Gun Groups Seeks Supreme Court Review In Challenge Of Calif. Handgun Statute

Ban Guns Sign
Gun Groups Seeks Supreme Court Review In Challenge Of Calif. Handgun Statute

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of their challenge to California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” a part of that state’s penal code that violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.

Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns are joined by private citizens Ivan Pena, Dona Croston, Roy Vargas and Brett Thomas. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of California and Alan Gura of Virginia. The case is known as Pena v. Horan.

“Our challenge of the California Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA), if the high court accepts it for review, could be a critical wake-up call to lower federal courts that continue to employ what they call an ‘interest-balancing approach’ to deciding gun control cases because that strategy is forbidden by the 2008 Heller decision,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

“It is time to bring a halt to what is essentially a revolt by the lower courts against the landmark Heller opinion, and the Pena case could provide that vehicle.”

California’s Unsafe Handgun Act generally prohibits the manufacture, import or distribution of handguns that do not meet the state’s extremely restrictive design requirements under the state penal code. The result, as the plaintiffs contend in their petition for high court review, is that the state is gradually achieving a handgun ban because they cannot meet the impossible requirements, which include microstamping. That technology is not offered by any handgun manufacturer because it cannot be practically implemented, the petition notes.

“The landmark Heller ruling cannot become just a footnote in history,” Gottlieb observed, “but that appears to be the ultimate goal if such laws as California’s are allowed to stand. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court, with the benefit of fresh perspectives from two recently-seated associate justices, agrees that it is time to once again visit the Second Amendment and further restore its rightful place as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.”


Second Amendment FoundationThe Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

  • 61 thoughts on “Gun Groups Seeks Supreme Court Review In Challenge Of Calif. Handgun Statute

    1. Only in California where the bureaucrats determine what’s a safe gun. According to the safe gun act a handgun must not discharge if dropped. The only morons dropping their guns are criminals and of course the idiots at the CADOJ.

    2. @ No Filter; Now at 70 I to like to make what I think are some good comments, while at times throwing out some off the wall comments just to see if anybody is really paying attention or not. I have a decent collection of firearms and shoot regularly, and still always looking for collector caliper guns. I do hold to the saying if it is junk don’t waste your money because you are only going to get a junk price when you go to sell it, buy quality , sell quality!!! Good luck and have a very good year

    3. Now in my 60’s, l’ve come to value and appreciate the collecting of modern firearms. They are all SAFE and no idiot will change my mind on that. I hope the SC steps up and puts this nonsense to rest for good.

      Now, l sometimes stay away from Ammoland just to lower my blood pressure and anxiety level. Then l come back to it as the great source of information it offers. Then there’s you guys! OMG, l’ve had some great laughs so l try to bring some of my own, slightly warped and sarcastic humor to these threads. But seriously, l’ve learned so much about history and way more about politics than l care to but value and appreciate all y’all just the same.

      I hope Greg “gets it”.

    4. Hey gang has anybody heard if the universal carry has passed or is it DOA at the senate??????? I know that it passed at the House but did the Senate act on it, or were they to busy to do anything about it one more time as usual!!!!!!!

        1. I think we can thank turkey neck Mitch McConnel for holding that up. I also read somewhere that The Donald shot down an attempt to attach it to another bill, which was probably its best chance for passage. The item I read said Trump said it should come up in time, just by itself, not as a rider to whatever bill they were thinking of attaching it to. Thanks for another sellout, Mr President!

    5. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. These 27 words of the Second Amendment is one sentence of a complete thought, and are not individual phrases. Politicians are interpreting the Second Amendment sentence into phrases to promote their meaning of the Second Amendment.

      There is only one meaning of the gift our Founding Fathers gave us within the Second Amendment, the Citizens can keep guns and bear the guns necessary to protect and defend our freedoms under this Nation. It did not mean self protection, hunting, or sport shooting, as these are inherent usages of the Second Amendment. Just as Bullets are inherent to arms. We all know the politician that came up with that interpretation.

      The Militia Act of 1903 made two important determining interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Militia Act of 1903 had to be enacted in order to resolve two incidental issues of States and Federal rights, that were not covered in the Militia Acts of 1792.

