California Assembly floor debate includes mention of open carry in California

imported post

A about time hack 10:05 the California Assembly begins consideraton on 3d reading of a bill to modify handgun transfer statutes - a number of Senators rise to oppose it and then around time hack 19:00 or so,Assemblywoman and Assistant Majority Whip Lori Saldana (D - San Diego) rises to support it and somehow works in a discussion about the exercising of open carry rights in California.

Official video at https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/702

imported post

I'm glad she agreed that it is our right to openly carry firearms in California. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, Ms. Saldana.

imported post

I watched this and thought it was quite interesting. I got the impression that she was reluctant to even say that it was her constituents right to open carry. As we know since she introduced legislation to make UOC illegal, I don't know if she really believes it is their right or if she believes that the government can remove those rights at will. I would speculate the later of the two.

imported post

This puts me in mind of the old marijuana tax stamp law. You couldnotpossess marijuana without a stamp, but you had to have marijuana in your possession to apply for the stamp. It was ruled unconstitional.

imported post

Just gotta love how she yes was reluctant on stating that it was out right to open carry then says aye to adding more paper work to purchase a gun in Californian and how she was the only speaker that said yes to it and didnt give much of a reason why

imported post

I had to read the whole bill and this is crazy.

4)Provides that the prohibition against openly carrying a
handgun in a public place shall not apply to, or affect, any
of the following:

bb) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by any person
while engaged in the act of making or attempting to make a
lawful arrest;


gg) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by a person
when that person is summoned by a peace officer to assist
in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she
is actually engaged in assisting that officer;

What this mean is that you are allowed to carry an unloaded gun to make or assist in an arrest. UNLOADED.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1901-1950/ab_1934_cfa_20100419_102436_asm_comm.html

imported post

Ranchero wrote:

I had to read the whole bill and this is crazy.

4)Provides that the prohibition against openly carrying a
handgun in a public place shall not apply to, or affect, any
of the following:

bb) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by any person
while engaged in the act of making or attempting to make a
lawful arrest;


gg) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by a person
when that person is summoned by a peace officer to assist
in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she
is actually engaged in assisting that officer;

What this mean is that you are allowed to carry an unloaded gun to make or assist in an arrest. UNLOADED.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1901-1950/ab_1934_cfa_20100419_102436_asm_comm.html

Click to expand...

BG's will laugh at: unloaded handgun by any personwhile engaged in the act of making or attempting to make alawful arrest; It'll be like BARNIE FIFE !!!

imported post

PincheOgro1 wrote:

Ranchero wrote:

I had to read the whole bill and this is crazy.

4)Provides that the prohibition against openly carrying a
handgun in a public place shall not apply to, or affect, any
of the following:

bb) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by any person
while engaged in the act of making or attempting to make a
lawful arrest;


gg) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by a person
when that person is summoned by a peace officer to assist
in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she
is actually engaged in assisting that officer;

What this mean is that you are allowed to carry an unloaded gun to make or assist in an arrest. UNLOADED.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1901-1950/ab_1934_cfa_20100419_102436_asm_comm.html

Click to expand...

BG's will laugh at: unloaded handgun by any personwhile engaged in the act of making or attempting to make alawful arrest;

Click to expand...

Just goes to show you how s t u p i d the anti's are.

imported post

I wonder what she'll do next.

Try to ban LOCK AND CARRY. Now we are going from 2 to 5 seconds.

imported post

Funny. But it amounts to surrendering your 5A rights of remaining silent.

imported post

Ranchero wrote:

I wonder what she'll do next.

Try to ban LOCK AND CARRY. Now we are going from 2 to 5 seconds.

Click to expand...

I would surmise that your picture indicating that you have a "Gun Inside" a locked container ammounts to Reasonable Suspicion that a gun is inside. Doing so gives LEO the ability to inspect the firearm to see if its loaded (if you are in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated area)

Refusal is Probable Cause for arrest. Read PC 12031 carefully...

imported post

mjones wrote:

Ranchero wrote:

I wonder what she'll do next.

Try to ban LOCK AND CARRY. Now we are going from 2 to 5 seconds.

Click to expand...

I would surmise that your picture indicating that you have a "Gun Inside" a locked container amounts to Reasonable Suspicion that a gun is inside. Doing so gives LEO the ability to inspect the firearm to see if its loaded (if you are in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated area)

Refusal is Probable Cause for arrest. Read PC 12031 carefully...

Click to expand...

Can you please cite the part of 12031 that authorizes the police to open a locked container with out a warrant? I am not suggesting that the above picture would be the best thing. But I want to understand that you are saying that if the police think you have a locked container with a gun inside of it that they have the authority to open it and check to make sure the gun is unloaded WITHOUT a search warrant. Would that be a violation of the 4A? Would it be reasonable for the police to damage or destroy your personal effects WITHOUT a warrant just because they think there is a gun inside that they choose to make sure it is unloaded?

