Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Thoughts on AB 144

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791

    Thoughts on AB 144

    I understand that a new bill has been put forth that is basically a rehash of the late not-so-great Saldana's bill from last year. As far as I understand it in my limited capacities it would effectively "ban the open carriage of an unwieldy piece of metal or plastic that could with sometime be used as a firearm."

    A lot of people both on calguns, Reponsible Citizens of California, and here seem to think that this bill needs to be destroyed and annihilated where it stands.

    I however would like to put forth a secondary opinion in regards to this matter.

    We all thought that Peruta was going to change the CCW laws and make them become shall issue. However we see that through Judge Gonzales' ruling she believed the liberal hype that an unloaded firearm is adequate self defense. She thus stated that open carry is a viable alternative and thus the citizens are still permitted self defense. As I understand it a notice of appeal has been filed in regards to this case.

    If AB144 were allowed to pass it would completely take away this option as a viable self defense option. Thus it would appear that this would allow Peruta to change the CCW laws and will force the state to start issuing CCW's to everyone who met the basic requirements.

    I see this as being a victory not just for OC but specifically for 2A in general. Once the CCW becomes shall issue then a lot of these liberal sheriff's and politicians who are afraid of their own shadow, much less a law abiding citizen with a gun would feel forced to go back and adopt some form of open carry to negate the CCW law being changed.

    With continued pressure and continued effort we stand a chance of getting LOC out of the deal in the end.

    That is just my opinion for what it is worth, let me know what you all think.
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Central TX
    Posts
    92
    I had had that same idea but then again I hate to make any concessions on our 2A rights

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    I agree and understand, but sometimes you have to sacrifice a pawn to capture a queen....
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    The thing is, so much can happen between now and the final vote for AB144. The full extent of the bill isnt even clear. I heard that it would deny retired LEO the right to carry. Media can affect peoples opinions, UOC can continue to grow and gain or lose support, there could be another horrendous shooting, or the prevention of one. With so much left to chance, it may just be smart to continue fighting and planning for the possible outcomes. Dont forget other states keep pushing forward with results we can benefit from too.

    There is also that which we dont see and dont hear about, the workings going on behind closed doors and pro 2A schemes that are already being worked and developed.

    I say keep moving forward, educate more people, encourage others to flex their 2A rights. Your right this is definitley a chess game, and although we may be pawns in the big scheme of things, 1 pawn can control the center of the board and be the difference between victory or defeat.
    New to OPEN CARRY? Click here first

    "Gun owners in California in 2011 are like black people in the south in 1955. If you don't understand that then your concepts of fighting for gun rights is just tilting at windmills." Gene Hoffman.

    "Why do you need to carry a gun?" ...Because it not a Bill of Needs, its a Bill of Rights!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    I can understand that, I guess I was trying to look at the "big picture."

    Another thing I can't seem to understand is why hasn't anyone attacked the laws of CA in regards to firearms as being unconstitutional based on the Supremacy Clause?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    I know it is wikipedia but that seems to be the easiest to find site regarding this issue.

    What it basically states is "states laws dont mean garbage if they interfere with federal laws, treaties, or the constitution." It seems like this might be a better route to go as opposed to the 14th Amendment route most seem to be going nowadays.

    Also why hasn't this been brought up and report to the FBI as a color of law violation?

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investig...s/color_of_law

    Seems as though this "deprives rights guaranteed under the constitution"

    Sorry just the ramblings of someone who is trying to figure out strategies and other such stuff to go on the offensive...
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by devildoc5 View Post
    ...However we see that through Judge Gonzales' ruling she believed the liberal hype that an unloaded firearm is adequate self defense. She thus stated that open carry is a viable alternative and thus the citizens are still permitted self defense. As I understand it a notice of appeal has been filed in regards to this case.

    If AB144 were allowed to pass it would completely take away this option as a viable self defense option. Thus it would appear that this would allow Peruta to change the CCW laws and will force the state to start issuing CCW's to everyone who met the basic requirements...
    There is no reason to believe that if UOC is outlawed the state will change its position on CCW. A lot of the folks over at calguns hope the same as you but may I remind everyone that Hawaii has banned open carry and is not a shall issue state. To give you an idea how bad they have it, citizens can only purchess ammo for firearms with which they can provide proof of registration. Judge Gonzales' opinion was an easy excuse for the states current CCW policy. I'm sure they will come up with some other reason to withhold CCW permits to law abiding citizens.

    So no, I do not see AB144 as a blessing in disguise and there is certainly no silver lining to this or any other laws whos only purpose is to infringe on all our rights.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    The law of unintended consequences.

    Hello devildoc5,

    You have an interesting theory; however, rationalizing that we may be successful with 10 more years of litigation is not a good political tactic.

    SCOTUS has ruled that the states can regulate guns within the home (unbelievable!). Some Constitutional scholars have opined that "strict scrutiny" will not be used for the "bearing" of arms in public places. Some form of "intermediate scrutiny" will allow for states to do things based on, at least contortions to the effect of, "the children will be harmed if they see guns in public".

    What happens if Obama gets his second term? The odds of a strict-contructionalist judge being named to replace Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are nil. Kennedy could vote to restrict or ban guns in public right now.

    Today, the freedom movement rests with the states. The states have the power to nullify federal law (unconstitutional law); they have the power to abolish the Constitution. If you want your rights back, look to the states.

    Unfortunately, the Kalifornia legislature is not concerned with your creator granted and inalienable civil liberties. Their only goal is to promote their left-wing religous agenda which includes bankrupting this state in order to support unions.

    Without SCOTUS, Kalifornia would be just like Canada is right now, where a person who defends himself against mulitple home invasions gets more jail time for wounding the burglar during the burgler's forced-entry home invasion.

    After all, burglars have rights too!

    The supremecy clause only relates to laws that have a clear delineation to the Constitution. Most federal law has NO conection to the Constitution. Don't look to Congress to save us.

    Only the states can correct this problem.

    markm

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by devildoc5 View Post
    I understand that a new bill has been put forth that is basically a rehash of the late not-so-great Saldana's bill from last year. As far as I understand it in my limited capacities it would effectively "ban the open carriage of an unwieldy piece of metal or plastic that could with sometime be used as a firearm."

    A lot of people both on calguns, Reponsible Citizens of California, and here seem to think that this bill needs to be destroyed and annihilated where it stands.

    I however would like to put forth a secondary opinion in regards to this matter.

    We all thought that Peruta was going to change the CCW laws and make them become shall issue. However we see that through Judge Gonzales' ruling she believed the liberal hype that an unloaded firearm is adequate self defense. She thus stated that open carry is a viable alternative and thus the citizens are still permitted self defense. As I understand it a notice of appeal has been filed in regards to this case.

    If AB144 were allowed to pass it would completely take away this option as a viable self defense option. Thus it would appear that this would allow Peruta to change the CCW laws and will force the state to start issuing CCW's to everyone who met the basic requirements.

    I see this as being a victory not just for OC but specifically for 2A in general. Once the CCW becomes shall issue then a lot of these liberal sheriff's and politicians who are afraid of their own shadow, much less a law abiding citizen with a gun would feel forced to go back and adopt some form of open carry to negate the CCW law being changed.

    With continued pressure and continued effort we stand a chance of getting LOC out of the deal in the end.

    That is just my opinion for what it is worth, let me know what you all think.
    How is requiring fees and a license to CCW not a violation of the 2A itself?

    We have a right to bare arms, we have the privilege of being able to drive, that's why they require a drivers license. Once a "CCW" license is required, its no longer a right. Lets keep fighting the fight to be able to OC, I'm not willing to lose OC because it "might" lead to shall issue CCW.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by camsoup View Post
    How is requiring fees and a license to CCW not a violation of the 2A itself?

    We have a right to bare arms, we have the privilege of being able to drive, that's why they require a drivers license. Once a "CCW" license is required, its no longer a right. Lets keep fighting the fight to be able to OC, I'm not willing to lose OC because it "might" lead to shall issue CCW.
    I wasnt trying to say it should not be fought, nor was I saying that it is not against the 2A to charge fees and such. I was merely using the judges own logic to expand on what it could mean for 2A supporters....
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by devildoc5 View Post
    Once the CCW becomes shall issue then a lot of these liberal sheriff's and politicians who are afraid of their own shadow, much less a law abiding citizen with a gun would feel forced to go back and adopt some form of open carry to negate the CCW law being changed.
    And what makes you think that, of all things, would ever be their reaction?
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-08-2011 at 12:53 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    And what makes you think that, of all things, would ever be their reaction?

    That appears to be the logic as put for by judge Gonzales in Peruta v County of San Diego. She specifically stated that because OC is allowed then CCW's are not required to be issued.
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by devildoc5 View Post
    That appears to be the logic as put for by judge Gonzales in Peruta v County of San Diego. She specifically stated that because OC is allowed then CCW's are not required to be issued.
    Yes I understand that.

    However, I also understand that the antis would rather have licensed CC than unlicensed OC. First of all, there is the license.

    Second of all, is their hoplophobia (they'd just as soon not know a gun is there).

    Third, they recognize, as do we, that OC has the potential to normalize carry. This is why they focus on making OC seem to be the least normal thing imaginable, and have made it a pet issue in California despite its small following.
    Last edited by marshaul; 02-08-2011 at 04:51 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    I guess I was just idealizing in my head a perfect situation and trying to turn a negative into a positive....
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by devildoc5 View Post
    I guess I was just idealizing in my head a perfect situation and trying to turn a negative into a positive....
    I appreciate the endeavor. I myself have become cynical to the max w/regards to CA, and so I'm not exactly a source of positive reinforcement. You may be partially right, though... Some good may yet come of this mess.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Jeez if its not Soldana its now Portantino

    Another boil on the ass of legal gun owners get these fools out of office along with their useless, unnecessary, Assembly Bills. Did Soldana ever get her CCW "as she was feeling threatened by the legal gun owners of Kalifornia ?" Now she's been termed out she wants a seat in the senate .....Not a hope in hell's chance of that Lori! watch the legal gun owners ensure your total failure !

    Democrat Anthony J. Portantino of Los Angeles has introduced a bill which would make it a crime to Openly Carry an Unloaded Handgun.

    Continue reading on Examiner.com: California bill to ban Open Carry introduced - AB 144 - Los Angeles LA | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-an...#ixzz1DQFFfA32
    "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

    - General George S. Patton, Jr.

Posting Permissions

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