      During the War of 1812, the Government ordered the Governor of NY to send his State’s Militia into Canada and attack the British Army. The Governor of NY did not comply with order, as he believed his State’s Militia was for his State’s needs and could not be federalized for the Governments needs. The Governor of NY failed to understand the Governments order would have saved lives and end the war sooner. The other issue occurred upon the sinking of the USS Maine, in which Congress declared war against Spain during their Revolutionary War with their colonial state of Cuba. Upon the Spanish/American War, the U.S. Military did not have the manpower to support of the war, nor did they have the means to gain the men to support the war effort. Therefore, the Militia Act of 1903 addressed these issues, in which the Act defines 3 types of Militia; 1. U.S. Militia – Military, 2. States’ Militia – National Guard, and 3. Citizen Militia – any able male between 17 and 45. The States’ Militia and the Citizen Militia applies to the Second Amendment. The Militia Act of 1903 determined the words “Well Regulated” of the Second Amendment as well training, organized, and armed. this is why the States’ National Guards are trained and armed by the U.S. Military. The Militia Act of 1903 also determined that “The People” Militia was the citizens. Both of these determinations apply to the Second Amendment as they defines the meaning of “A Well Regulated Militia” as well organized, trained, and armed, and “The People” have a Citizen Militia.

      The anti-gun Politicians and Courts are ignoring the most import 4 words of the Second Amendment, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” These 4 simple words is the guarantee of the rights given to us within the Second Amendment; the citizens’ right to form a militia, the right to keep arms, and the right to bear the necessary arms to protect and defend our freedoms under this Nation under opposition of any entity.

      In the D.C. vs Heller case, the Government applied the Militia Act of 1903 determination that the Militia was the Nation Guard and that only members of the Nation Guards could have guns in their homes. In the Supreme Court’s decision of the D.C. vs Heller case, the determined the Second Amendment applied to right of the citizens to keep arms in order to form a militia when necessary, and that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States’ National Guard or the U.S. Military. The D.C. vs Heller decision also changed the usage of self-protection from an inherent usage to a right. The attorneys within the D.C. vs Heller case in fact argued their case under a vacuous ideology belief that “The People” were allowed to form a Civilian Militia, which was part of the Militia Act of 1903. The attorneys knew that the Militia argument of the Citizen Militia would also be a double sword, as the definition under the Militia Act of 1903 was in error of discriminating a citizen’s right due to age and sex.

      The Militia Act of 1903 was supposed only address the issues under States’ Militia rights and the Federal Government’s Militia rights. Basically, the Act was to give the Government the right to utilize the State’s Militia – National Guard for federal necessities. However, due to fact the Militia Act of 1903 determined the a Citizen Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, is considered discriminating an individual’s right to enlist into such citizen militia due to the individual’s age or sex. It is inherent that any individual is of maturity and ability to bear arms, under the term of able-bodied.

      However, it should it be noted Justice Scalia’s D.C. vs Heller Decision opinion was erroneous in determined the Second Amendment did not protect the Government to determine what types of arms The People can keep. Justice Scalia was completely wrong, the 4 simple last words within the Second Amendment is the guarantee that the Government nor the States can impose limitations or restrictions on what types of arms the people can keep. This why the National Firearms Act of 1934 could not ban the sale of fully automatic guns to the citizens of the Nation, that is why they could only imply a Tax of $200.00 (high enough at the time to extremely limit who could afford the cost of purchasing a fully automatic firearm) and means to regulate the purchase of such firearms. Just remember the Second Amendment is a guaranteed protected right of the citizens rights to keep and bear the arms necessary to protect and defend the security of a free state, as the Amendment is a complete sentence, not a series of sentences.