I would think that the police would have to show reasonable suspicion of thegun actually being loaded in the locked container. Just because a gun exists in a locked container doesn't mean it is reasonable to suspect that it is loaded.

Oh, and by the way the California Constitution has its own 4A protects in Article 1 Section 13.

imported post

jsebclark wrote:

mjones wrote:

Ranchero wrote:

I wonder what she'll do next.

Try to ban LOCK AND CARRY. Now we are going from 2 to 5 seconds.

Click to expand...

I would surmise that your picture indicating that you have a "Gun Inside" a locked container amounts to Reasonable Suspicion that a gun is inside. Doing so gives LEO the ability to inspect the firearm to see if its loaded (if you are in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated area)

Refusal is Probable Cause for arrest. Read PC 12031 carefully...

Click to expand...

Can you please cite the part of 12031 that authorizes the police to open a locked container with out a warrant? I am not suggesting that the above picture would be the best thing. But I want to understand that you are saying that if the police think you have a locked container with a gun inside of it that they have the authority to open it and check to make sure the gun is unloaded WITHOUT a search warrant. Would that be a violation of the 4A? Would it be reasonable for the police to damage or destroy your personal effects WITHOUT a warrant just because they think there is a gun inside that they choose to make sure it is unloaded?

I would think that the police would have to show reasonable suspicion of thegun actually being loaded in the locked container. Just because a gun exists in a locked container doesn't mean it is reasonable to suspect that it is loaded.

Oh, and by the way the California Constitution has its own 4A protects in Article 1 Section 13.

Click to expand...

In the same light, just because a gun exists, openly carried in a belt holster doesnt mean it gives an officer RAS that it is loaded. But CA PC says a peace officer can examine it anyway, 12031 (e).

I believe if you were walking around with the above locked case, with the wording on it. They would have RAS to believe that container does in fact hold a firearm. PC12031 (e) would then give them the ability to inspect the weapon for its loaded/unloaded status. Albeit, I believe 12031 (e) is unconstitutionally anyways, But that will be for the court to decide soon enough.

imported post

camsoup wrote:

In the same light, just because a gun exists, openly carried in a belt holster doesnt mean it gives an officer RAS that it is loaded. But CA PC says a peace officer can examine it anyway, 12031 (e).

I believe if you were walking around with the above locked case, with the wording on it. They would have RAS to believe that container does in fact hold a firearm. PC12031 (e) would then give them the ability to inspect the weapon for its loaded/unloaded status. Albeit, I believe 12031 (e) is unconstitutionally anyways, But that will be for the court to decide soon enough.

Click to expand...

Great point camsoup. I reread the section and it gives broad powers to the police to verify if anyfirearm is loaded. So you are correct. I guess what I have learned is that you should never give them reasonable cause to think that you have a firearm at all. If they have no cause to think you have a firearm then there is no reason that they would be authorized to check if it is loaded or not. Hence, do put a sign on your locked container that has an unloaded gun in it saying that there is a gun in there.

imported post

jsebclark wrote:

mjones wrote:

Ranchero wrote:

I wonder what she'll do next.

Try to ban LOCK AND CARRY. Now we are going from 2 to 5 seconds.

Click to expand...

I would surmise that your picture indicating that you have a "Gun Inside" a locked container amounts to Reasonable Suspicion that a gun is inside. Doing so gives LEO the ability to inspect the firearm to see if its loaded (if you are in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated area)

Refusal is Probable Cause for arrest. Read PC 12031 carefully...

Click to expand...

Can you please cite the part of 12031 that authorizes the police to open a locked container with out a warrant? I am not suggesting that the above picture would be the best thing. But I want to understand that you are saying that if the police think you have a locked container with a gun inside of it that they have the authority to open it and check to make sure the gun is unloaded WITHOUT a search warrant. Would that be a violation of the 4A? Would it be reasonable for the police to damage or destroy your personal effects WITHOUT a warrant just because they think there is a gun inside that they choose to make sure it is unloaded?

Click to expand...

I think you already figured this out, but in case it's not clear to anybody else...

12031(e) states that refusing to allow an officer to "examine" your firearm is PC to arrest under 12031. So, if a cop asks you to open your container, refusing will likely land you in jail. Even if there's no gun in that case. You could be dragged down town, locked up for a day or two while they get a warrant to cut the lock, and then you'll be cut loose when they find out they're wrong.

You still spent time in jail, you probably need to buy a new lock, and they might just keep your firearm as "evidence" just to make you jump through the hoops to get it back (filing forms, paying fees, etc).

If you file a complaint, I have no doubt that the officer will be cleared of any wrongdoing. If you sue, the cop will claim that he "believed" there was a gun inside, and it will be up to a judge/jury to decide if that belief was "reasonable."

The bottom line: LUCC does not defeat 12031. 12031 is not subject to the 4A or the Terry Doctrine, per the CA Court of Appeals (see People v Delong).

imported post

Sorry I didn't get back more quickly with regard to the picture and 12031. Everyone chimed in and answered exactly as I would have in response to your question.

Carry On!