Open Carry Ban Wins Approval in California Senate

[LeighAnn]

Source: Sacramento Bee


The state Senate has approved legislation today that would make it a crime to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public.

Assembly Bill 144, by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, targets the "open carry" movement, marked by gatherings of people displaying their firearms in public places to protest gun-control laws.

<snip>

Democratic Sen. Kevin de León said the measure would stop a practice that alarms the public and creates a "potentially dangerous" situation when law enforcement officials or members of the public are unsure whether an exposed gun is loaded or not.

"This is not the wild west," the Los Angeles Democrat said, adding, "How discomforting can it be if you walk into a restaurant, to Starbucks, to Mickey D's, wherever it is that you may go to, and all of a sudden you see someone walking around with a handgun, and you don't know, can't discern if they're a law enforcement agent."

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/california-senate-open-carry-handguns-assembly-bill-144.html

[OffWithTheirHeads]

1. Glad I moved to Arizona. They are nuts here but at least they are not afraid

of inanimate objects.

[Electric Monk]

2. 3000 ft/s is inanimate?

Lacking the quality or ability of motion; as an inanimate object.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inanimate

[TheWraith]

4. Yes, it is. Guns don't run around shooting themselves.

There has to be a human being behind the trigger.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

9. Many CA sheriffs only grant concealed carry permits to the famous or well-connected.

In much of CA, the "very good reason why" is "because you aren't important enough".



eta: Two sentences and two typos. Fat fingers.

[No Elephants]

26. Proof of that claim?

[slackmaster]

42. Google Sheriff Mike (or Michael) Carona of Orange County

He's no longer the Sheriff, but there was a major scandal involving him handing out CCW permits in exchange for political contributions and to "connected" people in general.

Any system in which something other than purely objective criteria are used to determine eligibility for a permit is vulnerable to corruption.

[krispos42]

11. I guess the entire state of Illinois is full of unstable people then.

Because that state simply doesn't issue permits, period.

Thankfully, something changed in Wisconsin. They were all crazy, every single one of them, but the past couple of months a miracle occurred and most of them went to normal and could get a concealed-carry permit.

[No Elephants]

27. No gun permits in Illinois? What a credible claim!

[krispos42]

36. The topic is concealed-carry permits, not gun-ownership permits n/t

[BuddhaGirl]

35. +1

:thumbsup:

[No Elephants]

29. Conversely, unarmed humans don't run around shooting people.

[samsingh]

59. agreed.

[PavePusher]

81. Most armed people "don't run around shooting people".

Criminals are a very small subset of both "humans" and "armed people".

[Literate Dragon]

95. not deliberately, anyway

The great majority of gun murders are not committed by criminals, or anyway not by people who were criminals before they committed the murder. Most are crimes of passion. It's like any other enabling thing. The easier you make it to kill people, the more people will be killed. Moral judgments about the intention of most of those so enabled are irrelevant.

[RSillsbee]

97. Cite please?

The great majority of gun murders are not committed by criminals, or anyway not by people who were criminals before they committed the murder. Most are crimes of passion.

[PavePusher]

72. What handgun do you know shoots 3000 ft/sec?

Even higher-calibre rifles are hard-pressed to do that.

[Paladin]

79. Remington XP-100, .221 Fireball, 40-grain Loads. You're Welcome.

And you'd look simply divine with one strapped to your hip, walking down a crowded urban street.

Did I mention that I know something about firearms?

[PavePusher]

82. Somehow, I doubt that there are large (or small) numbers of people....

who would carry one of those for self-defense.

But your knowledge is impressive and noted. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_XP-100

[Paladin]

89. Don't Ever Pass Up The Chance To Fire An XP-100.

The muzzle blast is jaw-dropping......

Edited To Add: Thanks for the Wiki link.

[CreekDog]

7. it's not fear

but i think the opinion that one shouldn't have any fear in the presence of a gun suggests that person isn't fit to own one.

[fascisthunter]

33. well stated

[Paladin]

52. Open Carry Indicates The Twisted Need To Intimidate The Public.

If you feel compelled to openly carry a firearm---if licensed, concealed carrying doesn't satisfy you---then you're exhibiting the sort of mindset that ought to exclude you from firearms ownership altogether. You're announcing to the world that what you're really looking and hoping for is an armed confrontation, and that scaring people is a lot more important to you than reasoned self defense. Pretty sick stuff.....

[X_Digger]

56. Licensed concealed carry isn't an option for most in CA. n/t

[Paladin]

64. Not My Problem. Take It Up With Fat Tony Scalia. (n/t)

[X_Digger]

65. Prieto and Peruta cases are headed that way, thanks.

http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=362

At issue in both cases is the broad discretionary authority exercised by California authorities under existing statute in the issuance of carry permits. Edward Peruta’s lawsuit against San Diego County challenges the constitutionality of “good cause” criteria used as a basis for issuing or, more typically, denying a permit to carry. SAF has filed an appeal in its own case, Richards v. Prieto, in the Ninth Circuit.

[Paladin]

68. So You Can Look Forward To More Right Wing Favors On Guns. (n/t)

[X_Digger]

69. No, we can look forward to more objective (as opposed to subjective)

criteria to be applied to the licensing of concealed carry licenses.

No more sheriffs peddling permits for campaign donations.

No more sheriffs determining 'good cause' based on fame or political connections.

No more sheriffs denying permits based on skin tone or income level.

Do those kinds of things appeal to you? Not me.

[PavePusher]

74. Has nothing to do with Scalia, it's all about fucked-up Cali laws.

Nice try at deflection however....

[Paladin]

77. Deflection? Look Who's Talking. (n/t)

[samsingh]

60. i agree

[zonkers]

66. Wearing an unloaded firearm seems asinine. Bet the odds of getting shot increases

dramatically. Much better to carry an iphone. DL a little music. Text your friends. Share photos. And basically chill the fuck out.

[expatriate2mex]

67. How about some links proving that. It's a false, ridiculous

claim. I would not open carry, but I have NEVER even heard of someone open carrying being shot. How about some facts and not just making something up. Surely if people being shot all over the place are being shot you have links.

The fact is that it's not happening period.

[boppers]

80. "I have NEVER even heard of someone open carrying being shot"

Dead policemen and border control agents disagree.

[PavePusher]

83. That is outside the scope of this topic. We're discussing non-government Citizenry. n/t

[boppers]

86. Robert Krentz, that's one.

Now you've heard of a civilian being shot and killed while openly carrying, and can dispense with absolutist extremes like "NEVER" (in all caps, no less).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Krentz

Of course, there was the whole historical "wild west" problem, but I'm guessing that goalpost wouldn't stay put for long, so I went for somebody who died a) this year, b) gun in his holster, c) non-government, d) while he was not committing a crime.

Meanwhile, the death toll keeps going up at the hands of concealed carry shooters:
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

edit: clean up, add goalpost

[PavePusher]

87. O.K., you found one.

Was he shot because he was armed? Or because he stumbled onto a drug/human smuggling operation? Heck, from the available evidence, we can't even tell if the shooter knew he was armed.

Note that one incident does not indicate any trend.

Pssst: VPC? Really?

[boppers]

88. One incident means it *does* happen.

As far as the trends go, I'll say this: If you have to confront somebody who is visibly armed, there are two options.
1) Take a risk of being killed.
2) Shoot them first, to kill.

A whole range of negotiation and discussion goes out the window as reasonable options, because you already know something: The person you are about to confront is willing to kill another human being. They are even displaying their means to do it.

And yes, VPC. It points out that the "people are responsible if they're a legally concealed carry citizen" lie is just that: A lie.

[expatriate2mex]

101. Oh, that really makes his point and for your

information until now I had NEVER heard of anyone. Now I have heard of one......compared to how many shot NOT open carrying? Doesn't that mean you would be less likely to be shot while open carrying?

[boppers]

102. I grew up in southern Arizona, where carry is pretty common.

It doesn't make for a magic protective shield.

Hearing that an armed man was shot in southern AZ pretty much screams "It was self-defense, not murder" (at least, in court it does). Used to happen a few times a year, I simply pulled up one that got significant coverage.

[PavePusher]

75. "Bet the odds of getting shot increases dramatically."

Evidence?

[PavePusher]

73. Evidence? Support? Or just your baseless opinion... n/t

[Paladin]

78. Prove Me Wrong, Quickdraw.

Give us all a written justification for open carry rather than concealed carry, without making yourself look like an aggressive, trigger-happy menace. And the usual, curled-lip "Because the law SAYS I can!" fall-back response doesn't constitute any sort of justification; you've got to do better than that. I've yet to see an argument made for open carry that rises above the level of 7th grade school yard bully mouthings, but I guess there's a first time for everything.....

[PavePusher]

84. You made the claim, it's your duty to support it. That is how debate works.

I don't have to "justify" my peaceful, non-confrontational exercise of a protected Civil Right, despite your accusations and insinuations.

[Paladin]

90. Disappointing, But Predictable. (n/t)

[PavePusher]

98. Yes...

you are.

[savalez]

46. I'm glad you moved too.

[defendandprotect]

93. Anyone who doesn't fear guns is an idiot -- !!

[LanternWaste]

96. Maybe you conflate fear and prudence?

Maybe you conflate fear and prudence? However, I do believe I understand why admitting the one and denying the other would better validate (at least from your perspective) your position.

I often avoid inanimate objects in warehouses, mechanics garages and tooling shops... not out of fear, mind you; simply a precaution. No need to attribute that to fear unless myopia allows you no other course of though... or you're simply trying to minimize or trivialize the prudence others take. :shrug:

[X_Digger]

3. Actually, it's not out of the woods quite yet..

It has to go back to the assembly for concurrence because the senate made amendments.

This is the same thing that happened last year, the clock ran out.

Many pro-2nd amendment supporters are ambivalent over this measure. California is only one of eight states that severely limit a citizen's ability to obtain a concealed carry license. In previous court cases, the courts have said that such restrictions aren't an infringement because citizens could just choose to carry openly*. If this passes, expect another suit along previous lines-- which could open up the concealed carry licensing requirements.

So the end result of an open carry ban could be more people carrying concealed.






* The ban on loaded open carry came as a result of then-Governor Ronald Reagan signing the Mulford Act in 1967 in response to the Black Panthers.

[onehandle]

5. Asshole in a Starbucks Open Carrying = Martin Luther King/Bobby Kennedy/Mahatma Gandhi

Ain't it the truth.

[X_Digger]

8. Care to address what I actually said, rather than add lame snark?

Not everyone may be aware of the peculiar history of UOC (unloaded open carry) and the reason why it's the only choice for non-politicians, non-famous people, and non-campaign donors who wish to carry a firearm for their protection.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. That's a bit like having a stuffed Rottweiler guarding your house, innit?

I suppose if you happen to be in a situation where you actually need to defend yourself because of imminent danger and don't have time to LOAD it you can always use it as a blunt instrument.

[X_Digger]

13. Luckily, they can carry a loaded magazine right next to it.

So it's kind of weird, but not impossible to imagine.

[No Elephants]

30. Loading a weapon is probably easier than bringing a stuffed doggie to life.

[No Elephants]

28. Why address unsupported claims?

[X_Digger]

57. What claim would that be?

Here's the post that onehandle responded to, broken down..

It has to go back to the assembly for concurrence because the senate made amendments.

The fact that it's sitting in the concurrence file is evidence- http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110909_status.html

This is the same thing that happened last year, the clock ran out.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Open-Carry-Ban-Zeroes-in-on-Senate-95369479.html
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010/09/three-anti-gun-bills-defeated-in-california-legislature/

The fight went all the way to the midnight deadline for passage, but AB 1810, AB 1934, and AB 2358 were defeated — at least for this year. As the clock ticked down to midnight, the bills’ sponsors could not secure enough votes to pass the bills.

(AB 1934 was last year's attempt to ban open carry.)

Many pro-2nd amendment supporters are ambivalent over this measure. California is only one of eight states that severely limit a citizen's ability to obtain a concealed carry license1. In previous court cases, the courts have said that such restrictions aren't an infringement because citizens could just choose to carry openly*2. If this passes, expect another suit along previous lines-- which could open up the concealed carry licensing requirements.

1

2http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/california-conceal-carry-gun-rights-case-dealt-another-setback

Yesterday U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England in Sacramento, CA ruled that Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto indeed had the right to choose who qualifies for conceal carry gun permits. The judge explained there was nothing unlawful about requesting applicants to prove they have a reasonable need to carry a weapon outside their home.
...
Judge England, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, also pointed out in his 16-page decision that there is a California law already on the books that allows most California residents to carry an unloaded weapon with them at all times (excluding school zones), and that these firearms could quickly be loaded to use in case of an emergency.

So the end result of an open carry ban could be more people carrying concealed.

See Peruta v. San Diego County

http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=362

* The ban on loaded open carry came as a result of then-Governor Ronald Reagan signing the Mulford Act in 1967 in response to the Black Panthers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act


So again, I ask, what 'claim'?

[PavePusher]

47. Civil Rights are Civil Rights. Why do you have a problem with that? n/t

[krispos42]

10. It is virtually impossible to discern if many types of firearms are loaded or not.

Pretty much all handguns, rifles, and shotguns can't have their status read simply by eyeballing them.

Well, if you look really close at a revolver you can tell.



With semi-auto handguns and some rifles, it's easy enough to tell if there is a magazine in the gun or not, but virtually impossible to tell if there's a round chambered and therefore if the gun is technically loaded or not.


It's stupid to outlaw open-carry of loaded guns but unloaded guns. Solve the problem by making concealed-carry permits shall-issue and move on to fixing the Californian economy!

[digitaln3rd]

14. Just solve the problem completely

By banning ALL guns. Period.

[Left Coast2020]

16. Thank you.

:beer:

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Get the Second Amendment repealed and we'll talk.

Until then, nada...

[fascisthunter]

34. second amendment does say what you want it to

and I hope we revisit this Amendment so we can point out what it actually states, rather than the spin gun pushers want it to say.

"Well regulated militia"

[MicaelS]

41. I bet you're one of those people who think only the police

And the military should have guns. Then you will complain about these same police and military being racist, sexist, homophobic and fascist.

So you only want people who you view as racist, sexist, homophobic and fascist having all the guns. :sarcasm:

[PavePusher]

48. Please demonstrate, grammatically, historically and contextually, how that is a limiting condition.

You may want to review some grammar first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_clause

[fascisthunter]

55. use a dictionary, it is fairly easy

[PavePusher]

70. In other words, you got nothing. Natch.... n/t

[slackmaster]

23. Except guns in the hands of government employees, of course

:rolleyes:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

38. And well-connected actors and athletes, oh, and criminals

can't forget about the well-armed criminals.

[TheWraith]

54. And while you're at it, get rid of that pesky "due process" shit.

After all, it's not like people's rights actually matter when someone else feels vaguely threatened... right?

[socialshockwave]

91. What some don't realize; banning legal guns does NOTHING to stem the illegal guns used by gangs

and others.

Just makes law abiding citizens less safe.

[SoapBox]

15. Bravo!

...showing some stones against Psychos and the America Hating NRA.

[PavePusher]

49. Exercising a Civil Right makes one a "Psycho"?

Really?

:eyes: :puke: :crazy: :silly: :wtf:

[AtheistCrusader]

18. In Washington State we can open carry, loaded.

Sucks to be a Californian.

[frebrd]

19. I wouldn't live in CA again.....

for anything, even though I was born and raised there.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. Um, no it doesn't.

:wtf:

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Doesn't what?

Washington doesn't allow OC
or it doesn't suck to live in cali?

Didn't seem like a very specific objection there.

[Le Taz Hot]

25. Ah, whaddya want before coffee?

I was referring to the "sucks to live in California." A little geographical respect here?

[BuddhaGirl]

37. ROFL

Thank the gods I'm a happy Californian...we're more evolved :evilgrin:

[PavePusher]

85. Yeah, that's working well with your state finances, right? n/t

"...we're more evolved"

Nothing elitist or authoritarian there, nope... :eyes:

[Xithras]

45. California is still a rural open carry state.

This new law won't change that.

One of the more interesting (and less well known) aspects of California's gun laws is that the majority of them ONLY apply inside the borders of incorporated cities. Everything from shooting in the air on the 4th of July to open carrying loaded firearms is still legal in the rural areas.

The push with California's laws is primarily to get the guns out of the cities.

[mulsh]

21. open carry cowards were on full display at a suburban Starbucks recently

I've also found photos of the courageous folk parading around the Embarcadero during Fleet week with guns strapped to their sides. The pack of less than ten are truly inspirational.
http://responsiblecitizensofcalifornia.org/photo/img2445-1?context=featured

I kind of like open carry here in CA. It makes it easier to identify the really frightened cowards among us. These same people never seem to make it to any of our area's more dangerous neighborhoods. Good on you guys for scaring your suburban neighbors.

BTW here in oh so "liberal" northern California if a group of black or brown people pulled this stunt you can be sure that swat teams would be summoned ASAP.

I hope this bill becomes law.

[PavePusher]

50. "cowards"? What is your evidence?

Pssst: legal exercise of a Civil Right does not make one a "coward".

[jpak]

94. Not cowards - open carry gun nut douchebags

yup

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. I daresay it won't make "our area's more dangerous neighborhoods" less dangerous.

But it would soothe the sensibilities of some delicate flowers. It also might lead to a statewide "shall-issue" law.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it....

[slackmaster]

22. A solution in search of a problem

I hope Gov. Brown vetoes it, if it gets that far. What we really need is rational reform of concealed-weapons policy.

[No Elephants]

31. I don't get why legislators would prefer concealed carry to open carry.

[slackmaster]

43. The ones who are opposed to open carry generally are opposed to gun ownership

...and carrying weapons in public, other than by government employees.

They haven't thought through the unintended consequences of banning open carry, or see it as one step in the process of systematically disarming the public.

[X_Digger]

44. Funny thing is, this may be the impetus for a court to relax concealed carry..

I believe it was the Peruto case where the judge fell back on open carry as an alternative to concealed carry. With that option off the table..

Yeah, legislators may be shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended.)

[fascisthunter]

32. good... kick and rec

[rapmanej]

39. meh

They'll just move to the empty holster protest.

[formercia]

40. I'm glad this Bill doesn't include Pitchforks

:evilgrin:

[Throd]

51. It ain't the ones with the guns that you can see that you should worry about.

I didn't know Kevin De Leon had a constitutional right to never be discomforted.

Open carry is for weirdos, but if the gun and owner are legal then I don't see why the State should forbid it.

[Dr_Scholl]

53. No matter what kind of problems they have in California

they always seem to find time to pick on law abiding gun owners.

[samsingh]

61. on a related note

mr. gunlover himself, Cheney, who things guns should be everywhere, did not want them in a press conference he was holding. I wonder why.

[alp227]

62. Owning a gun = a 2nd amendment right. Intimidation = not a 1st amendment right.

What is ONE compelling, civil reason to carry an UNLOADED handgun openly in public? If you really feel the need to have a gun for self-defense, at least conceal it. Otherwise in my opinion "open carry" almost always means you're asking for a fight.

[Dr_Scholl]

63. That's the problem.

In many places in California, it's almost impossible to get a permit to carry concealed. People open carry in a lot of cases because they have no other choice there.

[expatriate2mex]

76. Exactly Dr. Schoal. I'm from San Diego originally

and you had to be rich, well known like a celebrity, be a politician or have political pull to get a concealed carry permit. It's lot like here in mexico, except it's slightly more possible here.:) The point is that with MOST gun control the people at the top get them, the rest of us do not. Be fair about it at least.

I always have thought of being "progressive" as being fair, CA is not on this issue. Either give everyone the same chance or give it to none.

My first wife was beaten, raped and almost killed in oceanside. She had no chance at getting a concealed carry permit, yet elites sitting in secure offices can get them. I'm retired military so I probably am less inclined to easily accept forced victim status as some are.

[stranger81]

92. There is, actually, another choice . . . . .

leave your house without packing heat, just like every normal person in this state.

[PavePusher]

99. Implying that people who peacefully exercise a Civil Right are abnormal....

How disgustingly bigoted of you.

[PavePusher]

71. "Otherwise in my opinion "open carry" almost always means you're asking for a fight."

I suppose you can support you "opinion" with some facts/evidence, yes?

[The Straight Story]

100. Awesome - no cops with guns. I like it. Oh wait...SOME people (govt folks) we trust to carry them?

I think bush would smile about this - we are all potential terrorists unless our paycheck is written by the govt.

Fear - it worked after 9/11 and is working now.