• 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.

Bill To Ban Open Carry AB 1934

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

So far it looks like a ton of exemptions thrown in for a new codified section (PC §12037), changing the reference of "pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" to "handgun", removal of (f) from PC § 12025 "Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section".

And then... PC § 12037. Misdemeanor/Felony possession of an unloaded handgun in public:

Code:
12037. (a) A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded handgun when that person carries an exposed and unloaded handgun outside a vehicle on his or her person while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
CA Legislature, hard at work to keep you safe.
FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

Incorporation ~2 months away.

No LOC.
No UOC.
May-issue CCW.

None of the above would withstand constitutional challenge with an incorporated 2A.

Could it quite possibly be, that the legislature wanted to give us the whole package through 2A challenge post-incorporation?

:what:
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

ConditionThree wrote:
Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
+1! Shotguns, AR-15s and AK-47s for all. First stop will be to have a long rifle open carry meet in front of Saldana's office.
 

obeygiant

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
82
Location
, ,
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
ConditionThree wrote:
Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
+1! Shotguns, AR-15s and AK-47s for all. First stop will be to have a long rifle open carry meet in front of Saldana's office.
That would probably be the worst thing that we could do as it will only lead to even more restrictions on our ability to transport firearms. We need to focus our efforts on defeating this bill before it becomes law.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

obeygiant wrote:
bigtoe416 wrote:
ConditionThree wrote:
Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
+1! Shotguns, AR-15s and AK-47s for all. First stop will be to have a long rifle open carry meet in front of Saldana's office.
That would probably be the worst thing that we could do as it will only lead to even more restrictions on our ability to transport firearms. We need to focus our efforts on defeating this bill before it becomes law.

Agreed.

Bear in mind, because this forum is monitored, we may expect the final language to include the aforementioned long guns. Ironically, the more restrictions they place on transportation and carry, the more likely this claptrap is to fail. - I'm definately not saying we should instigate Saldana to that end, but I think there is benefit for our cause if the anti's ban it all.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

obeygiant wrote:
bigtoe416 wrote:
ConditionThree wrote:
Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
+1! Shotguns, AR-15s and AK-47s for all. First stop will be to have a long rifle open carry meet in front of Saldana's office.
That would probably be the worst thing that we could do as it will only lead to even more restrictions on our ability to transport firearms. We need to focus our efforts on defeating this bill before it becomes law.


OPEN CARRY WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!

This bill is as good as passed by our anti-liberty legislature. Our only hope is for it to be vetoed by our she-male governor. Go ahead and make all the calls you want, it won't make any difference.

As I understand it, this should all be moot if SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd to the States, and then if the 9th re-affirms their original decision on Nordyke to apply the 2nd to the States. But hey, what do I know.

At some point, liberty loving gun owners in this state are going to have to willfully violate these unconstitutional laws and fight them on every front. As long as this state's legislature is overwhelmingly one-sided, the gun control laws will increase regardless of SCOTUS' and the 9th's decisions on the issue.

And if it comes to it, I willabsolutely open carry an AR-15. Then finalize my moving plans to a free state.


ETA: If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted toopen carry as our "right." She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did. So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights." Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.
 

PincheOgro1

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
420
Location
Perris, Ca., California, USA
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
obeygiant wrote:
bigtoe416 wrote:
ConditionThree wrote:
Assuming the bill manages to pass both the assembly and the senate and is signed into law by the governor, I suppose I would have to LUCC my pistol and open carry my unloaded long gun or SBR or shotty. Another note... it doesnt appear to criminalize LOC in unincorporated territory.

All the language is directed at handguns. (Which is nice, because handguns represent the most commonly used firearm in self-defense...) With incorporation, this will probably be easily discarded.
+1! Shotguns, AR-15s and AK-47s for all. First stop will be to have a long rifle open carry meet in front of Saldana's office.
That would probably be the worst thing that we could do as it will only lead to even more restrictions on our ability to transport firearms. We need to focus our efforts on defeating this bill before it becomes law.


OPEN CARRY WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!

This bill is as good as passed by our anti-liberty legislature. Our only hope is for it to be vetoed by our she-male governor. Go ahead and make all the calls you want, it won't make any difference.

As I understand it, this should all be moot if SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd to the States, and then if the 9th re-affirms their original decision on Nordyke to apply the 2nd to the States. But hey, what do I know.

At some point, liberty loving gun owners in this state are going to have to willfully violate these unconstitutional laws and fight them on every front. As long as this state's legislature is overwhelmingly one-sided, the gun control laws will increase regardless of SCOTUS' and the 9th's decisions on the issue.

And if it comes to it, I willabsolutely open carry an AR-15. Then finalize my moving plans to a free state.


ETA: If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted toopen carry as our "right." She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did. So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights." Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.
I have NEVER voted for a DEMOCRAT, A LIBERAL, A PROGRESSIVE, or what ever they want to call themselves. NEVER.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

PincheOgro1 wrote:
I have NEVER voted for a DEMOCRAT, A LIBERAL, A PROGRESSIVE, or what ever they want to call themselves. NEVER.
I'm super-impressed. :quirky

What about a libertarian? Have you ever voted for one of them?

The mainstream "alternative" to the Democratic Party is hardly "pro-gun" or anything else positive.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
coolusername2007 wrote:
our she-male governor.
Completely unacceptable. Knock it off, yesterday.

Is the variant "girly-man" governor more acceptable to you? And no, I will not knock it off, political correctness is one major reason why we are where we are today, and not only with viewpoints on guns but a lot of other issues.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." --Charlton Heston
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
coolusername2007 wrote:
our she-male governor.
Completely unacceptable. Knock it off, yesterday.

Is the variant "girly-man" governor more acceptable to you?  And no, I will not knock it off, political correctness is one major reason why we are where we are today, and not only with viewpoints on guns but a lot of other issues.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners."  --Charelton Heston
Girly-man is fine with me. But it's by no means a variant of "she-male". Nobody is going to buy that for a split second. :quirky Completely different meanings.

A "girly-man" is an androgynous male. A "she-male" is transvestite or a person who has undergone gender reassignment surgery.

Political correctness is completely, entirely irrelevant. This is not the sphere of public discourse, this is private property.

And the rules on this private property are very, very clear. And you are in violation of them:

5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer).

It's been made clear that extends to sexual orientations as well. What you've just done is disrespect anyone who might wish to join this forum who doesn't fall within your norm of gender identity. The site is Pink Pistols-friendly, and your remark was not.

So, if you don't "knock it off" because you refuse to get off your ludicrous "anti-PC" high horse, then I'll report you to the admins for violating the forum rules. We'll talk about "politically" correct, then. :quirky

If someone comes on my property and spouts religion, they will be leaving so fast it makes their head spin. And this has nothing to do with "political" correctness or incorrectness, because what a person does with their own property has nothing to do with "political" anything (unless folks try to use the power of government to abrogate property rights).
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
imported post

ETA: If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted toopen carry as our "right." She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did. So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights." Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.
Do we have audio recording or transcript showing this? An effort to eliminate or infringe a right, more so if the bill's author recognizes it as a right, goes directly to the heart of this bill being unconstitutional, and can (and will) be used to thwart this effort.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

CA_fr_KS wrote:
ETA: If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted toopen carry as our "right." She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did. So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights." Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.
Do we have audio recording or transcript showing this? An effort to eliminate or infringe a right, more so if the bill's author recognizes it as a right, goes directly to the heart of this bill being unconstitutional, and can (and will) be used to thwart this effort.
Yes, this was on video that I saw via the internet. I will look to see if I can find it again (if its still available online). I don't even remember what website, it was some government site of some sort, not youtube or google videos.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
CA_fr_KS wrote:
ETA:  If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted to open carry as our "right."  She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did.  So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights."  Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.
Do we have audio recording or transcript showing this? An effort to eliminate or infringe a right, more so if the bill's author recognizes it as a right, goes directly to the heart of this bill being unconstitutional, and can (and will) be used to thwart this effort.
Yes, this was on video that I saw via the internet.  I will look to see if I can find it again (if its still available online).  I don't even remember what website, it was some government site of some sort, not youtube or google videos.
Wow, I didn't catch this.

