Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-26-2012, 10:28 AM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Lightbulb A worthy CGF Lawsuit - Hunting is at the heart of the ANTI Argument

Hunting in Los Angeles County (and plenty of this State) is a comedy of errors. I don't know if any the members of CGF hunt at all, but this is a situation that strikes at the heart of the ANTI argument.

Remember that as a licensed hunter you are obligated to abide, know, research, and fully understand:
  • Federal Law (duh)
  • State Law (including relevant regulations from DFG, Health and Safety Codes, Firearms law in the PC, and on and on and on)
  • County Regulations (including discharge boundry laws, among other archaic issues that present themselves like carry, knife laws, etc).
  • City Regulations (again, generally discharge areas, and bans specific activities or items).
  • Other ordinances (this is California, who knows how they will get you).

The issue at the heart of this problem is that they do not make the information readily accessible and easy to understand. A single case in point is the DISCHARGE BOUNDRY laws within the County of Los Angeles. The last time a map was created (see a copy of the map here) was in 1994. The law has only gotten increasingly strict since than, choking people that are attempting to be legal and law abiding. I work with the law daily, and I am still confused about certain discharge ordinances, and conflicting regulations.

Is there a way to use the force of CGF, SAF, CRPA, NRA, whoever, to compel the State to centralize and produce the relevent regulations in a single digestible format, going after the hunting overlap with a form of preemption, equal protection, etc? Looking for ideas for attack here.

This is an issue driving the remaining heart of the ANTI argument: that firearms are for 'hunting purposes' - (I know and you know it isn't the case). Attacking regulation aimed at 'hunting and sporting' purposes should be low hanging fruit and may start destabilizing the ANTI platform.

Food for thought.

Last edited by whack; 09-26-2012 at 12:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-26-2012, 10:31 AM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just thought I would put a fun color map up because it is pretty and pisses me off:

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-26-2012, 12:14 PM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I'm not aware of any constitutional protection of hunting. 2A rights are based on a right to self defense (per Heller at least). You could say you have a protected right to carry something to defend against wild animals, but not to hunt them.
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-26-2012, 12:30 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,694
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
I'm not aware of any constitutional protection of hunting. 2A rights are based on a right to self defense (per Heller at least). You could say you have a protected right to carry something to defend against wild animals, but not to hunt them.
Partially. Heller explicitly enumerated "self defense," but the wording is "for all lawful purposes such as...". Hunting, while by itself is not explicitly in the Constitution, falls squarely into "lawful purposes" and as such is protected under Heller (at least as long as it's legal).

Also, note that Roe vs. Wade (abortion) derives from "privacy" and effectively creates an enumerated right out of thin air, even though it's not in the Constitution. Hunting has a much longer tradition (see even cave drawings from the first people) so it's likely to have even stronger protection.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-26-2012, 12:38 PM
jorgyusa jorgyusa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
I'm not aware of any constitutional protection of hunting. 2A rights are based on a right to self defense (per Heller at least). You could say you have a protected right to carry something to defend against wild animals, but not to hunt them.
The finding in Heller:

"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, .... "

Is hunting not a traditional lawful purpose?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-26-2012, 12:41 PM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgyusa View Post
The finding in Heller:

"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, .... "

Is hunting not a traditional lawful purpose?

To further your question - what is a reasonable restriction of your right at that point? Can the obfuscation and layering of regulations provide an enumerable example of unreasonable restrictions?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-26-2012, 12:50 PM
jorgyusa jorgyusa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whack View Post
To further your question - what is a reasonable restriction of your right at that point? Can the obfuscation and layering of regulations provide an enumerable example of unreasonable restrictions?
I would certainly think so, if its purpose is to prevent the exercise of the fundamental right.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-26-2012, 1:03 PM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgyusa View Post
I would certainly think so, if its purpose is to prevent the exercise of the fundamental right.
Well the crux of the argument is a question of 'reasonable' and will focus on 'safety'.

What are reasonable measure(s) to restrict discharge of a firearm in an area where a person would wish to hunt? Is it population density? Perhaps wildlife management? Likely a combination of these and other things.

Consider for a second that Hunters are required to complete a highly detailed safety course where they must not only learn all types of firearms, distance of projectile, and regulation, but be tested on their knowledge.

Arguably hunters are highly trained, and should be subject to LESS regulation than someone who has not trained and successfully been granted a license, making any regulation against them more difficult to apply.

This could also be used as a clear springboard to challenging the '1 in 30' law, as well as the '10 day cool-off'.

Last edited by whack; 09-26-2012 at 1:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-26-2012, 2:30 PM
jorgyusa jorgyusa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whack View Post
Well the crux of the argument is a question of 'reasonable' and will focus on 'safety'.

What are reasonable measure(s) to restrict discharge of a firearm in an area where a person would wish to hunt? Is it population density? Perhaps wildlife management? Likely a combination of these and other things.

Consider for a second that Hunters are required to complete a highly detailed safety course where they must not only learn all types of firearms, distance of projectile, and regulation, but be tested on their knowledge.

Arguably hunters are highly trained, and should be subject to LESS regulation than someone who has not trained and successfully been granted a license, making any regulation against them more difficult to apply.

This could also be used as a clear springboard to challenging the '1 in 30' law, as well as the '10 day cool-off'.
It is clear to any hunter, trained or not that taking a shot in a residential area with lots of people and buildings is not a good thing to do. So I don't think that restrictions of that nature burden the right. And yes wildlife management is important to ensure that one can exercise the right. If there is no wildlife then one cannot hunt.

I also think the training is very good to have but am unsure if it should be required since we are talking of a right and not a privilege. However I think practically in the short run that it is a losing position to oppose training.

You are suggesting that we use training as an alternative to getting rid of the ridiculous 1 gun a month and 10 day wait period. However they are definitely infringements to a fundamental right and need to be eliminated without compromise. Can government restrict other rights like the right of free expression in the same manner? How about 1 book a month restriction or a 10 day wait before getting a newspaper? Both restrictions could be defended for similar reasons but are unthinkable for all but the real totalitarians.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-26-2012, 4:35 PM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgyusa View Post
It is clear to any hunter, trained or not that taking a shot in a residential area with lots of people and buildings is not a good thing to do. So I don't think that restrictions of that nature burden the right. And yes wildlife management is important to ensure that one can exercise the right. If there is no wildlife then one cannot hunt.

I also think the training is very good to have but am unsure if it should be required since we are talking of a right and not a privilege. However I think practically in the short run that it is a losing position to oppose training.

You are suggesting that we use training as an alternative to getting rid of the ridiculous 1 gun a month and 10 day wait period. However they are definitely infringements to a fundamental right and need to be eliminated without compromise. Can government restrict other rights like the right of free expression in the same manner? How about 1 book a month restriction or a 10 day wait before getting a newspaper? Both restrictions could be defended for similar reasons but are unthinkable for all but the real totalitarians.
I absolutely agree with the position you are taking; however, the strategy I am suggestion is one of 'easiest fruit first'.

It's a calculated erosion of the positions that have gotten us into this mess, and it will be the same to get us out.

The point I am making with this argument is that it will be difficult to defend bad and restrictive regulation on the most 'highly qualified' persons first.

Look, in a perfect world, I'd love it if I could pickup a 6 pack of beer, new Glock and a lotto ticket with the same purchase and no regulation at all, but that reality may be a LONG way off, if in my lifetime.

Right now we need a strategy that works, and I am suggesting one possible approach.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-27-2012, 1:49 PM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Here is a for instance:

Title 13 Division 8 of the LA County code:

http://library.municode.com/HTML/162...66.010USWEPEWH

Part 1 clearly provides an exception for discharge of all types of weapons:

Quote:
13.66.010 - Use of weapons permitted when.

This chapter, except as otherwise provided in this Part 1, does not prohibit the discharge of any rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or firearm of any kind, or the shooting of any arrow or other missile, when necessary so to do to protect life or property, or to destroy or kill any predatory or dangerous animal.

(Ord. 7730 § 1, 1960: Ord. 7381 § 1 (part), 1958: Ord. 1769 Art. 3 § 302, 1929.)
Part 2 Restricts pretty much all the districts.

Part 3 Outlines 'less restricted' areas where you can use less powerful means (supposed to be shotguns):

Quote:
13.66.500 - Regulations in less-restricted districts.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person shall not shoot, fire or discharge, and a person, firm or corporation shall not cause or permit to be shot, fired or discharged in the unincorporated territory lying within the boundaries of any district or area defined in this Part 3, any firearm of any kind having a firing range of, or capable of propelling any bullet, shot or missile for any distance of one-half mile or more.

(Ord. 7281 § 1 (part), 1958: Ord. 1769 Art. 2 § 150, 1929.)
So does that mean I can use any type of weapon when I'm hunting bear in the balance of the County, but only shotguns in Part 3 listed areas when hunting deer?

Clearly it is written that yes - a bear is a predatory and dangerous animal; however that is not the INTENT of this law.

PLEASE SOMEONE START THE STEAMROLLER!

Last edited by whack; 09-27-2012 at 1:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-28-2012, 5:14 AM
CDFingers CDFingers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 1,853
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I don't think hunting to the anti's is as important as the OP suggests. I think the anti's are just afraid of guns. To them, they're potential victims of gun violence.

I really don't think many anti's are anti gun because of hunting. It's pure fear.

CDFingers
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2012, 7:16 AM
donw's Avatar
donw donw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between temecula and palm springs
Posts: 1,678
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

anti-hunting sentiment has grown dramatically over the last two decades or more...it's NOT going to go away.

again...it's the voters responsibility to deal with those who oppose their views in the voting booth.

a HUGE factor to keep in min, too...is the fact that hunting is a privilege, NOT a right. it's more vulnerable to the whims of legislators.
__________________
NRA life member, US Army Veteran

i am a legend in my own mind...

we are told not to judge muslims by what a few do...yet, the NRA membership and firearms owners are ALL considered as radical...

"The second amendment ain't about your deer rifle..."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-28-2012, 7:17 AM
donw's Avatar
donw donw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between temecula and palm springs
Posts: 1,678
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

anti-hunting sentiment has grown dramatically over the last two decades or more...it's NOT going to go away.

again...it's the voters responsibility to deal with those who oppose their views in the voting booth.

a HUGE factor to keep in min, too...is the fact that hunting is a privilege, NOT a right. it's more vulnerable to the whims of legislators.
__________________
NRA life member, US Army Veteran

i am a legend in my own mind...

we are told not to judge muslims by what a few do...yet, the NRA membership and firearms owners are ALL considered as radical...

"The second amendment ain't about your deer rifle..."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-28-2012, 7:39 AM
Fissssh's Avatar
Fissssh Fissssh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Walnut Creek
Posts: 524
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

Not trying to high jack but is there a similar map for Contra Costa County?
__________________
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Judge Alex Kozinski

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-28-2012, 8:17 AM
Uxi's Avatar
Uxi Uxi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,110
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

More than I expected but it IS an old map. Preemption is a double edged sword... not that the State recognizes any right to bear yet, which has yet to be recognized Federally, as well.

Hunting is pretty core and the increasingly urbanized population loses that more than anything. Think about the kids who used to take their .22's to and from school like Justice Scalia talks about doing back in the day. It wasn't for self defense purposes or for the resistance of tyranny (equally core pillars of the 2nd), it was for hunting.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

9mm + 5.56mm =
.45ACP + 7.62 NATO =
10mm + 6.8 SPC =


Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-28-2012, 9:56 AM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Partially. Heller explicitly enumerated "self defense," but the wording is "for all lawful purposes such as...". Hunting, while by itself is not explicitly in the Constitution, falls squarely into "lawful purposes" and as such is protected under Heller (at least as long as it's legal).
While true, you're conflating two separate issues. Heller legitimizes the keeping/bearing of weapons for lawful purposes, hunting presumably being one of them. Fine.

That is separate from the issue of whether you can hunt just as it is from shooting clays. If LA county says you can't shoot clays in some remote place then the 2A is not going to help you much there. You can argue that we have to have places to practice with firearms to fully exercise our 2A rights but that's a long way off from killing and taking animals.
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-28-2012, 10:08 AM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFingers View Post
I don't think hunting to the anti's is as important as the OP suggests. I think the anti's are just afraid of guns. To them, they're potential victims of gun violence.

I really don't think many anti's are anti gun because of hunting. It's pure fear.

CDFingers
Sorry, you might have got the wrong impression from my post. The core I am referring to is that organizations like BRADY, VPC, et al, CLAIM they are in SUPPORT of HUNTING as a right - Therefore the least resistance should be felt from those organizations when attacking bad legislation – it’s a lose-lose situation for them. Either they expose themselves as contradicting themselves and against legitimate use of guns, or they keep mute, or they support action (not likely).

