1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Pro Gun Tactic in CA???

Discussion in 'Activism' started by MarcusWendt, Apr 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MarcusWendt

    MarcusWendt Member

    Feb 1, 2008
    Ventura County, CA
    I have an idea. While I know CA is over run with anti gun zealots I also know that I and thousands like me want our rights back here in CA. At a minimum we want to stop any further erosion of our rights.

    The more and more I read about anti gun laws in CA, the more I notice they tend to come from two areas. San Francisco/Bay area and Los Angeles.

    The bay area and Berkley specifically is a hell hole of anti gun morons.

    So here's my idea:

    Can we all write to at least three major gun manufacturers begging them to stop selling guns or at least offering discounts to the major LE agencies in these cities/areas?

    If the lawmakers want to keep guns out of the citizens hands in CA, maybe we need to try and keep guns away from the law?

    I realize it's a serious long shot, but why not try. The antis try every sneaky backdoor BS they can, we need to fight in the gorilla warfare style they do.
  2. protolith

    protolith Member

    Sep 30, 2006
    I Like It!

    Considering that law enforcement is essentially composed of citizens that volunteer to keep order, I firmly believe that they should face the same restrictions as everybody else.
    If LEO wants to open carry (like they all do) then ANYONE that wants to open carry (perhaps barring those who are otherwise restricted from owning firearms) should be able to.
    If SWAT wants Select fire, it should not be restricted to any viable gun owners.

    Laws are restrictions on the people, and police are people too, they are not "supposed" to be allowed to act above the law, and ALL of the same laws should apply to Law Enforcement.

    I'm not saying this in belief that I think LEOs don't need or shouldn't have the weapons they have available to them, I'm saying this because I believe the rest of us should have the same access to the same weapons.
  3. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Jun 16, 2007
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    Has anyone challenged the "exceptions" to gun laws that are made for LEOs on the grounds that it violates the equal protection clause?
  4. camp_gunner

    camp_gunner Member

    Jul 14, 2006
    Let's extend the idea.

    This may be a good place to extend this idea to the federal level.

    We need in this case a federal law that puts the exact same restrictions on state and local government that apply to the citizens of that governmental unit. If a state has a ban on large capacity magazines, the police in that state are armed to parity with any of the criminal element, and so do not need large capacity magazines. If a city does not allow machine guns, then the police have no need, as they are not out-gunned. If a county requires that any gun being transported be locked unloaded in a case in the trunk, then there is clearly no need in that county for ready access for self defense, and the police can therefore easily protect and serve in the same manner.

    In the case that the states complain, it can be pointed out to them that what controls the general population applies to them. Since all the guns in the hands of the government have traveled in interstate commerce, and effect that commerce, the federal government clearly has the right to control the state and local governments in this fashion. If the states don’t like being controlled in this fashion, they can apply to the courts to separate out the spurious usage of the commerce clause in the constitution for this sort of purpose.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page