Calif. Gov. Enacts Ban on Open Handgun Carrying

[Frank Ettin]

Al and Tom, IIRC Jerry Brown was educated by the Jesuits.

Originally Posted by skidder

...You can accept the norm, but I will continue doing my job of exposing infringements...

Have at it. It will keep you occupied and out of the way while others tend to business. By the way, have you ever actually accomplished anything?

[Tom Servo]

Al and Tom, IIRC Jerry Brown was educated by the Jesuits.

I've seen several mentions of that lately, and from sources that would imply some relevance. Is there some sort of political ninjutsu the Jesuits teach their kids?

[Frank Ettin]

As I understand it, the foundation of a Jesuit education is order, hierarchy, structure, unity, and methodology. A Jesuit education is noted for intellectual rigor and discipline, including incisive reasoning.

[Johannes_Paulsen]

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.

I had not heard about the reform bill - what was included in that?

I'll be honest, I think it's a (small) step forward it California were to ban open carry but then become less restrictive on issuing licenses to carry a concealed firearm. That just means the state is become more like, well, Texas.

[thallub]

It's all about fear.

Until 1967 the carry of loaded guns in CA was legal. In 1967 the CA police, legislature and governor got really scared: The Black Panthers were carrying loaded guns. In 1967 the legislature passed the Mulford Act. CA governor Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law, outlawing the carry of loaded guns.

Fast forward forty years to CA folks carrying unloaded guns in public. This alarmed the politicians and the police. The rest is history.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in..._Firearms_Laws

[skidder]

fiddletown and Tom-- Steering one person away from a CCW is an accomplishment. Telling someone they can read the the original 2nd amendment, and understand it for themselves, is priceless. Reminding people of the intent of the founding fathers and showing the simplicity of the document can only benefit decisions at the poles. This to you seems like foolishness, but to a "simple minded" person like myself it has great meaning.

Anti-gun activists also love to steer people away from the original, and boast of their intellectual higher understanding. Never had a silver tongue or cared for wrangling words, but I know when enough is said.

Enjoy your intellectual debate.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Last warning.

Ditch the liberal vs. conservative snark - or I will snip your silver tongue or use Alexander's solution to Gordian knot, if you are tongue tied.

[skidder]

Glenn-- I apologize for my choice of words. I changed my last post to reflect what is was intending to say.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's much better and I appreciate it. I hate to have to referee the typical liberal vs. conservative flame wars.

Thanks!

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by skidder

...Steering one person away from a CCW is an accomplishment...

You would consider disauding someone from getting an available CCW, and instead carry a gun illegally, risking the associated adverse consequences (arrest, legal expenses, a criminal record, etc.) an accomplishment? What a strange perspective.

Originally Posted by skidder

...Telling someone they can read the the original 2nd amendment, and understand it for themselves, is priceless.....

Of course, your view of things has nothing to do with the way things actually work in the real world. The opinions of courts affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on the law and the Constitution do not.

People need to understand how things actually work. Otherwise, they risk some very unhappy surprises.

Originally Posted by skidder

..This to you seems like foolishness...

Yes it does.

[BGutzman]

It problem is as always that the courts have not (for whatever reasons) chosen to see the 2A as a Civil right with the same protection as all other civil rights.

If the same level of regulations of law were imposed on the other amendments of the Constitution I think the "people" would clear the governments misunderstanding in a decisive manner, with quickness.

Imagine needing a permit to use your free speech any time you leave your house or having to go through some sort of background check to attend the religious institution of your choice. Need a page limit on you newspaper so it can’t print dangerous news? Same thing as limiting magazine capacity...

Ok we have one some major fights lately but those that came before us failed, utterly and epically failed. The courts should have hammered this out 100 or more years ago and our legislative system should have been prohibited from crossing the line it now cross with impunity.

You cant have a free system when the legislative branch can pass laws in a few days or weeks and it takes decades to repeal or have struck down as unconstitutional law. You also can’t have a free system when the executive branch can simply issue a executive order that not too long ago would have been called a "decree". (Something kings and queens use to do). No legislation, just simply decree.

Somehow somewhere a mechanism needs to exist that can limit the powers of government, once upon the time it was the Constitution.

The mistake was the founders assumed that the values they held dear would always be held dear... Sadly the fact has been far different than what the founders thought.

Anyone who thinks the founding fathers would be ok with our limited 2A needs to go check out the discussion on adding it as an amendment to the constitution... The simple fact was it was passed without hardly a quibble or word as it was one of the few amendments all understood and agreed upon.

I understand we are where we are and some of how we got here but we need as a nation to find or create a mechanism that can review the legislation and executive decrees and protect our rights without having to wait decades....

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BGutzman

...Anyone who thinks the founding fathers would be ok with our limited 2A needs to go check out the discussion on adding it as an amendment to the constitution... The simple fact was it was passed without hardly a quibble or word as it was one of the few amendments all understood and agreed upon....

Not really. The whole Bill of Rights was a contentious issue. Many didn't see the need for it at all.

Originally Posted by BGutzman

...I understand we are where we are and some of how we got here but we need as a nation to find or create a mechanism that can review the legislation and executive decrees and protect our rights....

The Founding Fathers gave us, in the Constitution, the mechanism we now have. It's called "the separation of powers" and gives us "checks and balances."

[Alaska444]

The constitution and bill of rights did well until much of it was circumvented beginning with the executive orders, the Fed, IRS, etc which are really outside of the constitution. The super committee in congress right now is just one more example. We have strayed greatly from what the founding fathers gave us. We have not preserved the separation of powers well and allowed the government to become tyrannical in a much greater sense than anything that King George placed upon the people of 1776.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Alaska444

The constitution and bill of rights did well until much of it was circumvented beginning with the executive orders, the Fed, IRS, etc which are really outside of the constitution. The super committee in congress right now is just one more example. We have strayed greatly from what the founding fathers gave us....

The real point is that whether or not we have strayed from the Constitution is a matter about which there has been and continues to be disagreement. There are those who will disagree with you.

Resolving disagreements about the proper application of law is what courts do. And the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution in Article III, Section 1 that:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

And they provided in Article III, Section 2 that:

The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...

[BGutzman]

Not really. The whole Bill of Rights was a contentious issue. Many didn't see the need for it at all.

The Bill of Rights as a whole may have an issue of some debate but of the items in the Bill of Rights the 2A had virtually no debate, it was accepted in whole. I also think the reason the Bill of Rights may have been seen as not being necessary as it was assumed that the people would have arms to enforce rights, spelled out or otherwise.

If you have any historical links of interest on this I would be open to reading them...

I do think the real issue though is the separation of powers and the ability of the people to have reasonable protection from infringements of rights in a speedy manner.... Decades is not speedy...

[Alaska444]

Dear fiddletown, I suspect that the founding fathers would faint if they saw what we have done with what they gave us. First of all, the Fed is a privately owned bank that tells our government what to do. Our taxation rate is MUUUUUCH higher than what prompted the Boston Tea Party. Executive orders usurp congressional power.

Essentially, if you read the Federalist papers, every safeguard placed in the constitution and bill of rights was to prevent the very system we have evolved into. Thus, going by that measuring line, yes, I contend we have slipped away from the original intentions given to us by the founding fathers. I believe that they would be sickened by what this nation has become especially when looking at the national debt issue which will lead to loss of freedoms. The Federalist papers spell it out in black and white but who lifts them up any longer?

[Al Norris]

It seems that while I've been checking PACER for certain documents and reading other pleadings, this thread has strayed very, very far from its original premise.

Anyone besides me remember that Gov. Brown signed a bill that stripped open carry from CA citizens?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BGutzman

...I do think the real issue though is the separation of powers and the ability of the people to have reasonable protection from infringements of rights in a speedy manner...

I have to agree that resolution of matters through the judicial system as currently operating takes to long. Ideas on how to expedite things would be welcome.

Originally Posted by Alaska444

...if you read the Federalist papers, every safeguard placed in the constitution and bill of rights was to prevent the very system we have evolved into. Thus, going by that measuring line, yes, I contend we have slipped away from the original intentions given to us by the founding fathers....

In your opinion. And others may have different opinions, even based on their readings of the same core documents. You think they are wrong, and they think you are wrong. There is a dispute. Do you believe that you get to resolve that dispute by imposing your will upon those who disagree with you?

The thing is that you may have some very good points about the way things ought to be, and I might well agree with you on at least some of them. I certainly have my own objections to big government, the "nanny state", what I believe is misbegotten social engineering by government, etc. But any improvement, from your perspective or from mine, will require effective use of the existing political and judicial mechanisms.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

...Anyone besides me remember that Gov. Brown signed a bill that stripped open carry from CA citizens?

Sorry, Al. Yes, I do recall that.

[mete]

Deleted. Not related to the discussion.

[Al Norris]

OK folks. Let's get this one back on track.

If you wish to pursue the topic of Federalism, that is, what was envisioned as opposed to what it now has become, open another thread. That would be a valid topic for the L&CR forum.

[Tom Servo]

Sorry, Al. I'm still trying to parse this:

I will snip your silver tongue or use Alexander's solution to Gordian knot, if you are tongue tied.

Joyce would have been proud of that!

Folks are still being pretty tight-lipped. Apparently, Chuck Michel (the attorney in Peruta, and the author of a very good Heller amicus brief) made some rumblings about getting involved. He previously made statements to legislators that AB 144 would lead to shall-issue for California. It seems everybody was aware of this when they pushed it, which makes me wonder why many antis did.

In any case, the Peruta found that there is (oops!) a right to carry outside the home. If open carry isn't an option, that leaves concealed carry.

In a way, this would be a win for Brown. He's resolved the issue both ways by a) getting those pesky exposed weapons out of folks' faces, and b) getting LTC liberalized without looking like he's responsible.

It looks like open carry of any sort in California is likely dead for the forseeable future. I know that some folks are planning on openly carrying long guns around, and that could lead to yet another ban, since AB 144 passed by a comfortable margin.

[BGutzman]

Ideas on how to expedite things would be welcome.

Mandatory Judical Review by a set of 9 "Judges" the moment the ink dries on ANY passed law. This set of judges should only have one mission in life and that is to see if the law constitutional.

Empower the judges to only strike down laws but not confirm laws. In effect if something in the law was deemed unconstitutional then for the protection of the people the whole law should be struck down.

If nothing is found to be unconstitutional then the law goes into effect but is still subject to all the normal reviews of the court system as we do today.

That would help restore some balance and would not change the process of passing laws but simply cause laws to be reviewed before blatently denying rights. It would also be useful because once a particular law is struck down and only micro changes are made to the law and it is passed again to deny rights the action would be prevented. The over and over abuse of power by the legislature would be stopped. the 9 Judges could simply stike the law down again and the legislature wouldnt be able to use laws to deny rights, pending decades of court battle. The same review should apply to each and every presidential decree. (although I personally doubt executive orders as a whole are constitutional)

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

In any case, the Peruta found that there is (oops!) a right to carry outside the home. If open carry isn't an option, that leaves concealed carry.

To be fair (and accurate), the Judge made an assumption that there may be something outside the home, but didn't reach to the merits of that assumption, as unloaded open carry would have satisfied an alternative recourse to concealed carry.

The Judge in Richards piggy-backed onto that assumption.

The result is that 2 Federal District Courts have held that IF carry, outside the home, is part of the right, then UOC was an adequate alternative.

[BGutzman]

deleted