Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: The 'SCHOOL' loophole

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Hello folks, I am a self-employed man, age 50, who lives in southern California. I am the owner and sole proprietor of a specialized towing company. I am a conservative, a gun owner, and a life member of the NRA.

    The scope of my work requires that I respond to random and often remote locations at all hours of the day and night including weekends and holidays, and I always respond ALONE. Each call could potentially be a setup for an ambush by thugs who may want the cash I carry (sometimes as much as $5,000.00 for paying impound fees to spring my customer's vehicles from other tow yards or police impounds, etc.), the computer, navigation, photographic and communication equipment onboard, the expensive hydraulic and electrical systems installed, or the unit itself for the drivetrain and other costly parts, not to mention the fact that I usually arrive at the location with a fuel tank that is FULL or nearly full.

    My unit is capable of moving up to five of these vehicles simultaneously. When I am rolling down the road transporting one of my customer's mega-thousand dollar custom vehicles, with my telephone number prominently displayed on my vehicle, I often receive an "emergency roadside service call" which diverts me from my intended destination in order to handle the emergency. Sometimes the diverted destination is convenient. Sometimes it seems it is TOO convenient.

    Thugs can call me from a vehicle which is following me, or has passed me, to request that I drive directly to a remote location of their choosing, feigning some urgent need for a tire change or a jump start, etc. In these situations, I cannot drop off my current cargo before responding to the new call, so I arrive with whatver is on my unit at the time. On occasion I have repsonded to this type of call while I already have $100,000.00 worth of private vehicles on my unit.

    I am not stupid, so when I am called to a remote spot in this situation, I am very careful to circle the area first, to look for people and vehicles lying in wait or other threats that would dictate abandonment of the call. I am not "Rambo" and I have no desire to enter into a confrontation where I am outnumbered and at a disadvantage. I have no desire to enter into a "shootout" over replaceable property, but I also have no desire to be found lying behind some warehouse with an axe in my forehead. For this reason, I would prefer to have the unrestricted RIGHT to carry a loaded firearm for my own defense.

    In California, there are so many unnecessarily and ridiculously restrictive "feel good" rules created by the liberals. One of them concerns the posession or transport of a firearm near a "school" as if an honest citizen, simply by walking past a school with a firearm on his belt will draw his weapon and begin blasting away innocent children. Liberals see the gun as having a mind of its own, so even the "nice guys" with guns will be powerless to avoid a massacre when they are near a "school" with a gun.

    I see this as a VERY dangerous law which must be struck down at any cost. California is working tirelessly to "build new schools" and "reduce class sizes" ... It would seem that they are striving for a better education for our children, but the dark and evil truth of the matter is, wherever there is a "school," you cannot carry a gun.

    What defines a "school?" Certainly the big schools are clear enough, but California liberals also call large day care centers "schools", as well as home-based day care centers, and even the Driving "schools" where you go to listen to someone remind you to stop at a red light are "schools" according to the gun-grabbing liberals.

    The 1,000-foot restriction on gun carry and posession could conceiveably make entire cities "gun-free zones" as liberals expand the definition of "schools" to include children who are "home-schooled" so all that is necessary in California to ban guns is to call SOME place every 2000 yards apart a "school."

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    gravedigger wrote:
    Hello folks, I am a self-employed man, age 50, who lives in southern California. I am the owner and sole proprietor of a specialized towing company. I am a conservative, a gun owner, and a life member of the NRA.

    The scope of my work requires that I respond to random and often remote locations at all hours of the day and night including weekends and holidays, and I always respond ALONE. Each call could potentially be a setup for an ambush by thugs who may want the cash I carry (sometimes as much as $5,000.00 for paying impound fees to spring my customer's vehicles from other tow yards or police impounds, etc.), the computer, navigation, photographic and communication equipment onboard, the expensive hydraulic and electrical systems installed, or the unit itself for the drivetrain and other costly parts, not to mention the fact that I usually arrive at the location with a fuel tank that is FULL or nearly full.

    My unit is capable of moving up to five of these vehicles simultaneously. When I am rolling down the road transporting one of my customer's mega-thousand dollar custom vehicles, with my telephone number prominently displayed on my vehicle, I often receive an "emergency roadside service call" which diverts me from my intended destination in order to handle the emergency. Sometimes the diverted destination is convenient. Sometimes it seems it is TOO convenient.

    Thugs can call me from a vehicle which is following me, or has passed me, to request that I drive directly to a remote location of their choosing, feigning some urgent need for a tire change or a jump start, etc. In these situations, I cannot drop off my current cargo before responding to the new call, so I arrive with whatver is on my unit at the time. On occasion I have repsonded to this type of call while I already have $100,000.00 worth of private vehicles on my unit.

    I am not stupid, so when I am called to a remote spot in this situation, I am very careful to circle the area first, to look for people and vehicles lying in wait or other threats that would dictate abandonment of the call. I am not "Rambo" and I have no desire to enter into a confrontation where I am outnumbered and at a disadvantage. I have no desire to enter into a "shootout" over replaceable property, but I also have no desire to be found lying behind some warehouse with an axe in my forehead. For this reason, I would prefer to have the unrestricted RIGHT to carry a loaded firearm for my own defense.

    In California, there are so many unnecessarily and ridiculously restrictive "feel good" rules created by the liberals. One of them concerns the posession or transport of a firearm near a "school" as if an honest citizen, simply by walking past a school with a firearm on his belt will draw his weapon and begin blasting away innocent children. Liberals see the gun as having a mind of its own, so even the "nice guys" with guns will be powerless to avoid a massacre when they are near a "school" with a gun.

    I see this as a VERY dangerous law which must be struck down at any cost. California is working tirelessly to "build new schools" and "reduce class sizes" ... It would seem that they are striving for a better education for our children, but the dark and evil truth of the matter is, wherever there is a "school," you cannot carry a gun.

    What defines a "school?" Certainly the big schools are clear enough, but California liberals also call large day care centers "schools", as well as home-based day care centers, and even the Driving "schools" where you go to listen to someone remind you to stop at a red light are "schools" according to the gun-grabbing liberals.

    The 1,000-foot restriction on gun carry and posession could conceiveably make entire cities "gun-free zones" as liberals expand the definition of "schools" to include children who are "home-schooled" so all that is necessary in California to ban guns is to call SOME place every 2000 yards apart a "school."
    Welcome to the site!
    I understand your issue, but I do wish to point out.

    1000ft restriction is ONLY for K-12 schools. This PC 626.9 specifically states "Knowledge or reasonable knowledge is within 1000 feet". This indicates that you the schools need to be obvious in their presence and that you need to know the approximate distance of said schools. You have no reasonable knowledge that schooling is being done in the home. Thus homeschools can not be considered to be reasonably known.

    I am considering homeschooling my daughter. . does that mean that I can no longer have guns in my home? Oh hell no! And courts save the person that comes to take them.

  3. #3
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Welcome GD!

    Read PC 626.9 - there is an exemption for unloaded in a locked container (not a glove or utility box of an auto)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Hi, and thank you!

    Well, here in CommieFornia, ther are many schools built right along major thoroughfares, meaning that it would be nearly impossible to drive directly through town (or walk, or bicycle, etc.) without coming within 1,000 feet of a known K-12 school.

    Remember that they don't have to build a school EVERY 1,000 feet. If they have a school on every major North-South street, and every major East-West street, it would be possible to severely restrict or even prohibit transport of a weapon across town, because no matter which road you take, you'll be passing near a "school" before long.

    To ILLUSTRATE my point and hopefully sound an alarm or two,
    I chose a location at random, a point near the center of Carlsbad, CommieFornia. I selected a radius of THREE MILES from that point, and then marked a 1,000 foot radius circle around the CENTER OF every "school" that would qualify as a zone where the transport of guns would be illegal. Remember that you must be 1,000 feet from the edge of the property, which means that the larger schools would have larger circles if everything was drawn to scale.

