Calif. Gov. Enacts Ban on Open Handgun Carrying

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Fiddletown, Jerry Brown is an astute politician. This could possibly be one of the slickest things he's ever done.
 
Al, he is indeed. And, looking at the bills he signed and the bills he vetoed (and not just the gun stuff) he's very hard to pigeonhole.
 
For those unfamiliar with Richards v. Prieto, it was previously Sykes v. McGinness. In the original incarnation, the Sacramento sheriff's department relented and went with more permissive permitting guidelines. The lawsuit was then relocated to Yola County. In the second incarnation, the case went to the District Court, and the judge found for the sheriff's department.

However, part of the judge's rationale for upholding a discretionary and overly restrictive process for concealed carry permits was the idea that unlicensed, unloaded open carry was available as an alternative. Basically, as long as there was some way someone could carry a gun under some circumstances, the right to self-defense wasn't overly burdened.

Well, even that wizened alternative no longer exists. Now the plaintiffs have a stronger basis for arguing that the system is unjust.

Converting the DROS fees from fees to a tax didn't escape my notice, either. The Minneapolis Star case springs to mind as being in obvious conflict with this.

And what of AB 809? Wasn't the idea of a long gun registry ruled unconstitutional in the 5th last week?

Al, your ear is much closer to the ground than mine on this. Are you suggesting that Governor Brown signed these bills with this knowledge? I might be impressed with the guy if so.
 
i like concealed carry better anyway. a good compromise is to have the county sheriffs grant more ccw permits.
 
This new law is why we need count our blessings and quit smiling every time they throw us a bread crumb. CCW permits are of the same evil as the open carry limitations. How have we become so complacent that we see it as privilege to carry a firearm with a permit? I scratch my head with wonder, and sorrow surrounds me when I read how lucky we are to have such a privilege. Like the axe at the butt of a tree, just waiting.....

A wise adversary knows that the game is played by subtle advancements. Advancements, that if not checked, will disguise themselves as another privilege to be thankful for. Political correctness is the enemy and we should never be afraid to tell the truth, hurt feelings or not. These liberals feed on our fear of stepping out from behind the PC curtain.

Seeing things in black and white is not always bad. The 2nd Amendment was written without infringement, and that is exactly how it is to be read. When we stand up for what is right, we expose where the ignorance truly lies.
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
...Well, even that wizened alternative no longer exists. Now the plaintiffs have a stronger basis for arguing that the system is unjust.

Converting the DROS fees from fees to a tax didn't escape my notice, either. The Minneapolis Star case springs to mind as being in obvious conflict with this.

And what of AB 809? Wasn't the idea of a long gun registry ruled unconstitutional in the 5th last week?

Al, your ear is much closer to the ground than mine on this. Are you suggesting that Governor Brown signed these bills with this knowledge? I might be impressed with the guy if so.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Al is more attuned to this point than I am, but I'd be pretty sure that Brown was well aware of these matters. It is popular to denigrate him as "Governor Moonbeam", but his a a very bright man and a very competent lawyer. And he has a complex view of the world.

I seem to recall that years ago, when he was mayor of Oakland, there was a notorious case in which a someone killed an alleged burglar, who was, I believe, a minority. There was the predictable community outcry. But when Brown was asked about it, he said something about a person being entitled to defend himself -- not the sort of answer likely to be well received in that community at that time.
 
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
...Well, even that wizened alternative no longer exists. Now the plaintiffs have a stronger basis for arguing that the system is unjust.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope that the plaintiffs have enough ammunition now that open carry has been barred to overturn the restrictive permit system.

Even if it doesn't work out, not much has been lost. There doesn't seem to be much advantage to be able to carry an unloaded handgun openly as opposed to carrying it unloaded in a box.
 
"i like concealed carry better anyway. a good compromise is to have the county sheriffs grant more ccw permits."

This is why we lose.

:mad:
 
Brown is not the mastermind some here have dubbed him to be. Just look at the national news and the pile-o-krap bills he just signed which had most sane people shaking their heads except certain individuals that I can't mention here. He is an ideologue that makes certain people, I can't mention here, very happy which is why he was elected in this whack-job state. No, he fits right in here and it strains reality to suggest otherwise or that he somehow foresees how this will help or hurt the cases pending in the Ninth Circuit. Some of us have "over-thunk" this simple issue. He rightly earned his nickname.
P.S. I agree that CCW is just another form of tyranny. Just let us carry anyway we like and leave us alone.
 
IMHO if a particular state feels the constitution on the United States doesn’t apply (such as in this case) then maybe the rest of the nation needs to cut off all federal funding to such states or maybe we need to consider expulsion from the Union

In the end what good is a union if parts of it want no part of participating with the rest of a nation?

At some point inherent rights must be inherent and respected or there is no right....
 
That stinks. Count your blessings, I live in new jersey. They don't permit civilians to carry at all. Right across the border in PA you can get permits to carry concealed.
 
Last edited:
Let's be productive. We are not going to denounce CA yet again. Many RKBA supporters live there and fight the fight for rights. Nor do we need wise crack short responses.
 
Many RKBA supporters live there and fight the fight for rights.
Click to expand...
Very true, which is why I get sick of the canned "then just move to America" responses when folks in restrictive states complain. There are people in California, New Jersey, and Maryland who are fighting against much worse odds than those of us in permissive states. If they all just chose to leave, that does nothing to help residents of those states.

Advocates in California have provided us with a great deal of scholarship on 2nd Amendment issues, and some of the litigation they're pursuing could have positive effects far outside the borders of their own state. A win in Prieto or Peruta could render discriminatory "may issue" schemes in other states unconstitutional.
 
My point at least from my perspective is laws by any state that stand openly and obviously contrary to the Constitution of the United States have the effect of negating a spelled out right set down by the founders.

At some point the justice system has to deal with the fact that laws can be passed much quicker than we can ever appeal or repeal them and awaiting court test is a very long process.

It seems forever a point of one group or another to purposely pass legislation for the express purpose of denying or greatly limiting whatever particular right for a long period.

The whole issue maybe eventually goes to court and gets overturned and a week or two later a couple of words are changed and the slightly modified law is passed and we start the whole process over.

Im not saying I have the perfect answer to all these things but what I am saying is the redundant over and over circumventing of rights needs to be dealt with. Either the constitution applies equally to all states as far as rights are concerned or I dont even know what to say.....
 
I'm sure Al is more attuned to this point than I am, but I'd be pretty sure that Brown was well aware of these matters. It is popular to denigrate him as "Governor Moonbeam", but his a a very bright man and a very competent lawyer. And he has a complex view of the world.
Click to expand...
I think you might be right. From an interview today:

The governor tried to explain to an audience in Belmont why a bill that bans the open carrying of unloaded handguns and another that makes it easier to carry a concealed weapon were both signed.

“There is a phrase called the coincidence of opposites. I can even say it in Latin—coincidentia oppositorum. It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity.”
Click to expand...

This led me to take a closer look at SB 610, which he also signed. That bill makes some slight changes to California's laws regarding issuance of carry permits:

This bill would provide that the applicant would not be required
to pay for any training courses prior to a determination of good cause being made, as specified.

The bill would clarify that the application fee for a new license includes the costs of required notices. [It also disallows the levying of any additional fees on the local level] The bill would also provide that no applicant would be required to obtain liability insurance as a condition of the license.

The bill would require the licensing authority to provide written notification of the determination of good cause to the applicant, as specified. (...) Additional psychological testing of an applicant seeking
license renewal shall be required only if there is compelling
evidence to indicate that a test is necessary.
Click to expand...

The bill also requires more timely communication if an application is denied.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top