Replies

I am a native of California and have lived here continuously since the 1930's and have owned and shot firearms since 1950. State law on the carrying of firearms in a car has always been gun in the trunk and ammunition in the glove box, carrying in a town was and is left to the local authorities, who were properly quite stingy in giving permits. People known to me who carried jewels and large sums of money were given permits to carry. I doubt your understanding of what you claim was happening in Redwood City in 1968. The laws were the same then as today and yesterday- Redwood City may have had a liberal Sheriff or Police Chief. Remember it was local.

As far as the phony statistic of 1 death in Dodge I ask the question when did they pass their gun laws? I use wild west towns as a symbol. I am not doing a statistical analysis which could not be accurate anyway. Statistics are questionable even today; i.e. are they truly accurate? Further, statistical association is not causation.p> However, back to my main point nobody ever answers the question: why did 19th century western America towns pass laws restricting the carrying of guns at will? Answer the question! Nobody ever directly answers a question now days. The disease of dodging the question has spread from our degenerate politicians to the public in general. ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN THE 19TH CENTURY WHY DID THE CITIZENS FORBID OPEN CARRY AT WILL IN WESTERN AMERICAN TOWNS?

I am against the unrestricted carrying of firearms in public at the will of the individual. That is all. A person can carry if he demonstrates a need or "good cause" i.e. carrying jewels and/or large sums of money or need to enter into a dangerous part of town. A person can transport a firearm in a car if he puts the gun in a trunk and ammunition in the glove box(or other locked box.)

I warn you extreme gun nuts. You are going to cost us all i.e. our right to keep and bear arms. People will get sick of the resulting carnage-(which is already starting i.e shooting a person for texting)-and repeal the Second Amendment. Then we will be screwed. Accept the doctrine that there are no unlimited RIGHTS." To cite a cliche "No man has the right to yell fire in a crowded theater." So much for unrestricted free speech. Elect people who will be reasonable in the granting of permits to carry.

“ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN THE 19TH CENTURY WHY DID THE CITIZENS FORBID OPEN CARRY AT WILL IN WESTERN AMERICAN TOWNS?”

I thought I did. So, according to you, all “western american towns” forbid open carry? And why would open carry be any more dangerous than concealed carry? If so, why is concealed carry more regulated than open carry in many jurisdictions?

And why should a gun and ammunition be kept separately when traveling in a vehicle?

And why should I be required to get a permit for a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution?

And why should my right to defend myself be subject to the whims of politicians?

I could go on and on. But the main question is, why should my right to defend me and my family be restricted by folks like you? Hopefully the Crips and Bloods of this world will listen to you. But I doubt it.

AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "IN THE 19TH CENTURY WHY DID THE CITIZENS FORBID OPEN CARRY AT WILL IN WESTERN AMERICAN TOWNS?"

For the same reason that open carry of firearms is illegal today in Kalifornia. Because ignorant, liberal cowards believe that it is better to live on their knees than die on their feet. They give up "bad neighborhoods" to bad people and sentence the innocent to live in fear. They endow those who have money or expensive jewelry with a special regard for their special lives.

As for your ridiculous claim, "You are going to cost us all i.e. our right to keep and bear arms",what nonsense. You claim the government has the authority to outlaw the bearing of arms, thus proving that you do not believe that there is such a right at all.

I waited patiently for the Heller and McDonald decisions. I wait patiently for the Ninth Circuit to do their job and protect my rights. I have no patience for those who suggest that I simply give up my rights.

Where in the Second Amendment do you find this "good cause" requirement to bear arms? I don't see it.

Is there any logic to the argument that our Founders, who had to steal the cannons with which they ended the occupation of Boston, would then enshrine a protection for keeping and bearing of arms which permits the government to decide who shall exercise such right? It's preposterous.

AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "People will get sick of the resulting carnage-(which is already starting i.e shooting a person for texting)-and repeal the Second Amendment. "

We'll have to follow Arizona very carefully then. They have repealed virtually all of their gun laws and don't require a permit to carry openly or concealed. It should be there that we see the effective repeal of the Second Amendment and not in some state like California.

Unfortunately, the race is over. The Second Amendment has been effectively repealed in California and not in Arizona.

You're asking me to fear that I will lose my right to keep and bear arms because of what is happening in Arizona? It's gone already and I'm waiting for the courts to recognize the infringements and restore my rights.

Is it your opinion that the Ninth Circuit will or will not restore my rights? Should they restore my rights or follow your thinking that permitting the exercise of the right will destroy the right?