Even liberal CA permits concealed carry if you are of the elite (hint madame pelosi)

That’s about right. I am a certified NRA Instructor (though that’s not what I do for a living), and have had extensive firearms training. I looked into a CCW permit, and the process is daunting, not to mention expensive. You will spend at least $400 to do this, fill out a 22 page form, and get at least 2 letters of “good character” and wait. That still doesn’t guarantee you will get your CCW permit.

Even liberal CA permits concealed carry if you are of the elite (hint madame pelosi)

GSP

Here’s why:

“If the first line of defense against a standing army was to intrust its existence to the representative of the people, the second was that central check that permeated the entire constitution: division of powers . . . .

Under the constitutional structure, no army could seize power or become the tool for a coup without shattering the constitution and with it, legitimate government altogether. [113]”

“Should such an event occur, the framers believed in one final safeguard: the people in the form of the militia. . . .”

“. . . Precisely because he so feared armies, George Mason pressed the convention for national authority over the militia to effect its reform. And precisely because the militia served as a powerful check against an arbitrary and tyrannical national government, opponents of the Constitution worried that the new government’s influence over the state forces would lead to their neglect, or worse yet, a concerted effort to enfeeble them in order to render the states impotent. That is the primary reason why opponents of the Constitution insisted, in ratifying conventions and afterwards, on amendments to guarantee the right of citizens to bear arms. The final check on standing armies, in the minds of both the framers of the Constitution and opponents of the new system, was civil war. [116]”

[from "The Constitution and National Security," by Richard H. Kohn, pp 61-94, in "The United States Military under the Constitution of the United States, 1789-1989," also edited by Richard H. Kohn, New York University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8147-4615-2.]

and

“The militia clauses had a Cromwellian odor about them, so the
Antifederalists argued. The Constitution already implied that Congress had the lead in determining basic military policy. Now the Antifederalists wanted to secure the rights of the states to maintain military forces, even though the Constitution prohibited them from having standing armies and navies. As finally drafted and adopted, the Second Amendment to the Constitution reflected the values of civilian control, and decentralized power….”

["The Constitution and the Citizen-Soldier", by Allan R. Millett, pp 97 -
119, in "The United States Military under the Constitution of the United States, 1789-1989," also edited by Richard H. Kohn, New York University Press, 1991, ISBN 0-8147-4615-2]

Congress made good on the militia via the Militia Act of 1792. That act stated:

“Section 1. MILITIA HOW AND BY WHOM TO BE ENROLLED – HOW TO BE ARMED AND ACCOUTRED

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizens shall reside, and that within 12 months of the passing of this act. …That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within 6 months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a and a knapsack [etc] … and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service..and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”

In both fact and law, the concept of a Militia consisting of all hale male citizens of military age (which now includes females as well) who report armed with their own personal weapons has been unbroken since 1792. Even after the Dick Act (1903) was passed creating the National Guard, the US Code contained this language.

The Militia fought in 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and was called out to guard certain installations and as “coast watchers” immediately after Pearl Harbor.

The fact that there are 85 million *ARMED* Americans is a factor that any adversary must take into consideration in their calculations for war against the United States.

The fact that there are so many of us is the reason why “gun control” has stalled in Congress and why since 1986, 48 out of 50 states now allow their law abiding, licensed, citizens to carry concealed weapons.

” A FREE PEOPLE OUGHT NOT ONLY TO BE ARMED AND DISCIPLINED, BUT THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE SUFFICIENT ARMS AND AMMUNITION TO MAINTAIN
A STATUS OF INDEPENDENCE FROM ANY WHO MIGHT ATTEMPT TO ABUSE THEM …
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT!”

GEORGE WASHINGTON

There is a difference between owning a handgun for self defense and carrying around a machine gun.

You’re absolutely right. A handgun should only be used to fight your way to the rifle you should have been carrying in the first place.

Assault weapons aren’t needed on the street and need to be controlled as best as possible.

Last I checked, it was a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. Do I need a 10.5 inch barreled, fully automatic AR15? No, I don’t. But it sure would be fun to own one without paying an arm and a leg for taxes and markups.

Beyond that, what is the definition of an assault weapon? Any weapon can be used to perform an assault (kind of the point of the weapon actually). But let’s think about the purpose of the Second Amendment for a minute. The Founding Fathers didn’t put the 2nd in the Bill of Rights so people could hunt. They didn’t even do it so that people could protect themselves from street crime. It was put in there so the people (who formed the militia, America did not have a standing army in the 18th century) could defend themselves from a tyrannical government. The Founding Fathers knew that power corrupts, and that absolute power is actually pretty nice. In the 18th century, it was expected that every memeber of the militia (defined above) provide their own musket, flintlock pistol, and hatchet. This was the standard for the day, and was the same thing that soldiers in the Nation Guard (remember, no standing army) were armed with. Larger pieces of equipment, things that required a pack animal to move or a crew to operate, were to be provided by the government in case of call up of the militia.

To be analagous with that, it should be expected that every person who wishes to be a member of the militia to provide their own personal weapons which are comparable to the weapons used by the US Military. That means select fire AR15s, submachine guns, handguns, and all of it with no limitation on magazine size.

Anyway, that’s my take on it. I don’t have a law degree, and I study history for fun. Take it for what it’s worth.

That’s all I will say on the subject. This has been debated enough.

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If the court upholds the ban it will be used as a precedent for other bans… I fear nothing good can come of this.