Boxer to Introduce Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011 - Page 4
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 63

Thread: Boxer to Introduce Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    Sorry guys for the language but here in Texas we don't give a crap what CA thinks. Boxer and Common Sense is an Oxymoron.

  2.   
  3. #32

    Lightbulb Blame the idiots behind the curtain...

    U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is the epitome of the hoard of radical liberal, socialist ideologues running amok in and ruining this country. They, of the "you-never-want-to-let-a-serious-crisis-go-to-waste" crowd, believe without question that they know better what is good for all of us - unwashed masses - better than we do for ourselves. The tragedy is that her seat is the Senate is fairly secure. The voters of the Left Coast are insistent in fostering useless garbage like her, Feinstein, and Pelosi, on the rest of us.

  4. #33

    Babs & her Socialist Buddies

    I've lived in CA for a number of years. Boxer doesn't speak for those of us who live in places other than the "left coast" welfare districts (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco & Sacramento). I'm a native of AZ and have enjoyed the freedom to choose to carry openly and concealed. I do however, live in a region of CA where it's up to the county Sheriff to "allow" me to exercise my Second Amendment right to bear arms when, where and how I choose. Once the Sheriff is convinced you have just cause, your permit will be granted. I also have CCW permits for AZ and Utah to cover my bases in most states if I choose to carry concealed. But open carry can only be done with an unloaded weapon. Go figure! And the CA legislature is trying to remove even that "privilege". Stupid is as stupid does I guess.
    Many of the county sheriffs in the interior of CA are basically gun friendly (for the most part). Ranchers, farmers and merchants in these areas get permits regularly.
    I don't like asking for permission to exercise my God given rights, but in order to keep my butt out of jail I reluctantly comply and work with groups to change this miscarriage of legislative power exercised by the socialist / big brother districts in this state.
    The population / welfare / big brother / illegal alien centers along the coast that keep re-electing people like Boxer, Feinstein, Farr, Waxman, Waters and a number of wacked out left leaning progressive socialists because they promise more goodies from Uncle Sugar to the baby machines they keep on the dole. And now that the money is running out, we're going to need our guns as lawlessness will become more rampant as some people will be compelled to steal or rob rather than find work of some sort.
    We're living in some interesting (and dangerous) times right now. We should encourage our elected officials to (at least) pass a national right to carry law where all states recognize the other states' permits. We shouldn't need to get permits from other states before we can travel there with our defensive weapons.
    OK. Enough of my venting for now.
    Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one.

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidenko View Post
    She has been directly involved with what is wrong with California gun laws. Don’t buy into her “Good Cause” scheme. Here in California good cause is not defined, but is a matter of law (its very definition open to interpretation by the CLEO’s in each city or county). Some counties Sherriff’s recognize the right to self-defense as “good cause” (and they usually end up on her hit list as well as the Brady Bunch). It should also be noted that the gun grabber has (or at least had) a CCW, but she will not speak openly on this matter.

    Additionally, Local LEA's should not be involved in any CCW issuance. Here in California, it has created at least 58 (each county) different policy’s on who can & can't get one.

    I may not be able to prove this, but it certainly has given the appearance of Police Corruption... In LA County (one of the hardest of the 58 to get a CCW) politically motivated supporters for reelections (i.e. campaign contributors) and actors have been issued permits where in the same area business owners who have been robbed at gun point can't get one…

    If a state does not recognize Constitutional Carry, then it should be a state agency, not a local agency that issues the permits. This way all citizens are treated the same, regardless of where in the state you live! Better yet, federalize the CCW permit process (so that everyone enjoys the equal protection clause of the 14th) and once you have one, it is good in any State or US Territory!

    One needs only to look at Arizona’s CCW system that was in place before they became a Constitutional Carry state. According to my instructor, their system is 100% self-sufficient, whereby the permit holders fund the state level department that issues permits (i.e. it created jobs). Tax payers are not burdened with the overhead of this government agency. The department was started in 1992 and it was in the black before the first year had elapsed.
    Excellent points.
    LA county is one of several counties who issue CCWs to privileged or large contributers but not to merchants.

    "Good cause" is a load of crap. My life or freedom isn't a cause good enough? Fire those who believe we need to justify our 2nd Amendment right.

    We need to work to get CA to become a "shall issue" state. It will make the previous two points irrelevant. It will also make the cost consistent from county to county which currently isn't the case.

    Yes Babs, Diane, and the Brady Bunch targeted "gun friendly" chief LEOs in CA. There was an effort to unseat our Sheriff in the last election but the people saw through the lame rhetoric the challenger gave when questioned about the CCW permit issuance and he lost in a big way.
    Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by kevin mosley View Post
    According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, 30,797 people died on U.S. highways in 2009. And, Hey...driving is a privilege, not a Constitutional Right! Funny that you don't hear Barbara Boxer suggesting higher federal standards to be forced down on the states with regard to driver's license requirements. Most involved excessive speeds, but I don't hear anyone trying to limit top speed or horsepower of the vehicles on our roads.
    Driving is a right. It is part of the right of locomotion. As with guns, the permission slips don't keep bad actors from acting badly, and they only add considerable expenses for the rest of us.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Patriot Henry View Post
    Driving is a right. It is part of the right of locomotion. As with guns, the permission slips don't keep bad actors from acting badly, and they only add considerable expenses for the rest of us.
    Never heard of the 'god given right to drive a car'. have to agree that that falls into the privilege category.

    "Common sense" is not very common, after all how many times has that twit been re-elected?

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by Patriot Henry View Post
    Driving is a right. It is part of the right of locomotion. As with guns, the permission slips don't keep bad actors from acting badly, and they only add considerable expenses for the rest of us.
    Really? Are ya sure?

    Please cite... for all of us... exactly where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where the "right of locomotion" by automobile is mentioned. I have both of them in front of me as I type and can't find it anywhere.
    "I believe we should achieve a national standard on gun control, and that standard should be none whatsoever."

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Rensselaer Co. NY
    Posts
    19
    I blatantly took the following from wikipedia:
    Freedom of movement under United States law
    "As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]"...

    There's more of course, but travel is non-specific in the method employed (walking, horseback, or perhaps even car)...

    Of course, in the last century, states began taxing travel (and providing licenses) etc... Up to you whether you like it or not, but I wouldn't recommend getting caught "driving without a license". Although that would likely be a less severe "infraction" than carrying without a license...

  10. #39
    Common sense? Sounds good to me. What would that look like? IMHO

    - a nationally accepted CCW permit with a reasonable application process and fee (and I mean reasonable)
    - no more arbitrary restrictions on where CCW permit holders can or can not carry (means, courthouse and similar may remain off limits but not other places like banks, malls)
    - amendment of the Gun Free School Zones act to excempt ALL permit holders not just the ones from the state the school is located
    - protection from civil liability lawsuits in self defense cases
    - unilateral application of the Castle Doctrine

    Not likely to happen.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    Common sense? Sounds good to me. What would that look like? IMHO

    - a nationally accepted CCW permit with a reasonable application process and fee (and I mean reasonable)
    - no more arbitrary restrictions on where CCW permit holders can or can not carry (means, courthouse and similar may remain off limits but not other places like banks, malls)
    - amendment of the Gun Free School Zones act to excempt ALL permit holders not just the ones from the state the school is located
    - protection from civil liability lawsuits in self defense cases
    - unilateral application of the Castle Doctrine

    Not likely to happen.
    So in your opinion, being forced to ask for permission and being permitted by the federal government is more "common sense" than simply exercising our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms without infringement? Is that what I'm reading? If not, tell me what I missed.

    Why do so many people have a desire to obtain a government supplied permission slip? When did we allow the fed.state.local.gov to become our master?
    "I believe we should achieve a national standard on gun control, and that standard should be none whatsoever."

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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