MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

California Gun Laws: An Overview

California is a state with a complicated set of gun laws, including universal background checks and "assault weapon" bans.

For those interested on this day of horrible crimes being committed with guns, a broad overview of some basics of California gun laws, excerpted from the state Attorney General's Office 2013 document on same.

: joelogon / Foter.com / CC BY-SA: joelogon / Foter.com / CC BY-SA

As I write I do not know what laws were or were not violated in the manner in which the killers obtained whatever weapons they used, but this is an overview of what the law qua law tries to do in California, a state with relatively stringent gun regulations.

The relevant legal environment in which the crimes did occur is in many ways a model for what politicians mean when they talk about "common sense gun safety laws."

California has since 1989 banned a set of long guns it classifies as "assault weapons," see here for details. And "Generally, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine (able to accept more than 10 rounds) in California."

California also has a list of types of specific handgun models that are legal for sale, "available on the DOJ website at http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/," with all others presumptively illegal.

Here are types of people who can't legally obtain guns in California:

Any person convicted of any felony or any offense enumerated in Penal Code section 29905. [A wide variety of violent offenses, including murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping]

• Any person convicted of an offense enumerated in Penal Code section 23515. [anyone who had used a firearm in a violent offense]

• Any person with two or more convictions for violating Penal Code section 417, subdivision (a)(2) [anyone who has waved a gun in a quarrel, essentially, not in self-defense]

• Any person adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender...

• Any person found by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity of any crime, unless the court has made a finding of restoration of competence or sanity....

There are a wide variety of shorter-term prohibitions on gun ownership, including 10-year prohibitions for:

Any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the following: Penal Code sections 71, 76, 136 .5, 140, 148, subdivision (d), 171b, 171c, 171d, 186 .28, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244 .5, 245, 245 .5, 246, 246 .3, 247, 273 .5, 273 .6, 417, 417 .1, 417 .2, 417 .6, 422, 626 .9, 646 .9, 830 .95, subdivision (a), 17500, 17510, subdivision (a), 25300, 25800, 27510, 27590, subdivision (c), 30315, or 32625, and Welfare and Institutions Code sections 871 .5, 1001 .5, 8100, 8101, or 8103 .

Full copy of penal code here, was unable to provide separate links for every offense above in timely fashion.

And 5-year prohibitions for:

Any person taken into custody as a danger to self or others, assessed, and admitted to a mental health facility under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5150, 5151, 5152; or certified under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5250, 5260, 5270 .15 . 

Other prohibitions on legal gun ownership cover people on probation, charged with a felony offense as yet unadjudicated, any voluntary mental patient or under "gravely disabled conservatorship," anyone "addicted to use of narcotics," anyone who threatened a licensed psychotherapist within 6 months, and anyone "under a protective order as defined in Family Code section 6218 or Penal Code section 136.2, or a temporary restraining order issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 527.6 or 527.8."

If you are not one of the prohibited, here are some of the laws you face regarding how to obtain a gun as a prospectively legal gun owner:

Only licensed California firearms dealers who possess a valid Certificate of Eligibility (COE) are authorized to engage in retail sales of firearms . These retail sales require the purchaser to provide personal identifier information for the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) document that the firearms dealer must submit to the DOJ . There is a mandatory 10-day waiting period before the firearms dealer can deliver the firearm to the purchaser ....

Generally, you have to be 18 to get a long gun, 21 for handgun. You must have a state driver's license or I.D. card. And there is no "gun show" or private sale "loophole" in the state:

Generally, it is illegal for any person who is not a California licensed firearms dealer (private party) to sell or transfer a firearm to another non-licensed person (private party) unless the sale is completed through a licensed California firearms dealer . A “Private Party Transfer” (PPT) can be conducted at any licensed California firearms dealership that sells handguns . The buyer and seller must complete the required DROS document in person at the licensed firearms dealership and deliver the firearm to the dealer who will retain possession of the firearm during the mandatory 10-day waiting period .

You can give a gun to a close family member and not go through that process.

You also have to have earned a state-issued "Handgun Safety Certificate" for legal handgun ownership  purchasing, which requires that "you must score at least 75% on an objective written test pertaining to firearms laws and safety requirements," with tests "administered by DOJ Certified Instructors, who are generally located at firearms dealerships. An HSC is valid for five years." [UPDATE/CORRECTION: As of 2015, this requirement covers all weapons, not just handguns, and is now known as the "Firearms Safety Certificate."]

You must also "successfully perform a safe handling demonstration with the handgun being purchased or acquired. Safe handling demonstrations must be performed in the presence of a DOJ Certified Instructor sometime between the date the DROS is submitted to the DOJ and the delivery of the handgun, and are generally performed at the firearms dealership."

In addition, all guns bought in California legally "must be accompanied with a firearms safety device (FSD) that has passed required safety and functionality tests and is listed on the DOJ’s official roster of DOJ-approved firearm safety devices." 

You can only buy one handgun every 30 days by law. You cannot buy a gun for a different person not going through the background check. If you move here with a previously owned weapon, you must inform the state DOJ or get rid of it.

As far as how you can legally use your weapon, here are some restrictions.

You may in general keep it in your own property or business (including temporary residences and campsites) if you legally own it, loaded or unloaded. You can generally legally transport handguns only unloaded and stored in a locked container, which can include your trunk. Long guns must be unloaded while transported.

As of this year, concealed weapons are banned on state schools and universities. As of last year, family members have a legal process to temporarily bar their relatives from getting guns if the family sees the member as unstable.

As far as having your weapon outside your home, business, or property, there are a set of restrictions:

It is illegal for any person to carry a handgun concealed upon his or her person or concealed in a vehicle without a license....The prohibition from carrying a concealed handgun does not apply to licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from the hunting expedition. (Pen . Code, § 25640 .)...

It is illegal to carry a loaded firearm on one’s person or in a vehicle while in any public place, on any public street, or in any place where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm .....In order to determine whether a firearm is loaded, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place, on any public street or in any prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to these provisions is, in itself, grounds for arrest . ....

It is generally illegal for any person to carry upon his or her person or in a vehicle, an exposed and unloaded handgun while in or on: • A public place or public street in an incorporated city or city and county; or • A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated city or city and county . ...

Getting that license to carry is up to local authorities, with varying requirements, and is in many areas very difficult to do. Only around 70,000 such licenses exist statewide, with around 29 million adults in the state.

It is legal to use a weapon in self defense under some circumstances:

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime...