Surely, a bill's sponsor admitting the bill abrogates a right, and that bill having been very obviously pushed through at the last minute before that Federally-recognized right is enforced upon the states, calls into question the bill's intent to respect that right, and thus the validity of the bill itself.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
coolusername2007 wrote:
marshaul wrote:
coolusername2007 wrote:
our she-male governor.
Completely unacceptable. Knock it off, yesterday.

Is the variant "girly-man" governor more acceptable to you? And no, I will not knock it off, political correctness is one major reason why we are where we are today, and not only with viewpoints on guns but a lot of other issues.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." --Charelton Heston
Girly-man is fine with me. But it's by no means a variant of "she-male". Nobody is going to buy that for a split second. :quirky Completely different meanings.

A "girly-man" is an androgynous male. A "she-male" is transvestite or a person who has undergone gender reassignment surgery.

Political correctness is completely, entirely irrelevant. This is not the sphere of public discourse, this is private property.

And the rules on this private property are very, very clear. And you are in violation of them:

5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer).

It's been made clear that extends to sexual orientations as well. What you've just done is disrespect anyone who might wish to join this forum who doesn't fall within your norm of gender identity. The site is Pink Pistols-friendly, and your remark was not.

So, if you don't "knock it off" because you refuse to get off your ludicrous "anti-PC" high horse, then I'll report you to the admins for violating the forum rules. We'll talk about "politically" correct, then. :quirky

If someone comes on my property and spouts religion, they will be leaving so fast it makes their head spin. And this has nothing to do with "political" correctness or incorrectness, because what a person does with their own property has nothing to do with "political" anything (unless folks try to use the power of government to abrogate property rights).

Many terms have multiple meanings, which regardless of frequency of usage are still valid meanings. Clearly I meant a variant of "girly-man" not transvestite or transgendered person. Believe me or not, I really don't care. If youchoose to be offended that's yourchoice.

According to wikipedia (take it for what its worth) "The term she-male has been used since the mid-19th century, when it was a humorous colloquialism for female, especially an aggressive woman." Clearly our governor has "softened" his views on the issue of guns and his willingness to stand up to the anti-liberty, PC legislature.

With regard to this forum being private property, the admins may do whatever they wish, allowing or disallowing whomever they like. You are free to report me if you want, I really don't care one iota about your idle threats.

I am now taking my PC high-horse on to the high road and won't comment on this any more.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
CA_fr_KS wrote:
ETA:  If memory serves, when speaking on the assembly floor in favor of AB962, Saldana openly admitted to open carry as our "right."  She even had trouble getting the words out, but she did.  So this bill is her effort to eliminate and infringe on our "rights."  Think about that one Saldana constituents the next time you're at the ballot box.
Do we have audio recording or transcript showing this? An effort to eliminate or infringe a right, more so if the bill's author recognizes it as a right, goes directly to the heart of this bill being unconstitutional, and can (and will) be used to thwart this effort.
Yes, this was on video that I saw via the internet.  I will look to see if I can find it again (if its still available online).  I don't even remember what website, it was some government site of some sort, not youtube or google videos.

 

I extracted the audio. I will post later.
 

PincheOgro1

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
420
Location
Perris, Ca., California, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
PincheOgro1 wrote:
I have NEVER voted for a DEMOCRAT, A LIBERAL, A PROGRESSIVE, or what ever they want to call themselves. NEVER.
I'm super-impressed. :quirky

What about a libertarian? Have you ever voted for one of them?

The mainstream "alternative" to the Democratic Party is hardly "pro-gun" or anything else positive.

Sir/Mam,

If you equate a libertarian to a democrat, then I will not vote for one of them either.

This is not a political forum, but we have a better chance of keeping our rights with a REPUBLICAN than a democrat. I would possibly vote for a libertarian, IF..., I agreed with their platform. I get emails from the "Liberator Online, Advocates for Self-Government", which IS a Libertarian forum. so I am not unfamiliar with them. OK ?:celebrate
 
Top