Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: From the CRPA: L.A. City Counsil paints themselves into a legal corner...

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    From the CRPA: L.A. City Counsil paints themselves into a legal corner...

    In Contemplating Ban on Openly Carrying Unloaded Firearms, Los Angeles
    City Council Unwittingly Invites Legal Challenge to City's Restrictive CCW Policy


    2/21/2011


    On January 21, 2011, Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti introduced a motion to prepare an ordinance that would ban openly carrying unloaded firearms (UOC) in the City (Council File 11-0109). The proposal was seconded by Council Members Paul Koretz, Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Ed Reyes, Herb Wesson, Jr., and Dennis Zine. In doing so, the Council has unwittingly given Second Amendment advocates an avenue for forcing the City to issue permits to carry concealed firearms (CCW). The City has been notoriously resistant to issuing those CCW permits.

    In an unusual move typically reserved for urgent priority actions, instead of referring the UOC motion to the Public Safety Committee for initial review, as is usually done when a motion first appears before the City Council, Garcetti dramatically referred the motion directly to the entire Council via City Council Rule 16 so it could be voted on quickly. Under Rule 16, a Council member may send an item directly to the Council without it having to go to a Council Committee first.

    The UOC motion was scheduled to be discussed at the January 28, 2011 City Council meeting. But at that meeting, the Council voted to postpone the "urgent" motion until February 9, 2011. Then, interestingly, at the February 9th meeting the Council once again voted to continue the motion - this time until March 2, 2011.

    If and when the Council ever does actually get around to voting, and if the motion passes, the City Attorney's office will then prepare a report on the legality of banning UOC within the City, along with a draft ordinance.

    The continued postponement of this agenda item may well reflect the Council's realization of what a tricky situation they have gotten themselves into, both politically and legally, with this proposal.

    Legally, the proposal is preempted by state law, which means cities like Los Angeles lack the authority to regulate the carrying of firearms. The City might dispute that, but there are also First Amendment issues. Because many people who UOC do so as an expression of political protest to the fact that they are denied the right to carry a loaded firearm, UOC is activity protected under the First Amendment.

    But these legal issues aside, if the proposal is adopted it will invite a lawsuit to force the City to issue CCWs, something the City has been notoriously resistant to doing. The Second Amendment right to bear arms requires government to allow people to carry a firearm in public in some manner for immediate self-defense - that is, either openly or concealed. Government can regulate and choose the manner of carry, but it cannot outlaw both forms of carry.

    Though it is the position of most legal scholars that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry loaded firearms, some have asserted UOC is sufficient to pass constitutional muster. Recently, a federal judge ruled in Peruta v. San Diego LINK that the California scheme allowing unloaded open carry of firearms while carrying ammunition separately, and permitting the gun to be loaded in the face of immediate grave danger, would save California's concealed firearm permitting law from being an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment fundamental right to self defense if that right extends beyond the home. (The case is currently on appeal).

    California law enforcement authorities who issue CCWs can withhold those permits unless "good cause" is established by the applicant. CCW issuing authorities have historically been allowed to exercise great discretion in deciding what constitutes "good cause." In anti-self defense jurisdictions, they use that discretion to require an applicant to meet the almost impossible burden of documenting an immediate specific threat to the applicant to establish "good cause." In doing so, cities like Los Angeles have been able to impose their anti-self-defense political philosophy on the issuance process, and issue few or no permits. But without UOC as an option, cities with restrictive CCW policies like Los Angeles are without any defense to a Second Amendment challenge, and could be compelled to issue CCW permits to any applicant who simply cites "self-defense" as good cause, regardless of whether the applicant can document a specific threat.

    So if the City Council outlaws UOC, it will put the City in a legal position where it may well be forced to issue CCWs. Oops!

    Politically, the City is stepping on the toes of state legislators who, Sacramento political newsletters report, are unhappy with Council President Garcetti sticking his nose into an issue state legislators want to publicize. State Assemblymember Anthony Portantino has introduced Assembly Bill (AB) 144, which would amend state law to ban UOC in public places statewide. . State legislators are also grappling with the constitutional issues with such a law.

    Perhaps as a way to dance around the controversy, the Council is also in the process of adopting a resolution declaring support for AB 44, which may wind up being a substitute for the proposed local UOC ban (See Council File 11-0002-S4). Or maybe the City Attorney's report, if it ever gets prepared, will give them an out.

    Regardless, this will be interesting to watch.

    Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA "Local Ordinance Project" (LOP) - a statewide campaign to fight ill-conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. To contribute to the NRA or to the NRA/CRPA LOP and support this and similar efforts, visit www.nraila.org and www.crpafoundation.org.
    There are some that believe that UOC has been a hand played prematurely, and this is a battle that should not have been instigated. While I agree that not all the cards are yet in place for a royal flush, this has created some interesting and somewhat amusing side effects.
    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

  2. #2
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912
    Agreed. In any sense, this brings a plethora of attention to the corrupt nature of the legislature in our state. I have a strong, strong feeling that AB144 will either lead to the USSC striking down 12031 and/or CCW becoming shall-issue. This action by the statists is just setting up the dominoes to fall.
    Last edited by demnogis; 02-22-2011 at 01:19 AM.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Key excerpt: "Legally, the proposal is preempted by state law, which means cities like Los Angeles lack the authority to regulate the carrying of firearms."

