Seriously, what other option do they have? They live under the tyranny of the majority. I'm so glad I'm not forced to live under those conditions. I would have revolted long ago had my liberty been subject to the will of the state. I pity all of you in California.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Riverside Walmart open carry
- Thread starter bigtoe416
- Start date
Seriously, what other option do they have? They live under the tyranny of the majority. I'm so glad I'm not forced to live under those conditions. I would have revolted long ago had my liberty been subject to the will of the state. I pity all of you in California.
Ca Patriot
Regular Member
are you a paid blogger for cal guns or brady bunch ?
Neither. I'm on my own and unpaid. As for not doing much in the way of convincing people to do otherwise, being a gun owner while suggesting to my representatives they introduce legislation banning the practice would seem to refute that statement.
I dont believe Portantino is the leader of this anti gun movement anymore than I believe Saldana was. They were just the next democratic pawns who were termed out and was their turn to be the poster child for the Brady Campaign and the anti gun agenda of the ruling class of "elected officials" in this state. Banning weapons gives the Law Enforcement power to control funding and money which the Dems provide in exchange for maintaining there power over the government. Its the politics of kingdoms, police chiefs and politicial sheriffs want to keep the gravy train rolling for themselves. the rank and file officers know that armed citizens stop crime, but that means there would be a reason to cut funding to LE if they allowed us to take care of our own safety. So the liberals and the LE are in bed together, ban the guns make CA a place for criminals to have unarmed victims requiring more money for LE. And the anti gun, convicting CA courts are in on it as well. Pushing the envelope of absurdity and forcing the dems/libs to keep trying to infringe 2A rights helps our cause because the rest of the country and SCOTUS are going the opposite direction. Very quickly they will violate federally protected civil rights and we can win that in court, its the next progession for Heller and Macdonald. I bet you next year they will pick another termed out Democrat (again) to be the poster boy for Long Gun open carry ban, and they will try and push that thru as well. Our hope is that this will upset more rational people, more pro 2A groups and stir people to action and affect elections, If we cant change the legislature to majority Repblican nothing will change.
Robin47
Regular Member
I Agree, what I would like to know is if there is any ongoing court cases, now dealing with PC 12031e
and maybe AB144, to find the unconstitutional ?
Do any of you know of such cases ? Robin47
ConditionThree
State Pioneer
12031(e) is being challenged as a component to a false arrest for possession of assault weapons. (See Brendan John Richards v. California Attorney General Kamala Harris) It is also expected to be facially challenged December 12, by someone whom will remain unnamed, who has neither the proper strategic venue nor the ability to fund their own litigation. This effort could at least stall any remedy Mr. Richards might see in his case, at worst, fortify the state of California's position that 12031(e) is not constitutionally overreaching.
CNReporter
Regular Member
PC 12031(e)
I spoke on the phone with the attorney, Jason Davis, who brought the Richards case shortly before he filed it (Richards has now been consolidated with Haynie). We spent two hours going over my case and he was satisfied that it does not conflict with Richards or any other case he plans to bring.
Nor could he articulate any defect in my legal arguments.
The United States Supreme Court in Heller clearly stated that Open Carry is the manner in which a firearm can be carried, with the possible exception of when a person is travelling.
CalGuns/SAF/NRA/CRPA have all brought and lost Federal cases pretending that the Supreme Court really didn't mean what it said in regards to the manner in which it is constitutional to carry a weapon - which is Open Carry.
Another fact which the anti-Open Carry folks on this and other forums fail to comprehend is that I am simply seeking an injunction against PC 12031. My injunction can lose all the way up to the US Supreme Court and it will not set a precedent, binding or persuasive. Unlike the concealed carry lawsuits which have failed and are very likely to fail on appeal. If any of these concealed carry decisions is published by an appellate court, it will establish a binding or persuasive precedent. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the inevitable appeal and reaffirms that it really meant what it said in Heller then there will be another High Court precedent against concealed carry.
My lawsuit is filed and online for the world to read. If any attorney who has a 2nd Amendment case in the 9th Circuit can articulate, in writing, why my case is defective they are welcome to do so. They know how to reach me.
Proponents of concealed carry should be begging these attorneys to drop their cases before they do irreparable harm.
I spoke on the phone with the attorney, Jason Davis, who brought the Richards case shortly before he filed it (Richards has now been consolidated with Haynie). We spent two hours going over my case and he was satisfied that it does not conflict with Richards or any other case he plans to bring.
Nor could he articulate any defect in my legal arguments.
The United States Supreme Court in Heller clearly stated that Open Carry is the manner in which a firearm can be carried, with the possible exception of when a person is travelling.
CalGuns/SAF/NRA/CRPA have all brought and lost Federal cases pretending that the Supreme Court really didn't mean what it said in regards to the manner in which it is constitutional to carry a weapon - which is Open Carry.
Another fact which the anti-Open Carry folks on this and other forums fail to comprehend is that I am simply seeking an injunction against PC 12031. My injunction can lose all the way up to the US Supreme Court and it will not set a precedent, binding or persuasive. Unlike the concealed carry lawsuits which have failed and are very likely to fail on appeal. If any of these concealed carry decisions is published by an appellate court, it will establish a binding or persuasive precedent. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the inevitable appeal and reaffirms that it really meant what it said in Heller then there will be another High Court precedent against concealed carry.
