• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

California Open Carry, get state AG opinion.

nicki

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
40
Location
Fresno, California, USA
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
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
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.
 

flintlock tom

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
405
Location
San Diego, California, USA
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?
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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.
 

flintlock tom

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
405
Location
San Diego, California, USA
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.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
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)
 

BSProof

New member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
45
Location
, ,
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!!!
 
Top