Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 115

Thread: AB 144: Open Carry Ban (Here we go again.)

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    AB 144: Open Carry Ban (Here we go again.)

    AB144 Status and Current Text

    AB144 was signed yesterday and will become law.

    Effective January 1, 2012 it will be illegal to open carry a handgun in most of California.
    Last edited by MudCamper; 10-10-2011 at 05:40 PM.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Not that anybody needs to hear this again -- but I am so glad I'm leaving this state.

  3. #3
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    I predict the ban will pass. None of the right people will fight it. Instead it will play right into their strategy of getting shall issue conceal carry permitting. And once that is done, the rhetoric will be "who needs open carry anyway?!"

    And for all the talk about Gov. Brown being pro-2A and writing amicus briefs won't mean a thing when he signs the bill into law.

    Mean while, in other news, get your 30 round pistol mags now before its too late...they will be banned.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  4. #4
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    I predict the ban will pass. None of the right people will fight it. Instead it will play right into their strategy of getting shall issue conceal carry permitting. And once that is done, the rhetoric will be "who needs open carry anyway?!"

    And for all the talk about Gov. Brown being pro-2A and writing amicus briefs won't mean a thing when he signs the bill into law.

    Mean while, in other news, get your 30 round pistol mags now before its too late...they will be banned.
    It will be vigorously opposed by the only people capable of mounting an effective effort, the NRA/CRPA, and it will pass because we don't have the votes. If the governor signs it it will be attacked on 1St A grounds by the only people capable of mounting an effective court challenge, SAF/CGF, but only when it fits into an otherwise very busy and expensive litigation schedule.

    Concealed licensing is the method of bearing which the legislature has choosen to be exempt from 12031/626.9, the only real hurtles to 'bear' in CA. Carrying is a right. And that is what we shall get but the method is up to them sadly.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Born2Lose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    PRK, East County San Diego
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    Mean while, in other news, get your 30 round pistol mags now before its too late...they will be banned.
    You mean those in Free States should get them before they're banned.

    I can easily see them using the AZ massacre as an illogical springboard to help pass this new Bill.
    "If I don't have my pistol, I feel sort of naked." -Unosuke Gunfighter in the movie Yojimbo

  6. #6
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Lose View Post
    You mean those in Free States should get them before they're banned.

    I can easily see them using the AZ massacre as an illogical springboard to help pass this new Bill.
    Yes, that is what I meant. There are many from other states who read our forum.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140
    Strangely enough this might be a good thing. If carrying a gun becomes illegal in California, and no one can get a permit, then they can't use the defense in court that one CAN carry a gun (unloaded) for self-defense.

    It's obviously silly, but its about time someone files some good lawsuits against CA.

    FYI, read the text. Lists a bunch of professions that this does not apply to, the expected including Police, Guards, etc..etc.. and INSURANCE ADJUSTERS.



    Quote Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
    http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill...ntroduced.html

    Looks just like last year's AB 1934.

    Bans carrying an unloaded gun. Ridiculous.
    Last edited by Pace; 01-14-2011 at 02:28 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    It will be vigorously opposed by the only people capable of mounting an effective effort, the NRA/CRPA, and it will pass because we don't have the votes. If the governor signs it it will be attacked on 1St A grounds by the only people capable of mounting an effective court challenge, SAF/CGF, but only when it fits into an otherwise very busy and expensive litigation schedule.

    Concealed licensing is the method of bearing which the legislature has choosen to be exempt from 12031/626.9, the only real hurtles to 'bear' in CA. Carrying is a right. And that is what we shall get but the method is up to them sadly.
    More like when the governor signs it. I predict this bill will be bundled with some other bill, likely some sort of fiscal bill, and our poor governor will have no choice but to sign it because of our monetary problems.

    We have become a nation of licensure (something the Founders warned us about), we are no longer "free". Unless the governor vetoes the bill, which if he does I'll gladly stand corrected, concealed licensing of our right is in the cards for this state.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    83
    Well this is wonderful.
    If this does go through, most of us will have no way to carry at all. Because most of CA is shall not issue CCW licenses. It bull that I will no longer have the option to carry a firearm to protect myself and my family concealed, open, doesn't matter, I should be able to carry my firearm if I choose to.

  10. #10
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    More like when the governor signs it. I predict this bill will be bundled with some other bill, likely some sort of fiscal bill, and our poor governor will have no choice but to sign it because of our monetary problems.

    We have become a nation of licensure (something the Founders warned us about), we are no longer "free". Unless the governor vetoes the bill, which if he does I'll gladly stand corrected, concealed licensing of our right is in the cards for this state.
    California has single issue bills. No bundling. Voting, office holding, and bearing arms were conditioned in some colonies/states upon being landed/free (a form of licensure), not that I agree with that.

    Baby steps and simple incrimental constitutional issues before the judiciary will restore the RKBA as much as we can get. Licensing will be challenged. Not yet. Getting some form of carry for the most people is the immediate goal. Sacromento now has a million that could carry loaded if they wanted to.

    Even Pennsylvania has $5 licenses to carry openly in cars or Philadelphia.

  11. #11
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by xmattedgex View Post
    Well this is wonderful.
    If this does go through, most of us will have no way to carry at all. Because most of CA is shall not issue CCW licenses. It bull that I will no longer have the option to carry a firearm to protect myself and my family concealed, open, doesn't matter, I should be able to carry my firearm if I choose to.
    LUCC is what you'll have. You can also apply for a license and if you get a denial it may provide protection against options we don't usually recommend.

    If you UOC you should have a denial anyway for added legal protection against 626.9.

  12. #12
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Pace View Post

    It's obviously silly, but its about time someone files some good lawsuits against CA.
    http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/

    As for litigation...full speed ahead...http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...st_and_Present

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Pace View Post
    FYI, read the text. Lists a bunch of professions that this does not apply to, the expected including Police, Guards, etc..etc.. and INSURANCE ADJUSTERS.
    How is that compatible with the 14th Amendment? I mean, insurance adjusters? How is that substantively different from "white-collar workers" or even just "white people"? I mean, is there anything at all that makes this issue relevant to insurance adjusters?

  14. #14
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847

    In KY

    our gov. in KY already said guns are still ok in the state house, he has no plans on changing that law, and if neone plans on introducing a bill for mag. restriction it will be vetoed, not that it would pass the house or senate neways.... Everyone should move to KY......great for us gun lovers.

  15. #15
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    This likely will be struck down as unconstitutional as long as U.S. v. Chester is still alive. If Nordyke points to Chester it will give further credence to Chester's analysis of the constitutionality of gun laws. I really think Chester (and its future kin) is going to repeatedly save us from our "representatives".

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    LUCC is what you'll have. You can also apply for a license and if you get a denial it may provide protection against options we don't usually recommend.

    If you UOC you should have a denial anyway for added legal protection against 626.9.
    So you're suggesting that I would carry my gun unloaded in a fully enclosed, locked container. I don't think I can get my gun out and load it fast enough to save my life.

    And 626.9 deals with carrying around schools correct? So how does a denial of a CCW give me added legal protection?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    I see some changes...

    To see the changes made from AB1934 to AB144, follow these instructions .

    1) Go to http://quickdiff.com/
    2) In one pane, copy and paste the text of AB144. Text here: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill...ntroduced.html
    3) In another pane, copy and paste the text of AB1934. Text here: http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/58924
    4) Select "side-by-side" difference mode.
    5) Analyze.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140
    I have an offer to run a cmopany in SF, so expect if I move, I will be filling a lawsuit.

    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140
    It's funny, with republicans being in control of congress and the president several times in the last 20 years, and they supposidly pro-gun, why hasn't any gun rights laws been passed.

    The biggest gun rights law ever passed was under obama (carry in parks) and that's just silly.

    It's sad we will have to rely on the Courts and our "representatives" just do whatever pops in their little minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    This likely will be struck down as unconstitutional as long as U.S. v. Chester is still alive. If Nordyke points to Chester it will give further credence to Chester's analysis of the constitutionality of gun laws. I really think Chester (and its future kin) is going to repeatedly save us from our "representatives".