It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend themself from attack if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer bodily injury . In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent great bodily injury or death . An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury.

The extent to which this set of laws was relevant either legally or practically to how the weapons used in today's crime were obtained is unknown as I write.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like the shooters violated some laws.

  • Microaggressor||

    All we need are a few more, common sensier laws. That would do the trick. Or at least make us feel safe.

  • jockey||

    Mobdro is the free movies, TV streaming application for windows 10, 8.1, 8, 7 laptop computer and for desktop devices. Download Mobdro for windows operating system.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    All those dead and wounded might have been attacking the poor defenseless Muslims. It was self-defense. If they were Muslims. Who of course had to flee the white Christian lynch mobs who were arriving momentarily. If they were Muslims. Or maybe Syrians. Or Syrian Muslims fleeing Syrian Christians.

    Who knows!

  • hirak||

    You have given good information thanks for the post. You can see here some guides Mobdro PC Download
    Mobdro for PC

  • Mobdro||

    Here you can find one of the very popular movies streaming app for your iPhone, iPad devices. Using Mobdro application you can enjou TV shows, movies and more.
    http://mobdroiphoneipadalternatives.com/
    http://mobdroiphoneipadalterna.....-download/

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    So no gun control laws at all. /prog

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Yes, the gutless California politicians let mass murderers walk around rural areas with loaded guns. It's disgusting.

    And ten round magazines! Who needs ten rounds? Only mass murderers. Who can't shoot as well as highly trained police. Who can't shoot for beans. Makes you realize how damned lucky we are to not have more mass murders!

  • LarryA||

    But the police need to have super-capacity magazines so they won't be outgunned by the criminals who all have super-capacity magazines but the peons only need 10-round magazines because criminals with super-capacity magazines never attack peons or anyone but the police so the peons aren't ever out-gunned. AmIright?

  • Tionico||

    Sort of. The copopers, and the thugs, all have STANDARD capacity magazines. We the peons are restricted to LOW capacity mags.

    This sort of incident is exactly WHY we peons need the same STANDARD capacity mags the other guys have.

  • ||

    Wow, that list of shit makes even New York State's absurd handgun laws look reasonable by comparison (they're not, but damn, California's are bad).

  • Zunalter||

    I got tired and stopped reading through them about 2/3rds of the way through.

  • NYC2AZ||

    “Obviously, the reason why California gun laws failed is because all the other states don’t have CA gun laws because the NRA loves terrorists…” or something.

    ^^Coming to a “news" op-ed piece near you.

  • Rich||

    The killing of one person by another may be justifiable ….

    That is, it may not be justifiable ….

  • OldBird||

    1/2 Here's a UK perspective. I live in a community with about 500 houses. There's probably one gun there somewhere, or maybe none. I feel safe - having a gun in the house would make me feel unsafe. I don't need a gun, I've never seen one, I'd be creeped out if I did.
    If I knew there were maybe 300 or 500 guns in the community already, I'd probably want one too, just to be sure. I'd have seen a few, even if in friend's houses. I wouldn't be creeped out. So, given how many guns there are in the US, I don't see how you'll ever solve the problem. (I'm well aware of the 2nd amendment issue, and how in your great jurist Scalia's words, there was never a more naked perversion of the meaning and purpose of a constitutional right by special interests. He's right, and the perversion is powerful - but surely feeds and is fed by the 'normality' of guns.)

    Re the laws listed - that's a lot. It shows that laws don't solve a problem. You could probably REPEAL them all and not make things much worse, or tighten them two fold and not make things better. Guns can cross state lines, for one thing. The only way it seems to me you might ever solve this is to get behind the fact that the 2nd was never (and still isn't) a bar to complete bans on citizen ownership of guns, and start the game again, this time with a complete ban - to which some exceptions might slowly be crafted. (contd)

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Guns can cross state lines, for one thing. The only way it seems to me you might ever solve this is to get behind the fact that the 2nd was never (and still isn't) a bar to complete bans on citizen ownership of guns, and start the game again, this time with a complete ban - to which some exceptions might slowly be crafted. (contd)


    The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

  • Jordan||

    As do the majority of 2nd Amendment scholars (no doubt perverted by those damn dreaded special interests!).

  • SimonD||

    ... and the simple text of the Amendment (the right of the PEOPLE, not the states).

    Obviously, the evil NRA has a time machine, and they went back and corrupted the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment in the first place. The original Constitution didn't have anything so ridiculous.

    /sarc

  • JeremyR||

    That's what I find strange.

    I don't worry about bad people with guns wanting to do me harm, I worry about them period, regardless if they are armed with a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat.

  • John Titor||

    So let's take your example of 500 guns in a community. Your solution is to take 300 of those guns out of the hands of people who have never committed a violent crime in their life (and are likely willing to conform to the new law) while allowing 200 of those guns to remain in the hands of criminals who frankly don't give a damn what your gun laws are. Unless you're planning some mass sweep of every house in America, illegal guns are going to stick around. As part of the second group, I'm also intelligent enough to know that now people are less protected. Hey, what's the average time for a cop to show up in this community? Six minutes? Easy to pull off a robbery or murder when your target is guaranteed to have no recourse but calling the police. Maybe I'll get upset at the police or something and just trash other people's stuff.

    Of course, there's also the fact that there's plenty of normal people who willing openly refuse to revoke second amendment right. In which case, congratulations, you've criminalized innocent people and actually made the problem you're claiming to fix worse. You openly admit that you don't see how to solve the 'problem', but then say the 2nd Amendment is meaningless and you should just go for a complete ban. You openly said that you don't have enough information, but spewed out the most idiotic solution anyway.

  • OldBird||

    Not quite. My point was that over here we start not with 500 guns but with more or less none. So the issue doesn't arise. Crims happily go about their business with sacks over their shoulders, and we happily shout 'come back, you bounder' at them, and no-one's hurt in this merry exchange.

    You're right that in the US, where the same community starts out with 500 guns, any law prohibiting guns wouldn't get rid of them all. That's why you're stuck with a problem you can't solve, whereas we don't have a problem we can't create. Sorry about that.

    I was just pointing out that, as erstwhile supreme court justice Burger said, the 2nd has been hijacked by special interests (it was about the ability of states to reject federal control), so there is hope for you as long as you see this. But as you kindly explain, I'm a complete idiot to expect that.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    because you fantasy utopia will never exist. Even if every gun was removed ... the police would still have them. Police kill a lot of people. In most places were ONLY police have guns the police kills lots and lots of people. Go look up democide.

  • ||

    In the UK, I don't think even the policy have guns, normally.

  • Win Bear||

    I feel safe - having a gun in the house would make me feel unsafe. I don't need a gun, I've never seen one, I'd be creeped out if I did.

    Your absurd obsessions and phobias are no justification to restrict other people's liberties.

    Here's a UK perspective.

    And who the fuck cares what you believe? You live in a progressive shithole and apparently want to bring the rest of the world down to your level of misery.

  • SimonD||

    Not to mention, I'd be willing to bet there are a LOT more than one gun in that community. They just aren't out in the open.

  • OldBird||

    I wasn't trying to "restrict other people's liberties", I was suggesting a way to think differently. Sorry it didn't help. Try reading it again? Nah.

    Who cares? - lots of people it seems.

    I live... prog sh.. let me check and get back to you. But not sure what a shithole feels like, help me out here.

    ... level of misery. You've made me smile, thank you.

  • Win Bear||

    I wasn't trying to "restrict other people's liberties", I was suggesting a way to think differently.

    That's what political advocacy in a democracy means: you advocate your point of view in order to change people's minds so that they vote in a way you want to.

    I live... prog sh.. let me check and get back to you. But not sure what a shithole feels like, help me out here.

    You live in the UK; you do know what it feels like. What you don't understand is that things don't necessarily have to be that way.

  • Hank Phillips||

    After Cornwallis got the pants beat off of him and went to rule docile conquered Indians, did King George pass gun laws disarming them?

  • Tionico||

    well, coming from the same side the puddle that King George Three formerly occupied, I can understand your bent on a complete gun ban. That's what George wanted, and had ordered his minions to arrange.

  • Tionico||

    So in your village of half a hundred homes, there MIGHT be one gun. Fine. SO what do you do when a horde of freaked out, angry invaders come into town and begin working over the locals with cricket bats, rocks, cobbles, molotov cocktails... ALL of which have happened in parts of France in the last two years. What THEN, eh? With what will you repel them? This side the puddle we ave some solid precedents about what has, and what has not, worked. Please note.. EVERY mass shooting (four or more dead VICTIMS, not counting the perp) since 1950, save two, occurred in "gin free zones", as did this one in San Bernardino. That, being a state facility, was designated GUN FREE... except taht it really was not, was it? Sad, that. So, eliminate ALL guns, you say? Fine.. a rapid glance at our history of violence in the past two years reveals a number of incidents where guns were not used, or were not used for ALL the murders. Edged weapons, clubs, vehicles (how ya gonna stop THEM being deliberately crashed into crowds of innocents, as has happened recently?). If that horde of scimitarred, cricket batted, club wielding, cobble carrying marauders bent upon destroying your village were to materialise... HOW would you stop them? HOW would you protect YOUR home and family?

  • Tionico||

    I'll tell you how I will do it.. with the handgun that is on my waist this very moment, and goes with me nearly everywhere I go. Most places I am denied the freedom to bring it along, I simply do not go. Paranoid? No more than the people in that concert hall in Paris were when they left home that evening to attend... and a whole lot less than the families and friends of those same people are today. I may die, but at least I will die fighting, and likeliy make a difference for some who would have been dead had I whimpered in the corner and wet myself..... or played dead. A wise man sees trouble from afar off, and prepares himself for it. Are YOU prepared? HOW? Are you SURE?

  • OldBird||

    2/2 The central point is that freedom cannot be safeguarded by a complete removal of all controls. Some controls are not curbs on freedom, but create the conditions for that freedom. You don't have the freedom to walk in and start living in my house. The law preventing that is what creates my freedom to quiet enjoyment of my own house. It's not the law, it's how the law gets made.

    Anyway, good luck with it all. I read tonight the US has 33,000 gun deaths costing about $229bn per annum. All this for a LOWER level of personal safety than most Europeans and Japanese feel, where there are no guns, no 2nd amendment, and no perversion of that law to allow individuals access to guns. (After a while, as here, it stops being an issue whether or not people have the right to have guns - I think there are some rights to own weapons, but no-one even knows the law, because no-one cares very much or needs to.)

    I accept I am now open to being told to keep my nose out of your business, since I'm not an American so WTF do I know. Fair (albeit not very constructive) comment.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    There are ;less than fifteen thousand homicides per year total. How can there be 33,000 gun deaths? Are most of those deaths not homicides?

  • Hank Phillips||

    The ones where police shoot unarmed teenagers suspected of being brown and/or smelling like marijuana are justified, and are not homicides. See Chrissy Adams, Solicitor in S. Carolina. One of those, where a lazy cop emptied a clip into the back of a fleeing black man, is being investigated as a possible game law violation:
    https://vimeo.com/124336782
    In England, where folks can light up a joint at the pub and watch the rugby match, there are probably different regulations.

  • rac3rx||

    About 65% of gun related deaths are suicides, about 30% are homicides, and everything else is an accident.

  • SimonD||

    Oops, I should have read down farther.

  • SimonD||

    I think most gun deaths are suicides (so obviously, no one would take pills, or slit their wrists or anything like that if they didn't have a gun)

  • Jordan||

    I read tonight the US has 33,000 gun deaths costing about $229bn per annum. All this for a LOWER level of personal safety than most Europeans and Japanese feel, where there are no guns, no 2nd amendment, and no perversion of that law to allow individuals access to guns.

    Two-thirds of those deaths are suicides. Also, most Europeans and Japanese live in societies with much lower crime across the board, so availability of guns is irrelevant.

  • sarcasmic||

    The standard counterargument is that guns make suicide (or spousal murder or other crimes of passion) much easier. While I admit that that the argument has some merit (It is easier to puss-out at killing yourself when you've got to cut your wrists because you don't have a gun, and it's easier to shoot an argumentative spouse in the face than to stab them in the heart, face it), I don't consider it be sufficient justify a ban on firearms.

    Firearms make everyone equal ("God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal"). That's why people with power and the people who suck their dicks oppose firearm ownership. They are terrified that someone may be able to defend themselves, especially from someone with power.

  • Ben Bradley||

    That's not really a counterargument. Suicides are much less of a public safety issue than homicides, if they can even be considered a public safety issue at all. It is totally dishonest to conflate the two categories.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's a counterargument in the sense that if a majority of the firearm related deaths in the US are suicide, and that if suicidal people without access to firearms might think twice, then there would be fewer suicide deaths overall. Thus eliminating guns (a fantasy, I know) would reduce suicides.