      However, again the Politicians failed to understand that the Second Amendment is UNTOUCHABLE, but the vacuity of “The People” allowed the Government to Infringe upon the Second Amendment with the enactment of the Owners Firearms Protection Act of 1986. The Owners Firearms Protection Act of 1986 was meant to stop the Government from limiting where “The People” can purchase firearms. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Bureau of ATF went from a regulatory entity to an enforcement entity. Basically, upon this transition ATF agents were going to gun dealers and checking the firearm purchaser’s , ATF form 4473. Upon seeing that the purchaser utilizing the abbreviation form of their State, street, avenue, road, etc., the agents were pulling the dealers’ FFL, for not complying with form 4473 rules. Upon the pulling the gun dealer’s FFL for violations was a life long BAN to be reinstated. Therefore, limiting the number of FFL gun dealers in the country, and given the fact the Gun Control Act of 1968 limited gun buyer only within their State of residency. In theory, if every FFL dealer in one State is out of business due to violations of ATF Form 4473, then individuals in that State had nowhere to go an purchase firearms or transfer firearms from another State. Eventually, “The People” would not be able to purchase any firearms, in theory. This is why the Owners Firearms Protection Act needed to be enacted. However, before the passage of the bill, an vacuous U.S. Representative named Willian Hughes, Dem/NJ, used a bribery tactic, yes BRIBERY, “I will not sign this Bill until my Amendment is included.” That is bribery, yet WE the People let the Politicians do it in just about every Bill nowadays.
      Dem/NJ Rep. Hughes amendment to the Owner Firearms Protection Act of 1986 is unconstitutional as the Bill infringes upon our rights to purchase a fully automatic firearm made after the enactment of the Act. Just remember, any infringement of the Second Amendment is unconstitutional. Contrary to the politicians belief, the Owners Firearms Protection Act did not ban the sales of Fully Automatic firearms to civilians, it just limited who can purchase them. Per ATF’s statists, there are approximately 170,000 registered privately owned fully automatic firearms in the USA. Upon demand, the value goes up under todays trade. Meaning, if you want a Colt M16, it will cost you approximately $34,000.00 plus the $200.00 tax stamp to purchase the gun.

      Now that everyone understands the true meaning of the Second Amendment, any limitations or regulation by any State or the Government is Unconstitutional, to include of what type of gun we can own rather it is single shot or semi-auto (not considered as an assault weapon – assault weapons are fully automatic firearms ) gun, or any infringement of owning a fully automatic firearm; and limiting the rounds of magazines, or any limitations or restrictions on the inherent of bullets, AS THE WORDS “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” MEANS THEY ARE UNTOUCHABLE.

      There are many individuals who will argue against the meaning of the Second Amendment, but they cannot argue the last 4 words of “Shall Not Be Infringed”, as it just simply means cannot be touched. Even the ideology of the belief the Second Amendment refers to the firearms of the times, muzzle loaders, upon writing the Constitution. Really, read the history of the rifled barreled firearms used in during the Revolutionary War. Our Founding Father were not vacuous to new advancement of firearms technology, and that is why they employed the last 4 words of the sentence “Shall Not Be Infringed.”
      Hopefully same day soon, all of the States’ and Federal Government infringement will be heard in the Supreme Court, their decision is based on their Constitutional Belief of the meaning of the Second Amendment, as our Founding Father meant any decision of the Supreme Court will be based on the Constitutionality and not based on the individual Justice’s own personal or any ideology belief. For which some laws and Court decisions were render under. Especially the Owners Firearms Protection Act of 1986, and the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Just so everyone understands I’m not just posting about gun rights, I’m also posting about Politicians Ideology too, in which the Court are protecting. Under the Supreme Court’s Decision on the Affordable Care Act, the Government was given a VERY POWERFUL tool, the Government can impose any law of any means as long as they say we will be taxed, instead of imposing a penalty. This is not a theory, it is the reality of Justice Roberts vacuity in re-writing the Afford Care Act to make it Constitutional. Under the Constitution of the United States, the Judicial Branch of the Government only interprets the laws in there Constitutionality, not to write laws.

      There are some many other laws and Court decision that are in violation of the Constitution, it is just unreal of the countless laws and ruling we live under today. Just a few words. Laws and Amendment being taking out of context, just as the Second Amendment, which now imply unconstitutional meanings. Immigration Act of 1965 took a part of the 14th Amendment, out of context, even though the Act doesn’t really state it, but the Courts have ruled the out of context meaning person born in the United States is a citizen. Just read quotes of the politician who wrote the 14th Amendment, even President Grant stated the 14th Amendment applied to persons born within the jurisdiction of any state or within the United States, had equal rights under the law of due process (criminal process). Illegal Aliens are not within the jurisdiction of any State or the United States as they are not legal citizens of any jurisdiction. Even President Teddy Roosevelt understood that, read his quotes. And since when did a combative become a citizen protected under the due process of the courts and laws? Alternative life style individual do have equal rights under the laws, but their life style is not normal, due to fact of not able to produce and give birth to another human being. Marriage is between a man and woman, yet if a man and woman are not married and are considered as common law spouses, the equal rights under the law still does not apply. Yet the Supreme errored again upon their alternative life style marriage decision, they should have heard and decided on the civil union ruling instead, which would have satisfied all three opinions of the issues at hand. Marriage would remain the same, yet the rights of the common law marriages, which most States do not recognize, are individuals who are together as a couple for 10 years or more. Civil Union passage would have satisfied the needs of the common law spouse issue of any couple regardless to their life style.

      It is the politicians ideologies that have imposed infringements of our rights. Yet some of our citizens keep electing the same people or people with the same ideology into office. It is well past the time for term limits in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. And the States should follow.

      1. @RB, What the governments, bureaucrats, politicians, and justices are ignoring is the pre-emptive character of Second Amendment. The Second Amendment pre-empts all future Congress’s, State Legislatures’ s, bureaucratic agencies, judges, city councils from instituting any infringements on “arms”.

    6. All of you people are fucking stupid Democrats are striving to abolish the CONSTITUTION AND TAKE FREEDOM AWAY!
      “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION” CAN GO TO HELL ! FIRST AND FOREMOST. 1. You. Can NOT be a citizen of a CORPORATION ! So. 2. There is no such thing as a “U.S. Citizen” all a fictitious Lie! So with that being said they want to take my 2nd amendment they better hand over every penny of my TREASURY DIRECT ACCOUNT!

    7. Read the second admendment conservative morons! It is not an individual right, but a right to have an Army to protect us. The People and Arms are plural not singular. Hell, even the forefathers said the military needed regulation back 240 odd years ago in the amendment itself. A Well Regulated Militia! AMENDMENT II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      1. What part of “the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon” do you not get?? English, plain and simple.

        1. @Neil, Greg’s notions of the Second Amendment are so far from the interpretive literature that he must be a low level propagandist, who gets paid per response. No one could be that stupid on their own. That level of stupidity requires a committee.

      2. Greg. Your knowledge of the English language is questionable. First there is only on coma in the sentence between the descritive and declarative sections of the sentence. Also the word state in the sentence is always non capitalized. It is a descrivetive declaring a state of freedom as was common grammatically in Colnial times. Please refer to an Webster’s unabridged Dictionary for clarification.
        I would also recommend that you start reading more and educate yourself in order to stop embarrassing yourself.

        1. @hippy, I don’t think that the propagandist, calling himself Greg, is interested in self improvement. He is just writing what the daily sheets tell him to write. He communicates in an outrageous manner so that he gets more responses and ergo more pay.

          1. Ooh, ooh!!! You mean to tell us here that there’s money to be made on make on outrageous, poorly written and otherwise grammatically incorrect statements. I’m in!!! Who do l seek for my compensation? I could use the spare change for ammo. Thanks!!!

      3. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the millitia was every male in the community, as there was not a “national guard”. The Amendment says “the right of the people…….”, not state, colonies, or government. The Bill of Rights limits the governments powers and lays out the people’s rights, not the other way around.

      4. Greg,

        Consider the words of some of the Founders below on what and who are the militia. As an aside, you’ll not convince anyone of the rightness of your claim by starting with name calling. A question to go along with this, if the 2A is not an individual right then why use the same term, the people, as in other rights that are readily accepted by even gun grabbers as being individual rights?

        “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” –George Mason
        “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” –Richard Henry Lee
        “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” –Patrick Henry
        “Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” –Alexander Hamilton
        “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”–Tench Coxe
        “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?”–Tench Coxe
        “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.”–Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice

        At the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the word regulated had a far different meaning than used by gun grabbers today. Regulated then had the connotation of being well and uniformly equipped which is why members of a standing army were called Regulars.

        Anti-gun is Pro-tyranny, Pro-crime, and Anti-civil rights.

      5. Hey Greg,

        So in every Supreme Court ruling for every other so-called constitutional right for individuals, where the court has rendered the phrase “the right of the people” pertains to individuals as contextually accurate, except of course in your view for the Second Amendment?

        The straight contextual fact of the matter, speaking strictly to the language of the article itself, is that a militia is made up of individual citizens, who are not actively part of the militia until military action is required against some opponent, domestic or foreign. They are singularly distanced from a standing army, which in the modern vernacular would include the National Guard.

        When you read the citations from previous Supreme Court rulings (19th century), and most assuredly every letter, speech, correspondence, and promulgation in the public venue, by the Founders pertaining to this subject matter, it is crystal clear that the individual right of American citizens to own weapons, commensurate with those owned by the military, is a God given right according to the Constitution.

        I suggest you grab your favorite beverage, sit down in your favorite chair, and go over the writings of the Founders, AFTER you get honest with yourself!

        Thank you for reading my post.

      6. “District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570 (2008), . is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual s right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,…”

      7. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
        Greg, go back to school and study English.
        A well regulated Militia, (the “People”, actually able bodied people)
        being necessary to the security of a free State, (it’s needed to defend freedom, to defend our God given rights)
        the right of the people to keep and bear arms, (the people, not the government, it’s so simple a liberal can understand it)
        shall not be infringed. (hands off)

        Here, read a book and enlighten yourself.

        https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Second-Amendment-Independent-Political/dp/1566639719

      8. Greg, if you were to but read relevant writings by others around the time of the Revolution, you would find that your statement is built on a false premise. If you looked studied relevant history of the period you would learn that the militia members brought what they had. Without private ownership, they would not have had the arms. Also, if you were a student of history, you would know that without private ownership of firearms there would be no obstacle other than “pitchforks, shovels, sharpened implements, clubs and torches with which to resist military forces should communists, socialists or other forms of tyranny gain control of government and military. This leaves us with three possibilities, those being 1) you are untaught and unlearned on the matter of which you speak or 2) you are willfully ignorant of facts relating to the matter or 3) you are just dishonest and oppose what The Constitution of The United States of America says and represents which would put you in the camp of those that wish to live under some form of tyranny. (Do you think you will have the favor of such tyrants and have power over others?) Greg, you have the right to choose FOR YOURSELF to which group you belong. You DO NOT, however have the right to choose for others. You MAY choose to be a defenseless kid goat if you wish.

      9. Greg,

        You should do some research on the meaning of the Second Amendment before you post any comments. Not trying hurt your feeling, but your just shows that you are either really that vacuous or you just don’t comprehend what you read.

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In this 27 word complete sentence there is word that determines a Government Army, it only states ‘The People”, meaning the citizens of this Nation, have right to form a militia.

        The Militia Act of 1903 determined two types of Militia, the States’ Militia – in which they changed to the National Guard, and the Citizen Militia – which was defined as any able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. In forming the National Guard it was determined the words “Well Regulated” meant well organized, trained, and well armed. That is why the Nation Guards are trained and armed by the US Military. Regulated is not meant as regulating, restricting, or limiting, as the last 4 words state “Shall Not Be Infringed.” The Last 4 words of the Second Amendment is guarantee that means the Second Amendment is UNTOUCHABLE.

        Dr. Robert J. Cottrol is the editor of the book “Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment.” And Cottrol, a Second Amendment expert and legal historian, is the Harold Paul Green Research Professor of Law at George Washington University. He says the words “well regulated” refer to proficiency and top-notch training.

        We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
        The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
        A quote from the Founding Father that wrote the Constitution:
        “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
        – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

        The Second Amendment has only 1 meaning, The Citizens have the right to form a militia, and the right to keep and bear the arms necessary to protect and defend the security of a free State. It did not include the rights for self-protection, hunting, or sport shooting, as these were inherent usages of arms, just as Bullets is inherent to the arms.

        In June 2008, the US Supreme Court made an important decision under the D.C. vs Heller case, which determined the Second Amendment was a right afforded to every individual citizen the right to keep firearms in their home. The District of Columbia ban handguns and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock”. In Heller’s case, he was a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia. For his job, Heller carried a gun in federal office buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his home upon requesting permission from the District. Heller sued the District for violating the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms within his home. Basically, the DC vs Heller decision changed the inherent usage of self-protection into a right under the Second Amendment.
        The Government has limited what arms we can keep and bear, and they well continue, but the meaning of the last 4 words of the Second clearly states the rights under the Second Amendment are Untouchable. Therefore, any current law or future law under States or Federal jurisdiction that limits, restricts, or regulates the rights under the Second Amendment are Unconstitutional, as they INFRINGE upon the given rights.

        Therefore, Greg you were erroneous in your post. Please tell all of your friends what you have learned about the meaning of the Second Amendment!

      10. So you are giving your own “Moral Interpretation.” Here’s the rub; in order to understand the Founders intent, you must read their various writings on the subject. May I be so bold as to suggest the “Federalist and Anti Federalist papers” as a primer? From there you may or may not be interested in some of the various other historical documents available online…

    8. Libtard political hacks tell all of us bitter clining deplorable pee on’s that the Bill of Rights especially 2A is obsolete. The 2A is an 18th century anachronism that no longer applies to America today. Libtard Judges claim the 2A is not unlimited. Demacrats tell us that the guns we can own today would be useless to defend against a modern military. If that’s so than why do they desperately want to take them away from us? Simple answer, 2A protects the entire Bill of Rights that Demacrats want to take away from us. It’s that big rock in the road they can’t get around. They don’t dare to ripp up the rest of the Bill of Rights as long as the population owns and carries firearms. They know that the Federal Government can’t ban firearms so the leave it up to the state’s to try doing it. They know that there is no practical way to dissarm the entire population. They know that there aren’t enough Government employees that would risk life and limb to attempt this. Libtards can’t comprehend that most of us are willing as in 1775 die to keep our liberty. They’ll ask you if thire willing to die trying to take them?

      1. I hoping that Me.Putin lands a Nume in Sacremento possibly Losangeles. This would give all Angelenos something to think about as they are kicking their wounds realizing they should have never s po iken the words Clkusion 9r Gun Control. And I really believe with two Russian Blackjack Nuclear Bombers that fly super Sonic f iu ve minutes LosAngeles will be gone. And all the wimps in Eashington will run home never to be seen again.Then we can reopen our Government under the Origii al Constituti9n and B iu ll of Rughts. I figure 88 million Pooiticians and Illegals are what Mr Putin will destroy with either a Southern border crossing of Couple of Black Jack’s Nuking Losangeles and Sacremento .

      2. Your ineducation is showing. You are doing the cause more harm than good. Please utilize proper spelling, grammar, and refrain from using the term “libtard”. People like you are the reason 2A supporters are seen as illiterate, uneducated, redneck hicks.

    9. California is a plauge that will infect all the states around it unfortunately. Californians are going to move out of their states because their local government has gone extreme but the Californians that move will also take their mentality with them. The Dems have to be gone to be cured of this plauge.

    10. Almost all gun owners don’t care. The leftists know that we do not support those fighting for us. We are our own worst enemy.

    11. The fact of the matter is this… We all like our firearms we’re law abiding citizens. These gun bans and strict laws do nothing to curb criminals or lower our crime rates. What they are good at is disarming US citizens and keeping them from lawfully defending themselves. When a government be it your local or the State itself fears it’s people having legally owned firearms really sounds an alarm yet we allow them to keep there jobs. It’s time to get em out. This is where we come together and vote them out.

      1. Amen brother they care more about criminals than honest working Americans look at every country which the government takes the guns away even our indians

    12. When the morons on the Dem. Left let illegal aliens vote and get a driver’s license, and don’t protect law abiding citizens it’s time to leave the fukd up state. All they really care about is power, money and v o t e s period. Even her own dauther said she wiould cut your head off and you wouldn’t know it. Bitch ….

    13. When the morons on the Dem. Left let illegal aliens vote and get a driver’s license, and don’t protect law abiding citizens it’s time to leave the fukd up state. All they really care about is power, money and v o t e s period. Even her own dauther said she wiould cut your head off and you wouldn’t know it. Bitch ….

    14. Gun control is always followed by confiscation,look at Europe! We are the ONLY COUNTRY with freedom to own firearms and carry firearms Remember why the JAPENESE didnt invade after Pearl Harbor! Deer season in Wisconson brought out 600,000 hunters! That’s just one state,think about that! Never give up your guns or allow restrictions because like Europe and others you will never get that right back.Resist Globalism and Socialism which are only controls the E.U ,UN ,SOROS ETC WANT ,LOOK AT VENEZUELA VOTE FREEDOM 2020

    15. Similar issue in Massachusetts… where we started a revolution to keep our right to arms that has been petering out for several decades. Here the state has an approved list of firearms that is meaningless because the separately elected attorney general can arbitrarily set her own rules for handgun safety clearly aimed at taking mainstream guns off the market.

      So even though Glocks are popular police weapons which are purchased by state and local police in Massachusetts, many models have been banned because of ‘I’ll know it when I see it’ type safety requirements like a load indicator that didn’t petrude far enough but without any regulation that said how far would actually be enough.

    16. These are the the kind of people who have never read the Constitution and paid attention to what it says and how it is said. If these people have would read it and pay attention to the way it’s written they would learn something. Pay attention to the capitalisation and punctuation they might even wind up with a brain to think with. Read the preamble and they understand that the CONSTITUTION is a contract and that it is ironclad! It is not the Constitution of, it is the Constitution for the United States of America so let’s get it right for a change.

