One would think so, just look at how this state led the charge in legalizing "medical" marijuana despite the fact that it is still Federally illegal. Now that plague is spreading to other states in an effort to give cartels a foothold... bleck.
Um you mean the unconstitutional federal drug and tax laws that lead to marijuana prohibition? Can you please tell me where in the constitution it gives the Fed's the right to outlaw it? This argument doesn't hold water because it has nothing to do with the "constitution"
You're right, semi-weak argument based off of the fact that Federal Law and the Constitution are drastically different things. However, both are at a fed level and this state will ignore it... even if you may or may not agree with regulation of substances, the point is this state will ignore fed level laws and the constitution. Mainly it was a snide remark at California's own government, which in my mind is more socialist these days than anywhere else in this country (not a good thing).
In reality, no this state does not have it's own version of a constitution that supersedes the federal one. It just chooses to ignore it and do whatever the hell it wants, which is action for a court of law and not we the people (at this point anyway).
Interesting, I don't agree though I don't believe only the government gets to choose our fate, what a trampling of liberty.
Ok, so what do you intend to do about the trampling you and I both know is going on? Pull a Paul Revere and be the messenger, or start firing shots heard around the world? The courts are meant to decide whether our Second Amendment rights are being trampled on. Those rights include the ability to own and brandish said weapons, and yes AB144 tramples the 2nd heavily. Now, if the courts fail, then it's up to we the people either in voting or protesting and if it comes to protesting do so wisely. This LGUOC in my mind is not going to be a wise protest. It's just going to get a law passed to ban that as it is confrontational. Don't get me wrong, I agree with it. However it's just one step towards carrying of any type, in any place getting banned.
One point I would like to make here: Someone already stated they were out of state so their opinion on the issue was simply that, e.g. an opinion. That said, I would love to see you as an ambassador pull the second amendment routine on LE out here in any urban areas. 90% of the LE would take that as hostile and at the very least put you in a world of hurt. For us on the ground here, it's more than an opinion, and the OC "ambassadors" have ruined it as some of them have pulled the OC routine by making the point controversially and being somewhat confrontational to LE in how they respond/not being compliant. I've seen it before, and even know OCer's who make OC'ing more about making a point than carrying for protection against something like the Waffle House incident you brought up (bravo to the OCer's there for being well aware of their surroundings btw). I blame both the OCer's who made it a point of being controversial in their actions as much as the a** hat politicians who signed this into law without bringing it before the state for a vote (even though we all know how that vote would turn out).
I have OC'd in California have you? So who opinion matters more? Again interesting how you think the Feds a collection of the states created by the states can force states to comply with unconstitutional rules but then feel the other people of those states opinion doesnt' matter.
Nice demagoguery and putting the blame on the boiler plate word of "confrontational". Who started the confrontation the LEO or the person exercising his natural right to be armed and not to have that right infringed upon? Do you blame women for being confrontational when they won the right to vote? Or how about black folks in their fight to be recognized as equals in this country?
Most videos I have seen and recordings I have watched, the OC'ers have done nothing but try to stand up for rights, something that is very hard to do and not come off as "controversial" when being coerced and harassed by cops. I have been there and have been called a "confrontational douchebag" for it. Guess what it doesn't end unless someone stands up to the men in blue and the government when they are wrong.
Yes I have OC'd in CA. I've UOC'd in my city a total of 3 times, and I LOC every couple of weeks in the wilderness areas of my state when I backpack. Of the 3 times I've UOC'd in my city, every time I was taking large amounts of cash to or from my bank. I even called ahead so the security guard knew I was coming in armed, which he was fine with when I showed up. Additionally, I was on one attempt stopped by two local LE officers at the bank as I was leaving. His request was that I keep my hands visible at all times while he removed said firearm from my side. I complied. When asked why I was OC'ing, I promptly showed him a bag of cash and a withdrawal receipt, told him I was within my legal rights to UOC, and felt a need to UOC when carrying this much cash back to my place of business. I additionally told him that once back to the office, the gun would go back in a locked drawer in my desk. Forgot to tell him it would be loaded back at the office though. :lol: He told me to have a good day, I got into my car, and drove back to work.
That is compliant OC'ing. Notice I made a part of your message bold and underlined above. When it comes to OC'ing and being a representative of the OC culture, "most" doesn't cut it for representing other OCer's as sane and law abiding citizens. All it takes is one non-compliant idiot to say or do the wrong thing, and boom you've got a law like AB 144. OCer's who refuse to let officers inspect their weapon in public is one example I can give you. All it takes is a few of those people to become your representative village idiot, and it's all over.
Now, you pull the Second Amendment routine on LE in any of the places I backpack (e.g. out in the middle of no and where so there's little chance you would even have to pull this routine as there is hardly anyone out there), I'd applaud you. I would be doing much the same in that kind of location and situation... as well as showing any LE that has a problem with me LOC'ing a valid hunting and fishing license, and making the point that I'm not out to bother anyone as the chances are pretty good I would be running into a Forrest Ranger or DFG official. What am I hunting for with a .38 snub? Coyotes.
So you also just like to surrender your other rights, along with not understanding that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or fishing or even personal self defense?
I fully understand the 2nd and know it has nothing to do with hunting or fishing. It gives Americans the right to own and brandish firearms, mainly for their own protection against another totalitarian monarchy. It is an amendment that has been trampled over and spit on for years now. For example, back in the revolutionary era, those farmers owned military grade weapons of the day. Should we be able to own fully automatic weaponry, anti-tank weaponry, explosive, etc etc? I have no problem with it, and to be honest fully automatic weapons are a fun shoot if you know what you're doing (it isn't Hollywood, those things burn through clips of ammo quickly). Can't say I have a need to own a LAWs or RPG though.
The hunting license was a point brought up simply to say there are ways around laws. However the main point here is if LE can't recognize and respect 2nd Amendment rights (to keep and bear) when they are needed, we are already at a state of totalitarian government where reform is needed before we run out of legal loop holes (such as a hunting license) to actually practice keeping and bearing.
