California Senate Rejects Gun Ban And Registration

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rmabrey

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Dec 27, 2009
    8,093
    38
    A couple of years ago, there was a bill before the IN Senate that would have been very good for us. When the vote was counted, it was 25-23, with two Senators excused (both had cancer and have since died.)

    You would look at this and think the bill passed, however it failed a Constitutional majority by a single vote. To pass our Senate, a bill must receive a majority (26) of the total number of Senators (50).

    I do not know Kalif***edup's statutes on legislature votes, however that one additional vote would have made 7/12 of the total number of votes cast, or 59%. I'm not sure why the one was enough to keep it down, but I'm glad it did.

    No sense giving the other side something to use as ammo against us.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    Thanks bill, I understand it now
     

    Timjoebillybob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    9,418
    149
    I would like to know where and when the Supreme Court has said "reasonable" restrictions on firearms were constitutionally permissible.

    If anyone knows where the 'reasonable restrictions are allowed' language is, please let me know.

    http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

    While it didn't specifically state "reasonable restrictions" it is definitely implied.
    Page 2
    Held:
    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
    manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
    weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
    or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
    doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
    felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
    in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
    laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
    arms.

    Its my understanding that you can have loaded mags they just can't be in the gun. but I'm sure the california section of opencarry.org would be more clearly able to answer that question, with an FAQ that states the law, and current interpretations of it

    Calguns.net is another good site.
     
    Top Bottom