“‘If 5% of the ducks could shoot back, you’re not going to go duck hunting,’ said [Chuck Michel, a] Long Beach lawyer representing many Californians denied concealed weapons permits and, in his view, their constitutional right to self-defense.” – LA Times

Recommended For You

12 Responses to Quote of the Day: Returned Fire Edition

  1. I wonder, if they ban OCing rifles in Cali, then could we carry Katanas and Scottish Broadswords instead? or, better yet, some of those REALLY scary fantasy swords! *cue evil laugh*

    I can see it now… The Brady Campaign to Stop Sword and Knife Violence…

  2. If 5% of the ducks shot back, I’d go duck hunting more. That sounds waaaay more exciting than just calling them out to the decoy.

  3. Living in SOCAL and not being one of the fortunate few monkeys will fly out my ass before local sheriff “may issue” me or anyone I know a CCW.
    I welcome banning open carry and look forward to court cases.
    What’s the worst case, liberal CA judges say no again and it has to be appealed in another court
    Go Chuck
    Open carry of an unloaded weapon is just asking to have your ass kicked and possibly killed during theft of unloaded weapon by the BG’s carrying illegal concealed loaded weapon.
    I do donate to 2nd Amendent, CALGUNS, NRA, CRPA, etc
    Sometimes I feel like I’m shoveling shit against the tide

    • Recently (jan 13), a federal trial court in LA granted summary judgment in favor of LAPD, LASO even though open carry of any handgun is barred, ruling that the Supreme Court has only held that there is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms in the home for self defense, and that “public safety” is a sufficent basis on which to sustain “may issue” ccw under intermediate (not strict) scrutiny. The case is Birdt v. Beck, et al. A notice of appeal has been filed. In that case, Birdt, an attorney, established that the LAPD and Sheriff’s Department believe that “more guns equals more crime,” but that this belief has absolutely no basis, rational or otherwise, in any study or publication. So the “interest in public safety” based on more guns= more crime is nothing more than a belief system for which no actual evidence exists. Taken to its extreme, this means that the government can violate your rights because it believes that it is good for you and the public in general. I assume Mr. Birdt thinks he has a pretty good appeal shaping up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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