Ab144

Discussion in 'Legal' started by SwissArmyDad, Oct 10, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SwissArmyDad

    SwissArmyDad Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    490
    Signed into existance this morning:

    The associated press
    Monday, Oct. 10, 2011 | 4:08 a.m.

    Gov. Jerry Brown's says he has signed a measure that bans the open carrying of handguns in California.

    The law, AB144, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in a public place.

    The governor's office made the announcement in a statement early Monday morning. Brown has been rushing to sign dozens of measures sent to him by lawmakers.

    Top California law enforcement officials supported the legislation.

    The Los Angeles Times reports that Brown said he had "listened to the police chiefs."

    Supporters say the only person who knows whether the gun is loaded is the person carrying the gun. Opponents say the bill is one of many assaults on the public's Second Amendment rights.
     
  2. Quiet

    Quiet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,114
    Location:
    bouncing between the 909 & the 702
    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.
     
  3. SwissArmyDad

    SwissArmyDad Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    490
    Thanks Quiet, for the distinction. The blurb I copied and pasted didn't clarify that.

    (Edited my post, sorry. Don't/didn't want to incite a political debate. My intent was to report on what was happening in California. The merits of UOC, OC, and CCW are probably best left out of this. Maybe we can just post up any facts we find about the legal proceedings concerning 2nd Amend. rights)

    Cheers, all.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2011
  4. Rail Driver

    Rail Driver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,525
    Location:
    Quincy, FL
    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?
     
  5. SwissArmyDad

    SwissArmyDad Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    490
    I just was reading that these were also "weighed-in" on by Gov. Brown:

    AB809 Long Gun Registration (anti) ------January 1, 2014.

    SB819 Redirection of DROS Fees (anti) ---Immediately.

    AB144 Unloaded Open Carry Ban (anti) ---January 1, 2012

    SB610 LTC Reform (pro-gun) ------------Immediately.

    AB427 Handgun Ammunition (anti) -------VETOED.
     
  6. gbran

    gbran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Location:
    california
    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.
     
  7. MovedWest

    MovedWest Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    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
     
  8. Birch Knoll

    Birch Knoll Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    943
    Location:
    China, ME
    File suit? On what grounds? The right to bear unloaded arms?
     
  9. MovedWest

    MovedWest Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    498
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    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
     
  10. Birch Knoll

    Birch Knoll Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    943
    Location:
    China, ME
    That doesn't answer the question: What would the legal basis be to challenge a law which prohibits openly carrying an unloaded firearm?
     
  11. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    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.
     
  12. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,004
    Location:
    Frozen North
    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.
     
  13. Birch Knoll

    Birch Knoll Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    943
    Location:
    China, ME
    I take it that means you haven't actually read the bill before offering that legal analysis.
     
  14. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,004
    Location:
    Frozen North
    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.
     
  15. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,383
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    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.
     
  16. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,004
    Location:
    Frozen North
    Oh, boy, my cousin is complaining
    sad thing is, he doesn't even own a gun
     
  17. Quiet

    Quiet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,114
    Location:
    bouncing between the 909 & the 702
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2011
  18. galapoola

    galapoola Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    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.
     
  19. Birch Knoll

    Birch Knoll Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    943
    Location:
    China, ME
    Then it's hardly AB144 that's being challenged.
     
  20. galapoola

    galapoola Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    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.
     
  21. Downr@nge

    [email protected] Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    Atlantic County New Jersey
  22. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,952
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
  23. azmjs

    azmjs member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    478
    Location:
    Sunny Phoenix
    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.
     
  24. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,288
    Shadow 7D said:

    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.


    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?
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2011
  25. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice