View Single Post
  #217  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:04 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Thank you for proving my point. When the Mulford Act was signed, how did people respond? They let their rights be infringed.
As opposed to doing what, tough guy?

Quote:
they should've kept doing it anyway. And so should every other gun owner in CA.
You first. Go ahead.

Quote:
And I fail to see how an employer, bank, DMV, or AmEx employee will know if I'm concealed carrying, unless they threaten my life.
Once you are prosecuted as a felon, they'll know. And once you "fight back" and defy the warrant out for your arrest (or violate your terms of parole), they won't have to do a damn thing to ruin your life except sit back and watch you live a life on the run.

In any case, you are missing the point. Why did the DOJ refuse the legal authority to widen the AW ban list?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't bother answering until you do.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote