PDA

View Full Version : AB 144: Open Carry Ban (Portantino) 2011


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

johnny_22
01-14-2011, 8:39 AM
"The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to
openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person in specified public
areas."

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110113_introduced.html

Just introduced yesterday.

Bill page is http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_144&sess=CUR&house=B&author=portantino

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 8:46 AM
You just have to love our legislature!

But never fear, Jerry Brown is here!

DannyInSoCal
01-14-2011, 8:48 AM
Where is CGF on this?

The Shadow
01-14-2011, 8:48 AM
It will be very interesting to see what happens if this bill makes it to Brown's desk.

maddoggie13
01-14-2011, 8:50 AM
Here we go again...call the lawyers.

Hippo
01-14-2011, 8:50 AM
Thank god they are preserving public safety by getting those unloaded guns off the street. The basic rule of all firearm training is all guns are loaded and to carry unloaded is to defy the will of common sense. They left out the part where all guns must be loaded though? Once again I guess the legislature has only half a brain and couldn't complete their thought. :(

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 8:55 AM
Where is CGF on this?

Within it's charter (or whatever it may be called), CGF will be all over it. You can bet they'll be analyzing it as it actually picks up steam.

However, at this time I'm not even sure it is scheduled to be heard in committee. It's really early.

joefreas
01-14-2011, 8:59 AM
Whoever wrote that bill should be fired.

CavTrooper
01-14-2011, 8:59 AM
Within it's charter (or whatever it may be called), CGF will be all over it. You can bet they'll be analyzing it as it actually picks up steam.

However, at this time I'm not even sure it is scheduled to be heard in committee. It's really early.

Why would they be? Dont the UOCers have their own organized and funded legal team to fight stuff like this? Wasnt it the UOC crowd (without the help of the CGF) that defeated the UOC ban last year? (all sarcasm BTW)

I say let em ban UOC, itll get us CC or LOC faster that way.

Crom
01-14-2011, 9:04 AM
I don't think this bill will matter that much. The legislature is within their power to ban open carry as long as we have concealed carry available to us. And the courts should fix the discretionary license policy for us. Patrick said it succinctly in another thread and to paraphrase he said that "UOC is a gift or rather an oversight from the legislature." The legislature is taking back that gift or correcting a mistake, depending on how you look at it.

Bruce
01-14-2011, 9:04 AM
So it begins again. And there are those among us think we can compromise with the anti's and they'll quit trying to take our rights away. :rolleyes:

CalBear
01-14-2011, 9:08 AM
It was pretty obvious that open carry would rapidly reappear in the new legislative session. After all, it would have become law if not for some legislative incompetence by the Dems, and some hilarious delay tactics by Chuck DeVore and Kevin Jeffries.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 9:16 AM
I don't think this bill will matter that much. The legislature is within their power to ban open carry as long as we have concealed carry available to us. And the courts should fix the discretionary license policy for us. Patrick said it succinctly in another thread and to paraphrase he said that "UOC is a gift or rather an oversight from the legislature." The legislature is taking back that gift or correcting a mistake, depending on how you look at it.

You could reasonably argue that in the long-term this bill (if enacted) would hasten progress toward getting both effective Shall Issue CCW and LOC. But in the short-term it is a serious blow to the freedom of those who UOC in areas where you really aren't likely to be able to get CCW.

It's a bad bill and should be defeated.

ZombieTactics
01-14-2011, 9:20 AM
It will be very interesting to see what happens if this bill makes it to Brown's desk.
I think it's all too predictable. He'll sign it.

Liberty1
01-14-2011, 9:25 AM
This assault on 1St Amendment political expression is outrageous! :D

PEBKAC
01-14-2011, 9:29 AM
Here we go again. I guess it is time to start calling, emailing, and hoping our friends in the legislature can throw down those awesome delaying tactics.

What worries me is that given the reappearance of this bill that the long-gun registration bill might make a second appearance as well...

marshaul
01-14-2011, 9:32 AM
Why would they be? Dont the UOCers have their own organized and funded legal team to fight stuff like this? Wasnt it the UOC crowd (without the help of the CGF) that defeated the UOC ban last year? (all sarcasm BTW)

I say let em ban UOC, itll get us CC or LOC faster that way.

"I've got mine, screw everyone else!"

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

marc4
01-14-2011, 9:58 AM
Here is the press release version I got which won't be seeing publication. Emailed to me yesterday too.
If you want to voice your opinion, this is the email address from the staffer that sent me the press release.
Wendy.Gordon@asm.ca.gov

Portantino joins Police Chiefs and Rank and File Police Officers in calling on
California to ban the open display of firearms
AB 144 will ban the “Open Carry” of unloaded handguns

Sacramento – A sensible gun ban that should already be California law is being given a second chance. Assemblymember Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) has introduced legislation to outlaw the “open carry” of unloaded handguns in California. The prior bill made it through the legislature last year, but failed to get to the Governor’s desk when the legislative session adjourned at midnight without completing its business.

“We have laws to license weapons in California and this bill will improve them. It keeps guns out of public places by individuals who are not properly and legally licensed to carry weapons,” explained Assemblymember Portantino. “Certainly, most folks would not want people walking down the grocery isle or sitting in a public park displaying weapons. There’s a proper place for firearms and having a proliferation of them strapped to hips is something that belongs in a Western movie, not Main Street, California.”

Because of the miscue at the end of the 2010 session, AB 1934 by former Assemblymember Lori Saldaña did not make it to the Governor’s desk. This oversight means that Californians may walk into a grocery store carrying an unloaded weapon on one hip and the bullets on the other. After seeing a rise in these types of needless public displays, law enforcement officials sought the ban on this open display of firearms. Portantino took up the cause and has worked with law enforcement to re-introduce the “open carry” ban.

San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer, President of the California Police Chiefs Association explains why her group is endorsing Portantino’s AB 144. “The California Police Chiefs Association is strongly in support of Assembly Member Portantino’s open-carry bill. The open display of firearms in crowded public places creates very real public safety issues – both for the public and for police officers. This is a good-sense public safety bill and we are committed to securing its passage.”

Portantino’s bill, AB 144, which was introduced Thursday, makes it illegal to carry an unloaded handgun in any public place or street. Law enforcement personnel are exempt as are hunters and others carrying unloaded weapons under specified licensed circumstances.

“PORAC members are committed to keeping our communities safe, and this practice wastes a huge amount of law enforcement officers’ time. These people work in groups and they are trained on how to confront peace officers. It is scary for our neighborhoods and businesses,” said Lt. Ron Cottingham, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, PORAC. “It is not safe, and I fear a horrible accident could happen if something is not done about it. That is why PORAC supports AB 144.”

California is one of many states that allow so-called “open carry” which gives gun owners the right to display weapons, though in California those guns must be unloaded. Carrying loaded firearms in public is already against the law in California. The dispute came to a head last year when gun enthusiasts began showing up in coffee shops and public beaches with unloaded guns strapped to their hips.

“Average Californians understand police officers displaying loaded weapons, they understand hunters, and they even understand those folks who are legally licensed to a carry a weapon. What they don’t want is a proliferation of public displays of weapons for no purpose. It’s imperative that the public safety of our families and our neighbors’ families is protected. It only takes a few seconds to load and fire. This bill is a sensible public safety protection that will make such an occurrence less likely in our neighborhoods,” concluded Portantino.

If you want to voice your opinion, this is the email address from the staffer that sent me the press release.
Wendy.Gordon@asm.ca.gov

Vtec44
01-14-2011, 10:00 AM
"26366. Section 26350 does not apply to, or affect, the open
carrying of an unloaded handgun by a licensed hunter while engaged in
hunting or while transporting that handgun when going to or
returning from that hunting expedition."

So does that mean that it's legal to unloaded open carry while hunting, but loaded open carry is not? lol

Black Dragon
01-14-2011, 10:05 AM
The Open Carry Ban Bill has been re-introduced today as AB 144.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110113_introduced.html

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 10:08 AM
Whoever wrote that bill should be fired.

... from a cannon, in an arc, landing on a inflatable mattress in death row. Victim disarmament=treason!

I think it's all too predictable. He'll sign it.

I expect he'll put some fun tidbits in the signing statement to encourage legal action like his letters and briefs when he was AG.

The best we could hope for would be "Of course it should be a crime to carry unloaded guns. They should be loaded and fully functional, like SCOTUS ruled!"

cdtx2001
01-14-2011, 10:08 AM
SWEET!!!!! MAKE IT PASS PAH-LEEEZE!!!!!

If they ban OC, the unintended consequences for the antis would be a sweet win for us!!!

If I can't OC as my only way of bearing a firearm legally, then CC would be the only other way.

marc4
01-14-2011, 10:10 AM
EDIT: Thread has been merged so my post here looks invalid.

cdtx2001
01-14-2011, 10:11 AM
Hope it passes. Yes I do. The unintended consequences for the antis mean a win for us.

sevensix2x51
01-14-2011, 10:16 AM
It seems this would certainly help a peruta appeal, right? Lemme check the paycheck, cgf may need a stimulus package. It seems that there's always more work to be done.

Librarian
01-14-2011, 10:16 AM
BTW, congratulations Johnny_22 - as good a thread title for a bill as possible. Nicely done.

Following these bills is sometimes a mess; having a clear title is important to keep information together.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 10:18 AM
Remember, we all have a RKBA.

Passage of AB144 won't be a big deal in my personal life because I've got CCW.

But many of our fellow citizens are denied CCW as a matter of policy. Their RKBA will be violated even worse than it is now should AB144 pass.

So while the long-term effect might be good, the short-term effect is unacceptable.

AB144 must be opposed as a matter of principle.

wash
01-14-2011, 10:21 AM
I wouldn't hold my breath for unintended consequences.

What should be remembered here is that we all have to thank the "UOC movement" for bills like this.

The real unintended consequence is that CGF, CRPA and NRA have to deal with this instead of ammo bans, "assault weapon" bans, the roster of "not un-safe" handguns, unconstitutional CCW policies, GFSZs, 10 day wait periods, etc.

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 10:21 AM
Sent to Wendy.Gordon@asm.ca.gov
The International Criminals Union wholeheartedly supports this bill. Sane, law-abiding citizens however, do not wish to be disarmed victims.

glockman19
01-14-2011, 10:23 AM
Hope it passes. Yes I do. The unintended consequences for the antis mean a win for us.

I agree...Passing this means Shall Issue CCW. It's one or the other. :D

Arreaux
01-14-2011, 10:32 AM
I agree...Passing this means Shall Issue CCW. It's one or the other. :D

I thought we can already LUCC, so how will this make CCW's easier..?
:confused:

PsychGuy274
01-14-2011, 10:32 AM
Wait a minute though...

In the Peruta case the judge pretty much said that we don't need CCWs because we have UOC.

So if they pass AB144 which says we can't UOC then a lot of counties will literally be an all out blackout on RKBA.

Velocity
01-14-2011, 10:33 AM
Portantino joins Police Chiefs and Rank and File Police Officers in calling on
California to ban the “Open Wearing” of underwear
AB 144 will ban the Right to Keep and Wear Underwear

Sacramento – A sensible ban that should already be California law is being given a second chance. Assembly member Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) has introduced legislation to outlaw the “open wearing” of underwear in California. The prior bill made it through the legislature last year, but failed to get to the Governor’s desk when the legislative session adjourned at midnight without completing its business.

“We have laws to license dignity in California and this bill will improve them. It keeps underwear out of public places by individuals who are not properly dressed from showing their underwear” explained Assembly member Portantino. “Certainly, most folks would not want people walking down the grocery isle or sitting in a public park displaying their underwear. There’s a proper place for underwear and having a proliferation of underwear showing over someone’s too-low jeans and hips is something that belongs in a Hoodlum movie, not Main Street, California.”

Because of the miscue at the end of the 2010 session, AB 1934 by former Assemblymember Lori Saldaña did not make it to the Governor’s desk. This oversight means that Californians may walk into a grocery store displaying underwear on one hip and a gang tattoo on the other. After seeing a rise in these types of needless public displays, law enforcement officials sought the ban on this open display of underwear. Portantino took up the cause and has worked with law enforcement to re-introduce the “open wearing” ban.

San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer, President of the California Police Chiefs Association explains why her group is endorsing Portantino’s AB 144. “The California Police Chiefs Association is strongly in support of Assembly Member Portantino’s open-wearing bill. The open display of underwear in crowded public places creates very real public safety issues – both for the public and for police officers. This is a good-sense public safety bill and we are committed to securing its passage. In addition to being unsightly, underwear has already been proven to be able to hide weapons of mass destruction on airplanes.”

Portantino’s bill, AB 144, which was introduced Thursday, makes it illegal to exposed underwear (loaded or unloaded) in any public place or street. Law enforcement personnel are exempt as are strippers and others wearing underwear under specified licensed circumstances.

California is one of many states that allow so-called “open wearing” which gives underwear owners the right to display their underpants, though in California those underpants must be unloaded. Wearing loaded underpants in public is already against the law in California. The dispute came to a head last year when underwear enthusiasts began showing up in coffee shops and public beaches with underwear exposed from their hips.

“Average Californians understand strippers displaying loaded underwear, they understand Lindsay Lohan, and they even understand those folks who are legally licensed to wear thongs. What they don’t want is a proliferation of public displays of underwear for no purpose. It’s imperative that the public safety of our families and our neighbors’ families is protected. It only takes a few seconds to load and fire. This bill is a sensible public safety protection that will make such an occurrence less likely in our neighborhoods,” concluded Portantino.



This, BTW, seems to me to be a case of 'fair use' and should not be a copyright issue.
// Librarian

Arreaux
01-14-2011, 10:36 AM
Portantino joins Police Chiefs and Rank and File Police Officers in calling on
California to ban the “Open Wearing” of underwear
AB 144 will ban the Right to Keep and Wear Underwear



:rofl::rofl::rofl:

FatalKitty
01-14-2011, 10:37 AM
we have documented instances of CCW 'zens saving lives and doing good -

has there every been an instance in which someone UOCing was able to act and save the life of another?
probably every time they carried... as in having a completely normal guy sitting in a coffee shop with a GUN strapped and ready for action is enough of a deterrent to make these would be thugs think before holding up said coffee shop

there is no reason to limit UOC, no reason for our employees of our state who's wages we pay to limit OUR ability to carry however we damn well please.

I don't UOC btw

the_quark
01-14-2011, 11:00 AM
Where is CGF on this?

Just to be clear - CGF isn't a lobbying organization. CGF is here to help try to strike it down if it passes.

*switches hats*

Now, CRPA is an organization that engages in substantial lobbying. I can assure you that our lobbyist, Tom Pederson, will be doing everything he can in Sacramento to oppose and/or neuter this bill. He'll be doing that in tandem with the NRA's forces on the ground, and I have no doubt that if this gets anywhere at all, we'll be asking all of you to engage in phone and letter-writing campaigns. I believe gun-control legislation is dead at the Federal level, but we still could see some crummy stuff come down the pike here at home.

This early in the legislative session, I have absolutely no idea what the bill's prospects will be. I do think it's clearly unconstitutional, combined with the 12050 regime - it effectively eliminates even the fig leaf of UOC over the complete lack of "bear" rights we have. As such, if it passes, CGF will be involved in either fighting it or using it to our advantage (as the easiest remedy for the 2nd Amendment may be to make 12050 licenses "shall issue" in this case).

jamesob
01-14-2011, 11:06 AM
no way will moonbeam sign it.:rolleyes:

RRangel
01-14-2011, 11:06 AM
Maybe Assemblyman Anthony Portantino is a closet gunny. Ensuring concealed carry licenses for all.

Doubtful but interesting never the less.

Wherryj
01-14-2011, 11:13 AM
"A sensible gun ban that should already be California law is being given a second chance. Assemblymember Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) has introduced legislation to outlaw the “open carry” of unloaded handguns in California. "

I personally feel that guns carried while unloaded should be banned. What is the use of an unloaded gun? Let's ban unloaded carry in favor of loaded carry!

VAReact
01-14-2011, 11:13 AM
Portantino used to be my Representative when I lived in the LA area. A total POS career politician, never staying in offices he was elected to, as he already had his sights set higher up the political stepladder. :mad:

Wherryj
01-14-2011, 11:15 AM
Just to be clear - CGF isn't a lobbying organization. CGF is here to help try to strike it down if it passes.

*switches hats*

Now, CRPA is an organization that engages in substantial lobbying. I can assure you that our lobbyist, Tom Pederson, will be doing everything he can in Sacramento to oppose and/or neuter this bill. He'll be doing that in tandem with the NRA's forces on the ground, and I have no doubt that if this gets anywhere at all, we'll be asking all of you to engage in phone and letter-writing campaigns. I believe gun-control legislation is dead at the Federal level, but we still could see some crummy stuff come down the pike here at home.

This early in the legislative session, I have absolutely no idea what the bill's prospects will be. I do think it's clearly unconstitutional, combined with the 12050 regime - it effectively eliminates even the fig leaf of UOC over the complete lack of "bear" rights we have. As such, if it passes, CGF will be involved in either fighting it or using it to our advantage (as the easiest remedy for the 2nd Amendment may be to make 12050 licenses "shall issue" in this case).

I personally feel that it would be a waste of resources if the CGF decided to pursue lobbying. With finite resources and the CRPA/NRA available for lobbying services, the CGF should save its resources to dismantle the opposition in the courtroom.

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 11:16 AM
I wouldn't hold my breath for unintended consequences.

What should be remembered here is that we all have to thank the "UOC movement" for bills like this.

The real unintended consequence is that CGF, CRPA and NRA have to deal with this instead of ammo bans, "assault weapon" bans, the roster of "not un-safe" handguns, unconstitutional CCW policies, GFSZs, 10 day wait periods, etc.

While I may not agree with the attitudes of all UOC groups, you are off base sir. It sounds to me like you are advocating that in places CCWs are unavailable and have and remain so pending lengthy and expensive litigation, that they go unprotected.

Is that what you are saying? That they have no right to self-defense or that they lack the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense? You cannot license a right, the only acceptable level is unlicensed CCW or LOC as the owner wishes.

We once had LOC, then they removed that because they were afraid. Now they have restrictive CCW that requires you to pay them a fee for the right to self defense or you can UOC without a fee. Which is in the right? UOC allows for "some" level of self defense with a firearm. CCW only allows you full defense if you can pay to play and only if you pass whatever hurdles they decide to set in your way.. oh yeah and only if you can wait 6mo - year for your right to self defense. Historically, LOC was what the "good guys" did. Bad guys concealed.

Yes, the UOCer trend toward belligerent and forward action. However they are exercising a Right and they are often harassed over their exercising a right, that tends to make one grumpy.

Let me ask a few questions? Do you have a CCW? Do you believe you need a gun for personal defense?

If you are not holding a CCW (have to have it in hand) then the fact that you are not UOC means you do not believe yourself in danger nor feel the need to be armed. On that note I would deny you your CCW just cause of Self Defense because you obviously feel safe enough to not have to carry a firearm. You see, that is why CCW fails the test of the Right. You have to have Just Cause, even Self Defense. The pure existence of the need to justify yourself to another before you can exercise a right means you do not have that right. I just argued justifiably that you currently posses a means to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense and yet you do not use it there for you must not feel great threat to your person enough for your Self-Defense argument to hold any logical water. If you did, you would certainly be carrying.

This bill isn't in response to UOCers in the way you think, it is a response to people exercising their RTKBA for Self Defense. They don't like that and never have. They will make up any excuse they need to get there. The fact that you are willing to let them infringe on a right so that in the indefinite future you "might" get CCW, which you have to ask for and then pay and then hope you don't show, print, or get gunned down like the guy in Nevada.

bwiese
01-14-2011, 11:18 AM
Portantino used to be my Representative when I lived in the LA area. A total POS career politician, never staying in offices he was elected to, as he already had his sights set higher up the political stepladder. :mad:

That's the problem with term limits.

Before term limits, we could 'educate' a politician - and he'd have peace & quiet from us once he stopped introducing new gun laws. Pavlovian therapy worked.

You'll notice CA gun laws started getting a lot worse after term limits kicked in.

SixPointEight
01-14-2011, 11:23 AM
What they don’t want is a proliferation of public displays of weapons for no purpose.


There's a purpose. It's called self defense. We should get someone to amend it to say that, since we can't carry in public, then if we request it, a police officer must escort us everywhere we want to go.

It's only fair. If the police are there to protect us to the point that we don't need guns, they need to be close enough to actually protect us.

the_quark
01-14-2011, 11:29 AM
I personally feel that it would be a waste of resources if the CGF decided to pursue lobbying. With finite resources and the CRPA/NRA available for lobbying services, the CGF should save its resources to dismantle the opposition in the courtroom.

Absolutely, that's what we specialize in, and we have no intent to go into lobbying.

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 11:30 AM
I wanted to follow up in that I do not consider UOC to be "fully defensive" nor practical. Only LOC would be.

Simple example would be mugger draws gun points it at you, UOC is useless because you cannot draw and load and shoot before he can. The weapon you posses has not proven a sufficient Passive Deterrent to said BG actions.

Simple example of effective would be guy walks into a restaurant and starts shooting up the place, logically you are potentially capable of quickly loading and using your weapon, assuming that he has not currently targeted you. Example of the faster loading would be something like the HK USP where you can load a magazine into a weapon that has its slide already locked back and cause it to "self load" in one single motion combined with drawing and taking aim. I am assuming that having a weapon of that type you practiced loading and such because well, what point is it in carrying a weapon you have not trained yourself to be useful with.

The reality is LOC and CCW are different animals and that LOC should be unlicensed and it is not unreasonable that CCW be licensed.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 11:50 AM
Oh, CGF won't do any lobbying, but I'd bet that before a week is gone that CGF will know more about the legal ramifications of AB144 than does the author or any of the legislative analysts.

Dirtbozz
01-14-2011, 11:52 AM
You just have to love our legislature!

But never fear, Jerry Brown is here!

This will be a true test of Jerry Brown's support for the Second Amendment. :D

wash
01-14-2011, 12:23 PM
We once had LOC, then they removed that because they were afraid. Now they have restrictive CCW that requires you to pay them a fee for the right to self defense or you can UOC without a fee. Which is in the right? UOC allows for "some" level of self defense with a firearm. CCW only allows you full defense if you can pay to play and only if you pass whatever hurdles they decide to set in your way.. oh yeah and only if you can wait 6mo - year for your right to self defense. Historically, LOC was what the "good guys" did. Bad guys concealed.
You better check your facts.

We had LOC and lost it because the Black Panthers decided to march on the capitol with loaded guns. They made a bill that could have lost in to a sure thing by scaring the legislature and citizens (through the media).

It was a classic example of old school gun control: pass a gun control law when a minority scares the powers that be.

Now UOC activists are causing trouble at the Starbucks...

You're right, I don't carry a gun when I don't feel like I'm in danger. I do LUCC on occasion.

Instead of riling up the soccer moms and getting UOC ban bills in Sacramento, I wish the "UOC movement" would do the same and carry when they feel they are in danger instead of carrying because they feel like it or they want to be on the 7:00 news.

Quit messing with my rights.

tabrisnet
01-14-2011, 12:34 PM
I'm not sure I see the "in danger" part to that argument, especially as it leads into the "good cause" argument that the sheriffs have on CCW.

Yes, carrying in order to make noise is pretty stupid, but I think that it should be legal to carry/bear at all times. And no, I don't UOC b/c there's practically nowhere I'd go that that would be acceptable (my employer has a no weapons policy that I don't feel like getting involved in changing until I have a CCW, and given it's a multinational founded in the SFBay, I'm not expecting my chances to be good).

Stonewalker
01-14-2011, 12:37 PM
It will be very interesting to see what JB does if this gets to his desk... I'd love to read his opinion on it. That being said, I hope it fails.

Funtimes
01-14-2011, 12:38 PM
Time to have some fun with this lol, gotta read it.

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 12:50 PM
Instead of riling up the soccer moms and getting UOC ban bills in Sacramento, I wish the "UOC movement" would do the same and carry when they feel they are in danger instead of carrying because they feel like it

So in other words, instead of loading their weapons as excepted under
Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the
carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would
otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the
person or property of himself or herself or of another is in
immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is
necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in
this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and
after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has
been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its
assistance.

they should only UOC when they are in danger. Getting awfully close to victim disarmament territory, there.

or they want to be on the 7:00 news.

Their mere existence is all it takes to get on the 7:00 news, as if deterring crime and getting police dispatched to violate your civil rights for daring to do so, is a sin.

Blaming the victim of rape is never acceptable. It is always wrong, wrong, wrong.

It's @#$%ing disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Take your rationalizations, your justifications, and your bull@#$% and shove it all up your ***.

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 12:53 PM
You better check your facts.

We had LOC and lost it because the Black Panthers decided to march on the capitol with loaded guns. They made a bill that could have lost in to a sure thing by scaring the legislature and citizens (through the media).

It was a classic example of old school gun control: pass a gun control law when a minority scares the powers that be.

Now UOC activists are causing trouble at the Starbucks...

You're right, I don't carry a gun when I don't feel like I'm in danger. I do LUCC on occasion.

Instead of riling up the soccer moms and getting UOC ban bills in Sacramento, I wish the "UOC movement" would do the same and carry when they feel they are in danger instead of carrying because they feel like it or they want to be on the 7:00 news.

Quit messing with my rights.

Let me narrow this down for you, the soccer moms are NOT why this bill was introduced. It was introduced because they WANT to limit guns. The "any excuse is a good excuse" applies in this case. The ban actually was because the BPP were LOC at a LEGAL Distance from cops with books of Penal Code in hand to ensure their rights were not being violated. This spooked the cops, it was a volatile time when Civil Rights Violation of a specific group was in general social acceptance. The group who were fighting for their rights were agitated and oppressed. That is a hostile environment. The ban on LOC was the Powers deciding they didn't like an underclass having any kind of power against them. There were no documented cases of BPP LOC groups resulting in deaths or injuries only confrontations as a result of obvious brutality and Civil Rights Violations. As the Blacks were once an Underclass, so too is the General Citizenry today.

They (the UOCers) are not messing with your Rights, they are exercising theirs. The ones messing with your Rights are the Legislators and their Enforcers. Divisiveness in our own community weakens us and strengthens them. We are a minority in this state. Sound familiar?

If we could present them with a unified front, we could realistically expect a positive result. They are politicians first and liberals and conservatives second. The Gay Rights activists run parades and protests. Where are ours? Where are our picket lines? Where are our protests on the footsteps of the capital? Why are we not organizing and publicly moving as one large body weekly? We seem to have the legal side pinned down but now we need to become a Block, a Voting Block. In some cases the UOC movement has meet with great success in doing exactly what it was meant to do. Desensitize. The "other side" has spent decades grooming and breeding sensitivity towards firearms. We need education, TV Spots, Protests, Training Days, Open Range Days, Self Defense Days, we need to be armed and seen being armed and have nothing happen. The more that happens the less they hyper-sensitized Bitties will respond. Its sort of how you deal with a phobia.

Mind you it is only one way, but it has met with limited success usually because even with the Gun Owner/2A Block they are considered fringe cases, this actually weakens the positive effect and increases the negative effect. Sort of like dressing like a gangster results in the negative effector. Dress like a detective and no one will even bat an eyelash.

American Politics Responds to the Hype machine. Lets use it, lets keep the California Media Locked Up displaying harmless and safe protests over gun rights, every week for months. We have the legal team but where is our PR team? Where is our Media Blitz, our marches, our Rights Parades?

Small isolated groups can be vilified as the BPP were and that used to pass laws (LOC BAN). IF we REALLY want to change the face of California we need to unify, solidify as a Block, and start the Major PR campaign. Fight in the courtroom and in the streets and most importantly in the Hearts and Minds of our Opposition. I will not say that some of the work of the UOC movement hasn't been negative, but that is actually more our fault than theirs.

wildhawker
01-14-2011, 12:59 PM
We can limitedly "lobby" as the election was made when filing for the 501(c)3, but those efforts would be rare, limited and focused, e.g. the AB962 flier campaign and letters to the Assembly/Senate on the legal ramifications of certain bills, not real lobbying of members as would NRA and CRPA.

big red
01-14-2011, 1:05 PM
If you can get this useless politician to agree to include a non-restrictive loaded open carry provision for all gun owners using legally registered guns then you might have a reasonable tradeoff. Until then the UOCers know how to adapt their tactics to beat this one just like they did the last one and should with or without the help of the NRA and Calguns. But people please remember who did and did not help in the defeat of this bill or any other anti-gun legislation past or present. This country was founded on protection of INDIVIDUAL rights not group rights. groups get their rights because they are made up of individuals. One person loses a right then all people risk that loss. When a group decides it is not in their political agenda to defend an obvious wrong then that group becomes the enemy as much as the party committing the wrong. Let's be aware of the bill and it's progress if any. But let's minimize the internal conflict and maximize the effort to defend our right to bear arms in public as needed individually.

wash
01-14-2011, 1:10 PM
UOC activists are messing with my rights if their actions result in my rights being taken away.

Soccer moms are a big part of why these stupid laws get passed. Somebody has to vote for these morons that introduce these bills and guess what, soccer moms tend to do things like call their representative, send emails, write comments to online news articles and vote. If no one cared when a politician says "it's for the children", politicians would stop saying that.

UOC is stupid.

Not because the concept of being armed is bad, but because the practice is restricted so much.

If I'm going to walk around armed, it's going to be LUCC because I won't be hassled by police, I won't have to lock up when I walk 20' from my UOC bubble in to a GFSZ and I won't even have to look at a map before I go anywhere (except school grounds and sensitive places like court houses and jails).

If GFSZs went away I might UOC and if LOC was allowed I would do that but until then, UOC to get on the news does nothing but hurt our cause.

I don't do anything that can hurt our cause. It's hard to stand by when I see a bunch of knuckleheads who are so willing to make a mess and have no means to clean it up.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 1:16 PM
If you can get this useless politician to agree to include a non-restrictive loaded open carry provision for all gun owners using legally registered guns then you might have a reasonable tradeoff. Until then the UOCers know how to adapt their tactics to beat this one just like they did the last one and should with or without the help of the NRA and Calguns. But people please remember who did and did not help in the defeat of this bill or any other anti-gun legislation past or present. This country was founded on protection of INDIVIDUAL rights not group rights. groups get their rights because they are made up of individuals. One person loses a right then all people risk that loss. When a group decides it is not in their political agenda to defend an obvious wrong then that group becomes the enemy as much as the party committing the wrong. Let's be aware of the bill and it's progress if any. But let's minimize the internal conflict and maximize the effort to defend our right to bear arms in public as needed individually.

As a preface here you'll kindly note that I've been opposing this bill and defending the right to UOC.

But to be rather blunt, the idea that the UOC'ers beat this last time around is a serious misunderstanding of what happened.

IMHO, despite relatively little obvious activity on the part of CGF I'd assess them as having been more effective than the UOC lobbying. If you don't understand why then it'd be a waste to explain to you just why that is so.

To continue the bluntness, the UOC'ers aren't going to beat AB144. That won't happen. If the UOC'ers manage to tick off CGF, CRPA, and the NRA to the point that there is no support from them - then AB144 will assuredly pass unless JB surprises the *&$^# out of me and vetoes it. But UOC'ers by themselves will not beat this in the legislature and arguments to that effect will damage the cause of defeating AB144.

Edit: None of the above is meant to denigrate the UOC'ers but to point out that they were not, IMHO, all that effective. For that matter, if they'd done as other suggested there's a decent chance last year's bill wouldn't have gotten as far as it did and AB144 might not even have been proposed this year.

But now we all need to buckle down and fight to kill AB144 and to tamp down the activities that are fueling the move to pass it (namely, UOC demonstrations).

curtisfong
01-14-2011, 1:20 PM
Until then the UOCers know how to adapt their tactics to beat this one just like they did the last one

Really? What tactics are you talking about? Last I checked, the voting record shows absolutely no evidence that UOC activism did any good.

wildhawker
01-14-2011, 1:48 PM
If you think anti-gun orgs are more organized, you have no idea what you are talking about. That confirms the ignorance of saying that winning cases at SCOTUS won't win the war.

Drop enough H-bombs, and what we're talking about is how to occupy.

This bill will almost certainly pass. UOC tactics had nothing to do with it not passing last year (Lori Saldana was more effective at losing traction than RCOC was at pushing it back).

That said, let's not pile on UOC. It's legitimate 1A expressive conduct we should be working to preserve.

curtisfong
01-14-2011, 2:24 PM
That said, let's not pile on UOC. It's legitimate 1A expressive conduct we should be working to preserve.

For the record: I do not oppose UOC, nor do I oppose legal activism of any kind. What I dislike is misrepresentation of its effectiveness on the legislature.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 2:51 PM
For the record: I do not oppose UOC, nor do I oppose legal activism of any kind. What I dislike is misrepresentation of its effectiveness on the legislature.

That's pretty much where I stand except I'd say is that I fear misrepresentation of its effectiveness.

If one subgroup of those who support the RKBA starts to think they can go it alone that subgroup is highly likely to fail an inordinate amount of the time. If we build coalitions and nurture cooperation and examine what works and what doesn't in building a coherent strategy for victory - then we will eventually win.

We need to win.

Bigtime1
01-14-2011, 3:12 PM
I grew up in LCF and can't believe my once wonderful home town is represented by this guy. But ... the town has changed and last time I drove through my old 'hood I couldn't believe how many Obama sticker'd Volvo station wagons I saw.

Time to wage the war of words on our elected officials across the state.

The quandary - tip them off to the unintended consequences (Peruta language) and hope that tips the CCW scales, or fight it tooth and nail on principle.

With all the REAL problems our state faces this kind of crapola should be an embarrassment to the entire assembly.

Havoc70
01-14-2011, 3:13 PM
You're right, I don't carry a gun when I don't feel like I'm in danger. I do LUCC on occasion.

