California to be split into Northern/Southern? Good or Bad for gun rights/owners?

[stom_m3]

There's talk about trying to split up California into Northern/Southern. Would this be good, bad or indifferent to gun owners in either region? My initial thought is between the wackiness of LA and SF nothing would change.

http://news.yahoo.com/51st-state-small-step-forward-long-shot-south-233234624.html

[Lone_Gunman]

They're never going to get such a proposal to happen anyway. If they were serious they would try to split it into CA and West CA, West being everything from SF to LA on the coast.

[Bhobbs]

It would be good if one state had all the liberal population centers and the other didn't. It's the population centers that elect progressive nanny state liberals which push for gun control.

[dustoff31]

According to the article, LA County would not be included in the new State of S. Cal. That being the case, I believe things wound improve in S. Cal for gunowners.

That said, splitting up the state ain't gonna happen.

[Vacaville]

I've thought the same thing. It wouldn't go well for those of us left up north. It would be liberal, anti-gun, hippie-dippie land. I also don't think it would go well for the south as far as water is concerned.

The correct way to split the state would be to separate everything from the coastal range westward, all the way from Eureka to San Diego. They could call it Coastal California.

[vanmanstemig]

If the line were put on the grapevine then bad for socal good for norcal. personally I would draw line around bay area then down highway 5 and join it with socal.

[Rock6.3]

This concept is dead. It has been proposed many times over the years (with differing boundaries) and has failed every time. Adding two more seats in the Senate would potentially shift the balance of power and the majority party is always opposed to the concept (regardless of their party).

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Funny I was just talking about this with a buddy the other day; our consensus was instead of splitting into just two states, a better way might be a four way split: The State of Northern California (everything north of Marin and East to the state line), The State of San Francisco (the Bay Area perhaps stretching east to Sacramento and Stockton and as far south as Monterey) The State of Central Coast California (say, everything south of Monterey all the way down to maybe Santa Barbara or a little south of that, stretching east to the state line) and of course The Great State of Los Angeles/ Imperial Valley ( everything south of Los Angeles over to the state line).

North/South is easy, but I think those geographic areas are more in line with the cultures of the individual areas; you have to admit that far Northern Cali and the Bay Area are light years apart in most things political, societal and cultural. The same thing with the Central Valley and LA.

I can see an alliance between the urban coastal states and maybe even a merger of the central valley and far north; they seem more rural/agricultural and would probably be a good fit.

Just blue skying here.