17 thoughts on “A Pyrrhic Victory”

  1. I don’t follow Cali law much … The mulford act banned carrying loaded guns. But was it okay to to carry unloaded guns at that time? So this new law will make it unlawful to openly carry an unloaded firearm? Or you have to register any unloaded gun you plan to carry?

    I have mixed feelings on open carry. That nut from the recent IHOP shooting is what I wouldn’t want to be made easier. Coming from a small town in North Dakota, people walking around with a rifle was something people rarely even took a look at. It was a very common sight especially around the hunting seasons.

    For me though the bottom line is when the king has all the guns, look out.

    When the anti gun people go off after a shooting though I remind them about the 160 million gun owners that DIDN’T shoot anyone that day.

  3. As a commenter mentioned, challenges to the lack of carry permits in California have been struck down because California offered open carry for unloaded weapons. Now that they’ve closed that option, the lawsuits can commence.

  4. Just out of curiosity, when did California ban loaded open carry? Do I need to include, “Thank You Lord for the statute of limitations,” in my nightly prayers?

  5. “The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched on the California Capitol to protest the bill[1][2]. The bill was signed by California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c)”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

  7. I have mixed feelings on open carry. That nut from the recent IHOP shooting is what I wouldn’t want to be made easier.

    It is pure folly to think someone intent on mayhem, murder and suicide would give a ban on open or concealed carry any more deference that the fine on an overdue library book.

  8. As far as the dead IHop killer, it’s quite possible that the lunatic assassin was already guilty of illegal possession of a weapon, so no additional law is needed to cope with that type of situation.

    As far as the new California bill, it’s my limited understanding that the bill only prohibits open carry of handguns. So in theory unloaded open carry of longarms such as shotguns or rifles would still be legal. A question that immediately springs to my mind is how will gun owners legally transport handguns anymore? Will handguns be required to be locked in a case, even as the owners leave the gunstore where they first purchase the handgun in question?

    Because California has some of the worst anti-gun laws in the nation, it has become the front line of pro-gun litigation. One excellent resource for such news and information is at the calguns.net website.

    One federal lawsuit filed in San Diego challenged the ‘good cause’ loophole in California law; by which California law enforcement officials prohibit pistol owners, in an arbitrary and capricious manner, from acquiring a license to carry a concealed and loaded firearm. The lower court ruled against the plaintiff, using the reasoning that the existing California law permitting unloaded open carry was an adequate substitute to satisfy the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense when outside the home.

    That law which the court used as a fig-leaf to justify it’s ruling is about to be abolished by the bill in question. So yes, the anti-gunners may have just inadvertently cleared the way for the Federal courts to impose a ‘must issue’ permitting procedure for concealed-carry-weapon licenses statewide.

  10. Titus:
    the ‘left’ (such as it is in the modern USA) has no monopoly on ‘unintended consequences’. How many conservative voters in 2000 wanted us to invade Iraq, or to do so with such spectacular incompetence, or then allow so many billion$ to be stolen?

    Now as for the ‘gun grabbers’ – when has any bill been floated in CA to allow the cops to seize guns ‘en masse’ from their lawful owners? I smell another paranoid episode coming on . . . .

  12. How many conservative voters in 2000 wanted us to invade Iraq, or to do so with such spectacular incompetence, or then allow so many billion$ to be stolen?

    For “consequence” to apply, there has to be a demonstrated cause and effect. The 2000 election didn’t lead to the Iraq invasion. The 9/11 attacks and their repercussions did. But I understand what you’re really trying to say: “Bush did it too so it’s ok.” Morality has so much more clarity to it when I ask “What would my strawman caricature of Bush do?”

  13. Boy.

    Kevin is the kind of idiot that repeatedly pees on an electric fence and then has the temerity to get mad at the fence because IT never learns.

    Kevin, you and your ilk suck and are either disingenous or stupid. It is really that simple.

  16. Lets not forget when NYC confiscated all the legally held and registered AR-15’s ans similar type weapons too. The only functional purpose of registration is confiscation. If there is one microbe of a case that gun registration reduces crime, I have yet to have it presented to me.

  17. Kevin Greene Says:
    “the ‘left’ (such as it is in the modern USA) has no monopoly on ‘unintended consequences’.”

    I agree with this part, not so much the rest of the post. Iraq wasn’t perfect execution but my reasons for thinking so are probably different than Kevin’s. We killed less people than Saddam did and now the other 50,000,000 are free to determine their own future.

    Karl Hallowell Says:
    “The 2000 election didn’t lead to the Iraq invasion. The 9/11 attacks and their repercussions did.”

    With the distinction that was made by the previous administration that Iraq did not help carry out 9-11.

Comments are closed.