Any restriction on a fundamental right is inherently unreasonable. No compromise. Voted "Other".
A test to be taken side by side with the HSC.
A tax free, shall issue license to openly carry.
A shooting qualification (a certain degree of aptitude required) , qualify once every 5 years.
Saldana's bill is referred to as "reasonable" restrictions. What would your opinions be on a reasonable restriction? For the moment, let's assume that you are presented with the above options, and must select one. If other, please specify.
The three options are, I believe, 3 distinct magnitudes of "reasonable". Some might prefer the most convenient or easy, while others might like to see something so we know that those who carry are at least competent.
Option 1: Similar in length to the HSC (no more than 25-50 questoins).
Option 2: Concealed Carry licenses still available with the same taxes.
Option 3: Shooting, for example, at 2/3's accuracy, or something similar.
ONLY vote for one of the above options (if a different restriction, specify). Do not vote "Other" if you mean to specify constitutional open carry.
Last edited by Tekniqe; 11-02-2010 at 01:07 AM.
I forgot to mention that wewd's response is completely valid (it is my view as well). If you feel so, don't hesitate to say so. Should you select other as a terms of voting thus, please specify one of the other options in your reply as a "but"; one that you would select as a "lesser" evil. This is something I was just wondering as I went about my day. One day one of these options could possibly be something we must face, and wanted various opinions.
Last edited by Tekniqe; 08-27-2010 at 02:31 AM.
Our unalienable rights are not open for negotiation. "Reasonable restriction" is an oxymoron, its a lie told by the nanny statists, leftists, progressives, socialists, and communists as a marketing ploy to sell the unwitting their evil, tyrannical plans that lead to their power and your servitude.
I appreciate the sentiment guys, but whether unreasonable or just, it might be something that happens. I know that none of us would like any of these options. For the moment though, if you vote "other", please try to specify something. It's kind of a role playing scenario, where you are the legislator.
OK fine. Other - constitutional carry. No restrictions.
Crap i voted for the wrong one!! I meant to vote for other..
The acceptable restriction is for a violent felon.
Do people not realize that we are a free country and all these laws they have on everything is just taking the rights away of Americans. We were givin these rights less the 300 years ago and we squandered them. The constitution needs to be read by these idiot left wing people before they go to far and THEN realize they screwed up. They need to realize it now not later. I voted other. If you have no felony charge then you should be allowed to carry a LOADED gun without having to get anything.
I think most people here would find all of those regulations to be unreasonable.
By the way, I forgot to mention that the options would permit you to loaded open carry.
For the sake of discussion, lets say you could choose one of the options to loaded open carry. Unloaded open carry would remain in it's current state. Which option would you opt for to carry loaded?
I'm gonna go with constitutional carry here on this one!!
For a twist of fate, California should follow Arizona for once instead of the opposite. We are returning to our roots and rights, and Commifornia should do the same. Anyone who professes rights for issues not even addressed by the U.S.Constitution should have no problem standing up for the ones that are clearly defined. There is no negotiation. Our Constitution stands on it's merit and shall not be infringed upon by anyone, period!!!
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
Heres my problem with 'reasonable restrictions.' They all stem from fear, from the minute possibility that something not so good MIGHT happen. There is no real rational basis for them, and the courts have ruled multiple times that rights cannot be infringed upon or taken away based on fear.
Not to mention that the constitution is pretty dang clear when it reads 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Once again, multiple times through multiple sources, the second amendment has been known as a natural right, one that is not granted to us by any amendment or any government, but also one that shall not be denied to any person by any government. Should that happen, it is time for a new government, which is what happened during the revolutionary war, the declaration of independence stating basically what I just did.
But what about criminals getting guns? What about it? As we all know, no amount of legislation will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they get their guns no matter what. Even without infringement, should a criminal carry a gun (albeit ironically legally,) said criminal would no doubt sooner rather than later run into a good citizen who will put that criminal where they belong. The thing with firearms and self defense is that it is a self regulating entity, the good will trump the bad, be it a criminal or a government.
Don't forget, the German Government disarming the Jews was seen as a 'reasonable regulation' !!!
Just my two cents!!
Last edited by avdrummerboy; 08-27-2010 at 04:29 PM.
Other. No restrictions. No government permissions. No taxing of rights.
On the flip side, a reasonable restriction would be flogging and/or up to life imprisonment of any legislator who would infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms! I think that's reasonable. Maybe we could push through a ballot initiative?!
Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project
Hmmm, "reasonable restrictions" for the exercise of a fundamental right? I do believe "constitutional carry" covers it all.
What "reasonable restrictions" might one place on other fundamental rights such as freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc.? Once you come up with "reasonable restrictions" for those fundamental rights, then, and only then, can you come up with "reasonable restrictions" on the right to bear arms.
Your elected officials in California need replacing.
Instead of creating arbitrary sub-classes of free people who have more or less rights than others, how about we just keep people locked up who are too violent and untrustworthy to be free members of society? If you go to prison for committing a horrible violent crime, and you haven't shown any change in your character toward being a peaceful and responsible member of society, then why should you be let back into society at all? Anyone who commits a violent crime but is able to prove by their actions and their character that they are no longer a danger to society, should be restored their full rights and privileges when they become free once again.
Let the good people continue to be free, and keep the bad ones where they can't hurt others. No one who walks the earth as a free man should ever have his right to property and self preservation questioned by anyone. Of course, if everyone who wanted to carry a gun was able, there would be fewer violent criminals to send to prison, and more to send to the coroner.
Did not vote!! This is not an option!! No restriction!! Only freedom!!
If a violent felon is 60 and has a wife or grand child to protect they SHOULD have a gun to protect them. If the crime is done the time is done then carry on.
If other states can get it right then so can we. If we can get and keep these people on the ropes they will never land another gun restriction law. Screw California Lib politicians and keep fighting.