My lawsuit is filed and online for the world to read. If any attorney who has a 2nd Amendment case in the 9th Circuit can articulate, in writing, why my case is defective they are welcome to do so. They know how to reach me.
Proponents of concealed carry should be begging these attorneys to drop their cases before they do irreparable harm.
ConditionThree
State Pioneer
In this protracted conversation, did Mr Davis bring up the possibility that in the event that you won, or won on appeal, that the equal protection aspects of Peruta and Richards v Prieto could be nullified? And that when these cases are dismissed, that territory in school zones would still be unreachable by anyone without a license to carry? If this suit did not interfere with any pending cases, why weren't Mr. Davis' services secured with the funding you have solicited, so that your theories could be presented in the most congent and direct manner possible? Did you reimburse Mr Davis for his time consulting you on the telephone? I do assume that you did collect those funds for that purpose.
While the suit may not be defective, and it is being hypothesized that you may even win, I think its still difficult to argue that the timing isn't a bit troublesome for pending litigation. I also visualise another outcome in addition to stalling shall issue; we get LOC outside of school zones, anywhere where we arent asked to leave, and California's licensing scheme remains may issue- changing nothing in metropolitan areas.
Doble Troble
Regular Member
Applaud those carrying however they can!
Those of you suggesting that open carry of long guns plays into the hands of gun-grabbers in control are either gun-grabbers yourself or still have your heads where they should not be.
Politicians only respond to votes and money. The lamers that promoted and passed this legislation only did it to gain votes and money. Those walking with guns show votes walking away. You ALL need to make it clear that your votes are walking with those brave patriots.
CA is populated with flakes that can't be bothered to participate in self-government. You are reaping what you've sown. If you want different results you'll get active, work to activate others, do everything you legally can to annoy those who have traded your Constitutional rights for votes and money, and ALWAYS RESPOND to EACH and EVERY criticism of the Second Amendment.
It won't be easy, but you CAN earn back what you've allowed to be traded away.
The lame-ass excuse that by resisting you "play into their hands" is a silly, lazy, typical Californian cop-out. Get off your asses and DO SOMETHING!
Those of you suggesting that open carry of long guns plays into the hands of gun-grabbers in control are either gun-grabbers yourself or still have your heads where they should not be.
Politicians only respond to votes and money. The lamers that promoted and passed this legislation only did it to gain votes and money. Those walking with guns show votes walking away. You ALL need to make it clear that your votes are walking with those brave patriots.
CA is populated with flakes that can't be bothered to participate in self-government. You are reaping what you've sown. If you want different results you'll get active, work to activate others, do everything you legally can to annoy those who have traded your Constitutional rights for votes and money, and ALWAYS RESPOND to EACH and EVERY criticism of the Second Amendment.
It won't be easy, but you CAN earn back what you've allowed to be traded away.
The lame-ass excuse that by resisting you "play into their hands" is a silly, lazy, typical Californian cop-out. Get off your asses and DO SOMETHING!
Save Our State
Regular Member
I agree with you, with a point of clarification: It's not just a California cop-out; It's an American one.
ConditionThree
State Pioneer
If you are correct, then it should be our highest priority to organize a demonstration at the State Capitol on January 4th (this is when our legislature reconvenes) and openly carry long guns in defiance to this new law that will be in effect. Certainly this will get the lawmakers attention and convince them that we are serious about restoring our right to keep and bear arms and surely they will see things our way when we storm the floor of the Senate and Assembly. This will show that we are far more influential than a few politically connected CLEOs from the California Police Chiefs Association, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Legal Community Against Violence and a few snooty politicians from San Fransisco and the Los Angeles areas.
If you can read that all the way through this without recognizing that it would be political suicide for Constitutional carry in California, you really need to re-evaluate your understanding of the political landscape we must navigate. The Mulford Act was not the result of the advancement of some reasonable public safety measure- it was a response crafted to target a particular people and a particular activity that someone disapproved of. AB144 is nearly exactly the same in every respect. To assume that a legislative response isnt possible for open carry of long guns is to deny historical evidence of our legislators motives and intent over the past 45 years. To blindly move ahead in spite of this historical perspective, is like sacrificing your own troops as cannon fodder with no objective to achieve, no hill to capture, and no strategy to win the war.
This is why I have doggedly recommended that people instead focus on using the exemptions of AB144 to continue carrying exposed handguns (rather than carry long guns) and show that the law as passed is utterly useless in effecting our lawful behavior. It will be much more effective to derail their intent with the enacted law, than to give them something new to prohibit in the next session.
Save Our State
Regular Member
In using the exemptions, you are also giving them something to prohibit. In addition, anyone charged with a violation of AB144 will have to spend liberty and property defending the stated exemption, the intent, and then the following appeals. In carrying a longgun, there is no law to violate, so the act itself is an "exemption" that defies their attempts at prohibiting lawful behaviour.
In the end, all we supposedly patriotic, die hard, defenders of liberty are doing with our government is, drawing a line in the dirt and saying "ok, now cross that one". And when they do, we draw another line and say "ok, now cross that one". And when they do, we say, "ok. now......
January 4th?.....I'll make it a date
ConditionThree
State Pioneer
In the words of the fuzzy philosopher, Winne the Pooh- "Oh, bother"...
Save Our State
Regular Member
Sorry, but I just don't get that one. Or was I supposed to?