We call for a full, impartial investigation so all Americans can understand what happened and why — and to ensure accountability on all sides. We strongly disagree with any suggestion that simply being armed while in public — including while exercising constitutional rights — automatically justifies deadly force. Responsible, lawful firearm ownership and public demonstration are not threats in themselves.

Nothing good can come from unconstrained lawlessness. Believing in America’s immigration policies while supporting an individual’s right to legally carry a firearm while protesting said policies are not mutually exclusive perspectives.

SECOND AMENDMENT NEWS

Gun Groups Criticize L.A. Fed Prosecutor on Minneapolis Shooting Response | LA Times
Exercising our First and Second Amendments can be done simultaneously.

Minnesota Shooting Scrambles America’s Gun Debate | Washington Post
Legally carrying is not an invitation to exploit anything.

CA AG Bonta: Open Carry Terrorizes Children | The Truth About Guns
Just your routine fear mongering from CA’s Attorney General.

Gun Groups to SCOTUS: Hear Public Transit Gun Carry Ban Challenge | The Truth About Guns
WE THE PEOPLE are eager for another landmark ruling.

Murders Down, Gun Ownership Thrives | AmmoLand
Can the anti-2A contingent acknowledge this? 

Some Guy Registered His Potato As a Silencer With the ATF | Not the Bee
It would be funny if it weren’t so ridiculous.

Why the 9th Keeps Losing—Why Wolford v. Must End Judicial Defiance | AmmoLand
Let’s hope we get some pro 2A decisions from 9th.

Trump Pulls US Out of UN Gun Trade Agreement | Bearing Arms
GOC applauds this great move by President Trump.

Feds Seize Guns After Columbus Man Threatened ICE Agents | Townhall.Com
Interesting development on this alleged crime.

UCLA Students Largely Clueless of School’s Active Shooter Protocols | Bearing Arms
Are we surprised?

The post Minnesota Unrest & American Freedoms appeared first on Gun Owners of California.

Have you ever heard a politician say “It’s just temporary?” 

DON’T EVER believe it.  Especially when it’s coming out of Gavin Newsom’s mouth.

In what is the most dishonest political maneuver of his career, Governor Newsom is pushing voters to support Proposition 50, which will discard citizen-drawn maps and replace them with lines drawn by a cabal of partisan politicians.  This is called “gerrymandering” and it’s just as dangerous as asking an arsonist to hold the matches.

In August, after some smarmy legislative shenanigans, the Governor called for a costly ($200 million) Special Election to be held on November 4 to vote on Proposition 50. This proposition bypasses the current system approved by a citizens’ initiative that requires an independent redistricting commission to draw election districts in a strictly non-partisan manner. It will return the Golden State to a time when politicians drew safe districts that guarantee reelection for themselves and their buddies — which does nothing but rob voters of real choices.

The fact that the new district lines were drawn in secret with no public input is reason enough to vote NO, but the Second Amendment implications are very real and they are treacherous. The bottom line is that Proposition 50 will put more progressives in power and more progressives means more gun control.  Full Stop! And the Left hasn’t even been coy about it – they have said the quiet part out loud, that they want to squelch conservative voices and wrest any and all control from Republicans.  The new maps were redrawn purposefully to remove some of our strongest Second Amendment allies.

Adopting district maps that will put more anti-gun Democrats in power in areas currently represented by Republicans means nearly a third of all rural voters will be shifted into new districts. In fact, several districts will likely see urban voters drive election results over rural opinions and will split and weaken the remaining rural districts. Again – this is a dangerous proposition for the Second Amendment community. We have a tough enough battle to fight here in California, and Proposition 50 will simply add fuel to the anti-gun fires we are fighting.

PLEASE. Forward this information to friends and family.  And don’t be fooled by the deceptive ballot title – the wording suggests that a “yes” vote would keep the independent citizens redistricting commission when in fact a “yes” vote eliminates the citizens from the process and hands the power back to the politicians.  Just one more indication of the lies that will feather the politicians’ own nests.  VOTE NO.

By now, all California active registered voters should have received a vote-by-mail ballot:

• Ballots can be returned by mail, at a drop-off location, or your county elections office.
• To make sure your ballot is counted, return it early by mail, drop box, or vote center (click HERE for voting and drop off locations) . If you mail it, do it early — or walk it into the post office and request a postmark.
• Vote centers open for early in-person voting in all Voter’s Choice Act counties beginning on October 25, 2025.
• Vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by November 12, 2025.

For more information on Proposition 50, head on over to the NO ON 50 site here.

The post Proposition 50 – Dangerous for Californians and Dangerous for the Second Amendment appeared first on Gun Owners of California.

Governor Newsom has gone full tilt, people.  He’s pouring gas on a fire that has divided America to a degree not seen since the militant riots of the 60’s when he warns “that we will not have an election in 2028.”  He’s California’s “fear monger in chief” and went on late night TV Tuesday night to warn us all about CODE RED!  “I really mean that in the core of my soul unless we wake up to the code red, what’s happening in this country, and we wake up soberly to how serious this moment is.”

CODE RED?  No elections? OH NOOOOOOOO!

What the heck is Code Red?

Is Code Red “code” for the 77.3 million who voted for President Trump last year? Or it is “code” for the blue anti-gun Democrats taking a big hit in voter registration?

I don’t know if he’s smoking the funny stuff or what, but good grief, the pearl-clutching is over the top.  We RED folk aren’t shooting up ICE facilities in protests to deportations or TV stations in response to a leftist comedian being cancelled. Nor are we leaving vile messages on unspent shell casings left behind after a shooting. Neither are we assassinating freedom-loving men for simply attempting to engage in peaceful dialogue.

Those dudes are all on TEAM BLUE – otherwise known as YOUR team, Governor Newsom.

In the aftermath of these recent acts of violence, isn’t it curious how Newsom’s mouth (or the juvenile team who operate his social media) hasn’t uttered ONE word about gun control on these three violent GUN related incidents.  Just doesn’t fit the story now, does it?

But for goodness sake – we all need to wake up to the code red, whatever that is.

Meanwhile, back to actual reality, Newsom has some bad gun bills on his desk – and each one targets responsible, lawful individuals. Not one will put a dent in criminal misuse of a firearm. Not one.  GOC’s Legislative Action Center is up and running – we are blazing away with a one-click ability to send Governor Newsom a request to veto AB 1127 (Glock ban) / AB 1078 (Limitations on Firearm Purchases) / AB 1263 (Digital Code/Firearm Reloading Speed / SB 704 (Gun Barrel Registration). Newsom may not appreciate the noise we are making, but that’s not going to stop us one bit.

Lest any Leftist think they are on the right side of history, the future and the future alone will prove or disprove this.  GOC believes that the ultimate destruction of our nation will not come from external forces, but from those who claim to lead us.  In the prescient words of James Madison in 1788, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” 

The post No Elections? Newsom’s Gone Full Tilt appeared first on Gun Owners of California.

Just this week, Hon. Sherilyn Peace Garnett ruled that Gun Owners of California, our stalwart partners at CRPA (who filed the lawsuit) and individual applicants — have the legal right to challenge California’s CCW licensing regime that delays or denies an individual’s constitutional right to carry.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO MORE THAN JUST LA COUNTY? Because other jurisdictions will be bound by the judge’s initial ruling.
Here are the facts:

GOC and CRPA and our partners now have legal “standing” to pursue a claim against an entity that delays or denies CCW applications.

• “Standing” means we have a valid reason to sue, and the judge gave us the green light to fight this issue in court, not just for the named plaintiffs (those of us bringing the lawsuit), but for all affected members. Judge Garnett affirmed that GOC and CRPA can sue not just on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of their members who have been affected by the delays — even if those members aren’t named in.
• Why it matters: This makes this lawsuit much bigger and more powerful. It’s not just about a few people who were forced to wait too long for a permit. This ruling affirms that GOC and CRPA can represent the thousands of law-abiding applicants whose rights are being consistently crushed by CCW delays.

The Court DENIED the County’s motion to dismiss the “Second Amendment” claim.

• The county tried to get the entire Second Amendment challenge thrown out – why? Because they do not believe the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The judge said nope — there’s enough evidence that delaying permits violates the Second Amendment, and the claim is allowed to move forward.
• Why it matters: The court has agreed that excessive delays in issuing CCWs could be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment — and now this will absolutely be tested further in court.

The Court ruled that the practice of taking longer than the statutory 120 days…supports a “plausible” unconstitutional delay.

• We have “alleged” (we know this is fact) that LASD routinely goes far beyond the 120 days. The court found there’s enough smoke here to investigate if there’s a real fire.
• Why it matters: The judge recognized this isn’t a one-off — it’s a systemic issuethat could amount to a constitutional violation.

GOC, CRPA and our partners have adequately alleged a “Monell” claim.

• A Monell claim means we are accusing the LASD of having an official policy or custom that violates people’s rights — in this case, a pattern of delaying CCW permits.
• Why it matters: This is a big deal— if proven, it can lead to court orders requiring major policy changes within LASD. The court agreed there’s enough evidence to go forward on this important issue.

The Court DENIED the County’s motion to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment claim.

• GOC et al also said the delays violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment — by failing to follow proper legal procedures or treating people unequally. The county wanted that claim tossed too. The judge said no.
• Why it matters: This is an interesting point, because the court agrees that this isn’t just a gun rights issue — it’s also about fairness and legal process. That gives the case even more weight.

The Court DENIED the County’s motion to dismiss our requests for “declaratory and injunctive relief” as moot.

• The county tried to weasel out by saying, “Well, we approved some permits now, so this case doesn’t matter anymore.” The judge shut that down.
• Why it matters: It confirms that they can’t fix a systemic issue by cleaning up a few cases after getting sued. The issue isn’t moot — it’s very much alive!

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

• The lawsuit is fully alive and moving forward towards an actual trial.
• GOC, CRPA and our members are officially in the fight.
• The court sees potential constitutional violations on Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
• The Sheriff’s Department and County can be held accountable and possibly forced to fix their broken CCW process.
• Even if permits are issued now, they don’t get to avoid consequences.

GOC strongly believes that this particular ruling will ultimately bust the doors open for a more transparent – and speedier CCW licensing process. The bottom line is that if LA County fails to act within the statutory time limits, there will be significant legal consequences.  GOC pledges to stay on top of this – stay tuned!

The post Court Smacks LA Sheriff’s Dept on CCW Delays – It’s Another Legal Win! appeared first on Gun Owners of California.

This has created a lot of frustration because the changes we were promised in November have been slower in coming than we’d like.  But there are things we must remember: the forces pushing against us are powerful, mean-spirited and boy, are they are angry. They are spitting mad that someone has dared to question anything they have done, which is why we have to be tougher, more resolute in our fight to break their grip on the country.

The grip is no more keenly felt than at the very agencies whose boot has been on the necks of lawful, responsible gun-owning Americans.  The Department of Justice – the FBI, ATF are chock-full to the gills with anti-Trump operatives who have been able to deliberately conceal all manner of sketchy activities, whether from Congress or the American people.  Imagine trying to make changes for more transparency and fiscal responsibility while surrounded by what legal scholar and author Hans Mahncke calls “a tenured army of left-wing activists, unfireable, hostile, and wholly uninterested in reform.”  Their single-minded mission is to outlast anyone who wants a shift in policy which means FBI Director Kash Patel is fighting against a machine of entrenched civil servants, many of whom are working FBI agents.  This is an incredibly tough hill to climb, but GOC is confident Kash and those he appoints will ultimately be able to kick some serious butt. The waiting, however, for the swamp creatures to be sacked (and prosecuted) is excruciating.

This is unfortunately happening at all levels of our federal government – even the National Institute of Health has faced mass walk-outs of scientists at the mere suggestion that COVID was manufactured in a lab in China.  Even well-schooled scientists will shun the science if it runs counter to their political idiosyncrasies!  GOC agrees with Mahncke when he says “The truth is that the remedies required are going to be far tougher and more radical than anything currently on the table.” 

Trump’s victory in November was – and still is – glorious.  But we’ve said it before and we will say it again: it can also send the wrong message that it’s time to sit back and relax.  THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO RELAX.  When your enemy is on his heels, this is the exact time to move forward with resolve, which is why GOC will keep hammering away that there are battles to be fought every day of the week.  We want to celebrate every win out there, but we must keep pushing ahead with the momentum that took us over the line in November.  In some ways, the battles are even greater – the anger, deceit and ugliness with which the Left has come at us has been stunning.  The media has given them a powerful boost and it’s unfortunate that so many folks have drunk the fake Koolaid news – and in such mass quantities.

