How I carry my personal property is my right, isn't it?

[Roadrunner]

I've been giving this some thought, and I did some searches in the CGN google spot but didn't find the answer, so I need to ask; after incorporation, how hard will it be for states to keep laws on the the books that regulate how firearms are carried on a person? When you consider that Alaska and Vermont have very little regulation regarding the carrying of firearms, and their violent crime per capita is much less than ours, how can California justify the existence of laws that regulate CCW? I will grant that these laws have existed for decades, but obviously they havn't done a thing to stop it, and all it does is allow the state to dictate to us how we use and carry our personal property.

[bodger]

As I understand it, everything remains the same until challenged in the courts anyway.

[Roadrunner]

As I understand it, everything remains the same until challenged in the courts anyway.

So, would it be appropriate to think that all CCW laws will be challenged after incorporation has been made? I find it highly illogical to suggest that carrying openly in a holster is somehow less dangerous to the public than CCW'ing.

[Fjold]

Because "It's for the children".

[DVLDOC]

^LOL

[wildhawker]

Ok where to start...

Begin by searching Sykes and Palmer.

There are already lawsuits filed in numerous jurisdictions throughout the US (incl CA) which challenge the constitutionality of carry permit issuance as currently exists.

We'll very likely see that as long as the Legislature makes one manner available to all but prohibited persons others can be highly restricted or banned.

[JDoe]

As I understand it, everything remains the same until challenged in the courts anyway.

So if a firearms law is challenged under the 2A and defendant (State, County, City, etc.) is defeated in court is there a good chance to recover attorney fees?

I am reminded of the pre-litigation demand letter that Michel & Associates, P.C. sent to the City of Richmond...

On behalf of its clients the NRA and CRPA, the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. sent a pre-litigation demand letter to the City of Richmond, California and Richmond City Council members on Friday, October 23 damanding that the City's ordinance banning the possession of "high capacity" magazines be repealed.

By sending the letter before filing a lawsuit, the chances of recovering attorny fees if a lawsuit has to be filed are increased.

The letter notes that the city's ban of "large-capacity" (can hold over 10 rounds) magazines is ineffective, infringes on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and is preempted by state law.

[Librarian]

So, would it be appropriate to think that all CCW laws will be challenged after incorporation has been made? I find it highly illogical to suggest that carrying openly in a holster is somehow less dangerous to the public than CCW'ing.

You are operating from a faulty premise: that any gun control law is motivated by an actual desire to improve public safety.

That just isn't the case in California.

Politicians here don't care about public safety, in any micro-sense; they feel that their re-elections are better for the public good, so doing things that get them re-elected benefits public safety in the macro-sense.

They are Our Betters. They Know What's Good For Us. Bitter clingers need not speak up.

[JoGusto]

Same is true of many LEOs

Many of the California LEOs I encounter just don't know the law, expect you to not question them when they are wrong, and have a really bad attitude about law abiding citizens who legally own and transport guns.

At least, that's been my experience (in big-city areas of California; I have no experience with the more rural LEO types, so they might be more well-informed, or nicer, or both).

The cop working the recent gun show didn't know that gun show attendees couldn't have both a gun and the ammo that fits it while strolling the aisles (PC 12071.4(g))... and insisted that gun and ammo must be transported separately in the car!

Ugh. When I disagreed with him on both counts, he ominously said "remember who puts on the handcuffs." I guess that makes him both a sore loser (he was wrong about the law) and a big bully. His ppint is well-taken, though: they have all the power, and you have basically none, even when you are right, and following every law scrupulously.

If you hired an electrician who had this level of knowledge of the electrical code, it would be considered "criminal negligence". Yet, these bozos can just throw you in the cruiser and let you struggle through the legal exoneration process and they don't give a damn about your rights, inconvenience, or expense -- at least, this one cop said as much to me.

And this is how they treat law-abiding citizens!

[leelaw]

Concealed is concealed.

Just sayin...

Explain.

[Roadrunner]

You are operating from a faulty premise: that any gun control law is motivated by an actual desire to improve public safety.

That just isn't the case in California.

Politicians here don't care about public safety, in any micro-sense; they feel that their re-elections are better for the public good, so doing things that get them re-elected benefits public safety in the macro-sense.

They are Our Betters. They Know What's Good For Us. Bitter clingers need not speak up.