    I agree that it is a dishonest argument, but it is an argument from the left. Of course it is dishonest.

  • Insert clever name||

    The UK has a virtually identical suicide rate to the US. Access to firearms is irrelevant, statistically.

  • LarryA||

    It's a counterargument in the sense that if a majority of the firearm related deaths in the US are suicide, and that if suicidal people without access to firearms might think twice, then there would be fewer suicide deaths overall.

    Not necessarily. I've worked on hotlines that dealt with suicidal people. Those with guns will call, obviously, before they shoot themselves. They won't pull the trigger as long as they're talking, or "thinking twice.".

    OTOH those with pills usually took the pills, then called. The chance of accidentally offing yourself in a "plea for help" or "thinking twice" situation is much higher with pills than a firearm. The same can be true if you're standing on a stool with a rope around your neck, or you slash your wrists and expect someone to find you in time.

  • spqr2008||

    The only way that suicide is a public issue is to the extent the state must involve itself in both investigating the suicide and disposing of the person's property and other assets.

  • Jordan||

    Yes there will be marginal cases. But Sweden, South Korea and Japan all have higher suicide rates than the U.S., despite vastly lower gun ownership rates.

  • sarcasmic||

    Interesting. Did not know that. I'm sure that's Bush's fault thought. Everything is.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Worldwide, people just blame the Jews.

  • Hank Phillips||

    people who suck their dicks people who collect their taxes oppose non-government firearm ownership.

  • dantheserene||

    Stop looking at "gun deaths" and look at how your violent crime numbers are doing. Also note that your numbers are tallied under completely different rules than ours, which tend to exclude events we include.

  • Vitae Drinker||

    And the fact that many incidents that occur at the same time and place are tallied under one heading in Britain; whether one person or sixteen people get stabbed, it's one stabbing.

    People love to quote the Japanese crime rates, however there have been cases shown that the Japanese police will report a death as a suicide when it was in all actuality a homicide.

    People who quote the Japanese and European crime rates leave out the fact that once you eliminate the five highest crime areas (basically, the five census districts with the highest crime rates) in the US, then the US becomes FAR safer than just about any other place on Earth. And really, all those five areas involve a very specific statistical group that we're not allowed to talk about.

    It's not a gun problem, it's a cultural and economic problem.

  • Zunalter||

    BTW, those 5 crime areas aren't even where most of the guns are. Gun ownership rates in those areas are way off the national average.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Ultimately, it is our unwillingness to face the threat for what is truly is, and unwillingness to pull all stops to eliminate this threat. I knew that was the problem over twenty-three years ago. I recognized this even as recently as seven years ago .

    It is clear that conventional law enforcement is not up to the job of protecting people. If you are going after a rabid junkyard dog, you do not go in there with ASPCA rules; you take the leash off your own bigger, meaner dog. What we needed then, and what we need now, is Los Angeles to be placed under martial law, to be administered by the Army. Soldiers would be given immunity from state and local laws and they would have authority to conduct searches, detain people, and do other things that they see fit to deal with this crisis on our streets.


    The U.S. military, the mightiest military force in the history of humanity, is our own bigger, meaner dog. Take off the leash and let our bigger, meaner dog crush the junkyard dogs among us.

  • sarcasmic||

    The U.S. military, the mightiest military force in the history of humanity, is our own bigger, meaner dog. Take off the leash and let our bigger, meaner dog crush the junkyard dogs among us.

    I sure hope that's sarcasm. Martial law? Seriously?

    Law enforcement doesn't prevent crime. They only respond to it, and investigate it if they feel like it. The only thing that prevents crime is arming potential victims with an equalizer.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    We never tried martial law. I had this idea- martial law to protect the American people from their enemies- for over twenty-three years. Civil authority failed to keep us safe. If we want to be safe, we must sweep away these relics and impose a new order under martial law for a safe and secure society.

    That is the price of security and safety. Are we willing to pay it?

  • sarcasmic||

    Nobody can keep us safe except ourselves. That's why we must arm ourselves and be ready and willing to defend ourselves. No external authority can be everywhere at once. All they can do is respond. After the fact. And even then they've got to prioritize as to which incidents they pay attention to, because they've got limited resources to use. How will they prioritize? The same way they do now. By who has friends with power. No friends with power? No investigation. Well, maybe, if the press gets hold of it. But otherwise they don't give a shit. You're just an annoyance.

    So no one can keep you safe. Well, that's not true. You can. Or at least you can try by arming yourself. I don't know about you, but I'd rather live with a gun in my hand than die with a phone in my hand.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You forget that it is 2015, not 1955. we could mass produce robots, which would be an effective force multiplier for the military.

    Imagine a military presence throughout the United States to the point of saturation. Automation and robotics will make it possible.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You forget that it is 2015, not 1955. we could mass produce robots, which would be an effective force multiplier for the military.

    Imagine a military presence throughout the United States to the point of saturation. Automation and robotics will make it possible.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Sounds like utopia. What could possibly go wrong?

  • B. Woodrow Chippenhaus||

    You forget that it is 2015, not 1955. we could mass produce robots, which would be an effective force multiplier for the military.

    Imagine a military presence throughout the United States to the point of saturation. Automation and robotics will make it possible.

    Until someone figures out how to hack the robots. Then you mobilize the robots that will take down the robots, right?

  • Akira||

    "because they've got limited resources to use"

    Exactly!! Republican funding cuts are to blame!!!

    /prog

  • gaoxiaen||

    Better tried by twelve than carried by six.

  • Agammamon||

    That is completely idiotic.

    1. If you're going ot exempt the *military* from having to respect the constitution - why not just remove those limits from the *police* in the first place?

    2. There are *plenty* of places around the world that are set up *exactly* as you propose - not a single one of them is a 'safe place to live'. Unless you think Qaddafi's Libya, or Cuba, or North Korea, or any number of African and South American banana dictatorships are safe places to live.

    When the government is powerful enough to guarantee your safety is when it becomes the number one threat to you.

  • LarryA||

    The U.S. has about 2 million members in the active and reserve military forces, including everybody. There are also a bit less than 1 million sworn law enforcement officers. Say 3 million total.

    The U.S. land area is about 3.8 million square miles. So on average each service member or officer would have to secure a bit more than a square mile, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Obviously that's impossible, since a good part of the military is involved in logistics, communication, command, and control, and people can't work 24/7.

