Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

GREAT NEWS! ! Enough said, let's go fishing

Cool,

Now I can take my 9mm with me when I hit BH in case the landlord wants to nibble on my yak.

We have the right to bear arms, but not to arm bears!!

Rich

Can I take my 357 out on the water to shoot my Pacific Hali?   

Abking,

There wouldn't be much left.. I had a 6" Model 27 S&W that made a big mess with whatever it hit!!

Then some a--hole broke into my house and stole it.....

Rich

Yeah, we've got the right to bear ARMS, not the right to bear sporting goods.  All this 'legitimate hunting purposes' stuff is complete crap.  IMO, the public and police should have parity in what they can pack.  That meshes well with the founders concept of checks and balances.  And in reality a cop that trains with his gun weekly is much more capable than some punk holding the same gun sideways.

Can I take my 357 out on the water to shoot my Pacific Hali?   

Yes. I recommend using .38's instead of full tilt loads.

Great news.  CRPA needs to file another couple lawsuits.  May I suggest;

1) bring California into parity with the other 45 states having affirmative shall-issue concealed carry laws

and

2) get rid of that dumb-ass Roberti-Roos anti-semiauto law

Backcountry

The 50 cal ban is even more stupid than roberti-roos, though it affects fewer people.

Requiring handgun models to undergo state 'safety testing' to certify them for sale here is lame too.  I believe that was used to block sales of the thompson contender, though it's legal if it has a stock...

Requiring handgun models to undergo state 'safety testing' to certify them for sale here is lame too.  I believe that was used to block sales of the thompson contender, though it's legal if it has a stock...

FYI... the 'unsafe handgun law' doesn't apply to single shot pistols (with some constraints).  There are only a few contenders that aren't California legal, and it has to do with the law requiring a minimum barrel length on shot guns... so the 44 mag / .410 barrel is no-go in CA because it is considered a short barrelled shot gun.  I haven't come across any other contenders or encore pistols that are not CA legal.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/2006FD-06.pdf

Today's ruling just makes you want to go buy another gun just to remember this important decision.  I've been eyeballing an Encore Pro Hunter Pistol for a while now... hmmm.

EK

Yes ,Thompson makes some awesome firearms. The Pro Hunter has that neat swing hammer feature..

Me wants one too

Rich

Hooo man!

I can't wait until all the other lawsuit dust settles and i can finally get my fully auto AK-47, or that 20mm gattling gun i've always wanted mounted on the roof of my car as a "deterrent" to people cutting me off in traffic.

 

Definitely GOOD NEWS!

"deterrent" to people cutting me off in traffic.

That reminds me of a post of Joel's Road Rage where he shot the offender with a squirt gun I was rolling on the floor I wish I woulda been there.

I had a contender chambered for a 22/250 and that was a scary gun I was always worried about ricochets.

Hmm, I inquired at Reeds in SJ about getting a Contender in 44mag around 2003 and they said contenders weren't legal in CA because of the safe handgun thing.  That was some time ago though.  I "settled" for a long barreled super redhawk instead.    It was an X-mas gift for my dad.

It was because of the 44 mag barrel... that barrel doubles as a .410 which is restricted because it qualifies as a short barrelled shotgun.