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140
    also, fyi, i am considering filing a lawsuit against NYC since there is no provision whatsoever for anyone out of state to carry a gun. you can't enter the city with a gun without a license and they don't provide to out of state people.

    obviously an interesting question: if the legal argument is that you can carry a gun in certain places now but you have to get a permit, isn't that mean until you are approved you can't carry a gun? I know it goes back to that you shouldn't have to have a permit for a right, but even more so, in that period where you don't have the permit, your right is being violated. NYC is worse because the cost is fundamentally illegal, but also that it takes months.

    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post

  21. #21
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    LUCC is what you'll have. You can also apply for a license and if you get a denial it may provide protection against options we don't usually recommend.

    If you UOC you should have a denial anyway for added legal protection against 626.9.
    Constitutionally this is not even considered "bearing" arms. It was a stretch to consider UOC as "bearing" arms because the firearm was not available for immediate use.

    If this bill passes, and UOC is no longer an option, then there will be no choice left for California, they will have to pass "shall issue" CCW.

  22. #22
    Regular Member DooFster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Nellis AFB, Nevada
    Posts
    445
    It's a conspiracy! lol... Brady Campaign is behind this!
    IT is better to have a gun on you and NOT need it, than to need a gun and NOT have it on you...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
    Constitutionally this is not even considered "bearing" arms. It was a stretch to consider UOC as "bearing" arms because the firearm was not available for immediate use.

    If this bill passes, and UOC is no longer an option, then there will be no choice left for California, they will have to pass "shall issue" CCW.
    I really don't think they will "have" to pass shall issue CCW's at all. We will just be losing our 2nd amendment right all together.

  24. #24
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    California has single issue bills. No bundling. Voting, office holding, and bearing arms were conditioned in some colonies/states upon being landed/free (a form of licensure), not that I agree with that.

    Baby steps and simple incrimental constitutional issues before the judiciary will restore the RKBA as much as we can get. Licensing will be challenged. Not yet. Getting some form of carry for the most people is the immediate goal. Sacromento now has a million that could carry loaded if they wanted to.

    Even Pennsylvania has $5 licenses to carry openly in cars or Philadelphia.
    Thanks for that correction. I hope I am wrong, but I still say he signs the bill.

    While the pro-gun movement takes simple incremental baby steps to restore the RKBA, they take huge leaps at infringing upon our rights. Our progress takes years for simple, single point decisions, theirs takes a single session to wipe out an entire enumerated right. The system is failing...miserably. The CA legislature is out of control. They do not care about the Constitution (state or federal), they do not care about one's rights, they only care about their progessive, socialist agenda.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, it doesn't matter what SCOTUS said in Heller, or McDonald. Or even what the 9th said in Nordyke, or will say again in Nordyke part 2, the CA legislature will just keep on passing unconstitutional laws.

    ETA: I just looked up Assembly Member Portantino's website. He's in Pasadena...I guess he didn't like the UOC meetup we organized there last year. That's too bad, we had a good time.
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 01-14-2011 at 07:47 PM.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  25. #25
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    My breif analysis of the bill;

    It contains about 85% of the text of AB1934. The law would make it illegal to carry an exposed unloaded handgun on their person outside a vehicle. There is no language making a distinction on method of carry (in the hand, in a holster, from a sling). The crime would be a misdemeanor punishable with a fine and/or jail time. Text of the law in subsection (b) seems to suggest that there may be future changes in the wording to increase the penalty if the firearm and the ammunition are in the immediate possesion of a person who is not the registered owner of the firearm.

    There are a pile of exemptions that do not apply to ordinary people in most ordinary circumstances.

    It does not prohibit loaded weapons or unloaded long arms.

    It does not appear to have resolved the issue created by removing the 12050(f) definition from the code. In which case, even 'partially concealed' would be sufficient to satisfy the definition of 'concealed'.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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