    The schools makred on this map are only REAL schools that are obvious to the casual observer, and it would be difficult to NOT know they are there. If you study the map carefully, you will discover that there are NO streets that allow passage between the circles on this map.

    Now, would someone please tell me how the HELL I can legally transport a gun through Carlsbad?

    This is only ONE city of many, and the dark, insidious plot by the liberals to "allow" us to carry guns, as long as we aren't within "1,000 feet of a K-12 school."

    Wouldn't it be interesting to map out YOUR town, and see where you stand?

    You have been warned!

    UPDATE: The drawn circles are approximately double the actual diameter of a 1,000 foot radius circle. My mapping tool was set incorrectly, but you still get my point!



  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    This is exactly why I don't recommend you Google looking for schools! If you go on Google and seek out maps you are informing yourself and thus have knowledge!!

    I can and do avoid routes I know to have a school. I will continue to take alternate routes. Sometimes those alternates I have discovered schools, but in just about every case of using an alternate side streat with a school, it is so well discquised that you don't know until you are already illegal.

    And lets be frank. Once I unwittingly wander into a zone I can't pull over and put the gun in a safe. . that is asking for trouble. But I can attempt to get out of the zone as fast as legally possible.

    And I will make a note not to take that route again. I had no knowledge, gained it, and will obey the law and not travel again.

    But you are right, this 1K foot law is the only real law that makes OC impracticle for many in California.

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    (b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person
    knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in
    paragraph (1) of subdivision (e)
    ,

    Not only does one have to know that they are near a school but they have to know it is a zone as defined as in "para (1) subdivision (3)".

    This is an element of the crime which the prosecution needs to prove. Don't ever give them that proof(by posting here you are:P). I'm not saying to toy with an arrest for this section but being or crossing through the zones is not a crime without knowledge of the definition of this section AND knowing exactly where 1000' extends to.

    Even in the area I patrol daily, I'd be hard pressed to know where the zones are without a measuring device or obviously being withing sight of a school.

    Be aware that a good winning defense against a felony can easily cost 10s of thousands.

    http://law.justia.com/california/cod...26-626.11.html



    626.9. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the
    Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
    (b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person
    knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in
    paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), ...

    unless it is with the written
    permission of the school district superintendent, his or her
    designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as
    specified in subdivision (f).
    (c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
    under any of the following circumstances:
    (1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
    property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
    property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
    firearm is otherwise lawful.
    (2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other
    firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked
    container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
    This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
    transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
    or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
    accordance with state law.
    (3) When the person possessing the firearm reasonably believes
    that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming
    the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against
    another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat
    to his or her life or safety. This subdivision may not apply when
    the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant
    to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code
    absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or
    safety. Upon a trial for violating subdivision (b), the trier of a
    fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a
    reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.
    (4) When the person is exempt from the prohibition against
    carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to subdivision (b), (d), (e),
    or (h) of Section 12027.
    (d) Except as provided in subdivision (b), it shall be unlawful
    for any person, with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to
    discharge, or attempt to discharge, a firearm in a school zone, as
    defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e).
    The prohibition contained in this subdivision does not apply to
    the discharge of a firearm to the extent that the conditions of
    paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) are satisfied.
    (e) As used in this section, the following definitions shall
    apply:
    (1) "School zone" means an area in, or on the grounds of, a public
    or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1
    to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the
    grounds of the public or private school.
    (2) "Firearm" has the same meaning as that term is given in
    Section 12001.
    (3) "Locked container" has the same meaning as that term is given
    in subdivision (c) of Section 12026.1.
    (4) "Concealed firearm" has the same meaning as that term is given
    in Sections 12025 and 12026.1.



    [Colleges]

    (h) Notwithstanding Section 12026, any person who brings or
    possesses a loaded firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or
    buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research,
    or administration by, a public or private university or college, that
    are contiguous or are clearly marked university property, unless it
    is with the written permission of the university or college
    president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college
    authority, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
    two, three, or four years. Notwithstanding subdivision (k), a
    university or college shall post a prominent notice at primary
    entrances on noncontiguous property stating that firearms are
    prohibited on that property pursuant to this subdivision...(exemptions follow)



  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I don't consider my actions or posts as giving them proof. I am even in the posts admitting that I have no knowledge until there is no legal action I can take to avoid such a zone, and after the fact.

