Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know how he thinks he can do that. It's a state, not federal thing. There is a dormant bill in the House to make federal reciprocity between all states that have CCW. But that's obviously going nowhere. No chance the fed. gov't. has the power to overturn state laws like CCW. And it would be pretty difficult to defend politically or in a SCOTUS challenge since there's never been a case of a CCW'er using a gun in a crime that he otherwise would not have used sans CCW. What possible reason could someone give for abolishing CCW? States that have CCW laws have all experienced a drop in crime once the law was passed and nowhere that has CCW has high crime that has anything to do with CCW.
I wouldn't carry a TASER if you gave me one for free. First of all, it's about $25 per shot, so it's expensive to practice at all. And it does nothing to the subject after the charge has stopped. What are you going to do then? Do you carry handcuffs? How are you gonna stop him when you're out of juice and he's even angrier? You think Kalifornia cops wouldn't find something to arrest you for if you had a TASER on you? Get real. Either stay out of KA or carry (ultra concealed) something that really will save your life. A TASER is designed to save the life of the guy getting TASER'ed and keep him down long enough for the cop to cuff him.
Facts and statistics are never going to deter the gun haters. Wanting to ban inanimate objects stems from emotion and ignorance, not logic. Both sides of the debate will dig up endless supporting evidence for their views. Bottom line is that CCW is a state issue and it would (or should) easily survive a SCOTUS challenge on 10th Amendment grounds without even having to bring up the 2nd Amendment, which liberals think doesn't really mean what it says.
The C2 is legal, and was recommended to me today by a LEO whose wife, who is also a LEO, carries one routinely along with her firearm, off duty.
I think it is closer to $50 per cartridge. Should you discharge the cartridge in self-defense, leave the C2 behind, and Taser will replace your unit, provided you have filed a police report. This unit has a 100% incapacitation rate. Your angry perp is less likely to stop with a non-lethal bullet in him.
And if you worry about trouble with LEO in California, carrying a legal device would seem preferable to attempting to hide your illegal concealed carry.
Facts and statistics are never going to deter the gun haters. Wanting to ban inanimate objects stems from emotion and ignorance, not logic. Both sides of the debate will dig up endless supporting evidence for their views. Bottom line is that CCW is a state issue and it would (or should) easily survive a SCOTUS challenge on 10th Amendment grounds without even having to bring up the 2nd Amendment, which liberals think doesn't really mean what it says.
Part of the fallacy of your thinking is that a premise against gun control is the deterent effect of armed law abiding citizens. Sure that would seem to make sense, but maybe you should look a bit more closely at the history of gun control in the Soviet Union, Turkey, Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia, to name a few, before you rely on seeming logic alone to determine what is or isn't likely to transpire, and why.
I have no idea what you're saying in that last post. Gun control in other countries is not comparable to the debate here in the U.S. It's a cultural thing here. It's a non-issue to ban guns in countries where they've never been part of the civilian culture. Not so here.
The C2 is legal, and was recommended to me today by a LEO whose wife, who is also a LEO, carries one routinely along with her firearm, off duty.
I think it is closer to $50 per cartridge. Should you discharge the cartridge in self-defense, leave the C2 behind, and Taser will replace your unit, provided you have filed a police report. This unit has a 100% incapacitation rate. Your angry perp is less likely to stop with a non-lethal bullet in him.
And if you worry about trouble with LEO in California, carrying a legal device would seem preferable to attempting to hide your illegal concealed carry.
Just my .02 cents.
If she's a cop, she's pretty much immune from all the other BS laws the rest of us have to deal with in carrying something for self-defense. I don't worry about trouble from LEO in KA. I worry about staying alive first and a TASER is likely to make my problems worse. If I were a cop and could carry it anywhere, anytime, it'd be one thing. Cops have a duty to insert themselves into dangerous situations. I only want to avoid them.
I have no idea what you're saying in that last post. Gun control in other countries is not comparable to the debate here in the U.S. It's a cultural thing here. It's a non-issue to ban guns in countries where they've never been part of the civilian culture. Not so here.
If she's a cop, she's pretty much immune from all the other BS laws the rest of us have to deal with in carrying something for self-defense. I don't worry about trouble from LEO in KA. I worry about staying alive first and a TASER is likely to make my problems worse. If I were a cop and could carry it anywhere, anytime, it'd be one thing. Cops have a duty to insert themselves into dangerous situations. I only want to avoid them.
I think you should at least read up on the Taser C2 before confusing the issue further. The Taser C2 is a consumer product, is not a firearm, and is legal to carry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.