Indians For Guns

California is one of the most restrictive state in terms of gun laws, the dominant democrats come up with some crazy laws based on one of incidents and trying to make ordinary citizens criminals.

Thanks to 2nd amendment in the US constitution, outright ban cannot be done else they would have done it already. The democrats, and many folks coming from previously "occupied" countries have forgotten how their rights were stripped off by the British and are eager to outsource the natural "self preservation" instinct to the police. Little do they realize, police are not supposed to protect you but to enforce law and in reality they cannot be everywhere all the time.

Across the US we do not need permit to buy weapons (except few) for home defense. Also majority states allow weapons to be carried (open or concealed) most with some form of permit and some without any. (http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry ... _maps.html).

California banned open carry in 2012 through legislative process (democrats!), and most urban towns make it very difficult to get conceal carry permits (referred as "May" issues state). This combination is the reason why the state of California is in a soup with the case with Peruta versus Sheriff of San Diego litigation (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/vie ... 0000000722)

In summary, the 9th circuit court with thorough analysis of history determined in Feb 2014 that Sheriff of San Diego is infringing on people right to carry arms for self defense. The second amendment requires law abiding citizens to have carry rights, by preventing both open carry and making conceal carry subjective and difficult the right is denied. The CA attorney general got a shock after this was announced and in a desperate attempt to stop this being law of the land, requested intervention in Feb 2014. On 12th Nov, the 9th circuit denied this intervention leading a path for California to be a "Shall" issue state.

It means, if a person has no criminal background, mentally sane and undergoes 16hours of training then the State of California cannot deny CCW to the person. The person has no need to state specific reason, other than "self-defense"

There are still few legal roadblocks, but if things go well and 9th circuit provides mandate in next week or so CA will be "shall" issue state. Over 2 million people are expected to apply for CCW, me included. Some already have submitted their applications!

It is really a good development!

soul wrote:many folks coming from previously "occupied" countries have forgotten how their rights were stripped off by the British and are eager to outsource the natural "self preservation" instinct to the police. Little do they realize, police are not supposed to protect you but to enforce law and in reality they cannot be everywhere all the time.

These countries are still practically "occupied" and only their masters have changed! They have been conditioned for generations to think like slaves. Voltaire had rightly said that it is difficult to free the fools from the chains they revere. Positive part is that he had used the word "difficult" and not "impossible".

Doctrine of 2nd Amendment is very much present in the Indian Constitution. Such is the conditioning and ignorance that hardly anyone knows about it in India. I have explained this in following post http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 67#p220067

The second amendment to the constitution of the United State of America

It means, if a person has no criminal background, mentally sane and undergoes 16hours of training then the State of California cannot deny CCW to the person. The person has no need to state specific reason, other than "self-defense"

The judiciary still seems to have a hard time wrapping its collective mind around the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment.
A mandatory 16 hours of training as a requirement to carry a pistol is an infringement.
Lets forget about the issues that people always bring up when training is discussed, blah, blah, blah. The second amendment doesn't mention training.
No infringement means NO infringement. Seems pretty self evident to me.

Still, it is a step in the right direction for Californians. Congratulations!

These countries are still practically "occupied" and only their masters have changed! They have been conditioned for generations to think like slaves. Voltaire had rightly said that it is difficult to free the fools from the chains they revere.

GBM, I gotta agree with you.

As such this is good news for any state in the USA, as it provides a legal way to be armed in most places. If you want to take the view of the founding fathers and the Constitution of the USA, then even background checks, identity proofs and clarifications of sanity, clarifications of non drug use and legal presence in the USA of the purchaser of firearms have never been factored in. But given the current situation, any rules that reduce the danger to the public in general as well as to the owner/user of the firearm and increase transparency (without violating privacy) should be welcome.

I understand there will be objections to what I am saying. What I believe is that the closest balance between what the founding fathers wanted at one end of the spectrum and what the anti gun advocates want at the other end, is a situation that they have (or had) in the State of Vermont ( CCW allowed, no license necessary so long as all Vermont State and Federal laws are complied with). Unfortunately due to a license being "unavailable" (since you don't need one to CCW) residents of Vermont can't(could'nt?) CCW in other states. So residents of Vermont seemingly had a good thing going, but they couldnt CCW in other states due to lack of reciprocal agreements.

As some of our members may know, CCW in the USA works within individual states, if it is to extend into other states, then a reciprocal agreement must exist between the states which generally involves both states having similar laws for CCW.

Either way when you get a CCW license in any state you have to "commit" to certain things, including keeping up with training requirements and notifying any changes to the address of the licensee. This in effect is de facto registration. Any thing licensed may be withdrawn at the pleasure of the State, unless expressly prohibited by the law. So there are compromises, and it is far from"perfect". But in the given situation of the way things are in the world today, the direction that California is headed in, is a welcome change for the better IMHO.
Regards,
Anand