By snoadmin
Gun control is getting tighter and tighter in California as new legislation was passed last month that restricts carrying unconcealed unloaded weapons. The legislation upset many gun-toting Californians who believe this law not only denies their constitutional right to bear arms, but also impedes their ability of self-defense.
It has become very difficult to get a gun permit these days in California. Especially in rural areas where a legitimate threat needs to be proven in order to warrant owning a gun. Also, the weapon can’t be taken out of one’s private residence.
Even though the U.S. Constitution states that every American has the right to bear arms, California judges and lawmakers don’t believe the laws in California impede this right. It is legal to have a gun in this state; there are just strict restrictions.
Before the new legislation, people were able to get permits to carry unconcealed unloaded weapons. However, there is little point to this other than to intimidate others, or in some cases for show. It was legal to carry ammo as well. If it did come to a self-defense situation, one would have to load their gun before being able to fire.
Even though some people feel carrying a gun with them makes them safer, it does not necessarily mean everyone else is safe.
There have been many instances where someone carrying a weapon had it accidently fire and ended up hurting or killing themselves or someone else.
Eliminating both concealed and unconcealed weapons altogether, even if they’re unloaded, is a wise decision. No one should assume that a gun is unloaded.
There are a few things people can do if they are worried that taking away the right to carry unconcealed unloaded weapons will lower their self-defense. Buying a can of pepper spray or registering for self-defense classes can help someone feel safer. Besides, pulling out a gun, even unloaded, always escalates the situation. The attacker may have a gun as well, possibly loaded, at which point an unloaded weapon would be useless.
The courts will have to decide whether or not California’s laws are unconstitutional. Judges have interpreted many laws set by the Constitution throughout the years and the right to bear arms has always been at the forefront. Times have changed a lot since our Constitution was written. Guns are no longer the safest way to protect us. Guns may make one feel safe, but the odds of it being needed for anything other than recreation or show are low.
Yet, gun supporters will continue to fight for the full right to bear arms, and they have every right to. However, it is more likely to see tighter restrictions on guns in both California and across the U.S. in the future.
Even though there are many responsible gun owners, there are too many irresponsible ones who are difficult to trust. This is why we will not see the trend of tightening gun control change anytime soon.
As much as I respectfully disagree with some parts of this law, the damning of gun owners in this article is rather sad. I understand the premise of the law in that people outside of political rallies should not have weapons. As a CSULB alumni living in a rural town, I completely disagree that “less than lethal” weapons help with safety, let alone where the article states they only help someone “feel” safer. Feeling safer and being safer are two different things.
In a nutshell, demonizing a responsible group for the irresponsibility of others isn’t right. There are many other ways to better remedy the situation and have both sides understand each other. Treating them like the “other” does just the opposite. Thank you.