Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: California IVN - Saldana's open carry bill is convoluted, does not outirght ban open carry

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/...rry-gun-rights

    SNIP

    . ..

    What's most interesting is that the legislation, AB 1934, as it now stands, won't do away with open carrying. The convoluted language of the bill, as amended by Saldana, seems to reclassify the act of carrying handguns in belt holsters as concealed carrying. At the same time it would become a misdemeanor to “openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person in specified public areas.”

    Does this mean permitted individuals are prohibited from open carrying? How lawmakers and/or the courts want to work out that contradiction is beyond me.

    Opponents wonder why the lawful carrying of a sidearm is all of a sudden a “public safety issue”. It's possible that this is simply knee-jerk legislation to a non-problem harped upon by an awestruck news media who were largely unaware of the “liberality” of California's gun laws.

    . . .

  2. #2
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    True, it's not a complete ban on Open Carry. A better description would be to call it a ban on Unlicensed Urban Unloaded Open Carry (UUUOC) How's that for a new acronym?!?

    Of course its allot more complicated then that, but that's the gist of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    Well, if it would classify open carry as concealed carry and then outlaw the open carry of unloaded firearms...

    That means you just get a license and 'conceal' your loaded firearm in a holster on your hip. That can't really be what she is going for. Even knowing how hard it is to get a concealed carry permit, that would seem to work against all the arguments that she has made regarding the danger of unloaded weapons.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    True, it's not a complete ban on Open Carry. A better description would be to call it a ban on Unlicensed Urban Unloaded Open Carry (UUUOC) How's that for a new acronym?!?

    Of course its allot more complicated then that, but that's the gist of it.
    Triple UOC.:celebrate
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    mcdonalk wrote:
    Well, if it would classify open carry as concealed carry and then outlaw the open carry of unloaded firearms...

    That means you just get a license and 'conceal' your loaded firearm in a holster on your hip. That can't really be what she is going for. Even knowing how hard it is to get a concealed carry permit, that would seem to work against all the arguments that she has made regarding the danger of unloaded weapons.
    You apparently don't understand the problem. It is virtually impossible to get a CC Permit/License in the state of Kalifornia. By reclassifying holstered carry as concealed carry, then having the Sheriff deny a CC Permit/License like they traditionally do, they have effectively outlawed OC in urban areas.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    The article gets it wrong (unless I totally misread it or the wording was updated in the last 10 days...

    This legislation does NOT reclassify open carry as concealed carry. It simply removes PC12025(g), which states an example of what is NOT concealed carry: exposed carry in a belt holster.

    However, I will agree that this may be the ground-level impact. Trial courts may erroniously (intential or not) misapply 12025, and without the protection of 12025(g) it may be much easier to secure convictions. However, on appeal (for those who can afford it), I believe these convictions would be easily overturned, despite a lack of 12025(g).
    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.

  7. #7
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    The article gets it wrong (unless I totally misread it or the wording was updated in the last 10 days...

    This legislation does NOT reclassify open carry as concealed carry. It simply removes PC12025(f), which states an example of what is NOT concealed carry: exposed carry in a belt holster.

    However, I will agree that this may be the ground-level impact. Trial courts may erroniously (intential or not) misapply 12025, and without the protection of 12025(f) it may be much easier to secure convictions. However, on appeal (for those who can afford it), I believe these convictions would be easily overturned, despite a lack of 12025(f).
    fixed it for you.
    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

  8. #8
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    Bookman wrote:
    mcdonalk wrote:
    Well, if it would classify open carry as concealed carry and then outlaw the open carry of unloaded firearms...

    That means you just get a license and 'conceal' your loaded firearm in a holster on your hip. That can't really be what she is going for. Even knowing how hard it is to get a concealed carry permit, that would seem to work against all the arguments that she has made regarding the danger of unloaded weapons.
    You apparently don't understand the problem. It is virtually impossible to get a CC Permit/License in the state of Kalifornia. By reclassifying holstered carry as concealed carry, then having the Sheriff deny a CC Permit/License like they traditionally do, they have effectively outlawed OC in urban areas.
    I hate quoting myself, Bookman, so I'm glad you did it for me. Above, I highlighted in bold the part where I acknowledge the difficulty getting a permit. Even if I were ignorant of the fact that CCP are practically non-existent in urban parts of California, it would not change the fact that granting the ability to OC loaded by classifying it as CC flies in the face of every argument she made against OC. She can't even keep her story straight in her own legislation.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  9. #9
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    Bookman wrote:
    mcdonalk wrote: You apparently don't understand the problem. It is virtually impossible to get a CC Permit/License in the state of Kalifornia.
    Another broad post by someone who knows everything about gun laws. Here is the truth about California. The problem is LA, San Fran and similar liberal counties, not the state. If you look at the map most of the state is quite reasonable. The problem is the permit is only good in the county where it was isssued, kind of like Florida pre CCW days. I bet I could get a CCW in CA in any of the green or yellow counties. I got one in NJ many years ago, so there is a way around anything. Here is the map:

    http://www.californiaconcealedcarry....untiesmap.html



    Iowa is not much different than Cal:

    http://coldhardcashner.blogspot.com/2009/03/shall-issue-in-iowa.html


  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    vermonter wrote:
    The problem is the permit is only good in the county where it was isssued
    Um, no. A permit to conceal in California is good thru the whole state

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    I have emailed all of the legislators, but I also realize that this states legislators are predominately liberal, no getting around it. they passed the assinine ammunition bill recently, they will pass this one too! My wife and I have our own solution, we are moving to New Mexico. Cleaner, frendlier people, less taxes, and, condusive to law-abibding firearm owners. I already have my CCW from Utah and carry when we visit family there, and also, the violent crime rate low, might have something to do with the fact that criminals don't prefer ARMED citizens! Anyway, I would not count on gun laws becoming less restrictive in this state anytime soon, until the voters wake up and install legislators friendly to gun-owners it will remain the "Peoples Republic of Ca"!

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    vermonter wrote:
    The problem is the permit is only good in the county where it was isssued
    Um, no. A permit to conceal in California is good thru the whole state
    Mike is correct. A license to carry concealed issued pursuant to 12050 is good throughout the state. . . However, the loaded open carry license issued pursuant to 12050 is only valid in the issuing county and only for 90 days.

  13. #13
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    vermonter wrote:
    The problem is the permit is only good in the county where it was isssued
    Um, no. A permit to conceal in California is good thru the whole state
    Mike is correct. A license to carry concealed issued pursuant to 12050 is good throughout the state. . . However, the loaded open carry license issued pursuant to 12050 is only valid in the issuing county and only for 90 days.

    Correct except about the 90 day limitation.



    http://law.justia.com/california/cod...050-12054.html

    12050(a) (2) (A) (i) Except as otherwise provided in clause (ii),
    subparagraphs (C) and (D) of this paragraph, and subparagraph (B) of
    paragraph (4) of subdivision (f), a license issued pursuant to
    subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) is valid for any period of
    time not to exceed two years from the date of the license.



    (ii) If the licensee's place of employment or business was the
    basis for issuance
    of the license pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
    paragraph (1), the license is valid for any period of time not to
    exceed 90 days from the date of the license.

  14. #14
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/...rry-gun-rights

    SNIP

    . ..

    How lawmakers and/or the courts want to work out that contradiction is beyond me.
    What the removal of 12025(f) will most likely accomplish is make most all possession of an otherwise openly worn belt holstered handgun IN A VEHICLE (which is not prohibited by the proposed UOC ban) subject to prosecution via 12025 IF the handgun is not in plain view as viewed from outside the vehicle (such as on the dash or front passenger seat.

    This was probably inspired by the recent successful Public Defender'UOC in a vehicle jury trial' defense in San Fransisco.

    The determination of whether or not a hand gun in a belt holster is open or concealed for the purposes of 12025(a) will still likely be determined by'IF the hand gun is recognized in plain view as a handgun'.

    Where the UOC banwon't apply, this could however cause concealed issues for those using openly worn 'flap' holsters on foot or in a vehiclewhich substantially 'conceals' the handgun from plain view.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    What the removal of 12025(f) will most likely accomplish is make most all possession of an otherwise openly worn belt holstered handgun IN A VEHICLE (which is not prohibited by the proposed UOC ban) subject to prosecution via 12025 IF the handgun is not in plain view as viewed from outside the vehicle (such as on the dash or front passenger seat.
    OK, I lost - what "removal of 12025(f)"?

  16. #16
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/...rry-gun-rights


    Does this mean permitted individuals are prohibited from open carrying?
    The 12031 PCchange in the exemption language for 12050 licensees which took effect 01/01/10 subjects those licensees to a 12031 violation IF they are carrying outside of their license class (open or concealed). This change was inspired reportedly by a 12050 Loaded and Exposedlicensee, issued by a>200,000 population county,loaded open carrying in the City of LA last year. The DA's office determined the law as written at that timedid not allow them to prosecute for 12031 PC. Now it does.

  17. #17
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    OK, I lost - what "removal of 12025(f)"?

    http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil...d_asm_v98.html

    SEC. 5. Section 12025 of the Penal Code
    is amended to read:...


    (f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
    within the meaning of this section.


    The above section is struck through and replaced with

    (f) For purposes of this section, "lawful possession of
    the firearm" means that the person who has possession or custody of
    the firearm either lawfully owns the firearm or has the permission of
    the lawful owner or a person who otherwise has apparent authority to
    possess or have custody of the firearm. A person who takes a firearm
    without the permission of the lawful owner or without the permission
    of a person who has lawful custody of the firearm does not have
    lawful possession of the firearm.




  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/...rry-gun-rights


    Does this mean permitted individuals are prohibited from open carrying?
    The 12031 PCchange in the exemption language for 12050 licensees which took effect 01/01/10 subjects those licensees to a 12031 violation IF they are carrying outside of their license class (open or concealed). This change was inspired reportedly by a 12050 Loaded and Exposedlicensee, issued by a>200,000 population county,loaded open carrying in the City of LA last year. The DA's office determined the law as written at that timedid not allow them to prosecute for 12031 PC. Now it does.
    OK, but only if the pistol is also loaded.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    OK, I lost - what "removal of 12025(f)"?
    http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil...d_asm_v98.html

    SEC. 5. Section 12025 of the Penal Code
    is amended to read:...


    (f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
    within the meaning of this section.
    This does not affect vehicle carry - just clarifies that a person carrying in a holster cannot claim she is carrying concealed to defeat prosecution for the proposed section 12037 (UOC in incorporated areas and prohibited areas of unincop terretories)

  20. #20
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    cato wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/...rry-gun-rights


    Does this mean permitted individuals are prohibited from open carrying?
    The 12031 PCchange in the exemption language for 12050 licensees which took effect 01/01/10 subjects those licensees to a 12031 violation IF they are carrying outside of their license class (open or concealed). This change was inspired reportedly by a 12050 Loaded and Exposedlicensee, issued by a>200,000 population county,loaded open carrying in the City of LA last year. The DA's office determined the law as written at that timedid not allow them to prosecute for 12031 PC. Now it does.
    OK, but only if the pistol is also loaded.
    Yes but then they violate 12037 (UOC prohibited if not in a vehicle)as there is no exemption for 12050 licensees.

  21. #21
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    cato wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    OK, I lost - what "removal of 12025(f)"?

    http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil...d_asm_v98.html

    SEC. 5. Section 12025 of the Penal Code
    is amended to read:...


    (f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
    within the meaning of this section. The above section is struck through and replaced with

    (f) For purposes of this section, "lawful possession of
    the firearm" means that the person who has possession or custody of
    the firearm either lawfully owns the firearm or has the permission of
    the lawful owner or a person who otherwise has apparent authority to
    possess or have custody of the firearm. A person who takes a firearm
    without the permission of the lawful owner or without the permission
    of a person who has lawful custody of the firearm does not have
    lawful possession of the firearm.


    This does not affect vehicle carry...

    Sure it could for a vehicle occupant with an otherwise openly worn beltholstered handgunwhich is not in plain view from the outside such asfrom thepoint of viewby a LEO during a traffic stop. Without 12025 (f) I see successful prosecutions for PC 12025 (a)(1)concealed within a vehicle happening.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Sure it could for a vehicle occupant with an otherwise openly worn beltholstered handgunwhich is not in plain view from the outside such asfrom thepoint of viewby a LEO during a traffic stop. Without 12025 (f) I see successful prosecutions for PC 12025 (a)(1)concealed within a vehicle happening.
    I don't see this change as affecting open carry in vehicles at all - else a person could be prosecuted now for concealing in a holster outside a vehicle.

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    I wonder when the press will report on the true legal impact of the bill, especially re private property rights?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    cato wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/...rry-gun-rights


    Does this mean permitted individuals are prohibited from open carrying?
    The 12031 PCchange in the exemption language for 12050 licensees which took effect 01/01/10 subjects those licensees to a 12031 violation IF they are carrying outside of their license class (open or concealed). This change was inspired reportedly by a 12050 Loaded and Exposedlicensee, issued by a>200,000 population county,loaded open carrying in the City of LA last year. The DA's office determined the law as written at that timedid not allow them to prosecute for 12031 PC. Now it does.
    OK, but only if the pistol is also loaded.
    Yes but then they violate 12037 (UOC prohibited if not in a vehicle)as there is no exemption for 12050 licensees.
    You can see why CA gun carry/license lawshave to change.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Sure it could for a vehicle occupant with an otherwise openly worn beltholstered handgunwhich is not in plain view from the outside such asfrom thepoint of viewby a LEO during a traffic stop. Without 12025 (f) I see successful prosecutions for PC 12025 (a)(1)concealed within a vehicle happening.
    What California case has ever said 12025 (f) makes open carry in a vehicle more lenient to begin with?

    I don't recall ever seeing one, so I see no reason why removal of it makes any difference - if you are standing sideways on the street, 1/2 of the people walking by are not going to see your sidearm, yet it is not concealed for purposes of the concealed carry ban.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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