Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: L.A. Times - Adam Winkler Suggests If Lawmakers Want Less Guns, Allow Open Carry

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    L.A. Times - Adam Winkler Suggests If Lawmakers Want Less Guns, Allow Open Carry

    http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1.../p2p-79401186/

    "Lawmakers who support gun control might want to consider another option: Rewrite state law to allow people to carry guns openly.

    "For many in the gun control community, that will seem like a crazy idea. State law bans ordinary civilians from carrying openly displayed firearms. And gun control advocates don't want to see more gun enthusiasts showing up at Starbucks or the local movie theater with guns hanging on their hips like Gary Cooper in "High Noon."

    "Yet if they don't want too many guns in public, open carry may be the answer."
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    They'd rather not see them than not have them...

    Heads in the sand, you know.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Learned Professor Adam Winkler repeats the lies/old wives tales about open carry - sad commentary.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fallon, NV
    Posts
    577
    And... still they do not spell out the law correctly.

    There is NO statewide ban of open carry in California.

    Unloaded open carry, continues to be legal practice in rural settings (unincorporated areas).

    Loaded open carry where discharge is permitted, such as BLM land where hunting is permitted (not prohibited) is also still legal.

    I guess it would take away from the story, if they told all the facts. The problem is knowing/traversing incorporated/unincorporated areas. That can be a real pain to keep within the guidelines of the law, let alone deal with law enforcement who don't care.
    Hoka hey

  5. #5
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Post Professor Winkler is mostly correct.

    I've known Professor Winkler for just over two and a half years. He does not own a gun and would prefer people not carry guns in public. But he is also the rarest of liberals, particularly liberal lawyers, who was able to read the Heller decision and recognize that the right to bear arms extends beyond one's front door whether he liked it or not.

    Two years ago he said he did not know whether I would ultimately win before SCOTUS or if a concealed carry case would win but he was certain that one of us would prevail.

    After Woollard was denied cert, I asked Professor Winkler if he still thought it was a coin toss between Open and Concealed Carry ultimately winning the day. He half jokingly replied that I should send thank you notes to all the concealed carry lawyers for giving me precedents to cite in support of my Open Carry lawsuit.

    Adam Winkler is well respected by liberal jurists and known to the lawyer who has been writing California's gun control laws these last three decades.

    The position Professor Winkler took in the Los Angeles Times Op/Ed piece a few of you are so highly critical of is close to one I have been trying to persuade him to take for nearly as long as I have known him.

    "Close" does not mean exactly what I would have written, particularly in regards to unloaded Open Carry and the requirement of a license, but the Op/Ed piece did convey the message to those who count, the politicians in Sacramento and the Federal judges and their law clerks. That message was the title of the Op/Ed Piece "Want fewer guns on California streets? Open carry may be the answer."

    After Richards v. Prieto and Baker v. Keoloah are decided, and decided by the same three judge panel that decided Peruta, my Open Carry lawsuit is the next in line to be taken under submission for a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mine will be the one that sets the binding precedent if Richards and Baker are similarly decided as was Peruta.

    The 1967 Black Panther Loaded Open Carry ban will be overturned because of the racially discriminatory intent of the legislation regardless of whether or not the Court of Appeals decides to consider my remaining Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment challenges.

    When the Loaded Open Carry ban is overturned, the California legislature is going to be scratching its collective head trying to figure out what to do next. The message I want to be ingrained in that collective mind is - "Want fewer guns on California streets? Open carry IS the answer."

    With Loaded Open Carry restored, the logic behind the Peruta decision collapses like a house of cards and concealed carry gets tossed on the trash heap.


    Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

    "[T]he carrying of concealed weapons may be absolutely prohibited without the infringement of any constitutional right, while a statute forbidding the bearing of arms openly would be such an infringement." Peruta v. County of San Diego, slip op. No. 10-56971 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014) at pg 26.

    "To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. " Peruta v. County of San Diego, slip op. No. 10-56971 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014) at pg 61.

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    It is true, few will OC, yet many will CC. The irony is that LE likes this, so much so that they continue to tout the "advantages" of CC (permission) vs. the constitutionality of OC (no permission).

    Pigs will fly before CA goes OC, even with a permit. Though, I'll be glad to be proven wrong on that score.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It is true, few will OC, yet many will CC. The irony is that LE likes this, so much so that they continue to tout the "advantages" of CC (permission) vs. the constitutionality of OC (no permission).

    Pigs will fly before CA goes OC, even with a permit. Though, I'll be glad to be proven wrong on that score.
    California will (try to) adopt a licensing scheme for open carry if the total ban on loaded open carry is tossed out.

    Down the road, perhaps the best way to litigate a California OC 'licensing' scheme would be a 14th amendment equal protection (as applied) challenge by a non-resident of California, i.e. a law-abiding someone that couldn't qualify for a California permit due to residency or other insurmountable roadblocks, yet wanted to exercise their fundamental right to carry a loaded operable firearm for self defense while in California.

    Oh and Adam Winkler, how about an Amicus Brief in support of Charles Nichols' lawsuit? ;-)
    Last edited by OC4me; 02-24-2014 at 02:58 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    CA should use the TN's statue for a "handgun permit", regardless of manner of carry.

  9. #9
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    CA should use the TN's statue for a "handgun permit", regardless of manner of carry.
    CA should use the VERMONT or ARIZONA permit plans!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    CA should use the VERMONT or ARIZONA permit plans!!!
    Yeah, right, I'll go back to my pigs and flying comment. TN is more likely than AZ.....as a practical matter.

  11. #11
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    CA should use the TN's statue for a "handgun permit", regardless of manner of carry.
    Technically it's not constitutional, as it criminalizes all forms of carry unless you have the permit [to exercise a right], so no they shouldn't. However, that isn't stopping CA now, and I'm sure it'd be more palatable than the alternatives.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  12. #12
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Oh and Adam Winkler, how about an Amicus Brief in support of Charles Nichols' lawsuit? ;-)
    I'm working on that as well.


    Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

  13. #13
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It is true, few will OC, yet many will CC. The irony is that LE likes this, so much so that they continue to tout the "advantages" of CC (permission) vs. the constitutionality of OC (no permission).

    Pigs will fly before CA goes OC, even with a permit. Though, I'll be glad to be proven wrong on that score.
    California statute already provides for a license to carry loaded and exposed. It is limited to just counties with less than 200,000 and I'm not aware of any agency that has issued one.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    California statute already provides for a license to carry loaded and exposed. It is limited to just counties with less than 200,000 and I'm not aware of any agency that has issued one.
    OK. I retract.....pigs ain't flying around are they.

  15. #15
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    There is an interesting aspect to those California Loaded Handgun Open Carry permits that are only theoretically available to residents of counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people and are valid only in that county of resident.

    The lead plaintiff in Peruta v. San Diego, Ed Peruta, is a resident and citizen of the State of Connecticut. When he visits California, he lives out of his RV either in an RV park on the coast or parked in his sister's driveway.

    If a citizen and resident of another state who lives out of an RV when he visits this state can obtain a CCW to carry concealed it would seem that the Peruta Court didn't think that residency is much of an issue.

    It would be curious that someone like Peruta could obtain a license to carry concealed whereas a citizen and full time resident of California would be barred from obtaining a CCW openly carry a loaded handgun under the same state law because of his residency.

    My lawsuit, of course, challenges (in the alternative) the permit requirement should the court(s) decide that a permit is required to openly carry a handgun.

    California does not license the carrying of long guns for the purpose of self-defense.


    Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

  16. #16
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Down the road, perhaps the best way to litigate a California OC 'licensing' scheme would be a 14th amendment equal protection (as applied) challenge by a non-resident of California, i.e. a law-abiding someone that couldn't qualify for a California permit due to residency or other insurmountable roadblocks, yet wanted to exercise their fundamental right to carry a loaded operable firearm for self defense while in California.
    I would love to see this happen. Although I now live in Oregon (got the f#ck out of CA 1.5 years ago), I still have family there who I will be visiting, and would like to have some way to legally carry to defend myself since they don't recognize OR's CC permits.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •