Does this mean that she wants to disarm the police. With all of the innocent victims that the police are gunning down it might not be a bad idea.
I know we have the “right” ... but it’s BLING. And stupid. Inflame these people and they’ll take the damn guns away from us ... and if you think they can’t right now, look at Socialized Medicine and CO2 limits, they couldn’t do that either could they? Yeah, I’m going to get a lot of “from my cold dead hands” comments on this one. I appreciate having my weapon on me at all times, but I don’t have to tell the world it is there. It begs for bad guys to take it from me and limits my ability to surprise a bad guy. Quit screwing around with the libs until we get some protection in congress, then make ANY kind of carry legal when the issue belongs to us. Right now, NOTHING belongs to us!
They are correct. That IS an insane law.
I am in 100% agreement with Kalifornia changing this law. People need to be free to carry LOADED guns.
;-)
—this fiasco reminds me of two trite, perhaps , but old axioms—”discretion is the better part of valor” and the principle of “unintended consequences”-—
Supporters of the “Free Speech movement” are proving to be their own worst enemies. In their high-profile display of openly speaking, they have led many Californians to question the sanity of a law that allows people to openly speak in public places.
They certainly caught the attention of the California Assembly, which voted 46-30 this week for legislation by Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, to repeal the open speech law that has been on the books for four decades.
Saldaña introduced AB1934 after several dozen free speaking demonstrators frightened beachgoers in San Diego last year. She regarded the flaunting of open speech as an act of intimidation - and a tragedy waiting to happen.
She is not alone. In a Commonwealth Club panel discussion last week, Emeryville Police Chief Ken James described the many ways in which the open presence of speech makes the streets less safe. He explained how police officers are trained to regard the presence of talk as a potential threat.
Also, since the law allows a person to have a voice, the distinction between a speaker and non speaker is all but moot. A non speaker can speak within seconds, James pointed out - as was demonstrated in a video shown during the legislative testimony.
At least two factors are driving the open-speech movement in California. One is the frustration with the difficulty of obtaining a locally issued speech permit, particularly in urban areas. The other is the more fundamental belief that “a right unexercised is a right lost.”
Sam Paredes, executive director of the Open Speakers of California, attempted to make the case for open speech at the Commonwealth Club. But his argument separated from reality when he refused to concede that the visible presence of openly speaking on the streets posed a greater threat in more populated areas.
“America is America,” Paredes insisted, taking a near-absolutist view of the First Amendment.
In 1967, the California Legislature passed and a Republican governor named Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited openly speaking in public places. AB1934 is a sensible extension of this public-safety measure.
The Saldaña bill now goes to the Senate, which should send it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for his signature.
The Second Amendment protects the right to BEAR arms as well as keep them. Maybe this display of civil rights was designed to demonstrate that constitutional reality or to force a court test.
Supporters of the “civil rights movement” are proving to be their own worst enemies. In their high-profile display of lunch-counter sit-ins and front of the bus disobedience, they have led many citizens to question the sanity of laws that allows people to be treated equally under the law, regardless of race.