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.

caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

Reality Check

Google - what does "well regulated" mean
>
>
>
AI Overview

"Well-regulated" in the 18th century meant well-functioning, properly organized, disciplined, and effective rather than subject to government regulation. In the context of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it refers to a militia that is prepared, trained, and equipped to perform its duties, rather than being controlled by government regulations.

Historical Meaning vs. Modern Usage
  • Then:
    When the Second Amendment was written, "well-regulated" was a common phrase meaning something was in good working order, fit, and efficient. For a militia, this meant it was well-armed and proficient in its use, capable of effectively defending the state.
    • Now:
      The modern understanding of "regulation" implies government control or supervision to enforce rules and laws. The original intent of "well-regulated" was not about government oversight, but about the militia being in a proper state to function.
In the Context of the Second Amendment
    • A "well-regulated militia" was seen as a crucial component of a free state, ensuring the security of the people.
    • The ability of the general populace to maintain arms ensured that a citizen militia could be formed and trained when needed.
    • The phrase "well-regulated" refers to the internal discipline and preparation of the militia itself, ensuring it was prepared for effective action and served as a check against tyranny.
>
>
>

Too often in our current "regulatory" environment of the administrative/agency state, we expect to be "kept in line" in service of some perceived "public good". The founding fathers would no doubt be taken aback by how much personal freedoms/responsibilities have been ceded to "the government".

It isn't that we should not seek the public good, but we should do so in a society free from oppression, either foreign or domestic. And foster a society that respects and protects the individual right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness",

Take firearm ownership as a serious responsibility, keep yourself and your equipment in good working order, spend time with like minded individuals honing your skills and knowledge, be disciplined in your training, and (if and when called for) use of your arms.

The British were organized and disciplined, but not as effective as a relatively rag tag association focused on attaining freedom from tyrrany. Those that wrote the founding documents no doubt clearly understood from experience what the words meant.
 
It takes less effort to type 'FBI crime statistics' in search box (search engine of your choice) than type entitlement post here.
I just want to confirm his source. First it was google, the it was federal stats…. There’s crap everywhere. No need for your attitude. Has nothing to do with entitlement.
 
Last edited:
There’s crap everywhere “junior”. I simply want to be sure I have a solid source that others are relying on. First it was google it, the it was “federal stats”… Relax guy. No need for that junior crap.
Choose. Choose the form of the Destructor.😁
 
2A does contain the words “well regulated” so to me at least it seems reasonable to ask people to undergo proper training and demonstrate proficiency before being trusted to carry a weapon in public. Otherwise an unprepared person can pose a significant threat to the public at large.
This is not the point. When the government regulates it leads to restricting. As a society, we should implement better accountability. If you carry and gun you need to train. If you don’t train and screw up, you should be responsible.
 
I mean the state could required a 36 hour training program? 🤷🏻‍♂️. I mean the burned is on the user just like driving. We all want go be safe but its kinda our American right to suck? Or is more gov oversight needed? Sadly freedom can mean more dumbasses 🤷🏻‍♂🤣
 
Imagine the states that have ZERO requirements...
Yet, people are not dying by the hundreds of thousands.

Zero requirements means these people will never go train or to the range for that matter. The only people they are endangering are themselves and their family.

The requirements is actually making the public (us who has to share training classes with these people) less safe.

I can imagine, there are what 25? Maybe 26 now i lost track. Must be nice for that half of the country where lawless hasn't run rampant from lack of governmental overreaching.
IKR.
 
IN Re: the attempted analog of driving v. firearms competency.

DRIVING TRAINING/FAMILIARIZATION;
From birth, virtually everyone borne in the U.S. is subjected to automotive travel of some sort. They see cars; they are carried in cars; they view cars for sale on TV; their parents drive cars; as youngsters, they talk about cars; they build model cars; they buy Hot Wheels; they take Driver Training; they get Learner’s Permits; they get a restricted license; they get an unrestricted license. They are adults trained to accept; understand; and welcome the automobile into their lives.

FIREARMS TRAINING/FAMILIARIZATION:
Birth…..; Call of Duty; …….

Questions?
 
Yet, people are not dying by the hundreds of thousands.

Zero requirements means these people will never go train or to the range for that matter. The only people they are endangering are themselves and their family.

The requirements is actually making the public (us who has to share training classes with these people) less safe.


IKR.
Dude you are so off base. I have friends that live in permitless carry states and they shoot competitions weekly and tell me their ranges are all full and have wait times even mid week. If what you say is true that wouldn't tbe happening.

You cannot simply say what you did based on zero facts. You truly have no insight to justify your statement.
 
Anyone who owns firearms should do due diligence and be familiar and practice and be proficient. If you choose to be irresponsible then thats on you..

Being irresponsible will eventually gets your ass in trouble, possibly jail and lose your rights.

For thr millions of responsible owners they should not be forced to pay more to do so or be restricted in anyway.

Also I find it laughable anyone thinking being restricted or having to pay hundreds of dollars to carry a firearm makes you safer or more proficient than someone who doesn't in say Tennessee or Texas I challenge you to go to national competition and shoot against them and see.
 
Also I find it laughable anyone thinking being restricted or having to pay hundreds of dollars to carry a firearm makes you safer or more proficient than someone who doesn't in say Tennessee or Texas I challenge you to go to national competition and shoot against them and see.
I think it’s mutually exclusive. People who train are better, unless I’m reading this wrong.

They payment is just a road block. In San Jose they require CCW holders to carry insurance. Not a bad idea but it’s very expensive.

If they can’t restrict you one way, they try other ways. Training is always good, i hope to see more people at the range.

We have CCW matches to run your equipment, night matches to use your WML, and regular matches and 2Gun.
 
I think it’s mutually exclusive. People who train are better, unless I’m reading this wrong.

They payment is just a road block. In San Jose they require CCW holders to carry insurance. Not a bad idea but it’s very expensive.

If they can’t restrict you one way, they try other ways. Training is always good, i hope to see more people at the range.

We have CCW matches to run your equipment, night matches to use your WML, and regular matches and 2Gun.
I agree and ppl who do train or participate in competitions will be better than the ones who dont regardless of whether you have to pay for permit or live in a permitless state.

I shoot 1 outlaw match a month from concealed with my edc. Because I can get away with using 12 round mags.

The sanctioned uspsa events I run LO with a 2011. Hopefully one day I will co.e up north and shoot with you ikeo1.
 
Back
Top Bottom