    Lets say for example. . There is a school here in Alhambra. (I am aware of the school, but someone that isn't from the area will readibly know there to be a school).

    It is located on Alhambra Road and between Atlantic and Garfield. Not on either Atlantic or Garfield that indicates the presence of a school. Nothing! It is a non-discript building that could be a medica suite for all anyone knows. That being the case they don't know and turn left from Garfield to Alhambra Road. They don't know, but before they even turned on the road they were in the zone.

    They continue to drive and then suddenly realize, "This is a school!!" Oh my God! I just broke the law! But damage done. There is now no legal way to stop commiting the crime but to exit the zone in the fastest way available.

    So here is the argument. Knowledge wasn't gained until they were already in the zone and could no longer avoid it. Did they break the law when they entered the zone, or ONLY when they became aware that the school was a school? And further, since the zone was not clearly indicated or marked and thus could not be avoided by a reasonable person in the same situation, can they use this as a viable legal argument?

    I believe the anser is yes. (But remember people, I am not a lawyer and am often refered to as an idiot, so don't take my suggestion as a legally viable defense unless you consult with a lawyer!)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Here in The Peoples Republic of CommieFornia, you are presumed to "know" you are in a school zone when you walk or drive past a sign that reads "School Zone". In the same way you cannot say you didn't know the speed limit when it is posted, you cannot claim to not know about being in a school zone when there are signs everywhere warning you that you are entering one.

    If it is an issue, I think the Gu'Mint should paint the curbs a special color to indicate that you are in a school zone. Maybe a six-inch schoolbus yellow patch every three feet or so along the curbs, and even down the middle of traffic lanes? What about something across sidewalks to indicate that you ahve entered a school zone? This would be great for convicting violations of parole requirements that child molesters stay out of school zones.

    As long as the Gu'Mint is going to cling to these ridiculous anti-American socialist anti-gun regulations that fly in the face of the HELLER decision, I think the burden should be upon THEM to clearly and unambiguously show us where we can, and where we CAN'T carry. It is an unreasonable burden upon the average honest gun owning citizen to ask him or her to know every little quirk in the country's layout.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    gravedigger wrote:
    Here in The Peoples Republic of CommieFornia, you are presumed to "know" you are in a school zone when you walk or drive past a sign that reads "School Zone". In the same way you cannot say you didn't know the speed limit when it is posted, you cannot claim to not know about being in a school zone when there are signs everywhere warning you that you are entering one.
    This would be true if such signs existed. The only thing I've ever seen are those "when children are present" speed limit signs. These are usually no more than 50-100' from the school grounds, which is obviously insufficient to notice from 1000' away.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    gravedigger wrote:
    Here in The Peoples Republic of CommieFornia, you are presumed to "know" you are in a school zone when you walk or drive past a sign that reads "School Zone". In the same way you cannot say you didn't know the speed limit when it is posted, you cannot claim to not know about being in a school zone when there are signs everywhere warning you that you are entering one.

    If it is an issue, I think the Gu'Mint should paint the curbs a special color to indicate that you are in a school zone. Maybe a six-inch schoolbus yellow patch every three feet or so along the curbs, and even down the middle of traffic lanes? What about something across sidewalks to indicate that you ahve entered a school zone? This would be great for convicting violations of parole requirements that child molesters stay out of school zones.

    As long as the Gu'Mint is going to cling to these ridiculous anti-American socialist anti-gun regulations that fly in the face of the HELLER decision, I think the burden should be upon THEM to clearly and unambiguously show us where we can, and where we CAN'T carry. It is an unreasonable burden upon the average honest gun owning citizen to ask him or her to know every little quirk in the country's layout.
    Yes, here in PRCA there are no "School Zone" signs like I temember being in VA.

    As the wording "knowledge or reasonable knowledge" is in the PC, I still believe that the purpose of the law is to convict someone who enters the zone knowingly and with the intent to do so.

    I believe that this is nothign more than to provide the govt. with the ability to charge an otherwise uncargeable or unconvictable person with something if they need leverage, or someone that was believed to intend to carry out an illegal act on a school campus that they could then get them and charge them prior to any such illegal action taking place in a manner that would keep them from coming back in 6 months.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I'm a liberal, I live in Santa Monica. Don't shoot me :P haha seriously though Just thought I'd mention I'm a liberal so maybe you won't think they're all anti-gun. I am all for gun rights. I am considering open carry, and probably will at least so I can carry a gun to a shooting range on my motorcycle.

    Anyway as I understand it if your transporting a gun in a car you can put it in a locked box and your no longer open carrying it so you can drive past as many schools as you want. Your just not allowed to open carry near a school etc.

    Though this will be a problem if I'm riding the motorcycle with a side arm on my belt..

    I wish the law was different, I didn't vote for it and if I could vote for getting rid of it I would.

    In my mind liberal does not equal democrate and vice versa. In my mind liberal means liberal - for people's rights, gun rights, abortion rights, gay rights, free speech rights. I know a lot of liberal democrats have associated liberal with being anti-gun but that's not what the word really means. Don't let those politions change the meaning of our words, think of democrats as anti-gun if you will but not liberals

    I just wish we could use these words correctly sometimes. Sorry if I ranted


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Clovis California, , USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    What I wish is that people would STOP putting themselves in a "Category". Democrat, republican or liberal does not explain EVERYONE who claims to be in any of these categories. Those are just assumptions.

    There is a topic on oc'ing on a motorcycle in this cali section so check that one out because people schooled me a bit on what should, could and would be legal and so forth. All I offered was a few oc'ing pics lol....

    great to have you , you liberal you lol :celebrate

    Gluge wrote:
    I'm a liberal, I live in Santa Monica. Don't shoot me :P haha seriously though Just thought I'd mention I'm a liberal so maybe you won't think they're all anti-gun. I am all for gun rights. I am considering open carry, and probably will at least so I can carry a gun to a shooting range on my motorcycle.

    Anyway as I understand it if your transporting a gun in a car you can put it in a locked box and your no longer open carrying it so you can drive past as many schools as you want. Your just not allowed to open carry near a school etc.

    Though this will be a problem if I'm riding the motorcycle with a side arm on my belt..

    I wish the law was different, I didn't vote for it and if I could vote for getting rid of it I would.

    In my mind liberal does not equal democrate and vice versa. In my mind liberal means liberal - for people's rights, gun rights, abortion rights, gay rights, free speech rights. I know a lot of liberal democrats have associated liberal with being anti-gun but that's not what the word really means. Don't let those politions change the meaning of our words, think of democrats as anti-gun if you will but not liberals

    I just wish we could use these words correctly sometimes. Sorry if I ranted

  13. #13
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Gluge wrote:
    I'm a liberal, I live in Santa Monica.
    Welcome!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Gluge wrote:


    I'm a liberal, I live in Santa Monica. Don't shoot me :P haha seriously though Just thought I'd mention I'm a liberal so maybe you won't think they're all anti-gun. I am all for gun rights.

    Then you are NOT a liberal, and any liberal would TELL YOU that you are not a liberal. Why do you call yourself a liberal, when you refuse to accept their agenda unquestioned?

    Anyway as I understand it if your transporting a gun in a car you can put it in a locked box and your no longer open carrying it so you can drive past as many schools as you want. Your just not allowed to open carry near a school etc.

    So if a creep wanted to attack, rape and murder your daughter, even if he KNOWS she is carrying a gun, all he has to do is wait for her to come to a stop light in a "school zone" on her way home from work, where he has been assured by the liberals that her gun is safely locked away in the trunk where it is not readily available and can do the attacker no harm. And this makes sense to you?

    I wish the law was different, I didn't vote for it and if I could vote for getting rid of it I would.

    You are not a liberal. Please go directly to your registrar of voters and change your party affiliation to any conservative flavor of your choosing.

    In my mind liberal does not equal democrate and vice versa. In my mind liberal means liberal - for people's rights, gun rights, abortion rights, gay rights, free speech rights.

    That would make you a LIBERTARIAN, not a liberal.

    I know a lot of liberal democrats have associated liberal with being anti-gun but that's not what the word really means. Don't let those politions change the meaning of our words, think of democrats as anti-gun if you will but not liberals

    Will someone please get this guy straightened out? It is the LIBERALS (read: anti-American gun-grabbing leftist Marxists, Socialists and Communists) who are the gun grabbers.

    I just wish we could use these words correctly sometimes. Sorry if I ranted

    Sorry friend, but it is YOU who is confused about the word "liberal." The socialist European liberals came over here in the early 60's. They couldn't form their own Anti-American Godless Depressing Socialist political party, so they hijacked the democratic party by telling them that if they just left it in the hands of the liberals, the "democrats" would gain power and recapture the White House, the House and Senate, and so forth.

    The socialists brought over the drugs and the free sex, and the resulting diseases, single parenthood, abortion, welfare and every other insideous thing they could belch up, and they used the Viet Nam situation to build their army draft-dodging pothead protesters who for the very first time in American history, SPIT IN THE FACES of returning veterans! THAT is liberalism!

    The democrats were LOSING elections, so they tucked their tails between their legs and handed over their party's control to the leftist socialists who have been operating under the "democrat" party label. Liberals KNOW that any good American, conservative OR democrat, would never vote a socialist into office, but since these liberals CALL THEMSELVES "democrats", the democrats blindly vote for them because it feels so good to be loyal to the party.

    The democrats haven't put up a candidate since 1964. They had a chance to hold their heads high again with Joe Lieberman, but the LIBERALS threw him to the wolves over a single issue about guns, gave him a swift kick in the rear and told him to hit the road, since he strayed from the liberal agenda on ONE ISSUE.

    In 2008, the Republicans will put up McCain, the liberals will put up Obama,and the democrats will put up NO ONE.

    In 2004, the Republicans put up Bush, the liberals put up Kerry,and the democrats put up NO ONE.

    In 2000 the republicans put up Bush, the liberals put up GORE and the democrats put up NO ONE.

    In 1996, the republicans put up Dole, the liberals put up Clinton and the democrats put up NO ONE.

    In 1992, the republicans put up GHW Bush, the democrats put up Clinton, the independents put up Perot (splitting the conservative vote) and the democrats put up NO ONE.

    In 1988, the republicans put up GHW Bush, the liberals put up Dukakis and the democrats put up NO ONE.

    In 1984, the republicans put up Reagan, the liberals put up Mondale and the democrats put up NO ONE.

    In 1980, the republicans put up Reagan, the liberals put up Carter and the democrats put up NO ONE.

    In 1976, the republicans put up Ford, the liberals put up Carter and the democrats put up NO ONE.

    In 1972, the republicans put up Nixon, the liberals put up McGovern and the democrats put up NO ONE.

    In 1968, the republicans put up Nixon, the liberals put up Humphrey, the independents put up Wallace and the democrats put up NO ONE.

    In 1964, the republicans put up Goldwater, and the democrats put up Johnson.

    When Johnson left office, and Nixon was elected, the defeated democrats bought the whole bill of goods from the liberals who stepped in with their empty promises, and the rest is history.

    I wait not so patiently for the day when the American DEMOCRATS tell the leftist liberals to go to Hell, regain control over their party and tell the socialist libs to go form their own party! Of course, that will never happen, because the democrats have now come through three generations of liberalism, and they have forgotten how to think for themselves, and they have forgotten that way back in 1963, the idea of adopting the socialist agenda and mentality would have made any patriotic American DEMOCRAT puke!












  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    gravedigger wrote:
    Gluge wrote:


    I'm a liberal, I live in Santa Monica. Don't shoot me :P haha seriously though Just thought I'd mention I'm a liberal so maybe you won't think they're all anti-gun. I am all for gun rights.

    Then you are NOT a liberal, and any liberal would TELL YOU that you are not a liberal. Why do you call yourself a liberal, when you refuse to accept their agenda unquestioned?

    Anyway as I understand it if your transporting a gun in a car you can put it in a locked box and your no longer open carrying it so you can drive past as many schools as you want. Your just not allowed to open carry near a school etc.

    So if a creep wanted to attack, rape and murder your daughter, even if he KNOWS she is carrying a gun, all he has to do is wait for her to come to a stop light in a "school zone" on her way home from work, where he has been assured by the liberals that her gun is safely locked away in the trunk where it is not readily available and can do the attacker no harm. And this makes sense to you?

    I wish the law was different, I didn't vote for it and if I could vote for getting rid of it I would.

    You are not a liberal. Please go directly to your registrar of voters and change your party affiliation to any conservative flavor of your choosing.

    In my mind liberal does not equal democrate and vice versa. In my mind liberal means liberal - for people's rights, gun rights, abortion rights, gay rights, free speech rights.

    That would make you a LIBERTARIAN, not a liberal.

    I know a lot of liberal democrats have associated liberal with being anti-gun but that's not what the word really means. Don't let those politions change the meaning of our words, think of democrats as anti-gun if you will but not liberals

    Will someone please get this guy straightened out? It is the LIBERALS (read: anti-American gun-grabbing leftist Marxists, Socialists and Communists) who are the gun grabbers.


    That's quite a reply! At least we're just arguing wording here it seems. However on that wording I'm still going to have to disagree. Maybe that's what liberal has come to mean to you, but I believe history disagrees with you. Liberal has historicaly refered to an ideology. Maybe it's changing, but I refuse to think it's lost that meaning completely.

    Here's the dictionary definition for the way I ment it -
    "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."

    I do follow the libertarian party some and sometimes they're canidates appeal to me. I was sort of ruting for Ron Paul but he had some pretty extreme ideas and things I didn't agree with as well.

    I'll be voting for Obama, I know I'll probably get blasted for that. However there are a lot of other issues and freedoms besides gun control and I've got to balance them all. Sadly there are never any prefect canidates for me.


    I wonder though, with your definition of the word, would you consider Jefferson a liberal? I believe he's considered one.

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Gluge wrote:
    That's quite a reply!
    You got that right. We're all on the same team here gravedigger. I'm fine with anybody here calling themselves whatever they want if they're supportive of open carrying and our rights. "Liberal" is just an imperfect word that some people use to describe themselves. Very few people 100% believe what their party or their candidate believes, much like very few people follow every rule in the Bible, or the Quran, or whathaveyou, but people still call themselves Christians or Muslims.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    Please, please, please, look past the "I have a dream" stuff at the things that he has actually said he will do and think about whether they are effective and appropriate before you vote for Obama. And if you still decide to, next year when the gun bans start rolling remember it's your fault and I told you so.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    gravedigger,

    Can you disclose, at least in a PM, what county and/or city that you reside in? Reason being is that I might be able to get some information on the issuance policies of the place where you reside.

    -Lonnie

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    gravedigger,

    Can you disclose, at least in a PM, what county and/or city that you reside in? Reason being is that I might be able to get some information on the issuance policies of the place where you reside.

    -Lonnie
    What are "issuance policies?"

    I live in Vista, CA., USA, the hornet's nest of the "La Raza" movement, basically nothing more than the gang mentality trying to to force Americans to embrace the invasion of illegal Mexicans over our border. We were on the news some time ago, with hundreds of illegals facing off against riot-gear-clad police and the public who supported shutting down the border, along with a few jolly fellows who wanted all of the "latinos" to be rounded up and tossed over the border with a catapult.

    The "Minutemen" used to meet at a parking lot in town where they would put up plywood billboards and hand out flyers, etc., telling people of the troubles that come along with illegal immigration. On the other side of the parking lot, and sometimes right up close and personal, were a hoard of illegals, mostly gang bangers, telling US to get out of THEIR country! Cops circled like vultures and for the most part, this kept things from becoming violent, but if ever there was the ingredients for a full blown race riot, this was the place! Of course, our local Sherrif's deputies asked the MINUTEMEN to move along, because they were upsetting the "Latinos" and the officers knew that the minute men would comply with their request while the gang-banger Mexicans would only become more violent.

    Of course, the issue of our contry being infested with the sub-culture of Mexicans is another issue.

    So what about those "issuance policies?"

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    **Deleted response to off-topic discussion.**

    While I enjoy a lively debate, I think that the forum owners would prefer we keep to the topic of open carry.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Vista, CA, Police Department is contracted via the San Diego County Sheriff's office, which means that your sheriff has to cut you a CCW.

    By all means, apply.

    http://www.sdsheriff.net/mgt_serv/licensing/ccw.html

    Granted, they are not the best, but given the circumstances as you named, as a Tow Truck driver, I think there's a chance that you'll get a permit. Here's a few suggestions.

    1) Read the entirety of PC12050 backwards and forwards and actually understand the process.

    2) Send an email to the folks over at Californiaconcealedcarry.com once you understand the backwards and forwards. Now, I personally don't like Billy Jack, but I have to admit that he can "get things done" and can guide you through the process. Do not feck up your application, to use Billy Jacks words.

    http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/...php?cat=1#main

    When you do email "Team Billy Jack", I highly suggest leaving the political commentary out. It is unnecessary to the cause of getting you a license, and I'll get to the later point.

    3) Be prepared to deal with mixed company in the gun rights movement, especially on the west coast. Two of the most vocal gun rights activists on the west coast is a gay man and a transgendered woman respectively. That gay man is myself up here in Washington, and the transgendered woman lives down in Santa Clara County, California.

    This forum is for discussion of gun rights. The ranting and raving about "La Raza", "gay marriage" and other issues is completely off topic for this forum. Though unfortunately I feel like I have to defend myself, so yes, I'm breaking my own rule.

    In my travels and my hearings on discussions, heard the following statements among some in the gun rights community: "If it weren't for those @$#%^ing f$%^$ts (I'm intentionally censoring myself) in the urban areas of California all of these gun control laws would have never passed that made it so difficult to own guns here". I wish I was joking but unfortunately I'm not.

    Unfortunately in my experience much of the GLBT populace on the west coast continually vote for Democrats because Republicans essentially used them as their whipping boys for everything that is "wrong with America" with "gay baiting" tactics.

    If you want gun rights to survive in America, you need to do two things: Turn the Democratic party into a pro-gun party that is fully respectful of the Second Amendment (which, to be honest, the Republicans generally only pay lip service to), and take the gun ownership out of the realm of politics and use the courts to take gun control policy choices off of the table and make those choices unconstitutional.

    I'm a civil libertarian, I believe highly in personal civil liberties. I believe in the idea of equal protection of laws.

    You may think lowly of gay marriage, but you have to remember that when it's spoken of, it's talked about in a CIVIL, non-sectarian manner. The offer was made by the gay rights groups back in the 1990's to the "other side" to strike a deal, which is to get the government out of the marriage business and make all civil ceremonies "civil unions" for everyone. The other side instead took that as a sign of weakness and ramped up their effort to collect donations by using scare tactics members into believing that someone else's marriage will somehow destroy their own. They engaged in similar tactics, basically declaring the GLBT population Lebensunwertes Leben, or life unworthy of life. They engaged in tactics similar to Dr. Joseph Goebbels, denigrating gays in a similar fashion, saying that gays have short lifespans (35-40) among others with created statistics by Paul Cameron.

    Funny, the same kinds of shoddy statistics are used against gun owners and they are beyond shady.

    Unfortunately, too many gun owners are allied and of like mind with these kinds of groups, publicly so, and don't realize these groups would likely throw gun owners and gun rights under the bus if they feel it necessary to push their agenda to raise funds.

    /Rant off

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •