Front Page  »  

SLO Chief behind open carrying legislation

October 11, 2011

San Luis Obispo Police Chief Deborah Linden

San Luis Obispo Police Chief Deborah Linden launched the successful effort to criminalize the open carrying of unloaded handguns in public, wrote Dave Maggard, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, in an email.

On Monday, Gov. Jerry Brown announced he had signed legislation that prohibits the openly carrying of handguns in public amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

The open-carry ban, by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, was sponsored by the California Police Chiefs Association.

“We spoke extensively with the Governor yesterday about the importance of this bill and are extremely pleased that he signed it,” Maggard said in his Tuesday email. “I would be remiss if I did not call attention to the work of Chief Deb Linden of San Luis Obispo (who first brought this issue before Cal Chiefs for action) and Chief Ken James of Emeryville (who did some major heavy lifting to get this bill through the Legislature in the face of well organized opposition from the NRA and its allied organizations).”

The measure exempts peace officers, military gatherings, gun shows and hunting. It also requires the state to keep records of rifle sales starting in January 2014.


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


95 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is one of the very few things Deb Linden has done that I agree with.


0

You support the open oppression of civil rights???


In he endeavor to oppress our 2A civil rights, Deb Linden has broken the law:


California Civil Code 52.3:


(a) No governmental authority, or agent of a governmental

authority, or person acting on behalf of a governmental authority,

shall engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement

officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States or by the Constitution or laws of California.


http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/52.3.html


She should be severely chastised and then thrown in prison.


0

laws are only there to keep the neocons inline! Right, typo?


0

It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it.


0

It would also appear that Deb Linden, and whoever she conspired with in Sacramento, are guilty under Federal statute also:


!8 USC 241

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or

intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,

Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any

right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of

the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;


….


They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in

violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an

attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit

aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined

under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,

or both, or may be sentenced to death.


As soon as someone who open carried in the past gets injured or killed, they will have legal standing to bring lawsuits against these people for violating their civil rights. I hope the citizens and city of San Luis Obispo have really deep pockets. They are going to need it.


Since this law does not take effect until 1/1/12, I would strongly urge everyone to go out and Unloaded Open Carry (UOC) in a non-sensitive area. Video tape your excursion. This will establish standing should anything ever happen to you in the future. You will be able to retire compliments of Deb Linden, the city of San Luis Obispo, and the co-conspirators in Sacremento.


Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights


0

“choprzrul says: Since this law does not take effect until 1/1/12, I would strongly urge everyone to go out and Unloaded Open Carry (UOC) in a non-sensitive area. ”


Yes please do this, come to slo with your favorite strap on, Be sure to email Karen before, so they can video tape you going on about the constitution as you are searched and detained.


“choprzrul says: You will be able to retire compliments of Deb Linden, the city of San Luis Obispo, and the co-conspirators in Sacremento.”


No, that’s not how it works.


0

Again, for your review, I present the exact text of California Civil Code 52.3:


(a) No governmental authority, or agent of a governmental

authority, or person acting on behalf of a governmental authority,

shall engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement

officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States or by the Constitution or laws of California.


0

You want to skip to the soapbox speech part.

First you have to survive the encounter.


Remember you are protecting yourself and others.


So you go somewhere, and it happens a criminal!

You load up your open carry and take on the criminal.

You have to survive the criminals weapon.

You have to survive the other people with there gun rights, that now see two armed strangers in the store.

You have to survive the store owner and his right to defend himself.

You have to survive the law enforcement response to all the “Men with guns” 911’s.

You have to hope nothing “goes horribly wrong”.


Then you can pull out the index cards and go on about the California Civil Code.

First things first.


0

You mean like what happens all the time in the 4 constitutional carry states and 37 “Shall Issue” states???


NOT!


2/3 of the population of the US is included in those 41 states and what you describe above does NOT happen.


Feel that? It’s the wind leaving the sails of your argument.


0

People shoot each other every day, in every state.

Fatherless children, widows and the injured will be relieved to read your stack of index cards.


We are talking about Slo California not Arizona or Florida. Things will be very different with thousands of people doing open carry in little San Luis Obispo, instead of what 3 of you now?


That’s what you want right? Thousands of average joe’s and jains with there strap on’s having a federally protected parade down higeura street?


0

You haven’t been paying close enough attention.


I have absolutely zero desire to Unloaded Open Carry, outside of doing it long enough to be video recorded for any potential future litigation. Granted, UOC is better than being defenseless, but it is largely cumbersome to implement due to the myriad of wacko laws that one must maneuver to do this legally.


Nope, what I want is for 2A civil rights to be viewed as the fundamental civil rights that they are.


While not agreeing with the UOC movement’s tactics or timing, I fully acknowledge and support their RIGHT to do so if they see fit. I would much rather carry loaded and concealed.


And yes, I do want thousands of average joes & janes marching down Higeura street demonstrating for their civil rights.


0

I am not surprised. Police kind of have to be for gun control, because it often seems to them much safer to do their job if they know that honest people are not packing. Honest people are only one “slip” away from dishonest. I can see that point.


I do not agree with it, but I can see it. So I do not fault our over-paid, under-worked chief for her support of this. I do hope the legislation fails, and I hope it fails on the constitutionality of it as so many other laws have in recent years as they head to the Supreme Court. I think the people behind this silliness know that, but are just pandering to the base, as it doesn’t look good for any politician right now.


I am safe with my firearms, my most recent is a 1933 Mosin Nagant (ok, it was cheap on sale at Big 5) – what a cool rifle! Best $150 (after all the state fee BS) I spent! Ah, the thrill of cleaning Cosmoline!


0

Her and her associates can continue to fill the jails and prisons in Cali and continue the unions bankruptcy of our state. Another one of our rights striped away like bark on a tree and they know it.

With continued flooding of illegals into Cali and your right to protect yourself being removed every year crime and victims will continue on the up-rise.

Here is a example of why citizens need the right to carry- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/national/main2466711.shtml


0

1. Police are very good at solving crimes.


2. An armed citizenry is very good at preventing crime.


3. Police unions lobby Sacramento to implement gun control.


4. Citizens can’t arm themselves.


5. The crime rate soars because citizens can’t defend themselves.


6. More & more police officers are hired to solve the crimes.


7. Police unions are very happy with their lobbying investment as their membership grows.


8. Citizens are unhappy with high levels of crime.


9. Criminals are very happy about all of the unarmed victims.


10. This leaves the police unions and criminals happy; while the citizens suffer.


The only winners are the police unions and the criminals.


Anti Gun == Pro Crime


Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights.


0

Anti Gun == Pro Crime


Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights


Oh my gosh you people over react. She never said that she was anti gun, can’t you people read? She never said that she wants to take your guns. I don’t want 10 years old driving cars does that make me anti car? Am I taking the 10 year olds civil rights away?


0

You are failing to grasp the entirety of the United States Supreme Court’s Heller decision that established the 2A as a fundamental, individual civil right(s). Many will attempt circumvent the supremes intent by saying that they ruled for keeping arms inside the home only. This is completely disingenuous.


Ruth Ginsberg, one of if not the most liberal members of the court, was cited in Heller when addressing the right to Keep and Bear Arms:


“In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”


BEARING A FIREARM FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELF DEFENSE IS A CIVIL RIGHT.


Granted, she never said she wants to take our guns. She just trampled all over the US Constitution by further violating my civil right to BEAR arms.


Get it now?


Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights


0

You’re the one that doesn’t get it, I have rights too. I have a right to know that someone with Alzheimer’s isn’t walking around Albertsons with a gun (in honor of the late Chuck Heston). My family has a right to be safe. Bottom line, we have a right to feel somewhat safe when we go shopping or when we’re driving on the freeway, a right to be safe from someone that has a hot temper or is crazy, we have human rights to not live in fear of nut jobs.


If you people can’t deal with meeting us half way then perhaps we should fight to just get rid of guns altogether. Go move it Iraq and you can pretend that you’re living in the old west while letting us become more civilized,,,cons=move backwards libs=forward.


0

You are willing to put your family inside a thin steel and glass shell, hurtle yourself down the freeway at 70 mph, not have the faintest clue as to the skill level & temperance of the driver next to you; and then preach to me about having “…a right to feel somewhat safe…”???


Really???


More people are killed and injured in automobiles than via firearms in this state. Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming, and Alaska have adopted “Constitutional Carry” laws that allow any citizen that isn’t otherwise prohibited from owning or possessing firearms to openly or concealed carry of firearms without a permit. Those 4 states have nearly 9 million people living in them. Out of those 9 million people, how many law abiding citizens have you heard about in the news because of firearms related incidents? NONE.


Your phobia of responsible and law abiding citizens taking responsibility for their personal safety and security is not easily understood. You acknowledge that we live amongst “…nut jobs…”, but yet you advocate against taking steps to defend yourself and your family from those nut jobs. You know that the police will arrive just minutes after something happens to clean up and investigate the crime. Why do you not want to stop the crime before it happens? Why do you advocate for making the good people of this state victims? You know that the state is releasing hardened criminals onto our streets, but yet your position is that I should not be able to exercise my civil rights. We all KNOW that the criminals are armed. Are you really more concerned with the safety of the criminals than you are for yourself and your family???


I suspect that you need to sit down and really think about this. We do not live in a safe society. Between the meth heads and the gang bangers, anything could happen to any of us at any given time anywhere up and down the central coast. Please, Typoqueen, do not paint yourself into a corner where you find yourself defenseless in the face of grave danger. I do not want to see you or any other good law abiding citizen of this state become a victim of a violent crime simply because Sacramento has chosen to separate us from our civil rights.


Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights.


0

“I suspect that you need to sit down and really think about this. We do not live in a safe society. Between the meth heads and the gang bangers, anything could happen to any of us at any given time anywhere up and down the central coast.”


Wow, you’re right, what was I thinking, imagine a world where those meth heads couldn’t legally walk around carrying guns. You’re right, silly me,,they have their rights!!


“Please, Typoqueen, do not paint yourself into a corner where you find yourself defenseless in the face of grave danger.”


Paranoid much? As I’ve said over and over, statistically the gun you carry will either accidentally kill you or someone else, be used in a momentary act of rage or aid in a suicide, statistically it won’t be used to defend you or anyone else.


0

Please cite your statistics from a peer reviewed source.


Paranoid? I keep several fire extinguishers in my home, garage, and autos. By your measure, does having those defensive devices at hand to mitigate risk make me paranoid of fire?


Does putting on your seat belt make you paranoid of car wrecks?


You know that the answer to the above is ‘no’. So why would you think that having a defensive measure for personal safety and security make someone paranoid???


Your arguments are falling apart.


0

“I have a right to know that someone with Alzheimer’s isn’t walking around Albertsons with a gun…”


“…we have a right to feel somewhat safe…”


“…we have human rights to not live in fear of nut jobs.”


Can you point out where those ‘rights’ are enumerated in the constitution?


“Go move it Iraq…”


Mmmm….I see, your way or the highway???


Why are you so against the exercise of civil rights as enumerated in the constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court?


0

I’m not going on and on in this topic anymore. My posts will just get plunked and you will continue to feel the way you do and you certainly won’t change my mind.


0

Dead set against law abiding citizens exercising their civil rights.


I must say, this really surprises me.


It kinda makes me sad for you.


:–((


0

“Robert1 says: Here is a example of why citizens need the right to carry-”


Did you even read the link you posted?


An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine’s Day dinner has nothing to do with a citizens right to carry. He is a cop, I expect him to have a gun close.


0

The example was that someone other then the bad guy had a gun, and the bad guy did not know that because the off duty officer was in civilian cloths,easily could have been a normal citizen that was armed.


0

I hope she is really proud of herself. Messing with law abiding citizens to push your agenda was lame at best. Totally worthless and another waste of our tax dollars when all focus should be on jobs, and I sure don’t mean more overpaid lazy cops like her.


0

Criminals and mental cases do not obey or recognize law and LE are exempt.

These old and new laws are mqade for honest law abiding people.

Chief Linden made her mark, got a big lifetime pension.

I wish she do something else or simply do nothing.

As a LEO is she that afraid of someone openly carrying a gun?

If she is, she can certaintly understand why we want CW permit!


Most people who own a firearm, because (1). Are NOT allowed to carry it, (2). They instead put it in a safe and cannot reach or get to use it in an emergency.


So why the on-going making of more and more laws, if it doesnt justify more revenue, it empowers the powerful more.


0

What a dummy she is. There is less chance getting popped with a concealed handgun than an open carried one anyway. Now with this law, California has clearly violated the Federal Constitution. Before with Open carry, concealed carry was illegal and the 2nd amendment option was open carry. Cali just closed that door. Wait and see for the court actions.


0

Chief Linden should be fired. Her liberal socialist attitude towards the second amendment and lack of respect for the general wellfare the law-abiding public is criminal. LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.


0

stopagenda21 says: Her liberal socialist attitude…….criminal. LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.


“False Accusations – False accusations, distortion campaigns & smear campaigns are patterns of unwarranted or exaggerated criticisms which occur when a personality disordered individual tries to feel better about themselves by putting down someone else – usually a family member, spouse, partner, friend or police chief. ” http://outofthefog.net/CommonBehaviors/FalseAccusations.html


0

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:


* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.


Read more: Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56494#ixzz1aXPi6600


Read more: Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56494#ixzz1aXP6962H


0

“Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true. As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way.

The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes.


They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


0

You just prove what most people already know, most psychiatrists are nuttier than their patients.


0

I don’t like her decision either but please don’t try to argue against it using some kind of Limbaugh sounding nonsense. Do you know what the word Liberalism means? It is not AT ALL related to what you think it means. Liberal is a word that has been intentionally misused in order to control people’s minds. Liberalism has NOTHING TO DO with what you think of as a “liberal.” Liberalism is the FOUNDATION of American ideals. Frankly, though, to respond directly to what you were trying to say, “conservatism” is just as much of a mental disorder, in which you have lost control of your ability to actually think for yourself, just like the people you are criticizing. There are no “liberals” and “conservatives” in Washington, there are only people that use liberal and conservative rhetoric to legitimize their rule to their constituency. If you think that there is actually any difference between Eric Cantor and Nancy Pelosi, you aren’t actually reading the text of legislation.


0

I agree with this whole-heartedly. Liberalism was commandeered by progressives after their last failure to win popular support (though they got close and the lasting effects are still felt today); rather, Liberalism used to mean what many think of Libertarianism today – liberty. It is the root of the word; how ironic that most socialists and nanny-state-wanting people consider themselves liberal.


Or, more apropos for this discussion, liberals are often for gun control. Oh, our Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.


0

Thank you r0y. It’s funny, earlier I am stating a conservative position and everyone agrees. But now I am simply stating a FACT about the English language and because I am not parroting the EXACT ideas they have heard on TV, it’s thumbs down time. The fact that people don’t even understand that that the term Liberalism and “liberal” (as we use it) are completely separate things is kind of disturbing.


0

A lot of posters here are not comfortable outside their ideological bubble, no matter how much “open mindedness” they profess.


0

Projection.


0

You can’t fire her. She is retiring at age 50 at about 250,000 a year in our tax dollars. Good deal if you can get it. Another civil welfare bum. And the cops were upset over measure A and B. Hell the old police chief hasnt even died yet so we are going to be paying over 900,000 dollars a year for a police chief (one active and 2 on welfare) until they die. (Linden is only 50 so her welfare run should be about 35 years……or about another 9-10 million dollars in welfare payments just to her.


0

Maybe she will be shot a criminal that does not have a permit to conceal, and we won’t be able to defend her with our rights to bear being taken from us. You know she has made many of enemies in her career as a police person, easy to follow someone home after work and see where they live, and today’s computer searches have never been easier. As I remember last year someone stole a police car and its contents that had employee addresses and info in it. I personally would rather my neighbors be armed and able to protect their families as well as mine.


0

I remember a great old bumper sticker “Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than Charlton Heston’s gun.” Laws only effect law abiding people. A criminal will have a loaded gun and it will be concealed until he/she uses it.


0

But the gun that killed the teenagers that went to the wrong house by accident when the homeowner accidentally killed them,, that gun killed more than Ted’s car.


0

BTW, I love that you used a man with Alzheimer’s as an example of someone that should be carrying around a firearm. Another good example of why people shouldn’t be carrying guns, thanks, I’ll use that example in the future.


0

Actually, he used a man who is deceased. He won’t be shooting anyone, so you have nothing to worry about… unless you want to pry it out of his cold, dead hands?


0

I always thought that the bullets killed people, not unloaded guns. Seems like a feel-good Band Aid which ignores the real problem of criminals carrying loaded firearms around at the risk of a mere misdemeanor. This does not accomplish one thing to keep my family and I safe.


0

No, bullets don’t kill people either. PEOPLE kill people. Why we just don’t ban people is beyond me!


0

Right.


Guns & bullets kill people


….like……


pencils cause spelilng mstakes.


NOT!


0

I can’t imagine why any police chief would oppose this new legislation. This is an non story that seems to be out there to simply anger the right winged NRAers.


0

It is not fair to classify everyone who supports the right to keep and bear arms as some right winged red neck. I do not think it is a bad thing that a lot of people don’t like guns, I think it implies a lot of positive things about the way they think. That is different, however, than people, because of their fear and dislike of guns, trying to limit other citizens’ right to have and carry them. You may not fully understand or appreciate the idea behind the second amendment, but that does not invalidate it. It may, in fact, have consequences such as increased random shootings. But its potential value far outweighs the unfortunate incidents that make gun rights uncomfortable for some. You simply cannot have portions of the population (e.g. government and criminals) having greater potential for violent force, and expect there to be good outcomes. SO MANY incidents could have been stopped before they got completely out of hand if some of the people present had concealed or visible guns. Far more than the incidents that would have become more aggravated.


If you believe that police presence helps lower crime rates, then it should be clear that the possibility of victims and bystanders being armed would also help to deter criminals More cops at higher salaries will almost NEVER provide the opportunity to protect yourself should you be somewhere where an armed nutcase goes wild. I, for one, resent being the gradual stripping of my ability to defend myself with equal force. You’re not even allowed to physically resist an unlawful arrest anymore, and if you don’t appreciate what kind of slippery slope that is, you haven’t been paying attention to history.


0

“It is not fair to classify everyone who supports the right to keep and bear arms as some right winged red neck.”


I didn’t say anything about red necks. My entire family shoots including myself.


“I do not think it is a bad thing that a lot of people don’t like guns, I think it implies a lot of positive things about the way they think.”


I never said that I don’t like guns and I don’t think that most people feel that they are bad if used in a reasonable manner. I’m all for people being able to responsibly own firearms and I believe that most people probably feel the same way. There is no reason for people to be carrying guns while riding the bus, shopping at the market etc..


“That is different, however, than people, because of their fear and dislike of guns, trying to limit other citizens’ right to have and carry them.”


Give you people an inch and you want 20 miles. Have your guns, that’s fine but this isn’t the wild west of the 1800s or the middle east. Why do you want to go backwards and civility behind? Keep the guns at home or on the range where they belong. I can think of a few posters in this forum that would be dangerous carrying around a gun. One can only imagine the increase in road rage shootings. Some people have hot tempers and need a bit to cool down before being able to handle a gun. Can you imagine if that fireman that beat up that guy in bar had a gun on him, I wonder how many people might have killed that night. Can you imagine any drunk in a bar carrying around a gun? Come on, this wanting to go backwards is just getting out of control.


“You may not fully understand or appreciate the idea behind the second amendment, but that does not invalidate it.”


So because you think you have the right to carry a gun that negates our right to being safe. We all have rights and I have the right to go out and not be worried about some nut job getting mad because I accidentally cut him off in traffic and him taking shots at me and my kids. What about my rights?


“It may, in fact, have consequences such as increased random shootings. But its potential value far outweighs the unfortunate incidents that make gun rights uncomfortable for some.”


Well, if you want to put facts in this issue then you are factually wrong. Statistically we will have more suicides and more accidental killings than people using the gun to protect themselves or others. The right live in this fantasyland where we go back in time and we all live in the old west and shoot up the bad guys. Look at the countries that have no gun control, which one should we use to model our country off of, Iran, Afghanistan?


