• 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.

AB 144: Open Carry Ban (Here we go again.)

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,660
Location
Temecula, California, USA
I predict the ban will pass. None of the right people will fight it. Instead it will play right into their strategy of getting shall issue conceal carry permitting. And once that is done, the rhetoric will be "who needs open carry anyway?!"

And for all the talk about Gov. Brown being pro-2A and writing amicus briefs won't mean a thing when he signs the bill into law.

Mean while, in other news, get your 30 round pistol mags now before its too late...they will be banned.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,335
Location
California, USA
I predict the ban will pass. None of the right people will fight it. Instead it will play right into their strategy of getting shall issue conceal carry permitting. And once that is done, the rhetoric will be "who needs open carry anyway?!"

And for all the talk about Gov. Brown being pro-2A and writing amicus briefs won't mean a thing when he signs the bill into law.

Mean while, in other news, get your 30 round pistol mags now before its too late...they will be banned.

It will be vigorously opposed by the only people capable of mounting an effective effort, the NRA/CRPA, and it will pass because we don't have the votes. If the governor signs it it will be attacked on 1St A grounds by the only people capable of mounting an effective court challenge, SAF/CGF, but only when it fits into an otherwise very busy and expensive litigation schedule.

Concealed licensing is the method of bearing which the legislature has choosen to be exempt from 12031/626.9, the only real hurtles to 'bear' in CA. Carrying is a right. And that is what we shall get but the method is up to them sadly.
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Strangely enough this might be a good thing. If carrying a gun becomes illegal in California, and no one can get a permit, then they can't use the defense in court that one CAN carry a gun (unloaded) for self-defense.

It's obviously silly, but its about time someone files some good lawsuits against CA.

FYI, read the text. Lists a bunch of professions that this does not apply to, the expected including Police, Guards, etc..etc.. and INSURANCE ADJUSTERS.



http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110113_introduced.html

Looks just like last year's AB 1934.

Bans carrying an unloaded gun. Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,660
Location
Temecula, California, USA
It will be vigorously opposed by the only people capable of mounting an effective effort, the NRA/CRPA, and it will pass because we don't have the votes. If the governor signs it it will be attacked on 1St A grounds by the only people capable of mounting an effective court challenge, SAF/CGF, but only when it fits into an otherwise very busy and expensive litigation schedule.

Concealed licensing is the method of bearing which the legislature has choosen to be exempt from 12031/626.9, the only real hurtles to 'bear' in CA. Carrying is a right. And that is what we shall get but the method is up to them sadly.

More like when the governor signs it. I predict this bill will be bundled with some other bill, likely some sort of fiscal bill, and our poor governor will have no choice but to sign it because of our monetary problems.

We have become a nation of licensure (something the Founders warned us about), we are no longer "free". Unless the governor vetoes the bill, which if he does I'll gladly stand corrected, concealed licensing of our right is in the cards for this state.
 

xmattedgex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
83
Location
, ,
Well this is wonderful.
If this does go through, most of us will have no way to carry at all. Because most of CA is shall not issue CCW licenses. It bull that I will no longer have the option to carry a firearm to protect myself and my family concealed, open, doesn't matter, I should be able to carry my firearm if I choose to.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,335
Location
California, USA
More like when the governor signs it. I predict this bill will be bundled with some other bill, likely some sort of fiscal bill, and our poor governor will have no choice but to sign it because of our monetary problems.

We have become a nation of licensure (something the Founders warned us about), we are no longer "free". Unless the governor vetoes the bill, which if he does I'll gladly stand corrected, concealed licensing of our right is in the cards for this state.

California has single issue bills. No bundling. Voting, office holding, and bearing arms were conditioned in some colonies/states upon being landed/free (a form of licensure), not that I agree with that.

Baby steps and simple incrimental constitutional issues before the judiciary will restore the RKBA as much as we can get. Licensing will be challenged. Not yet. Getting some form of carry for the most people is the immediate goal. Sacromento now has a million that could carry loaded if they wanted to.

Even Pennsylvania has $5 licenses to carry openly in cars or Philadelphia.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,335
Location
California, USA
Well this is wonderful.
If this does go through, most of us will have no way to carry at all. Because most of CA is shall not issue CCW licenses. It bull that I will no longer have the option to carry a firearm to protect myself and my family concealed, open, doesn't matter, I should be able to carry my firearm if I choose to.

LUCC is what you'll have. You can also apply for a license and if you get a denial it may provide protection against options we don't usually recommend.

If you UOC you should have a denial anyway for added legal protection against 626.9.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
FYI, read the text. Lists a bunch of professions that this does not apply to, the expected including Police, Guards, etc..etc.. and INSURANCE ADJUSTERS.

How is that compatible with the 14th Amendment? I mean, insurance adjusters? How is that substantively different from "white-collar workers" or even just "white people"? I mean, is there anything at all that makes this issue relevant to insurance adjusters?
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
In KY

our gov. in KY already said guns are still ok in the state house, he has no plans on changing that law, and if neone plans on introducing a bill for mag. restriction it will be vetoed, not that it would pass the house or senate neways.... Everyone should move to KY......great for us gun lovers.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,748
Location
Oregon
This likely will be struck down as unconstitutional as long as U.S. v. Chester is still alive. If Nordyke points to Chester it will give further credence to Chester's analysis of the constitutionality of gun laws. I really think Chester (and its future kin) is going to repeatedly save us from our "representatives".
 

xmattedgex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
83
Location
, ,
LUCC is what you'll have. You can also apply for a license and if you get a denial it may provide protection against options we don't usually recommend.

If you UOC you should have a denial anyway for added legal protection against 626.9.

So you're suggesting that I would carry my gun unloaded in a fully enclosed, locked container. I don't think I can get my gun out and load it fast enough to save my life.

And 626.9 deals with carrying around schools correct? So how does a denial of a CCW give me added legal protection?
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,140
Location
Escondido, California, USA

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
It's funny, with republicans being in control of congress and the president several times in the last 20 years, and they supposidly pro-gun, why hasn't any gun rights laws been passed.

The biggest gun rights law ever passed was under obama (carry in parks) and that's just silly.

It's sad we will have to rely on the Courts and our "representatives" just do whatever pops in their little minds.

This likely will be struck down as unconstitutional as long as U.S. v. Chester is still alive. If Nordyke points to Chester it will give further credence to Chester's analysis of the constitutionality of gun laws. I really think Chester (and its future kin) is going to repeatedly save us from our "representatives".
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
also, fyi, i am considering filing a lawsuit against NYC since there is no provision whatsoever for anyone out of state to carry a gun. you can't enter the city with a gun without a license and they don't provide to out of state people.

obviously an interesting question: if the legal argument is that you can carry a gun in certain places now but you have to get a permit, isn't that mean until you are approved you can't carry a gun? I know it goes back to that you shouldn't have to have a permit for a right, but even more so, in that period where you don't have the permit, your right is being violated. NYC is worse because the cost is fundamentally illegal, but also that it takes months.

 
Top