- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Howdy all. I am on my way back from the Gun Rights Policy Conference held by our friends at the SAF in Balmy San Francisco. I will post a few more details of the meeting later today (been up for 24 hours and I have another 8 to go before I get home to sleep) or maybe this morning while I wait for my next flight.
But I wanted to post this little tidbit that I have been processing in my tiny little brain all night. Gene Hoffman of Cal Guns Foundation and Calguns.net publicly stated during his talk that they will be challenging CA's "brandishing laws"* as well as the "right to fire a warning shot" and yes, he used that term. He basically stated that it was absurd that in a confrontation you were basically pushed all in at the point you are forced to unholster and that the law should not bias against those who choose not to open fire or who fire warning shots.
Given the case in NY recently, this has some applicability elsewhere. Should we be fighting to protect our right to warn off attackers with a display of arms and to fire warning shots?
* quoted because I am not sure if it is statutory or constructive assault case law.
But I wanted to post this little tidbit that I have been processing in my tiny little brain all night. Gene Hoffman of Cal Guns Foundation and Calguns.net publicly stated during his talk that they will be challenging CA's "brandishing laws"* as well as the "right to fire a warning shot" and yes, he used that term. He basically stated that it was absurd that in a confrontation you were basically pushed all in at the point you are forced to unholster and that the law should not bias against those who choose not to open fire or who fire warning shots.
Given the case in NY recently, this has some applicability elsewhere. Should we be fighting to protect our right to warn off attackers with a display of arms and to fire warning shots?
* quoted because I am not sure if it is statutory or constructive assault case law.