• 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.

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

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

xmattedgex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
83
Location
, ,
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.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
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:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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'.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5620473&postcount=93

This bill has a very good chance of passage. I had thought it was a slam dunk but there are some rumblings that it has a small chance of not passing. I would suggest that politically, UOCers need to be careful to not create catalyzing events until the window for amendments is over this fall.

-Gene

I suspect that these rumblings may be related to the defects that this legislation and AB1934 possess. I am in concurrence with Gene's warning not to create circumstances under which law makers and the general public will feel compelled to act. To me, this means being conservative about the events we elect to have and attend- meaning anywhere we would expect to draw media and the Brady Campaign are probably not in our best interests.
 

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
328
Location
Sacramento, California, USA
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5620473&postcount=93



I suspect that these rumblings may be related to the defects that this legislation and AB1934 possess. I am in concurrence with Gene's warning not to create circumstances under which law makers and the general public will feel compelled to act. To me, this means being conservative about the events we elect to have and attend- meaning anywhere we would expect to draw media and the Brady Campaign are probably not in our best interests.

If their minds are already made up, seems to me that the best and only hope is to try and create public pressure to influence them otherwise. But how do you do that if people don't even understand what OC is? We hope for the best? When has that ever been successful? Why would it be now?
 

xnetc9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
104
Location
Orange County, CA
i hope they pass this ban. let california fall along with it's bankrupcy. i'm planning to move out of this stupid state in a year or two anyway.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
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.

Well, if it passes, I might have to try that "Pro Se" thing. I'll start saving up enough vacation days to cover court time.
 

wewd

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
664
Location
Oregon
I won't be in the state any longer when it goes into effect, but I hope some people will have the cajones to perform some civil disobedience and carry loaded. Bonus points if you get arrested. You need to establish jurisdiction for a civil rights suit somehow. The sooner the ball gets rolling on overturning 12031, the better.
 

Ddave

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
27
Location
Viva Las Vegas, ,
i hope they pass this ban. let california fall along with it's bankrupcy. i'm planning to move out of this stupid state in a year or two anyway.


Come on over to Nevada where you can (Oh my gosh!) carry LOADED.... California is already so underwater in Debt that the state tax is going to make everyone else move too. (Ooh - another reason to move to Nevada = NO STATE TAX RETURN TO FILE):D
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
I won't be in the state any longer when it goes into effect, but I hope some people will have the cajones to perform some civil disobedience and carry loaded. Bonus points if you get arrested. You need to establish jurisdiction for a civil rights suit somehow. The sooner the ball gets rolling on overturning 12031, the better.

Kamikaze tactics are not warranted here. But if one is inclined, have a denial letter please.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
And 626.9 deals with carrying around schools correct? So how does a denial of a CCW give me added legal protection?

A 12050 pc license is the only way for average joe to carry a functioning (loaded) firearm in a GFVZ. With a denial letter you have 2A standing to challenge or defend against that law.

Seriously,

Please apply for a carry license. A denial is an insurance policy for anyone who is denied and then choses to carry.

Please see the recommend process here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=366342

-Gene
 
Last edited:

xnetc9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
104
Location
Orange County, CA
hey cato, good news. since the last big police thing with me, the police stopped coming out to detain me when people make police calls. seems that the department here is starting to educate 911 callers?
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
hey cato, good news. since the last big police thing with me, the police stopped coming out to detain me when people make police calls. seems that the department here is starting to educate 911 callers?

Good to hear! Please attempt that license for insurance at least.
 

Moby

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
6
Location
Cal
One thing to note about AB 144 is:

Section 26350: does not apply to, or affect, the open carrying of an unloaded handgun on publicly owned land, if the possession and use of a handgun is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land and the person carrying that handgun is listed as the registered owner of that handgun with the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 11106. If you purchased your handgun prior to this it is not registered with the DOJ, unless you voluntarily registered it.

It would be my understanding that if for instance you went out to BLM land, defined as Public Lands, and and had an un-registered handgun (bought before 1991) you would be in violation of this section and subject to arrest and having your handgun seized.
 

camsoup

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
167
Location
Red Bluff, California, USA
If it passes, we all just need to buy a hunting license, and a coyote call....

Officer, I was just out hunting coyotes and I'm now transporting my firearm on my return trip home.

26366. Section 26350 does not apply to, or affect, the open
carrying of an unloaded handgun by a licensed hunter while engaged in
hunting or while transporting that handgun when going to or
returning from that hunting expedition.
 
Top