Ab144

[Keauxbi]

Common sense

Well hopefully they're still allowed to carry loaded weapons openly.
But seriously, the citizens of that state have allowed their government to take over their lives to the point that they will leave them selves at their mercy, unarmed and bent over grabbing their ankles when it comes time to redistribute their lives.
What doesn't make sense to me is that here in Michigan, anyone who can legally possess a handgun can openly carry it, but a select few who go through the hassle of filling out the proper paperwork, paying advance fines/fees and submitting to the booking process up front are allowed to carry concealed . IMO Alaska has the right idea when it comes to self defense.

 

[crossrhodes]

CALI

Just wait for the "big one" and no more problems....just a mad rush to buy beach front property in AZ. I'm glad I left that state had to live there do to the service.

 

[Billy Shears]

Unfortunately, this looks like a case of open-carry activists whose strategy backfired. I'm familiar with the strategy. I've seen it advocated by many on this very forum: exercise your right very publicly, so that people will become used to, and comfortable with the sight of guns being carried. Personally, I never thougt it was very realistic. The proponents of this strategy have always simply dismissed the notion that people might act with alarm (however unjustified) instead. That seems to be what happened in California. As gunsmith Grant Cunningham noted:

This morning I read the news that Governor Moonbeam Brown in California signed off on legislation that prohibits the open carry of handguns (even if unloaded) by the general populous. Given that some of the more vociferous proponents of OC were from CA, it would seem that their “in your face” methods may have backfired.

While I don't live in that state and thus may not be intimately familiar with the timelines involved, it seems that OC came onto the legislative radar when local news outlets got wind of the movement via confrontational videos posted on YouTube. From there it was a short step to getting lawmakers to deal with this major "problem".

Despite my general objection to the way that OC is promoted in certain circles, I take no pleasure in their predicament. It seems to me, though, that if you poke the bear hard enough sooner or later he's going to bite - and the bite is sadly predictable.

It was rather predictable in such a liberal state.

Elsewhere on his site, Cunningham had this to say about this strategy:

On the self defense aspects, I think OC when concealed carry (CC) is available (which is darned near all of the country these days) is silly. I won't debate that point of view at this time, but for now I'll just say that I don't believe OC has any advantage over CC from a tactical standpoint.

On the social and political fronts the situation is a little less clear. I often wonder if the civil rights activists of the 1960s and the gay rights activists of more recent memory would have made the gains they did without their open and sometimes controversial exercise of their rights. Just fifty years ago restaurants and theaters were routinely segregated; thanks to the confrontational activities of civil rights advocates, today integration is so normal that we don't even think about it. The same could be said for abortions and being openly gay.

Whether you agree or disagree with those subjects isn't important to this discussion - what is important is that what was normal was changed, thanks to people who were willing to stand up for their rights and risk ridicule and arrest to mold society's opinions.

To say that such activity was acceptable for them, but not for Second Amendment advocates, seems on the surface to be a little inconsistent.

OC activists insist they're doing the same things for the same reasons, and on the surface it's a hard argument to dismiss. I do think, however, that there is a big difference between open carriers and civil rights marchers: the rights being defended here are already well established (if not in fashion), and are subject to a different standard of comportment. It's called "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

Rosa Parks was doing something that the law said she couldn't. Open carriers are doing something that the law already says they can. That doesn't seem like a huge difference, but it is.

If OC advocates were carrying guns in areas where laws unjustly say they can't, then I'd support them fully. The problem is they're not, and in my opinion that removes the civil rights rationale from their argument. Carrying a gun openly in a city like Portland, where it is against the law, is advocating for change and pushing people to recognize other's civil rights. Doing it in an area where it's allowed, even if uncommon and misunderstood, is usually just grandstanding.

EXACTLY!

I understand the argument that rights which are not exercised are ripe for abrogation, and that OC is a strong exercise of Second Amendment rights. That doesn't mean one needs to do so from a posture of defiant confrontation, which seems to be the norm for open carriers. We already possess those rights, and it's incumbent upon us to exercise them responsibly and intelligently. Like it or not, that means not scaring the public.

Yes, people who are scared of the sight of guns are irrational. I agree. Yes, cops who don't know the nuances of the law are ignorant. I agree. Getting belligerent in public isn't going to change either of those. Want to advocate for actual social change? Open carry in a city where it's illegal; get arrested like the civil right marchers did, then use that to help publicize your case for the repeal of unjust and unconstitutional laws.

That's real political activism. Being a contentious loudmouth on YouTube isn’t.

 

[wyocarp]

I don't see this as having anything at all with those of us that choose to carry openly. California doesn't want you to carry a gun either c:bangheadncealed or openly, so neither method is now legal.

 

[ibthumper]

Please be careful. To many bad things start in the Peoples Republic of California and spread across this great (was?) nation.

 

[9mmepiphany]

California doesn't want you to carry a gun either c:bangheadncealed or openly, so neither method is now legal.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but I live in a major Calif city and we've had a dramatic rise in CCWs issued last year and this year. 5 of my clients have theirs already and 3 more are waiting for their interviews...they are backed up into next year

 

[Sav .250]

That is for law biding citizens ....only!

 

[jahwarrior]

this might be a good thing. CA is notorious for being...fickle, with issuing concealed carry permits. in some counties it's easy, while others will not issue them. now that open carry is illegal, the state might be forced to go shall issue.

 

[Radagast]

There is a discussion over at Calguns that suggests Governor Brown knows this and is pushing for it. Short summary is that Californian courts have rejected shall issue CCW on the grounds that unloaded OC was available, so the 2nd was not infringed.
That reasoning has now been cut out from under them, so a new case may soon see 'may issue' junked for 'shall issue'.

 

[A strange person]

Ah, another item to add to my long list of reasons never to go to California.

IMO Alaska has the right idea when it comes to self defense.

And Vermont.

 

[Colonel]

IMO Alaska has the right idea when it comes to self defense.

And Vermont.

And Arizona and Wyoming.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Welcome Home Guy Meredith, Just don't forget to check for mold behind the ears about midway through winter, our 9 month long rainy season can be a bit wearing on someone not quite used to it. Webbed toes and water-repelling skin grow in with time

Not the most friendly state for OC north of you in the Metro area... but CCW should have been beyond easy to get beyond the 3 hour class, short wait and the fingerprinting.

 

[9mmepiphany]

will not permit the common California resident to carry arms legally.

Did you miss post #31?

 

[Bighouse Doc]

A recent court case( I forget which one) was ruled against RKBA because it said people could still open carry, albeit unloaded.

This would be open to file on the basis of the previous ruling.

-Doc

 

[230therapy]

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but I live in a major Calif city and we've had a dramatic rise in CCWs issued last year and this year. 5 of my clients have theirs already and 3 more are waiting for their interviews...they are backed up into next year

Have you missed the last 40 years of California government behavior?

Citizens must request the government for the privilege of carrying a firearm. I do not see how this is any sort of right.

It seems to me that many of the posters of this thread have forgotten what a right is and how the government is supposed to behave. California officials pass gun restrictions with impunity. They do not fear retribution. They speak openly about full bans. California citizens are mere sources of revenue with a few special privileges; nothing more.

I missed a third option: leave the state. Perhaps this is the best solution for most folks living there who want actual gun rights.

 

[alsaqr]

The Second Amendment means nothing to CA politicians. When CA politicians get scared they enact more gun control.

Prior to 1967 the carry of loaded guns in CA was legal. In 1967 CA politicians were scared of the Black Panthers. The result was the Mulford Act that outlawed the carry of loaded weapons.

In 2011 the CA legislature and governor Brown were scared of folks carrying unloaded guns. The rest is history.

 

[Quiet]

Have you missed the last 40 years of California government behavior?

Citizens must request the government for the privilege of carrying a firearm. I do not see how this is any sort of right.

It seems to me that many of the posters of this thread have forgotten what a right is and how the government is supposed to behave. California officials pass gun restrictions with impunity. They do not fear retribution. They speak openly about full bans. California citizens are mere sources of revenue with a few special privileges; nothing more.

40 years? Need to go back further than that.

Prior to 1924, you could legally open carry a loaded firearm or concealed carry a loaded firearm without needing a permit in CA.

CA's state constitution does not have a "right to bear arms" provision.
That is why the court system had consistantly ruled that CA's anti-gun laws were constitutional.

CA had to wait until 2010, when SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated and applies to the states, to get a "right to bear arms" provision.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Have you missed the last 40 years of California government behavior?

Citizens must request the government for the privilege of carrying a firearm. I do not see how this is any sort of right.

CA's state constitution does not have a "right to bear arms" provision.
That is why the court system had consistantly ruled that CA's anti-gun laws were constitutional.

CA had to wait until 2010, when SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated and applies to the states, to get a "right to bear arms" provision.

Up until the last year, CA government was operating under the state constitution

But this is drifting pretty far OT from the OP which is not about the history of CA firearms law, but this recent Assembly Bill

 

[azmjs]

Have you missed the last 40 years of California government behavior?

Citizens must request the government for the privilege of carrying a firearm. I do not see how this is any sort of right.

It seems to me that many of the posters of this thread have forgotten what a right is and how the government is supposed to behave. California officials pass gun restrictions with impunity. They do not fear retribution. They speak openly about full bans. California citizens are mere sources of revenue with a few special privileges; nothing more.

I missed a third option: leave the state. Perhaps this is the best solution for most folks living there who want actual gun rights.

California residents are sources of revenue for the many states that California taxpayers subsidize.

Why should any public official ever fear retribution for anything he does in his capacity as a legislator? Legislators have the perfect right to vote any way they wish on anything put before them. If anyone should be afraid, mortally afraid even, it is the enemies of freedom who would seek to destroy our freedom by intimidating our public servants.

 

[mortablunt]

I guess the PRCA now can not defend its carry laws. Because OC is pretty much banned and CC is effectively the same to normies, it can be reasonably and successfully assailed in court.

 

[230therapy]

California residents are sources of revenue for the many states that California taxpayers subsidize.

Why should any public official ever fear retribution for anything he does in his capacity as a legislator? Legislators have the perfect right to vote any way they wish on anything put before them. If anyone should be afraid, mortally afraid even, it is the enemies of freedom who would seek to destroy our freedom by intimidating our public servants.

azmjs is the problem in this country because this person does not understand how the system is supposed to work. He or she is, at best, a passive supporter of tyranny. His or her advocacy of the concepts of his post has resulted in the tyrannical state government. Legislators have no "perfect right to vote any way they wish on anything put before them". They are supposed to use the original intent of the state constitution as their primary filter. Violation of original intent is treason and all California legislators swear fealty to the constitution of the state when they enter office. California's laws have deviated from the protection of private property and personal liberties almost to the extreme. Californians operate only at the permission of their government; not the other way around. I doubt there are any "public servants" in California. It is the attitude of azmjs, and millions like this person, which has caused the California government to turn into what it is today.

 

[azmjs]

None of that is true.

It is not the role of the legislature to determine the constitutionality of laws, it is the role of the judiciary.

"Violation of original intent" whatever that means, is not treason. You will be surprised to learn that Treason is defined in the constitution. It does not include this.

In the real world, in the real constitution, there is nothing that suggests government's only legitimate role is to "protect private property and personal liberties."

The opposite of your false belief about how the California government works is true.

In fact, someone who pays attention to what goes on in the world around him would remember immediately that just a few years ago California's residents held a recall election and forced out its governor.

Surely the real problem with our politics and society is those people who invent alternative realities to live in, with fantasy constitutions and made-up laws.

 

[cbrgator]

Legislators have the perfect right to vote any way they wish on anything put before them.

Do they? Even if it violates their oath to protect and defend the state/federal Constitution? Isn't that priority 1?

It is not the role of the legislature to determine the constitutionality of laws, it is the role of the judiciary.

True. But I think it's reasonable we ask legislators to make a good faith effort to factor the Constitution into their decision-making process, don't you? Or should they just vote on everything, regardless of its content or implications, and say, "F it, let the Court sort this out."