• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Perfect example of how GFSZs are garbage?

ACMeesot

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
24
Location
San Fernando Valley, California, USA
imported post

Came downstairs to find that my $400 bicycle was MIA. There's a highschool about two blocks east of me. I don't feel safe in my own apartment anymore. Is this a great example of how silly the GFSZ code can be? Am I stuck having to settle for this lil thing?

DSC01488.jpg
 

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
328
Location
Sacramento, California, USA
imported post

My opinion on this is that one should not associate the theft of property with self defense of person. The authorities see it as quite a leap in terms of justification, and it fits no real 2nd amendment purpose either.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

ACMeesot wrote:
Came downstairs to find that my $400 bicycle was MIA. There's a highschool about two blocks east of me. I don't feel safe in my own apartment anymore. Is this a great example of how silly the GFSZ code can be? Am I stuck having to settle for this lil thing?

No, you do not have to settle for carrying a small knife. You can possess and carry a loaded firearm in your apartment, but because of 626.9 you wouldnt be able to carry it unlocked unless you had a license to carry.

AyatollahGondola wrote:
My opinion on this is that one should not associate the theft of property with self defense of person. The authorities see it as quite a leap in terms of justification, and it fits no real 2nd amendment purpose either.
I agree with the sentiment that if your property is stolen that you should not arm yourself to seek vindication. However, I believe the OP was saying that they no longer feel safe because of the theft, not that they wanted to be armed to protect their property.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

Being careful with my comments here, but the 2nd is all about protecting your person AND property. Now, that doesn't mean revenge, vindication,use ofdeadly forceor anything like that, and the value of property being relative (regardless of itsmonetary value), I firmly believe that's what the 2nd is all about.

Again, IMOthe 2nd and open carry is much more about deterrencethan actual use of force.
 

ACMeesot

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
24
Location
San Fernando Valley, California, USA
imported post

lol night.

Great input guys, and just to clarify, my concern is not a bicycle or revenge, my concern is that next time it won't be a bicycle, it may be my car, or they could try to empty out my entire storage shed, or even break into the apartment itself and cause harm to me or my family.

My 9mm is in my bedroom and loaded, I was more worried about what might happen when I'm in my neighborhood, but not actually in my apartment.

Should've specified those things in my original post :D

Perhaps a CCW is an option, but I feel like there should be a clause that negates the GFSZ restriction if you live in one, cause it doesn't seem right! I shouldn't be deprived of my rights because I live next to a school!
 

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
imported post

I would never attempt to use deadly force for the theft of a bicycle, or a car(which are mostly insured). This would not even ever be legal with the exception of it being taken from you physically in either an armed or strong arm robbery. A $400 bicycle is just that, it is not a threat to your personal safety, so move on, as crummy as that sounds. If we shot every crook that stole property we would have anarchy. Where would it stop, a 15 year old kid stealing gum at a store, so shoot him...right? I hope you see the point. Guns have a very limited (but important) role of protecting you or your loved ones from immediate physical attack that could result in a serious or a fatal injury. This rarely happens to people even once in their adult lifetime. Any other time or instance they should not be contemplated for use and will just end up making you the person of interest the police want to hammer..
 

ACMeesot

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
24
Location
San Fernando Valley, California, USA
imported post

I completely understand your statement, but what you're forgetting to realize is that we don't carry arms for the expected, we carry and bear arms for the unexpected. If we knew for a fact that a person was only interested in stealing our property and not harming us, that'd be a different story, but unless some of you have some psychic powers of some sort, there's no telling what could happen in such a confrentation, and we bear arms for those emergency situations where our lives aresuddenly and unexpectedly indanger, not because someone wants to walk off with my weed wacker.
 
Top