Tag Archives: Jared Loughner

California’s AB144 to Ban Open Carry

For more recent news on this legislation see: Update on California AB144

Gun Enthusiasts who live in California are about to lose some more of their freedom if the Legislature is successful with their latest bill to further control guns in the State.  California is currently a ‘may issue’ state that will allow concealed carry of a weapon if the gun owner obtains a concealed carry weapon permit (CCW).  Without a permit, it is against is the law to carry a concealed weapon in public.  However, it is perfectly legal to openly carry a weapon in a holster, not concealed, on one’s person so long as the weapon is not loaded.

State legislators are now attempting to make it illegal to carry a weapon openly, which has always been legal in California.  AB 144, which is unbelievably confusing to try and read, has been authored by Anthony Portantino (D. – La Cañada) is designed to strip us of our second amendment right to bear our arms.  On May 4, 2011, the bill successfully passed in the Democrat controlled Assembly Appropriations Committee.  And now, this morning, I hear that it also passed a vote in the assembly.  This liberal controlled legislature on the ‘left’ coast in California is bent on imposing their liberal agenda on the good citizens of the great state in yet another attempt to ultimately make guns illegal.

Open carrying of firearms has always been legal in California, just like walking down the street.  Carrying a firearm in California does not imply anything criminal.  Firearms are carried for self defense because the police cannot and do not defend you.  They will not be there when you are attacked, but will show up only after you have become a victim. Your safety is your own responsibility.  There is a saying that, “When seconds count; the police are only minutes away”.

At a time when many states are passing less restrictive gun laws, and in some cases legalizing open carry of side arms, California is going the other way and introducing more gun control laws.  Creating a law that criminals do not follow is not stopping gun violence, it is just making more innocent people susceptible to gun violence by those who don’t care about the law in the first place.  Florida is currently in the process of legalizing open carry.  Not California.  Wyoming just became a constitutional carry state.  Not California.

The Brady Bunch is also in on this abdication of personal responsibility and is lobbying to get it passed, or rather, ram it through. This bill seems to be traveling at break neck speed.  Just 12 days after it was passed out of committee, it goes up for a vote in the Assembly and passes.  The same legislature that can’t seem to find the time to put together a reasonable budget for the State, is able to find plenty of time to restrict our rights.

When the author of this bill, Anthony Portantino, learned of the South Bay Open Carry organization meeting at a restaurant in Pasadena (his home base) for dinner (all of whom were openly carrying) he was incensed and said, “I think most people on Main Street California want to go out with their families at dinner and to a movie and not have to worry about a group of folks who are armed at the restaurant or on the street next to them.”  I for one don’t necessarily think it is wise to poke the dog that is attacking you, but the SBOC does this sort of public display to make a statement, and to try to educate people.

Portantino, as most gun control activists, can’t seem to realize that these guns actually make an environment safer.  Perhaps if there had been a few gun toting people at the rally for Gabrielle Giffords, Jared Loughner would not have gone through with his murderous plan.

Gun Enthusiasts are encouraged to contact as many members of the State Senate, individually, as they can to oppose this legislation.

GE

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under General, News, The Fight for Our Rights

Should Guns Be Allowed in Our Society?

I read a blog article today lamenting the Arizona shooting  in January, the deaths of the six people who died and the shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords.   I agree, that day will live on as a tragedy of our societyhat will be

Gabriell Giffords

regretted for many years to come.  But the conclusion of that blog post was that guns should not be allowed to be a part of our society and that the Constitution is being misinterpreted.  I admire the author’s bold exclamation but feel that it is woefully lacking in understanding of the intent of our Constitution.  Jared Loughner was an unbalanced crazy person.  No law will ever protect us from crazy.

To say that guns should be outlawed as a logical result of this horrible shooting is like saying that when the jilted wife uses her car to run over her cheating husband repeatedly in a parking lot, that we should outlaw cars.  It is like saying we should outlaw kitchen knives when one is used to kill someone.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a misinterpretation of the constitution.  That right was deliberately written into the Constitution because our founding fathers recognized that it was needed to keep us free as a society.  It was pretty high on the list of rights too – like number two.

In order to completely understand and interpret our Constitution, you must try and understand the intent behind it, the temperament of the writers and social condition in which our founding fathers lived.  Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence, contributor to the writing of the Constitution, and third President of the United States wrote that, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  He further wrote, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” 

Those statements are not ambiguous and certainly seem unlikely to be “misinterpreted”.  These words have only one meaning.  It is thinking such as this, which was common for all of our founding fathers and authors of the constitution, that caused the provision for we the people to keep and bear arms, to be specifically written into our Constitution.  Some people like to point to the line about the right to a militia as the intent for the ones who would bear the arms.  But it is the militia from who we should forever be able to protect ourselves, because as soon as we give up our arms, that militia will have little trouble leading us into tyranny and removing our freedom forever.  Take, for example, what is happening right now in Libya where the dictatorship is shooting its citizens who are dissenting against it.

So more and more, anti-gun extremists, chip away, a little bit at a time, at our rights to “bear arms” and own guns every time one is used to commit an egregious crime.  They use tragedies such as the Arizona incident to cry for more regulation and call for banning guns, ammunition, and large ammo magazines.  Incrementally, they remove a little bit more of our freedom, until one day, we will wake up to hear the local authorities tell us to bring our guns down to the police station and watch as they throw them away. 

These same anti-gun extremists ignore the fact that millions of people own guns safely and only rarely is one used to commit such a horrible crime.  They immediately cry for stricter gun laws and restrictions. 

Guns are used more frequently in the inner city by lawless criminals who obtained their guns illegally.  No law will ever take the guns from their hands.

The problem with this kind of extremist thinking is that, you can never legislate away mentally disturbed or unbalanced people by passing laws against guns.  You cannot ban guns and expect them to go away from our society.  People will always find a way to obtain them.  If it was possible to legislate them away, we would be able to also get drugs out of our society.  Drugs are illegal, but they’re still there.  The only people who have drugs are the ones who are getting them illegally – criminals.   The same would be true of guns.  If guns were made illegal, the only ones who would have them would be criminals.  Do you think they will willingly give up their guns?  I think not.  Frankly, I would prefer to protect myself from criminals with guns. 

Another problem with banning guns is that every time it has been tried, violent crime has risen in that population.  Criminals find it much easier to commit horrible crimes if they think their intended victims cannot defend themselves.  On the other hand, where guns are more prevalent, crime statistics are lower – significantly lower as a result.

Guns actually work to keep our society safe, especially when they are in the hands of law abiding citizens.  It is the law breaking citizens that we need to control – not guns.

GE

3 Comments

Filed under General, The Fight for Our Rights