PDA

View Full Version : Banning UOC... a good thing?


Northern Lights
04-28-2010, 11:46 AM
I'm not trying to start a fire fight here but...

If legislation was past banning UOC would California be forced to become a shall issue state? If UOC was banned wouldn't legislators have to OK CCWs for everyone in order to comply with "the right to bear arms"? :rolleyes:

Untamed1972
04-28-2010, 11:48 AM
that's what some are hoping for, if/when incorporation comes about.

As it stands right now you have not 2A rights in CA as far as the state is concerned.

But with incorporation the banning of ALL forms of carry could work against CA in that with CCW being the only legal means remaining they would not be able to issue on a discretionary basis.

Soldier415
04-28-2010, 12:00 PM
This should be an interesting discussion.

postal
04-28-2010, 12:01 PM
I agree with this as being the likely outcome in time.

Though some prefer to OC, as been discussed, eventually we would be entitled to carry in some form, and if OC is out, clearly CCW is in.

I cant say I understand why some people would prefer OC to CCW, but some do...

bwiese
04-28-2010, 12:02 PM
It in theory could help (and did in Ohio) but such conflict likely was not necessary here.

Also, if the UOCers were pursuing this strategy, we'd've seen them all file for CCW in their areas
and religiously follow the process from application thru denail thru appeals process. They haven't.

And we are still at risk that this bill could go sideways even further and affect other carry/transport matters.

Window_Seat
04-28-2010, 12:15 PM
I could see CA doing a last ditch desperation effect and authoring an even worse & more draconian gun ban pre-McDonald & creating a huge stinking hording mess for us to clean up, since after all, it costs the lawmakers themselves nothing in the short term, and that's all they think now 'days. Right now, SF is pizzed off at AZ & CA Leg is likely feeling the same thing that Newsom is. Legislatures have a reputation of taking their anger out on the citizens, and I could see them doing a total opposite plus more effect of AZ Constitutional Carry. We never know what they might have on their minds, and confiscation does not get ruled out with me.

Erik.

Roadrunner
04-28-2010, 12:15 PM
It in theory could help (and did in Ohio) but such conflict likely was not necessary here.

Also, if the UOCers were pursuing this strategy, we'd've seen them all file for CCW in their areas
and religiously follow the process from application thru denail thru appeals process. They haven't.

And we are still at risk that this bill could go sideways even further and affect other carry/transport matters.

Okay, I'm seeing some problems with your post Bill.

1. I think some refuse to apply, I, being one of them, because we don't want a denial on record.

2. It seems that there is no appeals process since the Sheriff or Police Chief has the final word and a permit requires their signature. So what appeals process are you referring to?

3. What other carry/transport matters could this possibly effect? If you lock your firearm up while transporting it, I don't see transporting it as any more of a problem than what exists now.

Mstrty
04-28-2010, 12:25 PM
If we get Shall issue and SCOTUS gives states reasonable restriction I fear that "reasonable restrictions" in California would mean more of the same. Would changing the law to require POST training for all CCW holders in the State be reasonable? Some Legislatures might think thats reasonable, which leaves us fighting in the courts a lot like we do now.

GuyW
04-28-2010, 12:49 PM
1. I think some refuse to apply, I, being one of them, because we don't want a denial on record.


Denials (per se) today are a toothless tiger, don't worry about it.

.

Untamed1972
04-28-2010, 12:54 PM
I think we need to start getting CLEOs and legislators from all of the shall issue states to start doing public service announcements for us to debunk the FUD coming from our own evil elected officials and start making them look like stupid, lying, control freaks.


Is there someway to get the whole "safety committe" thing changed? Becuase my question is this.....how is it really fair to the majority of citizens of the state whose reps may be in favor of something to have it repeatedly killed in committee by a handful of reps who are obviously perverting their position for their own personal agendas?


Is there not some "override" of the committe for the electorate to seek redress against a biased committee? How about at least a term limit on comittee members so that a couple of people cannot forever hold the entire state hostage to their agenda? At least you'd have the chance that if it didn't make it thru this time it might next time. But with the same people on the same committe they're just gonna keep quashing every attempt, every time.

Roadrunner
04-28-2010, 1:00 PM
Denials (per se) today are a toothless tiger, don't worry about it.

.

And the money for the finger prints, filing the application, and the background check? That's a waste if there's no chance of getting the CCW.

GuyW
04-28-2010, 1:07 PM
And the money for the finger prints, filing the application, and the background check? That's a waste if there's no chance of getting the CCW.

I agree, that's why I limited my comment to the "denial' aspect....the financial abuse aspect is probably illegal, but somebody has to sue 'em....

.

metalhead357
04-28-2010, 1:09 PM
phrases like creeping incrementalism & slippery slope come to mind......

Give up one right to get another...........

Dangerous........ Dangerous.........

GrizzlyGuy
04-28-2010, 1:15 PM
3. What other carry/transport matters could this possibly effect? If you lock your firearm up while transporting it, I don't see transporting it as any more of a problem than what exists now.

AB 1934 would have many adverse effects on handgun transportation. A couple of examples are here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4163743&postcount=149) and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4199822#post4199822). If you read up through that first thread, you'll find more.

hawk84
04-28-2010, 5:12 PM
I agree with this as being the likely outcome in time.

Though some prefer to OC, as been discussed, eventually we would be entitled to carry in some form, and if OC is out, clearly CCW is in.

I cant say I understand why some people would prefer OC to CCW, but some do...
I see no reason to CCW while backpacking.....out in the open where its easiest to get at is what I want

Gray Peterson
04-28-2010, 5:58 PM
And the money for the finger prints, filing the application, and the background check? That's a waste if there's no chance of getting the CCW.

I am confronting the Riverside County Sheriffs Office on this very issue. The law basically says that they cannot collect more than 20 percent of the fee up front in terms of additional local fee beyond the state fees. Edward Peruta, in his suit against Sheriff Gore of San Diego County, got his fees refunded in federal court after one of his claims was that they collected the entire fee and denied him. Front-loading fees has been illegal since AB2022 was enacted in 1998.

They should not have the capability of charging you more than $20 before determining your good cause to be sufficient or insufficient. The above scenario you name has been illegal and unlawful for more than a decade, but no one is willing to "cause problems" with a chief or a sheriff where they live, which leaves guys like me who live two states away trying to clean up the mess that the citizens of their own county refuse to fix. I should not HAVE to do the job that the citizens of Riverside County refuse to confront the sheriff over, but I'm doing it anyway to prove a point.

thedrickel
04-28-2010, 6:02 PM
I am confronting the Riverside County Sheriffs Office on this very issue. The law basically says that they cannot collect more than 20 percent of the fee up front in terms of additional local fee beyond the state fees. Edward Peruta, in his suit against Sheriff Gore of San Diego County, got his fees refunded in federal court after one of his claims was that they collected the entire fee and denied him. Front-loading fees has been illegal since AB2022 was enacted in 1998.

They should not have the capability of charging you more than $20 before determining your good cause to be sufficient or insufficient. The above scenario you name has been illegal and unlawful for more than a decade, but no one is willing to "cause problems" with a chief or a sheriff where they live, which leaves guys like me who live two states away trying to clean up the mess that the citizens of their own county refuse to fix. I should not HAVE to do the job that the citizens of Riverside County refuse to confront the sheriff over, but I'm doing it anyway to prove a point.


They're too busy bull****ting in Off Topic.

Roadrunner
04-28-2010, 7:31 PM
AB 1934 would have many adverse effects on handgun transportation. A couple of examples are here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4163743&postcount=149) and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4199822#post4199822). If you read up through that first thread, you'll find more.

Okay, that makes sense, thanks.

I am confronting the Riverside County Sheriffs Office on this very issue. The law basically says that they cannot collect more than 20 percent of the fee up front in terms of additional local fee beyond the state fees. Edward Peruta, in his suit against Sheriff Gore of San Diego County, got his fees refunded in federal court after one of his claims was that they collected the entire fee and denied him. Front-loading fees has been illegal since AB2022 was enacted in 1998.

They should not have the capability of charging you more than $20 before determining your good cause to be sufficient or insufficient. The above scenario you name has been illegal and unlawful for more than a decade, but no one is willing to "cause problems" with a chief or a sheriff where they live, which leaves guys like me who live two states away trying to clean up the mess that the citizens of their own county refuse to fix. I should not HAVE to do the job that the citizens of Riverside County refuse to confront the sheriff over, but I'm doing it anyway to prove a point.

This may prompt me to apply after June. I'm not in any real hurry. I just want everything so crystal clear and well defined that there will not be any issues on my end. When, or if they deny me, then I will be on firm ground to see how many ways I can make their lives miserable.

postal
04-29-2010, 5:36 PM
I see no reason to CCW while backpacking.....out in the open where its easiest to get at is what I want

Backpacking in SoCal, all you need to worry about is mountain lions or wild boar, or bears depending on where you're backpacking....

Open carrying a handgun isnt going to do much to a bear except make it mad.

Did you think you were more vulnerable in the wilderness backpacking then you are "in town" with the *urban animals*?

Seriously- not an insult- just an inquiry.

regards,
Postal!

bwiese
04-29-2010, 5:51 PM
Okay, I'm seeing some problems with your post Bill.

1. I think some refuse to apply, I, being one of them, because we don't want a denial on record.

I don't see how a denial hurts you that much in a local where CCW issuances are few & far between. Any reasonable person can see thru that.

Much worse was Hutchens' revocation of exixting permits, which could make it look like someone actually did something wrong.


2. It seems that there is no appeals process since the Sheriff or Police Chief has the final word and a permit requires their signature. So what appeals process are you referring to?

My writing was a bit casual/fast. One should do city and county, and as I understand some areas even if you're denied for reason X you can attempt to submit rebuttal.

Team Billy Jack is really the resource for this. Bottom line, I'm trying to say these UOC folks in general have not even done step 1 to get standing, making UOC somewhat irrelevant and thus solely politically antagonistic.


3. What other carry/transport matters could this possibly effect? If you lock your firearm up while transporting it, I don't see transporting it as any more of a problem than what exists now.

Open season on amendments. What if locked rifle transport to your car or specific destination requirements were dropped in?

hawk84
04-30-2010, 2:32 PM
Backpacking in SoCal, all you need to worry about is mountain lions or wild boar, or bears depending on where you're backpacking....

Open carrying a handgun isnt going to do much to a bear except make it mad.

Did you think you were more vulnerable in the wilderness backpacking then you are "in town" with the *urban animals*?

Seriously- not an insult- just an inquiry.

regards,
Postal!

I generally backpack in the seirras.....open carrying a handgun is not going to make any animal mad.....but if i were to be attacked by an animal.......two legged or 4...........I want my gun where its most easily accessible......and that's out in the open. not on an IWB holster while i have a 40 lb pack straped to my back

Do I think im more vulnerable in the wilderness.........thats a toss up....animals don't really scare me since they don't attack for no reason.....but out there at least I can defend myself even it is merely a handgun.......and the fact of the matter is........in town help is minutes away......20 miles in the backcounty........its hours or days away

If I were able to carry in town any way I wished.....I would conceal it......people know what a gun is..........animals don't

ned946
04-30-2010, 2:37 PM
I'm not trying to start a fire fight here but...

If legislation was past banning UOC would California be forced to become a shall issue state? If UOC was banned wouldn't legislators have to OK CCWs for everyone in order to comply with "the right to bear arms"? :rolleyes:

Not trying to start a war here either, but I think that's a silly hope to hold out for.

You could spin it the other way....if the gov't didn't want UOC then couldn't they just issue the CCWs>? ...and they didn't take this route.

The most reasonable explanation tends to be the simplest. Our state is overtly anti-gun. With the UOC's that have caught the news cameras and the uneducated masses overreacting, its just perfect timing to ban UOC by gov't with an easy win.

Sorry (for all of us). :(

twotap
04-30-2010, 3:12 PM
I really believe it is the season of take aways. Why not?? They won't be held accountable till long after years of court battles and cocktail partes. And hey chances are they won't be reelected anyway. Seems like a whole lot of whinining and not enough loud demand and action on who it seems to affect. It only matters to us and the gun community is not lining up for permits so WTF. If you have a CCW don't let it expire .If you do not have one get in line ..If hundreds of apps are turned down it will look real bad .But hundreds and hundreds of apps aren't even being recieved so it seems to be NO BIG DEAL .Just a whimper and a whine. Sorry but thats my take on it.

Meplat
05-01-2010, 10:01 AM
I'm not trying to start a fire fight here but...

If legislation was past banning UOC would California be forced to become a shall issue state? If UOC was banned wouldn't legislators have to OK CCWs for everyone in order to comply with "the right to bear arms"? :rolleyes:


NO.:rolleyes:

Meplat
05-01-2010, 10:22 AM
In time BOTH methods will be used but the applicant will not chose. The state will.

I agree with this as being the likely outcome in time.

Though some prefer to OC, as been discussed, eventually we would be entitled to carry in some form, and if OC is out, clearly CCW is in.
I cant say I understand why some people would prefer OC to CCW, but some do...

Maestro Pistolero
05-01-2010, 11:09 AM
The state's choice (if, in fact, a choice is presented) does raise an interesting question. Since some politician/police are claiming UOC is an officer safety issue, then what's safer for an officer, the gun he can see, or the one that's concealed? It would seem to me, given the choice, that an officer would rather see the gun. But, if there's one thing the average anti-gunner hates more than knowing a citizen is armed, is actually having to actually see the blasted thing.

artherd
05-01-2010, 1:41 PM
I'm not trying to start a fire fight here but...

If legislation was past banning UOC would California be forced to become a shall issue state? If UOC was banned wouldn't legislators have to OK CCWs for everyone in order to comply with "the right to bear arms"? :rolleyes:

Yes.

Maestro Pistolero
05-01-2010, 2:52 PM
I do wonder if, given the choice, LE would choose open or concealed carry.

Harrison_Bergeron
05-01-2010, 2:59 PM
I would think that they would choose less "Man with Gun" calls. They automatically assume everyone is concealing as it is.

Kyle1886
05-01-2010, 4:28 PM
Assuming that UOC is banned and some form of "shall issue" is adopted state wide in the future, will the counties still have jurisdiction of issuance of CCW permits? Also is there any "safe guard" to prevent the powers that be, from placing exorbitant fees and lengthy and costly "training" to qualify for the permit? I'm sure some will see the opportunity to curb firearm carry as well as put a few dollars in the coffers.

Respectfully
Kyle

Gray Peterson
05-01-2010, 5:22 PM
Assuming that UOC is banned and some form of "shall issue" is adopted state wide in the future, will the counties still have jurisdiction of issuance of CCW permits? Also is there any "safe guard" to prevent the powers that be, from placing exorbitant fees and lengthy and costly "training" to qualify for the permit? I'm sure some will see the opportunity to curb firearm carry as well as put a few dollars in the coffers.

Respectfully
Kyle

The statute lays out the appropriate training requirements. PC832 course should qualify.

Fees are set by statute. Law violators such as RCSO who front load fees illegally can be sued now under PC12054.

Any laws passed by the Legislature which raises the fees or put in impossible training requirements would likely result in an immediate lawsuit asking for a preliminary injunction to stop the new law from taking effect while a federal judge reviews it.

Kyle1886
05-01-2010, 5:43 PM
Thanks Gray P.

WokMaster1
05-01-2010, 6:55 PM
phrases like creeping incrementalism & slippery slope come to mind......

Give up one right to get another...........

Dangerous........ Dangerous.........

WTF? Where have you been?:) Good to see you on here.

My thoughts on all these? C'mon June, SCOTUS, come to Wokky! Can't wait for the gates of hell to open so we can unlease the lawsuits on all these cash strapped counties.

nicki
05-01-2010, 9:23 PM
Alot of focus on how the CCW permits will open up. There are a few issues here.

1. When you have to get a license, it is a privilege, not a right.

If we have a right to bear arms, then it is a right just like other rights such as free speech.

The issue of states restricting how people can carry is interesting in that the court rulings come from times when the customs of the courts was that the Federal Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states.

Considering most of the states now have Open carry as a right and concealed carry as a regulated privilege, my gut tells me that will be the standard the courts will go for.

I can see the courts overturning the Mulford act and giving us right to open carry.

Of course with the issuance of CCW permits, there is that equality under the law issue and if the SCOTUS brings "privileges and immunities" back to life, that may also make for some very interesting court cases.

The antis are going hog wild with new proposals, but what if Arnold grows a pair and actually vetos the bills, what then?

Nicki

postal
05-01-2010, 9:54 PM
The antis are going hog wild with new proposals, but what if Arnold grows a pair and actually vetos the bills, what then?

Nicki

We'd all live in "dreamland".:p


Actually, I think he probably does have a pair, but they're probably small from all his self admitted use of illegal stearoids.

Even then, he'd have to get them small ones out of his wifes purse.



Best I can remember, Arnie signed EVERY anti gun legislation that crossed his desk.

But who cares now... He'll be out very soon anyway (most likely)

postal
05-01-2010, 10:17 PM
I generally backpack in the seirras.....open carrying a handgun is not going to make any animal mad.....but if i were to be attacked by an animal.......two legged or 4...........I want my gun where its most easily accessible......and that's out in the open. not on an IWB holster while i have a 40 lb pack straped to my back

Do I think im more vulnerable in the wilderness.........thats a toss up....animals don't really scare me since they don't attack for no reason.....but out there at least I can defend myself even it is merely a handgun.......and the fact of the matter is........in town help is minutes away......20 miles in the backcounty........its hours or days away

If I were able to carry in town any way I wished.....I would conceal it......people know what a gun is..........animals don't


Ah- That does make sense when you put it that way.

Regarding OC handgun "pissing off bears"- I did word it poorly- I meant that a handgun used against a bear has VERY little chance of success, and wounding the bear would only piss it off. However the reminder of being far from help if something were to happen is a good reason.

Thanks for taking the time.
Regards,
Postal!

1JimMarch
05-01-2010, 10:34 PM
First, UOC was idiocy from the start. It was a desperation measure we actually don't need. Tactically it's always made piss-poor sense and always will.

Regarding CCW, Post-McDonald, we're going to get shall-issue permits. Shouldn't even take long. Gura has that under control, plus if McDonald goes like we hope a LOT of city attorneys (including a chap name of Chuck Michel) are going to issue stern warnings that "business as usual" will result in the agency drowning in lawsuits. It will be the sheriffs who can hang tougher; a lot of cities will cave in and force their PDs to play mostly straight. We'll see some weird stuff here and there, abuses of the psych exams, screwball fees, etc. but it'll get tamped down.

But there's a whole 'nuther can of worms we haven't looked at yet.

1) Can a state force the payment of hundreds of dollars of fees to exercise a basic civil right? A lot of case law says not just "no" but "hell no".

2) HELLER FOOTNOTE NINE!!!! If you haven't read that, and read at least some of the cases it cites with approval, you really should. No need to read all of 'em because ALL SEVEN SAY THE SAME THING: concealed carry can be restricted or eliminated only so long as open carry is legal. And we know from Heller's core finding that an unloaded gun doesn't cut it for constitutionally armed purposes that it's loaded open carry. How does that work when CCW is available but heavily restricted?

3) Add one more twist. By statute PC12050 discriminates against out-of-state residents. I live in Tucson AZ these days. I can't get a Cali CCW. California doesn't have the right to discriminate against me - see also Ward v. Maryland 1870 and Saenz v. Roe 1999 (both USSC). Note that the most likely result in McDonald is that the Slaughter-house cases stay alive and get what, THAT 1872 decision cites Ward v. Maryland with approval. Now in theory that's an active thing right now, but post-McDonald it's active in the handling of a basic civil right that Cali has to honor. That's major. Pushing them on this would force a fast re-write of 12050 OR a policy statement out of the AG's office saying "oh crap, we have to honor every other state's permits" and that in turn would speed along Sykes because in-state people are now being treated WAY differently than out-of-state visitors.

Oh yeah. Big fun.

N6ATF
05-01-2010, 11:14 PM
Ah- That does make sense when you put it that way.

Regarding OC handgun "pissing off bears"- I did word it poorly- I meant that a handgun used against a bear has VERY little chance of success, and wounding the bear would only piss it off. However the reminder of being far from help if something were to happen is a good reason.

Thanks for taking the time.
Regards,
Postal!

Could always try repeated headshots... and hope the blood in its eyes blinds it enough for you to get the hell out of dodge.

postal
05-01-2010, 11:42 PM
LOL!

Maestro Pistolero
05-02-2010, 1:19 AM
The antis are going hog wild with new proposals, but what if Arnold grows a pair and actually vetos the bills, what then?Arnold? Not gonna happen. I think the the steroids shrunk 'em beyond renewal.

gunsmith
05-02-2010, 8:26 AM
It in theory could help (and did in Ohio) but such conflict likely was not necessary here.

A: Also, if the UOCers were pursuing this strategy, we'd've seen them all file for CCW in their areas
and religiously follow the process from application thru denail thru appeals process. They haven't.

B:And we are still at risk that this bill could go sideways even further and affect other carry/transport matters.

A: UOC/LOC folks don't really know this, most I've come across are not aware of McDonald/Heller/ or the history of shall issue since it became "the cause" after Florida did it in the late 80's. They do not know about Gura/P&I or Due Process.

& are worried that when ( not if ) they get turned down for ccw it would have a negative affect (for them personally ) the application process further down the line.

B: lets hope not, things are crappy enough. I am all for open carry-I just have not had enough faith in CA LEO's to not arrest me for obeying all the silly stupid laws.

I personally counsel ppl not to UOC but ... no one listens to me anyway, if we get AWB overturned that might be good enough for most.

Pyrodyne
05-02-2010, 8:59 AM
...

I personally counsel ppl not to UOC but ... no one listens to me anyway, if we get AWB overturned that might be good enough for most.

I sincerely hope you are joking. So say we get the AWB overturned and buried. You mean to say that we are satisfied and the fight is over while we have the ammo ban, the roster, confusing, twisted and unconstitutional carry laws, and more legislation on the horizon to ban UOC and require registration of long arms?

The fight needs to carry on before they bury all of our rights. Getting one piece of junk legislation thrown out is not "good enough".

FreedomIsNotFree
05-02-2010, 10:13 AM
Some states that are "shall issue" still have disqualifying standards, such as DUI convictions. What will be interesting is to see if something similar occurs in CA.

Will "shall issue" really mean anyone that is legally able to own a handgun will be issued a CCW? As I mentioned, in some states you may be able to legally purchase a handgun, but you may not be able to receive a CCW based on a past criminal conviction. A non disqualifying conviction in regards to ownership, but a disqualifying conviction when it comes to CCW license.

I've mentioned this in a number of threads and still nobody seems able to answer. Guess we will just have to wait and see how it plays out.

GrizzlyGuy
05-02-2010, 10:43 AM
Will "shall issue" really mean anyone that is legally able to own a handgun will be issued a CCW? As I mentioned, in some states you may be able to legally purchase a handgun, but you may not be able to receive a CCW based on a past criminal conviction. A non disqualifying conviction in regards to ownership, but a disqualifying conviction when it comes to CCW license.

See #3 in the Prayer For Relief section (last page) of the Sykes case (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf). If the court agrees, "legally qualified to possess firearms" would be sufficient.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-02-2010, 10:58 AM
See #3 in the Prayer For Relief section (last page) of the Sykes case (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf). If the court agrees, "legally qualified to possess firearms" would be sufficient.

I've seen that. A prayer for relief, such as that, may only be possible if/when OC is banned. It's quite possible that the recent UOC "issues" actually helps the CCW question. We were never going to get both CCW and OC...even post Sykes.

Mulay El Raisuli
05-03-2010, 7:34 AM
I've seen that. A prayer for relief, such as that, may only be possible if/when OC is banned. It's quite possible that the recent UOC "issues" actually helps the CCW question. We were never going to get both CCW and OC...even post Sykes.


I wouldn't bet that way. Unless someone screws the pooch, we will have both. LOC is (according to all precedent I can find) THE Constitutionally protected method of "and bear." Yes, while that leaves it as possible for a state (like the PRK) to ban CCW, political forces make the odds of that happening so unlikely as to make the fear of this unreal.


Regarding OC handgun "pissing off bears"- I did word it poorly- I meant that a handgun used against a bear has VERY little chance of success, and wounding the bear would only piss it off. However the reminder of being far from help if something were to happen is a good reason.

Thanks for taking the time.
Regards,
Postal!


Depends on the handgun. A walk in the woods isn't like a stroll on the boardwalk. A stiff-loaded .45 Colt or a .44 Mag (I.E., what you wouldn't carry for a stroll, but would in the woods) is fully capable of putting down a bear.


The Raisuli

FreedomIsNotFree
05-03-2010, 10:05 AM
I wouldn't bet that way. Unless someone screws the pooch, we will have both. LOC is (according to all precedent I can find) THE Constitutionally protected method of "and bear." Yes, while that leaves it as possible for a state (like the PRK) to ban CCW, political forces make the odds of that happening so unlikely as to make the fear of this unreal.


The Raisuli


If CA goes "shall issue", and that means real shall issue, the legislature can absolutely ban OC. They just can't ban OC and provide no means for legal gun owners to "bear". Considering the sensibilities of the majority of Californians, even with the 2nd incorporated, OC was going to face the legislature in one form or another. When forced to choose CCW or OC, the legislature and the public will prefer CCW.

N6ATF
05-03-2010, 10:20 AM
The legislature will prefer CCW because it can be infringed up the posterior... and they will make it a felony for accidental exposure or printing. Criminals will be exempt from the infringement, as always, and law-abiding citizens will be SOL yet again.

