Interesting video USCCA put out. Cali is wanting to say you already own guns why do you need another? Because you already own a gun your 2A rights haven’t been violated. Why not just say you own too many cars and are polluting the air with smog killing the elderly.
I watched the video just to find out what case this discussion is based on.
California, of course. Why am I not surprised?
Continuing with the car analogy, it would be as if California said you could only drive a Ford Crown Victoria made before 2005. No one can buy a new Toyota because it isn’t on the list of approved “safe” vehicles. (Oh wait, California has told people what cars they can buy by 2035, haven’t they?)
I personally could live with a two car limit. I could get by with just my work vehicle and family vehicle. But can’t imagine being limited to 2 firearms. It would be like only being allowed to have two tools in your toolbox. What good is a hammer and a screwdriver when you need wrench? Or to use a golf analogy - a putter and a driver aren’t gonna do you much good if your ball is in a sand trap.
More importantly even a violent criminal can only effectively use one weapon at a time. How exactly does limiting the number of firearms law abiding citizens can own make anyone safer?
And lastly. The 2A gives the people a right to bear arms not a single arm or two arms, etc. Though I guess the constitution doesn’t specifically grant the right of the people to keep their right and left arms. So I suppose CA could try passing a law saying everyone has to have their arms cut off to prevent criminals from using firearms?
If you stated two knives, @Zavier_D would have an issue with that, too. The 2A doesn’t grant one anything, anyway, it only guarantees our RKBA that the government shall not infringe upon… err… aren’t legally allowed to infringe upon…
Thanks for catching my error. I did misspeak on that one. What I meant to say is the 2A affirms our natural right to self defense by affirming our natural right to keep and bear arms. That’s arms plural with no limit stated or implied.
The sad part of this is not so much the minutia the lawyers can spew on the courts, we’ve seen a billion different angles in the past, the sad part is that it only takes one, or if not mistaken 3 judges on a panel, to agree with this stuff and allow it to be enforced as a law.
California doesn’t understand that I need a lot of different firearms for different purposes.
Is there a national emergency and the militia is called up? I’d better have something that shoots 5.56.
Are the Nazis causing trouble? .30-06.
British? I need a musket.
Is it hot out? .380.
Hitchcock birds? Shotgun.
Alien mothership hovering over the city? I need at least one .45, everyone knows those rounds can destroy anything.
Vampire? Chainsaw bayonet.
But you aren’t taking into consideration ppl that collect old cars. My brother lives next to a retired Marine and he collects S&Ws. He has over 100 guns in his collection and some are worth a pretty penny.
I’ve even heard of some one club challenges. Think most used a 7 iron for that. But wouldn’t want to try to win a regular tournament with one club. Don’t think I would be very safe, ethical or effective if I tried using just one firearm for conceal carry, home defense, elk hunting, duck hunting, etc., etc.