tylersdad

Totally agree. Additionally, if you don't know the difference between a fully semi-automatic firearm and a semi-automatic firearm or if you don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, you have no business creating firearms laws. 

tommikele said:

Horrible bill with little chance of passing.

Several comments above cheering this on. I can almost guarantee those people have no idea of the effects this would have across the board.

There are many ways to accomplish responsibility and moderation on social media websites. This is not one of them. Support of this particular proposal can only come from ignorance and a lack of knowledge. This is not how you make big tech and FB responsible. It would be a complete and utter disaster.

Besides, McConnell will never allow a vote and Biden would never sign it. Grandstanding by politicians who want to pile on and burnish their resume for 2022 elections by falsely claiming all the great things they did for Americans. What a load of pure BS.

You offer no evidence--anecdotal or otherwise--to support your claim that this would be a complete and utter disaster. 

It's about time! Tech companies can't have it both ways. They can't enjoy protection from liability for content if they are also censoring that content. If they can censor some content, then they must censor all content. 

This bill makes a lot of sense...which means it has absolutely no chance of passing. 

alanh said:

tylersdad said:

marsorry said:

Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???

They weren't trying to avoid the fees. California is a "may issue" state. The legislature left it up to the local Sheriff or Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. The majority of Californians are denied this basic right that the majority of the rest of the country enjoy. 

When I had mine, I paid nearly $500 (to cover the 16-hour class, range time, and the permit fees). I paid $250 every other year to renew. In WA state, I paid $50 for a 5-year permit. And unless you have a criminal record, you cannot be denied a permit. 

Wow, for us Europeans it's very difficult to understand the mindset that sees carrying a concealed weapon a 'basic right'!  You certainly live in a different world to us! So happy not to be in that world.

We are equally happy you are not in our world. We prefer freedom over the illusion of safety. 

hammeroftruth said:

Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 

There are no unanswered questions. When we leave decisions such as who does or doesn't need a CCW up to human beings, it makes the decisions arbitrary. California law states you must have "good cause" to obtain a permit. No place in the law does it define what "good cause" is. It's just not there. So good cause will depend upon the issuing authority. These decisions should not be left up to humans. Rather, objective criteria should be used to determine who should or shouldn't obtain a permit. This is called shall issue. In the absence of criminal activity on the part of the applicant, a permit shall be issued. 

This is what the vast majority of other states have done. Florida has been "shall issue" since the early 90's. There were claims that there would be blood in the streets. That hasn't happened in Florida or any other state that is shall issue.