Ab144

Open carry was banned in CA in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan.

This law banned the use of unloaded open carry as a way to protest the carry laws in CA.

Unloaded open carry (or unloaded carry of any kind) is not a deterrent or a method of protection in any way shape or form when everyone knows it's unloaded unless it happens to be a 1911 or other steel/metal pistol, then it would make a good club. This law among many others in California are flat out infringing on constitutional rights and nobody does anything about it. What is wrong with this picture?

AB 144 (Portantino) - As Introduced: January 13, 2011

SUMMARY : Makes it a misdemeanor for any person to carry an
exposed and unloaded handgun outside a vehicle upon his or her
person while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city, or in any public place or public street in a
prohibited area of an unincorporated county. Specifically,
this bill :

I assume this is targeted primarily at incorporated cities. I live in an unincorporated area of a city and suspect OC is still legal in my part of said city.

I hope this is challenged ASAP.

gbran said:

I hope this is challenged ASAP.

Click to expand...

Chances are it will be. The NRA usually takes a few days to get their ducks in a row on issues like this, but I suspect they saw this one coming. I'd be surprised if they didn't file suit by the end of this week.

-MW

File suit? On what grounds? The right to bear unloaded arms?

Current CCW laws in CA make it nearly impossible for a person to obtain a permit in most counties. Carrying loaded firearms has been banned for years, as well as concealed carry of any weapon without a permit. Now carrying unloaded handguns openly has been banned.

Second amendment rights in California have pretty much been suspended. Trust me, the NRA will file suit. They've done it before and will more than likely contest this new legislation as well. If you're a member, you've already been receiving emails about how opposed they are to this bill.

-MW

That doesn't answer the question: What would the legal basis be to challenge a law which prohibits openly carrying an unloaded firearm?

That doesn't answer the question: What would the legal basis be to challenge a law which prohibits openly carrying an unloaded firearm?

Click to expand...

There likely is no such basis, though I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

"It does not do anything useful" and "The behavior scares the uninformed; too bad!", while both true, do not rise to a legal injury which can be litigated, IMVHO.

I believe one can look for a SCOTUS decision, this term or next, that will support loaded carry as a right through the 2nd Amendment. But we will have to actually wait that time to find out.

If the law bans 'unleaded carry as a protest over (gun stuff)'
you have to prove that I was protesting

i could have just forgotten it in my rig while walking to starbucks for coffee after practicing my cowboy draws
and now it's up to the DA to prove my protest action
AT the time of carry

I fore see it being struck down if wrote like that.

If the law bans 'unleaded carry as a protest over (gun stuff)'
you have to prove that I was protesting
[...]
I fore see it being struck down if wrote like that.

Click to expand...

I take it that means you haven't actually read the bill before offering that legal analysis.

Read it, basically, once again, reinforces why I'll never set foot in that state
sorry, but like I tell my cousins, you don't know how bad it is until you leave.

All OC is banned, and transporting is now more complicated.

The concern is that with unloaded open carry banned all forms of carry are now pretty much banned. Since there is no option to carry it would violate the 2nd amendment. So the story goes.

I moved to Oregon 5 months ago and feel like I'm on another planet. It is just beyond understanding that California and their ilk can't understand that their neighbor to the north along with a whole lot of others are doing just fine without the need for all the restrictions and the same can apply at home.

I guess it's a case of LA and SF wagging the dog. Perhaps the mangiest individuals gravitate to metro areas and they may need tending, but that should be a local issue.

Oh, boy, my cousin is complaining
sad thing is, he doesn't even own a gun

In a recent court case, a judge ruled that CA's "may issue" CCW system was legal because non-prohibited persons could open carry an unloaded firearm for self-defense as an alternative to getting approved for a CA LTC permit.

Not that unloaded open carry is banned, it removes that reasoning from preventing "shall issue" CCW reform in CA.

File suit? On what grounds? The right to bear unloaded arms?

Click to expand...

How about re-visiting the ruling of Peruta v. County of San Diego? If you take away open carry then the court would have to allow a "shall issue" scheme instead of the current discretionary scheme. That judge said that since Peruta could open/unloaded carry that his 2nd Amendment civil right was not infringed. Now Peruta has neither avenue open, the case needs a new ruling.

Then it's hardly AB144 that's being challenged.

Then it's hardly AB144 that's being challenged.

Click to expand...

No need to challenge AB144, let it live so that Peruta or anyone else, has no legal way to exercise their civil rights. It opens up a door that forces the Federal court in San Diego to rework their decision in favor of "shall issue". Unless I'm missing something here, the reason Peruta lost was because he had open carry as an avenue to exercise his civil right. Now that California has legislated that option away, then a non-discretionary permitting scheme is all that is left. The left has boxed itself in on this one IMHO.

Californians can no longer open carry!

So Californians can no longer open carry an unloaded handgun in public as of yesterday!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brown-guns-20111011,0,5655548.story

Not only that, they've also enacted a number of other fascist laws.
Being discussed here... http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=619176

galapoola said:

How about re-visiting the ruling of Peruta v. County of San Diego? If you take away open carry then the court would have to allow a "shall issue" scheme instead of the current discretionary scheme. That judge said that since Peruta could open/unloaded carry that his 2nd Amendment civil right was not infringed. Now Peruta has neither avenue open, the case needs a new ruling.

Click to expand...

Don't you think that a more logical outcome would be that the court simply overturn the new law?

If you don't believe in "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism," then you are honor bound by your beliefs to instead desire minimalist interference by the judiciary.

Shadow 7D said:

If the law bans 'unleaded carry as a protest over (gun stuff)'
you have to prove that I was protesting

Click to expand...

Actually arguably protesting while armed was already outlawed, if I recall by Ronald Reagan and the legislators back when open carry was outlawed as well.
They didn't want people protesting with firearms, and outlawed both protesting with weapons and open carry of loaded firearms.

PC 12590. (a) Any person who does any of the following acts while engaged in picketing, or other informational activities in a public place relating to a concerted refusal to work, is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(1) Carries concealed upon his person or within any vehicle which is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries a loaded firearm upon his or her person or within any vehicle which is under his or her control or direction.
(3) Carries a deadly weapon.
(4) Wears the uniform of a peace officer, whether or not the person is a peace officer. (b) This section shall not be construed to authorize or ratify any picketing or other informational activities not otherwise authorized by law. (c) Section 12027 shall not be construed to authorize any conduct described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), nor shall subdivision (b) of Section 12031 be construed to authorize any conduct described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).

Click to expand...

Now I don't know if case law has addressed whether all forms of organized armed protest or only those relating to 'concerted refusal to work' were covered.

But the people 'protesting' with unloaded firearms could arguably not actually legally be actively protesting with signs and stuff even before this new legislation.

They had to be quiet, sit or stand with their firearm, not picket.
Being armed while picketing could already be a crime in California.
They certainly could not go within 1,000 feet of school property, which meant they could not travel through almost any city or town while carrying, and could only put on their holstered firearm once at their destination.







Rifle and shotgun registration.
Now the state wants to keep track of all your guns, not just handguns anymore.
We saw it progress with handguns from requiring new purchases/transfers (all transfers must go through an FFL) to be silently registered, to extra felony punishments for those who do various things with unregistered firearms like transport them wrong, to requiring those moving into the state with used handguns to pay money per handgun to register them.

Did we make that leap all at once with long guns or what is the specifics?

Did we make that leap all at once with long guns or what is the specifics?

Click to expand...

AB 809 made the leap all at once, effective Jan 1, 2014 unless prevented somehow.

I believe this is an accurate summary; it might need some tweaking.

1) Transfers of long guns through an FFL will have new data recorded and sent to CA-DOJ via DROS and kept. DROS software will have to be modified, and the bill directs DOJ to do that.

2) Until a firearm is transferred through an FFL, no data recorded or required to be recorded.

3) Intrafamilial transfers of long guns will be reported. New form/new version needed.

4) Personal handgun importer is expanded to personal firearm importer - if you move here, have to report long guns just as now have to report handguns.

5) C&R long guns purchased out of state will have to be reported, as C&R handguns are now. New form/new version needed.

6) In-state C&R long gun transfers must use CA-licensed FFL for C&R long guns, just as in-state C&R handguns now. I think there's an exemption for C&R FFLs with COE.

7) There is currently an exemption from using an FFL to transfer long guns 50 years old and older - when/if this law takes effect, that exemption is repealed.

8) Effective date is January 1, 2014, unless something comes along to change that.