CA---Another open carry ban looms [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : CA---Another open carry ban looms


Sam Spade
06-27-2012, 15:07
As you may know, CA used to allow open carry of unloaded handguns. OC activists, looking to "normalize" OC and "desensitize" the public to weapons while "educating" police on their rights, ended up instead getting OC outlawed.

Undeterred, several activists (including at least one here, IIRC) pointed out that they would continue the good fight with long guns, which were still legal for CA OC. They apparently did their best, showing up at a series of gatherings.

Can anyone guess where this is headed? Yup--the bill to outlaw open carry of long guns has just cleared committee.

www.Altadena.patch.com It's AB1527.

Dragoon44
06-27-2012, 15:33
I guess the OC rights crowd are not releasing any press releases about the "fruits" of their efforts.

RussP
06-27-2012, 15:35
Would this strengthen a constitutional court case?

Dragoon44
06-27-2012, 15:45
Would this strengthen a constitutional court case?

I would think it would be grounds to attempt a Constitutional challenge under the 2nd amendment. But I would not look for it to go anywhere. So Far SCOTUS has shown no inclination to support carry whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want. They have simply ruled out bans on ownership.

Bruce M
06-27-2012, 16:13
I wonder how true the saying "As California goes so goes the nation" may be in the future.

Jon_R
06-27-2012, 16:13
Would this strengthen a constitutional court case?

I hope so.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To me
Keep = Own
Bear = To Carry
Not be infringed.... :whistling:

twag4
06-27-2012, 16:20
I wonder how true the saying "As California goes so goes the nation" may be in the future.

It seems to be the opposite when regarding firearms. I cannot recall a time when more concealed carry and open carry existed. I guess the 1800s, but there were far fewer people then. Lots of states with stand your ground laws, open carry is on the rise, concealed carry permits being issued at record levels in many states. I say to he// with California!

TBO
06-27-2012, 16:31
I would think it would be grounds to attempt a Constitutional challenge under the 2nd amendment. But I would not look for it to go anywhere. So Far SCOTUS has shown no inclination to support carry whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want. They have simply ruled out bans on ownership.
:agree:

Think what affect the next US Supreme Court Justice pick or two could have on things...

Drain You
06-27-2012, 17:42
California sucks.


/thread

dstanley66
06-27-2012, 18:04
California is a beautiful state run by a bunch of dumb *****, that want's to take your rights away, for oc or cc what is the difference from the 1800's to the early 1900;s ? Could it be alot more crime & murders now?

steveksux
06-27-2012, 18:23
I would think it would be grounds to attempt a Constitutional challenge under the 2nd amendment. But I would not look for it to go anywhere. So Far SCOTUS has shown no inclination to support carry whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want. They have simply ruled out bans on ownership.

I hope so.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To me
Keep = Own
Bear = To Carry
Not be infringed.... :whistling:
I would think complete ban on bearing would stand the same chance of being constitutional as a complete ban on keeping based on the wording.

The trick is someone getting standing. That probably means someone's going to have to get arrested, fight it all the way.

Who's got the cojones to step forward? Anyone know how long it took for Heller to wind its way through the system until he finally prevailed at SCOTUS? What did it cost out of pocket, and how much was covered in donated time by attorneys and donations from pro 2A folks/organizations?

Someone's got to want it really bad to ride it through to the bitter end. I think Dragoon is probably right on the practical aspect, and Jon is right on the theoretical aspect.

Doesn't Chicago have a case winding its way through the system regarding ownership?

Has anyone tried challenging the CA OC pistol laws? Any cases pending? With all the guys posting their unloaded OC experiences in CA there's no shortage of people who could be motivated to give it a shot.

Randy

porschedog
06-27-2012, 18:52
Hey Mexico, do you still want California?
You can have it if you agree to take all the libtards, too
Yes, that includes nancy pelosi and Diane Feinstein

Thx-1138
06-27-2012, 21:54
Hey Mexico, do you still want California?
You can have it if you agree to take all the libtards, too
Yes, that includes nancy pelosi and Diane Feinstein

+1, if it includes the debt and unfunded liabilities (i.e. state pensions) that CA currently has.

The rest of us can still visit the beautiful beaches on vacation.

TKM
06-27-2012, 22:31
Just think of all of the granola eating, bunny hugging, tree climbing friends of nature that left your home town to move to my home town, now go ahead and blame us.

We let your retards move here and vote.

You let them move in the first place.:steamed:

Quiet
06-28-2012, 02:26
The day the ban on the open carrying of unloaded handguns went into effect, the same people who open carried unloaded handguns as a political statement, went out and got news coverage of themselves open carrying unloaded CA legal AR15 type rifles.

The proposed legislation to ban the open carrying of unloaded long guns is a response to that activity.

Has anyone tried challenging the CA OC pistol laws? Any cases pending? With all the guys posting their unloaded OC experiences in CA there's no shortage of people who could be motivated to give it a shot.
Background info...
The CA state constitution does not have a "right to bear arms" provision.
It wasn't until SCOTUS ruled, in 2010, that the Second Amendment was incorporated that CA finally got a "right to bear arms".
This is the reason why, prior to 2010, almost all of CA's gun control laws were ruled to be consitutional by the Courts.

In 11-2011, a lawsuit was filed to challenge CA's 1967 ban on open carrying loaded firearms in public places.
Currently, the lawsuit has relatively no support from CA's pro-gun community due to how weak the case and the fact that the litigant & lawyers for the litigant refuse to take any advice from Alan Gura (lawyer involved in both SCOTUS decisions), CGF, SAF or the NRA. Refusal has to do with a combination of factors, most being the litigant does not think they (CGF/SAF/NRA) knows what they (CGF/SAF/NRA) are doing.

jph02
06-28-2012, 08:10
As you may know, CA used to allow open carry of unloaded handguns...
This makes no sense to me.

...In 11-2011, a lawsuit was filed to challenge CA's 1967 ban on open carrying loaded firearms in public places.
Currently, the lawsuit has relatively no support from CA's pro-gun community due to how weak the case and the fact that the litigant & lawyers for the litigant refuse to take any advice from Alan Gura (lawyer involved in both SCOTUS decisions), CGF, SAF or the NRA...
This does not bode well for a good outcome of this case. That will end up being a set-back for all of us unless the decision is so narrow as to only apply to CA. Even then, it will not be good.

nosuchagency
06-28-2012, 09:30
antagonizing the powers that be in such a bass-akward state; imo (and stating the painfully obvious), it would pretty much be an expected response...

taking my favorite line from any movie (copland - where figs also explains to freddy within same scene about jagging through traffic, instead of attacking it head on):

figs: being right isn't a bullet-proof vest...

TBO
06-28-2012, 18:47
"Rights are like muscles, and must be flexed (in someone's face) to remain strong. "

Satirical quote used to emphasize an issue with delivery and forum.

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

Mister_Beefy
06-29-2012, 00:24
the government attempts to further restrict rights, and government employees mock those that were against the restrictions while clucking their tongues and saying "I told you so"

Sam Spade
06-29-2012, 07:46
the government attempts to further restrict rights, and government employees mock those that were against the restrictions while clucking their tongues and saying "I told you so"

My concern about the method, and low opinion of the practitioners, is not an endorsement of the restrictions.

And yes, I did tell you so.

Mayhem like Me
06-29-2012, 07:56
I hope so.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To me
Keep = Own
Bear = To Carry
Not be infringed.... :whistling:


Jon a serious question do you think the SCOTUS would somehow , not support states rights to regulate how weapons are carried.

This SCOTUS would not be where I wanted the case to go now...

John Rambo
06-29-2012, 08:02
People carry unloaded guns?

Like, just carry them around?

I'm a gun guy and that pisses me off. Its pretty much assured with the anti-gun culture of CA, they're going to wreck what little 2A freedom they have. Good going, guys.

Jon_R
06-29-2012, 08:06
Jon a serious question do you think the SCOTUS would somehow , not support states rights to regulate how weapons are carried.

This SCOTUS would not be where I wanted the case to go now...

It is my position and I think supported by the court that federal law overrules state law. If the supreme court agrees with me that bear = to carry then infringment is not lawful under the 2nd amendment or at least a ban (huge infringement) on "to bear" is certainly unconstitutional.

States can chip away at some fringe or grey area but they can't just choose to ignore the 4th amendment or any of the other ones. Not sure why the 2nd has not been treated that way.

We need some test cases. I am a little tied up right now working and feeding my kids and such so any takers? Need to get someone arrested for "bearing / caring" a gun and start the process. If not with this SC then when? Seems a logical extension of Heller and McDonald that addressed the "keep".

Jon_R
06-29-2012, 08:09
People carry unloaded guns?

Like, just carry them around?

I'm a gun guy and that pisses me off. Its pretty much assured with the anti-gun culture of CA, they're going to wreck what little 2A freedom they have. Good going, guys.

It was the only option they had. Now they lost that ability effectively banning carrying (bearing) of firearms so test case time.... At least force the issue of May vs. Shall Issue for permits. You don't have to prove you need freedom of speech or prove you need protection from self incrimination... Well maybe that one you do. :whistling:

oldman11
06-29-2012, 08:09
I wonder how true the saying "As California goes so goes the nation" may be in the future.
California would like to think so.

John Rambo
06-29-2012, 08:28
It was the only option they had. Now they lost that ability effectively banning carrying (bearing) of firearms so test case time.... At least force the issue of May vs. Shall Issue for permits. You don't have to prove you need freedom of speech or prove you need protection from self incrimination... Well maybe that one you do. :whistling:

Its their own fault. They should stop electing the kind of people they elect.

We should loan 'em Rick Scott for a year or so to clean their act up....for a nominal fee.

Bren
06-29-2012, 08:35
Undeterred, several activists (including at least one here, IIRC) pointed out that they would continue the good fight with long guns, which were still legal for CA OC. They apparently did their best, showing up at a series of gatherings.

Can anyone guess where this is headed? Yup--the bill to outlaw open carry of long guns has just cleared committee.

www.Altadena.patch.com It's AB1527.

Seems like that should have been so obvious my dog could have figured it out. :upeyes:

jph02
06-29-2012, 16:30
...If the supreme court agrees with me that bear = to carry then infringment is not lawful under the 2nd amendment...

We need some test cases...If not with this SC then when?...

...This SCOTUS would not be where I wanted the case to go now...
I agree bear = to carry just as keep = own. I also agree we need some test cases. But, I also agree not this SCOTUS! These are the people that struck down the individual mandate under the Commerce clause and then upheld the penalty for not buying insurance under the Taxation clause. wtf? Good job, Justice Roberts. :faint:

Mister_Beefy
06-29-2012, 17:11
its disgusting to me that in CA you can't excersize your rights for fear they'll be restricted further.

and its disgusting to me that people here (who just happen to be cops and/or govt employees) seem to be not only A-OK with it, but are actually smug about being right rather than being appalled at the attack on freedom.

I guess when you're with big machine, it's better to be right than to be free.

Sam Spade
06-29-2012, 17:24
its disgusting to me that in CA you can't excersize your rights for fear they'll be restricted further.

and its disgusting to me that people here (who just happen to be cops and/or govt employees) seem to be not only A-OK with it, but are actually smug about being right rather than being appalled at the attack on freedom.

I guess when you're with big machine, it's better to be right than to be free.

Why should I be outraged or appalled by what's going on in that lost land? They made their bed, they can lay in it; at least the state and its OC activists can serve as a warning to others where there's still hope.

The man who refuses to govern himself will find himself governed by others. You can write that down.