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.
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:
