The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 10, 2011, 10:39 AM   #1
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Calif. Gov. Enacts Ban on Open Handgun Carrying

AP story dated 10-10-11 linked from Newsmax, regarding fact that Gov. Brown has signed law banning open carry. As I previously stated, there was never any doubt that he would sign the bill and his justification was that "I listened to the police chiefs." What about listening to the people. Regardless, this was never in doubt, and as always, my state blows big time.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/California...0/10/id/413793
jmortimer is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 10:44 AM   #2
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,461
That is a shame. CA seems to be moving in a different direction from the majority of the rest of the country.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 10:53 AM   #3
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,168
Ridiculous, but [redacted] [CA] has alway had a more liberal view of the world and tended toward anti gun regulations. Their ban on lead ammo in certain areas is a preview of what the anti gunners are trying to do (with much success).

Last edited by Al Norris; October 12, 2011 at 08:52 PM. Reason: removed invective
JWT is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 12:06 PM   #4
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 553
Not surprised, either that Moonbeam signed the law or that he waited until the last day to do so.

It puts CA's "may issue" into a different light versus Heller/McDonald, as at least one justification for the caprice and unequal treatment has been that open carry was an alternative for self-defense when a sheriff or chief was clearly using his "may carry" authority to prevent concealed carry or limit it to friends and the "right people".

Moonbeam may have made a mistake. We'll have to see.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 12:14 PM   #5
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
Not just open, but
Quote:
an exposed and unloaded gun
What the heck is the point of that?

Oh, wait here it is:

Quote:
Supporters say the only person who knows whether the gun is loaded is the person carrying the gun.
True, but is someone who is actually planning on using their weapon to do harm and evil first, actually wear it exposed and in a holster, or second, really give a crap about committing a misdemeanor when they have some degree of murder on their minds?

Seems to me that this might be an effort to make open carry demonstrations unlawful rather than to actually do anything useful. Otherwise, why the "unloaded" specification?
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 12:15 PM   #6
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,109
IMO: What Brown did was a violation of the Second Amendment.

BTW: The OK legislature did the same thing when our concealed carry law came into being: They eliminated open carry.
thallub is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 12:38 PM   #7
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,396
I'll play devil's advocate here. A portion of the gun culture brought this upon themselves.

Unloaded open carry has been legal (as something of a loophole) since 1967. It hasn't been an issue until the last couple of years. What happened? People deliberate turned it into a controversy. It backfired. Now here we are.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 01:37 PM   #8
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,736
Tom is right. The outcome was predicted given the climate in California. However, some argued that the new law would bring folks their way - oh, yeah.

Also, some folks prefer a righteous loss on an issue as compared to small steps towards the goal. There's a psych term for that but I don't remember and am too lazy to research for it.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 01:49 PM   #9
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,396
Quote:
Also, some folks prefer a righteous loss on an issue as compared to small steps towards the goal.
I think it was Tamara who called it "fighting to be seen fighting" as opposed to "fighting to win."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 01:55 PM   #10
shootniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Posts: 1,147
Righteous indignation has caused us to stub our toe several times around the country on these types of issues.

Last edited by shootniron; October 10, 2011 at 02:11 PM.
shootniron is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 02:13 PM   #11
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
I think Gov. Moonbeam is the one that just blinked since this act surely IMPROVES our chances in Federal court with the several cases going through the system at this point. With his /snip/ supporters, he didn't really have any other choice politically, but legally, I believe he just made a fatal mistake as far the right to carry issues. In fact, I am glad he signed it to force the issue.


One of the reasons the San Diego case fell apart was the option to open carry. Now that open carry is no longer available, the arguments for MAY ISSUE is going to be very problematic for the courts in CA.

Any legal experts out there that could comment on this would be greatly appreciated since I am just an interested party, nothing more.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 04:02 PM   #12
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
One of the reasons the San Diego case fell apart was the option to open carry. Now that open carry is no longer available, the arguments for MAY ISSUE is going to be very problematic for the courts in CA.
I agree. The option of open carry has been used by the courts to defend California's may issue permits. Now that defense is gone.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 04:29 PM   #13
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska444
I think Gov. Moonbeam is the one that just blinked since this act surely IMPROVES our chances in Federal court with the several cases going through the system at this point. . . . . <snip> . . . .One of the reasons the San Diego case fell apart was the option to open carry. Now that open carry is no longer available, the arguments for MAY ISSUE is going to be very problematic for the courts in CA.

Any legal experts out there that could comment on this would be greatly appreciated since I am just an interested party, nothing more.
I'm certainly not an expert on the issue, but I think you've got a good point there. From what I've read, California (and other "may issue" jurisdictions) have rested part of their argument on the idea that they haven't infringed on the 2A because everyone could go ahead and carry, even if (in CA's case) they had to do it openly and only with an unloaded gun. Now that that avenue (unloaded open carry) has been eliminated, they're left with fewer ways to defend the denials of CCW permits.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 04:53 PM   #14
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
I ain't no expert either, but some of the commentaries I have heard on the CA cases centered around the fact that we had open carry available. As AG, Gerry understood that legal issue, so it is a bit surprising that he is pandering to his base since it gives more ammunition to the legal overturn of the MAY ISSUE status, or so many hope.

As far as I am concerned, the open carry laws did nothing since there are SO MANY school zones where that is prohibited anyway. As far as provoking the CA legislature to do something about open carry, many are simply stating, DON'T THROW ME IN THAT BRIAR PATCH!
Alaska444 is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 07:25 PM   #15
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,736
Folks we don't use terms like 'libtard' - such cause flame wars.

Folks are pro or antigun. We have liberal and conservative members, so we don't do that here. Simple custom to follow.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 07:54 PM   #16
gbran
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Middle California
Posts: 256
Quote:
Now that open carry is no longer available, the arguments for MAY ISSUE is going to be very problematic for the courts in CA.
I don't agree with this hopeful view. CA will respond that gun owners can still carry unloaded in a locked box. Nothing in Heller or McDonald gave relief to any kind of carry outside the home.
gbran is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 08:18 PM   #17
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Quote:
Today, 05:25 PM #15
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff

Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 9,348
Folks we don't use terms like 'libtard' - such cause flame wars.

Folks are pro or antigun. We have liberal and conservative members, so we don't do that here. Simple custom to follow.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.

Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm

Being an Active Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Fair enough.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 08:32 PM   #18
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Alaska444, the cases you are talking about are 1) Peruta v. San Diego and 2) Richards v. Prieto (was Sykes v. McGuiness). Both of these cases are at the 9th Circuit. Peruta orals are on or about Nov. 1, 2011.

In Peruta, the Judge explicitly knocked down the CC argument as she opined that Unloaded Open Carry (UOC - a uniquely CA term) was sufficient.

In Richards, the Judge reiterated the Peruta decision.

What is interesting in Richards, is that they were due to respond to the defendants, last Friday (Oct. 7th). At the last minute, the Judge agreed to an extension until today (Oct 10th), because of Bill AB144. Their response was to have been tailored by what the Governor did with that bill.

As of about 5 minutes ago, that response was not up on the 9th Circuit PACER account. So I guess we wait (those of us interested in reading this kind of stuff) until either Gene Hoffman, at CalGuns, posts it or it gets posted to PACER.

As for the Peruta case, I'm sure someone is crafting a FRAP 28J letter to supplement their briefings.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 08:51 PM   #19
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Thanks Al, I thought I had heard that was the reasoning in the Peruta case in San Diego. It will be interesting to see if anything changes, but it appears to take away that reasoning altogether.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 09:05 PM   #20
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,816
Thanks for keeping up on this, Al.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 09:14 PM   #21
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
We must also remember that the 9th Circuit can just play "follow the leader" and rule that the Supremes only said, "in the home."

Another interesting tidbit: The bill that allows the CA DOJ to use the DROS fees (Dealer’s Record of Sale) for purposes other than what a fee is supposed to be, when dealing with a fundamental right.

This is bound to strengthen Bauer, et al v. Harris, et al. That's being discussed, here.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 09:23 PM   #22
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
The Ninth Circuit will work in lock-step with the California Legislature, and if possible, make it worse for us stuck here. Only hope is Kennedy siding with the four great Justices on SCOTUS on Second Amendment issues. Otherwise, it will, again, only get worse.
jmortimer is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 09:38 PM   #23
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
The ninth circuit has the highest number of cases overturned by SCOTUS. If SCOTUS doesn't come to our relief, yes, it will only get worse. That is one reason I am looking for my escape from CA. I LOVE living up here in Idaho half the year, but my health care is tied to residency in CA at present so we can't leave entirely at this time but we do have a plan we are putting in action to accomplish that soon. Sadly, CA is just getting too weird for me anymore and I enjoy being able to carry here in Idaho. My wife feels more secure as well.

You are right, putting any hope in the Ninth is a lost cause right from the start. Will SCOTUS step in and even here a case? We will have to wait to see.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 09:46 PM   #24
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,774
Note that while Brown signed bills prohibiting unloaded open carry and requiring registration of long guns, he also signed a LTC reform bill that we RKBA folks wanted. And he vetoed a bill effectively banning the mail order purchase of handgun ammunition.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 10, 2011, 10:05 PM   #25
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Fiddletown, Jerry Brown is an astute politician. This could possibly be one of the slickest things he's ever done.
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13357 seconds with 8 queries