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

AT&T Operator said:
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.
Click to expand...
clint eastwood kids GIF
 
Ok the shooter is not in trouble:
"And to the community member who heroically intervened to stop further loss of life, your actions carry a heavy emotional burden – and my thoughts are with you." - governor

Core Elements
Conduct that violates a law is justified if: [1]
  • Emergency Measure: The conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury.
  • Balancing of Harms: The gravity, urgency, and desirability of avoiding the threatened injury clearly outweigh the injury or harm that the violated statute seeks to prevent, based on ordinary standards of intelligence and morality. [1]

Key Rules & Limitations
  • Objective Standard: A defendant's belief that a threat was imminent must be reasonable from the perspective of an objective, reasonable person rather than a purely personal or subjective belief. [1]
  • No Alternative Course: The defendant must show that no other reasonable, legal course of action was available at the time. [1]
  • Exclusions: The defense cannot be based on general arguments about the morality, wisdom, or advisability of the criminal statute itself. It is also unavailable if it conflicts with specific public policies or other provisions of law (such as reproductive rights cases under Oregon law). [1, 2]
  • Burden of Proof: Under ORS 161.055, the choice-of-evils defense is not an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove beyond a doubt; instead, once properly raised, the state has the burden of disproving the defense
 
Watch the Brady bunch DOX that hero. If I were him I'd go on a foreign vacation until the news cycle changes.

I expect crews of reporters to camp out in front of his home.
 
cali_jazz said:
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.
Click to expand...

I’m just a noob but I am glad my friend explained to me that LEO has no duty to defend citizens from harm. Uvalde is the system working as designed and that’s the discussion I needed to have to open my eyes about gun control.

So, legally, shockingly, the police will not protect me/you/anyone unless they decide to.

In the face of that, how can I be against civilian gun ownership? We’re literally on our own. It’s gun control for thee and larpfest5000 for them (no plebs allowed!)
 
MysteryScienceHeater3000 said:
I’m just a noob but I am glad my friend explained to me that LEO has no duty to defend citizens from harm. Uvalde is the system working as designed and that’s the discussion I needed to have to open my eyes about gun control.

So, legally, shockingly, the police will not protect me/you/anyone unless they decide to.

In the face of that, how can I be against civilian gun ownership? We’re literally on our own. It’s gun control for thee and larpfest5000 for them (no plebs allowed!)
Click to expand...
lol that’s the truth, my friend’s coworker at the sheriff dept has a full auto MP5. All they need is a letter and it’s legal for them.
 
I see gun laws a lot like drug laws in many ways, like sure if you could get rid of every drug then people wouldn't do drugs. If you could get rid of every gun people wouldn't use guns to kill eachother. But if there are any guns there are infinity guns, and all it takes is two minutes with a dremel to "unregister" a gun, criminals have access to as many guns as they need even in California with draconian gun laws. I posted in another thread but a study in Alameda County (Oakland) found that 10% of guns used in crimes were registered to the person committing the crime. That says that the system is completely ineffective.
 
RustVendor said:
I see gun laws a lot like drug laws in many ways, like sure if you could get rid of every drug then people wouldn't do drugs. If you could get rid of every gun people wouldn't use guns to kill eachother. But if there are any guns there are infinity guns, and all it takes is two minutes with a dremel to "unregister" a gun, criminals have access to as many guns as they need even in California with draconian gun laws. I posted in another thread but a study in Alameda County (Oakland) found that 10% of guns used in crimes were registered to the person committing the crime. That says that the system is completely ineffective.
Click to expand...
We could just kill each other with our cars

Oh wait they already do that lol
 
Gawernator said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes I think they intentionally make these laws convoluted to discourage people from even owning a firearm or getting a ccw. My instructor always goes over SB2 and all of the other laws we need to know about with ccw because they are constantly changing.
 
Makes me wonder- knowing Oregon and Washington are not 2A friendly, and as a civilian you blast the bad guy because after killing, he still posed a threat.

Now the cops, lots and lots- ok ALL of them are coming. What do you do to not get shot before & when they (and extra loads of adrenalin pumping) come wheeling in?

(This may be better in a thread of its own- mods feel free to do so)
 
NorCalBusa said:
Makes me wonder- knowing Oregon and Washington are not 2A friendly, and as a civilian you blast the bad guy because after killing, he still posed a threat.

Now the cops, lots and lots- ok ALL of them are coming. What do you do to not get shot before & when they (and extra loads of adrenalin pumping) come wheeling in?

(This may be better in a thread of its own- mods feel free to do so)
Click to expand...
holster
 
ButteFlyFisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

A joke right? Of course he would be. He should have retreated. Why did he have a gun in the precinct of a school unless he was intending to KILL ? At the very least he would be sued into the poorhouse by the murderer’s survivors.
 
boltstop said:
A joke right? Of course he would be. He should have retreated. Why did he have a gun in the precinct of a school unless he was intending to KILL ? At the very least he would be sued into the poorhouse by the murderer’s survivors.
Click to expand...
This is a fantasy you created in your head and it’s weird
 
boltstop said:
A joke right? Of course he would be. He should have retreated. Why did he have a gun in the precinct of a school unless he was intending to KILL ? At the very least he would be sued into the poorhouse by the murderer’s survivors.
Click to expand...
FUD. There’s no duty to retreat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom