Calif. Gov. Enacts Ban on Open Handgun Carrying

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 a moderator:
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.
 
Not just open, but
an exposed and unloaded gun
Click to expand...

What the heck is the point of that?

Oh, wait here it is:

Supporters say the only person who knows whether the gun is loaded is the person carrying the gun.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Also, some folks prefer a righteous loss on an issue as compared to small steps towards the goal.
Click to expand...
I think it was Tamara who called it "fighting to be seen fighting" as opposed to "fighting to win."
 
Righteous indignation has caused us to stub our toe several times around the country on these types of issues.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Alaska444 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Now that open carry is no longer available, the arguments for MAY ISSUE is going to be very problematic for the courts in CA.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top