In other words - their response doesn't matter - WE WIN.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-28-2012, 10:21 AM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
While true, you're conflating two separate issues. Heller legitimizes the keeping/bearing of weapons for lawful purposes, hunting presumably being one of them. Fine.

That is separate from the issue of whether you can hunt just as it is from shooting clays. If LA county says you can't shoot clays in some remote place then the 2A is not going to help you much there. You can argue that we have to have places to practice with firearms to fully exercise our 2A rights but that's a long way off from killing and taking animals.
Remember one thing: Hunting is the OLDEST recorded activity of the use of arms. Hard to argue against that as a 'right'.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-28-2012, 11:41 AM
Uxi's Avatar
Uxi Uxi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,110
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Yeah hunting is pretty damned core, it's just not THE core on it's own. Even in urban areas, there are critters and vermin and varmints that make "hunting" suitable as big game in rural areas. Of course, the leftist mode is to let people from the gubmint take care of it for them, if not requiring it and the removal of the liberty of citizens to do it themselves with onerous over-regulation.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

9mm + 5.56mm =
.45ACP + 7.62 NATO =
10mm + 6.8 SPC =


Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-28-2012, 1:05 PM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,811
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whack View Post
Just thought I would put a fun color map up because it is pretty and pisses me off:

Wow, I wish that this was a map regulating the voting power of state representatives.
__________________
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"
"The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
-Anton Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-30-2012, 4:34 PM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uxi View Post
More than I expected but it IS an old map. Preemption is a double edged sword... not that the State recognizes any right to bear yet, which has yet to be recognized Federally, as well.

Hunting is pretty core and the increasingly urbanized population loses that more than anything. Think about the kids who used to take their .22's to and from school like Justice Scalia talks about doing back in the day. It wasn't for self defense purposes or for the resistance of tyranny (equally core pillars of the 2nd), it was for hunting.
That is the beauty of this argument - I have yet to hear a large & legitimate ANTI organization or representative claim that they are totally against hunting. Most of these organizations hide behind all their Chinese water torture legislation by claiming to support 'legitimate uses' and the most commonly referred of those is --- you guessed it --- HUNTING.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-01-2012, 1:37 AM
phrogg111's Avatar
phrogg111 phrogg111 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Folsom
Posts: 710
iTrader: 10 / 92%
Default

The reason that the right to keep and bear arms is protected is because it's necessary to the security of a free state.

That means that justifiable homicide is the only "legitimate use" for an "arm".

Pretty sure wildlife isn't going to affect the security of a free state. However, as hunting is a reason to "bear arms", and it's part of our culture, it's protected too.

These are facts, not my opinion.
__________________
Hunting is a loophole in the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

There is no privilege to keep and bear arms.

Arms are for killing people. All other uses of an arm are illegitimate uses.

Know your rights. When stopped by police and not doing anything wrong, tell them you don't consent to searches. They are allowed to lie to you, but you're not allowed to lie to them. Just say nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-01-2012, 11:07 AM
whack whack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogg111 View Post
The reason that the right to keep and bear arms is protected is because it's necessary to the security of a free state.

That means that justifiable homicide is the only "legitimate use" for an "arm".

Pretty sure wildlife isn't going to affect the security of a free state. However, as hunting is a reason to "bear arms", and it's part of our culture, it's protected too.

These are facts, not my opinion.
Are we still arguing about the oxford comma?



I thought we were past that... both or each independantly are necessary, but exclusive among themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-01-2012, 12:56 PM
FatCity67's Avatar
FatCity67 FatCity67 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stockton
Posts: 2,657
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

It's a cultural issue of the bye gone gun owner 1.0 era. Don't think its going to get much play around here.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-01-2012, 1:17 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

CGF members are not hunters as far as i have found out and know very little about hunting. Its just not their forte'

If you want to get involved in hunting you need to join DU, CWA, Mule deer foundation, NWTF, Safari Club, ECT.

Ever notice how not one CGF member has made comments in this thread?

They are the furthest thing from hunters you may ever meet.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-01-2012, 1:47 PM
Uxi's Avatar
Uxi Uxi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,110
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
If you want to get involved in hunting you need to join DU, CWA, Mule deer foundation, NWTF, Safari Club, ECT.
Which of those are you a member of and/or which would you recommend joining?
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

9mm + 5.56mm =
.45ACP + 7.62 NATO =
10mm + 6.8 SPC =


Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-01-2012, 1:53 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uxi View Post
Which of those are you a member of and/or which would you recommend joining?

