Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: wmenorr67 on October 10, 2011, 07:32:27 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/10/california-gov-enacts-ban-on-open-handgun-carrying/?test=latestnews
The law, AB144, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in a public place.
So a loaded one is fine? >:D
Really just when other states are trying to make open carry legal and the feds are actually thinking of national carry. Things are going to get interesting.
-
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.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/10/california-gov-enacts-ban-on-open-handgun-carrying/?test=latestnews#ixzz1aNbI2Dil
It is 0500 in California right now. Those govt guys are hard workers for a holiday Monday morning.
-
I'm sure I will always miss the beaches and the weather
-
Actually the legal experts on gun rights in CA seem to be looking at this as a good thing. I don't have the full background, as all the legalese here is incredibly confusing. The gist of it is that apparently during one of the last fights for "shall issue" a judge brought up the point that any Californian can carry a firearm OC unloaded, and if they needed to protect themselves, they simply had to load it, so there was no need for shall issue. ;/
Now that unloaded OC has been banned, my understanding is that the progressives may have shot themselves in the foot, because they just banned their previous "out" on shall issue. I'll have to hop over to Calguns and see what the lawyers there are saying. On the face of it though, between this and national reciprocity (if it passes) there is a very strong case for CA shall issue.
-
The gist of it is that apparently during one of the last fights for "shall issue" a judge brought up the point that any Californian can carry a firearm OC unloaded, and if they needed to protect themselves, they simply had to load it, so there was no need for shall issue. ;/
Hey, that's what cops do, right? =)
-
Actually the legal experts on gun rights in CA seem to be looking at this as a good thing. I don't have the full background, as all the legalese here is incredibly confusing. The gist of it is that apparently during one of the last fights for "shall issue" a judge brought up the point that any Californian can carry a firearm OC unloaded, and if they needed to protect themselves, they simply had to load it, so there was no need for shall issue. ;/
Now that unloaded OC has been banned, my understanding is that the progressives may have shot themselves in the foot, because they just banned their previous "out" on shall issue. I'll have to hop over to Calguns and see what the lawyers there are saying. On the face of it though, between this and national reciprocity (if it passes) there is a very strong case for CA shall issue.
Just wondering when Ill-i-noise will get out of the dark ages....
-
It is 0500 in California right now. Those govt guys are hard workers for a holiday Monday morning.
The only time the government works hard is when they are trying to grab more power.
-
Actually the legal experts on gun rights in CA seem to be looking at this as a good thing. I don't have the full background, as all the legalese here is incredibly confusing. The gist of it is that apparently during one of the last fights for "shall issue" a judge brought up the point that any Californian can carry a firearm OC unloaded, and if they needed to protect themselves, they simply had to load it, so there was no need for shall issue. ;/
Now that unloaded OC has been banned, my understanding is that the progressives may have shot themselves in the foot, because they just banned their previous "out" on shall issue. I'll have to hop over to Calguns and see what the lawyers there are saying. On the face of it though, between this and national reciprocity (if it passes) there is a very strong case for CA shall issue.
That's my understanding on the Unloaded OC, most felt it was better that CA put themselves in a legal corner, than whatever good the few OC activists around CA were doing.
However, I'm trying to find the status on some other very bad anti-gun bills Brown either signed, or allowed to passively pass, such as ammunition registration.
Never mind. I guess he vetoed it, and what may-issue CCW there is in CA, it got a little reform I guess, perhaps removing some cronyism.
However, the other two bills, now all long-guns require registration starting in 2014, and DROS background fees can be given directly to the DOJ, (presumably the money was given for hunting or shooting range support before?) Are not good.
-
Yeah, the long gun (including shotguns for the fuds) sucks. I have hope that it will yet have the kibosh put upon it. Didn't the supremes rule on long gun registration being unconstitutional?
I'm surprised but very glad that he didn't sign the ammo crap.
-
What a crappy state =(
So does this mean you can't hunt anything with handguns anymore ???
-
Just wondering when Ill-i-noise will get out of the dark ages....
Ask and you shall receive:
Moore v Madigan (http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26176&st=0) & Shepard v Madigan (http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26175)
Those are the two barrels we have pointed at the GA for the fall veto session. It seems that the Judge(s) is/are waiting to rule on the injunction(s) until then. If the GA fails to act, then they'll have to.
Oh, and we've picked up a Chicago Democrat. LaShawn Ford is more than likely a yes. With him and the three R's that voted no (who are getting pounded by the leadership), that brings us to 69 of the 71 votes we need to pass, and veto proof at that. There are rumblings that we might have the votes now.
-
Yeah, the long gun (including shotguns for the fuds) sucks. I have hope that it will yet have the kibosh put upon it. Didn't the supremes rule on long gun registration being unconstitutional?
I'm surprised but very glad that he didn't sign the ammo crap.
The silver lining might be that long-gun registration wakes the fudds up, and gun owners start gaining some critical mass as a voting block.
But that's probably on the too little, too late side of things.
And now my understanding of Brown's veto of the ammo registration bill is that he's simply waiting on some court cases to finish up, then the legislature will make another run at it, which he'll presumably sign. :P
-
Ask and you shall receive:
Moore v Madigan (http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26176&st=0) & Shepard v Madigan (http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26175)
Those are the two barrels we have pointed at the GA for the fall veto session. It seems that the Judge(s) is/are waiting to rule on the injunction(s) until then. If the GA fails to act, then they'll have to.
Oh, and we've picked up a Chicago Democrat. LaShawn Ford is more than likely a yes. With him and the three R's that voted no (who are getting pounded by the leadership), that brings us to 69 of the 71 votes we need to pass, and veto proof at that. There are rumblings that we might have the votes now.
Part of it was rhetorical grousing. I know about the injunction, and the other lawsuits floating out there.
We shall see. We shall see.
-
And now my understanding of Brown's veto of the ammo registration bill is that he's simply waiting on some court cases to finish up, then the legislature will make another run at it, which he'll presumably sign. :P
Yeah, I just saw that in an NRA email this morning. The ammo bill burns me up more than anything else. They had already tried something similar (minus the thumbprint) around 30 years ago. They abandoned it because it did nothing but cost money. But here we go again. Time wounds all heels, or something like that...
-
Yeah, I just saw that in an NRA email this morning. The ammo bill burns me up more than anything else. They had already tried something similar (minus the thumbprint) around 30 years ago. They abandoned it because it did nothing but cost money. But here we go again. Time wounds all heels, or something like that...
In California?
From 1968, to 1986, due to the GCA, until the FOPA did away with it, everyone had to sign a log book for ammo purchases. :P
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_yhfaur8OkQ0%2FSvxDzPUUAbI%2FAAAAAAAAAsc%2FGUHe_eon2x8%2Fs320%2FFUUUU.jpg&hash=036676d222a40ad1ae9693ef5fe6d2dc72841586)
And here I was all going to have my pistol shipped up to me. =|
What is this ammo registration bill?
-
Actually the legal experts on gun rights in CA seem to be looking at this as a good thing. I don't have the full background, as all the legalese here is incredibly confusing. The gist of it is that apparently during one of the last fights for "shall issue" a judge brought up the point that any Californian can carry a firearm OC unloaded, and if they needed to protect themselves, they simply had to load it, so there was no need for shall issue. ;/
Now that unloaded OC has been banned, my understanding is that the progressives may have shot themselves in the foot, because they just banned their previous "out" on shall issue. I'll have to hop over to Calguns and see what the lawyers there are saying. On the face of it though, between this and national reciprocity (if it passes) there is a very strong case for CA shall issue.
Peruta v. San Diego is one case where the judge explicitly cited open carry being allowed as why the "good cause" restriction on may issue didn't unreasonably infringe. It's been appealed already and this law gives them good ammo as they go to the Court of Appeals as it'll be tough for the Court/state to suddenly change their reasoning.
Note that, post-McDonald, Nordyke's enbanc hearing is hinging not on whether carry is a right but whether the fairgrounds are a "sensitive place" where it can be restricted; the ability to carry in some form outside the home is already taken as a given in an existing 9th Circuit opinion.
-
Peruta v. San Diego is one case where the judge explicitly cited open carry being allowed as why the "good cause" restriction on may issue didn't unreasonably infringe. It's been appealed already and this law gives them good ammo as they go to the Court of Appeals as it'll be tough for the Court/state to suddenly change their reasoning.
Note that, post-McDonald, Nordyke's enbanc hearing is hinging not on whether carry is a right but whether the fairgrounds are a "sensitive place" where it can be restricted; the ability to carry in some form outside the home is already taken as a given in an existing 9th Circuit opinion.
This better turn out for the better, or I will be so angry!... I might just write a letter.
-
Considering the 9th usually is to the left on these issues and has already ruled in the good for us side that is a big plus.
-
In California?
From 1968, to 1986, due to the GCA, until the FOPA did away with it, everyone had to sign a log book for ammo purchases. :P
Hey gimme a break - I was a youngster at the time! :P
I just remember for a while I could by 44mag ammo, then I couldn't because I wasn't 21. I remember the signing ammo into a book, but for some reason don't remember that being the case when I first started buying it (though that was shotgun ammo, so maybe they didn't include that).
-
( long gun) Registration will fail before 2014 ( when it goes into effect ).
Unloaded open carry is useless, most urban places where you would need to carry you cant due to gun free school zones.
I'm not sure about the ammo thing, I think it got vetoed anyway.
CA will be shall issue in one to 3 years. Same with national reciprocity.