Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
[align=center]June 18, 2010[/align]
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:
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=[font="Times New Roman"] 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][url]http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62][/font][/url].
[align=center]June 18, 2010[/align]
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=[font="Times New Roman"] 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][url]http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62][/font][/url].
