PDA

View Full Version : SB 41 Debate: UOC prominent


hoffmang
09-08-2009, 4:32 PM
SB 41 was on the Assembly floor today. The gun bill is relatively innocuous as it adds a requirement that you sign the DROS form when you pick up a handgun.

However, the debate was heavily peppered with fear mongering from Assembly Member Saldaņa (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a76/). I will attempt to get the video of the floor debate, but if anyone here questions that UOC will create a bad anti-gun bill in the very near future, you'll need to listen to this floor debate.

It may appear on CalChannel (http://www.calchannel.com/) later, but if it doesn't I'll post a video copy once we lay hands upon it.

-Gene

obeygiant
09-08-2009, 4:45 PM
From her website (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a76/):

I am proud to represent the people of San Diego in the State Assembly. It is an honor and a privilege to have this opportunity to serve my community and the people of this great state.

:popcorn:

Crazed_SS
09-08-2009, 4:46 PM
I think I voted for her.

EDIT: That's my hood in there..
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a76/District/default.aspx

Theseus
09-08-2009, 4:49 PM
If this is the case, then you have your proof, congratulations!

supermario
09-08-2009, 5:25 PM
Sorry to sound ignorant, but what is this topic about and how does it affect UOC?

tyrist
09-08-2009, 5:28 PM
Well it was pretty obvious what was going to eventually start happen as something involving firearms became more common in this state.

thefinger
09-08-2009, 5:33 PM
Sorry to sound ignorant, but what is this topic about and how does it affect UOC?

This topic is about how UOC is doing more bad than good at the moment as it regards to pushing forward a pro-2A agenda here in CA.

M. Sage
09-08-2009, 6:30 PM
I think I voted for her.

EDIT: That's my hood in there..
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a76/District/default.aspx

:dots:

hoffmang
09-08-2009, 6:32 PM
If this is the case, then you have your proof, congratulations!

And you find that a good thing why?

-Gene

KylaGWolf
09-08-2009, 6:36 PM
From her website (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a76/):



:popcorn:

Yeah unfortunately she is one of my state reps. She is rabid anti gun was even before UOC took hold down here. I didn't vote for her nor would I ever. My one and only time meeting her left a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. Heck seems all our state reps for San Diego are anti gun.

Theseus
09-08-2009, 6:38 PM
And you find that a good thing why?

-Gene

It seemed good that you have the proof you need so that others can stop asking you for "proof".

It is not easy to argue against proof.

hoffmang
09-08-2009, 6:41 PM
It seemed good that you have the proof you need so that others can stop asking you for "proof".


I had hoped the compelling evidence I had would be enough to convince rational folks. However, now it's been strongly debated on the floor of the Assembly so if there were some Assemblymen who hadn't heard about it yet - that's over as of today.

-Gene

SwissFluCase
09-08-2009, 7:00 PM
I had hoped the compelling evidence I had would be enough to convince rational folks. However, now it's been strongly debated on the floor of the Assembly so if there were some Assemblymen who hadn't heard about it yet - that's over as of today.

-Gene

UOC is not a rational concept. It is an emotional excercise. "It's our right!" Actually LOC is our *right*. Why don't they do that? Maybe its because there are immediate negative consequences, as opposed to delayed negative consequences?

I will be very angry if the UOC folks screw up the rebirth of our 2nd Amendment rights!

Gene, can you try to frame your argument emotionally? It might sink in better...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Sons of Liberty
09-08-2009, 7:21 PM
I had hoped the compelling evidence I had would be enough to convince rational folks. However, now it's been strongly debated on the floor of the Assembly so if there were some Assemblymen who hadn't heard about it yet - that's over as of today.

-Gene

Waiting to examine the "proof."

CalNRA
09-08-2009, 7:28 PM
Waiting to examine the "proof."

you insistence on picking a fight with Gene is amusing and totally counter-productive.

CalNRA
09-08-2009, 7:28 PM
I think I voted for her.

EDIT: That's my hood in there..
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a76/District/default.aspx

Yeah unfortunately she is one of my state reps. She is rabid anti gun was even before UOC took hold down here. I didn't vote for her nor would I ever. My one and only time meeting her left a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. Heck seems all our state reps for San Diego are anti gun.


:dots:

yep. My thoughts exactly.

HowardW56
09-08-2009, 7:55 PM
Waiting to examine the "proof."


http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt321/HowardW56/dynamite.gif

obeygiant
09-08-2009, 9:09 PM
Waiting to examine the "proof."

Thomas, you can watch the Senate Floor Session (09/08/09) at 1 a.m. here (http://www.calchannel.com/)

lomalinda
09-08-2009, 9:59 PM
Anytime you go out of your way to make a political statement--which is the only thing that carrying an UNLOADED pistol out in the open for all to see--you take a risk.

If the anti's are able to make progress against us, they'll be sure to let the UOC proponents know the role they played in their success.

The ball's already rolling now.

We just need to sit back and see who's right and who's wrong.

If Saldana and Co get their way, the excuse-making will be predictable and along the lines of "What good are rights if you can't exercise them?"

The fact that those rights are in their formative stage and subject to rapid growth if nurtured properly seems to be lost on some people whose zeal and "pride" fog their ability to think clearly.

dav
09-09-2009, 7:22 AM
On the other hand, once the law is passed that UOC is no longer legal, only those who were willing to take the abuse from "fellow gun folks" will have a rational legal basis for fighting it in court.

They were damaged by the law, so they can fight it. You aren't willing to UOC, so it obviously could not harm you in any way when it is outlawed.

All of you simply letting them chip away at everything we were once allowed to do are saying "only what I want matters".

My two cents.

David Row
San Diego

Glock22Fan
09-09-2009, 7:37 AM
On the other hand, once the law is passed that UOC is no longer legal, only those who were willing to take the abuse from "fellow gun folks" will have a rational legal basis for fighting it in court.

They were damaged by the law, so they can fight it. You aren't willing to UOC, so it obviously could not harm you in any way when it is outlawed.

All of you simply letting them chip away at everything we were once allowed to do are saying "only what I want matters".

My two cents.

David Row
San Diego


I'm trying to avoid ad hominem attacks, but if you have read all of the arguments in this forum, and still believe what you say here, then I despair for you.

There wouldn't be the danger of a law to fight if they hadn't provoked it.

Other things are going on that would have taken a side run around the subject and given them what they want with no danger of such a law being passed.

Standing down on UOC today is the (was?) the best way of getting OC in the future. Now that's at risk, or at least demanding court action that might very well be lost.

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 7:41 AM
David, have you not read that we are all interested in ensuring the right to LOC along with CCW? I hope you are simply unaware rather than the alternative.

By the way, you mention "once allowed to do"- when was it that you OCed throughout California regularly?

Rational basis isn't the level of scrutiny that will be applied in Sykes; thus, my right to pursue an action is not waived by my choice to not UOC prior to incorporation.

It's such a commentary on our culture that impatient *OC* advocates might very well cost all of us *OC*.

pullnshoot25
09-09-2009, 8:39 AM
I was afraid something like this was cooking.

A link to the video would greatly be appreciated.

'Tis a sad day.

Foulball
09-09-2009, 8:51 AM
I was afraid something like this was cooking.

A link to the video would greatly be appreciated.

'Tis a sad day.

Just a quick question, and I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything like that :o,
but if you were "afraid something like this was cooking", why would you continue to provoke the situation for the last few months?

cineski
09-09-2009, 8:53 AM
I'm starting to rethink my stance on open carry. It may in deed be helping by creating such a stir. First, the general population in CA freaks if they see a gun, and the cops are called to check it out. AKA waste of time. This may help argue that Shall Issue CCW is better because it creates privacy when carrying, and deletes all attention that open carrying creates. It becomes more about personal protection, rather than a political commentary which is all UOC is. If they outlaw UOC, then there may be more of a chance for Shall Issue to be allowed in CA if the fighters keep fighting. This thought is taken from other states like WI which allow LOC because they don't allow CCW. Well, if a state outlaws LOC/UOC they must allow CCW. That's of course only if CA was run by logical people, which it's not. Shall Issue CCW is the only way for equality for all. People who simply freak out by the sight of guns SHOULDN'T have to feel that way. We're not going to change the majority of them, yet they have every right to feel safe. CCW is the only way things truly work smoothly for the citizens and the sheeple.

I'm curious if others think outlawing UOC will help to achieve Shall Issue in CA?

.454
09-09-2009, 8:58 AM
I think I voted for her.



I'm sure you did it because for you firearms are just a hobby...;)

IGOTDIRT4U
09-09-2009, 8:58 AM
Just a quick question, and I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything like that :o,
but if you were "afraid something like this was cooking", why would you continue to provoke the situation for the last few months?

I'l partially defend him here (not that he can't speak for himself). I touched on this in another thread.

I don't like the idea of UOC, at all. It's either LOC, CCW or both. But we have what we have.

As to UOC, in San Diego in particular. PNS25 and his group have done a pretty good job (except the interview on the radio) of putting a positive spin on this. Through educating the local PD depts and the news media, San Diego has been pretty fair in the public spotlight about this. I have to hand it to him, had San Diego been it's own state, you may have done well to change the laws. However, now a state legislator has seized the media's attention, and one that has the cred to do it, too, as she is from the San Diego area where there is considerable printed and transmitted press for her to hype her position with. That is where things now stand. Hard to un-ring her "bell" that she rung.

And sadly enough, this was a foregone conclusion and set of events.

yellowfin
09-09-2009, 9:12 AM
So if they used Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious as an talking point in the debate would you be asking everyone to throw out their house's copy of Mary Poppins? Please. It's all the same crap sandwich, who cares what they put on it for seasoning. Sure, the antis will use UOC as a talking point, but they'd read out of the phone book if that's all they had.

Not to say you don't have a point, but at the same time I'd hardly think that UOC sparked a fire that wasn't already lit. It may be a convenient excuse for them, but not a point of origin. Better than worrying if you're going to awaken a sleeping snake, cut its head off when it's asleep and you don't have to wonder.

jb7706
09-09-2009, 9:13 AM
It may appear on CalChannel (http://www.calchannel.com/) later, but if it doesn't I'll post a video copy once we lay hands upon it.

-Gene

Debate on SB41 starts at 00:10:16 on Assembly Floor Session part 2. UOC begins at 00 : 19 : 45.

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 9:19 AM
You're right, yellowfin. Let's throw caution to the wind since, hey, we don't really have any way to affect a predetermined outcome, right?

yellowfin
09-09-2009, 9:30 AM
Not saying throw caution to the wind, I'm just saying a fart in the middle of a cow pen isn't the reason it stinks.

chuckles48
09-09-2009, 9:46 AM
I'm starting to rethink my stance on open carry. It may in deed be helping by creating such a stir. First, the general population in CA freaks if they see a gun, and the cops are called to check it out.

Ummm, just as a rebuttal piece of evidence, about 2 years ago, I toted my FiL's trapdoor springfield and Colt Navy up to an appraisal event in SF, about 3 blocks from PacBell/SBC/AT&T Park. On a game day, so lots of foot traffic.

Joe citizen neither noticed nor cared that I was hauling a rifle and pistol through the streets of San Francisco. The SFPD cruiser that stopped to ask me what I was doing (which I explained, then pointed to the sign for the event, which he had no clue about) suggested I needed to bag the guns (which he was right - my lapse in planning).

What was more interesting to me was the guy I passed as I was looking for parking - carrying _6_ guns, openly, with narry a batted eyelash.

My experience has been that _people_ generally don't wig out. Police and the media do.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 9:54 AM
David, have you not read that we are all interested in ensuring the right to LOC along with CCW? I hope you are simply unaware rather than the alternative.

By the way, you mention "once allowed to do"- when was it that you OCed throughout California regularly?

Rational basis isn't the level of scrutiny that will be applied in Sykes; thus, my right to pursue an action is not waived by my choice to not UOC prior to incorporation.

It's such a commentary on our culture that impatient *OC* advocates might very well cost all of us *OC*.

Well, sure. . . you are interested, just not doing anything, yet.

Just wondering how you all would feel if we said that AB668 or whatever it was is actually part of the OC plan?

demnogis
09-09-2009, 9:56 AM
I'm a bit confused... Whenever threat of a grossly unconstitutional law (like the expansion of GFSZs) is brought up, the argument that because it is so grossly unconstitutional, it only makes it easier to defeat.

IMHO, it sounds like many people here would be perfectly fine if CA were like Texas (shall-issue CCW ONLY) instead of the other great states in the country that get all flavors of the gun rights buffet (like Montana- LOC, Shall-issue CCW, or Alaska- LOC, CCW without a permit). Sadly, the other repercussion is not taken into account for the threat to liberty that it is...

What happens if/when OC is banned (in all forms) across the state, the ban is upheld in the 9th because CA does have a Concealed Carry Permit policy and CA remains MAY-issue after Sykes?

I keep saying to people, we need to be more like WI's 2A community. They're demanding a shall-issue CCW policy. How? Open Carry. "If you're afraid to see guns, then help us get shall-issue so you don't have to see them." They're going through the same issues as us -- OCers being detained, wrongfully arrested, Milwaukee charges with "disorderly conduct", an active "progressively liberal" legislative body in cities that want to prohibit lawful possession, but their community comes forth, together, to squash these issues.

Why then, can we not get our assets together and work as a singular force? 99% of the OC crowd is for shall issue and wishes to support it. "We want to help you, but you don't give a rat's a** about us." is the feeling. I know it's not true, but it sure is the way many others feel. Why the 2-faced community that wants to be for gun rights but is perfectly happy with just the privilege, even if/when OC right is completely banned? In Texas CC is a right, not a privilege. It will never be a full-fledged right here in CA; it will just be an equal-opportunity privilege.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 10:02 AM
I'm a bit confused... Whenever threat of a grossly unconstitutional law (like the expansion of GFSZs) is brought up, the argument that because it is so grossly unconstitutional, it only makes it easier to defeat.

IMHO, it sounds like many people here would be perfectly fine if CA were like Texas (shall-issue CCW ONLY) instead of the other great states in the country that get all flavors of the gun rights buffet (like Montana- LOC, Shall-issue CCW, or Alaska- LOC, CCW without a permit). Sadly, the other repercussion is not taken into account for the threat to liberty that it is...

What happens if/when OC is banned (in all forms) across the state, the ban is upheld in the 9th because CA does have a Concealed Carry Permit policy and CA remains MAY-issue after Sykes?

I keep saying to people, we need to be more like WI's 2A community. They're demanding a shall-issue CCW policy. How? Open Carry. "If you're afraid to see guns, then help us get shall-issue so you don't have to see them." They're going through the same issues as us -- OCers being detained, wrongfully arrested, Milwaukee charges with "disorderly conduct", an active "progressively liberal" legislative body in cities that want to prohibit lawful possession, but their community comes forth, together, to squash these issues.

Why then, can we not get our sh*t together and work as a singular force? 99% of the OC crowd is for shall issue and wishes to support it. "We want to help you, but you don't give a rat's a** about us." is the feeling. I know it's not true, but it sure is the way many others feel. Why the 2-faced community that wants to be for gun rights but is perfectly happy with just the privilege, even if/when OC right is completely banned? In Texas CC is a right, not a privilege. It will never be a full-fledged right here in CA; it will just be an equal-opportunity privilege.

"Because California is different!" What works everywhere else against "liberal" legislatures doesn't work here!

dantodd
09-09-2009, 10:06 AM
I would be more concerned if OC was the impetus for a bill rather than part of the debate or even a handy excuse. You can be sure that the recent hoarding of ammunition will be part of the debate on AB962 as well. Does this mean we should stop buying ammo? Does it mean that our buying of ammo after the election CAUSED AB692? I don't think there is a logical direct connection. This is the same with OC and GFSZ. Antis will look for any reason to make a new anti-gun bill and will search for any justification whether it's UOC in CA or OC at Obama rallies or mass shootings by people who wouldn't obey the new law anyway.

Gene's argument that we might be able to work out a veto in the absence of UOC is more compelling IMO. I wouldn't have thought it was likely but after he first posted to suggestion I looked up Schwarzenegger's veto record and he has indeed vetoed a number of bad gun laws.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 10:12 AM
I would be more concerned if OC was the impetus for a bill rather than part of the debate or even a handy excuse. You can be sure that the recent hoarding of ammunition will be part of the debate on AB962 as well. Does this mean we should stop buying ammo? Does it mean that our buying of ammo after the election CAUSED AB692? I don't think there is a logical direct connection. This is the same with OC and GFSZ. Antis will look for any reason to make a new anti-gun bill and will search for any justification whether it's UOC in CA or OC at Obama rallies or mass shootings by people who wouldn't obey the new law anyway.

Gene's argument that we might be able to work out a veto in the absence of UOC is more compelling IMO. I wouldn't have thought it was likely but after he first posted to suggestion I looked up Schwarzenegger's veto record and he has indeed vetoed a number of bad gun laws.

Maybe we can propose that the schools can charge a $10 fee for giving us permission. . . Haha. . . That way they can make some money for the schools.

cineski
09-09-2009, 10:13 AM
I always looked at UOC as people stating "Hey look! I'm totally happy carrying around an unloaded gun!" Not so anymore. I think it's a totally valid argument (since we MUST argue) that mandatory CCW is better off than optional OC because it keeps the peace when out in public which IS a valid concern when dealing with lawmakers. I'm just saying, if it HAS to be one way or the other, I'd rather have CCW legal than UOC.

I'm a bit confused... Whenever threat of a grossly unconstitutional law (like the expansion of GFSZs) is brought up, the argument that because it is so grossly unconstitutional, it only makes it easier to defeat.

IMHO, it sounds like many people here would be perfectly fine if CA were like Texas (shall-issue CCW ONLY) instead of the other great states in the country that get all flavors of the gun rights buffet (like Montana- LOC, Shall-issue CCW, or Alaska- LOC, CCW without a permit). Sadly, the other repercussion is not taken into account for the threat to liberty that it is...

What happens if/when OC is banned (in all forms) across the state, the ban is upheld in the 9th because CA does have a Concealed Carry Permit policy and CA remains MAY-issue after Sykes?

I keep saying to people, we need to be more like WI's 2A community. They're demanding a shall-issue CCW policy. How? Open Carry. "If you're afraid to see guns, then help us get shall-issue so you don't have to see them." They're going through the same issues as us -- OCers being detained, wrongfully arrested, Milwaukee charges with "disorderly conduct", an active "progressively liberal" legislative body in cities that want to prohibit lawful possession, but their community comes forth, together, to squash these issues.

Why then, can we not get our assets together and work as a singular force? 99% of the OC crowd is for shall issue and wishes to support it. "We want to help you, but you don't give a rat's a** about us." is the feeling. I know it's not true, but it sure is the way many others feel. Why the 2-faced community that wants to be for gun rights but is perfectly happy with just the privilege, even if/when OC right is completely banned? In Texas CC is a right, not a privilege. It will never be a full-fledged right here in CA; it will just be an equal-opportunity privilege.

demnogis
09-09-2009, 10:19 AM
cineski, I value your opinion even if I disagree with it, but this is the argument I was speaking of. Replace our natural right (OC, LOC) with the privilege. If it can be made a privilege it can grossly be controlled.

I want CGF to keep working in the right direction. I strongly believe that it is the intent of the legal experts of CGF to work for LOC after shall-issue.

Quite frankly, it seems like those that OC and the legal team are the only people who care about our natural, constitutionally identified right to bear arms (openly and concealed).

I always looked at UOC as people stating "Hey look! I'm totally happy carrying around an unloaded gun!" Not so anymore. I think it's a totally valid argument (since we MUST argue) that mandatory CCW is better off than optional OC because it keeps the peace when out in public which IS a valid concern when dealing with lawmakers. I'm just saying, if it HAS to be one way or the other, I'd rather have CCW legal than UOC.

dantodd
09-09-2009, 10:22 AM
IMHO, it sounds like many people here would be perfectly fine if CA were like Texas (shall-issue CCW ONLY) instead of the other great states in the country that get all flavors of the gun rights buffet (like Montana- LOC, Shall-issue CCW, or Alaska- LOC, CCW without a permit). Sadly, the other repercussion is not taken into account for the threat to liberty that it is...

I agree that many on CalGuns would rather be CCW only than OC only; if those two were the only choices. CGFs strategy acknowledges this and I don't think the CGF board would disagree.

I suspect where you'd have trouble is in trying to agree on which path is more likely to ultimately bring about both LOC and shall-issue. The OC crowd has the examples of Texas and Ohio to suggest that LOC can have a direct impact of attaining CCW rights while CCW is not a guarantee for LOC following even in a very gun friendly state. I'm sure that some of the other shall-issue states had statewide unlicensed LOC before they went shall-issue. Hopefully Gene can chime in with more details aside from allusions that 12031 violations will be difficult to prosecute because the (b)6 exemption doesn't specify the manner of carrying the firearm; unfortunately that exemption says carrying pursuant to 12050 permit which means they have to follow the limitations of that permit. 12050 permits specify open of concealed carry.

hoffmang
09-09-2009, 10:23 AM
"Because California is different!" What works everywhere else against "liberal" legislatures doesn't work here!

Which liberal legislature in a state without a state right to keep and bear arms has it worked against?

The liberal states OC has succeeded in had RKBA in their state constitutions that hadn't been read out by their supreme courts (like Massachusetts has.)

-Gene

dantodd
09-09-2009, 10:31 AM
cineski, I value your opinion even if I disagree with it, but this is the argument I was speaking of. Replace our natural right (OC, LOC) with the privilege. If it can be made a privilege it can grossly be controlled.


The problem with your argument is that OC is not a right. "Keep and bear" does not define how one may bear. Following incorporation and some good case law you will have the right to bear arms.

I don't know of any constitutional scholars who believe that they state cannot stipulate HOW you bear those arms as long as they are readily available and functional arms that are not dangerous and unusual. In other words the state can choose to permit only OC or only CCW.

Now, this brings up the question from my previous post, will a "right to OC" be more likely to bring about shall-issue in an Ohio model or will shall-issue be more likely to bring about LOC.

IGOTDIRT4U
09-09-2009, 10:40 AM
The problem with your argument is that OC is not a right. "Keep and bear" does not define how one may bear. Following incorporation and some good case law you will have the right to bear arms.

I don't know of any constitutional scholars who believe that they state cannot stipulate HOW you bear those arms as long as they are readily available and functional arms that are not dangerous and unusual. In other words the state can choose to permit only OC or only CCW.

Now, this brings up the question from my previous post, will a "right to OC" be more likely to bring about shall-issue in an Ohio model or will shall-issue be more likely to bring about LOC.

Your answer is above.

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 10:44 AM
Much of this debate boils down to the frustration (despair?) of many as evidenced their perception of continued (unacceptable and maddening levels of) RKBA oppression in a world where carry requires a govt-issued permit of some sort (and corresponding background checks, training etc). The reality is that such, to some degree, is an inevitability. I'm not sure that any amount of debate will succeed in making any of the likely outcomes acceptable to such people.

cineski
09-09-2009, 10:47 AM
Not to get all mushy, but you are the best damn arguer on planet CalGuns. Why? Because you stand your ground constructively. Because I'm still listening to you. Because it's okay to disagree.

At this point, when most of us have nothing at all in terms of gun carrying rights (I mean the way gun carrying was meant to be via the Constitution), would you rather not take an incremental step in the right direction? Would you rather get nothing at all because the powers that be don't want us to have it all. Heck, even Texas doesn't have it all. I just feel if we had to chose one or the other, CCW is the best situation for all citizens. Sure, I'd love to have the choice to do whatever I please. But we don't. In our situation meeting half way is still progress, and in CA it's the best progress because then you don't have to put up with harassment from police. I know a lot of people scream all or nothing, but the reality exists. Do you want to carry a gun or not in CA? And if so, are you willing to do it with similar restrictions to other states? The other choice is to stay where we are or step backwards. I fear some people with the all or nothing mentality would rather this happen than take even a small step forward.

cineski, I value your opinion even if I disagree with it, but this is the argument I was speaking of. Replace our natural right (OC, LOC) with the privilege. If it can be made a privilege it can grossly be controlled.

I want CGF to keep working in the right direction. I strongly believe that it is the intent of the legal experts of CGF to work for LOC after shall-issue.

Quite frankly, it seems like those that OC and the legal team are the only people who care about our natural, constitutionally identified right to bear arms (openly and concealed).

dantodd
09-09-2009, 10:59 AM
Your answer is above.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The status of RKBA in the state constitution is irrelevant to this argument because without incorporation neither road, shall-issue CCW first or OC first has a leg to stand on. Plus, arguing which should come first is wholly irrelevant because there is only one group that has the muscle and the money to pursue either route effectively and they have chosen and are already well down the road to shall-issue CCW.

yellowfin
09-09-2009, 11:11 AM
I'm not sure what you are saying here. The status of RKBA in the state constitution is irrelevant to this argument because without incorporation neither road, shall-issue CCW first or OC first has a leg to stand on. Uhm, no. If there was a solid RKBA provision in the state constitution, incorporation would not be needed at all and nearly all of CA's laws either wouldn't have happened in the first place or Gene's army would have been able to completely obliterate them in court long ago. I'm very curious as to when and how Massachusetts' constitutional RKBA clause was circumvented, why the heck it was allowed to happen, and if there's anything to be done about that.

IGOTDIRT4U
09-09-2009, 11:13 AM
Uhm, no. If there was a solid RKBA provision in the state constitution, incorporation would not be needed at all and nearly all of CA's laws either wouldn't have happened in the first place or Gene's army would have been able to completely obliterate them in court long ago. I'm very curious as to when and how Massachusetts' constitutional RKBA clause was circumvented, why the heck it was allowed to happen, and if there's anything to be done about that.

Thanks Yellowfin, I was just coming back around to respond. See post #42. Same thoughts as this post.

dantodd
09-09-2009, 11:14 AM
Uhm, no. If there was a solid RKBA provision in the state constitution, incorporation would not be needed at all and nearly all of CA's laws either wouldn't have happened in the first place or Gene's army would have been able to completely obliterate them in court long ago. I'm very curious as to when and how Massachusetts' constitutional RKBA clause was circumvented, why the heck it was allowed to happen, and if there's anything to be done about that.

I think we are saying the same thing.

chuckles48
09-09-2009, 11:15 AM
The problem with your argument is that OC is not a right. "Keep and bear" does not define how one may bear. Following incorporation and some good case law you will have the right to bear arms.

I don't know of any constitutional scholars who believe that they state cannot stipulate HOW you bear those arms as long as they are readily available and functional arms that are not dangerous and unusual. In other words the state can choose to permit only OC or only CCW.

Now, this brings up the question from my previous post, will a "right to OC" be more likely to bring about shall-issue in an Ohio model or will shall-issue be more likely to bring about LOC.

There's another issue there as well, that needs to be born in mind. The right is to keep and bear. Once teh state defines what it considers the reasonable method of "bear", they have a much harder time restricting the availability of that right.

So, OC is one "bear" option, CC is the other. At present, in CA, CC is the prefered "bear" option.

dantodd
09-09-2009, 11:18 AM
There's another issue there as well, that needs to be born in mind. The right is to keep and bear. Once teh state defines what it considers the reasonable method of "bear", they have a much harder time restricting the availability of that right.

So, OC is one "bear" option, CC is the other. At present, in CA, CC is the prefered "bear" option.

I must be having a particularly difficult time expressing myself today. That is exactly what I was saying. Keep and Bear (after incorporation) is a right. However; the state can stipulate the manner of bearing. They would not be able to prevent you from bearing completely.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 11:22 AM
Just a quick question, and I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything like that :o,
but if you were "afraid something like this was cooking", why would you continue to provoke the situation for the last few months?

Actually he hasn't he stood down when asked. Most of us have honored Gene and the right people here when asked to stand down.

yellowfin
09-09-2009, 11:26 AM
Thanks Yellowfin, I was just coming back around to respond. See post #42. Same thoughts as this post.
I think we're saying the same thing. Yep, this forum moves FAST when we've got something going on.

As for state constitutions, Pennsylvania's RKBA clause is iron clad: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." They've got unlicensed open carry and shall issue (and CHEAP) CCW. Naturally since they're stuck right next to New Jersey, New York, and Maryland with Massachusetts right up the road the anti gun forces are SWARMING them trying to knock over their freedoms there. CA may be the front lines of the offense, but I can tell you for a fact that PA absorbs a heck of a lot of punches to hold back the evil army.

Upon searching, it appears that MA's RKBA was interpreted as a collective right in 1976. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. As you can see, that's pretty easy to be sabotaged under all kinds of anti gun sophistry like "reasonable regulation" and "police power" and "state's interests." I wonder if the Heller case can be employed to reverse that decision as it destroyed the collective right argument.

Foulball
09-09-2009, 11:31 AM
Actually he hasn't he stood down when asked. Most of us have honored Gene and the right people here when asked to stand down.

Thank you Kyla, I appreciate your response. I truly wasn't trying to be a jerk and, up here behind the Orange Curtain, I am only an outsider looking in.

Thanks again.

grammaton76
09-09-2009, 11:34 AM
Just a quick question, and I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything like that :o,
but if you were "afraid something like this was cooking", why would you continue to provoke the situation for the last few months?

I will point out that there have been NO events from our group (which Kyla, Pullnshoot25, and myself - among others - belong to) since Gene requested stand-down. Actually WE requested a stand-down on events even before Gene did - we requested a stand-down until after anything that's going to be signed for 2009, has been signed. Our last event was some time ago.

There are two other groups that've started doing open carry events, even in San Diego county, which are NOT our group. One of them has stood down; the other steadfastly refuses to and it's the one you see in the news more often.

Foulball
09-09-2009, 11:37 AM
Thanks for the information grammaton. :cowboy:

Merle
09-09-2009, 11:38 AM
The group that didn't stand down - is it the old folks with the grandma ladies?

I watched the "debate" and the opposition stated their positions in clear terms. When I watched the final speaker, she peppered the conversation with people UOC in family areas and police being diverted while they exercised their rights. I could not connect the dots between her concerns with families, drawing police away from their regular duties and this bill.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 11:39 AM
I'm not sure what you are saying here. The status of RKBA in the state constitution is irrelevant to this argument because without incorporation neither road, shall-issue CCW first or OC first has a leg to stand on. Plus, arguing which should come first is wholly irrelevant because there is only one group that has the muscle and the money to pursue either route effectively and they have chosen and are already well down the road to shall-issue CCW.

The answer to your question is in the documents for the Sykes brief. :)

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 11:42 AM
Thank you Kyla, I appreciate your response. I truly wasn't trying to be a jerk and, up here behind the Orange Curtain, I am only an outsider looking in.

Thanks again.

No worries you didn't offend me. :)

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 11:44 AM
I will point out that there have been NO events from our group (which Kyla, Pullnshoot25, and myself - among others - belong to) since Gene requested stand-down. Actually WE requested a stand-down on events even before Gene did - we requested a stand-down until after anything that's going to be signed for 2009, has been signed. Our last event was some time ago.

There are two other groups that've started doing open carry events, even in San Diego county, which are NOT our group. One of them has stood down; the other steadfastly refuses to and it's the one you see in the news more often.

Grammaton and we know how well that one is turning out :banghead:

dantodd
09-09-2009, 11:45 AM
The answer to your question is in the documents for the Sykes brief. :)

What question do you think is answered in the Sykes documents? I am quite familiar with Sykes and Pena. Neither case is a winner without incorporation. The argument made in Pena regarding The AG's amicus urging incorporation is interesting but it is not binding on state courts, much less federal courts. If SCOTUS decides to not incorporate Jerry Brown's opinion as expressed in his amicus brief is not binding on the legislature nor does it create a RKBA in California. If it did create such a right wrt Sykes/Pena it would also apply to OC.

grammaton76
09-09-2009, 11:46 AM
The group that didn't stand down - is it the old folks with the grandma ladies?

That's precisely the one.

It's tough to get bull-headed young men to listen, but it's possible.

However, bull-headed older men WON'T listen, period.

grammaton76
09-09-2009, 12:08 PM
BTW, someone does need to extract and re-host the video, IF they can download the stupid thing. I think Calgunners must be overloading the hosting site, as it's having major buffering issues.

http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/702 - direct link

As someone else said, the UOC bit starts around 19:45 in. I find it amusing how Saldana seems to think that requiring extra signatures on a piece of paper will somehow keep handguns out of UOCer hands...? I'm trying to re-listen to what she had to say, but the stupid thing buffers for like 4 minutes in between 30s or so of working. I'd be happy if I could just get the audio.

BTW, I've written them a request for audio-only feeds of their programs to be available. I'd suggest that others who would also like the option of just hearing audio (hey, we'd actually get to HEAR it, it's better than buffering video nonstop!) also contact them.

http://www.calchannel.com/channel/contact/

7x57
09-09-2009, 12:13 PM
Not saying throw caution to the wind, I'm just saying a fart in the middle of a cow pen isn't the reason it stinks.

You're missing the point. Prudence is not a matter of who is at fault--it is a matter of how to obtain the best outcome given a situation not of your choosing.

If a perp attacks you, it is not because you deserve to be attacked, it is because he's a perp. But that has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea to park in a lighted area and stay aware of your surroundings. When you know there are predators in the area you take precautions rather than drop them because it isn't your fault you have to take them.

There are predators in Sacramento. The fact that they do evil by disarming victims does not change the fact that we must take precautions--we do it *because* they are who they are.

7x57

7x57
09-09-2009, 12:19 PM
IMHO, it sounds like many people here would be perfectly fine if CA were like Texas (shall-issue CCW ONLY)


What happens if/when OC is banned (in all forms) across the state, the ban is upheld in the 9th because CA does have a Concealed Carry Permit policy and CA remains MAY-issue after Sykes?


This is the least likely outcome, thanks to Gene's point that you can't CC longarms (well, that's not actually always true, but usually). If we have a right to bear longarms, it will be to bear them openly.


Why then, can we not get our assets together and work as a singular force?


Because the rest of us do not wish to commit political suicide because of the political mistakes of the UOCers, and they have no right to ask us to leap off the cliff in unity.


99% of the OC crowd is for shall issue and wishes to support it. "We want to help you, but you don't give a rat's a** about us." is the feeling.


At this point, anyone who thinks that is, to be blunt, an idiot who can't be reached. The point has been made too many times, and it's obnoxious and dishonorable to ask people to posture further to soothe the hurt feelings of those who *will* *not* *listen.*

The goal is to get *all* the rights *that can be obtained in California*, and to keep an eye on the ultimate outcome rather than the immediate one.

7x57

7x57
09-09-2009, 12:28 PM
Upon searching, it appears that MA's RKBA was interpreted as a collective right in 1976. As you can see, that's pretty easy to be sabotaged under all kinds of anti gun sophistry like "reasonable regulation" and "police power" and "state's interests." I wonder if the Heller case can be employed to reverse that decision as it destroyed the collective right argument.

Not by decree, I think. So far as I understand it SCOTUS defers completely the the state supreme courts on matters of their Constitutions--if the Mass court says "no right to arms, that elephant in the corner is an illusion" I gather SCOTUS won't say a word.

However, I also hear the lawyers say that SCOTUS' is tremendously influential on state courts in terms of example and methodology. So I think there is grounds for hope that some state courts may apply the reasoning in Heller to their own provisions, which would clear away a lot of that nonsense. However, I gather that happens at their discretion, not by mandate from the feds.

Let's be thankful for whatever shards of Federalism we have left, even when it doesn't do what we want. A federal government powerful enough to do what we want is powerful enough to do what we fear most.

7x57

yellowfin
09-09-2009, 12:35 PM
Let's be thankful for whatever shards of Federalism we have left, even when it doesn't do what we want. A federal government powerful enough to do what we want is powerful enough to do what we fear most.

7x57Ok then, we should have them out of our hair altogether. Repeal the NFA, GCA, barrel ban, etc. if they can't tell states what to do on guns. None of this wishy washy they can say this but they can't say that business. If we can't have it both ways than neither should they. They should either err on the side of liberty entirely or get the heck out of the way.

dantodd
09-09-2009, 12:49 PM
Upon searching, it appears that MA's RKBA was interpreted as a collective right in 1976. As you can see, that's pretty easy to be sabotaged under all kinds of anti gun sophistry like "reasonable regulation" and "police power" and "state's interests." I wonder if the Heller case can be employed to reverse that decision as it destroyed the collective right argument.

It might be interesting to see how Heller would impact MA's interpretation if incorporation falls through. If we win incorporation it is, of course, moot. When the 2A is incorporated the states loose the ability to deny their citizens the rights guaranteed by the federal constitution.

gotgunz
09-09-2009, 12:56 PM
I was afraid something like this was cooking.
'Tis a sad day.

Just a quick question, and I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything like that :o,
but if you were "afraid something like this was cooking", why would you continue to provoke the situation for the last few months?

I'd like to know the answer to this one too as I directly see the UOC fiasco as a direct path to allowing the state to screw me (and all of you) out of our rights when it pertains to guns.

I guess the kilt garnered too much attention.

bsim
09-09-2009, 1:13 PM
Although I'm not UOC'ing, I do find it ridiculous that a state representative is basically whining about people doing something that is clearly legal.

Therein lies the argument I guess...

gotgunz
09-09-2009, 1:21 PM
Debate on SB41 starts at 00:10:16 on Assembly Floor Session part 2. UOC begins at 00 : 19 : 45.



Is the link for the assembly sessions screwed up? All I keep seeing is some guy from Palo Alto talking about medical waste.

dantodd
09-09-2009, 1:22 PM
I'd like to know the answer to this one too as I directly see the UOC fiasco as a direct path to allowing the state to screw me (and all of you) out of our rights when it pertains to guns.


The problem with that line of reasoning is that post incorporation you will have the right to keep and bear arms and CA can't take it away from you. Barring incorporation you don't have any anyway so it's only a matter of when, not if, our legislature decides to take it away.

IF the GFSZ expansion is legal under an incorporated 2A then waiting to OC until after incorporation is of no relevance because OCing after incorporation would have brought the same laws that some are claiming it has spurred now. So, you are not asking people to refrain from exercising a legal right "until incorporation is settled" you're asking them to do so indefinitely and with no compensation. If the GFSZ expansion is not legal under an incorporated 2A then it is additional workload on those carrying the water around here but is not "screwing" you out of your rights.

gotgunz
09-09-2009, 1:27 PM
I am exempt from the GFSZ and I carry daily.

My point has always been, although apparently not too popular, that people carrying guns in the open within urban settings (even though legal under current law) does nothing more than scare the sheeple and force our "leaders" to take actions on their behalf which adversely affect all gun owners.

Walking down the boardwalk in San Diego (just an example) does not help us given the mindset of the majority of Californians (which is greatly flawed btw).

Fjold
09-09-2009, 1:31 PM
cineski, I value your opinion even if I disagree with it, but this is the argument I was speaking of. Replace our natural right (OC, LOC) with the privilege. If it can be made a privilege it can grossly be controlled.

I want CGF to keep working in the right direction. I strongly believe that it is the intent of the legal experts of CGF to work for LOC after shall-issue.

Quite frankly, it seems like those that OC and the legal team are the only people who care about our natural, constitutionally identified right to bear arms (openly and concealed).


The problem is that you are setting conditions in your argument. Your argument is centered around the OC and LOC being ruled illegal and CC remaining a privilege.

You also have made the determination that the constitution has identified a right to bear arms "openly and concealed", I don't remember reading that wording in the constitution. The Constitution I read says "keep and bear arms" but it doesn't say "openly or concealed" anywhere. The logical mind would say both conditions apply, the legal mind would say that either one or the other could apply.

IMHO our goal is to make sure that both conditions (open and concealed) apply but our fight is to make sure that the courts agree that at least one of them applies.

dantodd
09-09-2009, 1:33 PM
I am exempt from the GFSZ and I carry daily.

My point has always been, although apparently not too popular, that people carrying guns in the open within urban settings (even though legal under current law) does nothing more than scare the sheeple and force our "leaders" to take actions on their behalf which adversely affect all gun owners.

Walking down the boardwalk in San Diego (just an example) does not help us given the mindset of the majority of Californians (which is greatly flawed btw).

I'm sorry, I must have read something into your post that wasn't there. Exactly how do you feel the UOCers are "allowing the state to screw" you out of your rights?

gotgunz
09-09-2009, 1:41 PM
I am not convinced that the UOC people are helping and in fact may hinder the 2A movement in California because we are frankly outnumbered by the anti's here.

When a group of people show up at a public area (the boardwalk is as good an example as any) carrying guns (legally or otherwise) it does nothing more than scare the crap out of of them which in turn can, and apparently has, caused them to contact our legislators to take actions to stop this from happening. I.E. change the laws to make it illegal.

I am not opposed to open carry but I am certain that in California, based on the population and their unfavorable view of guns in general, it is not something that benefits us in the long run.

Remember, this is not Texas, or Virginia or Arizona and accordingly the residents of California, by and large, are not comfortable with guns in general.

dantodd
09-09-2009, 4:15 PM
I am not convinced that the UOC people are helping and in fact may hinder the 2A movement in California because we are frankly outnumbered by the anti's here.

When a group of people show up at a public area (the boardwalk is as good an example as any) carrying guns (legally or otherwise) it does nothing more than scare the crap out of of them which in turn can, and apparently has, caused them to contact our legislators to take actions to stop this from happening. I.E. change the laws to make it illegal.

I am not opposed to open carry but I am certain that in California, based on the population and their unfavorable view of guns in general, it is not something that benefits us in the long run.

Remember, this is not Texas, or Virginia or Arizona and accordingly the residents of California, by and large, are not comfortable with guns in general.

I am still unclear on how you feel they are "allowing the state to screw" you. Can you be a little more specific on the screwing part? I don't want to make any assumptions in my reply.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 4:47 PM
OK just saw the video of the assembly on this one. Did anyone else notice they are tying this bill in to both ab668 and ab962? It was on the little scroll thing at the bottom of the screen.

And as to the event she was speaking of we had positive feedback at that event. Yes I was one of the ones at that event although I did not OC at that event.

CitaDeL
09-09-2009, 4:53 PM
Remember, this is not Texas, or Virginia or Arizona and accordingly the residents of California, by and large, are not comfortable with guns in general.

Is it inappropriate for me to point out that open carry is illegal in Texas, even when one is authorized to concealed carry?

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 5:19 PM
OK, a few things I would like to mention that I think haven't been addressed.

1. This first one is a point I've tried to make in other threads. The RKBA in CA. Even in the literal sense, many disagree on whether or not we have the RKBA here in CA. I have said "we do" others have said "we don't". Now the point is this...if we didn't have the RKBA in this state I am absolutely convinced the extreme left who run amok in our state legislature would have banned all gun ownership similarly to DC. They haven't...why not? Because we have the right, and they know it.

Now for Saldana's quote from the video (albeit she had to take a deep breath and swallow before actually getting it out)..."...openly carrying weapons because of their RIGHT to bear arms" (her emphasis, not mine). Point made.

2. Saldana..."redirecting our law enforcement activities into these areas where people are wanting to display their firearms" now to the next...

3. This would be funny if it weren't such literal hogwash, again Saldana "...we have tremendous freedom for people to carry weapons here in California". Somebody from her district should create a "state shoppers comparison" document just for her to illustrate our "tremendous" freedom to carry weapons and firearms. Oh, and back to number 2...if we're free to display our firearms, why are the police being redirected? Again, classic leftist fear mongering rhetoric.

4. Stop blaming UOC, here's why...it's the NRA's fault. If the NRA hadn't supported this bill, then she might not have been so happy to jump up and spew her useless rhetoric. "the NRA feels its a reasonable approach". Why did the NRA agree to a 7th, or 8th, or 9th (or whatever it is) signature to purchase a firearm? Not only is it wrong, but they opened the door to put fear in the hearts and minds of the sheeple upon the mear sight of an active UOC'er. Do you think she doesn't know she's in a conservative region? Do you think she didn't know that by referencing the NRA she would gain at least some cover from her constituents? And you want to blame the UOC'ers? Shame.

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 5:25 PM
Cool, please tell me you're not serious.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 5:35 PM
OK, a few things I would like to mention that I think haven't been addressed.

1. This first one is a point I've tried to make in other threads. The RKBA in CA. Even in the literal sense, many disagree on whether or not we have the RKBA here in CA. I have said "we do" others have said "we don't". Now the point is this...if we didn't have the RKBA in this state I am absolutely convinced the extreme left who run amok in our state legislature would have banned all gun ownership similarly to DC. They haven't...why not? Because we have the right, and they know it.

Now for Saldana's quote from the video (albeit she had to take a deep breath and swallow before actually getting it out)..."...openly carrying weapons because of their RIGHT to bear arms" (her emphasis, not mine). Point made.

2. Saldana..."redirecting our law enforcement activities into these areas where people are wanting to display their firearms" now to the next...

3. This would be funny if it weren't such literal hogwash, again Saldana "...we have tremendous freedom for people to carry weapons here in California". Somebody from her district should create a "state shoppers comparison" document just for her to illustrate our "tremendous" freedom to carry weapons and firearms. Oh, and back to number 2...if we're free to display our firearms, why are the police being redirected? Again, classic leftist fear mongering rhetoric.

4. Stop blaming UOC, here's why...it's the NRA's fault. If the NRA hadn't supported this bill, then she might not have been so happy to jump up and spew her useless rhetoric. "the NRA feels its a reasonable approach". Why did the NRA agree to a 7th, or 8th, or 9th (or whatever it is) signature to purchase a firearm? Not only is it wrong, but they opened the door to put fear in the hearts and minds of the sheeple upon the mear sight of an active UOC'er. Do you think she doesn't know she's in a conservative region? Do you think she didn't know that by referencing the NRA she would gain at least some cover from her constituents? And you want to blame the UOC'ers? Shame.

Now, I am not sure I can agree with that.

I have not been able to for some reason see the whole video, but what I did see. . .

She is not saying "right" as a good thing. She is saying it with such an obvious disdain you can feel it leaving a bad taste in your mouth.

She is saying OC is "irresponsible" and that she seems to be doing this to protect the "responsible gun owners" from the "irresponsible ones."

At least that is the little I could gather from what I have been able to watch.

As to why the NRA sponsors or supports this bill? I am not sure. . . probably because it is stupid to waste energy to fight a bill that only requires a signature that they already have from a person before they actually pick up the gun. . . Unless my knowledge of the bill is wrong. . .

Librarian
09-09-2009, 5:44 PM
OK, a few things I would like to mention that I think haven't been addressed.

1. This first one is a point I've tried to make in other threads. The RKBA in CA. Even in the literal sense, many disagree on whether or not we have the RKBA here in CA. I have said "we do" others have said "we don't". Now the point is this...if we didn't have the RKBA in this state I am absolutely convinced the extreme left who run amok in our state legislature would have banned all gun ownership similarly to DC. They haven't...why not? Because we have the right, and they know it

I believe you will look in vain at the California Constitution to find such a right expressed.

And the history of court cases in the 9th Circuit, most prominently Fresno Rifle, shows that the Federal Government does not wish to enforce whatever emanation of a penumbra of a right under the 2nd Amendment may find its way into the circuit boundary.

In short, we DON'T have a defensible right - yet - and the anti-gun people know that quite well.

What the anti-gun folks ALSO know is that they don't have voter support for banning guns outright. All they need is some more outcry from the uninformed electorate, whipped up by ideologues like De Leon and Saldana, and that will change.

HowardW56
09-09-2009, 5:54 PM
Is it inappropriate for me to point out that open carry is illegal in Texas, even when one is authorized to concealed carry?

We aren't in Texas...

Glock22Fan
09-09-2009, 5:59 PM
We aren't in Texas...

Yes, but people have been comparing California with Texas, so that's why the comment.

grammaton76
09-09-2009, 6:05 PM
As to why the NRA sponsors or supports this bill? I am not sure. . . probably because it is stupid to waste energy to fight a bill that only requires a signature that they already have from a person before they actually pick up the gun. . . Unless my knowledge of the bill is wrong. . .

Another possibility might be that once that signature is required, it becomes easy to say that 3-4 of the other signatures are irrelevant and can be removed. Not sure, but just another possibility.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 7:09 PM
Also if I heard the reading of this bill right it would make available to the DOJ all information on the purchase of said gun including if the gun was paid by credit card Which means they can go dig in your finances to see how you paid for said gun. I also find it telling they are trying to bundle this bill with AB668 and AB962.

And Saldana is a moron supreme. And Grammaton I can almost bet you who was the little bird whispering in her ear.

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 7:20 PM
Cool, please tell me you're not serious.

You're supposed to say, "surely you aren't serious" to which I say, "I am serious, but don't call me Shirley." :D

Seriously, which part? The fact that we have the right, the fact that she hates the fact that we have a right (so much so she can barely utter the words), or the fact that its the NRA's fault?

Yes, we have the right. Not saying we don't need 2A incorporated though.
Yes, she hates the fact that we have the right.
NRA's fault? No not really serious, just trying to make a point about all of the UOC flaming and blaming. Point was well made though, if you don't mind me saying so myself. Its very easy to connect related things erroneously in the absence of more facts.

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 7:23 PM
She is not saying "right" as a good thing. She is saying it with such an obvious disdain you can feel it leaving a bad taste in your mouth.

She is saying OC is "irresponsible" and that she seems to be doing this to protect the "responsible gun owners" from the "irresponsible ones."

Yes, I know, see my post to wildhawker.

ETA: But of course, just one more signature is all that is needed to protect her sheeple from the big bad unloaded open carriers. The horror....!

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 7:46 PM
And the history of court cases in the 9th Circuit, most prominently Fresno Rifle, shows that the Federal Government does not wish to enforce whatever emanation of a penumbra of a right under the 2nd Amendment my find its way into the circuit boundary.

In short, we DON'T have a defensible right - yet - and the anti-gun people know that quite well.

Wow, very cool, "emanation" and "penumbra" both in one post. Impressive. And here I thought your avatar and handle was just a ruse.

Yes you are correct in today's strict legal sense. But won't we at least agree it's not supposed to be that way? The founders were very clear, not only about the BoR, but also about the need for constitutional amendments to modify those rights, not regulation and death by a thousand cuts.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 7:52 PM
Coolusername what part of there is NO second amendment right in CA as it stands right now do you not seem to get. The states can and do make laws that go against the federal laws all the time and guess what if those laws are more restrictive then the federal law it can stand.

Librarian
09-09-2009, 8:20 PM
Wow, very cool, "emanation" and "penumbra" both in one post. Impressive. And here I thought your avatar and handle was just a ruse.

Yes you are correct in today's strict legal sense. But won't we at least agree it's not supposed to be that way? The founders were very clear, not only about the BoR, but also about the need for constitutional amendments to modify those rights, not regulation and death by a thousand cuts.

Actually do have an MLS.

And sure, we can agree the missing right in California should not be the case.

But since it is the case, shouldn't we also think of a way to regain it that does not give the antis wet dreams? (Or night terrors, depending on their cynicism.) I realize that suing governments doesn't have the immediacy of personalized action - courts seem to run on 'horse and buggy' time, while most of us have moved on to 'internet time' - but working up to delayed gratification is one of those painful growth stages that seems to be necessary.

Acknowledging the truth of the saying 'justice delayed is justice denied', since OC has been illegal since 1967, how is one more injured by waiting another year or so?

If court action 'wins', a lot of effort was saved. If it loses, then other avenues would seem to be appropriate then.

Sons of Liberty
09-09-2009, 8:34 PM
OK. I listed to the "debate".

What concerns me more than her brief comment about the number of people in her district lawfully open carrying is that Saldana says the NRA doesn't oppose the bill; a bill which makes gun purchases more burdensome??!!

Wow!

You have assembly gun-owner after assembly gun-owner get up and say they oppose the bill, but the NRA doesn't oppose the bill???? Are Saldana and the NRA singing off the same song sheet?

What's going on here?

Doesn't that bother anyone?

Amazing!

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 8:41 PM
Never fear, everything in politics is exactly what it seems.

OK. I listed to the "debate".

What concerns me more than her brief comment about the number of people in her district lawfully open carrying is that Saldana says the NRA doesn't oppose the bill; a bill which makes gun purchases more burdensome??!!

Wow!

You have assembly gun-owner after assembly gun-owner get up and say they oppose the bill, but the NRA doesn't oppose the bill???? Are Saldana and the NRA singing off the same song sheet?

What's going on here?

Doesn't that bother anyone?

Amazing!

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 8:46 PM
I think Saldana is just misguided big time and misinformed. I thought about calling her office after hearing her speech but decided against it since at that point about the only question I could come up with how much crack have you been smoking to be this stupid. I figured that wouldn't be a good thing to ask so I am waiting to call. I am so looking forward to getting that one voted out of office. :D

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 9:00 PM
OK. I listed to the "debate".

What concerns me more than her brief comment about the number of people in her district lawfully open carrying is that Saldana says the NRA doesn't oppose the bill; a bill which makes gun purchases more burdensome??!!

Wow!

You have assembly gun-owner after assembly gun-owner get up and say they oppose the bill, but the NRA doesn't oppose the bill???? Are Saldana and the NRA singing off the same song sheet?

What's going on here?

Doesn't that bother anyone?

Amazing!


Yup, bothers me a lot. Nevermind the fact that CA is one of the most restrictive gun states in the nation, earning #1 ranking on the Bradylist, but yeah...one more signature is...reasonable. The NRA should take a hard-line stance against CA. Everybody in this state should take a hardline stance against the state legislators.

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 9:01 PM
I am so looking forward to getting that one voted out of office. :D

So call her and tell her that.

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 9:08 PM
But since it is the case, shouldn't we also think of a way to regain it that does not give the antis wet dreams? (Or night terrors, depending on their cynicism.)

Naa, where's the fun in that? :D

Shotgun Man
09-09-2009, 9:13 PM
Yup, bothers me a lot. Nevermind the fact that CA is one of the most restrictive gun states in the nation, earning #1 ranking on the Bradylist, but yeah...one more signature is...reasonable. The NRA should take a hard-line stance against CA. Everybody in this state should take a hardline stance against the state legislators.

So what's the reason NRA did not oppose the bill?

nick
09-09-2009, 9:25 PM
OK. I listed to the "debate".

What concerns me more than her brief comment about the number of people in her district lawfully open carrying is that Saldana says the NRA doesn't oppose the bill; a bill which makes gun purchases more burdensome??!!

Wow!

You have assembly gun-owner after assembly gun-owner get up and say they oppose the bill, but the NRA doesn't oppose the bill???? Are Saldana and the NRA singing off the same song sheet?

What's going on here?

Doesn't that bother anyone?

Amazing!

Meaning, politicians don't lie when their lips are moving?

Librarian
09-09-2009, 9:29 PM
Naa, where's the fun in that? :D

No substantial answer? That's ... disappointing.

jdberger
09-09-2009, 9:34 PM
I honestly think that Saldana's comments are being misconstrued.

It appears (to me) that she's suggesting that gun owners in California have "...tremendous freedom..." regarding the owning and carrying of weapons and that the additional requirement of a signature on the DROS form at the time of delivery isn't much of an imposition.

I did note that she mentioned the UOC events, that they divert "valuable police resources" and that guns were being carried around families.

However, with the exception of using the anecdote to illustrate the 'vast freedoms' enjoyed by Californians with regards to exercising their 2A rights, I thought it was a non-sequitur.

That said, it always surprises me when I hear our Reps speak. I'm shocked by their lack of grace in public speaking.

CalNRA
09-09-2009, 9:40 PM
Yup, bothers me a lot. Nevermind the fact that CA is one of the most restrictive gun states in the nation, earning #1 ranking on the Bradylist, but yeah...one more signature is...reasonable. The NRA should take a hard-line stance against CA. Everybody in this state should take a hardline stance against the state legislators.

since there are many more people in CA than there are NRA members, seems like your anger toward NRA is ... misdirected.

NRA takes a stand as hard as it can but it cannot fight every battle for us. How many NRA members have you signed up lately?

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 10:06 PM
No substantial answer? That's ... disappointing.

Forgive me my manners, sir.

And sure, we can agree the missing right in California should not be the case.

Excellent. Then we have a foundation upon which to build.

Acknowledging the truth of the saying 'justice delayed is justice denied', since OC has been illegal since 1967, how is one more injured by waiting another year or so?

No, one is not significantly more injured considering the totality of time past, but one does decide, albeit arbitrarily, whether good, bad, or indifferent, that enough time has past and therefore one decides to take action. That's where we are today, people are beginning to take action. While growing up my father would say "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." But here's the rub, in his day, when they chose not to do something, they knew they still could. Unknown to them at the time, their decision to stop taking action, is in a small part, why we are where we are today. Today many feel, myself included, if we don't start taking action really soon, then we'll never be able to again. You see, his rights weren't under assault as ours are today, nor was his form of government on the verge of a major "remaking". Today...we must choose to act, not out of rebellion for rebellion sake, or for "in your face" reaction, no not at all. Today we must choose action, because today action is required, not for the detriment of cause, but for the preservation of cause. We are under assualt from within.

If court action 'wins', a lot of effort was saved. If it loses, then other avenues would seem to be appropriate then.

I simply do not believe court action and other avenues are mutually exclusive. For me, its really that simple.

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 10:18 PM
since there are many more people in CA than there are NRA members, seems like your anger toward NRA is ... misdirected.

NRA takes a stand as hard as it can but it cannot fight every battle for us. How many NRA members have you signed up lately?

No, I don't believe so. The NRA doesn't need to fight every battle, just don't give the opposition any ammunition. And it appears that with SB41 they did just that.

In their defense however, I don't know for sure. Saldana could have just been blowing smoke. It wouldn't be the first time a politician lied.

gotgunz
09-09-2009, 10:47 PM
Is it inappropriate for me to point out that open carry is illegal in Texas, even when one is authorized to concealed carry?

Point noted... I thought they were an open carry state. You get the point though.

hoffmang
09-09-2009, 11:04 PM
So what's the reason NRA did not oppose the bill?

The bill was an Irwin special and it sucked at first. NRA told him that they'd kill the bill if Irwin didn't make major amendments to the bill. Irwin made those amendments and then NRA went Neutral on the bill because the other side did as asked. All the bill does is add a signature line to the DROS form so that you sign the DROS when you pick up the handgun - in addition to signing the back of the 4473.

Part of the reason for this is that guys were getting denied by the background check. A denial for cause is forwarded to local law enforcement. LEA investigates and they claim that the guy is prohibited in possession and LEA gets a search warrant for his house because there is no proof he didn't pick up the firearm. Now, with the extra sig - if the DROS form isn't signed, there is no probable cause to get that warrant. Plus, you'll now walk home with a signed DROS form - which is going to come in handy in the future...

So, a long answer to why NRA didn't oppose it. However, Kathy (CAFR/NSSF) and GOA (Sam Parades) are wildly opposed because Kathy promised her (small) group of retailers that she'd kill the bill. Sadly, she can't kill the bill without NRA and CRPA help. The Reeps were reading from Kathy's script there. NRA would certainly be happy to see this bill die - and it still may - but they're far more worried about Cow Palace and the Ammo Bill.

Hope that sheds some light.

-Gene

Scarecrow Repair
09-09-2009, 11:16 PM
Plus, you'll now walk home with a signed DROS form - which is going to come in handy in the future...

Something to do with proving you already own a gun?

ke6guj
09-09-2009, 11:23 PM
Something to do with proving you already own a gun?interesting:D

hoffmang
09-09-2009, 11:28 PM
Something to do with proving you already own a gun?

Now why would I want to be able to prove I already own a firearm? Hrm... :43:

-Gene

gotgunz
09-09-2009, 11:35 PM
I am still unclear on how you feel they are "allowing the state to screw" you. Can you be a little more specific on the screwing part? I don't want to make any assumptions in my reply.

What I mean is that people who open carry are scaring the crap out of the sheeple. Remember that Californians are afraid of guns because they create violence by their presence alone.

The sheeple in turn contact their representatives professing that something must be done about this.

The representatives, looking for a bandwagon to jump onto, then bring some other lame bill into the legislature to "fix" our woes and protect us from the evil guns.

Once they have succeeded in passing a law to protect us our 'rights' are further trampled.

I don't know about the rest of you but when my rights are trampled because some politician is responding to a perceived need, based on the cries for action by the sheeple, that is when we get screwed further.

This is not limited to UOC by the way. It also applies to people that purchase guns illegally, possess guns when they are not allowed, fail to keep them securely stored, are careless with their use, bring stuff back from out of state gun shows and even people, that are otherwise not committing any crime by having large amounts of ammo and guns in their possession, but do something stupid (weather legal or not) which draws LEO attention to themselves which then makes it into the media who then twist the facts to make their stories more compelling to the sheeple.

Does this make sense?

Librarian
09-10-2009, 7:50 AM
Thank you.



... Today many feel, myself included, if we don't start taking action really soon, then we'll never be able to again. You see, his rights weren't under assault as ours are today, nor was his form of government on the verge of a major "remaking". Today...we must choose to act, not out of rebellion for rebellion sake, or for "in your face" reaction, no not at all. Today we must choose action, because today action is required, not for the detriment of cause, but for the preservation of cause. We are under assualt from within.



I simply do not believe court action and other avenues are mutually exclusive. For me, its really that simple.


I perceive what seems to me to be an inconsistency. Perhaps you could resolve my confusion.

No, I don't believe so. The NRA doesn't need to fight every battle, just don't give the opposition any ammunition. And it appears that with SB41 they did just that.


Is it not the case that the Saldana's of the state are taking UOC as ammunition? I believe they are.

If you recommend that the NRA not 'give the opposition any ammunition', would not that stance apply to others?

dantodd
09-10-2009, 10:59 AM
What I mean is that people who open carry are scaring the crap out of the sheeple. Remember that Californians are afraid of guns because they create violence by their presence alone.

The sheeple in turn contact their representatives professing that something must be done about this.

The representatives, looking for a bandwagon to jump onto, then bring some other lame bill into the legislature to "fix" our woes and protect us from the evil guns.

Once they have succeeded in passing a law to protect us our 'rights' are further trampled.

I don't know about the rest of you but when my rights are trampled because some politician is responding to a perceived need, based on the cries for action by the sheeple, that is when we get screwed further.

This is not limited to UOC by the way. It also applies to people that purchase guns illegally, possess guns when they are not allowed, fail to keep them securely stored, are careless with their use, bring stuff back from out of state gun shows and even people, that are otherwise not committing any crime by having large amounts of ammo and guns in their possession, but do something stupid (weather legal or not) which draws LEO attention to themselves which then makes it into the media who then twist the facts to make their stories more compelling to the sheeple.

Does this make sense?

Not really. Do you think the legislature needs UOC to justify passing more anti-gun laws? Do you think that UOC will get more "scared sheeple" to call their legislators than a school shooting?

Librarian
09-10-2009, 11:04 AM
Not really. Do you think the legislature needs UOC to justify passing more anti-gun laws? Do you think that UOC will get more "scared sheeple" to call their legislators than a school shooting?

ALL the laws proposed by legislators have as an essential component 'will this help me get re-elected?'. I suggest that almost all anti-gun laws have that as a primary motivation, since there's no possible way those laws can have any public safety benefit.

Scared sheeple > legislator 'doing something' > votes from scared sheeple & money from assorted anti-gun orgs > re-election. (Which will likely lead to legislators saying unfounded scary things > irrationally more scared sheeple > > > re-election.)

dantodd
09-10-2009, 11:21 AM
ALL the laws proposed by legislators have as an essential component 'will this help me get re-elected?'. I suggest that almost all anti-gun laws have that as a primary motivation, since there's no possible way those laws can have any public safety benefit.

Scared sheeple > legislator 'doing something' > votes from scared sheeple & money from assorted anti-gun orgs > re-election. (Which will likely lead to legislators saying unfounded scary things > irrationally more scared sheeple > > > re-election.)

I mostly agree. I think there are some politicians who put their anti-gun (or pro-gun) agenda on close to level footing with the simple desire to be re-elected. However; what I question is what number of constituents actually call because they are directly intimidated by UOCers. I suspect the number is less than zero but a very small number compared to the number of calls that the antis drum up for gun control legislation in general. If that is the case then lacking UOC the antis would find some other issue to focus their calls on. A shooting at a community college, OC at Obama rallies, Gun Show reports about illegal sales. Those are just examples from the last month. I don't think anyone believes that the antis would simply go away and stop working toward more gun control legislation were UOC to go away or never have shown up. The difference of opinion appears to be on whether UOC makes a more compelling reason to legislators than "evil, illegal gun show sales" or "school shootings" or "Carrying a gun at an Obama meeting." I don't believe UOC is any more compelling or likely to sway a fence sitting legislator to introduce or vote for a law they would otherwise have opposed.

Theseus
09-10-2009, 11:34 AM
I think the debate as to whether UOC is the cause or not is not so important now. I don't think anyone really believed that when we started OC that the legislature would simply roll over and die. The difference is that when, or at least when I started OC not that long ago we still didn't have the potential gains on the horizon.

There is nothing we can do about what has passed. What we can do is work more constructively to find a mutually acceptable future.

nicki
09-10-2009, 11:43 AM
Bans on UOC have been discussed in the legislature for close to 10 years, but nothing ever happened. The fear in the legislature were things like the Ohio open carry marches.

If a bill actually gains legs in the legislature, it is going to eat up resources.

The Genie is out of the bottle, the issue is can we pull enough clout to kill it.

Right now we don't have the clout, we needed incorporation, we needed to build a grass roots network of our coordinators throughout the state.

We all are INTERDEPENDENT on each other. Calguns and the SAF are pursuing 2a litigation in a smart and aggressive manner.

Calguns and the SAF aren't trying to avoid lawsuits, they are going at them as fast as they reasonably can and they are being creative about it.

When they win on the Sykes case, the mainstream media has to watch how they report the case because of who the lead plantiff is and IMHO, how the our victory is reported will significantly effect actual implementation of CCW across the state.

Screw UOC, I want LOC. Wildhawker went all across the state trying to find people who want to be leaders. I would suggest to all the UOC people to contact him if you haven't done so already and make a commitment.

Nicki

Librarian
09-10-2009, 11:47 AM
However; what I question is what number of constituents actually call because they are directly intimidated by UOCers. I suspect the number is less than zero but a very small number compared to the number of calls that the antis drum up for gun control legislation in general. If that is the case then lacking UOC the antis would find some other issue to focus their calls on. A shooting at a community college, OC at Obama rallies, Gun Show reports about illegal sales.
...

I think we're seeing the dishonest use of UOC by legislators to misrepresent both the number of constituents complaining and the 'danger' such practices may be to the public.

I think they'd be less able to do anything with it if there were no TV reports of UOC where the reporters and then the legislators screech 'Look! Guns In The Streets! Augh!'

Gravedigger posted that he expected people would finally become accustomed to it all. If the public were simply left alone to absorb things, that probably would happen. But the papers and television and the legislators are turning it into a constant irritant.

jdberger
09-10-2009, 12:37 PM
Not really. Do you think the legislature needs UOC to justify passing more anti-gun laws? Do you think that UOC will get more "scared sheeple" to call their legislators than a school shooting?

UOC is something for legislatures to wave about in between school shootings.

Why give your opponent more ammo?

Think of the children....

dantodd
09-10-2009, 12:39 PM
UOC is something for legislatures to wave about in between school shootings.

Why give your opponent more ammo?

Think of the children....

So is ammo hoarding. Are you asking people to not stock up? Have you seen what the media is calling hoarding? 1000 rounds is hoarding to them.

jdberger
09-10-2009, 12:41 PM
So is ammo hoarding. Are you asking people to not stock up? Have you seen what the media is calling hoarding? 1000 rounds is hoarding to them.

Yes, but how many people do you know who obviously and visibly carry 1,000 rounds of .308 with them at a picnic? At a library?

Let's not be obtuse, eh?

dantodd
09-10-2009, 12:47 PM
Yes, but how many people do you know who obviously and visibly carry 1,000 rounds of .308 with them at a picnic? At a library?

Let's not be obtuse, eh?

Your use of the word obtuse is nonsensical so I don't know exactly how to respond to that portion of your post. If you think it is only the over exercise of 2A rights that get anti-legislators moving you are mistaken.

grammaton76
09-10-2009, 1:20 PM
I honestly think that Saldana's comments are being misconstrued.

...

I did note that she mentioned the UOC events, that they divert "valuable police resources" and that guns were being carried around families.

That's because she was speaking to Captain Zimmerman, of SDPD. She's really big on stressing that "families" go to the beach and are concerned. That having been said, she also tells folks who ask her (and she's usually personally walking behind our group!) that what we're doing is completely legal, so I don't take any issue with her on it.

artherd
09-10-2009, 2:07 PM
If this is the case, then you have your proof, congratulations!

This is a huge loss, for all of us, which we are trying to control. Congratulations are inappropriate.

artherd
09-10-2009, 2:09 PM
It seemed good that you have the proof you need so that others can stop asking you for "proof".

It is not easy to argue against proof.

You don't get it - we don't give a snort about being 'right' or vindicated in the end.

All we care about is winning. Frankly, if I could repeal SB23, but it required everyone to think I left the gun movement and joined the Bradys, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I'd do the same for U/L/OC or CCW.

artherd
09-10-2009, 2:22 PM
As to UOC, in San Diego in particular. PNS25 and his group have done a pretty good job (except the interview on the radio) of putting a positive spin on this. Through educating the local PD depts and the news media, San Diego has been pretty fair in the public spotlight about this.

Yeah, it went over so well that a SD Legislator is ringing a 4-alarm fire about banning it on an entirely unrelated bill...


Look, I'm pro U/L/OC. And I'm going to get it for all of us. Just please help me instead of hurting - that's all I ask!

artherd
09-10-2009, 2:31 PM
So if they used Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious as an talking point in the debate would you be asking everyone to throw out their house's copy of Mary Poppins?

Yes. Laws can turn on stupid points, we win by:
1) knowing how the system works.
2) manipulating it to our gain.

I and others have been doing this for years. And we've won so many times we've become addicts!

Not to say you don't have a point, but at the same time I'd hardly think that UOC sparked a fire that wasn't already lit. It may be a convenient excuse for them, but not a point of origin.

All they need to pass a law is a convenient excuse! The Black Panthers got LOC banned and PC12031(e) just by providing a convenient excuse!

artherd
09-10-2009, 2:32 PM
That's because she was speaking to Captain Zimmerman, of SDPD. She's really big on stressing that "families" go to the beach and are concerned. ... so I don't take any issue with her on it.

You do realize that she's presently *twisting* the knife she's stuck in your back, right?

artherd
09-10-2009, 2:36 PM
IMHO, it sounds like many people here would be perfectly fine if CA were like Texas (shall-issue CCW ONLY) instead of the other great states in the country that get all flavors of the gun rights buffet (like Montana- LOC, Shall-issue CCW, or Alaska- LOC, CCW without a permit). Sadly, the other repercussion is not taken into account for the threat to liberty that it is...

"Nice to meet you, your daughter is very pretty, does she like anal sex?"

Baby steps!

CA's legal makeup is fundamentally different than WI's. If you don't know how and haven't read so on this site - then I really can't help you.

artherd
09-10-2009, 2:39 PM
I want CGF to keep working in the right direction. I strongly believe that it is the intent of the legal experts of CGF to work for LOC after shall-issue.

DUDE - read the law. Read what CCW permits exempt you from. Seriously.

grammaton76
09-10-2009, 3:03 PM
You do realize that she's presently *twisting* the knife she's stuck in your back, right?

Personally, when authorities and politicians content themselves with being "Lawful Evil", I don't get TOO upset. It's what I've come to expect in CA.

For what knife twisting she's done, it's far less than she COULD have done if she were willing to adjust to "Chaotic Evil".

artherd
09-10-2009, 3:29 PM
The NRA should take a hard-line stance against CA. Everybody in this state should take a hardline stance against the state legislators.

That's a big bluff. Do you want them to call it?

KylaGWolf
09-10-2009, 3:35 PM
Personally, when authorities and politicians content themselves with being "Lawful Evil", I don't get TOO upset. It's what I've come to expect in CA.

For what knife twisting she's done, it's far less than she COULD have done if she were willing to adjust to "Chaotic Evil".

Dude if she hits the chaotic evil stage I would be worried. And all the D&D references almost make me want to start gaming again. :)

dantodd
09-10-2009, 3:51 PM
DUDE - read the law. Read what CCW permits exempt you from. Seriously.

I have read them.

If you believe that 12031(b)(6)
"The carrying of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person by persons who are authorized to carry those weapons pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4. "

Exempts you from a 12031 violation when OCing with a CCW I believe you have misread the law. "Authorized ... pursuant" means the manner of carry is authorized since 12050 clearly states that the manner of carry is specified on the permit.

The Sykes suit stipulates as much by stating that the law, as written, is permission to carry concealed only. This is why the argument is that CCW must be permitted because the state has chosen concealed carry rather than open carry. To assume interpretation of 12031(b)(6) to include open carry would negate the plaintiffs assertion that the state had chosen concealed carry.

