check me if im wrong but...

New to the forum, new to carrying, new to CPL, hell im new to the USA, but doesnt the wording of the US constitutions 2nd amendment allow for carrying a LOADED pistol (rifle, shotgun) in California? I think the mere fact that the law in Cali says you have to keep your pistol unloaded is an INFRINGEment to the US Constitution.
Also, having to go to a course, BUY and PAY for a CPL or CCW permit also infringes my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Emphasis on the word Infringment.
Your thoughts?

The Constitution doesn't make the distinction, which is why the CA courts decided that they weren't infringing upon that right since unloaded OC was legal.

However, one could argue that carrying an unloaded pistol is akin to carrying a paperweight, and is therefore not armed until the ammo is in the firearm. Good luck arguing that in court though.

First off - Billy D, welcome to OCDO and the USA.

Unfortunately SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) has followed the tradition of following tradition even when that means following bad decisions. Not just when it comes to the Second Amendment but to all of the Constitution. That's why we have some folks arguing "original intent" and others calling it a "living, breathing document". Depending on what your cause is you may find yourself on one side of the fence for one thing and on the other side for another cause.

SovereignAxe said:

The Constitution doesn't make the distinction, which is why the CA courts decided that they weren't infringing upon that right since unloaded OC was legal.

However, one could argue that carrying an unloaded pistol is akin to carrying a paperweight, and is therefore not armed until the ammo is in the firearm. Good luck arguing that in court though.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are a number of cases, starting with Heller, that make that very argument. Admittedly it will take more time than we would like to resolve the matter but it does seem that "our side" (pro-2A) is winning more than we are losing. The difficulty is finding good plaintiffs when the issue is not the violation of some criminal's rights.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

First off - Billy D, welcome to OCDO and the USA.

Unfortunately SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) has followed the tradition of following tradition even when that means following bad decisions. Not just when it comes to the Second Amendment but to all of the Constitution. That's why we have some folks arguing "original intent" and others calling it a "living, breathing document". Depending on what your cause is you may find yourself on one side of the fence for one thing and on the other side for another cause.



Actually, there are a number of cases, starting with Heller, that make that very argument. Admittedly it will take more time than we would like to resolve the matter but it does seem that "our side" (pro-2A) is winning more than we are losing. The difficulty is finding good plaintiffs when the issue is not the violation of some criminal's rights.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Thenk you Skidmark for your welcome, its very much apreciated. My point would be that any obsticle at all would be an "infrigement" of my rights. I can see things being pushed more and more by the antis until it becomes more like Canada, where you can pretty much forget owning a pistol, let alone carryig one anywhere. Conversly, perhaps the open carry movement, and the fact that more and more "good people" are going to the trouble of getting thier CCW/CPL permits, the pro gunners may be gaining ground.
I also find it amazing that the police and public in general are so shocked when they see someone in the USA carrying.

Well, we all do in some regard wish that the 2nd Amendment were read and understood exactly as written.

If you look at the history of firearms in America you will find that originally carrying concealed was considered the mark of a coward and a sneak. It was as the population grew and folks congregated in towns and then in cities that someone started spreading the idea that what you cannot see cannot hurt you. Then it got to where carrying at all was closely regulated - especially in our supposedly Wild West which truth be told had perhaps the most restrictive gun control laws of all.

It has been with the realization that the courts were not kidding when they ruled that the police have no obligation to protect any specific individual that the move towards becoming responsible for your own safety began to take off.

IMHO our country is only improved with the addition of folks who think as you do.

stay safe.

Billy D said:

New to the forum, new to carrying, new to CPL, hell im new to the USA, but doesnt the wording of the US constitutions 2nd amendment allow for carrying a LOADED pistol (rifle, shotgun) in California? I think the mere fact that the law in Cali says you have to keep your pistol unloaded is an INFRINGEment to the US Constitution.
Also, having to go to a course, BUY and PAY for a CPL or CCW permit also infringes my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Emphasis on the word Infringment.
Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Your definition of infringement is exactly what the 2A was designed to protect our right to keep and bear arms from - ANY encroachment upon these rights.
The 2A neither allows nor disallows any certain method of keeping and/or bearing arms, as it was never its purpose or function to "allow" or grant anything.
It does one thing - prohibits government infringement of the peoples' right to keep and bear arms, plain and simple.

The sad fact that this protection is not enforced will never alter the purpose of the 2A or the meaning of the word infringed.
If that were the case, then "infringed" could currently only be construed to mean "totally eradicated".

The infringements you listed (and more) are examples of our government ignoring their restraints.
If they are allowed to continue to ignore the 2nd amendment, they will ultimately reach the conclusion that they can ignore them all.

ATM said:

Your definition of infringement is exactly what the 2A was designed to protect our right to keep and bear arms from - ANY encroachment upon these rights.
The 2A neither allows nor disallows any certain method of keeping and/or bearing arms, as it was never its purpose or function to "allow" or grant anything.
It does one thing - prohibits government infringement of the peoples' right to keep and bear arms, plain and simple.

The sad fact that this protection is not enforced will never alter the purpose of the 2A or the meaning of the word infringed.
If that were the case, then "infringed" could currently only be construed to mean "totally eradicated".

The infringements you listed (and more) are examples of our government ignoring their restraints.
If they are allowed to continue to ignore the 2nd amendment, they will ultimately reach the conclusion that they can ignore them all.

Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY my point. The good people of Cali need to organize quicky, get as many pro 2A people together and file a class action law suit to force the gove to remoce ALL infrigements of keeping and bearing arms. Including this nonesense about having to holster unloaded, and infriging on the people right to CC.
Stand for something, or youll fall for anything. Take a look at Canada.

Actually, I think you may have quite the uphill battle on your hands. The good people of Kalifornia can no longer OC in any manner. Concealed carry only, and good luck getting a permit.

Polynikes said:

Actually, I think you may have quite the uphill battle on your hands. The good people of Kalifornia can no longer OC in any manner. Concealed carry only, and good luck getting a permit.

Click to expand...

little by little.. yep there chipping away...
I tease my (American) wife that (us) Canadians are slowly taking over the USA. Seems thats how it happens in Canada, little by little taking awa freedoms, inflicting more taxes and laws all the time, usually quietly without any fanfare to keep the public ignorant.

Hej Billy D: I am also an Xpat Canadian, though I have held US citizenship for over 40 years, and have carried for over 40 years.

A lot of what you see as differences between states has to do with the state constitutions. Vermont, Washington state, Idaho and quite a few other states have in their state constitutions specific statments that a private citizen can personally bear arms for his own self protection, as well as the protection of the state. These states usually have very few restrictive gun laws.

When you look at places like MA, NY and NJ, (I do not know California's constitution) you do not see those kinds of statements in their state constitutions. Those states have very restrictive gun laws. That is where most of the big difference comes in. Then you have people that argue that the 2A only applies to the national government, and not the states, or that it only applies corporatly (milita) rather than individually. Well that second argument has been through out with Hellier, but there are still people that want that control you know.

Gun control is all about control, and nothing about guns. Consider our secretary of state that just made a statement that now the people of Lybia need to be disarmed???? So they can't fight the UN when it gets high handed?