I am a member of several. Not sure at what point right now as i go to the dinners and just get renewed automatically.

You need to join the group YOU are most interested in supporting. Turkeys, deer, Elk, Quail, Pheasant, Ducks.... They are all pretty well represented. California Waterfowl and NWTF (turkey federation) are very active in this state and have political clout.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-01-2012, 1:58 PM
the86d's Avatar
the86d the86d is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pinko-occupied ObamaDerkaderkastan
Posts: 5,760
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
I'm not aware of any constitutional protection of hunting. 2A rights are based on a right to self defense (per Heller at least). You could say you have a protected right to carry something to defend against wild animals, but not to hunt them.
How is this supposed to be accomplished as of Jan 1, 2013?

No unloaded open carry, no loaded carry, unless on a shooting range, or am I confused?
__________________
"That's what governments are for - get in a man's way." - Captain Malcolm 'Mal' Reynolds
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-01-2012, 2:00 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the86d View Post
How is this supposed to be accomplished as of Jan 1, 2013?

No unloaded open carry, no loaded carry, unless on a shooting range, or am I confused?
zhyla is wrong. Open carry of long arms is prohibited (or will be) in incorporated cities. It does not affect hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-01-2012, 3:04 PM
the86d's Avatar
the86d the86d is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pinko-occupied ObamaDerkaderkastan
Posts: 5,760
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
zhyla is wrong. Open carry of long arms is prohibited (or will be) in incorporated cities. It does not affect hunting.
Right, but if you are hiking (not hunting) and you come across an animal that wishes to eat your kids (along for the hike) we will be defenseless (except for maybe a knife, and pepper-spray) as of Jan 1st 2013, right (as we cannot even have anything that is not in a locked case, even unloaded)?

In the original bill was incorporated areas only? I had concerns about camping areas.
__________________
"That's what governments are for - get in a man's way." - Captain Malcolm 'Mal' Reynolds

Last edited by the86d; 10-01-2012 at 3:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-01-2012, 3:23 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the86d View Post
Right, but if you are hiking (not hunting) and you come across an animal that wishes to eat your kids (along for the hike) we will be defenseless (except for maybe a knife, and pepper-spray) as of Jan 1st 2013, right (as we cannot even have anything that is not in a locked case, even unloaded)?

In the original bill was incorporated areas only? I had concerns about camping areas.
NO! Again, you need to read the law. Unless of course you are hunting or hiking in an incorporated city. (downtown san fran?)


You can open carry rifles in areas where discharge is not prohibited. HUNTING OR NOT
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-02-2012, 7:18 AM
compulsivegunbuyer compulsivegunbuyer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,809
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

On that map, Pinyon and Kentucky have been closed since the 90's, and Middle was closed in the 80's. Middle was right off the road just up Angeles Crest Hwy. Middle was the biggest moron free for all shoot fest I have ever seen. People bringing hard liquer and cases of beer, and no firing line or set direction for shooting. It was common place for bullets to be wizzing over your head while shooting there, and the year before it closed, I believe 7 people died from stray bullets.

An article from the Times, and I swear it was no exaggeration.
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-11-..._stray-bullets
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-02-2012, 8:52 AM
BlackLoTuS's Avatar
BlackLoTuS BlackLoTuS is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 95
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Stop looking at this with such a narrow perspective...

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
NO! Again, you need to read the law. Unless of course you are hunting or hiking in an incorporated city. (downtown san fran?)


You can open carry rifles in areas where discharge is not prohibited. HUNTING OR NOT
ok, so what about national parks? the UOC handgun ban took away my ability to carry in every national park in this state, along with many other areas that are pretty remote yet "shooting is not allowed".

Also remember that not all areas of all national parks are crowded with people like Yosemite Valley, there are some pretty remote sections where i would prefer to have the option of defending myself against dangerous animals/people!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-02-2012, 8:54 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackLoTuS View Post
ok, so what about national parks? the UOC handgun ban took away my ability to carry in every national park in this state, along with many other areas that are pretty remote yet "shooting is not allowed".

Also remember that not all areas of all national parks are crowded with people like Yosemite Valley, there are some pretty remote sections where i would prefer to have the option of defending myself against dangerous animals/people!
Is the national park in a municipal unincorporated city or city and county?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:11 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.