Own nunchaku, go to prison - Felony in California

[lklawson]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, where are all the 2nd amendment people for things like this?

In 1972, the NRA was pretty much the only org going and it didn't have near the clout that it does now.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[chinto]

Which explains why Arnold, signed a ban on 50 caliber rifles in CA, regardless of the fact that one has NEVER been used in ONE crime here.

Yep and now the california Swat clowns can not get their Barretts at least serviced of repaired. Barret said if you can not have one as a honest citizen the cops can not either! I agree... the stupidity of california is legendary.

 

[Tames D]

Yep and now the california Swat clowns can not get their Barretts at least serviced of repaired. Barret said if you can not have one as a honest citizen the cops can not either! I agree... the stupidity of california is legendary.

Yeah, We're all stupid clowns here in CA. Where are you from? Must be paradise. i was going to neg rep you for this but decided not to.

 

[blindsage]

In my experience, most Californians think of violence as something gang members do. Any instrument of weaponry was generally thought of as evil. This is an excellent point.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

If only it were just an issue in California, but they're not the only state than bans them.

 

[blindsage]

In 1972, the NRA was pretty much the only org going and it didn't have near the clout that it does now.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

...and where are they now?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

...and where are they now?

NRA = National Rifle Association

You see the word 'nunchaku' in there somewhere?

 

[lklawson]

...and where are they now?

Hip deep in firearms legislation battles, thanks for asking.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[blindsage]

NRA = National Rifle Association

You see the word 'nunchaku' in there somewhere?

Ohhh, I thought it was the Nunchaku and Rifle Association all this time .

But seriously, he brought the NRA into, not me.

 

[blindsage]

Hip deep in firearms legislation battles, thanks for asking.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Good thing too, since it's legal to carry firearms in most states, but not 'chucks, or swords, or large knives or anything that most martial arts train in. I can see how their 2nd amendment interests are real broad.

 

[Flying Crane]

In my experience, most Californians think of violence as something gang members do. Any instrument of weaponry was generally thought of as evil. This is an excellent point.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

not this Californian.

 

[Blindside]

Good thing too, since it's legal to carry firearms in most states, but not 'chucks, or swords, or large knives or anything that most martial arts train in. I can see how their 2nd amendment interests are real broad.

My understanding is that they do supply some level of financial support to other focused advocacy groups like Knife Rights. And quite frankly I want the NRA advocating for firearms rather than splitting their attention to some esoteric martial arts weapon.

 

[WaterGal]

The funny thing is, unless you've trained with them, and I don't mean just getting good at "twirling " them, if you really tried to hit someone with them, you would most likely hurt yourself just as bad if not worse.

Yeah, seriously, the number of times I've seen somebody hit themselves in the crotch on accident? :uhyeah:

Anybody who's really worried about dangerous criminals roving the streets with nunchaku has been watching too many kung fu movies.

 

[Big Don]

not this Californian.

Nor this one

 

[shesulsa]

Nor this one

Nor this native.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

 

[lklawson]

Good thing too, since it's legal to carry firearms in most states, but not 'chucks, or swords, or large knives or anything that most martial arts train in. I can see how their 2nd amendment interests are real broad.

Then quite honestly, you are ill informed.

First, you should note that a significant fraction of actual NRA members are also advocates for any number of "weapons for self defense," most notably the knife, but also including sticks and such.

Second, you have apparently completely missed the fact that a fair number of NRA backed and/or NRA co-authored State bills, many of which have passed, have, in fact, broadened the language and definition of acceptable self-defense weapons. This is most notably true of various Concealed Carry laws, many of which now include knives, expanding batons, and various other of the otherwise "banned" instruments.

However, this effort is hampered by several circumstances. First, it is a State-by-State affair. In most cases, each individual State's laws must be addressed. Additionally, the NRA is first-and-foremost interested in specifically firearms rights. Their, quite understandable, primary goal is expanding firearms rights. If they can expand additional self-defense weapons along the way, that is good but secondary to their goal. Further, because that is secondary to their goal, often times NRA backed bills will have to choose between which advances they may make, easing of firearms restrictions or easing of non-firearms restrictions. This is a simple decision for the NRA. Finally, it is pretty common for NRA backed/co-authored bills to include eased restrictions on non-firearms self defense weapons after the highest priority goals have been achieved in earlier legislation.

Living in Ohio, myself, I've seen this slow progression and all of the mule-muffins that must be passed first before a reasonable CC law is achieved. Here in Ohio, for instance, the original CC law which passed included an insane requirement that the firearm being CCed must be exposed and plainly visible when the person was driving a car. <boggle> This was allegedly added in order to keep LEO's "safe" during a traffic stop, but everyone knows the real reason was just to make one more difficulty, one more hoop to jump through which might discourage people from CCing. We in the Ohio firearms for self-defense community accepted that we would have to deal with this goofball restriction in order to get CC passed in the first place. No one of us liked it. It took around 2 years, ims, to finally get just that part "fixed." And we still have a long way to go. I'd love to have expanding batons, bowie knives, slungshot, brass knuckles, gravity knives, and all of the other stuff currently outlawed in Ohio code added to the list, but we just aren't there yet.

Of course the desired end point is "constitutional carry" for all self defense weapons, but geez, it's been an upward battle just to get this far. And your complaint seems to be, "you guys ain't do'n it fast enough to suit me!"???

Well, gee willikers, friend. Join or start and advocacy group yourself. While I'm not familiar with any "Nunchuka Advocacy Group" I do know of one or two knife advocacy groups.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[rickster]

One point with weapons restriciton laws is aimed to curtail criminal activity.
But criminals are law breakers, how can a weapons law stop crime, if the person is going to break laws in the first place?

Another point is to control the quantity of weapons being distributed.
But, the popultion is massive, therefore weapons are going to reflect that percentage

Another point, is to instill fear and panic for those whom beleive that such laws will protect them.
This is a naive and gullable position. A law will not protect you. Only YOU can protect yourself

 

[blindsage]

Then quite honestly, you are ill informed.

First, you should note that a significant fraction of actual NRA members are also advocates for any number of "weapons for self defense," most notably the knife, but also including sticks and such.

Second, you have apparently completely missed the fact that a fair number of NRA backed and/or NRA co-authored State bills, many of which have passed, have, in fact, broadened the language and definition of acceptable self-defense weapons. This is most notably true of various Concealed Carry laws, many of which now include knives, expanding batons, and various other of the otherwise "banned" instruments.

However, this effort is hampered by several circumstances. First, it is a State-by-State affair. In most cases, each individual State's laws must be addressed. Additionally, the NRA is first-and-foremost interested in specifically firearms rights. Their, quite understandable, primary goal is expanding firearms rights. If they can expand additional self-defense weapons along the way, that is good but secondary to their goal. Further, because that is secondary to their goal, often times NRA backed bills will have to choose between which advances they may make, easing of firearms restrictions or easing of non-firearms restrictions. This is a simple decision for the NRA. Finally, it is pretty common for NRA backed/co-authored bills to include eased restrictions on non-firearms self defense weapons after the highest priority goals have been achieved in earlier legislation.

Living in Ohio, myself, I've seen this slow progression and all of the mule-muffins that must be passed first before a reasonable CC law is achieved. Here in Ohio, for instance, the original CC law which passed included an insane requirement that the firearm being CCed must be exposed and plainly visible when the person was driving a car. <boggle> This was allegedly added in order to keep LEO's "safe" during a traffic stop, but everyone knows the real reason was just to make one more difficulty, one more hoop to jump through which might discourage people from CCing. We in the Ohio firearms for self-defense community accepted that we would have to deal with this goofball restriction in order to get CC passed in the first place. No one of us liked it. It took around 2 years, ims, to finally get just that part "fixed." And we still have a long way to go. I'd love to have expanding batons, bowie knives, slungshot, brass knuckles, gravity knives, and all of the other stuff currently outlawed in Ohio code added to the list, but we just aren't there yet.

Of course the desired end point is "constitutional carry" for all self defense weapons, but geez, it's been an upward battle just to get this far. And your complaint seems to be, "you guys ain't do'n it fast enough to suit me!"???

Well, gee willikers, friend. Join or start and advocacy group yourself. While I'm not familiar with any "Nunchuka Advocacy Group" I do know of one or two knife advocacy groups.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

You are correct, I have obviously not educated myself enough on this, or I would be aware of these things. Thanks for the information.

 

[WaterGal]

One point with weapons restriciton laws is aimed to curtail criminal activity.
But criminals are law breakers, how can a weapons law stop crime, if the person is going to break laws in the first place?

Another point is to control the quantity of weapons being distributed.
But, the popultion is massive, therefore weapons are going to reflect that percentage

I believe the idea is to make it much harder for criminals to get weapons, so your first point because of your second point. The problem in the US is that different states have different gun laws, and it's easy for someone really motivated to just go a state with lax laws and pick up a bunch of stuff and drive home, so this doesn't really work very well.

 

[DennisBreene]

I just can't picture a gang tossing their highly effective simi automatics and illegal automatics to take up arms with nanchuku. Sociopath doesn't translate to stupid. But I think legislator might. Maybe the easiest approach is to allow the ownership of nanchuku for hunting. Racoons, rabbits and other varmints when in season.

As an aside; in the early 70's Tadashi Yamashita came to a Michigan tournament to demonstrate nanchuku (he regularly appeared in Las Vegas at the time with a show). California authorities would not let him board the airplane with the nanchucks so at the demo he used 2 belts taped together as nanchuku and was amazingly effective.

 

[rickster]

I believe the idea is to make it much harder for criminals to get weapons, so your first point because of your second point. The problem in the US is that different states have different gun laws, and it's easy for someone really motivated to just go a state with lax laws and pick up a bunch of stuff and drive home, so this doesn't really work very well.

The idea is not to make it harder for criminals to get weapons. The idea is to make it harder for law-biding citizens to get weapons. There is a idea keeping guns out of the hands of law-biding citizens could lessen "the need" to purchase weapons. The idea is to lesson the need, thus lesson the manufacture, thus lessen the amount of weapons available.

Criminals get weapons easier than the "law-biding citizens"