Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: California Open Carry, get state AG opinion.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    It would be interesting to see what the California State AG has to say on the "Open Carry" issue.

    Perhaps we can get him to give a written opinion that will mirror our flyer.

    I honestly feel that perhaps we should wait to see what can be done with Heller and getting some wins, especially on the incorporation issue before going full out.

    I believe that our current legislators and the Gov would pass a law just flat out banning any open carry and Heller may be the only reason they can't.

    Rather than comply with 12031, we should work to just get the ban on loaded carry ruled unconstitutional.

    Once that is done, then we can have real fun.

    California does have a ccw system, but there are many sheriffs who just won't issue.

    It is in these counties we should have the most blantant open carry marches and open carry days.

    Lots of groundwork would need to be set up. Ohio gun rights activists would probably help with details, they did this a few years back. It is the reason they got a CCW law.

    Nicki

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Several members here have tried getting an AG opinion. The opinion was inconsistant and dodged the real issues.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Hey nicki,

    Welcome to OCDO. I agree, there needs to be an actual legal challenge to PC12031 and the zones portion of PC629.9. Still waiting on Nordyke v. King though.

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    Over on calgunlaws.com, they have posted a clarification of C&R Transfer laws.
    The document was submitted to the DoJ as a "memorandum of law", and the DoJ gave the following response:

    class="content"
    After receiving requests for clarification, a memorandum of law regarding the transfer of curio or relic firearms was drafted by the Law Office of Trutanich-Michel, LLP. This memorandum of law is reprinted below, and includes hypothetical questions and answers to further clarify any ambiguities. This memorandum was provided to the California Department of Justice for review and comment. The California Department of Justice responded to the memorandum of law by stating they have "no objection to the statutory interpretations contained therein."
    Perhaps we could do the same with our interpretation of Open Carry Laws?

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    flintlock tom wrote:
    Over on calgunlaws.com, they have posted a clarification of C&R Transfer laws.
    The document was submitted to the DoJ as a "memorandum of law", and the DoJ gave the following response:

    class="content"
    After receiving requests for clarification, a memorandum of law regarding the transfer of curio or relic firearms was drafted by the Law Office of Trutanich-Michel, LLP. This memorandum of law is reprinted below, and includes hypothetical questions and answers to further clarify any ambiguities. This memorandum was provided to the California Department of Justice for review and comment. The California Department of Justice responded to the memorandum of law by stating they have "no objection to the statutory interpretations contained therein."
    Perhaps we could do the same with our interpretation of Open Carry Laws?
    What hypothetical do we need clarification on?

    12031 is pretty clear cut with the help of the Clark ruling.

    12025 is pretty clear in statute, though there may be room to question open carry in cars (for example if your center console sits high enough that your holstered firearmis not visible while driving).

    626.9 is clear as possible when the law uses the word 'reasonable.'

    I think the real problem in CA is that the cops ignore the clear cut issues and just impose their opinions anyhow.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    We don't need clarification, we need the AG to look at the pamphlet and say "Yep, you're correct."
    How much more effective would the LEO information be if it has an endorsement from the AG.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I am actually trying to get an appointment with the Alhambra DA to get his take on things. Who knows. . . (mentally crossing fingers)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    You know what kills me is (1) that the document that is purported to restrict people doing business as government is basically useless. When you have LEOs "waiting" on a person doing business as a judge to say "it's ok" there's a problem; and (2) even IF persons doing business as judges could write law (cause that's basically what their doing) what ever happened to the rule that if the so-called law is unclear and ambiguous and cannot be understood by the common man so as to know how the guide his actions then the so-called law is "void for vagueness?"

    It's bad enough that the purported constitution says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Notwithstanding that a fiction can't grant me rights or "allow or disallow" anything.

    Unbelievable!!!

Posting Permissions

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