    Strategy:

    1. Lay low until it's passed.

    2. Push to win a "shall issue CC license" mandate for LA. You know they'll fight it, so...

    3. Elevate the "shall issue CC license" to the CA Supremete Court or Federal Court level as necessary, and win it there so it will be applicable throughout the state (full preemption on the CC license issue).

    4. Start fighting the LA ban, as it's already been ruled at the state level.

    Heh-heh...

    Sounds to me like they're being crazy like a fox. It might take 10 years, but that's politics. Sometimes, it's worth ignoring the pissants while you fight the elephant. When the elephant falls, the pissants are crushed.
    Last edited by since9; 02-22-2011 at 01:41 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    There are some that believe that UOC has been a hand played prematurely, and this is a battle that should not have been instigated. While I agree that not all the cards are yet in place for a royal flush, this has created some interesting and somewhat amusing side effects.
    But you dont need a royal flush to win, even 10-2 offsuit wins at times....

    The key is not making sure that your hand is the best but that your hand and the cards on the table represent a "reliable chance" of winning. You can never know 100% what the other guy has. In this instance we do know what the other guy has. It appears to be a typical donkey player trying to fish his way to becoming a river rat. (gotta love all the poker references in that paragraph.)

    All we have to do is push all in and force them to either fold or make them put all their chips in too. We have a pretty good legal backing as far as McDonald and Peruta go to establish that this would force CC. I think it looks pretty good.

    Everyone has to remember that we are fighting a war here (in a sense at least). We may lose a few battles (OC might go away for a little bit or some other "set back".) But if we are persistent we will be victorious in the end....
    "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...

  5. #5
    Regular Member PaleoCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lost Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    163
    Hey Dem,

    Right, anti-libety leftiest politicians never really think things thru do they. But why allow fact and logic get in way of a feel good motion, as if LA does not have enough issues with DWP, public union pensions and salaries, and budget (all of which Garcetti would like to deflect attention from by his lame anti public safety go no-where motion) oh thats right Garcetti is not up for re-election so, what the hell.

    I like the option of giving them hell now and when ever possible. Hello, they care less of stategic silence and that is not my style anyway.

    I will give them my thoughts on march 2nd. Hope that some of the SLAP candidates win March 8th. Even number CD elections

    -p

  6. #6
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912
    Paleo, funny you bring all those issues up. A friend and I were having such a conversation at lunch today. It appears that the Council wishes to draw attention from their real problems and appear to be for the safety of the people, hence "getting guns off the streets".

    The biggest issue with this, is that if they pass the law, no attention will be brought to the following dozens of people who are assaulted by the still-criminals committing illegal acts. Will it have made anyone safer? No. But those who believe guns are the enemy will feel safer. Until they're in the position of needing it and not having it.

    Should the municipal law pass, I'm all for a class-action event err meet-up in LA County. I've got the pennies to put my defense together. Besides, I hear class-action suits pay a lot.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Shouldn't it be...."getting bad guys with guns off the street"?

  8. #8
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Shouldn't it be...."getting bad guys with guns off the street"?
    Why would they care about the criminals? They just care about guns.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  9. #9
    Regular Member PaleoCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lost Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    163
    Dem, its spelled clowncil in my hood ok....lol

    They have another pressing aganda item as well ITEM-30, 11-0002-S10

    Taking position on HR-308 banning extended cap. mags. I guess they haven't heard that Cal already restricts capacity to 10 rounds. Proving once again they have nothing better to do. Yeah right.

    Are they taking public comment on this..LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO.....LOLOLOLO

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by PaleoCon View Post
    Dem, its spelled clowncil in my hood ok....lol

    They have another pressing aganda item as well ITEM-30, 11-0002-S10

    Taking position on HR-308 banning extended cap. mags. I guess they haven't heard that Cal already restricts capacity to 10 rounds. Proving once again they have nothing better to do. Yeah right.

    Are they taking public comment on this..LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO.....LOLOLOLO
    Their idea of extended capacity mags is 10 rounds! HR-308 would ban those and require a 1 round mag. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL (Hope that's not true.)
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  11. #11
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912
    Haha, wow PaleoCon... City Clowncil. That's a good one! So accurate, too.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  12. #12
    Regular Member PaleoCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lost Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    Their idea of extended capacity mags is 10 rounds! HR-308 would ban those and require a 1 round mag. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL (Hope that's not true.)

    What the Clowncil will never ask is..bye the bye what is the actual manufacturers mag capacity. They will not be able to handle the shock when finding out that the standard cap is well over 10 rounds
    Last edited by PaleoCon; 03-02-2011 at 03:05 AM.

Posting Permissions

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