    17. Reality check. Bozo anti gun Calif. politicians do not want law abiding citizens to have access to sny type of firearm. They distort the truth. Imagine that. Our leaders lying to us for selfserving ourposes and to pay back there special interest who donated to their currupt campaign. Politicians don,t live on their salary, they live on monies paid to them for pushing soecial interest agenda,s. CA politics want yo close down hunting. They could care less about law abiding citizens right. It,s fine for them yo issue our young serviceman a wespon to defend our rights and freedoms. It,s ok to send our young Americans abroad, away from their families to die for the cause of frerdom, as long as it,s not their kid. Old enough to die but not old enough to own a gun. ” From my dead hands”

    18. To
      Democrats
      Read the USA
      Constitution
      2nd amendment
      Just like
      First amendment
      Free speech
      You shit head
      California turds
      And HYPOCRITICAL
      Loser Democrats
      Go trump
      Guns
      Capitalism
      Morons

    19. As a native San Franciscan, I have seen the city change from a place that I was proud to live in to that of a cesspool. The city government coddles the homeless, illegal aliens and felons. High Bridge Arms, the last gun shop in San Francisco, closed its doors in September 2015 because all transactions had to be videotaped and the tape was to be provided to the police. Rather than violating the privacy of its customers, the shop closed its doors. The liberals were elated. Market Street was a great place to shop and stroll. Now one cannot walk on the sidewalks without an encounter from an aggressive panhandler asking for change.In 1989, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution declaring San Francisco a “sanctuary city” for illegal aliens. Recently, the California State Legislature passed a bill making California a sanctuary state. Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill into law.
      I don’t blame those CA residents for moving out of the People’s Democratic Republic of California (PDRC). If I didn’t have ties and equities here, I would join them. At least in some of the other states (except NJ, NY, MA, and CT) there is still sanity left.

      1. You can do it. It’s easy. I was born a raised Californian. Did 20yrs Navy, retired and moved back home. I couldn’t stand how the state became so I got a contract gig out of state and never turned back. I miss my family, but the politics, prices, and crowds made me sick. Glad I made the move before uhaul got too expensive to escape. Seriously compare the prices, it’s unnerving.
        Good luck on your decision.

    20. EASY: leave California to Burn!!
      Do not move to Washington state, not welcolme!! You California idiots have ruined your state, STAY AWAY from the sane people in Eastern wa. Freedom to speak how A lot feel about your fukd up state!!

      1. The same state that just banned gun sales to anyone under the age of 21? Yeah…your state is real healthy. Do your homework before becoming a keyboard warrior. And that new law in your state was voted in…the law in question in this article was put in place by the government without a vote. As was the age requirement. You guys actually voted for yours. Yeah, you’re so right…you guys have have it all together up there. Idiot.

      2. You’re a fucking idiot. I’m one of the many Californians that think California gun laws are way too stringent. I’ll see u in Washington next month when I move asshole.

      3. Why tf would anyone leave Kalifornia only to go to the Pacific northwest which is slowly but surely turning the same way? I know so many people leaving Washington for Idaho. The people who are leaving California are not the same people who ruined it. Glass houses brother. Know your facts.

      4. Yeah, Californians who frequent this website and bothered to read your comment are really going to vote for liberal policies…
        Well, you succeeded in persuading me from moving to your part of the country as long as it is full of people like you. Enjoy your granola.

    21. While I do believe Kamela Harris is a fine lawyer and is extremely on the side of the people but her opinion and her action as the Attorney General of California was jaded by her “blame the firearm” thought process. A Law abiding US Veteran in California cannot purchase a Goverment surplus hand gun that was last manufacturered in 1945 because they have/are not on the approval list.

      1. While I think the “unsafe” handgun law is ridiculous and needs to be removed, it does exempt C&R pistols from needing to be on the roster in order to be sold or transferred to you by an FFL. A gun is C&R if it is either 50+ years old (the gun itself, not the design) and/or if it is on the ATF’s C&R list.

        I’ve had a CA FFL refuse to transfer a C&R pistol because it scared them that it wasn’t on the roster. I took my business to another and my transfer was approved by the CA DOJ without a problem. This goes to show that simply having an FFL doesn’t necessarily mean you know anything about the law.

        Go out and buy that old 1911!

    Leave a Comment 61 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *