California passes bill banning carry of unloaded firearms

M

maestro pistolero

New member
California: AB144 bans open carry of even an unloaded handgun.

Unloaded open carry, or UOC as it has come to be known in CA, was banned by the CA legislature yesterday. The bill now goes to Governor Jerry Brown for signature.

Conventional wisdom has it that Jerry would sign such a bill faster than you can say 'Linda Ronstadt'.

But Jerry, as CA AG, surprised everyone with a spirited amicus brief in support of plaintiffs in McDonald v. Chicago (NOT Heller vs DC as I previously mis-stated, thanks Al), which he reportedly wrote himself under protest of staffers. In CA, whether Brown signs this new legislation is seen as a test of the actual commitment this Democratic governor has to meaningful gun rights.

Interestingly, at least two cases in CA (Peruta was one) have relied on the fact the UOC was available as a means to satisfy the right to bear. In Peruta, Judge Irma Gonzales ruled that issuance of licenses to carry firearms could be entirely discretionary, because folks could carry an unloaded gun.

Let's set aside for the moment the flawed reasoning (contra Heller) behind regarding an unloaded gun as functional for immediate use for self-defense.

Those cases (perhaps unwittingly) at least acknowledge the right outside of the home. It will be fascinating to see the arguments in those cases shift, as the flawed basis (UOC) for the rulings that are now on appeal will have vanished (should Governor Brown sign the measure).
 
Last edited:
I'm often amazed at how a Constitutional Right can be so feared and despised. I wonder how some of those California folks would feel if the First Amendment were deliberately stymied with micromanaged hindrances?
 
If this were signed into law could this actually help the cases where may issue was found to be okay because the state had unloaded open carry?
 
Davey said:
If this were signed into law could this actually help the cases where may issue was found to be okay because the state had unloaded open carry?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah.

Part of the Reasoning the Peruta court used, was that UOC was available for self defense carry. Judge England (Richards v. Prieto) quoted Judge Irma Gonzales (Peruta v. San Diego) in making his decision. These two decisions in effect, gives validity to the idea that carry is protected as some form of the core right, outside the front door.

If Gov. Brown signs this legislation, it will in effect, nullify a great deal of those two decisions.

Despite much of the caterwauling I've been reading at CalGuns, I believe Jerry Brown knows all of this and might actually be doing gunnies in CA a big favor by signing the legislation.

Think Chess, not Checkers.
 
brown is not our friend and will do us no favors. Whatever brown does will have nothing to do with helping us. This state bites.
 
Brown as AG did dissolve the section in the AG's office that was very aggressive about some gun contol issues, but if he signs this, I would be very surprised if he IS NOT surprised that CA's "may issue" law comes down. He isn't that clever. The Democrat machine would do a Chicago rear guard fight as after McDonald to prevent shall issue.

And yes, a lot of people around here would love to see some people denied their First Amendment rights. The state bites and will continue to degrade. It's a one-party state for the benefit of pols, their favored groups and PEU's.
 
This:

maestro pistolero said:
But Jerry, as CA AG, surprised everyone with a spirited amicas [sic] brief in support of plaintiffs in Heller vs DC, which he wrote himself under protest of staffers.
Click to expand...

To set the record straight, Jerry Brown, as the Attorney General of California, filed an amicus brief during the cert stage of McDonald v. Chicago as amici for McDonald.

The question has always been, "Why?"

The opening remarks in that brief are quite clear in what Brown wanted:

California has a strong interest in protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens. But unlike many states, California has no state constitutional counterpart to the Second Amendment. Unless the protections of the Second Amendment extend to citizens living in the States as well as to those living in federal enclaves, California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
Click to expand...

In that 4 page brief (amazingly the brief is actually... um... brief), Brown simply asks the Court to grant cert for 2 reasons: 1) To resolve the split in the circuits; and 2) To provide guidance on the scope of permissible regulation.

The Court resolved the circuit split question. The Court did not provide guidance on the scope of the right, which in itself would have provided the scope of permissible regulation.

I believe that Brown thought, at the time of the McDonald cert, that the laws in CA were fine. But in the ensuing three years, CA has adopted even more anti-gun law. As Governor, does he still think that the current and new laws are permissible or overboard?

Jerry Brown may be a lot of things. But I don't think he is as dumb as some think. He has to know would happen if he signs this legislation. So he has three choices. 1) He signs the legislation, knowing it may sink the States position in the upcoming cases; 2) He vetoes the legislation in order to help the States litigation; 3) He withholds his signature and the law goes into effect - he has plausible deniablity.

Depending upon how the 9th Circuit decides Peruta and Richards, there is much political fallout. The third choice forces the Courts to answer his prior cert question, without political harm for any result.

Which would you do?
 
If you post that a state should float out to sea - I will float you OFF this forum.

Recall many RKBA advocates live there and fight for the cause. Also, we don't do the liberal / conservative cliches here. Go find Ranto-Gun-Forum if that's your thing.

You may also remember that the shall issue movement is relatively new to the USA. When I moved to TX - we didn't have concealed carry.

Grow up.
 
Just an aside: When the lower courts and the legislature show so little reverence for the constitution, and indeed so little understanding of the reasoning behind Heller and McDonald, or worse, intentionally misinterpret the cases to suit their political or idealogical leanings, everybody loses.

The founders built in ample means to change the constitution if the need truly arises. But to twist it's meanings, abuse legislative duties and judicial discretion robs the document of it's integrity, and, over time, degrades it's power to guard the liberty it was designed to preserve.

In other words, if the state legislature, or a lower court doesn't like a part of the constitution, let them avail themselves of the means provided to change it, if they dare.

Ok, rant off.
 
Last edited:
Well at least I no longer have to hear "Illinois remains the only state that completely prohibits all law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home"

Although, being grouped with California in some category is usually not a good thing...
 
FYI, California issues carry licenses, albeit discretionarily in most urban areas. It's actually shall issue in most counties, partially because key counties got their behinds handed to them in court over unfair issuance policies, and partially due to elected sheriffs who campaigned on that issue.

Il has no carry license provision in their law at all and on that, they stand alone. May that change soon.
 
Right now anyone in California can openly carry an unloaded handgun?

So the bill before the governor of California is just to prohibit the open carry of unloaded hand guns?
 
Presently in CA, you have have loaded MAGAZINES in your possession, and Californians are expected to load the weapon AFTER an attack has ensued.

It is already illegal to open carry a loaded handgun. This bill would prohibit unloaded carry as well, the only available means for millions of people to carry.
 
Last edited:
The Sacramento County sheriff, while announcing cutbacks in his force, alsio announced that he was now accepting "self-defense" as "good cause" to justify issuing carry permits.

This is where the "may issue" law is manipulated mostly, as people like the LA County sheriff set their own bar of "good cause" so high as to be ridiculous...to include "a clear and present danger which cannot be dealt with by normal police functions". That requires the issuer to admit the issuing chief doesn't "control" crime after all. As if anyone really thought they did.
 
Quote:
I wonder how some of those California folks would feel if the First Amendment were deliberately stymied with micromanaged hindrances?
Click to expand...

The would probably feel delighted, actually.
Click to expand...

Perhaps depending on what side of the political fence is being effected no doubt.
 
Unloaded open carry is a bit more complicated. The law prohibiting carry within 1000 feet of a school zone renders unloaded open carry pretty much useless. For instance, my home in CA is about 200 feet from a school. Thus, I am unable to carry outside of my house except in my fenced backyard. It serves me little to have that right other than for an intellectual discussion of keeping that small right. I cannot even carry in the front yard because that area is considered public space since there is no fence.

CA is not a reasonable place for concealed carry either. In LA county where I reside, unless you are a big time celebrity, you will NOT get a CCW permit period. It is a MAY issue state with some counties quite reasonable such as Kern County which is only 5 miles away from my house. In Kern County, issue of a CCW permit is essentially shall issue since most of its citizens live in areas with little access to a police response in less than 30 minutes. Some areas are quite remote out in the desert with poorly maintained dirt roads.

I am not holding my breath for things to change for the positive anytime soon. My choice is to move as soon as I can arrange all of the details which will likely be about two more years.

The political makeup of the state is relevant since this state has an incredible hold by the liberal Dems who inhabit the urban centers which outvotes the rest of the rural areas in the state. I don't see this changing any time soon. In fact, in the midst of our worst fiscal crises ever, CA reelected the man most responsible for the fiscal policies that has led to our current fiscal outlook.

So while folks may get upset about the political inclinations of this state on this site, it is a political reality that I live with at the current time with little remedy available to me to overcome it. In about 2 years, I will simply vacate this fight since it is not winnable from a political standpoint at this time when I move full time to the Pacific Northwest.
 
Today, 07:10 AM #16
HarrySchell
Senior Member

Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 308
The Sacramento County sheriff, while announcing cutbacks in his force, alsio announced that he was now accepting "self-defense" as "good cause" to justify issuing carry permits.

This is where the "may issue" law is manipulated mostly, as people like the LA County sheriff set their own bar of "good cause" so high as to be ridiculous...to include "a clear and present danger which cannot be dealt with by normal police functions". That requires the issuer to admit the issuing chief doesn't "control" crime after all. As if anyone really thought they did.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
Click to expand...

In LA county, even a documented death threat is not enough for most of us ordinary citizens of this communist government in this county. A few months back, at my local gunshop, the owner discussed the case of a couple that survived a home invasion robbery and actually testified against the creeps in court. This led to documented death threats. Think that would be the ticket to a CCW permit? Nope, they were denied.

There solution was to sell their house in the Antelope valley and move 5 miles away to Kern county where they obtained a CCW permit good state wide including LA county. Now that is simply lunacy in action. They can now walk through downtown LA with CCW permit denied by LA county but approved by Kern county that is lawful now in LA county and HONORED by LA county. Go figure, but that is the lunacy we deal with here in LA county. It angers me to no end that they care so little for our safety here in a very high crime area.
 
A report I have read is that even though the bill has passed the entire assembly in California it will have to be returned to the lower house for some changes. That budgetary constraints may keep it form being signed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top