Open carrier killed with own gun

[dirtykoala]

Really? You think that people living here who have not yet become citizens should be left unable to defend themselves? Do you feel they can also be denied the rest of their civil rights? You know, a fair trial, protection against unwarranted search and seizure, due process, etc?

I'm unsure about my thoughts on immigration laws and rights right now. The right to bear arms is protected by the constitution which is supposed to apply to American citizens though, and that's what I'm currently going off of.

But honestly, it doesn't matter right now anyway, citizen or not you can be killed without trial, held indefinitely , and have your gun rights taken away.

[CitaDeL]

No, heres now carrying a gun is supposed to work, and theres a few steps here, so pay attention.


1- Become an American citizen
2- Buy a gun
3- Do what you want with that gun as long as you dont infringe on the life or liberty of someone else.




Apparently, the guy in question did something stupid with his gun, and he got killed. Not a good story, but thats how freedom works.

Really? You think that people living here who have not yet become citizens should be left unable to defend themselves? Do you feel they can also be denied the rest of their civil rights? You know, a fair trial, protection against unwarranted search and seizure, due process, etc?

I'm unsure about my thoughts on immigration laws and rights right now. The right to bear arms is protected by the constitution which is supposed to apply to American citizens though, and that's what I'm currently going off of.

But honestly, it doesn't matter right now anyway, citizen or not you can be killed without trial, held indefinitely , and have your gun rights taken away.

No where in the 2nd amendment is there a distinction between citizen, non-citizen, legal resident alien, or illegal alien. These rights are assumed to apply to everyone equally... in spite of the best efforts of our legislature and issuing authorities to qualify people for keeping and bearing arms with illegal and immoral restrictions.

[Doheny]

Just out of curiosity, how do you know?

Spotting a hidden handgun.

[jl123]

I'm unsure about my thoughts on immigration laws and rights right now. The right to bear arms is protected by the constitution which is supposed to apply to American citizens though, and that's what I'm currently going off of.

But honestly, it doesn't matter right now anyway, citizen or not you can be killed without trial, held indefinitely , and have your gun rights taken away.

I don't think citizenship is a requirement in the Constitution for right to apply to a person.

[dantodd]

Spotting a hidden handgun.

I understand that. My point was that unless you stop everyone about whom you make a "guess" you don't know how accurate you are making assertions as to accuracy meaningless.

[Monticore]

So what about the people who don't "voluntarily" participate in this certification? Could I still exercise my rights without proving that I'm capable do doing so responsibly?

Very good question.
The first question that popped in my head was to remember if I was thinking about nationally or just in CA. My statement was more based on today's political climate here in Santa Clara County.
May issue to big spenders.
Won't issue to John Q Public.

I guess the Sheriff would rather be able to arrest people for carrying illegally.
For the most part, people are going to carry regardless. Criminals do it because they don't care and have bigger threats, like maybe rivals, to worry about than a chance encounter with a cop. People like me may do it because since we know we will be denied we'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. When you weigh the double misdemeanor over great bodily injury or death, depending on the situation in front of you it may be a tough decision or a no-brainer.

I'm saying, why wouldn't the State want to know who all is or may be carrying? Cops already assume we are, and rightfully so for their safety. I give a little leeway to cops on the street as I have an idea how tough the job is and am not sure I could do it. If they skirt that line or just pass over it with me I will be ok with it. It's not a popular sentiment on CalGuns, but I'm just being honest.
I may be off here but think of some of the stats that could come from this for the Sheriffs.
Let's say they open up Santa Clara County to shall issue.
The current rules that I believe are not in question (felons, 5150's, domestic violence) are still in place to weed out some bad moral character.
For those that apply:
demographics:
age 18 to 25ish- at this age I felt invincible, what prompted them to apply
25 to 40- is this a sign of a bad neighborhood? more patrols, outreach?

sex-
are any females applying? where do they live? where do the go that they feel they are this unsafe?

The list can go on if you look for it.
It's a pipe dream to ever think the anti's could be reasoned with, but my naive hope is that a happy in-between could be found to keep us from deciding between riding dirty or staying hidden away in our homes.

More ramblings, I suppose.
Zac

[Monticore]

I understand that. My point was that unless you stop everyone about whom you make a "guess" you don't know how accurate you are making assertions as to accuracy meaningless.

Lots of false positives too.
I always carry a holstered flashlight on my left hip.
I'm constantly fixing my shirts and jackets over it.

I even do this when I have my phone on my belt.

[rugershooter]

Very good question.
The first question that popped in my head was to remember if I was thinking about nationally or just in CA. My statement was more based on today's political climate here in Santa Clara County.
May issue to big spenders.
Won't issue to John Q Public.

I guess the Sheriff would rather be able to arrest people for carrying illegally.
For the most part, people are going to carry regardless. Criminals do it because they don't care and have bigger threats, like maybe rivals, to worry about than a chance encounter with a cop. People like me may do it because since we know we will be denied we'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. When you weigh the double misdemeanor over great bodily injury or death, depending on the situation in front of you it may be a tough decision or a no-brainer.

I'm saying, why wouldn't the State want to know who all is or may be carrying? Cops already assume we are, and rightfully so for their safety. I give a little leeway to cops on the street as I have an idea how tough the job is and am not sure I could do it. If they skirt that line or just pass over it with me I will be ok with it. It's not a popular sentiment on CalGuns, but I'm just being honest.
I may be off here but think of some of the stats that could come from this for the Sheriffs.
Let's say they open up Santa Clara County to shall issue.
The current rules that I believe are not in question (felons, 5150's, domestic violence) are still in place to weed out some bad moral character.
For those that apply:
demographics:
age 18 to 25ish- at this age I felt invincible, what prompted them to apply
25 to 40- is this a sign of a bad neighborhood? more patrols, outreach?

sex-
are any females applying? where do they live? where do the go that they feel they are this unsafe?

The list can go on if you look for it.
It's a pipe dream to ever think the anti's could be reasoned with, but my naive hope is that a happy in-between could be found to keep us from deciding between riding dirty or staying hidden away in our homes.

More ramblings, I suppose.
Zac

Why would they need to know. It's none of their business. Establishing databases tied to guns/ gun ownership is a failure for protecting our rights. An LTC is a gov't permission slip to exercise a natural right I have simply because I'm human.

[Monticore]

Why would they need to know. It's none of their business. Establishing databases tied to guns/ gun ownership is a failure for protecting our rights. An LTC is a gov't permission slip to exercise a natural right I have simply because I'm human.

I like your point of view that it is a natural right.
California does not. Lots of voters do not.

Convincing my anti-by-ignorance mother in law that her grand daughter is actually safer by me being a gun owner is one thing. Getting her to vote pro 2A is vastly different. Seeing her reactions and hearing her thoughts opens up a different perspective. The argument that it's a natural right does not fly for the people that are anti-by-ignorance. They get their news from the anti media. They see that if guns were gone that lives would be saved. Waving the Constitution and pro gun statistics in their face does not work. The liberal media already has them. We have no way of influencing their voting habits as a whole. Onesy twosy, sure.

Maybe I'm just trying to look for that happy in-between too soon.
The judicial wheels are turning. The New Promethean Initiative is a year or so away. I can (hopefully) survive until some more dust has settled.

[advocatusdiaboli]

This whole thread seems to me to have been started by an anti who wanted to imply, as deliberate misdirection, that the victim's open carry was a major factor in his demise. It's doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I am moving on without further comment on this travesty dragging a poor dead victims misfortune through the mud for an anti cause.