Open Carry banned!!!

**pgg** · 10-11-11, 12:44 AM

Open carry has now been banned in CA.

New law bans open carry of handguns in California | PressDemocrat.com

New law bans open carry of handguns in California
By SHEILA V KUMAR
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: Monday, October 10, 2011 at 11:08 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, October 10, 2011 at 11:08 a.m.
SACRAMENTO — California will become the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced early Monday he had signed the ban into law amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

Enlarge In this May 5, 2011 file photo Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D- La Canada Flintridge, speaks before the Assembly at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown has signed Portantino's measure that makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles. Violators will face up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect Jan. 1. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, file)
AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect Jan 1.

**Xiphos** · 10-11-11, 02:04 AM

Home of the Illegal Immigrant and Land of the Enslaved Taxpayer

**Rhino** · 10-11-11, 02:05 AM

RIP 2nd Amendment.

**Xiphos** · 10-11-11, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Rhino

RIP 2nd Amendment.

Shhh! They banned the word "Second" too. You just committed a felony.

**MacLean** · 10-11-11, 02:07 AM

Court case.

CA Supreme court will rubber stamp it.

9th Circuit will rubber stamp it unless they got the message last time.

SCOTUS will shove it up their rear end.

**pgg** · 10-11-11, 02:13 AM

I'd like to see SCOTUS shove the AWB and the handgun list up their rear end also

**MacLean** · 10-11-11, 02:14 AM

The AWB is more ambiguous at this point.

Laws that restrict the carrying or possession of self defense firearms were clearly intended to be protected by Heller and MacDonald.

**bayern** · 10-11-11, 08:51 AM

a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public

And if its loaded????

**pgg** · 10-11-11, 10:01 AM

If it was loaded it was already a crime.

**bayern** · 10-11-11, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by pgg

If it was loaded it was already a crime.

Yeah, your right, my mistake. Only in California.................

**MacLean** · 10-11-11, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by pgg

If it was loaded it was already a crime.

Obviously, we can't have anyone defending themselves.

**Xiphos** · 10-11-11, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by MacLean

Obviously, we can't have anyone defending themselves.

The government will defend them. And if cutting staffing, pay, and benefits at LE agencies results in a response too slow to help you, the government will bond out the offender and parole him if he's convicted. Californians have nothing to fear.

**MacLean** · 10-12-11, 05:34 PM

I don't care if they doubled pay and doubled the street presence.

Until they assign a cop to every person, the duty to defend yourself falls upon you.

**McCrackhd** · 10-13-11, 12:56 AM

Did y'all miss the part where it said you can get a permit to carry the gun? They are not saying that people cannot carry handguns on their person, only that they cannot open carry. The CA open carry law was stupid anyway. Why would you want to walk around with a plainly visible gun that the criminals (who are carrying loaded guns) know is probably unloaded??? I'm all in favor of carrying firearms for personal protection. But they should be loaded, and you should have to have a permit to carry openly. I know that this statement goes against most of your delicate sensibilities. But, why not make some deterence to criminals to open carry. I mean, if I understand correctly, under the old open carry law in CA, an officer may inspect the gun to insure that it is not loaded. Beyond that, assuming that the gun isn't loaded, the officer cannot run the subject's name and history. Granted, I know that most criminals aren't going to be walking around with a visible unloaded pistol. But, they could if they wanted, and if they were a person prohibited, you would have no way of knowing cause you can't run him/her. If they weren't already, it was only a matter of time. The second amendment is for the construction of militias to protect the country. Not necessarily so Joe Blow can walk around with a .45 on his hip cause he thinks it's his right.

**luckyme** · 10-13-11, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by MacLean

Until they assign a cop to every person, the duty to defend yourself falls upon you.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

**Xiphos** · 10-13-11, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by McCrackhd

Did y'all miss the part where it said you can get a permit to carry the gun? They are not saying that people cannot carry handguns on their person, only that they cannot open carry. The CA open carry law was stupid anyway. Why would you want to walk around with a plainly visible gun that the criminals (who are carrying loaded guns) know is probably unloaded??? I'm all in favor of carrying firearms for personal protection. But they should be loaded, and you should have to have a permit to carry openly. I know that this statement goes against most of your delicate sensibilities. But, why not make some deterence to criminals to open carry. I mean, if I understand correctly, under the old open carry law in CA, an officer may inspect the gun to insure that it is not loaded. Beyond that, assuming that the gun isn't loaded, the officer cannot run the subject's name and history. Granted, I know that most criminals aren't going to be walking around with a visible unloaded pistol. But, they could if they wanted, and if they were a person prohibited, you would have no way of knowing cause you can't run him/her. If they weren't already, it was only a matter of time. The second amendment is for the construction of militias to protect the country. Not necessarily so Joe Blow can walk around with a .45 on his hip cause he thinks it's his right.

I don't think that any of us are going to argue with you on the tactical wisdom of open carry.

The bigger issue is that this is the continued erosion of gun rights in one of the most restrictive states in the country. In many places citizens can't get a CCW because their chief LEO won't approve it, so open carry may have been their only means to have a firearm legally on them.

Being in a state with almost no restrictions at all on firearms, I can personally attest it's not a big deal and there aren't the gun problems anti-gunners cry about.

**pgg** · 10-13-11, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by McCrackhd

Did y'all miss the part where it said you can get a permit to carry the gun? They are not saying that people cannot carry handguns on their person, only that they cannot open carry. The CA open carry law was stupid anyway. Why would you want to walk around with a plainly visible gun that the criminals (who are carrying loaded guns) know is probably unloaded??? I'm all in favor of carrying firearms for personal protection. But they should be loaded, and you should have to have a permit to carry openly. I know that this statement goes against most of your delicate sensibilities. But, why not make some deterence to criminals to open carry. I mean, if I understand correctly, under the old open carry law in CA, an officer may inspect the gun to insure that it is not loaded. Beyond that, assuming that the gun isn't loaded, the officer cannot run the subject's name and history. Granted, I know that most criminals aren't going to be walking around with a visible unloaded pistol. But, they could if they wanted, and if they were a person prohibited, you would have no way of knowing cause you can't run him/her. If they weren't already, it was only a matter of time. The second amendment is for the construction of militias to protect the country. Not necessarily so Joe Blow can walk around with a .45 on his hip cause he thinks it's his right.

The problem with that though is CA is a may issue state. There are only about 3 counties that I can recall off hand that are pretty decent about issuing permits. Most of the other ones it is basically impossible to get a permit so citizens now I have zero ability to defend themselves

I also take issue with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

**dot4x4** · 10-13-11, 11:47 AM

I am in CA and I live in one of the more "friendly" counties to get a CCW permit. I am a Sworn Peace Officer as defined by California Penal Code. I work in Corrections so I don't carry a pistol as part of my "Regular daily duties". Because of this I am in "Limbo" when it comes to carry. On Paper I can carry off duty as I am PC 832 trained and a Sworn Peace Officer. In reality I am not willing to become the "Test Case" on the letter of the law. Even with all of this I still need to pay almost $300 for a CCW class, then another $140 for the APPLICATION (No guarantee but I know my Sheriff so I know I will get it). My Probation Officers have literally last month finally gotten to purchase glock 23's and vests. Yes you read that right, here in CA. it is rare for the Probation Officers to be armed. As it is only a very select few get the "go ahead" to carry. Welcome to Crazy CA.

**MacLean** · 10-13-11, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by McCrackhd

Did y'all miss the part where it said you can get a permit to carry the gun?

Did y'all miss the part where you have to be rich, famous, or wear kneepads to get a permit in California?

The second amendment is for the construction of militias to protect the country. Not necessarily so Joe Blow can walk around with a .45 on his hip cause he thinks it's his right.

Not only are you wrong, but you are WAY the fuck wrong. Read Heller and McDonald and come back to the debate. The Supreme Court has overturned the little militia debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

"... the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller...."

If you plan to take on folks who live and breathe the gun laws, read up first. We have some subject matter experts right here on the board.