Can my wife use my gun?

[Green Lantern]

Actually, it begs a btsyshsbnd bashing party.

"Pay...AH say...pay attention!" He plainly says in the title of his post that all this FOID mess is in Illinois

- a state that just won out over California for "places to NEVER live as a firearms owner" in my book! I'm sure Roddy will be so proud...

 

[Ed Ames]

I'm paying plenty of attention... it is because I was paying attention to the location of the OP that I think mentioning a foid card in this thread was extremely bad form. It sent the OP on a wild goose chase, thinking they'd have to fill out paperwork that flat doesn't exist. Why do you think it was a good thing?

I read the horror stories of CCW holders not being allowed in bars, not being allowed all sorts of other places... citizens not allowed to defend rape victims or stop crimes in progress... gun owners actively pleading for their legislatures to grant simple rights like self defense (i.e. castle doctrine)... and I seriously wonder how anyone can bash CA gun laws with a straight face. CA may make it tough to buy certain guns but at least Californians have a right to have a gun in their homes, a right to use it to defend themselves or their neighbors from muggers or rapists or murderers, and a CCW law that really allows CCW holders to carry day-to-day instead of, "unless I'm going to church, or out to eat, or to a football game, or ..."

Misplaced indignation doesn't grant you free license to bash what you don't know about. If your bashing were based in facts I'd say Bash on... but most of the bashing is based entirely on ignorance and unchecked imaginings. It doesn't make any points... in fact, it does the opposite... it makes the basher sound ignorant, lazy, and irrational. Why should I ignore or encourage that?

 

[greener]

Sheesh, what a mess when someone has a legitimate concern that the use of deadly force in self defense could result in legal problems. I'm somewhere in the middle of the bell curve of the guys who seem to feel they need well-placed firearms all about the house, car, boat, whatever, for self-defense and those who don't believe it's justified. I've used firearms for about 55 of my 60 years. I've even had an "uncle" who thought it necessary to see that I knew how to commit very violent acts with all sorts of weapons up to (seriously) small nukes. There isn't anything I have that I would consider the loss worth taking a life. However, if I believed the life of any of my family or even my neighbor two doors away was really threatened, then I would use any means available to remove that threat (knives, hammers, bats, firearms). If I were giving up 20-40 years to the bad guy, then close encounter weapons would be the last consideration.

The guy who wants to turn his house into Fort Apache, repleat with claymores, concertina, and shooting pits really doesn't worry me. I can avoid him. The folks who don't believe that I have the right to defend myself in life-threatening situations plain worry the heck out of me.

 

[btsyshsbnd]

to Ed Ames

When I joined the high road it was so I could share and receive information about firearms and topics related to firearms, which is the reason I responded to this thread.
I’m sorry my post offended your obviously delicate sensibilities. Maybe from now on when someone posts a question they should specify only people who live in their state need apply because anything else will muddy the waters. As to the FOID mess, I didn’t create it, don’t condone it, and can’t wait till I’m back in a state with common sense gun laws.

 

[GunGeek]

and a CCW law that really allows CCW holders to carry day-to-day instead of, "unless I'm going to church, or out to eat, or to a football game, or ..."

Yeah the CCW law is great... if you can get one. Fat chance if your not rich, famous, or both.

- California Escapee

 

[EOD Guy]

Quote:
and a CCW law that really allows CCW holders to carry day-to-day instead of, "unless I'm going to church, or out to eat, or to a football game, or ..."

Yeah the CCW law is great... if you can get one. Fat chance if your not rich, famous, or both.

It depends on your county of residence. Some counties are what amounts to "shall issue." Unfortunately, the majority of the people in this state live in more populated counties in which is is very hard to obtain a CCW unless you are in one of the Sheriff's "favored classes."

 

[Ed Ames]

Selfedit...I was drifting off the point.

Saying a Californian can't get a CCW unless they are "rich, famous, or both" is the same as mentioning foid cards in this thread... yes, foid cards exist... yes, CCWs are hard to get in San Francisco... but neither is relevant to ME because I don't live in Illinois or San Francisco. The information is misleading and will prevent Californians who can easily get a CCW from even trying. Why do you want to do that?

 

[Green Lantern]

Ed- I can see your point about GunGeek's post. But if you're defending California firearms laws, you should be GLAD that bts posted that info. As it makes California look GOOD by comparison. (not something that's easy to do, btw! ) But I guess a quick browse can be misleading....!

And besides, while there is plenty of good info on here, shouldn't most people expect that "the info you get from the 'net is worth EXACTLY what you PAY for it?" :banghead:

Anyhow, sorry if I got on your bad side (the "pay attention" quote was from one Foghorn Leghorn, btw and meant mostly in jest).

What say that we all bash states with crummy laws all day long, but quit bashing each other?

 

[Ed Ames]

Defend CA gun laws heck no! I fight 'em every chance I get. I'm just of the opinion that people should know what they're actually up against instead of fighting imaginary monsters.

Bashing individuals was bad form and I'm sorry for my part in doing so. And I didn't really take "ah say" as anything but a jest. It's just that so much of the "Cali Bashing" on THR is completely off base. As in, based on imagined wrongs instead of actual wrongs. I get tired of it after a while. I get tired of it because there are so many actual, factual, real problems to bash and people make up stuff. :banghead:

So, in short... someone wants to bash the HSC law which mandates an absurdly simple test (as in you'd have to be a drooling idiot not to pass it and anyone who has even glanced at the pamphlet and gets less less than 100% had better not tell ME 'cause I'll laugh in their face) every 5 years to buy handguns and basically amounts to harassment and a $5/yr tax -- go right ahead! Someone wants to bash the law which made all .50BMG rifles "assault weapons" with a registration period (now past) and all sorts of absurd restrictions but doesn't say a word about a ".50 NOTBMGTRUSTME" that just has a .05" shorter chamber so you must resize the cases before they'll go in -- again, bash away. Wanna say something about a law that considers the Walther P22 to be an assault weapon unless you loc-tite the barrel on and round off the barrel nut? BE MY GUEST! I'll join in. But if people go on about how we aren't allowed to shoot to defend our kids, or how we need to fill out paperwork in case our wife uses our gun while we're on a business trip, or the other garbage that floats around, I'll bite my tongue for a bit and then weigh in... weigh in against the people who are tilting at windmills (and encouraging others to do so by spreading misinformation) instead of fighting the real fight.

 

[Kentak]

I'm confused. Why all the talk about transferring and forms, blah, blah, blah. The husband bought a gun. It's in the household. Is there a law that says it can't be available for use by other members of the family for defense in the home? Unless the spouse is prohibited by being a felon, etc., why would it even be an issue? Perhaps the OP should be asking on a CA gun owners forum.

K

 

[Librarian]

Perhaps the OP should be asking on a CA gun owners forum.

Some of us are already here, and have contributed to the thread. "Yes, his wife can use the gun without paperwork" has already been asserted, because it's true. A transfer would be different, but that's not the question asked.