will allow only safe handguns to be sold. How are guns that have expired off the list now unsafe and banned from being normally sold to Californians? For example, how is one type of K-frame revolver allowed while previous versions of the same model are too dangerous for Californians? I would understand a list that banned weapons that were proven to be designed poorly and are a danger to the user when used properly.

--- There are some good things about CA. The mountains, the ocean, Disneyland, and remnants of its accomplishments from the 1970's and before. The problem with CA is that from 1974 and up, the state stagnated and didn't build up our infrastructure. Other states like Texas have kept up with the need for infrastructure to ensure economic growth. Planned freeways were left half completed, cancelled, or torn down. In San Jose, there was an onramp connector from I-680 to US 101 that was left 60 feet in the air for years because the new governor at the time hated freeways and "counter-productive" infrastructure projects. We stopped building power plants and began to rely on outside states for our power needs. We have tough smog laws on all cars from '76 onward indefinately. Some will have to be smogged by people at Test Only stations were some guy named Charlie (who knows nothing about cars) will do what the computer tells him to do. He will over rev your car in park and fatally wound your transmission without having the knowlewdge that there is a service bulletin not to do this for that particular transmission.
On the flip side, cars made before 1976 never need to be smogged or inspected. Other states will require at least a thorough inspection (Pennsylvania). In CA, all I need is registration and insurance to get my sticker.:D