” You’re not even allowed to physically resist an unlawful arrest anymore, and if you don’t appreciate what kind of slippery slope that is, you haven’t been paying attention to history”


What time in history could one physically resist arrest? So you’re saying that if you feel that a cop is unlawfully (in your opinion) arresting you that you should be able to resist that arrest by firing on the cop. You have kinda proved the point of why so many sheriffs agree with the one in this article. I do fairly well with history, when could you fire on law enforcement? I guarantee that’s one fight that you won’t win.


0

You need to follow the Kelly Thomas case in Orange County. It is entirely lawful to resist and use force to defend yourself against unlawful force by a peace officer.


“Police officers have a right to use reasonable force in the performance of their lawful duties, but citizens have a right to self-defense – even against the police – if they are not using reasonable force in the performance of a lawful duty. ”


–Orange County D.A. Tony Rackauckas


http://orangecountyda.com/home/index.asp?page=8&recordid=2582


0

I wonder how many people feel that the cops are using unreasonable force in their performance of duties on them. Most of the guys that I’ve seen on the show Cops think that the cops are using unreasonable force on them. I wonder who will win when a citizen that feels that a cop is using unreasonable force on them pulls out the gun and shoot the cop. Most likely the vigilante will lose that battle, seems suicidal to me. So are you saying there is a law that says that a citizen can use a firearm against cop if they feel that they’re being picked on? I don’t care what that DA says, I don’t trust all DAs, can you show me that law or where a judge has upheld that.


0

“Give you people an inch and you want 20 miles.” I think the important thing here is to realize the absolutist nature of some of the bill of rights. The reason for that is because who is to decide what is 1 inch, or 10 miles, or 20 miles. The moment you allow that you set the precedence for a whole range of interpretations that may be used to eliminate the very right you are attempting to protect. In the context of the 1st amendment, a lot of people say “it’s not absolute, you can’ yell fire in a crowded movie theater.” I would disagree, because even if it were not against the law, it is very likely that there would be plenty of non legal repercussions like being barred from the theater, possibly getting your butt kicked, etc. The same is true with regard to the second amendment. If people were really as reckless as you describe, they wouldn’t wait for weapon carry to be illegal, they would just ram their car into people. You don’t have to make it illegal for drunk people to have a weapon, because the social pressure not to including being banned from bars and liquor stores would likely be enough. Think of the incredible number of ways that right now, without a handgun, a person could totally wreak havoc should they choose to. You seem to think that a loaded gun has some magical power that causes people to lose rationale thought or that exceeds the power they already have to do damage (except against another gun wielder).


The POSSIBILITY that someone could shoot at you because you cut them off does not equate to an increase probability that someone would do that. And if someone was such a loose canon that they would do that, they probably are packing heat already, illegally. Furthermore, people being armed actually tends to DEFUSE situations like fights.


Which brings me to the next point… we don’t need to look to other countries where there is no gun control, because we have places right here in the United States that allow people to carry concealed. And the statistics show the complete opposite from what you are arguing. As far as Afghanistan or Iraq… whether you interpret not having gun control as a good or a bad thing really depends on which side you’re on, doesn’t it? I bet the resistance fighters there are glad they were able to stockpile some weapons over time.


My point about physically resisting unlawful arrest was just to illustrate another way in which we have been stripped of the right to protect ourselves, I was not trying to imply that people were ever able to or should have ever been able to simply shoot an officer to resist unlawful arrest.


0

Wow! Nice job, Typo! You had not ONE, but TWO posts hidden due to low comments! =)


0

The thumbs are rigged, I’m not saying that because I care, I’m saying because I know it to be true and so does one other poster here,,you know who you are.


0

Typoqueen says:” The thumbs are rigged”

“I know it to be true and so does one other poster here”


57/5 thumbs down/up is hardly rigged, tomfoolery perhaps but rigged?


Send your proof to admin@calcoastnews.com


0

Can’t send my proof and I don’t want to rat out my source. But I KNOW that it’s rigged, not rigged by CCN BTW. But it really doesn’t matter, I think it’s funny. To the person that has rigged it, keep up the good work, I love it.


0
1 2