Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: California bill to force long gun open carry in public places

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA

    California bill to force long gun open carry in public places


    Those who support AB144 should expect to see shotguns and rifles carried on the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica and in Starbucks from San Francisco to San Diego if AB 144 passes.

    (A pro-gun Internet community of over 24,000 registered members)
    For Immediate Release – June 13, 2011
    AB144 misses the mark

    Will have unintended consequences

    Contains serious drafting errors

    Will force long-gun open carry
    The purported goal of AB144, introduced by Assemblymember Anthony J. Portantino (D-Pasadena), is to outlaw unloaded open carry across the state. The bill was introduced in response to an increasing number of Californians who have been openly carrying
    unloaded handguns as the only legal means of self-defense in the face of arbitrary and
    discriminatory denials of concealed carry permits.

    But instead of correcting the discriminatory may-issue permitting system, Portantino’s
    solution is to remove even this limited right from the law-abiding citizens of California. But AB144 is such a poorly drafted piece of legislation that it will have significant unintended consequences.

    Interestingly enough, one of the consequences should AB144 become law will be a real
    possibility of the courts striking down California’s arbitrary, may-issue concealed carry
    issuance process. In two recent court cases, the court cited the availability of open carry
    as a reason to not strike down the concealed carry process.

    In Peruta v. County of San Diego1, the court noted that:

    Both Chandler and Nunn, the two cases relied upon by the Supreme Court,
    concerned prohibitions on carrying of concealed weapons where the affected
    individuals had alternate ways to exercise their Second Amendment rights—by
    openly carrying those weapons.

    And in Richards v. County of Yolo2, the court ruled substantially the same way, stating:

    In determining whether government action “substantially burdens” a constitutionallyprotected right, courts “typically ask whether the restriction leaves open sufficient alternative avenues” for exercising the right.

    [E]ven if Plaintiffs are denied a concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes
    from Yolo County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby
    their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur in a
    public setting.

    In both cases, the availability of unloaded open carry allowed the court to determine that
    sufficient alternative avenues existed for citizens to exercise their right to self-defense.
    Once unloaded open carry is no longer available, future challenges will likely find that a
    may-issue permitting scheme cannot pass constitutional muster.

    Another consequence of AB144 will be to force those citizens who wish to exercise their
    rights to do so by openly carrying long guns, which are not affected by the handgun ban in the bill. Portantino and those who support AB144 should expect to see shotguns and rifles carried on the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica and in Starbucks from San
    Francisco to San Diego if AB 144 passes.

    Finally, AB144 is a lengthy complicated mishmash which contains several serious drafting errors, discriminates against off duty police who work as security guards, and creates a complex web of confusing bans and exceptions to handgun carry that neither law enforcement nor the public will be able to understand. joins with other gun rights groups in California to call upon the California
    Legislature to reject this attack on the rights of law-abiding citizens and is collecting citizen signatures at

    Carry on!


    Media Contacts:
    National: John Pierce, co-founder and spokesperson,,

  2. #2
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    , ,
    Interesting post. I agree that there will be unintended consequences, however we may not fully realize what they are until the law has time to fully take effect. The only one thing I did not agree with is that if passed, people will suddenly start carrying long guns as an alternative. I am sure there may be those who do, just as they do now, but by and large a rifle or shotgun just isn't practical to lug around. They are great visual references to use as tools in staging a peaceful protest but in terms of carrying them everywhere you go like the bank, grocery store, etc, I think is unrealistic.

    I do believe that CCW policies will be challenged in court and will result in a victory for gun owners. Sadly the victory will come with a loss on the other end.

Posting Permissions

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