I don't for one moment think that any law that is passed or even contrived has anything to do with public safety, however, that's what will be put out for public consumption. That's what I would also expect to hear when someone challenges these laws. It kind of falls into that same pile of catchall phrases like, "for the children", "national security", and "officer safety". I guess I'm just wondering how far we will be able to go after incorporation happens. As I've said before, I don't think about carrying a firearm here, because there has never been an incident occur in my town since I've been here, that would cause me to be that vigilant. There is however, reason to be concerned when I visit friends and family in Urbania. The bottom line is, I want to be able to carry whatever the police carry so that I can protect myself from harm the same as they do. If I think I need a collapsible baton to defend myself, I should be able to carry it. If I think I need pepper spray to protect myself, then under the second amendment, that is my right. And that should go right up the ladder to whatever personal weapon I choose to defend myself with if necessary.

I have no doubt some dumbass will make some dumbass comment, saying that I'm advocating people having hand grenades or explosives that fall outside the realm of personal protection and into military hardware. I think I personally have an answer for them. I believe that our police, be they military or civil could be the template that defines what would be considered personal protection. For example, unless military police are conducting a military operation, by the way, this covers all branches or the military, they only carry a side arm, rifle, or shotgun. In fact, every military policeman I ever saw, had these basic personal arms. The same goes for civil police. They carry a side arm, rifle, and/or shotgun. Of course there are the other items that are dangling off of their belts, but I don't recall any cop of any kind carrying hand grenades or better.

I'm kind of digressing a bit, but I think this defines exactly how I view this issue. The important thing is, how I carry it should be no ones business under the second amendment.

[Mr.CRC]

Many of the California LEOs I encounter just don't know the law, expect you to not question them when they are wrong, and have a really bad attitude about law abiding citizens who legally own and transport guns.

At least, that's been my experience (in big-city areas of California; I have no experience with the more rural LEO types, so they might be more well-informed, or nicer, or both).

The cop working the recent gun show didn't know that gun show attendees couldn't have both a gun and the ammo that fits it while strolling the aisles (PC 12071.4(g))... and insisted that gun and ammo must be transported separately in the car!

Ugh. When I disagreed with him on both counts, he ominously said "remember who puts on the handcuffs." I guess that makes him both a sore loser (he was wrong about the law) and a big bully. His ppint is well-taken, though: they have all the power, and you have basically none, even when you are right, and following every law scrupulously.

If you hired an electrician who had this level of knowledge of the electrical code, it would be considered "criminal negligence". Yet, these bozos can just throw you in the cruiser and let you struggle through the legal exoneration process and they don't give a damn about your rights, inconvenience, or expense -- at least, this one cop said as much to me.

And this is how they treat law-abiding citizens!

There is no legal exoneration. Your arrest will go into a national database accessible to every potential employer forever, no matter the final disposition of your case. You can be blacklisted for life just because some government bully is incompetent and/or takes pleasure in ruining your life. Read this book by Dale C. Carson:

http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377/ref=pd_sim_b_4

[Roadrunner]

Many of the California LEOs I encounter just don't know the law, expect you to not question them when they are wrong, and have a really bad attitude about law abiding citizens who legally own and transport guns.

At least, that's been my experience (in big-city areas of California; I have no experience with the more rural LEO types, so they might be more well-informed, or nicer, or both).

The cop working the recent gun show didn't know that gun show attendees couldn't have both a gun and the ammo that fits it while strolling the aisles (PC 12071.4(g))... and insisted that gun and ammo must be transported separately in the car!

Ugh. When I disagreed with him on both counts, he ominously said "remember who puts on the handcuffs." I guess that makes him both a sore loser (he was wrong about the law) and a big bully. His ppint is well-taken, though: they have all the power, and you have basically none, even when you are right, and following every law scrupulously.

If you hired an electrician who had this level of knowledge of the electrical code, it would be considered "criminal negligence". Yet, these bozos can just throw you in the cruiser and let you struggle through the legal exoneration process and they don't give a damn about your rights, inconvenience, or expense -- at least, this one cop said as much to me.

And this is how they treat law-abiding citizens!

Yes, I know, there are some bozo's with badges that are trying to get back at someone because they got picked on in elementary school. Everyone has at least one of those. Ultimately, police departments will have to send their cops through some remedial training to get deprogrammed to avoid civil rights suits.

[radioman]

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

[yellowfin]

Matters such as this are why I'm equally as much if not more so of a fan of gun rights being a means of beating the government back into its cage as I am for personal protection, equal rights, and American heritage.