• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Open carry soon to be banned in California.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
xBiffx said:
Seems to me that the 10th Amendment is pretty straightforward. If a power is not given to the federal government specifically in the Constitution, then that power is reserved for the states. I've read through it and I'm not seeing anywhere where the Constitution says the federal government has the right to require its citizens to purchase something, namely healthcare. That being the case, its for the states to decide, and since some have decided that its illegal for the government to require its citizens to purchase something then the federal government can't go back and require it. That is, of course, unless there is another amendment passed, ratified by the states, that changes this.
Click to expand...

If you go look at the Constitution there's also no specific mention of having a national air force, requiring a national retirement plan, or many other things that are explicitly constitutional. None of those things are for the states to decide, and they can rule them illegal as often as they like. They will be ignored.

Simply put, the Constitution doesn't work the way you think it does.

EDIT: Words have meaning. When you talk about passing a law and an amendment you mean very different things.
 
eskimospy said:
If you go look at the Constitution there's also no specific mention of having a national air force, requiring a national retirement plan, or many other things that are explicitly constitutional. None of those things are for the states to decide, and they can rule them illegal as often as they like. They will be ignored.

Simply put, the Constitution doesn't work the way you think it does.

EDIT: Words have meaning. When you talk about passing a law and an amendment you mean very different things.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to reread a bit. Look specificly at Article One, Section Eight where the powers granted to the Congress are listed. Fairly certain a national air force falls within these powers. The 1937 rulings on the Social Security act are still in question to this day, albeit not as much in the limelight at the current healthcare issue. Also, this has been defended as simply another tax, in which the 16th Amendment is often cited.

Seems the Constitution does work strange as it may be.
 
xBiffx said:
Perhaps you need to reread a bit. Look specificly at Article One, Section Eight where the powers granted to the Congress are listed. Fairly certain a national air force falls within these powers. The 1937 rulings on the Social Security act are still in question to this day, albeit not as much in the limelight at the current healthcare issue. Also, this has been defended as simply another tax, in which the 16th Amendment is often cited.

Seems the Constitution does work strange as it may be.
Click to expand...

Well by all means go quote me the line that mentions an Air Force. There's an Army and Navy in there, but certainly no Air Force. Of course a reasonable person could interpret the Constitution to mean that Congress could raise whatever armed forces were necessary to defend the country, but that's not what the text says.

The rulings on Social Security are not in question outside of lunatic fringe internet message boards.
 
Just put your Glock in a brown paper bag, seems to work for those needing to conceal their streetside Mad Dog 20/20 consumption.
 
Gee...just think of all those fella's that are feeling secure with an open carry unloaded sidearm and a hidden loaded one.....juuuuuuust in case.

Best of both worlds. Ya get to show off your deadly looking dressed to the hilt 'lil amigo and live your dream of accessorizing your wardrobe the way you like with something that you spent $2k+ on AND feel safe and secure that nobody is going to jack that very expensive bling off of you without a shootout occurring first. 😀

Come to think of it...how do you open carry sidearms when wearing a long jacket, raincoat, trenchcoat, etc. without actually hand carrying it and still look cool? 😀

FYI, I do own pistols, rifles and a shotgun and yes I do target shoot, skeet/trap and hunt. I also free-dive/scuba spearfish for that matter.
 
I propose a test.

Some Californian here walk into a busy bank holding an unloaded handgun. Glock or whatever you have. Walk up to the teller and place it there next to you and do some normal banking. Like withdraw some cash or something.

Record this though.

Post video here so we can see if anyone reacts. Since it seems this law is more aimed at eliminating the uncomfortable panic feeling people probably have seeing someone walking around with a gun

If no, open carry is proven to be no problem.
 
Last edited:
J-Money said:
I propose a test.

Some Californian here walk into a busy bank holding an unloaded handgun. Glock or whatever you have. Walk up to the teller and place it there next to you and do some normal banking. Like withdraw some cash or something.

Record this though.

Post video here so we can see if anyone reacts. Since it seems this law is more aimed at eliminating the uncomfortable panic feeling people probably have seeing someone walking around with a gun

If no, open carry is proven to be no problem.
Click to expand...

You can't draw and exhibit the handgun, since that would be brandishing a firearm. It has to remain in it's holster.
 