    OTOH there are over 13 million concealed handgun licensees.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You seem to be forgetting two things.

    Back in 1992, military occupation would have been limited to the inner cities. But today, in 29015, we can have robots as (mechanical) boots on the ground.

    You also underestimate the U.S. military's ability to project power. Remember how we won the war in Kosovo without a single American getting killed? Here is a hint- cruise missiles and air strikes.

    the fact is this. We have enemies among us. These are not people who happen to be behind on parking tickets. they mean to kill us. We must be willing to use maximum force against them.

    And, there is precedent of using military force to keep the peace in America, and a lesson in the disastrous consequences of refusing to do so.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opi.....story.html

    This is what happens when we tie the hands of our military. The military occupation of the South was an example that should have spread across the entire country. Imagine a U.S. where the military has the whole place under complete lockdown, where the population is governed by the fear of federal military power. We would be the safest place in all history, especially with the capabilities of the modern military to crush opposition anywhere in the world.

  • gaoxiaen||

    My sarcometer needle is all over the place.

  • spqr2008||

    Ditto gaoxiaen. Senor Army is confusing me

  • Tionico||

    and over a hundred million who legally own guns, about four huindred million guns, to be a bit more precise. And those are the ones we KNOW about. Nearly every gun owner I know owns at least one that has absolutely NO trace anywhere.... the mystery guns of which the government knows naught.... which is as it should be for ALL of them.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Repealing moronic taxes and victimless crime laws prevents crime. That is why I vote Libertarian.

  • UnCivilServant||

    What about those millions of otherwise innocent people you'd be trampling on the way to find the handful of criminals? This is the policing technique which has brought all of the unwarrented shootings, nay, extrajudicial executions, of citizens in recent years. It is abhorrant (and the military is barred from enforcing the law on civilians under current law)

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The only relevant law for soldiers is to obey orders.

  • sarcasmic||

    And to refuse to obey orders that go against their oath.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Protecting the American people is far from against their oath.

  • LarryA||

    Soldiers don't swear to protect the people. Their oath is to protect the Constitution.

  • Zunalter||

    What about protecting their liberties? is that a part of their oath as well?

    Does "Live Free or Die" mean nothing to you? Petty sure if we were all in individual jail cells and fed through a slotted window, we would be safe from each other as well, but no thanks.

  • Hank Phillips||

    You mean #@!**/## or (#**@##!? Which oath?

  • Agammamon||

    You don't have any idea how soldiers work, do you?

  • harleypig||

    You're advocating a military dictatorship?

  • SimonD||

    No, it's...

    You're advocating a military dictatorship!

    No question mark.

    Fixed it.

  • HolgerDanske||

    Anyway, good luck with it all. I read tonight the US has 33,000 gun deaths costing about $229bn per annum.

    Two thirds of those are suicides (read: unrelated to the availability of guns), the rest include homicides, accidents, as well as justifiable homicide by police and civilians.

    On the flip side, ten to a hundred times as many people in the US use a gun to defend themselves (usually without actually killing anyone) from violence. As a result, while US murder rates are a little higher than those of most (but not all) European countries, general violence, rapes, and home invasions are significantly lower.

    I was born, raised, and lived/worked as an adult in Denmark for most of my life, and I can appreciate your viewpoint as a fellow European. But there is no way most Europeans can understand Americans on this type of subject, without living here and understanding American culture and history.

  • Zunalter||

    The only thing I don't agree with is that you boil it down to American culture, when I would argue it is a topic of universal human liberty. Don't excuse their mental laziness with my culture.

  • HolgerDanske||

    Sorry, I meant the historical culture of valuing liberty over safety.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think American culture has a lot to do with it. No sarc. Americans are much more independent and less subservient than other cultures. It's like we're born with an innate distrust for authority. As such, we like to take matters into our own hands. We'd rather live with a gun in our hand than die with a phone in our hand. That's the whole essence of American Exceptionalism. You know, that attitude that the left wants to destroy.

  • Zunalter||

    Agreed, I just want to make this a more universally principled discussion, and when you narrow it to America people go, "Well, that's just America for you", whereas if we take the argument to the basest principle, it is something that can now apply to any person.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Europeans believe plank 2 of the communist manifesto is the Revealed Law of God. There are a few deniers left in These States who are waiting for reproducible experimental evidence to back the claim. We hafe a Second Amendment and also look back on the NSDAP and British Union of Fascists and realize that could never happen where guns are everywhere AND in private hands.

  • Zunalter||

    The problem with your solution is the principle of American Liberty: The government doesn't grant rights to citizens, it safeguards our natural (or God-given, if you prefer) rights. Meaning, since Man has the natural right to self defense, a government is not allowed to deprive them of the means of self-defense. Hence the 2nd Amendment. You are proposing a backwards solution, whereby the government slowly doles out "rights" to their citizenry. Tyranny plain and true, whether soft or hard.

    Next, your gun death statistics are misleading, as they include suicides (21,175 alone in 2013). Non-gang related gun homicides and accidental deaths are a much smaller piece of the gun death pie. The $229bn price tag is also an obvious conflation and assumes costs for long-term medical care, security, etc. It also operates under the assumption that none of these crimes would happen if guns did not exist, which is patently false.

    I would challenge your assumption that it is REPEAL that would make things worse, and TIGHTENING laws that would make things better. The opposite is true. Mass shooters don't shoot up places where other guns are. This point is proven time and time again.

    Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, liberty should be a universal discussion, not just an American one. After all, we allow some insufferable Canucks in here from time to time, might as well throw in some Brits.

  • sarcasmic||

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that in most of the world you may only do that which the government allows, whereas in the USA you may do anything so long as it is not prohibited. "Who said you can do that?" vs "No one said I can't."

  • Agammamon||

    Not quite, but sort of.

    *Common Law* countries are like the US - anything not prohibited is allowed. That includes, theoretically, the UK (well, not Scotland - sort of), English descended colonies, Canada, Australia, and . . . that's about it.

    The rest of the world loves them some Civil Law - only that which is permitted is allowed. But its not quite that simple either.

  • OldBird||

    You are wrong, since you ask. Unlike in the 'free' US, in the UK, there is no law that requires anyone to carry ID, or have a driving licence or any documentation on them while driving or otherwise. Police are not usually armed. This idea that America is the land of the free is, in practical terms, a myth. The constitution was a fine document, one of the greatest ever written. It has done huge good - partly because it puts controls on worship or undue assumption of authority. Unfortunately, over time, it has become an object of unthinking worship itself.

    My own experience of living in America was that life was punctuated by the officious acts of officials including law enforcement officers. A Parks officer calling a local policeman in aid to stop several unconnected people sitting on a wall to watch a sunset, yuppies in a park drinking beer in brown bags in case of censure by police, demands to see ID on many occasions, and so on. Little, nick-picking, checks that you were staying in line.

    On the technical point about "Who said you can do that?" vs "No one said I can't." - I don't think civil law countries like France or Finland would recognise the idea that everything is forbidden! These people "stay in line" far less than Americans do, and have enshrined rights that are generally less dependent on having power or wealth than in the US.

  • Hank Phillips||

    True. My stepmum is a British Subject and I am proud to have a Canadian son--and grateful for the help gotten from Canadians during the Nixon dictatorship. But nobody would invade and occupy Canada for long, believe me. Scenes from GB Prime Suspect serials look a lot more like footage of Pakistan when I was in the UK. We now believe rights are biocentric if (unlike conservatives) you accept the value of intelligent life as a standard of value. As long as force is not initiated, Americans are relatively peaceful. The politicians who claim power via secret ballots are another matter. But nobody believes those votes are honestly counted and many wish someone would rid us of those parasites.

  • OldBird||

    See my replies below, on perversion of 2nd amendment and also re the slightly bemusing idea that liberty is an American idea. As if all those arriving in America believed in liberty above all, and all those who didn't bother crossing the pond believed in subjugation. Honestly. Without Europe, America wouldn't exist as a modern(ish) country. We made you!

    It's also odd how Americans see 'government' as something other than themselves! When the government 'doles out' a qualification on an earlier law, all that means is we decide what qualification we put on what we decided earlier. I guess in America you've let money buy politicians, to the point where democracy doesn't work so well any more.

    Re the stats, I just pulled them down - they're probably not very useful.

    Re where mass shootings happen - no idea, haven't been many around here.

    Final thought on US liberty - all that talent, and it may come down to a choice (via electoral college!) between a goon like Trump and a compromised miilionaire like HRC. I submit this shows that liberty is not someting can be defined only by the absence of constraint, rather than the presence of valued choices. Which was kind of my orginal point.

  • RJ The Terrible||

    considering the sad state of affairs in the mother country ... If you ever had the liberty concept understood, you have long since chucked it.

  • John Titor||

    After a while, as here, it stops being an issue whether or not people have the right to have guns - I think there are some rights to own weapons, but no-one even knows the law, because no-one cares very much or needs to.

    Someone's never spent a bad night in the shittier parts of Glasgow.

    no 2nd amendment, and no perversion of that law to allow individuals access to guns.

    Do you think that if you repeat 'the second amendment doesn't count' and call gun ownership a 'perversion' over and over again it will magically be so? Provide evidence of an assertion or just stop. That's just bad sophistry.

    *Orwell rolls over in his grave for Britannia*

  • Michael Ejercito||

    White nationalists often say,"no 14th amendment".

    They are not right either.

  • OldBird||

    ErstwhileSupreme Court Justice Warren Burger said "The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

    Your sacred law has been perverted.

  • Tionico||

    uh, WHO wasWarren Burger? Certainly not a defender of America'n values... he fails to READ that pesky Second. Or the writings of the time it was written discussing the thinking and meaning behind it. He was a very corrupt man.

    He fails to comprehend the meaning of the word "militia". It is NOT army, not at all. Militia, in the late 18th Century, simply meant THE WHOLE PEOPLE. In other words, everyone. Further, that right to arms does not accrue th the militia in that Article,No it clearly states it accrues to THE PEOPLE. Again, everyman. Diagram the sentence, learn about parts of speech , how they relate one to another, and carry the meaning intended. Burger is flat wrong. And he SHOULD know that.

  • OldBird||

    Re who was Warren Burger.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger

    Warren Earl Burger (September 17, 1907 – June 25, 1995) was the 15th Chief Justice of the United States from 1969 to 1986. I suspect (without knowing) that he'd read about this more than you?

  • OldBird||

    sorry - mislocated my reply. Here is evidence.

    ErstwhileSupreme Court Justice Warren Burger said "The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

    Your sacred law has been perverted.

    Been to Glasgow - lively and fun!

  • OldBird||

    sorry - mislocated my reply. Here is evidence.

    ErstwhileSupreme Court Justice Warren Burger said "The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

    Your sacred law has been perverted.

    Been to Glasgow - lively and fun!

  • Win Bear||

    (1) The US has always had higher homicide rates than Europe, and that has nothing to do with gun ownership. And, by the way, you're confusing "gun deaths" with homicides. Most "gun deaths" are suicides.

    (2) Most of US homicides take place in inner cities; most Americans are quite safe.

    (3) Enforcing a ban on gun ownership requires Orwellian intrusions into personal liberties. European governments can get away with it because Europeans don't know any better. In the US, this would be a major disaster. A "war on guns" would be worse than the "war on drugs".

    I accept I am now open to being told to keep my nose out of your business, since I'm not an American so WTF do I know

    Well, I was born in Europe, so I do know. People like you are why I left. You may feel "safe" now, but that will change as your society deteriorates into totalitarianism, as it will.

  • Ron||

    I've often felt the only reason Europeans and the rest of the world for that matter have not dissolved into complete totalitarianism is because Americans do have the 2A and an army to protect their countries, and as soon as they can convince the liberals in America to get ride of the 2A then they will go all totalitarian. Essentially America is the last stand.

  • Hank Phillips||

    When my countrymen say liberal they of course are referring to communists. Whether this is out of cowardice or ignorance of the language is a mystery, but it is a Republican artifact from the defeat of liquor prohibition in 1932, in which a wet liberal party played a part. Kindly adjust accordingly.

  • OldBird||

    I've lived in five countries on four continents, including the US, and I still don't know anything much. There are plenty of Americans taking refuge from their country over here ;).

    You are quite right that countries can go totalitarian - no-one should be complacent. But I'm less sure you can be as certain as you are. The most dangerous people are the ones who know they're right. On the whole, the UK has done alright, over the past 950 years since last invaded. In the case of the US, it's a bit soon to jump to conclusions, don't you think?

  • Win Bear||

    There are plenty of Americans taking refuge from their country over here ;).

    Net migration is clearly overwhelmingly from Europe to the US, not the other way around.

    On the whole, the UK has done alright, over the past 950 years since last invaded.

