• 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.)

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
Thanks for that correction. I hope I am wrong, but I still say he signs the bill.

While the pro-gun movement takes simple incremental baby steps to restore the RKBA, they take huge leaps at infringing upon our rights. Our progress takes years for simple, single point decisions, theirs takes a single session to wipe out an entire enumerated right. The system is failing...miserably. The CA legislature is out of control. They do not care about the Constitution (state or federal), they do not care about one's rights, they only care about their progessive, socialist agenda.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it doesn't matter what SCOTUS said in Heller, or McDonald. Or even what the 9th said in Nordyke, or will say again in Nordyke part 2, the CA legislature will just keep on passing unconstitutional laws.

ETA: I just looked up Assembly Member Portantino's website. He's in Pasadena...I guess he didn't like the UOC meetup we organized there last year. That's too bad, we had a good time.

I agree, it could also take" decades"maybe even "132 years", Here's one right in the cal-State Constitution
and we still don't have that right with out "Buying a Permit at $48.00.
I'm not stealing the thread, but just for an example read this.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken.

This is really a sad state ! :( Robin47
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
In California you can carry loaded in unincorporated territory as long as discharge is not prohibited by local regulations. If a county prohibits the discharge of firearms within certain areas (which is fairly common), then you cannot carry loaded in those locations.

Not where I live, I'm in an Unincorporated area and there's a county owned park, that's
got a "NO Firearms" sign, and even though its county property, it controlled and enforced
by the BLM.

Figure that one ? Robin47 :(
 

DooFster

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
445
Location
Nellis AFB, Nevada
Can Brady be charged with treason????

Taken from Wikipedia (which I know it's not COMPLETELY reliable):

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.

At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the German Dolchstoßlegende, the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message.

In English law, high treason was punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women), or beheading (royalty and nobility). Treason was the only crime which attracted those penalties (until they were abolished in 1814, 1790 and 1973 respectively).[1] The penalty was used by later monarchs against people who could reasonably be called traitors, although most modern jurists would call it excessive. Many of them would now just be considered dissidents.

In William Shakespeare's play King Lear (circa 1600), when the King learns that his daughter Regan has publicly dishonoured him, he says They could not, would not do 't; 'tis worse than murder: a conventional attitude at that time. In Dante Alighieri's Inferno, the ninth and lowest circle of Hell is reserved for traitors; Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, suffers the worst torments of all: being constantly gnawed at by one of Lucifer's own three mouths. His treachery is considered so notorious that his name has long been synonymous with traitor, a fate he shares with Benedict Arnold, Marcus Junius Brutus (who too is depicted in Dante's Inferno, suffering the same fate as Judas along with Cassius Longinus), and Vidkun Quisling. Indeed, the etymology of the word traitor originates with Judas' handing over of Jesus to the Roman authorities: the word is derived from the Latin traditorem which means "one who delivers."[2]

Christian theology and political thinking until after the Enlightenment considered treason and blasphemy as synonymous, as it challenged both the state and the will of God. Kings were considered chosen by God and to betray one's country was to do the work of Satan.

So in light of this information, I'd say we are DEFINATELY allowed to try them for treason! Who is with me?!? lol...
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
Will these codes ever be applied to legislators who trample our Constitutional rights?
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241

Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

Maybe we can craft these into our letters to our legislators.
 
Last edited:

Joshua Costa

Activist Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
80
Location
San Diego
Would it be appropriate to begin the conversation on what types of slings are best for our long guns? I think we should be prepared for any eventuality that might come out of the law makers.

I have a two point sling for my AR and it seems to sit quite comfortably on my back when I'm walking. I think a 1 point would flop around to much for open carry. I think a three point would hang to low to be comfortable but it's a possibility.

With any other type of non tactical long gun sling I think it will be necessary to carry cross body sling arms on the back. Strong side sling arms would require too much adjustment and would risk a possible brandishing charge. Same goes for weak side muzzle down sling arms. We are going to have to think about some level of handling of the firearm, long guns inevitably get awkward and need adjustment. Maybe adjustment by sling handling only? or maybe shifting the rifle with your elbow only? And what about sitting? I'm thinking a three point would be easier to pull over between your legs to sit down.

This is going to be tricky but as responsible armed citizens we need to accept this possible scenario.
 

JohnD40

New member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
1
Location
USA
OC in vehicle question.

I submitted the letter below to Cali.'s Senate Public Safety Committee regarding AB 144. Given my situation, I am concerned about U.S.C. 18.1.44.926. I am reading that this should be understood as: "This is an entitlement clause providing an exemption from prosecution under State, County, or Local firearms laws IF you CHOOSE TO carry in accordance with this section while traveling interstate." How is this interpretation derived? 926A does not state this verbatim; is this case law? If so, what case has clarified this? I'm confused, can some one answer this or point me to backing of this understanding of 926A so that when I Open Carry in my vehicle I am not in violation?

***************
Oppose AB 144
I urge the Senate Public Safety Committee not to fall for the rhetoric anti-gun extremists are touting about the open carrying of a firearm for the following reason: Being California born and native for 46 years, I relocated to Texas for a year and am now moving back to California as of this coming June 1. I posses lawful concealed firearm permits for the desert states I will be traveling through except California. When I reach the boarder of California my only option is to open carry to defend myself, wife and two children while driving through 158 miles of California desert (2 hr. 36 min., Hwy. 40) where there is little to no law enforcement presence. The California deserts are vary vulnerable to highway robberies and car jacking because of the lack of law enforcement in these remote locations. PLEASE DO NOT BAN OPEN CARRY. Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,
John D
*********************
 

Rexford

New member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
3
Location
Travis AFB, CA
My letter to Senator Wolk

For what its worth. My letter to Senator Wolk.


Good afternoon Senator.

Allow me to introduce myself.

Back in October of 2009 I joined the United States Air Force, it was something completely new to me and my life has changed dramatically because of it. Primarily, I've realized how important it is to protect oneself and those dear to me both at home and abroad as one never knows when or where danger can happen.

I know hold the rank of Airman 1st Class, I continue to train to work within the hospital here on Travis Air Force Base and every day I feel more at home among this family I"ve gained access to within the United States Military.

My name is Paul Berchen, despite all of the good things around me I am quickly becoming alarmed as to my ability to protect myself and my loved ones because of a certain bill AB 144. I understand how it sounds, outlawing the open carry of handguns sounds like a good idea, but what I think this bill does is merely disarm law-abiding citizens, this will not make anyone safer. Criminals don't care about laws, that is why they break them, yes? Criminals will not care about any law passed and will continue to do what they do best.

Prey on the weak for their own gains.

Please tell me Senator, what is weaker then an unarmed citizen?

I am a medic, the LAST thing I wish is for harm to come to my fellow citizens, but if I must defend myself or my loved ones then that is what I will do, my training demands it, my family depends on it. This bill REMOVES the easiest way to do so, with the open carry of an unloaded handgun. Senator I URGE you to vote against this bill, it flies in the face of the 2nd amendment and the right of "The people" to keep and bear arms. It also flies in the face of my personal convictions to protect those around me as a military member.

I understand concealed carry is still an option, but that system is a MAY issue, as opposed to the majority of other states being SHALL issue. I feel as if my right to keep and bear arms is being compromised by this bill AB 144.

Please vote against AB 144, I cannot speak for the rest of the military members I share the mission with to protect America and her interests here and abroad, nor can I speak for the citizens of California and the rest of these United States, but the one voice I have, I use.

Police officers are not obligated to protect civilians, they are mandated to investigate crime AFTER, it has happend, AFTER a murder, or rape, or burgulary. AFTER, lives have been ruined and I suddenly find myself with a situation that could have been stopped with the proper application of self-defense. Supreme court rulings say as much.

One final time I urge you to vote against AB 144. Don't go against the Constitution, Senator...don't disarm the people you swore to serve and represent.

A1C Paul Berchen

Travis AFB.





It seems the other representative in this district was on the commitee that passed AB 144, she voted for it again of course. Senator Wolk will have the chance to vote eventually.
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
To see the changes made from AB1934 to AB144, follow these instructions .

1) Go to http://quickdiff.com/
2) In one pane, copy and paste the text of AB144. Text here: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110113_introduced.html
3) In another pane, copy and paste the text of AB1934. Text here: http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/58924
4) Select "side-by-side" difference mode.
5) Analyze.

There is one huge, glaring difference. Saldana spelled it "slingshot". Portantino spelled it "slungshot".

He was merely cutting and pasting and he still managed to misspell the word. Or maybe he was talking in the past tense.

No wonder he can't get his facts right.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Before anyone writes more letters to the committees or their representatives, I would ask that you think about what you want to say and who you are saying it to. Its also important to know exactly what the proposed law says and how it will personallly impact you.

If the letter is going to the safety committee, we need to address issues that they might not have considered about the impact on public safety. If the letter is going to be to the appropriations committee, we need to address the added costs on the state in emplementing this new law. If you are contacting your senator or assemblyman, you may send a letter, but you should certainly light up their phone to tell them how you feel about the bill- preferably multiple times.

As an example; the proposed law has 26 exemptions- from a public safety standpoint, the emplementation of this law will create enough confusion that police may escalate the application of force unecessarily on people who are not guilty of any crime. The police are not going to memorize who is or isnt exempt as this seldom comes up- they will simply act on the knowledge that exposed handguns are illegal. It may also be added that there have been ZERO incidents of violent crime commited by those who openly carry firearms in California.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
There is one huge, glaring difference. Saldana spelled it "slingshot". Portantino spelled it "slungshot".

He was merely cutting and pasting and he still managed to misspell the word. Or maybe he was talking in the past tense.
"Slungshot" is a real thing, and it's not a slingshot. It's a heckuva impact weapon, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slungshot

Going into a "weapons free" zone like an airliner? A large nut, say 1.5" or so, and 4' of paracord tied into a loop can be turned into a slungshot in about 2 seconds.
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
Will these codes ever be applied to legislators who trample our Constitutional rights?
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241

Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

Maybe we can craft these into our letters to our legislators.

Had there been a court case using these?
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
Had there been a court case using these?

Yes, there have been many. However, I am not aware of any involving gun ownership...yet.

With the recent SCOTUS decision involving the incorporation of the 2nd through the 14th in the McDonald case, this should easily open up state actions of 2A infringement to 18 USC 241 and 242 prosecutions if you believe in a federal government who truly sees the 2A as a fundamental cornerstone of freedom and liberty...and who knows what tomorrow may bring!

But it doesn't hurt to begin the threatening process to our state legislators and enforcers!

They need to feel 18 USC 241 and 242 hanging over their heads!
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
Yes, there have been many. However, I am not aware of any involving gun ownership...yet.

With the recent SCOTUS decision involving the incorporation of the 2nd through the 14th in the McDonald case, this should easily open up state actions of 2A infringement to 18 USC 241 and 242 prosecutions if you believe in a federal government who truly sees the 2A as a fundamental cornerstone of freedom and liberty...and who knows what tomorrow may bring!

But it doesn't hurt to begin the threatening process to our state legislators and enforcers!

They need to feel 18 USC 241 and 242 hanging over their heads!


Hhmmm. Wonder if Portantino and Brown are individuals who would try to understand these.
 
Top