Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/california-legislation-taking-open-carry-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.
. . .
http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/california-legislation-taking-open-carry-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.
. . .