No more banning of public carrying of firearms??

[alan]

What can you say about this?

 

[Havasu]

More blurry laws, im afraid. Just today, LA County prohibited full masks on law enforcement. Problem is, ICE is federal, and supersedes state and local laws.

Now, does this include loaded weapons? I had 30 years of law enforcement and can't understand the "do's and don'ts", so how can a typical citizen understand it?

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

More blurry laws, im afraid. Just today, LA County prohibited full masks on law enforcement. Problem is, ICE is federal, and supersedes state and local laws.

Now, does this include loaded weapons? I had 30 years of law enforcement and can't understand the "do's and don'ts", so how can a typical citizen understand it?

Well, I think that if Trump/Bondi get their way, CA won't be able to wiggle out of it anymore. As it is, there are 29 states that allow constitutional carry.

I'm thinking to get a CCW to have, but it's unclear if it will become free or not. I can't imagine that it is done for free in CA, but stranger things have happened.

For that matter, I don't see things changing too fast, but am hopeful that they may.

Most of the LEO tend to favor the 2A, but that doesn't account for politicians.

 

[xchecker]

CA won't try to wiggle out of anything. They'll just insistute an unconstitutional ban, and then spend our tax money fighting it in the courts for 20yrs.

I wish the SCOTUS would just end all this nonsense by ruling the 2A is all encompassing of firearms and accesories, with VERY FEW exceptions,, and instruct the states and municipalities to prosecute CRIMINAL MISUSE with extreme prejudice.

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

CA won't try to wiggle out of anything. They'll just insistute an unconstitutional ban, and then spend our tax money fighting it in the courts for 20yrs.

I wish the SCOTUS would just end all this nonsense by ruling the 2A is all encompassing of firearms and accesories, with VERY FEW exceptions,, and instruct the states and municipalities to prosecute CRIMINAL MISUSE with extreme prejudice.

It looks like the current Administration is preparing to do just that. A $1M grant was just passed for the University of Wyoming to create a firearms safety course to teach kids in public schools. Just like they used to do! That will throw the antis into a tizzy...

 

[xchecker]

It looks like the current Administration is preparing to do just that. A $1M grant was just passed for the University of Wyoming to create a firearms safety course to teach kids in public schools. Just like they used to do! That will throw the antis into a tizzy...

I know it's Wyoming, but show me course materials and instruction syllabus. Not sure I trust ANY education department anywhere. I think they are all infected with subversives.

 

[alan]

More blurry laws, im afraid. Just today, LA County prohibited full masks on law enforcement. Problem is, ICE is federal, and supersedes state and local laws.

Now, does this include loaded weapons? I had 30 years of law enforcement and can't understand the "do's and don'ts", so how can a typical citizen understand it?

That’s precisely the kind of gray area that gives me pause as well. Whenever the federal gov intervenes and changes how states can manage their carry laws, it sounds simple enough on paper… but in practice, it often turns into a confusing jumble of exceptions, like “unless you’re here,” and rules that contradict each other based on who’s enforcing them. I can actually see why you’d be confused, even with your background. If someone with decades of law enforcement experience can’t figure out what counts as valid carry, what’s allowed loaded versus unloaded, or how federal authority interacts with local policies, then regular people are really left in the dark without sifting through three different statutes and a pile of court opinions. For me, the intention might be to broaden carry rights, but unless the language is crystal clear and consistent across jurisdictions, it just puts both citizens and officers in tricky situations where no one really knows what the rules are.

 

[alan]

Well, I think that if Trump/Bondi get their way, CA won't be able to wiggle out of it anymore. As it is, there are 29 states that allow constitutional carry.

I'm thinking to get a CCW to have, but it's unclear if it will become free or not. I can't imagine that it is done for free in CA, but stranger things have happened.

For that matter, I don't see things changing too fast, but am hopeful that they may.

Most of the LEO tend to favor the 2A, but that doesn't account for politicians.

If the DOJ is really pushing states to ease up on banning public carry, that could be a significant move forward, especially in places like Cali where the laws are always a bit of a maze. Having been around the block a few times, I know that changes that look good “on paper” don’t always lead to real, everyday freedom. Cali will likely find ways to complicate things with fees, training requirements, and all the bureaucratic hurdles they can throw in the way. For me, what really counts is clarity. I’d much prefer fewer restrictions but with clear-cut rules rather than a vague “you can carry, maybe, sometimes” kind of situation. And I do think many of the officers I’ve spoken with understand this and support responsible ownership. The frustrating part is the political layer that complicates things, where decisions are made far removed from the reality on the ground.

 

[alan]

CA won't try to wiggle out of anything. They'll just insistute an unconstitutional ban, and then spend our tax money fighting it in the courts for 20yrs.

I wish the SCOTUS would just end all this nonsense by ruling the 2A is all encompassing of firearms and accesories, with VERY FEW exceptions,, and instruct the states and municipalities to prosecute CRIMINAL MISUSE with extreme prejudice.

Cali really has a knack for turning simple changes into legal dramas that drag on for years and honestly, it’s exhausting just trying to keep up. Even if the DOJ gets involved, I wouldn’t hold my breath for anything to happen quickly. For me, the biggest concern is clarity. I really wish SCOTUS would step in and provide a clear ruling that defines what the 2ndAmendment actually covers, minimizes the gray areas, and focuses on punishing real criminal misuse instead of allowing states to create their own restrictions. That would make life so much easier for law-abiding citizens like me who just want to exercise our rights without wading through a confusing maze of regulations. Until then, I’m keeping my eyes peeled, staying informed, and trying to be patient....even though patience isn’t exactly my strong suit when it comes to this topic

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

If the DOJ is really pushing states to ease up on banning public carry, that could be a significant move forward, especially in places like Cali where the laws are always a bit of a maze. Having been around the block a few times, I know that changes that look good “on paper” don’t always lead to real, everyday freedom. Cali will likely find ways to complicate things with fees, training requirements, and all the bureaucratic hurdles they can throw in the way. For me, what really counts is clarity. I’d much prefer fewer restrictions but with clear-cut rules rather than a vague “you can carry, maybe, sometimes” kind of situation. And I do think many of the officers I’ve spoken with understand this and support responsible ownership. The frustrating part is the political layer that complicates things, where decisions are made far removed from the reality on the ground.

I think the problem is trying to get some of this stuff to stick. Seems that CA has their own constitution, and in order to get some of this stuff pulled away from the left, it needs to be legal to stick.

I don't think it's so clear cut, look how long some of these infringed laws have been on the books?

Most people in Lake County are pro-2A, seems most of the people hunt. They issue a lot of CCWs, so maybe it really depends on where one goes in this state? I've often thought CCW could be bad in the big cities, because of the road rage, people will end up getting shot.

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

For me, the biggest concern is clarity. I really wish SCOTUS would step in and provide a clear ruling that defines what the 2ndAmendment actually covers, minimizes the gray areas, and focuses on punishing real criminal misuse instead of allowing states to create their own restrictions.

To me it looks like the current administration is trying to do just that. There are several cases that have been accepted by the SCOTUS, maybe it really can stick this time. The 1st order is to get interstate CCW on the books. I think they're working on that as we type. We have a long way to go, but there is no other direction to go, IMO. Getting ARs on the books legally will be a huge step here in CA. We have more AWBs and ways for the politicians to prevent us from using them. What I really want is to be able to use a suppressor. I would even take that without being able to use an AR.

 

[alan]

I think the problem is trying to get some of this stuff to stick. Seems that CA has their own constitution, and in order to get some of this stuff pulled away from the left, it needs to be legal to stick.

I don't think it's so clear cut, look how long some of these infringed laws have been on the books?

Most people in Lake County are pro-2A, seems most of the people hunt. They issue a lot of CCWs, so maybe it really depends on where one goes in this state? I've often thought CCW could be bad in the big cities, because of the road rage, people will end up getting shot.

In the end, my priority is to ensure that we’re punishing the people who actually misuse firearms, rather than the ones who follow all the regulations just to keep themselves safe. That would solve a lot more than half of the legislation Cali keeps trying to get through.

 

[alan]

To me it looks like the current administration is trying to do just that. There are several cases that have been accepted by the SCOTUS, maybe it really can stick this time. The 1st order is to get interstate CCW on the books. I think they're working on that as we type. We have a long way to go, but there is no other direction to go, IMO. Getting ARs on the books legally will be a huge step here in CA. We have more AWBs and ways for the politicians to prevent us from using them. What I really want is to be able to use a suppressor. I would even take that without being able to use an AR.

I get you. Interstate concealed carry would be a big step forward. If the Supreme Court actually gets something done, that could finally bring us some consistency. Living in a state with fewer restrictions, I can’t imagine the constant challenges you face with the assault weapons ban in Cali. Getting ARs legally recognized would be a huge win, but yeah I’m on the same page as you when it comes to suppressors. It’s frustrating that something meant to protect our hearing and reduce noise is treated like it’s illegal. I’d gladly take legal suppressor use tomorrow, even if it meant waiting longer for ARs.

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

I get you. Interstate concealed carry would be a big step forward. If the Supreme Court actually gets something done, that could finally bring us some consistency. Living in a state with fewer restrictions, I can’t imagine the constant challenges you face with the assault weapons ban in Cali. Getting ARs legally recognized would be a huge win, but yeah I’m on the same page as you when it comes to suppressors. It’s frustrating that something meant to protect our hearing and reduce noise is treated like it’s illegal. I’d gladly take legal suppressor use tomorrow, even if it meant waiting longer for ARs.

Today is reckoning day, *IF* there is one. Today there are 22 cases up for review, on a few issues, as there are multiple cases around the country on any one given topic. I don't know if we will make out or not, but I have to believe Trump/Bondi are on our side, but trying to work out the law. Suppressors are a big one for me also, I just would like to hunt with one. I would probably pay for that privilege, but legally we're not required to do so...just that I get taxes for so much over and beyond what is legal, and as such should not have to fight for the rights given to me.

The SCOTUS typically will not accept so many cases, so they must have something in mind. I hope we get some clarification, but why else would the current administration create a department to protect our 2A?

The SCOTUS seems to have a lot on their plate, and Trump keeps throwing more. Most of these cases were caused by Bruen.

 

[alan]

Today is reckoning day, *IF* there is one. Today there are 22 cases up for review, on a few issues, as there are multiple cases around the country on any one given topic. I don't know if we will make out or not, but I have to believe Trump/Bondi are on our side, but trying to work out the law. Suppressors are a big one for me also, I just would like to hunt with one. I would probably pay for that privilege, but legally we're not required to do so...just that I get taxes for so much over and beyond what is legal, and as such should not have to fight for the rights given to me.

The SCOTUS typically will not accept so many cases, so they must have something in mind. I hope we get some clarification, but why else would the current administration create a department to protect our 2A?

The SCOTUS seems to have a lot on their plate, and Trump keeps throwing more. Most of these cases were caused by Bruen.

The sheer number of cases SCOTUS has lined up tells me that something is definitely shifting, or at least they’re starting to recognize the chaos that followed Bruen. Whether we’ll get anything substantial out of it today is uncertain, but it feels like we’re at one of those critical junctures where change could happen. Agree with you about suppressors. It’s crazy to think that something designed to make shooting safer and more manageable is treated like a movie prop. Being able to hunt or enjoy a range day without damaging your ears shouldn’t be considered a “privilege.” I’d be all for legal suppressor use right now, even if everything else takes a bit longer to sort out. As for the new departments and the political chatter around the 2A, I really hope it leads to some genuine consistency across states instead of the confusing mess we’re dealing with now. If the Court can actually clear up these contradictions and give us clear guidance, that would be a huge win.

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

The sheer number of cases SCOTUS has lined up tells me that something is definitely shifting,

I think so also. We have never had so much infringing legislation in CA being overturned.

Let's hope for those suppressors! That would be one fine holiday pressie...

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

The sheer number of cases SCOTUS has lined up tells me that something is definitely shifting

I have been here most of my life, I spent about 1-1/2 years in Oregon when I got out of high school, and 5 years in Japan.

Something just feels different this time...we might even get a decent Governor out of this...I think we might just need to keep feeding the left more chain, and eventually they will drown themselves. If nothing else, we need Trump to destroy Newsom's plans for the White House.

Trump is causing chaos across America, he's going after all that he can...and I fully support him to do just that! I don't expect it to be easy for any of us, in CA, I suspect they will try to tax us worse than ever.

 

[alan]

I have been here most of my life, I spent about 1-1/2 years in Oregon when I got out of high school, and 5 years in Japan.

Something just feels different this time...we might even get a decent Governor out of this...I think we might just need to keep feeding the left more chain, and eventually they will drown themselves. If nothing else, we need Trump to destroy Newsom's plans for the White House.

Trump is causing chaos across America, he's going after all that he can...and I fully support him to do just that! I don't expect it to be easy for any of us, in CA, I suspect they will try to tax us worse than ever.

When it comes to the political scene, there's no denying that things are pretty tense and unpredictable right now. No matter which way the wind blows, it’s clear that discussions around 2A issues aren’t going to die down anytime soon. What I really hope for is that we end up with sensible laws that are applied consistently across states, clearing up the confusion that’s been bothering responsible gun owners for way too long. I totally understand the frustration with how things are managed in certain states, especially regarding taxes and restrictions. My only wish is that the courts help steer us toward more uniform standards so we don’t have to deal with conflicting rules that change every few miles.

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

I would go for sensible laws, but I also find the constitution to be sensible.

This shouldn't be so difficult, I see this resting on the left not being willing to accept the SCOTUS rulings. When it's in their favor, they rejoice, but when it not they defy.

 

[Eastenerwesterner]

This is kind of morphing into what is happening with 2A at the US DOJ.

I think DOJ does not have strong pro 2A leadership with Bondi or Blanche
I think they are handing that political football off to Harmeet Dhillon of the civil rights division. Putting the new 2A protection division under her care. I like that, I like her.

If this comes under too much scrutiny Bondi and Blanch will throw her under the bus.

Sorry that’s my take until SCOTUS does something.

 

[Eastenerwesterner]

My take being a resident of 2 gun control states, NY and CA

Why are my rights less in these states than Idaho, TX, FL, whereever?

 

[KonoctisWigwam]

I think DOJ does not have strong pro 2A leadership with Bondi or Blanche

I don't have confidence in Bondi at the moment, and not sure if she's on our side or not. The antis are whining like babies...but I don't think there is too much they can do if Trump wants it. The new 2A department is evidently online already. I think that's under Harmeet Dhillon.