Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Opencarry.org letter to California Senate Public Safety Committee now posted!

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

    Post imported post

    June 18, 2010



    Senate Committee on Public Safety

    California Senate

    State Capitol, Room 2031

    Sacramento, CA 95814



    SUBJECT: Opposition to AB 1934 (banning open carry)



    Dear Chairman Leno and members of the Committee:



    This is a letter on behalf of OpenCarry.org, a pro-gun Internet community with more than 27,000 registered members, to oppose AB 1934, the open carry ban bill. We urge the Committee to reject AB 1934. [/i]



    AB 1934 would eviscerate the right to bear arms in California



    The US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller[/i] (2008) held that the right to "bear arms" means "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” and that limiting the right to bear arms to long guns lacks a rational basis as a handgun is more advantageous for self-defense in modern society because it can be held "with one hand while the other hand dials the police." OpenCarry.org opposes AB 1934 foremost because it would repeal the only practical way most Californians’ can bear handguns as most Californian’s live in Counties where Sheriffs generally refuse to issue concealed handgun permits. Additionally, if AB 1934 passes, it will lead to the absurd result of forcing citizens to carry less wieldy rifles and shotguns in public places like streets, sidewalks, parks, and Starbucks for their self-defense[/i].

    AB 1934 would infringe on Private Property Rights




    The California courts have construed the term “public place” for purposes of gun control laws as including all private property unless securely guarded or fenced. See People v. Strider[/i] (2009). AB 1934 would therefore sweep broadly to interfere in the traditional right of property owners to control their own property.



    Proposed Amendments to the House version of AB 1934 do not cure its defects



    A number of proposed amendments are apparently set to be considered by the Committee in regard to AB 1934, a bill which is already 9,996 words long, changes7 sections of existing California Penal Code, indirectly touches on other sections of code, and adds a completely new section of code (12037) which alone is 1,859 words long. These amendments as written do not[/i] make AB 1934 acceptable as explained below:



    • Expanding the exception for hunters – the proposed addition to the exception for hunters to open carry unloaded handguns “while transporting that handgun when going to or returning from lawful hunting” does not address other sportsmen concerns, such as fishers and fur takers who also traverse extremely remote places where they may need a handgun to defend themselves or dispatch a wounded animal. Further, mountain and desert hikers and campers also deserve the same right of self-defense as licensed hunters. Recommendation[/b]: To address the self-defense needs of all citizens in remote areas of California, AB 1934’s reach should be limited only to incorporated areas.


    • Exempting the “open and unloaded carrying of a handgun by a person when
      done within a place of business, a place of residence, or on private
      property, if done with the permission of a person who is exempt from
      the prohibitions set forth in this section by virtue of the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 12026”
      from the reach of AB 1934’s open carry ban – this does not address the bill’s private property rights problem in any meaningful way. First, there is no way for any gun owner to “know” if a person giving them permission to open carry on private land (1) has actual authority to do so, (2) is “a person who is exempt from the prohibitions set forth in this section by virtue of the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 12026,” or (3), might change her mind if pressed by aggressive law enforcement officers who question the propriety of open carry even on private property. Second, the change would create a legal framework for managing property rights unknown in the United States – requiring property owners to announce that open carry is welcome. The rule in all states is to rely on traditional trespass law to assist property owners in controlling their land, or to enact a “signage statute” which gives a no-gun-carry rule explicit “force of law.” Recommendation[/b]: Remove private property from the ambit of AB 1934’s definition of “public place” except where actual or conspicuous notice of an open carry ban has been provided by the owner.[/i]


    Very spurious arguments have been advanced to support AB 1934



    Spurious arguments have been advanced to support AB 1934, e.g., that police resources are being “consumed” by a “requirement” to check open carriers load condition, or that open carry must be banned because police cannot figure out which open carriers are prohibited persons. These arguments are false.



    A statutory “option” for police to check load conditions cannot be at the same time a “requirement.” And any concern over whether open carriers are prohibited from possessing firearms could be addressed by a bill amending Section 12050 to extend the rural Sheriffs’ authority to issue open carry permits to all Sheriffs on a “shall issue” basis.[1]



    Conclusion



    California is one of the 43 states allowing the open carry of properly holstered handguns, but also the only[/i] state to ban the loading of such handguns in incorporated areas as well as unincorporated areas where the County has banned all shooting. The California Senate should therefore recognize that open carry is already strenuously regulated, and reject AB 1934[/i]. In the first alternative, the committee should amend AB 1934 to institute a “shall issue” open carry permit system. In the second alternative, the committee should amend AB 1934 to remove unincorporated territories and private property from the ambit of AB 1934.



    Sincerely,







    Mike Stollenwerk & /s John Pierce

    Cofounders, OpenCarry.org





    [size=[1]][size= Besides, a recent FBI study essentially says that bad guys don't open carry. See Anthony Pinizzotto, et al., Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers, FBI (2006) (finding that violent criminals carefully "conceal" their guns and "eschew holsters"), summary available at [/i]http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home...tml?serial=62].

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783

    Post imported post

    Here we go with the BS "we are not gonna infringe on your hunting rights" These people are the VERY reason for the 2nd amendment.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    wethepeople wrote:
    Here we go with the BS "we are not gonna infringe on your hunting rights" These people are the VERY reason for the 2nd amendment.
    They are afraid that we will eventually get fed up and start hunting them.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    What is it that hunting has to do with the second Amendment again? I keep reading it, but I don't see hunting as a protected Right anywhere in the Constitution.

    That being somewhat sarcastic... Hunting is a fringe benefit of the 2nd Amendment. To protect hunting, but not the fundamental Right from which it grows, is like cutting down a tree and expecting it's leaves to remain in the air...
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    wethepeople wrote:
    Here we go with the BS "we are not gonna infringe on your hunting rights" These people are the VERY reason for the 2nd amendment.
    They are afraid that we will eventually get fed up and start hunting them.
    I think they're safe. It has been demonstrated that as entertained and comfortable as most Americans are, anyone who finally does what needs to be done will just be labeled as a 'crazy' and we'll all go back to watching our big screens and getting fatter while the government grows...

    When Bread and Circuses are not enough; MORE Bread and Circuses will do. Contemporary American Society has proven this in the absolute.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  6. #6
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    How about mentioning the whole 'unloaded in incorporation' thing was
    is a DIRECT RESPONSE to the black panthers?

    Gun control is racist.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  7. #7
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    ixtow wrote:
    What is it that hunting has to do with the second Amendment again? I keep reading it, but I don't see hunting as a protected Right anywhere in the Constitution.

    That being somewhat sarcastic... Hunting is a fringe benefit of the 2nd Amendment. To protect hunting, but not the fundamental Right from which it grows, is like cutting down a tree and expecting it's leaves to remain in the air...
    Kind of makes me feel that for anyone to try and get rid of these onerous gun laws in California is like hacking at the branches instead of the roots ortrying to cut down a tree with a wiffle ball bat!
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE[/COLOR] with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTYhttp://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH TELEPHONE: +1(800)808-KIWI that's +1(800)808-5494 Tollfree. "NewZealander By Birth, American By The Grace Of God." See also http://www.facebook.com/NewZealandAmerican & http://RTR.org/NewZealandAmerican IN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    Nicely done, Mike.
    "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

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783

    Post imported post

    Those jack asses in mexifornia will insist you use a football bat.

Posting Permissions

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