J-Money said:
I propose a test.

Some Californian here walk into a busy bank holding an unloaded handgun. Glock or whatever you have. Walk up to the teller and place it there next to you and do some normal banking. Like withdraw some cash or something.

Record this though.

Post video here so we can see if anyone reacts. Since it seems this law is more aimed at eliminating the uncomfortable panic feeling people probably have seeing someone walking around with a gun

If no, open carry is proven to be no problem.
Click to expand...

i have worked multiple retail jobs that required an armored car pickup, the guy openly carried and NOBODY panicked. In'n'out burger has brinks come.... that guy open carries, i don't see the patrons in line or outside at the tables panicking....
 
Lithium381 said:
i have worked multiple retail jobs that required an armored car pickup, the guy openly carried and NOBODY panicked. In'n'out burger has brinks come.... that guy open carries, i don't see the patrons in line or outside at the tables panicking....
Click to expand...

Strangers know armored car personnel and Brinks employees. They expect them to have guns. I'm talking normal clothes normal guy.
 
Could you still open carry a replica pre-1898 firearm that uses percussion caps?

I know the Feds don't technically consider them firearms, but has California restricted them?

EDIT: Nevermind, it looks like that exemption in the California penal code only applies to sections 12070 - 12072 which look like they only apply to sales, not carrying.
 
Last edited:
J-Money said:
Strangers know armored car personnel and Brinks employees. They expect them to have guns. I'm talking normal clothes normal guy.
Click to expand...

Well that's a problem of perception. When you change the perception of "It's just a gun and a citizen there to protect himself and possibly others" the game changes.

When the perception changes to "it's just a gun on a law abiding citizens hip" then we have made real progress.

The only reason people think "oh, they have a reason to open carry, the security guards, the police, etc" is because of conditioning. "OMG!!!! A guy not in uniform trying to protect something (let alone his life or the life of others). Let's change that conditioning.

I say your conditioning believes protectors of money are expected to be armed. My point is protectors of their own life should be as well. Which is more important?
 
Moonbeam said:
California attracts the cream of the crop from around the world and are genetically and intellectually superior. Smart people don't have ego problems they have to compensate for by packing rods. Cowboys became surfers, bikers, and soccer players, etc, and all those California girls:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...n_880153.html#s294897&title=Alyssa_Campanella

Ouch!
Click to expand...

Yeap, I'd much rather have a coup'la those hanging off both sides of me ANY time. And besides, what those girls are packing are the most deadly weapons any man can face. :wub:
 
DCal430 said:
About time I say. There is no reason to open carry other than to intimidate those around you. Hope it passes the assembly soon and the governor can sign it into law. [/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Is that what the libtards in Calimexifornica preach? Next, they'll tell you to roll over and assume the fetal position as a way to prevent crime.
 
Munky said:
Nonsense. Is that what the libtards in Calimexifornica preach? Next, they'll tell you to roll over and assume the fetal position as a way to prevent crime.
Click to expand...

Well, Illinois already says that a tongue depressor is the key to rape prevention for women. So the fetal position seems like the next logical step.
 
DCal430 said:
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

About time I say. There is no reason to open carry other than to intimidate those around you. Hope it passes the assembly soon and the governor can sign it into law. ​
Click to expand...

I agree Police should be banned from carrying guns. They just use them to intimidate criminals around them.
 
DCal430 said:
About time I say. There is no reason to open carry other than to intimidate those around you. Hope it passes the assembly soon and the governor can sign it into law.
Click to expand...

I think the volunteers that fought against the British during the revolutionary war would disagree with you.

If anything, open carry is to intimidate the government, and not the citizens.

It is the right of the people to peacefully protest, and it is the right to the people to keep and bear arms. Only an oppressive government would object to either right.
 
DCal430 said:
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

About time I say. There is no reason to open carry other than to intimidate those around you. Hope it passes the assembly soon and the governor can sign it into law. ​
Click to expand...

so because you cant think of a good reason to do it, it should be banned?


fail.
 
Texashiker said:
I think the volunteers that fought against the British during the revolutionary war would disagree with you.

If anything, open carry is to intimidate the government, and not the citizens.
Click to expand...

They would probably have very little to say, as they've been dead for 200 years. We probably shouldn't ask people who have been dead for two centuries how to run our government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top