    Over those 900 years, the UK enslaved millions of Africans, wiped out millions of Native Americans, attempted to make China a nation of drug addicts, destroyed Indian culture, killed millions of Irish and Africans, and fought a couple of civil wars. Then it lost most of its colonies and would have been taken over by Hitler if it weren't for the Americans and the Russians. The British have done fairly well economically, in large part because of the ineptness of the British government prevented them from doing too much damage at home, and UK politicians and philosophers developed a lot of good ideas. But in terms of actual government, I think the UK has done very poorly.

  • Tionico||

    Nice work, there... glad you layed that ll out. Seriouly, no sarc at all.

    Interestingly, the ONLY colonies Englahd failed to completely subdue and rape over their 900 year rampage (the sun never sets on the British Empire) were the American colonies.... King George Three, as he pondered how to fully subdue the rowdy Yanks, determined his only chance of success was to... DISARM them. Thus he ordered his kingpin of tyranny in said colonies, General Thomas W Gage, to do so. He (both, actually) being quite the naif, utterly failed to accurately assess the mettle of the Yanks. It was Gage's fourth sortie to disarm that ended up sparking the war for independence.. at Lexington. Gage, on a top secret raid, was shocked to learn he was up against FOURTEEN THOUSAND ARMED MILITIA, from every town and corssroads within fifty miles of Boston, rousted out and mobilised over the space of twelve hours. That force outnumbered, outmaneouvred, out shot, and out fought his handpicked force of Britain's best. HOW can anyone imagine ever surrendering all our arms to government in the face of that history? Those men who lived through that, and who know so many more who did NOT live through that trying time, were determined to enshrine a pesona individual right to arms, unfettered, in perpetuity, for every resident of this land, to forever put government on notice that they can NOT govern without the consent of the governed. And an armed citizenry can ONLY be governed by their consent.

  • OldBird||

    3/3: re Hitler, yes possibly would have lost but for Hitler's hubris in attacking Russia. Big mistake. America sat on its hands while others fought for freedom, and then joined in later once the hard work had been done, profiting handsomely in the meantime with lendlease. Don't get me wrong, Europe was glad you saw sense finally, just sorry you took so long to play your part. America joined in on the side of light, and made a huge contribution, culminating in its finest achievement (the rebuilding of continental Europe and Japan). The war museum I visited in Lexington, VA, albeit this was a while ago, made no mention that of the 50m lives lost in WW2, at least 20m, maybe 25m, were Russian. It was the Russians who won that war. Until Stalingrad, everything went right, and after it, everything wrong and Hitler was finished.
    re final points, a bit too unclear to know what to add. I don't think the UK has done all that well economically for most of the past 100 yrs. I don't think ineptness prevents damage. and yes I do think some British governments have done poorly.
    to sum up, in C19th, the British had huge power, and used it for their own interest, saw themselves as superior, were wrong about that, often meant well, and often did harm, sometimes great harm. In the C20th, the US.... (and repeat the above). Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

  • OldBird||

    For Tionico - see replies to Win Bear. but re points you make, it's a self-serving account of you give here, glorifying the uniqueness of the American colonies. Countries lose where they lose interest, or are conflicted, or their supply lines are too long. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan as two examples where the US too just couldn't overcome a bunch of locals with attitude. And those locals didn't "have the 2nd". Most battles for independence from foreign overlords are not won by "the right to bear arms", or even always the bearing of them. They're won by being in the right, and not giving up. America was humbled in Vietnam not because it lacked the might, but because it lost the will, and it lost the will because it knew it was wrong. You may have the last word - so in advance, thank you for an interesting exchange, and good night.

  • OldBird||

    1/3: Re US migration, that's not how it feels over here. This resource: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads /system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116025/ horr68-report.pdf provides two indicative data points: 11% of immigrants to UK over 20 years to 2010 were from US and Canada, while 7% of emigrants from UK went to US in 2010. These are not comparable data points, or conclusive as to net migration (and Brits are much more international than Americans, with about 7% living outside UK, compared to 1% Americans), but whatever the flows are between US and other countries, the statement that there are plenty of Americans taking refuge from their country over here seems to me a justifiable one ;)

    Re totalitarianism and the perfection of the US constitution, I can see we could both bang on forever. So let's call it a day - you may the last word in your next reply (if you wish). but just to pick up on some of your points above (which are not strictly relevant to the point - namely did the UK get through 950 years without a '2nd amendment' type right? which it did):

    I think the UK enslaved fewer people than the US did, and we then led the battle against slavery, while the US tore itself apart, with 1/3 of the coutnry wedded to the idea that Africans bought as slaves did not have those 'inalienable rights'.

  • OldBird||

    2/3: I think the UK wiped out fewer native Americans that the US settlers did, and also the Spanish in Latam.

    Britain did force opium on China, which was uttlerly shameful.

    We did not destroy Indian culture which remains vibrant.

    We behaved applaingly with the Irish - no defence there at all. re: Africans, see above (though the worst of all was the Belgian king in Congo).

    Re civil wars, it gets murky a long way back, but since 1066, I think only one? And that was about the principles of good governance and the soverignty of the people, not about the grubby matter of enslaving others to live off their backs.

    Re losing colonies - unclear if this is in your view a sign of wisdom or weakness, but its time had come and we got out of that game, quite right too.

  • OldBird||

    (see below for 3/3, mis-located, sorry). but the key point remains, great countries do not need the 2nd amendment to be great countries, or to fall from grace. And in my view, you should stop treating it like part of the holy trinity or whatever, and get real. your turn, and good night!

  • lawnerd||

    Japan is a nearly racially monolithic society. Europe is not far different. The U.S. unfortunately, has a diverse society that includes a much larger criminal element than both Japan and Europe. Banning guns in the U.S. would not magically transform us into a Japanese society. As has been mentioned before, a criminal intent on committing a violent crime has no qualms about violating a few gun laws.
    In this particular incident, the pair intent on killing a lot of people could have done so without guns. For example by making a few home made bombs. So, even if there was no guns, they could have easily found some other means to their end. See, eg. Timothy McVeigh. 168 killed nearly 600 wounded not a single shot fired.

  • lawnerd||

    Japan is a nearly racially monolithic society. Europe is not far different. The U.S. unfortunately, has a diverse society that includes a much larger criminal element than both Japan and Europe. Banning guns in the U.S. would not magically transform us into a Japanese society. As has been mentioned before, a criminal intent on committing a violent crime has no qualms about violating a few gun laws.
    In this particular incident, the pair intent on killing a lot of people could have done so without guns. For example by making a few home made bombs. So, even if there was no guns, they could have easily found some other means to their end. See, eg. Timothy McVeigh. 168 killed nearly 600 wounded not a single shot fired.

  • Tionico||

    your figure of 33K "gun deaths" is a fancy of some large proportion. First, remove suicides, that's more than half.. check our neighbour to the north, similar demographic and social makeup, same suicide rates, but few with guns, which are largely impossible to get there. So, a different tool is recruited by those who wish to end their lives. Not a "gun issue" at all. Second, how many of those deaths are in the big cities, democrati controlled welfare hellholes chock-a-block with fatherless children, suicide rates amazingly out of control, and law and order a fantasy... the five or so such major city ghettoes account for well over half of gun homicides. Again, this is not a GUN issue, it is a social/moral/cultural issue. Third, how many of those are legitimate self-defense deaths? Again, well over half..... so, you are left with what, maybe 7000? Cars kill about 38K, prescriptioin drugs taken as directed kill some 70K, and more people drown in swimming pools than are killed in gun homicides (not the bit city gangbanging bang bang stuff).

    Sorry, we'll keep our guns. No government can take them away. Actually, Im NOT sorry in the least.

  • Haven Monahan||

    So, just wondering here...

    If these 3 shooters had undertaken their rampage in say, Arizona (a state that allows unrestricted concealed carry) instead of California (where 99.75% of adults are not licensed to carry), does anybody want to guess what the body count might have been?

  • sitnam90||

    Well in the case of Garland, TX, the answer is 2 bodies. The shooters

  • Agammamon||

    Depends where they were - in Phoenix or Tucson, probably not much difference. People there don't routinely carry in large numbers.

  • SimonD||

    Basically all government offices are gun-free, aren't they? Since it was a government office, there would be no difference.

  • Tionico||

    in California, this is true. In my state, I can go into any government office (excepting the federal post offices, for some reason no one has ever explained .. its no different than a bank or a UPS office, where we can carry no issue) other than courthouses, and there state law requires the police maintain security, checking each individual as they enter same as at an airport, and if anyone is carrying a weapon all we need to do is say so, they will happily and courteously escort us about twenty feet to the "safe boxes" where I remove my weapon, place it inside the locker, place the key to that locker into MY pocket, pass the security check, and go on about my business. When concluded, I simply walk to the locke,r insert the key, remove my weapon, replace it where it belongs, leave the key in the lock, and get in my car/on my bicycle and be on my way. Takes half a minute extra, and no fuss. EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICE is open to my carrying. Even the legislature's buildings while the lawmkers are in session. Funny we've never had an incident like this in the entire history of our state, that I am aware of.

  • tehi18||

  • John C. Randolph||

    California politicos went apeshit on the gun control thing back in the 70s when the Panthers showed up at the state capitol wearing rifles slung over their shoulders. They don't like to admit that gun control is racially motivated, of course.

    -jcr

  • Alan@.4||

    Nothing in the least new about this, as a look at history clearly demonstrates.

  • Tionico||

    funny, when some rich out of state clown bought us a new gun law, about three thousand of us showed up at the state capitol, declared WE WILL NOT COMPLY (and we have not) we were heavily armed, and not even the state police were the least bit disturbed about it. It was completely peaceful, orderly, and even fun. Hundreds of "black and ugly" guns, every one of them I examined was fully loaded, were slung from an equal number of shoulders, more had handguns worn outside all clothing, and who knows how many more had concealed handguns.

    Interesitng factoid: I calculated the percentage of Californians with Mother May I Cards, and it is point 25 percent of the population. I n MY state, with this year's figures, that percentage is TEN percent. FORTY TIMES as many per person. I spend time in California, and am always more than a little on edge in the larger cities... some areas I simpyly will not go. In my state I feel totally safe everywhere I go.

  • psCargile||

    So, you can defend yourself, unless you are in a vehicle.

  • Ron||

    unless your licensed.

  • ranrod||

    The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

    Second Amendment foes lying about gun control - The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government. Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media prostitutes tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jewws, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazzi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back.

    American Thinker

  • lawnerd||

    Agree 100%. Indeed, under the full intent of the second amendment I should have the right to a side winder missile. And I am not joking. In 1790 a firearm was the height of armament technology. That was all you needed to fight against a tyrannical government. Today, a few handguns would not be enough to fend off a tyrant president.

  • ||

    Presumably that also means a nuke, right? Farook had the legal right to buy a nuke?

  • lawnerd||

    Agree 100%. Indeed, under the full intent of the second amendment I should have the right to a side winder missile. And I am not joking. In 1790 a firearm was the height of armament technology. That was all you needed to fight against a tyrannical government. Today, a few handguns would not be enough to fend off a tyrant president.

  • Tionico||

    True enough. That "pesky" Second Article of Ammendment plainly declares that the BURDEN of "the security of a free state" rests squarely upon the shoulders of... NOT the government, law enforcement, military, private security firms.. but THE PEOPLE. Yes it is WE THE PEOPLE who are responsible for "the security of a free state", and this is why our right to arms, given by God along with our very breath, is NOT to be limited, restricted, licensed, controlled, abrogated, denied,. narrowed, qualified, placed under any precondition, BY GOVERNMENT at any level. It is the express DUTY of the Federal Government to protect and guarantee us that right. Our kinyun overlord needs his Pinoccio nose stuffed deeply into this truth.

  • Alan@.4||

    Aside from being constitutionally questionable, some of them at least, obviously they do not work, which aside from being interesting might be even more important than questions of constitutionality, though I'm less than willing to grant this premise.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    First off (and this has probably been mentioned by previous commenters), CA does not regulate "assault rifles" - as the author of this piece would have noted if he had read the CA-AG doc he linked to (hint- it's in the headline of the doc) - it regulates "assault weapons". Federal Law already defines what an "assault rifle" is, and NFA-34 applies.

  • hirak||

    Mobdro: You can watch free Mobdro movies, latest TV episodes, NEWS by downloading also you can enjoy
    Mobdro APK free.

  • Mobdro||

    Downloadmobdroapk blog can make to download Mobdro APK file free and watch movies, TV shows, videos for free.
    Download Mobdro APK
    Mobdro for PC

  • jeran||

    Mobdro is the free movies, TV streaming application for windows 10, 8.1, 8, 7 laptop computer and for desktop devices
    Mobdro Download Free
    Mobdro for iphone

  • Suji||

  • ekshi||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online