Some have said this is a unique time to be politically alive and that the FAFO ethos is upon us. There’s no FA in the Gun Owners community – but we sure want the anti-gun Left to FO.

The post Rooting Out the Anti-Gun Rot Takes Perseverance and Grit appeared first on Gun Owners of California.

In short, AB 1127 is a bad, bad bill.  It bans so-called “convertible pistols” and redefines semi-auto pistols as “convertible” simply because they could hypothetically be modified. No question about it – such legislation sets up a dangerous precedent for other firearm prohibitions down the road.

What few comments Gabriel has made about his bill have been short on facts and big on lies.  In comments to Sacramento’s ABC 10, Gabriel asserts that the “firearm industry has known for decades about a vulnerability in some designs rendering them readily convertible into automatic weapons.”  In testimony before both the Assembly Public Safety and Judiciary Committees he went even further, outfight lying that the industry “has done nothing” to fix the problem.

Not true.  The cold, hard truth is that Glock’s Gen 4 and 5 designs have been modified, but California has refused to allow them to be added to the state’s roster of safe firearms. This is not only hypocritical but it is politically biased, further demonstrating that this legislation is not about safety but about incremental firearm prohibitions.

ABC 10 reported that this legislative effort comes after “converted” weapons were used in several mass shootings, including a 2022 incident where six people were killed and 12 wounded, in what police say was a shootout between rival Sacramento gangs.

Rival gangs.

Over 100 bullets were fired — in what was described as rapid-fire bursts — during the shootout.  Given Assemblyman Gabriel’s concern for the “gun violence epidemic”, maybe he convened some sort of task force comprised of a bunch of street thugs and gang members to discuss “solutions”.  Maybe they all agreed a brand new bill was needed to compel them to obey the law and not convert a firearm into a machine gun.  You know – we need a new law to make something that is illegal – illegaler!

Indeed, it is already federally illegal to own unregistered machine guns, plus the sale of pistol switches is already prohibited in California.

AB 1127 will simply punish legal firearm purchasers by limiting their choices while criminals will continue to operate without regard for the law. Ironically, California is now scrambling to fix a problem of its own making—blocking access to modern, safer handgun models and then blaming legal gun owners for the consequences. What’s more, the bill fails to acknowledge that nearly all semi-automatic pistols could theoretically be considered a “convertible pistol” making their definition overly broad and unenforceable.

GOC’s Sam Paredes has been far more outspoken in opposition on this bill than Gabriel has been in defense of this bad policy.  “It is a ban, because anyone else in the future who wants to purchase a Glock will not be allowed to do so without committing an egregious crime,” he said, “What the state of California needs to do is they need to focus on the criminal element, increasing the punishments for the misuse of any firearms or modifying any gun into an illegal configuration.”

AB 1127 has passed out of the Assembly’s policy committees, and if passed by the Senate and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, Paredes says he and other gun rights organization leaders will be filing an immediate legal challenge.

“Every pro Second Amendment organization in the country finds this law to be egregious, a vile usurpation of the Second Amendment and everyone is planning on joining together to file a lawsuit of massive proportions against this bill,” Paredes said.

For an additional on-point analysis of AB 1127, check out the story in Survival World HERE.

The post GLOCK BAN BILL: All Politics – Zero Safety appeared first on Gun Owners of California.

They kick the Constitution to the curb every day and it doesn’t bother them one little bit. This past week in the Senate and Assembly Public Safety Committees, we heard some real doozies.

During our testimony in opposition to AB 1078 GOC pointed out that the research regarding gun violence used by the author Assemblyman Marc Berman is the weakest form of statistical science – correlation does not equal causation.  To that Berman leaned into the microphone and said “I don’t care.”

Typical.

Well, it’s obvious that Berman doesn’t care about something else:  The truth!

And then there was Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez who was positively mystified why someone would question her mandate (AB 1187) to force anyone buying a gun to take an 8-hour class. “Why does the state of California require more extensive training to obtain a driver’s license than a firearm safety certificate?” she chirped.  Well, ma’am – it’s because driving is a privilege.  It’s not a right.  Equating a driver’s license to the rights of the 2A are kind of like comparing President Trump to Vladmir Putin. There’s no comparison, lady!

And when GOC responded fiercely to her inflammatory and dishonest comments that guns are the #1 killer of children in the US – the Committee Chair actually gave her the opportunity to respond to GOC’s charge.  She wasn’t interested. 

These people are not only liars – they can’t win on the merits of an issue so they resort to either steam rolling the Constitution or flat-out lying.  No matter which way we look at it – it’s cowardly.

Moving on to Assemblyman Haribidian, he put his own spin on what the Constitution says when he spoke in support of limiting individuals to the purchase of 3 guns a month. “There isn’t much of an argument to be said that 3 guns per month – or even one gun per month isn’t somehow sufficient legal access to firearms.”

Huh?

There’s that word “sufficient.”  What isn’t “sufficient” is for some holier-than-thou legislator making any sort of decision as to what is “sufficient” for me – or my family. The arrogance!  The hubris!

If I want to buy ten guns a month, I should be able to.  If I want to buy a big, fat 4-ton gas guzzler pick-up, I should be able to without some yahoo telling me it would be more “sufficient’ for me to buy a Prius. I should be able to chug a 32-ounce cup of sugary soda if I want without some dolly-do-gooder telling me it’s not “sufficient” for my overall health.

It does seem, however, that this new crowd of legislators are mad as a pen full of wet hens – maybe because they are a hot mess on the national stage.  But this is nothing new to us at GOC, because we have seen it all.  In 2016, former Assemblymember Reginald Jones Sawyer responded to GOC’s Sam Paredes and arrogantly dismissed the issue of “Constitutionality” when he proclaimed “the Legislature sometimes ignores whether or not it’s constitutional or not – we go ahead and make laws because we’re California and we do it anyways….”

The Left treats the Constitution like its nothing more than used toilet paper when they disagree with what it says and then they dearly clutch it to their chests when they need it.  No matter what, though, GOC will continue to hold fast to its original principles – and will speak the truth – every single minute of every single day.

The post California Leftist Legislators: Constitution? What Constitution? appeared first on Gun Owners of California.

In the nanosecond it takes to make the decision to defend your life with deadly force, Assemblyman Rick Zbur wants you to stop and think about a few things while you are being attacked.

Have I “exhausted every reasonable means” of escape before fighting back and potentially “harming” my attacker?

And, “Is there a possibility of me using ‘more force than reasonably necessary?’ I’d better be careful!”

And if I’m outside my home, but in the process of being attacked, should I think “could injury to my assailant be avoided if I decided to retreat?”

Or what about, “Hey Mr. Criminal who is breaking my door down – are you just here to steal or are your going to hurt me in the process?”

Without question, two things are obvious here:  First, Zbur’s reading comprehension when it comes to his own bills is sadly lacking – and more importantly, he’s never had a serious conversation with a victim of a violent crime.

Whether it’s a brutal home invasion or the horrors of a rape, these don’t happen in a vacuum.  They are real and they are horrifying.  With the introduction of his AB 1333, Zbur makes a mockery of self-defense, acting as if the defender is the problem rather than the criminal. His bill would allow prosecutions of crime victims who try to defend themselves and fundamentally gives an actual physical AND legal advantage to the offender.

The push-back to the newly introduced AB 1333 has been swift and Zbur was quick to publicly back peddle.  He might want to check with the official sponsor of his bill  – the radically anti-gun Everytown for Gun Safety – because they have been very public in their support, citing “Amid Rise in Political Violence and Extremism Across the Nation, Assemblymember Zbur Introduced AB 1333 Aimed at Promoting Safety and Clarifying State’s Self-Defense Laws.”  And they’ve gone even further:

“This legislation builds on California’s gun safety legacy and lays the blueprint for the rest of the nation,” said Monisha Henley, senior vice president for government affairs at Everytown. “White supremacists and other extremists have hidden behind self-defense laws to fire a gun and turn any conflict into a death sentence. Now, lawmakers have an opportunity to help stop that and save lives. We thank Assemblymember Zbur for his commitment to gun safety and listening to advocates and experts on ways to keep Californians safe from gun violence.” 

White supremacists, eh? It was not on our bingo card that this would be used as a legitimate reason to make it more difficult for victims of violent crimes to claim self defense. (Plus, we can chat about Everytown using USAID money to fund their anti-Second Amendment agenda, but that’s for another day).

The historical background is important here – California’s “Castle Doctrine” has been in statute since 1872,  and grants individuals the right to act in self-defense in situations where either their home or property has been invaded without permission – and they felt their lives were in peril.  It was amended, however, in 1984 because anyone who killed or injured an intruder was forced to prove they had acted out of ‘reasonable fear’ for life, and therefore had to use ‘reasonable force.’  GOC’s Founder Senator H.L. Richardson introduced and passed legislation that shifted the benefit of the doubt in such cases to the residents, establishing the presumption that the very act of forcible entry entails a threat to the life and limb of the homeowner.   

Laws of this nature are called the “Castle Doctrine” for the simple reason that our homes are our “castles” – this is where we go to shut out the noise of the world; it is supposed to be where we feel most comfortable and safe and free from violence.   We should always have the right to defend both our home and family against the dangers of this broken world – and should be able to do so without having to legally find a means of escape or have any fear of harming someone who is intent on hurting us.  Forcing retreat first guarantees there will be more innocent victims.

We are glad that Zbur is back peddling.  But why stop with this bill?  We think he should back peddle himself right out of the Legislature.

The post “Hey Mr. Criminal who is breaking my door down – are you here to steal or are you going to hurt me?” appeared first on Gun Owners of California.

This is GREAT news, but how is this going to work?  GOC has the answers (with a thankful nod to attorney Kostos Moros of Michel and Associates).

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL LAWSUIT?

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of carry permit issuance policies and laws that make it extremely difficult, if not outright impossible to obtain permits to carry a concealed firearm in public and therefore to exercise their right to be armed in public, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment’s text “bear arms,” and as recognized by the Supreme Court.

The lawsuit specifically addresses excessive costs time delays and the refusal to honor permits issued by other states of CCW applicants. The preliminary injunction specifically addresses the out of state resident portion of the lawsuit.

WHO CAN APPLY? 

There’s a CATCH – and it’s a good one!  The order applies ONLY to members of the Plaintiff organizations. That means, this ONLY applies to individuals who are members of Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, CRPA and the Second Amendment Foundation.  That’s it!

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS NEW PROCESS BY BECOMING A MEMBER OF GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA – SIGN UP NOW!

WHY ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS?              

Put simply, judges have no interest in issuing broad based injunctions; this is precisely why they have opened this up exclusively for members of the organizations that filed the lawsuit.  They want to limit the relief to the parties in the litigation.

WHAT’S THE PROCESS?

First and foremost, JOIN GOC!  The judge imposed a 90-day window for the California Department of Justice and local law enforcement agencies to make decisions on how each jurisdiction handles this new process.  The ruling gave the DOJ flexibility as to whether they wanted to prepare an application for out of state individuals or whether to defer to the locals.  The 90 days ends on April 22, 2025.

After April 22, 2025, out of state residents can submit applications.

IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BECOME A MEMBER OF ONE OF THE ORGANIZATIONS WHO IS A PLAINTIFF ON THIS LAWSUIT, WHAT IS THE PROCESS WHEREBY SOMEONE FROM OUT OF STATE CAN APPLY FOR A CCW IN CA?  

Once the process is open after April 22:

• The applicant MUST have a good faith intention of visiting that jurisdiction.
• Applications will be available online in the individual jurisdiction where the application is made.
• Applications (as per California law) must include what specific firearms are associated with the permit. They will be included on the permit itself; some counties limit the number of guns to three.
• Qualifications for a CCW must be limited to those specific firearms.
• All other California laws regarding firearms must be followed (no 20 round magazines, no threaded barrels, etc.)
• The required interview with the agency does not need to be in-person; this was one of the more significant victories of this ruling. The interview can be conducted electronically.
• Training courses approved by the local jurisdiction will be offered online; if the Sheriff does not offer one, any courses endorsed by any other Sheriff in the state will be accepted.
• Live-Fire requirement: ruling requires applicant inform the Sheriff of a trainer in your area from whom you are seeking qualification. If the Sheriff rejects your choice, the ruling requires the Sheriff to provide another option within 75 miles of your residence (this also applies to the psychological exam when required by certain jurisdictions, but it is our recommendation that this be avoided as it is not a requirement).
• Live Scan does not transfer over state lines, so if you aren’t willing to travel to California, a fingerprint card can be secured though the FBI and mailed to the Sheriff where the application is being made.
• How to prove membership in GOC or another organization remains to be specifically addressed. This likely will be at the discretion of the issuing agency.

WILL THERE BE GLITCHES IN THE PROCESS?

Of course there will – this is California, after all!

GOC agrees that this process requires a lot of “hoop jumping” – but as it stands now, those who live out of state and travel to California are prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon – and this is WRONG.  We are, however, proud that there is now an option to carry in the Golden State where there was not one previously.

GOC is proud to have members from a wide variety of states – who support our unequivocal defense of the Second Amendment and our “no compromise” mission.  We are hopeful that even more will join us.

IS THIS THE FINAL WORD ON THE LAWSUIT?

No – we are hoping for a final judgement that will open the process to ALL out of state residents – whether they are members of GOC or one of our 2A partner organizations.

In closing, the entire issue will be moot if national reciprocity is passed in Congress.  2 bills have been introduced concurrently that would grant national reciprocity to concealed carry permit holders who cross state lines that are residents of Constitutional Carry states as well as those who live in non-Constitutional Carry states.

President Trump has promised to sign national reciprocity; only one of the bills needs to pass for it to be enacted.

The post Door Opened for Out of State Residents to Carry Concealed in California appeared first on Gun Owners of California.

And that was before 2020, when our nation faced the extraordinary strain that came with COVID, and the violent unrest that plagued many of America’s urban areas. 

No matter the year, however, there is much to learn from the Christmas Truce of World War 1, because amidst the haze of gunfire, there was an incredible silencing as songs of joy and a spirit of benevolence pierced the night instead of bullets.  Soldiers stopped fighting and took time to wish Merry Christmas to wartime adversaries. 

As we emerge from an election season that was rife with conflict, and into a new year that is abounding in possibilities, GOC encourages a call to civility and respect in our discord.  The examples set by both British and German soldiers a century ago are indeed, examples for all of us. 

We pray Christmas and 2025 will be a time of peace, reflection and blessing for all.

THE CHRISTMAS TRUCE OF 1914

During World War I, on and around Christmas Day 1914, the sounds of rifles firing and shells exploding faded in a number of places along the Western Front in favor of holiday celebrations in the trenches and gestures of goodwill between enemies.

On December 7, 1914, Pope Benedict XV suggested a temporary hiatus of the war for the celebration of Christmas. The warring countries refused to create any official cease-fire, but on Christmas the soldiers in the trenches declared their own unofficial truce.

Starting on Christmas Eve, many German and British troops sang Christmas carols to each other across the lines, and at certain points the Allied soldiers even heard brass bands joining the Germans in their joyous singing.

At the first light of dawn on Christmas Day, some German soldiers emerged from their trenches and approached the Allied lines across no-man’s-land, calling out “Merry Christmas” in their enemies’ native tongues. At first, the Allied soldiers feared it was a trick, but seeing the Germans unarmed they climbed out of their trenches and shook hands with the enemy soldiers. The men exchanged presents of cigarettes and plum puddings and sang carols and songs. There was even a documented case of soldiers from opposing sides playing a good-natured game of soccer.

Some soldiers used this short-lived ceasefire for a more somber task: the retrieval of the bodies of fellow combatants who had fallen within the no-man’s land between the lines.

The so-called Christmas Truce of 1914 came only five months after the outbreak of war in Europe and was one of the last examples of the outdated notion of chivalry between enemies in warfare. It was never repeated—future attempts at holiday ceasefires were quashed by officers’ threats of disciplinary action—but it served as heartening proof, however brief, that beneath the brutal clash of weapons, the soldiers’ essential humanity endured.

During World War I, the soldiers on the Western Front did not expect to celebrate on the battlefield, but even a world war could not destroy the Christmas spirit.

History.com (2009; Christmas Truce of 1914)
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/christmas-truce-of-1914
Publisher: A+E Networks

The post What We Can Learn From The Christmas Truce of 1914 appeared first on Gun Owners of California.