gun laws in california

[fishhuntbox]

Hello out there i had a question. why hasn't anyone made a petition for our rights to carry a loaded gun in the state of California. Who carries a loaded gun? The bad guy's and the police officers. Why is it that all the tax paying law abiding citizens cannot carry a loaded fire arm. We can carry a gun but it must be empty. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of carrying a gun for self defense of one and his Family.Lets figure something out and try to do something about it.Its our right as an American.

[Rob85]

Check your local laws it could be possible to get a ccw in your county. In my county self defense is enough to issue a permit through the sheriff's office.

[Glock22Fan]

Welcome fishhuntbox.

Your question (or rather questions) is/(are) valid, but displays a certain amount of newbie lack of immersion in these matters.

If you stay around lurking for a while, you will discover that it isn't so simple. The petition that you mention would cost millions and might well fail (the sheeple, generally, are not gun friendly, and they will vote "No!")

Yes of course carrying an empty gun is a poor answer to the problem. A CCW may be possible depending on your location.

Things are happening, and there should be some interesting news by the summer and later this year. Lurk around for a bit, and pay particular attention to mentions of McDonald, Pena, Sykes etc. (all lawsuits that will affect matters).

I'm not voting in your poll, neither option is the one I would want to vote for which would be something like"

"3) Yes the situation is bad, but recent and pending legal action whould result in many of the restrictions being lifted. Therefore there is no need for a petition which, in any event, would be too expensive and might not have the result we want."

And stay safe.

[Asmodai]

A little under 400,000 signatures to get an initiative on the ballot and a LOT of money to gather the signatures and verify them...

[twotap]

Welcome fishhuntbox .I agree with glock22fan. Plus If you want to get your voice heard write your concerns to your legislater.Let them know that you are watching the way they vote on matters important to second amendment and other gun issues. Most of all be polite when doing so. And informed on the issue .Be careful not to come off as a gun nut,but a concerned voter. That is your right. Exercise it.

[juicemansam]

If you stay around lurking for a while, you will discover that it isn't so simple. The petition that you mention would cost millions and might well fail (the sheeple, generally, are not gun friendly, and they will vote "No!")

Then isn't it time to apply math logic to initiatives? Such as wording an initiative that a "No" vote or no vote would in fact pass the initiative. I see measures fail because of not enough support in percentage, which means that people either vote for it, against it, or not at all, generally not at all. So if an initiative is worded as, "Support for this initiative would not allow loaded open carry." Therefore, because sheeple generally will let their fear vote for them, they're either see a gun issue and vote no or not vote, thus allowing the opposite to be true, support for loaded open carry. It might not mean nothing, but it would have stated the opposite of UOC, thus being allowed as an argument in court. I'm most definitely probably absolutely wrong, but hey, it's early in the day, I haven't eaten yet.

[Glock22Fan]

Then isn't it time to apply math logic to initiatives? Such as wording an initiative that a "No" vote or no vote would in fact pass the initiative. I see measures fail because of not enough support in percentage, which means that people either vote for it, against it, or not at all, generally not at all. So if an initiative is worded as, "Support for this initiative would not allow loaded open carry." Therefore, because sheeple generally will let their fear vote for them, they're either see a gun issue and vote no or not vote, thus allowing the opposite to be true, support for loaded open carry. It might not mean nothing, but it would have stated the opposite of UOC, thus being allowed as an argument in court. I'm most definitely probably absolutely wrong, but hey, it's early in the day, I haven't eaten yet.

You are right that if we ever got that far, we would want to phrase the question with great care. However, I believe that it costs five million, or more, dollars to pay people to collect enough signatures. I think at present that a fraction of that, given to the CGF, would reap better rewards.