Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: examiner.com - Saldana to Citizens: Eat Cake

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2...rry-Ban-AB1934

    SNIP

    The following is an Op Ed piece by John Pierce on AB1934. John Pierce is the Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner.

    Bio: John Pierce, cofounder ofOpenCarry.org, is a third-year law student at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minn., and holds an M.B.A. from George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

    SALDANA TO CITIZENS: EAT CAKE

    To support her crusade to ban the open carry of handguns, Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D – San Diego) has borrowed a page from Marie Antoinette’s play book. No, she didn’t urge citizens to eat cake. Saldana just told the Public Safety Committee that "I absolutely support responsible gun ownership . . . when they are going through the proper permitting process.”

    But unlike most states, California’s concealed carry permit statute grants complete discretion to sheriffs and police chiefs as to whom to issue such permits. As a result, in practice, concealed carry permits are not generally available to the citizens of California. So Saldana’s off hand “let them get permits” remark is about as insulting as a smiling 18th century French Royal waving her hand to the starving masses while whispering “let them eat cake.”



    Saldana mistakenly claims that open carry is “an unregulated part of California law.” Like 42 other states, open carry has always been legal in California. But in 1968 the legislature banned the open carry of loaded guns in incorporated areas and the parts of unincorporated territories where the county has banned all shooting. No other state besides California requires openly carried guns to be unloaded, requires gun owners to submit to police inspections of their firearms, or has enacted so many other complicated regulations on gun ownership.



    Moreover, Assemblywoman Saldana does not propose to “regulate” open carry - she aims to essentially extinguish it. If she merely wanted to “reasonably regulate” open carry through a permitting scheme, she could easily do this by amending the relatively obscure rural County Sheriff open carry permit process at California Penal Code Section 12050(a)(1)(A)(ii) to become both (1) non-discretionary and (2) available to citizens statewide.



    Adding confusion to the matter, the popular press has mischaracterized Saldana’s AB 1934 as banning all open carry in public while allowing private property owners to set their own open carry policies. This is false, but understandable, considering that Saldana’s 9,996 word bill adds even more text and complexity to California’s already lengthy and opaque firearms laws.



    Surprise surprise, Saldana’s bill allows open carry of handguns in vehicles throughout California. Further, both loaded and unloaded open carry of handguns will remain legal in public places in unincorporated territories where the county has not banned all shooting. And as AB 1934 only pertains to handguns, gun owners in urban areas like San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco will effectively be forced to carry rifles and shotguns in public if the bill passes.



    And remarkably, AB 1934 actually strips private property owners of their current right to allow open carry on their own land. Privately owned land is presumptively a “public place” under California law. As Justice Richard Aldrich of the California Appeals Court recently ruled in People v. Strider,




    “[p]laces of business and parking lots on private property, open to the general public, have consistently been held to be public places . . . [as is] the area outside a home in which a stranger is able to walk without challenge. . . . The term public place generally means a location readily accessible to all those who wish to go there . . . . The key consideration is whether a member of the public can access the place without challenge.”


    So anyone who owns a business, a home with a yard, or any other land, even a farm or ranch, should be concerned about AB 1934 because absent physical barriers or guards, the business or land is considered a “public place” under Saldana’s bill.



    In 2008 the United States Supreme Court held that handguns were constitutionally protected self defense tools, reasoning in part that they can be pointed at an assailant “with one hand while the other hand dials the police.” In the past few weeks Arizona legalized unlicensed concealed carry, and Oklahoma’ Senate voted to legalize open carry. In fact, firearm restrictions are being repealed in most states this year. Yet in California, the legislature is actually considering denying citizens their onlypractical right to bear a handgun.



    Various bills to ban open carry in California have failed in the 03-04, 05-06, and 07-08 legislative sessions. The California legislature should likewise now reject Saldana’s AB 1934, a bill she admitted in a press conference to introducing only because California gun owners recently dared to bear arms in her district.

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

    Post imported post

    Excellent article Mike!

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    mjones wrote:
    Excellent article Mike!
    It's John's, but yet it is!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    well written

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I might add that I heard one time that when Marie Antoinette made her "let them eat cake" remark, she wasn't refferring to pastery. IIRC, "cake" was a term in those days that refferred to some pasty concoction that was neither palatable or of nutritional value, but could serve to fill the stomach and stave off hunger pains.

    I'll admit that John's comparison to Saldana's remark and the French Royal's is pretty good. In essance Saldan is saying she wants to take away what little gunowners have in regards to the RTKABA and they should set down and shut up like good little peasants.

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

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    I might add that I heard one time that when Marie Antoinette made her "let them eat cake" remark, she wasn't refferring to pastery. IIRC, "cake" was a term in those days that refferred to some pasty concoction that was neither palatable or of nutritional value, but could serve to fill the stomach and stave off hunger pains.

    I'll admit that John's comparison to Saldana's remark and the French Royal's is pretty good. In essance Saldan is saying she wants to take away what little gunowners have in regards to the RTKABA and they should set down and shut up like good little peasants.
    "Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", supposedly said by a French princess upon learning that the peasants had no bread. As brioche is a luxury bread enriched with eggs and butter, it would reflect the princess's obliviousness to the nature of a famine.

    Although commonly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette,[1][/suP] there is no record of these words ever having been uttered by her; they first appear in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions, his putative autobiographical work (completed in 1769, when Marie Antoinette was 13),
    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.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    I might add that I heard one time that when Marie Antoinette made her "let them eat cake" remark, she wasn't refferring to pastery. IIRC, "cake" was a term in those days that refferred to some pasty concoction that was neither palatable or of nutritional value, but could serve to fill the stomach and stave off hunger pains.

    I'll admit that John's comparison to Saldana's remark and the French Royal's is pretty good. In essance Saldan is saying she wants to take away what little gunowners have in regards to the RTKABA and they should set down and shut up like good little peasants.
    "Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", supposedly said by a French princess upon learning that the peasants had no bread. As brioche is a luxury bread enriched with eggs and butter, it would reflect the princess's obliviousness to the nature of a famine.

    Although commonly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette,[1][/suP] there is no record of these words ever having been uttered by her; they first appear in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions, his putative autobiographical work (completed in 1769, when Marie Antoinette was 13),
    Seems I stand corrected. Either I heard wrong or the source was incorrect.

    Either way that "brioche" is translated, such a comment would still be a slap in the face of an impoverished and starving populus. I mean, If the peasants didn't ahve the fixins for bread, they sure as hell weren't going to be able to bake a cake.

    Same goes for Saldana's remark towards gun owners. to tell them to "get a permit" if they want to carry a side arm makes no sense if getting a carry permit is near impossible.

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

    Post imported post

    Did the private property rights issue come up during the assembly discussion of the bill?

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    bump

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

    Post imported post

    bump

Posting Permissions

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