View Poll Results: Select the following reasonable restriction.

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • A test to be taken side by side with the HSC.

    1 1.45%
  • A tax free, shall issue license to openly carry.

    8 11.59%
  • A shooting qualification (a certain degree of aptitude required) , qualify once every 5 years.

    9 13.04%
  • Other

    51 73.91%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 74

Thread: Reasonable Restrictions on Carrying

  1. #1
    Regular Member Tekniqe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    38

    Reasonable Restrictions on Carrying

    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 02:07 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664
    Any restriction on a fundamental right is inherently unreasonable. No compromise. Voted "Other".
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  3. #3
    Regular Member Tekniqe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    38
    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 03:31 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Apple Valley
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by wewd View Post
    Any restriction on a fundamental right is inherently unreasonable. No compromise. Voted "Other".
    +1. When a Right becomes licensed, it's no longer a Right but a privilege...

  5. #5
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Tekniqe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    38
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    OK fine. Other - constitutional carry. No restrictions.

  8. #8
    Regular Member C.FERGUSON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    corona, ca
    Posts
    8
    Crap i voted for the wrong one!! I meant to vote for other..

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    63
    The acceptable restriction is for a violent felon.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wildomar
    Posts
    81
    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.

  11. #11
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    I think most people here would find all of those regulations to be unreasonable.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Tekniqe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    I think most people here would find all of those regulations to be unreasonable.
    I have no doubt. This thread was meant to be, as I mentioned, a role playing scenario. We all know how we feel about the current "reasonable" restriction. The purpose was to select one of the options that you feel is most reasonable in the list.

    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?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Apple Valley
    Posts
    38
    I'm gonna go with constitutional carry here on this one!!

  14. #14
    Regular Member longbow48's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Tucson, Az.
    Posts
    1
    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.
    Thomas Jefferson

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    OK fine. Other - constitutional carry. No restrictions.
    +1

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Apple Valley
    Posts
    38
    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 05:29 PM.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    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

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    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?!
    You hit the nail on the head. Wake up people...please wake up!!! Qualified immunity is nothing short of tyrannical totalitarianism. Qualified immunity says "We can do whatever we want and you (the subject) has no recourse." Sure one might say "Well we can vote them out of office." To which I say one person does not pass legislation by themselves, it takes the whole damn lot of them...all of whom are protected from citizen recourse. Eliminate qualified immunity, at least for civil rights issues if nothing else, and things get a lot better a whole lot faster. If they fear lawsuit and personal responsibility they will think twice before voting to eliminate your unalienable, well settled law, incorporated rights! That's my 2 cents.

  20. #20
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664
    Quote Originally Posted by kootsoup View Post
    The acceptable restriction is for a violent felon.
    It is detrimental to the ideas of liberty when you give the government the power to arbitrarily declare someone a member of a sub-class of society without the full and equal rights of others. They frequently use the excuse of denying violent criminals access to firearms in order to enact draconian restrictions on the acquisition and possession of those firearms, that in reality only affect those of us who have no propensity for criminality in the first place. The end goal of these restrictions is to make it so onerous and difficult to actually acquire and carry firearms that most people would be dissuaded from doing so altogether.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Statkowski View Post
    Your elected officials in California need replacing.
    I'm having a hard time finding any tyrants that I like better than the ones we currently have in power. Can I just vote none of the above? And by none I mean none.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  21. #21
    Regular Member ryanburbridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Long beach ca, , USA
    Posts
    299
    Did not vote!! This is not an option!! No restriction!! Only freedom!!

  22. #22
    Regular Member ryanburbridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Long beach ca, , USA
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by kootsoup View Post
    The acceptable restriction is for a violent felon.
    False!! This statement implies that the gov or any one for that mater can actualy stop some one from getting a gun. No restriction means NO RESTRICTION.

    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.

  23. #23
    Regular Member ryanburbridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Long beach ca, , USA
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by wewd View Post
    It is detrimental to the ideas of liberty when you give the government the power to arbitrarily declare someone a member of a sub-class of society without the full and equal rights of others. They frequently use the excuse of denying violent criminals access to firearms in order to enact draconian restrictions on the acquisition and possession of those firearms, that in reality only affect those of us who have no propensity for criminality in the first place. The end goal of these restrictions is to make it so onerous and difficult to actually acquire and carry firearms that most people would be dissuaded from doing so altogether.

    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.




    I'm having a hard time finding any tyrants that I like better than the ones we currently have in power. Can I just vote none of the above? And by none I mean none.
    Great reply!! I posted befor I read your post. I could not read more after I saw the post we replied to. I am saving your reply. It is well thought out and conveys my personal feelings perfectly.


    Sub class? Where have I seen this before? Umm... Oh yeah Jews!

  24. #24
    Regular Member Tekniqe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanburbridge View Post
    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.
    You believe that an individual with a tendency for violence should have a gun? Perhaps his wife should instead carry a firearm.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    184

    no restrictions

    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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