Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: California’s Proposed Open Carry Ban Heads to Senate Floor

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    California’s Proposed Open Carry Ban Heads to Senate Floor

    AB144 now heads to the Senate Floor where a democratic majority is expected to pass it, thanks to a parliamentary maneuver which allowed the bill to skip its original schedule of being heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday, June 27th.

    If the Senate passes the bill, then attention will shift to Governor Brown who will be under intense pressure from California gun owners to veto the bill.

    See my latest article at http://monachuslex.com/?p=61 for a detailed analysis of what is wrong with this bill.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Administrator View Post
    AB144 now heads to the Senate Floor where a democratic majority is expected to pass it, thanks to a parliamentary maneuver which allowed the bill to skip its original schedule of being heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday, June 27th.

    If the Senate passes the bill, then attention will shift to Governor Brown who will be under intense pressure from California gun owners to veto the bill.

    See my latest article at http://monachuslex.com/?p=61 for a detailed analysis of what is wrong with this bill.
    I don't see why some one has not filed a Declaratory Statute on PC 12031 e, in light on the 2 -A.
    This AB144 is also against the 2-A, and highly unconstitutional.
    Oath breakers are subject to criminal charges.
    18 USC 880 sec 880 Also
    18 USC &2 Section 2: Principals.
    Not to mention 42 USC chapter 21 part 1 & 1983

    Robin47

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Aliso Viejo, ,
    Posts
    146
    Maybe it's time for some none violent none cooperation, few hundred of us would go out and carry anyway despite there OPINION! After all it is just an OPINION backed by a gun!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106
    I expect this bill to be voted on TODAY! One more nail in the coffin....

  5. #5
    Regular Member Evil Tyler Durden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Crummy California the most unfair state in the union.
    Posts
    46

    Thumbs up Passes.

    I truly hope it does, then it will force CA one step closer to being Shall Issue.

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Tyler Durden View Post
    I truly hope it does, then it will force CA one step closer to being Shall Issue.
    You cannot possibly count on the passage of AB144 to ensure 'shall issue' in California.
    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

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Salinas, CA
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Tyler Durden View Post
    I truly hope it does, then it will force CA one step closer to being Shall Issue.
    If you think an all out ban on OC=Shall Issue take a look at Hawaii.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Just my 2 cents from the peanut gallery:

    If this crap does, indeed, pass....

    ...it could very well be an excellent precursor to "shall issue".

    My reasoning?

    O.K. I'm just "supposin'", so don't take anything I say as intentionally offensive...just thinkin' out loud, here.

    California is chock full of folks who love to "play the victim", right? (Especially if it means financial gain, right?) I mean, the idea I get from the stereotypical "big government" California liberal (not any firearm owners who happen to be liberal) is that they generally believe Uncle Sam exists for the sole purpose of taking care of them.

    How easy would it be to transfer blame onto the government for any and all crimes that are committed? Subsequently, the "victim" mentality could be utilized in conjunction with this blame to make the governement pay for victim restitution.

    All I'm saying is: Out of all places where folks are actively looking for a lawsuit....

    ...how hard can it be to convince folks that a "CCW PERMIT DENIAL LETTER" can effectively be used to SUE THE CITY, SHERIFF, POLICE DEPT. etc. after being victimized by a criminal?

    After all, wouldn't it make sense that, since the 2A has been incorporated, it can be argued that any person is afforded the means with which to protect themselves by the state? If the OC ban is made law, and the CLEO issues a denial for a CCW....the state has basically left the individual defenseless, correct? It's already accepted that the state has no duty to protect, they've now removed all options for the individual to provide their own, as well.

    If only Californians could convince enough people that a denial letter from their CLEO is a guaranteed pay out by the government for any victimization....

    HYPOTHETICAL:

    1) Imagine if Mrs. Schmo files a restraining order against her abusive estranged husband who has threatened numerous times to kill her.
    2) Mrs. Schmo applies for a CCW, and gets the almost inevitable "DENIED".
    3) Mrs. Schmo's ex beats the tar out of her within an inch of her life.

    The state cannot argue that she had the means to defend herself via OC...THEY'VE REMOVED THAT OPTION.
    They also can't argue the CCW option. The CLEO has removed it.

    Wouldn't (in accordance with the recent 2A SCOTUS decisions) this make excellent grounds for the state being liable?

    Imagine this X 1000! Times 10,000!

    If only enough Californians can be convinced a denial letter equates to a denial of rights that might possibly lead to a good chance of GETTING MONEY. What would be the result?

    Even if the argument fails...the resultant MASS APPLICATION FOR CCW'S would be a good thing, right?

    I mean, sure. The majority of folk's desire is for the carry of the firearm that the CCW permit entails.

    What, (other than slightly questionable tactics), would be wrong with letting thousands upon thousands of people seek the denial letter with a ferocious passion, with full intent to SUE THE HELL OUT OF THE PERSON ISSUING IT WHEN (not "IF") ENCOUTERED WITH SO MUCH AS A SHOPPING CART BUMPING THEM?

    Couldn't this, indeed, lead to a mild incentive for sheriffs NOT to issue denials?

    Even if the entire lawsuit is full of holes.....there'd be thousands of them. Constantly. Imagine the rsourses it would take to address a few, not to mention an endless supply of them.

    Wouldn't there be a possibility of "shall issue" being looked at with a smidge more favorability when faced with this? I am simply looking at it from a CLEO's point of view. I'm imagining sitting at my desk typing up my 14th "denial" form letter of the day. As a matter of fact, I've sent out about 40 of them this week. I'm not looking forward to the next several hundred I have to mail. I mean, before, I was simply popping these things out without a thought because it simply meant that I was keeping some schmuck from packing a loaded gun in my jurisdiction. But, now. I'm starting to guess that all these denial letters might be for a reason. If I started to think that the folks receiving them might actually want to USE them for something......like a lawsuit.....

    ....I'm starting to get a little queasy knowing that I've popped out about a thousand of these suckers to God knows who over the past several months.
    Last edited by Superlite27; 06-30-2011 at 09:03 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Beaumont CA
    Posts
    2
    Anyone know the status of this bill? I thought they were voting on this today??

  10. #10
    Regular Member vindicated's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    41

Posting Permissions

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