Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Alert - AB144 - FINAL vote in the State Assembly Expected Tomorrow (May 12)

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

    Alert - AB144 - FINAL vote in the State Assembly Expected Tomorrow (May 12)

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6763

    Final Vote Expected on Open Carry Ban Bill in the California Assembly Tomorrow!

    Wednesday, May 11, 2011

    Please contact your state Assemblyman TODAY to OPPOSE AB 144!

    The California Assembly could vote on the open carry ban bill (Assembly Bill 144) TOMORROW. It is imperative that you call and e-mail your state Assemblyman IMMEDIATELY urging him or her to OPPOSE AB 144. Forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners and urge them to call their Assemblyman also. Contact information for your state Assemblyman can be found here.

    It is currently legal to openly carry an unloaded handgun into most public places within the state, including restaurants and malls. Crimes are not being committed by individuals who openly carry an unloaded firearm, so how is banning the open carry of an unloaded firearm in California going to lower the stateís crime rate?

    ITíS NOT!

    This bill is just another way anti-gun activists are trying to further stifle law-abiding gun owners from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in California.

    Introduced by anti-gun Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-44), AB 144 would change the stateís gun laws and prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying an unloaded handgun openly.

    Remind your state Assemblyman that California is part of the United States and your firearm rights are protected under the Second Amendment. AB 144 will do nothing to stop crime in California.

    Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
    This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
    11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
    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
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Angry Called everyone and got a resounding....

    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    I'm afraid representative xyz hasn't decided how he or she will vote tomorrow 5/12. So I am gonna call 'em all again tomorrow and will post details if anything changes. Is there a live link to the house to actually watch what is going on there tomorrow ? I have usually been able to watch a live feed of all these legislations in the past
    "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.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    It'll be live at http://calchannel.com/

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Assembly is currently underway. AB 144 is file item 79, currently on file item 35.

  5. #5
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    Watching with great interest and hoping for the best.

    Good luck CA!

    -MH
    $2 Bill - Calling Card of the 2A Movement
    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
    Seriously, who is John Galt?
    Vires et honestas

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Passed and retained.

  7. #7
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    They sure went past that one quickly!

    Does that mean that it's going to be mulled over some more?

    -MH
    $2 Bill - Calling Card of the 2A Movement
    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
    Seriously, who is John Galt?
    Vires et honestas

  8. #8
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    The author of the bill is allowed to ask permission to pass and retain a bill to be considered without penalty- AB144 will be heard tomorrow- Friday May 13th.

    This pause is an opportunity to call the legislators that do not have a publically known position on this proposed law. The following legislators should be contacted with your concerns as their constituent. If your legislator is not listed here, it is because they are already on record as being anti-gun or already voted in favor of AB1934 in the prior legislative session.


    Republicans

    25 Kristin Olsen
    29 Linda Halderman
    30 David Valadao
    32 Shannon Grove
    33 K.H. Achadjian
    59 Tim Donnelly
    63 Mike Morrell
    68 Allan Mansoor
    70 Donald Wagner

    Democrats

    5 Richard Pan
    7 Michael Allen
    9 Roger Dickinson
    11 Susan Bonilla
    28 Luis Alejo
    31 Henry Perea
    35 Das Williams
    47 Holly Mitchell
    50 Ricardo Lara
    53 Betsy Butler
    69 Jose Solorio
    76 Toni Atkins
    79 Ben Hueso
    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

  9. #9
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    Well, here's hoping that Friday the 13th is a very unlucky day for them!

    -MH
    $2 Bill - Calling Card of the 2A Movement
    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
    Seriously, who is John Galt?
    Vires et honestas

  10. #10
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by March Hare View Post
    Well, here's hoping that Friday the 13th is a very unlucky day for them!

    -MH
    As it turns out, Friday the 13th is a little lucky for us. The assembly has adjourned until Monday.
    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

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Thans for the link

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    It'll be live at http://calchannel.com/
    Will be watching again on Monday
    "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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member puppy8agun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    110

    Bill update

    Sorry I forgot to update this group and my blogger account is not updating due to a site error.

    AB 144 could be heard on Monday but Mike who is handling the bill doubts it. SB 427 will be heard in Senate Appropriations Monday so I will be there either way. Portantino was not in on Thursday which he did not even notify staff until the night before. So far staff has been polite enough to let us know what is going on and whether it will be presented. I should be presented prior to Thursday of next week.

    Good news is it will give me over the weekend to come up with arguments against AB 144 for the Republicans to argue on our behalf. There are aspects that people generally do not think of when it comes to this bill like the shift in funds and diversion of scarce resources away from prosecutions of more serious crimes. Victims rights groups should be opposed since it could allow offenders to go free. DA and Public Defender offices should be opposed due to difficulty in prosecution and the current shortages in staff already leading to a 2-3 times added cost to the state for private attorneys handling overflow cases which this will only aggravate. Everybody has a right to a speedy trial and firearms cases are long and frequently dropped. County supervisors should be opposed due to the shifts in funds away from schools and cities to handle any additional cases and of course police departments should be opposed because currently they do not dispatch for most open carry cases but when it becomes a crime there will be mandated dispatch due to open carry is a crime. This would include accidental exposures by CCW holders, people hunting crossing into prohibited areas and many others.

    The list of why to opposed is numerous and we will continue to fight. This will allow us extra days to draft up added areas. If anybody knows of non-lawsuit costs we could use these emailed to us. If you have stances of opposition that have not been mentioned or is such that we could use them to help lobby members away from voting on these bills we will take all added suggestions. You can email me or if you are more comfortable post to Gun Owners of Ca legislation page and we will pick it up from there. Thanks for your help and support and stay safe and carry on.

    Remember anybody can lobby the capitol offices, set up appointments and go in and try to be nice and convince them to vote no. Please be polite.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    I said it last time this came up, and now I'll say it again. Why don't you guys and gals lobby to get this passed? Unloaded carry with nonsensical no carry zones is a sick, sick joke which was never funny. It's a moronic and bastardized "right" which I can't see a significant reason to be concerned with losing.

    As far as I can tell, getting this ban passed, then suing over it is the first step to becoming a shall issue state. Am I wrong?
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  14. #14
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    I said it last time this came up, and now I'll say it again. Why don't you guys and gals lobby to get this passed? Unloaded carry with nonsensical no carry zones is a sick, sick joke which was never funny. It's a moronic and bastardized "right" which I can't see a significant reason to be concerned with losing.

    As far as I can tell, getting this ban passed, then suing over it is the first step to becoming a shall issue state. Am I wrong?
    While I believe that change will not occur on a grand scale without litigants with standing, I beleive it's at best, an optimistic speculation. Without an affirmed right to carry in California, there is nothing to keep our judiciary from ruling that the ability to transport a firearm in a locked case is not an infringement on the 2A, and that bans on UOC and LOC are reasonable regulations.
    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

  15. #15
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Without an affirmed right to carry in California....
    A valid concern I suppose.

    But do keep in mind that the second amendment, now incorporated against the states, has to my knowledge never in federal court been ruled to only apply to those with connections, jobs and private property, as it is in California, and indeed was many other states, except most of those other states are shall issue states now.

    Historically speaking, the notion that state sanctioned real carry for common subjects should be limited to the home and businesses is rooted in big business lobbying and racism, starting around the late 1800's. The fact that this was, and in your case still is deeply entrenched in the legal and political system does not give it realistic legal standing when faced with the constitution, and the constitution has proven beyond the slimmest shadow of a doubt to be the PRK's one and only hope.

    Certainly I'm not saying a court battle to regain carry rights is a sure thing, but the odds don't strike me as bad, and it's not like you have much, if anything to lose with Unconstitutional Open Carry. Maybe my opinion is slanted, since I have a state sanctioned right to carry openly into almost anywhere I please, but even still, most in Kali seem to acknowledge that unloaded carry is for free speech rather than protection.
    Last edited by Michigander; 05-15-2011 at 11:40 AM.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  16. #16
    Regular Member puppy8agun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    110

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    I said it last time this came up, and now I'll say it again. Why don't you guys and gals lobby to get this passed? Unloaded carry with nonsensical no carry zones is a sick, sick joke which was never funny. It's a moronic and bastardized "right" which I can't see a significant reason to be concerned with losing.

    As far as I can tell, getting this ban passed, then suing over it is the first step to becoming a shall issue state. Am I wrong?
    Current cases that are furthering these rights are based on current laws, to make changes now will create issues with current cases and ccw provisions that have already been fixed.

    I cannot give you all the details yet but we have been and are suing to become "shall issue". The involvement is huge but it has to be done right, banning open carry is not the right way and what people are thinking about this right now is not accurate even if there are some truthful elements.

    If we do not fight this now then take it to court should it pass the courts will ask why we did not try and stop it which could rule against us overturning in the courts.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by puppy8agun View Post
    I cannot give you all the details yet but we have been and are suing to become "shall issue". The involvement is huge but it has to be done right, banning open carry is not the right way and what people are thinking about this right now is not accurate even if there are some truthful elements.

    If we do not fight this now then take it to court should it pass the courts will ask why we did not try and stop it which could rule against us overturning in the courts.
    First part sounds good, and I wish you the best in this effort. The second part doesn't make sense to me. Courts don't make rulings based on lobbying actions, or a lack thereof. Only existing laws and other factors such as AG opinions and other case law.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  18. #18
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    I said it last time this came up, and now I'll say it again. Why don't you guys and gals lobby to get this passed? Unloaded carry with nonsensical no carry zones is a sick, sick joke which was never funny. It's a moronic and bastardized "right" which I can't see a significant reason to be concerned with losing.

    As far as I can tell, getting this ban passed, then suing over it is the first step to becoming a shall issue state. Am I wrong?
    The "banning of UOC" creates real problems for all CA and visiting gun owners, e.g. transport issues. None of the carry cases would be furthered by such an outcome; we either have a right to bear functional arms, or we do not. Additionally, such a ban directly infringes on 1A rights.

    -Brandon
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Being heard right now in the assembly: http://www.calchannel.com/channel/live/3

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Donnelly spoke against and said it violated the second amendment's right to bear arms.

    Feuer spoke for and said "a well regulated militia" has nothing to do with carrying arms.

    Knight spoke against and mentioned that passing 144 will force shall-issue CCW (which he supports too), said the members from LA are the ones concerned but carrying usually happens in rural California. He also said he's spoken to law enforcement and said he hadn't heard of any problems arising from open carry.

    Calderon spoke for, said there wasn't anything a police officer could do to get at a supposedly unloaded firearm (said the cop would need PC). Said there would be one crazy person who would make a scene and kill somebody, but not necessarily a second amendment supporter. Since this is bound to happen, this bill is needed. He also said he saw a lot of guns being openly carried in Washington D.C. over obamacare.

    Nielsen spoke against, said this is an attempt to remove a constitutional right. Mentioned people who carried a copy of the constitution in holsters and said the assembly doesn't do anything to prevent criminals from committing crimes. Mentioned AB 109 and how prisoners are going to be released. Said this bill was not a good use of the assembly's time.

    Ammiano spoke for, said the only reason to carry a firearm is to use it. Said it's an act of intimidation.

    Halderman asked a question of the author, mentioned the school zone exception and asked why wouldn't an exception to be inside a school or school zone be more dangerous than carrying in a coffee shop.

    Skinner spoke for, said 144 doesn't infringe on a person carrying a concealed weapon who has a permit to do so. Said it was our right to put boundaries when it comes down to public welfare. Mentioned a Starbucks in her area where open carries showed up, was contacted by an "unbelievable number" of people saying they wouldn't go to that Starbucks, said they were afraid of people open carrying because of the danger that surrounded people carrying.

    Hagman spoke against, said California has more restrictions than any other state when it comes to guns and ammunition. Said there are counties that don't issue CCWs. Said despite all of this there is still rampant crime. Mentioned private property rights and signs that businesses could put up if they desired, also said cities could enact some sort of regulations as well. Said demonstrators who are speaking against this bill are also being silenced. Said to stop attacking law-abiding citizens.

    E. Manuel Perez asked the author if this bill infringed on the second amendment. The author said absolutely not.

    Jones spoke against, said he learned today that the government can easily vote to remove fundamental rights. He said removing the ability to open carry a firearm does infringe on the second amendment. Said citizens do have a right to keep weapons upon their person and said released prisoners will take up residence in people's neighborhoods and people need the ability to protect themselves against them.

    Swanson spoke for, said the assembly should not put police in a bad situation where they have to make a split-second decision. Said the assembly had to protect police officer's ability to protect communities. Said his nephew is a CHP officer and his wife worries every time he leaves the house. Said the assembly should not allow a gang member to open carry.

    Portantino closed by saying this bill didn't get voted down last year, was brought forth last year by a San Diego law, said this bill isn't identical to last year's bill and that there are exceptions for hunters on private property. He said he doubted there was a person in the assembly who would promote violence in a protest. Said in 2011 it's a bad idea to have weapons injected into society. Said there is no reason for a weapon on main street of America. Said there is a wanted picture of him on the internet of him, said that offends him. Said that should not be part of this discourse. Said law enforcement brought forth this bill based on events on the street. Said chiefs said this was a problem and rank and file officers were being put in harms way because they can't tell if a weapon if loaded or not. He said despite the fact that nothing bad has happened, the assembly should pass this bill to prevent bad things from happening in the future. Said there are limited resources out on the street, and that the family has just as much of a right to go out for a movie.

    Final vote: 45 - 29. Measure passes.
    Last edited by bigtoe416; 05-16-2011 at 05:14 PM. Reason: formatting

  21. #21
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    Final vote: 45 - 29. Measure passes.
    On to the Senate...

    Where I doubt opposition will fair much better.
    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

  22. #22
    Regular Member Fordrocks1986's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Hemet , ca
    Posts
    10
    This is not looking to good

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Well my long guns with bayonets attached are all ready to UOC

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    Donnelly spoke against and said it violated the second amendment's right to bear arms.

    Feuer spoke for and said "a well regulated militia" has nothing to do with carrying arms.

    Knight spoke against and mentioned that passing 144 will force shall-issue CCW (which he supports too), said the members from LA are the ones concerned but carrying usually happens in rural California. He also said he's spoken to law enforcement and said he hadn't heard of any problems arising from open carry.

    Calderon spoke for, said there wasn't anything a police officer could do to get at a supposedly unloaded firearm (said the cop would need PC). Said there would be one crazy person who would make a scene and kill somebody, but not necessarily a second amendment supporter. Since this is bound to happen, this bill is needed. He also said he saw a lot of guns being openly carried in Washington D.C. over obamacare.

    Nielsen spoke against, said this is an attempt to remove a constitutional right. Mentioned people who carried a copy of the constitution in holsters and said the assembly doesn't do anything to prevent criminals from committing crimes. Mentioned AB 109 and how prisoners are going to be released. Said this bill was not a good use of the assembly's time.

    Ammiano spoke for, said the only reason to carry a firearm is to use it. Said it's an act of intimidation.

    Halderman asked a question of the author, mentioned the school zone exception and asked why wouldn't an exception to be inside a school or school zone be more dangerous than carrying in a coffee shop.

    Skinner spoke for, said 144 doesn't infringe on a person carrying a concealed weapon who has a permit to do so. Said it was our right to put boundaries when it comes down to public welfare. Mentioned a Starbucks in her area where open carries showed up, was contacted by an "unbelievable number" of people saying they wouldn't go to that Starbucks, said they were afraid of people open carrying because of the danger that surrounded people carrying.

    Hagman spoke against, said California has more restrictions than any other state when it comes to guns and ammunition. Said there are counties that don't issue CCWs. Said despite all of this there is still rampant crime. Mentioned private property rights and signs that businesses could put up if they desired, also said cities could enact some sort of regulations as well. Said demonstrators who are speaking against this bill are also being silenced. Said to stop attacking law-abiding citizens.

    E. Manuel Perez asked the author if this bill infringed on the second amendment. The author said absolutely not.

    Jones spoke against, said he learned today that the government can easily vote to remove fundamental rights. He said removing the ability to open carry a firearm does infringe on the second amendment. Said citizens do have a right to keep weapons upon their person and said released prisoners will take up residence in people's neighborhoods and people need the ability to protect themselves against them.

    Swanson spoke for, said the assembly should not put police in a bad situation where they have to make a split-second decision. Said the assembly had to protect police officer's ability to protect communities. Said his nephew is a CHP officer and his wife worries every time he leaves the house. Said the assembly should not allow a gang member to open carry.

    Portantino closed by saying this bill didn't get voted down last year, was brought forth last year by a San Diego law, said this bill isn't identical to last year's bill and that there are exceptions for hunters on private property. He said he doubted there was a person in the assembly who would promote violence in a protest. Said in 2011 it's a bad idea to have weapons injected into society. Said there is no reason for a weapon on main street of America. Said there is a wanted picture of him on the internet of him, said that offends him. Said that should not be part of this discourse. Said law enforcement brought forth this bill based on events on the street. Said chiefs said this was a problem and rank and file officers were being put in harms way because they can't tell if a weapon if loaded or not. He said despite the fact that nothing bad has happened, the assembly should pass this bill to prevent bad things from happening in the future. Said there are limited resources out on the street, and that the family has just as much of a right to go out for a movie.

    Final vote: 45 - 29. Measure passes.
    I have all my long guns ready to be UOC with bayonets attached as allowed in our "repubik of Kalifornia" just need to get upto speed on loading my long guns in two seconds from carrying with a sling ....
    Now when do we all go about getting our CCWs as UOC has been "govermentally" banned in CA stopping us to protect ourselves and our families with a pistol.
    In the meantime my AR15, AK47 and tactical shotgun will suffice .......practice practice practice with my quick draw holster gotta get it ready in under two seconds....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	quick-draw-holster.jpg 
Views:	77 
Size:	10.7 KB 
ID:	5900  
    "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.

  24. #24
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Yeah, not good but fully expected. The reality is for this go-round we're going to be at the mercy of Gov. Brown's veto pen. Which IMO is not likely to happen. I predict he signs the bill into law, and it won't matter one damn iota that he wrote his famed and highly coveted amicus brief back during the McDonald case.
    "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
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    Yeah, not good but fully expected. The reality is for this go-round we're going to be at the mercy of Gov. Brown's veto pen. Which IMO is not likely to happen. I predict he signs the bill into law, and it won't matter one damn iota that he wrote his famed and highly coveted amicus brief back during the McDonald case.
    Brown has an 'out'. His pen doesnt have to sign the bill for it to become law- if he doesnt veto the bill it will automatically become law. This way, he can preserve the appearance of is prior amicus brief without his endorsement.
    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 2 12 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
  •