If Don has written an opinion that interprets 12031(b)(6) differently I'd be very interested in seeing it.


ETA: Is there any case law on this topic?

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 4:59 PM
Exempts you from a 12031 violation when OCing with a CCW I believe you have misread the law. "Authorized ... pursuant" means the manner of carry is authorized since 12050 clearly states that the manner of carry is specified on the permit.


What would they charge you with post Sykes?

You can't violate 12050.

-Gene

artherd
09-10-2009, 5:48 PM
I have read them.

Where. Is. The. Crime?

Understand this is a house of cards we are working on, but when done you will have CCW, LOC and UOC if you want to.

But go ahead and tell me I'm a traitor to OC, even after we've given you the RIGHT to do so :)

gotgunz
09-10-2009, 5:49 PM
Not really. Do you think the legislature needs UOC to justify passing more anti-gun laws? Do you think that UOC will get more "scared sheeple" to call their legislators than a school shooting?

I have an extra pair of glasses, would you like to borrow them? They are special in that they block out trees so you'll be able to see the forest. Just in case you're not tuned into the same news outlets I am; there are more events (in California specifically) of UOC than there are of school shootings. :rolleyes:

I think we're seeing the dishonest use of UOC by legislators to misrepresent both the number of constituents complaining and the 'danger' such practices may be to the public.

I think they'd be less able to do anything with it if there were no TV reports of UOC where the reporters and then the legislators screech 'Look! Guns In The Streets! Augh!'

Exactly!

UOC is something for legislatures to wave about in between school shootings.

Why give your opponent more ammo?

Think of the children....

Again, Exactly!

So is ammo hoarding. Are you asking people to not stock up? Have you seen what the media is calling hoarding? 1000 rounds is hoarding to them.

You must be kidding! :rolleyes:

Yes, but how many people do you know who obviously and visibly carry 1,000 rounds of .308 with them at a picnic? At a library?

And this is exactly why.

Your use of the word obtuse is nonsensical so I don't know exactly how to respond to that portion of your post. If you think it is only the over exercise of 2A rights that get anti-legislators moving you are mistaken.

If you believe, and apparently you have drank all the Kook-aid on this one, that UOC is helping politicians sway to our side while the sheeple (I love that word!) are screaming "SAVE US!" you are a fool.

Yeah, it went over so well that a SD Legislator is ringing a 4-alarm fire about banning it on an entirely unrelated bill...

And this is exactly the kind of results, either good or bad, that are to be expected from scaring them.


What would they charge you with post Sykes?

You can't violate 12050.

-Gene

The problem is that most people are so stuck on their own agendas that they are unable or unwilling to see things objectively from all sides.

gotgunz
09-10-2009, 5:54 PM
Understand this is a house of cards we are working on, but when done you will have CCW, LOC and UOC if you want to.

But go ahead and tell me I'm a traitor to OC, even after we've given you the RIGHT to do so :)

While I am from the school of thought that more is always better (drag racing days; put more fuel, timing and blower speed and it will go faster! LOL) what I am unable to see is what the purpose of exposed carry would be when (or if) we achieve shall issue.

I interpret exposed carry as nothing more than grandstanding (look at me, I'm a badass because I have a gun). What would be the reasoning behind UOC/LOC once a ccw is readily available to everybody?

And btw; I have met many people that the idea of them having a ccw, let alone a gun, is quite frightening!

Sons of Liberty
09-10-2009, 5:57 PM
The bill was an Irwin special and it sucked at first. NRA told him that they'd kill the bill if Irwin didn't make major amendments to the bill. Irwin made those amendments and then NRA went Neutral on the bill because the other side did as asked. All the bill does is add a signature line to the DROS form so that you sign the DROS when you pick up the handgun - in addition to signing the back of the 4473.

Part of the reason for this is that guys were getting denied by the background check. A denial for cause is forwarded to local law enforcement. LEA investigates and they claim that the guy is prohibited in possession and LEA gets a search warrant for his house because there is no proof he didn't pick up the firearm. Now, with the extra sig - if the DROS form isn't signed, there is no probable cause to get that warrant. ...
-Gene

So, if you are denied, that's not a good thing, right? It means that you applied for a handgun when you were not eligible for a handgun because maybe you were a felon, mentally incompetent, etc.?

So, why does the NRA want to protect a felon?

Why doesn't the NRA just oppose increasing the bureaucracy around gun ownership on principle?

A "not opposed" for a bill like this is being used by anti-gun people as de facto "support".

Not a good thing.

bwiese
09-10-2009, 6:02 PM
So, if you are denied, that's not a good thing, right? It means that you applied for a handgun when you were not eligible for a handgun because maybe you were a felon, mentally incompetent, etc.?

There are mistakes and name confusions.

So, why does the NRA want to protect a felon?

They might like to protect a guy named John Smith from getting his door kicked down when another John Smith had priors, etc.

Why doesn't the NRA just oppose increasing the bureaucracy around gun ownership on principle?

A "not opposed" for a bill like this is being used by anti-gun people as de facto "support".

This is a trivial give & take and had some benefits.

grammaton76
09-10-2009, 6:03 PM
I interpret exposed carry as nothing more than grandstanding (look at me, I'm a badass because I have a gun).

For event-only open carriers (a substantial number of us), it's political activism and nothing more.

What would be the reasoning behind UOC/LOC once a ccw is readily available to everybody?

In urban areas, no particularly good reasoning during daylight hours for me.

However, if I weren't risking anything by exercising the right to LOC, there would be some specific limited times I would do so.

Specific example: the bike route my wife and I take at night. No real traffic, no public to bother, a black gun that blends in with my Camelbak so no one particularly notices, and lastly it'd be a heck of a lot more comfortable than a concealed weapon.

dantodd
09-10-2009, 6:17 PM
But go ahead and tell me I'm a traitor to OC, even after we've given you the RIGHT to do so :)

DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! I will not stand for it. If you cannot have a civil discussion on the issues please excuse yourself.

dantodd
09-10-2009, 6:29 PM
What would they charge you with post Sykes?

You can't violate 12050.

-Gene

Since Sykes has not be decided that is, of course, not answerable. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of Sykes there will be laws regulating the issuance or and carrying pursuant to a CCW permit.

Right now, 12050 reads:

12050. (a)(1)(A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

If you have a license issued pursuant to 12050(a)(1)(A)(i) it is a license to "carry concealed." Nowhere does it say a license to carry concealed OR open.

When we win Sykes carrying loaded open with a permit issued pursuant to 12050(a)(1)(A)(i) will be a violation of the terms of your permit and will violate 12031(a)(1) because 12031(b)(6) states you are exempt when you "carry those weapons" permitted pursuant to 12050. If your permit specifies open or concealed then carrying in a contrary manner is notgoing to be exempted.

As I stated in my previous post if Mr. Kilmer has officially said this is not the way the law will be interpreted or if there is case law I would be happy to be completely wrong. I do know that sometimes a lay reading is not sufficient and will be happy to be given evidence that suggests an alternate reading is more accurate.

Sgt Raven
09-10-2009, 6:57 PM
While I am from the school of thought that more is always better (drag racing days; put more fuel, timing and blower speed and it will go faster! LOL) what I am unable to see is what the purpose of exposed carry would be when (or if) we achieve shall issue.

I interpret exposed carry as nothing more than grandstanding (look at me, I'm a badass because I have a gun). What would be the reasoning behind UOC/LOC once a ccw is readily available to everybody?

And btw; I have met many people that the idea of them having a ccw, let alone a gun, is quite frightening!

Take Az where they have both LOC and CCW, if you print or someone sees your CCW, you're still OK. But in Texas where they only have CCW if someone sees your firearm you can be arrested and lose your CCW permit. ;)

Theseus
09-10-2009, 7:02 PM
While I am from the school of thought that more is always better (drag racing days; put more fuel, timing and blower speed and it will go faster! LOL) what I am unable to see is what the purpose of exposed carry would be when (or if) we achieve shall issue.

I interpret exposed carry as nothing more than grandstanding (look at me, I'm a badass because I have a gun). What would be the reasoning behind UOC/LOC once a ccw is readily available to everybody?

And btw; I have met many people that the idea of them having a ccw, let alone a gun, is quite frightening!

Well, truly the reason I would exposed carry even with shall-issue is that:



This is Southern California! I sweat profusely by just walking around in this heat. . . Add that I would then need to conceal a Springfield Armory XD 40 Tactical? That thing is like 9" long!
Access. With it exposed I can get at it a lot quicker.
Deterrent. And this is where your "hey, look at me, I am a badass with a gun!" comes in.
Reduction of concealed related ND/AD.

trashman
09-10-2009, 7:36 PM
Well, truly the reason I would exposed carry even with shall-issue is that:



This is Southern California! I sweat profusely by just walking around in this heat. . . Add that I would then need to conceal a Springfield Armory XD 40 Tactical? That thing is like 9" long!
Access. With it exposed I can get at it a lot quicker.
Deterrent. And this is where your "hey, look at me, I am a badass with a gun!" comes in.
Reduction of concealed related ND/AD.



I agree with all that except for, of course, carrying an XD 40...(I kid I kid).

But seriously -- because I prefer all-steel guns - I would love it if LOC was an option for us. I would love to rock me some El Paso Saddlery leather for my <insert gun 'o the day here>.

Anything larger than a K-frame snubby carried IWB and my pants start to fall down.

--Neill

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 7:37 PM
I do know that sometimes a lay reading is not sufficient and will be happy to be given evidence that suggests an alternate reading is more accurate.

You can't be charged with "pursuant to", especially when you're talking about a fundamental enumerated right.

I can't and will not officially comment on what the right people are saying, but I can tell you that the conversation has occurred and I'm confident of what I'm explaining here.

Do remember that I was the one who came up with the legal backing for the Bullet Button.

I'll say it again. You can't be charged with 12031 because you're licensed pursuant to 12050. You can't be charged with 12050. Remember that right now it is a privilege that you actually can carry UOC outside a GFSZ. Notice what else a 12050 permit exempts you from? Ask yourself why AB 1363 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1363_cfa_20090710_111410_sen_floor.html) was even contemplated if your alternative interpretation is correct.

-Gene

KylaGWolf
09-10-2009, 7:42 PM
Where. Is. The. Crime?

Understand this is a house of cards we are working on, but when done you will have CCW, LOC and UOC if you want to.

But go ahead and tell me I'm a traitor to OC, even after we've given you the RIGHT to do so :)

Well if the house of cards tumble as we hope it does UOC becomes redundant :) which as I have said before given a choice LOC is a much better choice.

KylaGWolf
09-10-2009, 7:44 PM
While I am from the school of thought that more is always better (drag racing days; put more fuel, timing and blower speed and it will go faster! LOL) what I am unable to see is what the purpose of exposed carry would be when (or if) we achieve shall issue.

I interpret exposed carry as nothing more than grandstanding (look at me, I'm a badass because I have a gun). What would be the reasoning behind UOC/LOC once a ccw is readily available to everybody?

And btw; I have met many people that the idea of them having a ccw, let alone a gun, is quite frightening!

For me LOC would be easier due to my disability. But in some situations I would rather CCW.

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 7:46 PM
To be concise:

A 12050. (a)(1)(A)(i) permit is a superior permit to the inferior 12050. (a)(1)(A)(ii) permit.

-Gene

KylaGWolf
09-10-2009, 7:47 PM
There are mistakes and name confusions.



They might like to protect a guy named John Smith from getting his door kicked down when another John Smith had priors, etc.



This is a trivial give & take and had some benefits.

You know the name confusion is a good point. I can say for a fact it happens. There is another guy that has the same name as my other half and his father. It has caused them headaches from time to time including having collections for stuff this guy has had because they say oh this is so and so's but don't verify beyond name. It happens all the time really. There was a guy that had same first and last name as my step dad (different middle name) his credit report got mixed in with my step dad's. It took them five years to clear up the mess and it almost cost them their house when they had to refinance.

gotgunz
09-10-2009, 8:13 PM
Take Az where they have both LOC and CCW, if you print or someone sees your CCW, you're still OK. But in Texas where they only have CCW if someone sees your firearm you can be arrested and lose your CCW permit. ;)

Sorry, but that is a lame argument and a stretch at best.


Well, truly the reason I would exposed carry even with shall-issue is that:


This is Southern California! I sweat profusely by just walking around in this heat. . . Add that I would then need to conceal a Springfield Armory XD 40 Tactical? That thing is like 9" long!
Access. With it exposed I can get at it a lot quicker.
Deterrent. And this is where your "hey, look at me, I am a badass with a gun!" comes in.
Reduction of concealed related ND/AD.


1. You must be kidding! I am 40 minutes north of Sacramento; you don't know hot, today was mild; we were only 10 degrees hotter than you. An XD? come on! I have CZ 75B on my permit. :rolleyes:
2 With practice you can get it from cover quickly as well.
3. Or target. If I were a crook robbing someplace where you were (bank, gas station etc...) you would get shot first; right before the guy with the cover vest.
4. You can't be serious on this one.

For me LOC would be easier due to my disability. But in some situations I would rather CCW.

I can see this and disabilities do pose their own issues.

artherd
09-10-2009, 8:15 PM
DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! I will not stand for it. If you cannot have a civil discussion on the issues please excuse yourself.

That comment was clearly not directed at you, however it is telling that you answered it.

It is also telling that you have no response to the rest of my statements.

artherd
09-10-2009, 8:16 PM
What would be the reasoning behind UOC/LOC once a ccw is readily available to everybody?

I'm not really sure - but we'd have it. I suppose it would be nice to not become a criminal for OCing. Might be useful riding my mtn bike. Or hiking.

artherd
09-10-2009, 8:18 PM
Well if the house of cards tumble as we hope it does UOC becomes redundant :) which as I have said before given a choice LOC is a much better choice.

Yes, to be crystal clear, we will get you CCW and LOC. UOC becomes silly but will be an option I guess.

artherd
09-10-2009, 8:21 PM
If you have a license issued pursuant to 12050(a)(1)(A)(i) it is a license to "carry concealed." Nowhere does it say a license to carry concealed OR open.


That's not quite how things work. Right now the language you refer to carries no force of law - however the issuing agency could revoke your permit.

Fine, I'll come out and say what should be obvious to anyone pretending to care about RKBA: After Sykes, they will be unable to revoke your permit for LOC/UOC.

wildhawker
09-10-2009, 8:26 PM
Good point. I'd love to say, "because we can" - and totally justified in saying so.

There are plenty of places/situations where LOC would be preferrable to CCW. You and Kyla mentioned some good ones, but I would bet we could come up with thousands more.

I'm not really sure - but we'd have it. I suppose it would be nice to not become a criminal for OCing. Might be useful riding my mtn bike. Or hiking.

dantodd
09-10-2009, 8:44 PM
You can't be charged with "pursuant to", especially when you're talking about a fundamental enumerated right.

To quote Alan Gura in Palmer v. DC. "The District of Columbia retains the ability to regulate the manner of carrying
handguns" and again (with Kilmer) in Sykes: "States retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns,"

This makes it pretty clear that the government can choose the manner of carry though not completely prohibit carry.


I can't and will not officially comment on what the right people are saying, but I can tell you that the conversation has occurred and I'm confident of what I'm explaining here.

Evidence not presented is irrelevant.



I'll say it again. You can't be charged with 12031 because you're licensed pursuant to 12050. You can't be charged with 12050. Remember that right now it is a privilege that you actually can carry UOC outside a GFSZ. Notice what else a 12050 permit exempts you from?

I am not sure what a 12050 violation is so I cannot comment on what it even means to be "charged with 12050."

The wording in 626.9 is much less ambiguous, if you can get past 12031 then 626.9 seems to be definitely covered by a CCW for any manner of carry.

OK, so here is the crux of what must be hashed out.

When I initially read 12031(b)(6) I read it as "a person carrying pursuant to a 12050 permit." But that is not what it says. It says "a person authorized... pursuant to 12051" This is significantly different. I wouldn't say it is as much a slam dunk as the bullet button but it is clearly ambiguous. The problem is that the legislature did choose to also create an open carry permit as a separate thing (I would like more evidence of your assertion that it is an inferior license) which certainly reads as though a permit to CCW is distinct from a permit to OC. Interestingly 12031 refers to "those weapons" which I wonder if it would be considered a reference to "pistols...." or to the specific weapon/s they are carrying. It could certainly be read either way and brings up the question of whether carrying weapons not on your card is a 12031 violation or simply (as of now) breaking the issuing agency's rules.


Ask yourself why AB 1363 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1363_cfa_20090710_111410_sen_floor.html) was even contemplated if your alternative interpretation is correct.


This seems completely unrelated at first blush. If your reading is correct then AB1363 would have no impact on Open Carry because any permit issued pursuant to 12050 would allow open carry so the limiting of open carry specific permits would be meaningless. (I am not saying that the legislature doesn't do meaningless things all the time just that the creation of AB1363 does not bolster your interpretation AFAIK.)

dantodd
09-10-2009, 8:46 PM
That comment was clearly not directed at you, however it is telling that you answered it.

It is also telling that you have no response to the rest of my statements.

How on earth can you even make that claim? You said it in a direct response to my post.

dantodd
09-10-2009, 8:51 PM
Fine, I'll come out and say what should be obvious to anyone pretending to care about RKBA: After Sykes, they will be unable to revoke your permit for LOC/UOC.

I have a difficult time believing that anyone doesn't understand that. If discretion is removed from the law the only way to lose your rights to carry would be to become a prohibited person.

The question is would carrying a loaded weapon exposed be a violation of 12031(a) or would the 12031(b)(6) exemption for 12050 permit holders stand if the 12050 permit is issued pursuant to 12050(a)(1)(A)(i) or would you need a permit issued pursuant to 12050(a)(1)(A)(ii)?

dantodd
09-10-2009, 8:55 PM
I have an extra pair of glasses, would you like to borrow them? They are special in that they block out trees so you'll be able to see the forest.

Spare me the personal attacks. I am a little too old to be baited be an amateur.


If you believe, and apparently you have drank all the Kook-aid on this one, that UOC is helping politicians sway to our side while the sheeple (I love that word!) are screaming "SAVE US!" you are a fool.

Please do not put words into my mouth. If you see anywhere that I have suggested that UOCing is going to sway legislators to our side please post it. If not stop making the assertion. I hate the word sheeple though that fact is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

hoffmang
09-10-2009, 9:07 PM
To quote Alan Gura in Palmer v. DC. "The District of Columbia retains the ability to regulate the manner of carrying
handguns" and again (with Kilmer) in Sykes: "States retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns,"

This makes it pretty clear that the government can choose the manner of carry though not completely prohibit carry.


I can't fully debate this at this time. The statements above are true, but they have about as much to do with the interpretation of 12050 as apples do to oranges.

-Gene

CitaDeL
09-10-2009, 9:14 PM
That's not quite how things work. Right now the language you refer to carries no force of law - however the issuing agency could revoke your permit.

Fine, I'll come out and say what should be obvious to anyone pretending to care about RKBA: After Sykes, they will be unable to revoke your permit for LOC/UOC.

And thus is the reason why I have corrected the erroneous usage of 'CCW' until I was blue in the face. While a license to carry 'concealed' excuses the criminalized behavior of concealed carry, it does not prohibit other lawful carry (including exposed). The exemptions that a license to carry remain regardless of method due to the ambiguity of the code.

gotgunz
09-10-2009, 9:20 PM
Spare me the personal attacks. I am a little too old to be baited be an amateur.

My apologies; from your previous post in this thread I gathered, incorrectly it would seem, that you were probably quite young. And rest assured that if I were to have a reason to level a personal attack it would be very clear, concise & directly to the point.

I am far from being an amateur so spare me the personal attacks as well.


Please do not put words into my mouth.

You seem to be quite defensive on this one; did somebody do this to you before?

Perhaps I misread your previous post on this subject and got some other message from it. If this is the case my apologies.

dantodd
09-10-2009, 9:24 PM
You seem to be quite defensive on this one; did somebody do this to you before?

It happens quite regularly. I am not and have never been an OCer. I started posting in their defense because of the abuse many here heap on them. I agree with the CGF plan as outlined by Gene but I feel it is important to know why things are being asked and for those doing so to understand how much they are asking of people who really want to be involved.

gotgunz
09-10-2009, 9:47 PM
It happens quite regularly. I am not and have never been an OCer. I started posting in their defense because of the abuse many here heap on them. I agree with the CGF plan as outlined by Gene but I feel it is important to know why things are being asked and for those doing so to understand how much they are asking of people who really want to be involved.

Fair enough....... I just think that the UOC thing draws unfavorable attention to guns in general which in turn gives the anti's reason to create more restrictions.

Frankly, after ccw'ing for nearly 20 years I am unable to understand why anybody would want to draw attention to themselves via a firearm. I try to fly under the radar and most people would not be able to pick me out of a crowd as somebody who is carrying.

dantodd
09-10-2009, 9:53 PM
Frankly, after ccw'ing for nearly 20 years I am unable to understand why anybody would want to draw attention to themselves via a firearm. I try to fly under the radar and most people would not be able to pick me out of a crowd as somebody who is carrying.

The beauty of America and our Bill of Rights is that we are all free to express those rights as we see fit. I can't imagine why anyone would want to burn the American Flag or our president in effigy. But, the first amendment permits those things and I am proud to defend the rights of those who choose to express themselves in that manner.

yellowfin
09-11-2009, 6:16 AM
I can readily see why people would want to burn an effigy of the current White House occupant, and the previous 3 for that matter.

Gray Peterson
09-11-2009, 7:25 AM
This seems completely unrelated at first blush. If your reading is correct then AB1363 would have no impact on Open Carry because any permit issued pursuant to 12050 would allow open carry so the limiting of open carry specific permits would be meaningless. (I am not saying that the legislature doesn't do meaningless things all the time just that the creation of AB1363 does not bolster your interpretation AFAIK.)

You're looking at the enrolled version signed by the Governor. Look at the originally introduced bill.

IGOTDIRT4U
09-11-2009, 8:01 AM
Yeah, it went over so well that a SD Legislator is ringing a 4-alarm fire about banning it on an entirely unrelated bill...


Look, I'm pro U/L/OC. And I'm going to get it for all of us. Just please help me instead of hurting - that's all I ask!

That's the point I was making in the rest of my post (of which you excluded in your pasted quote of mine).

Without being in the mind of the SD legislator who spoke on the floor, it appears she caught a few of these news stories and instead of being objective and noting the positive aspects as noted inthe stories, she immediately ran the other way (not unexpectedly considering it is CA) and proclaimed "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" before the state legislature.

And, yes, I back you and the CGF as to NOT pursuing UOC until progress is made on the pending litigation. I have never been a large supporter of UOC in CA 'except' for the acknowledgement that it is one way to exert pressure on the legislature for a change in our laws. Had their been no Heller or Sykes, it seemed like it may have been one of the ways to effect change. Possibly. Never know, though. I'd rather have shall issue CCW, personally. And LOC in unincorporated rural areas.

For everyone, here is my full statement/post:

As to UOC, in San Diego in particular. PNS25 and his group have done a pretty good job (except the interview on the radio) of putting a positive spin on this. Through educating the local PD depts and the news media, San Diego has been pretty fair in the public spotlight about this. I have to hand it to him, had San Diego been it's own state, you may have done well to change the laws. However, now a state legislator has seized the media's attention, and one that has the cred to do it, too, as she is from the San Diego area where there is considerable printed and transmitted press for her to hype her position with. That is where things now stand. Hard to un-ring her "bell" that she rung.

And sadly enough, this was a foregone conclusion and set of events.

Librarian
09-11-2009, 11:01 AM
You're looking at the enrolled version signed by the Governor. Look at the originally introduced bill.

?

1363, as introduced (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1351-1400/ab_1363_bill_20090227_introduced.html), just substitutes "handgun" for "pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person " in 4 places, and deletes an expired reporting requirement. (Only the italic parts are new.)

That kind of busywork is how a bill gets a low-ish number while the author schemes to write what will go in the real bill.

The real bill was in the first amended version, where 12050 (a)(1)(A)(ii) gets the word "only" inserted, though all the other changes were retained. It's similar to the "Chief Byrd" bill, where city CLEOS are permitted to issue CCW only to residents of their city; Byrd of Isleton was issuing to anyone otherwise qualified who lived in Sacramento County.

And 'enrolled' is merely SENT TO the Governor. Signed, it's 'Chaptered'. Technical difference only, but it's still possible this change won't become law.