Neo Sharkey
05-03-2010, 10:37 AM
Are there any plans to have an organized date when several hundred of us apply for CCW?

I would be game to submit my application at the same time as a large group so that we could try for a court case when everyone gets turned down.

Perhaps we could even organize groups to get together to fill out the applications so that they are all proper with no missed information or anything that would let them reject them on a technicality.

Cobrafreak
05-03-2010, 11:18 AM
Personally, and this is just me talking for myself, I wouldn't ever consider carrying a pistol if everyone could see it. I wouldn't like having to defend my right to carry to every anti-gun person I happen to pass. I also wouldn't like to have my mind constantly on preventing someone trying to grab it from me (free gun for the taking), as it would be out in the open and unloaded. Now as for CC, I'll be the first one in line for that one :D

nicki
05-03-2010, 5:55 PM
Even a shall issue CCW permit is a privilege although once Sykes is decided, it should be a "equally applied" privilege.

If carry was a right, then the ability of the state to license the carrying of guns would be the same as the states ability to regulate your speech.

There are at least three constitutional issues involved

2nd amendment, RKBA
9th amendment, right of travel
14th amendment, equal protection under the law.

I could see the courts telling the states that people have a RIGHT to carry functional arms(loaded) for self defense, but the states could limit to either open, concealed or both.

If a state chooses to "license or ban concealed carry", then they have to allow "open carry". Conversely, the state could allow unlicensed conceal carry and ban open carry, but I don't see this happening for some reason.

Restricting your ability to bear arms restricts where you travel to which puts the state in the position of having to justify restrictions on your movements.

Equal protection is a big issue under both the California and the Federal Constitution. Ironically I think the court battles on prop 8 will help us both in the court of law and the court of public opinion.

The orginal Mulford Act was passed to put the Black Panthers in their place, ulitimately the UOC ban will open up a view of the sins of the past and should make for interesting court battles.

Nicki

hawk84
05-03-2010, 6:06 PM
Ah- That does make sense when you put it that way.

Regarding OC handgun "pissing off bears"- I did word it poorly- I meant that a handgun used against a bear has VERY little chance of success, and wounding the bear would only piss it off. However the reminder of being far from help if something were to happen is a good reason.

Thanks for taking the time.
Regards,
Postal!

I figured thats likely what you meant- that being said there are documented cases of brown bear charges being stopped by a single shot from a .40- the bear didn't die. but the attack was stopped- I consider that a success- ymmv

I am going backpacking in the sierras shortly. the trailhead is only accessible by a 15 mile 4wd road. The plan is to spend a night sleeping in the truck at the trailhead, and then head out in the morning on foot. While I am at the truck I will have my moss 500 full of slugs...when I leave on foot I'll have my M&P 40 with these in it

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_26&products_id=210


my buddy will have his .357

Mulay El Raisuli
05-04-2010, 7:04 AM
If CA goes "shall issue", and that means real shall issue, the legislature can absolutely ban OC. They just can't ban OC and provide no means for legal gun owners to "bear". Considering the sensibilities of the majority of Californians, even with the 2nd incorporated, OC was going to face the legislature in one form or another. When forced to choose CCW or OC, the legislature and the public will prefer CCW.


They can't absolutely ban LOC if LOC is defined by SCOTUS as the Minimum Constitutional Standard. If SCOTUS does define it as such, then LOC will NOT be facing the PRK legislature. The PRK legislature will have to learn to live with the new reality.


The Raisuli

FreedomIsNotFree
05-05-2010, 9:08 AM
They can't absolutely ban LOC if LOC is defined by SCOTUS as the Minimum Constitutional Standard. If SCOTUS does define it as such, then LOC will NOT be facing the PRK legislature. The PRK legislature will have to learn to live with the new reality.


The Raisuli

What case do you expect a decision such as that to come from? McDonald, Sykes and others currently in the pipeline will affect the question prior to a clean OC case.

pullnshoot25
05-05-2010, 9:57 AM
Personally, and this is just me talking for myself, I wouldn't ever consider carrying a pistol if everyone could see it. I wouldn't like having to defend my right to carry to every anti-gun person I happen to pass. I also wouldn't like to have my mind constantly on preventing someone trying to grab it from me (free gun for the taking), as it would be out in the open and unloaded. Now as for CC, I'll be the first one in line for that one :D

You must live in a very paranoid world.

Cobrafreak
05-05-2010, 4:39 PM
You must live in a very paranoid world.

It keeps me sharp.

Drunker951
05-05-2010, 5:15 PM
When they do let us finally CC it will have to be in a locked container somewhere on your body

stix213
05-05-2010, 6:10 PM
How this plays out over the next year will be very interesting. I suspect in a year from now we will have UOC legal everywhere except school zones, "shall issue" CCW with some irritating disqualifiers, and still have the AW ban.

Just my guess

Mulay El Raisuli
05-06-2010, 7:54 AM
What case do you expect a decision such as that to come from? McDonald, Sykes and others currently in the pipeline will affect the question prior to a clean OC case.


Maybe not. While Sykes & Palmer do worry me, mention has been made of a group in TX that has a suit ready to be filed just as soon as McDonald is issued. They're not talking to me & so I don't know just what they have in mind. But, ALL precedent that addresses the issue is on their side. Particularly Nunn v. State (AKA, Nunn v. Georgia), but all the other cases Gene keeps mentioning support the guys in TX also. None of the precedents actually say that a state has to choose between one method of carry & another. All of them say that LOC (to use the modern term) is the Constitutionally protected method of "and bear."

Another thing to keep in mind is that it isn't just a matter of who gets there first. Having a "Circuit split" matters also. I see the 5th. Circuit as being very open to following precedent & making LOC the Minimum Constitutional Standard, while the DC Circuit is less likely to. If things go fast in the 5th., then there's going to be a 'split' just about the time that Palmer gets to the door. At least, such is my fervent hope.

McDonald might also settle the issue. In theory, its just about Incorporation. If SCOTUS limits itself to just that, nothing will be said about "and bear" & the matter will wait until a followup case hits the door. But, Chicago's brief & some of the amicus briefs for Chicago act as if a loss (for them) would automatically make LOC the Law of the Land. I presume that the favorable comments from SCOTUS (in other cases) about Nunn is the source of their discomfort. Since our enemies think this, I'm going to presume that they have some valid reason for thinking so.


The Raisuli

N6ATF
05-06-2010, 9:49 AM
Since our enemies think this

To be clear, they are not just enemies of gun owners, they are lifelong friends of criminals, and enemies of We The People... who want to live.

Untamed1972
05-06-2010, 10:02 AM
I figured thats likely what you meant- that being said there are documented cases of brown bear charges being stopped by a single shot from a .40- the bear didn't die. but the attack was stopped- I consider that a success- ymmv

I am going backpacking in the sierras shortly. the trailhead is only accessible by a 15 mile 4wd road. The plan is to spend a night sleeping in the truck at the trailhead, and then head out in the morning on foot. While I am at the truck I will have my moss 500 full of slugs...when I leave on foot I'll have my M&P 40 with these in it

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_26&products_id=210


my buddy will have his .357


you're going to leave your truck parked, unattended, in the woods with a shotgun in it? You are a braver soul them I.

CAL.BAR
05-06-2010, 10:03 AM
All of the arguments above which basically go "well if they ban UOC then that will somehow force shall issue CCW" miss the mark. UOC isn't a RIGHT. It wasn't supposed to be anything. It's a hole in the law which a few people exploited. The State never meant for anyone to UOC. They just said you can't carry a loaded gun unless it's concealed and w/ a permit. I don't think the legislators ever figured a bunch of guys would start runing around with umpty guns on their hips causing problems.

That legal hole will soon be filled and it will not get us any closer to shall issue CCW's or anywhere else.

Actually banning UOC is a good thing. The wasted time and money for the man with a gun calls are uncesssary and wasteful and we don't need to give overzealous cops any more reason to detain and/or rough up law-abiding citizens.

GuyW
05-06-2010, 10:08 AM
Its hard to square purported "pro-gun views" with this load...

All of the arguments above which basically go "well if they ban UOC then that will somehow force shall issue CCW" miss the mark. UOC isn't a RIGHT. It wasn't supposed to be anything. It's a hole in the law which a few people exploited. The State never meant for anyone to UOC. They just said you can't carry a loaded gun unless it's concealed and w/ a permit. I don't think the legislators ever figured a bunch of guys would start runing around with umpty guns on their hips causing problems.

That legal hole will soon be filled and it will not get us any closer to shall issue CCW's or anywhere else.

Actually banning UOC is a good thing. The wasted time and money for the man with a gun calls are uncesssary and wasteful and we don't need to give overzealous cops any more reason to detain and/or rough up law-abiding citizens.