• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

How to use the 12031 'E' check to help the cause of open carry

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
Yup, am aware. Very good stuff. 12031(e)'s days are numbered. But...

The PRK legislature will ban unloaded open carry (AB144). Governor Moonbeam will sign it. 12031(e) will fall.

(sarcasm on) Hip hip horray. (sarcasm off)

I don't foresee any injunctive/declaratory relief lawsuits being filed against AB144 by any of the right people. It would hurt their CCW ambitions way too much. Here's to hoping I'm wrong though.
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
Yup, am aware. Very good stuff. 12031(e)'s days are numbered. But...

The PRK legislature will ban unloaded open carry (AB144). Governor Moonbeam will sign it. 12031(e) will fall.

(sarcasm on) Hip hip horray. (sarcasm off)

I don't foresee any injunctive/declaratory relief lawsuits being filed against AB144 by any of the right people. It would hurt their CCW ambitions way too much. Here's to hoping I'm wrong though.

If AB144 is talking of UOC rather then LOC then we should be able to OC- Loaded, as AB 144 is only about
Unloaded open carry.
And 12031-e would be gone ! Robin47 :)
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
If AB144 is talking of UOC rather then LOC then we should be able to OC- Loaded, as AB 144 is only about
Unloaded open carry.
And 12031-e would be gone ! Robin47 :)

No, AB144 does NOT nullify PC 12031 which makes carrying a loaded firearm a crime in an incorporated city, or in a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.

12031(e) is the teeth for 12031(a). Without AB144, and with 12031(e) gone, one would be able to carry loaded, albeit illegally, but the police would not have the authority to inspect the weapon, there would have to be reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed to conduct a search and seizure of the weapon.

Theoretically, if one could effectively reserve, protect and assert their rights from a 4A violation, then they could carry loaded and get away with it, but that is playing with fire. A police officer, under oath, could simply say you were acting suspicious, lay out some offending "narrative" and boom...your guilty. But all of this is academic because that's not what's going on here.

AB144 covers the "unloaded loophole" (to use the tyrants language) effectively making it so that simply carrying any handgun in public a crime, regardless of whether loaded or unloaded.
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
AB144, if it were to be enacted, may not be clearly unconstitutional from a 1A perspective. What is the 2A argument?

The Leg has been listening to everyone's comments on the flaws of 1934 and made a pretty good run at a bulletproof (at least for now) bill to ban UOC. LOC has been dead ~2 years.

Can we please get off the "we're only interested in CCW" shtick? If there were to be a viable method of challenging AB144, we'll be looking at it. It's continually disappointing when the only org that helps California open carriers in court is kicked in the knee by open carry proponents.

-Brandon

Yup, am aware. Very good stuff. 12031(e)'s days are numbered. But...

The PRK legislature will ban unloaded open carry (AB144). Governor Moonbeam will sign it. 12031(e) will fall.

(sarcasm on) Hip hip horray. (sarcasm off)

I don't foresee any injunctive/declaratory relief lawsuits being filed against AB144 by any of the right people. It would hurt their CCW ambitions way too much. Here's to hoping I'm wrong though.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
AB144, if it were to be enacted, may not be clearly unconstitutional from a 1A perspective. What is the 2A argument?

The Leg has been listening to everyone's comments on the flaws of 1934 and made a pretty good run at a bulletproof (at least for now) bill to ban UOC. LOC has been dead ~2 years.

Can we please get off the "we're only interested in CCW" shtick? If there were to be a viable method of challenging AB144, we'll be looking at it. It's continually disappointing when the only org that helps California open carriers in court is kicked in the knee by open carry proponents.

-Brandon

Well, in truth, personally I don't care much if AB144 remains the law of the land forever, because to your point there isn't much in the way of a 2A argument. Other than perhaps someday in the distant future UOC is considered and empty pipe only (full mag inserted OK).

The real fight, IMO is against the Mulford Act (12031 and kin), there's the real 2A argument...functional, at the ready, concealable handgun openly carried.

I didn't say "only interested in CCW" (at least not in this post). I was referring to the "right case at the right time strategy." Perhaps I could have been a little more clear.

What do you mean LOC has been dead appr. 2 years? Its been dead a lot longer than that; at least in incorporated cities since 1968. I know you know this, so I don't understand your comment.
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
This is the bill that nixed LOC for the time being: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1363_bill_20091011_chaptered.html

This shows the changes made more clearly (though not the final enrolled version): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1363_bill_20090227_introduced.html

I agree that CA PC 12031 et al., in conjunction with CA PC Sec. 626.9 and 18 U.S.C. 922(q), need to go away.

-Brandon

Well, in truth, personally I don't care much if AB144 remains the law of the land forever, because to your point there isn't much in the way of a 2A argument. Other than perhaps someday in the distant future UOC is considered and empty pipe only (full mag inserted OK).

The real fight, IMO is against the Mulford Act (12031 and kin), there's the real 2A argument...functional, at the ready, concealable handgun openly carried.

I didn't say "only interested in CCW" (at least not in this post). I was referring to the "right case at the right time strategy." Perhaps I could have been a little more clear.

What do you mean LOC has been dead appr. 2 years? Its been dead a lot longer than that; at least in incorporated cities since 1968. I know you know this, so I don't understand your comment.
 
Top