AB144 has risen from the dead!

[EXTREMEOPS1]

Not at all .........

Paranoid much? Understand the laws of probability much? I bet you buy lotto tickets. And you yourself said those to be released are non-violent...

Having dealt with various criminal elements over the years and being military I have seen and been involved in many many violent confrontations and survived the encounters due to my swift actions and training..... the importance of training and being aware of your surroundings will keep you alive....I've never wasted my money on lotto tickets ....non violent offenders will invade your home and terrorize you and your family I'm certain non violent possible reoffenders may not kill you and your family but may be forced to injure you, rape your wife/gf and steal your valuables depending how their mood takes them. So good luck on saving yourself from the non violent offenders that may cross your paths in the not so distant future ... I have my guns my rifles and shotguns at the ready to combat this threat....

 

[donny]

OK, fair nuff Capt'n America. Whatever floats your boat. Thanks for cracking me up again...

 

[ConditionThree]

OK, fair nuff Capt'n America. Whatever floats your boat. Thanks for cracking me up again...

Uh, Wut?

 

[EXTREMEOPS1]

Simple things please/amuse simple minds.

OK, fair nuff Capt'n America. Whatever floats your boat. Thanks for cracking me up again...

Simple things please/amuse simple minds. Glad to help

 

[camsoup]

Paranoid much? Understand the laws of probability much? I bet you buy lotto tickets. And you yourself said those to be released are non-violent...

Why are you even on an open carry forum if you don't think its prudent to be armed, and ready to defend yourself or loved ones when something bad might happen?

 

[Thejoyofdriving]

Why are you even on an open carry forum if you don't think its prudent to be armed, and ready to defend yourself or loved ones when something bad might happen?

He is a troll. I've seen all his posts. He isn't for open carry, and doesn't belong here.

 

[donny]

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm simply more realistic than many here.

 

[camsoup]

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm simply more realistic than many here.

By more realistic you mean that the probability of something bad happening to you or a loved one is so low, why bother carrying any means of protection?

I'm curious....do you have a life insurance policy? How about a homeowners policy? Do you cover the brakes while driving when approaching a turn?
Do you look both ways before crossing a street? The point I am trying to make is we all go through life doing or paying for things "just in case" something happens. Really, the probability of you ever NEEDING insurance is very low, yet I'm assuming you own at least one type of insurance policy. I happen to UOC, its my insurance policy against any situation where I may be forced to protect myself or wife (and soon to be child).

 

[Ruiner.NIN]

Getting this thread back on topic, does anyone know the latest status of AB144? Or, is there any new information on Gov.Brown's position on it?

To answer my own question:

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 09/21/2011
LAST HIST. ACTION : Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110923_status.html

 

[demnogis]

Still on Gov Moonbeam's desk.

Remember:
If Signed -> Becomes Law
If Vetoed -> Gone
If Nothing -> Becomes Law

 

[Firemark]

whats the last date he can sign before it comes law by default?

 

[ConditionThree]

whats the last date he can sign before it comes law by default?

October 9th - one month after the end of the legislative session.

 

[Oh Shoot]

Still on Gov Moonbeam's desk.

If Vetoed -> Gone ...

Can legislature not override a veto with 2/3 vote or whatever? Or was it pretty close vote period?

Really seems from way over here he's just gonna let it take effect without signing.

- OS

 

[ConditionThree]

Can legislature not override a veto with 2/3 vote or whatever? Or was it pretty close vote period?

Really seems from way over here he's just gonna let it take effect without signing.

- OS

To override a veto a 2/3 vote by both houses would be required. There wouldnt be sufficient support to this.

What Governor Brown will do is an unknown. Inaction would indeed, be the path of least resistance.

 

[MilProGuy]

Having dealt with various criminal elements over the years and being military I have seen and been involved in many many violent confrontations and survived the encounters due to my swift actions and training...

...the importance of training and being aware of your surroundings will keep you alive....

...non violent offenders will invade your home and terrorize you and your family I'm certain non violent possible reoffenders may not kill you and your family but may be forced to injure you, rape your wife/gf and steal your valuables depending how their mood takes them.

So good luck on saving yourself from the non violent offenders that may cross your paths in the not so distant future ... I have my guns my rifles and shotguns at the ready to combat this threat....

And...as I place my .45 on the nightstand and slide my .357 Mag under the mattress, and knowing that my shotgun is loaded with buckshot under the bed...

...I salute you, and stand ready to defend myself and my family against any would-be "non-violent" offenders who may decide to pay me an unexpected visit tonight.

 

[EXTREMEOPS1]

+100000 I'm right there with yah

And...as I place my .45 on the nightstand and slide my .357 Mag under the mattress, and knowing that my shotgun is loaded with buckshot under the bed...

...I salute you, and stand ready to defend myself and my family against any would-be "non-violent" offenders who may decide to pay me an unexpected visit tonight.

Yep these "non violents" may unexpectedly visit any one of us and they will be on the end of some serious firepower in my house and yours be safe out there as you cannot expect the PD to protect you from these miscreants.

 

[Firemark]

If the UOC ban is implemented LUCC isn't an option at the present time until its put into law and we can all carry either openly or concealed loaded....I am not worried about SWAT teams getting called in "MWAG oops MWABBNTR (Man with a Big Black Nasty Tactical Rifle) or shotgun" I always carry my videocam and audio devices running at all times. I'm just interested in not becoming a victim in the event of one of the bad guys confronting myself or my family in the event of not being able to UOC and remembering that due to cut backs in California the PD are shorthanded and the prisons are releasing thousands of non violent (reoffenders?) back into our community. I'm not attempting to scare people and have never done in the years of daily open carrying ...if that is someones agenda then they are the one's who need SWAT intervention and not me....the Sheeple can all become victims of their own doing but I for one will not become a victim under any circumstance. My load time for both my AR or my shotgun is pretty respectfully around 3-4 seconds....obviously while taking cover from the marauding attackers lol. Long gun carry is not at all what UOC is all about as most people know, but we may be forced by legislation to do that " our founding fathers turning in their graves no doubt!!!" if that is the case.

Actually it is in the new UOC ban law AB144.

26389. Section 26350 does not apply to, or affect, the carrying
of an unloaded handgun if the handgun is carried either in the locked
trunk of a motor vehicle or in a locked container.

where section 26350 describes the ban of UOC and its definiton, 26389 is the exemption to carry LUCC.

Read it here in its entirety.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

AB144 doesn't apply to firearms in cases, but unless I'm mistaken, 12026 only exempts firearms in locked cases from 12025 when you are traveling between specific places, or in a vehicle. Therefore, to me, it seems that LUCC on the person is not a general self-defense strategy if you don't happen to be traveling between such places.

12025 is what appears to generally prohibit LUCC under general circumstances. In the past, many have claimed that LUCC was an option, and I'd be happy to find out I'm missing some exception somewhere allowing for LUCC other than when traveling between specific places, but thus far every time I have brought up the wording of 12025 and 12026 no one has been able to point me to a general exemption for LUCC.

Text of 12026 in post 58 of this thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...om-the-dead!&p=1614115&viewfull=1#post1614115

 

[Firemark]

My understanding is that if AB144 is signed it creates a new code in the PC that supercedes the previous law. With its extensive list of exemptions and new requirements.

In post 58
12026.1. (a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any
citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or
is temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited by state
or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a
firearm, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that
the following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than
the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any
motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm,
the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the
otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in
accordance with this chapter.
(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device.

ANY lawful purpose, Transporting a firearm in a locked case is a lawful purpose. So is Open carrying a lawful purpose.

 

[mjones]

AB144 doesn't apply to firearms in cases, but unless I'm mistaken, 12026 only exempts firearms in locked cases from 12025 when you are traveling between specific places, or in a vehicle. Therefore, to me, it seems that LUCC on the person is not a general self-defense strategy if you don't happen to be traveling between such places.

12025 is what appears to generally prohibit LUCC under general circumstances. In the past, many have claimed that LUCC was an option, and I'd be happy to find out I'm missing some exception somewhere allowing for LUCC other than when traveling between specific places, but thus far every time I have brought up the wording of 12025 and 12026 no one has been able to point me to a general exemption for LUCC.

Text of 12026 in post 58 of this thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...om-the-dead!&p=1614115&viewfull=1#post1614115

LUCC is a completely viable strategy to carry a handgun in California IF you are 1) A US Citizen 2) Generally get around using a motor vehicle.

12025 <--- make concealing a handgun generally illegal.
12026 <--- Offers some exemptions (in your home, place of business)
12026.1 <--- Offers citizens some additional exemptions for To/From/In a "motor vehicle" if in a locked container.
12026.2 <--- Offers yet another list of exemptions these exemptions do not require a motor vehicle be involved but there are destination requirements in addition to a locked container.
12027 <--- Offers OMG yet another list of exemptions Cops, some retired Cops, Guards, Hunters/Fisherman, CCW License holders, Feds, etc all with no locked container requirement

Each section of exemptions is 100% independent of the other sections. In other words, if you meet the requirements for an exemption in 12026.1, you can ignore 12026, 12026.2, 12027 (unless they are specifically cross referenced)