18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
  • Welcome

    Welcome to CAguns

    Join California’s gun owner community. Create a free account to join discussions and explore member features.

    Join freeLog in
Rost Martin R1MF comes to Califnoria

Unfortunate daily reminder to carry everywhere

mbuss101 said:
Aren’t parking lots carved into SB2, that was one of the biggest initial issue pointed out when it was introduced. Even if you were going to a place that fell into an ok category if it was adjacent or shared a parking lot with a prohibited place you’re breaking the law
Click to expand...
yeah I think so, but I was under the impression the bystander was off campus and becuase the shooting was in the parking lot he then saw and followed. I'm sure we will hear more though
 
RustVendor said:
yeah I think so, but I was under the impression the bystander was off campus and becuase the shooting was in the parking lot he then saw and followed. I'm sure we will hear more though
Click to expand...
It was in Oregon so different laws, but even if it happened in California I cannot imagine he would be prosecuted. No jury would convict.
 
RustVendor said:
yeah I think so, but I was under the impression the bystander was off campus and becuase the shooting was in the parking lot he then saw and followed. I'm sure we will hear more though
Click to expand...
This reply chain is getting away from the main point. Were this to happen in CA many people who carry most likely out of fear for legal reasons wouldn’t have their gun on them, that’s my point.
 
Ok statutes were a little confusing so I went and read everything

You are able to pass by schools on the sidewalk etc with a CCW as long as you are not loitering and you’re actually traveling by. Can’t be in the parking or anything you have to be traveling.

However, the passing by exemption does not apply to any university or college or state schools which is just insane tbh
 
zilla8 said:
This is true and I don't know why others are not aware of the travel through exemption. If you have ccw you can pass by on sidewalk or driving on street as long as you do not stop or loiter. You also cannot stop to drop off or pick up anyone.
Click to expand...
Because the laws are convoluted, we have so many of them, etc.

I had never heard of this exemption until right now and it’s definitely not something they mention in CCW class. And did you know that exemption is void if it’s a college?
 
He's being hailed as a hero by the town's Mayor, CNN Anderson Cooper was talking about it. Such a horrible tragedy but hopefully will wake some people up as to why the "good guy with a gun" is not just a platitude.
 
Being a parent myself, seeing these incidents occur in schools is sickening. Even with lock down procedures, seems like they cant fully stop a shooter from killing someone until the police or an armed citizen steps in.

I wished they can arm teachers or hire armed guards or police at each campus somehow
 
cali_jazz said:
He's being hailed as a hero by the town's Mayor, CNN Anderson Cooper was talking about it. Such a horrible tragedy but hopefully will wake some people up as to why the "good guy with a gun" is not just a platitude.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it's more likely the conversation at large is going to shift towards "there shouldn't be so many guns in the first place."

These kind of events are awful on their own, but they also set back the discourse our society needs that goes beyond "do not infringe" vs "ban all guns." People are tired of senseless violence and fearing their children will get killed everyday they drop them off at school, and scared/exhausted people are more easily led along by politicians who claim they have the answer.

I'm going to be attending a birthday party soon for a bunch of kids who are the same age as the ones who sadly lost their lives in this shooting, and I can already imagine some of the things that will be said by the parents.
 
RustVendor said:
The shooting started in the parking lot so I think bystander saw that and followed him into the school from outside.
Click to expand...
Legally speaking if you observe an active shooter from a distance while you are on legal territory, but you pursue the shooter into illegal territory and engage, I don't see how that would then make it legal.

But then again I'm sure this type of nuance isn't written down in any of these no-gun laws anywhere in the country.
 
Enthused said:
Legally speaking if you observe an active shooter from a distance while you are on legal territory, but you pursue the shooter into illegal territory and engage, I don't see how that would then make it legal.

But then again I'm sure this type of nuance isn't written down in any of these no-gun laws anywhere in the country.
Click to expand...
What jury would convict? Don't see it happening even with the most hardcore liberals
 
Enthused said:
Legally speaking if you observe an active shooter from a distance while you are on legal territory, but you pursue the shooter into illegal territory and engage, I don't see how that would then make it legal.

But then again I'm sure this type of nuance isn't written down in any of these no-gun laws anywhere in the country.
Click to expand...
I dont think at that point its legal, but im sure courts will overlook it if the guy is a hero.
 
Enthused said:
Legally speaking if you observe an active shooter from a distance while you are on legal territory, but you pursue the shooter into illegal territory and engage, I don't see how that would then make it legal.

But then again I'm sure this type of nuance isn't written down in any of these no-gun laws anywhere in the country.
Click to expand...
It's generally legal to pursue an imminent threat to defend yourself or others. The key is "imminent threat" and stuff like SB2 doesn't apply.
 
lactoast said:
I'm afraid it's more likely the conversation at large is going to shift towards "there shouldn't be so many guns in the first place."

These kind of events are awful on their own, but they also set back the discourse our society needs that goes beyond "do not infringe" vs "ban all guns." People are tired of senseless violence and fearing their children will get killed everyday they drop them off at school, and scared/exhausted people are more easily led along by politicians who claim they have the answer.

I'm going to be attending a birthday party soon for a bunch of kids who are the same age as the ones who sadly lost their lives in this shooting, and I can already imagine some of the things that will be said by the parents.
Click to expand...
I totally understand your perspective. I'm a father of three, and I've had this discussion with many friends. The immediate aftermath of a mass shooting, when emotions are understandably running high and people are frightened and grieving, is probably not the best time to make the case for the benefits of armed citizens. But once emotions have settled and the circumstances surrounding the incident are better understood, I contend that's precisely the time to discuss the important, and sometimes necessary, role armed citizens can play in protecting innocent lives.

The reality is that firearms aren't going away in America anytime soon, and I think any meaningful discussion about reducing violence needs to acknowledge that reality.
 
Gawernator said:
necessity defense and no mens rea
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why this massive web of gun laws is so incredibly stupid that we have to deal with. When you have to use your firearm to protect the lives of you and/or others, none of those anti gun laws mean :poop:. And the only time you can legally use your firearm is in the exact scenario of protecting the life of you and/or others, which means the laws solely exist to restrain the dumbest bottom % of the population, which all the good ones who actually can and will help to protect life are hamstrung by it all.
 
Enthused said:
Which is exactly why this massive web of gun laws is so incredibly stupid that we have to deal with. When you have to use your firearm to protect the lives of you and/or others, none of those anti gun laws mean :poop:. And the only time you can legally use your firearm is in the exact scenario of protecting the life of you and/or others, which means the laws solely exist to restrain the dumbest bottom % of the population, which all the good ones who actually can and will help to protect life are hamstrung by it all.
Click to expand...
Preaching to the choir ;P
 
Gawernator said:
Not exactly sure why you'd bring up a law that doesn't apply since he has a CCW license. I'm guessing you didn't actually know what you were writing about haha.
Click to expand...
False attribution. (*You're young. I'll give you a pass.)

Granted the post was vague, but be careful not to ascribe intentions to others without first understanding motive.

Point: The campus was a soft target due to federal and state bills passed into law like S.2070 (cited above) and SB2. Common sense says that repealing both would give victims a fighting chance to survive such encounters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom