• 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 IVN - Saldana's open carry bill is convoluted, does not outirght ban open carry

M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.

. . .
 
mjones

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
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.
 
Brimstone Baritone

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
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.
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Triple UOC.:celebrate
 
Bookman

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
C

CA_Libertarian

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

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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).
Click to expand...
fixed it for you.
 
Brimstone Baritone

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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. :lol:
 
vermonter

vermonter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
340
Location
, ,
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.
Click to expand...

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.com/counties/countiesmap.html



Iowa is not much different than Cal:

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

mkrhw

New member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1
Location
, ,
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"!
 
T

Theseus

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

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

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

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


Correct except about the 90 day limitation.



http://law.justia.com/california/codes/pen/12050-12054.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.
Click to expand...
 
cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/california-legislation-taking-open-carry-gun-rights

SNIP

. ..

How lawmakers and/or the courts want to work out that contradiction is beyond me.
Click to expand...

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.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
OK, I lost - what "removal of 12025(f)"?
 
cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/california-legislation-taking-open-carry-gun-rights


Does this mean permitted individuals are prohibited from open carrying?
Click to expand...
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.
 
cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

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


http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1901-1950/ab_1934_bill_20100406_amended_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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
Mike wrote:
http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/california-legislation-taking-open-carry-gun-rights


Does this mean permitted individuals are prohibited from open carrying?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
OK, but only if the pistol is also loaded.
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

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

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1901-1950/ab_1934_bill_20100406_amended_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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
cato wrote:
Mike wrote:
http://caivn.org/article/2010/04/28/california-legislation-taking-open-carry-gun-rights


Does this mean permitted individuals are prohibited from open carrying?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
OK, but only if the pistol is also loaded.
Click to expand...
Yes but then they violate 12037 (UOC prohibited if not in a vehicle)as there is no exemption for 12050 licensees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top