Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Black Powder Open Carry ????

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #16
    gaberaynes
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2013
    • 852

    yeah we established that and bummed me out I really wanted to hip sling my old 85 navy colt.
    You know by that definition a bb gun is considered a firearm that is kinda retarded
    sigpic


    Building a 1911 with a rock in a Cavehttp://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=957081

    Comment

    • #17
      sl0re10
      Calguns Addict
      • Jan 2013
      • 7242

      Originally posted by gaberaynes
      So I am curios If a Black Powder rifles and pistols are not considered firearms and are just classified as dangerous weapons why cant one cowboy up and hip sling one around.

      I am not finding any law that says you cant talked to a deputy says doesnt know any reason why it would be illegal

      So is this a possible work with the laws so I dont have a 30 round clip but yet still have the feeling of safety walking around

      Please I would like all calguners to work thru this and if found to be a work around possibly all cowboy up
      Read the Cal Penal Code on the subject. The weapons section is not that long.

      But I'm pretty sure they get named on those things (carry, concealing, et cetera) in addition to 'firearms' in California.

      Comment

      • #18
        stix213
        AKA: Joe Censored
        CGN Contributor - Lifetime
        • Apr 2009
        • 19002

        Originally posted by gaberaynes
        So your saying sit on the sidelines never take a chance and hope that they keep forgetting
        Sounds like that has happened long enough in cali and thats how we are at the point we are at now
        Sorry I like my 2nd amendment and we are at the point (cuz of lack of action) that we have to go to ridiculous extremes to get People aware that those in power have already gone to far.
        That's the same load of crap the UOC crowd was saying right up until they got it banned for the rest of us, for a gain of absolutely nothing. Pick your battles with more intelligence than they did.

        Comment

        • #19
          mage
          Senior Member
          • Oct 2012
          • 591

          Originally posted by stix213
          That's the same load of crap the UOC crowd was saying right up until they got it banned for the rest of us, for a gain of absolutely nothing. Pick your battles with more intelligence than they did.
          I still haven't heard a convincing answer as to how never using a right helps.

          It seems like a distinction without difference. Either way I can't carry a gun.

          Comment

          • #20
            jeremiah12
            Senior Member
            • Mar 2013
            • 2065

            Originally posted by mage
            I still haven't heard a convincing answer as to how never using a right helps.

            It seems like a distinction without difference. Either way I can't carry a gun.
            Openly carry in the city and scare all the city slickers, they pass a law to ban it everywhere. Be smart about it and only carry in the rural areas and while in the great outdoors where most would not never give it a second thought, we could still do it there openly all the time rather than just in our campsite or while fishing or hunting or whatever BS.

            At a time when the majority is trying to take the rights of a minority away, and succeeding faster than the courts are reversing the bad laws, it is best to not do things to temp the majority to pass even more bad laws. It gets them to think that even more has to be done to stop the "thems" and so they consider going a few steps further.

            This is called using your brain, logic, and strategy to win when you our outnumbered. The first thing you do not do is make your situation worse.

            BTW, CC will be the most acceptable and draw the least amount of complaints because if done properly, nobody will notice. The anti's will go about their daily lives pretending they are safe from evil guns because they do not see them. Then, a few just might discovered that a CCW saved their life because they used a tool called a gun to stop a BG intent on doing harm to others just to rob a store or whatever. Then tan anti might actually learn the gun did not kill, it was the person. The person used the gun as a tool and it is the intent of the person using it that determines if it is used for good intentions or bad intentions.
            Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

            A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

            Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

            --Librarian

            Comment

            • #21
              toby
              Banned
              • Jan 2010
              • 10576

              ......

              Comment

              Working...
              UA-8071174-1