Instead of riling up the soccer moms and getting UOC ban bills in Sacramento, I wish the "UOC movement" would do the same and carry when they feel they are in danger instead of carrying because they feel like it or they want to be on the 7:00 news.

Quit messing with my rights.

Right, because your phone rings four hours ahead of time, and the All Knowing Presence says, "You will be in danger in four hours, please make sure you have your defenses ready."

Really, Wash, give up your crap against open carriers, it's getting old.

wash
01-14-2011, 3:16 PM
This reminds me of a few months ago.

I was volunteering at the CGN booth at the Cow Palace gun show.

As I walked up to the booth Havoc70 said something to me, he had a problem with me telling people not to UOC. Now if you've never seen Havoc70, you know he's a guy you don't want to have an argument with, he's 6' 10", former airforce (I think) and tells a story about how he killed a deer with a pocket knife and his bare hands during a survival training exercise. He also lives in a more rural area and practices UOC.

After I explained to him the reasons why I think UOC is counterproductive, he started to agree.

The next time I saw him at the booth he came up to me and said that he had noticed a lot of the things I'm worried about with UOC, including people who aren't doing it right.

If 100 people see a UOC activist doing it right, a few of them are going to think about doing it and some of them will do it wrong. Soccer moms will see all of it and some will get upset. Vocal minorites are able to sway politics. Even a bunch of bored housewives in brady bunch t-shirts.

Giving them amunition is dumb and they wouldn't have any idea what UOC was if the "UOC movement" hadn't decided to use Starbucks as their meeting place.

It would be much easier to get LOC if the anti's hadn't already been riled up with UOC.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 3:18 PM
Actually, this kind of thing may be even more likely this year.

There are multiple levels of government and society that are starting to realize that this state is essentially bankrupt. This means that even JB is looking for some cuts (as wholly inadequate as they may be) and that is going to thoroughly anger the most liberal of the left. One of the ways you placate the base is by getting headlines about how you are stomping on others that they hate - including (in this case) those who understand the need for an armed defense.

So expect more anti-RKBA legislation this year and expect JB to sign it. If we're extremely lucky it may not turn out that way - but betting on that would not be wise.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 3:20 PM
.
.
.
As I walked up to the booth Havoc70 said something to me, he had a problem with me telling people not to UOC. Now if you've never seen Havoc70, you know he's a guy you don't want to have an argument with, he's 6' 10", former airforce (I think) and tells a story about how he killed a deer with a pocket knife and his bare hands during a survival training exercise. He also lives in a more rural area and practices UOC.
.
.
.

Never met the guy but he's impressed me on CGN as a smart and pretty thoughtful guy overall.

Havoc70
01-14-2011, 3:20 PM
The difference is since then a lot more are doing it right. I do not necessarily agree with the grandstanding meet ups as much as I used to, to be sure. I either UOC solo or with a few folks over lunch.

And the story about killing the deer is kinda inaccurate. The story is as follows:

While I was in SERE school, we snared a deer with 550 cord. Not having any sort of guns, we all ganged up on the poor bastard with sticks and beat it to death. One snared deer isn't much of a match for 15 starved survival school students.

wash
01-14-2011, 3:20 PM
You're right, my phone hasn't rang yet.

On the other hand, I know that almost everywhere I go on an average day falls in a GFSZ, UOC just isn't practical.

LUCC can go everywhere I go.

Is it perfect?

No.

Is UOC perfect?

Am I going to have a problem with you at the next show Havoc?

Havoc70
01-14-2011, 3:24 PM
Never met the guy but he's impressed me on CGN as a smart and pretty thoughtful guy overall.

I try to be, but my hackles get up fairly easily and I tend to shoot from the hip and usually end up regretting it, but after wards I tend to get along better with the person.

I'm not one to refuse to admit when I've been wrong.

Havoc70
01-14-2011, 3:26 PM
You're right, my phone hasn't rang yet.

On the other hand, I know that almost everywhere I go on an average day falls in a GFSZ, UOC just isn't practical.

LUCC can go everywhere I go.

Is it perfect?

No.

Is UOC perfect?

Am I going to have a problem with you at the next show Havoc?

Of course you are, but only in the standard teasing way I greet you :). To me LUCC is a lot more impractical from the readiness viewpoint. Granted, you avoid the GFSZ issue quite nicely which is an advantage to not take too lightly.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 3:26 PM
.
.
.
I'm not one to refuse to admit when I've been wrong.

That in itself implies more wisdom than most of us (possibly including myself. . .).

Joe
01-14-2011, 3:28 PM
It will be very interesting to see what happens if this bill makes it to Brown's desk.

He'd sign it in a second. That wouldn't be very interesting at all.

mdimeo
01-14-2011, 3:30 PM
While I may not agree with the attitudes of all UOC groups, you are off base sir. It sounds to me like you are advocating that in places CCWs are unavailable and have and remain so pending lengthy and expensive litigation, that they go unprotected.

I believe it has long been the position of CGF that, if you feel the need to quietly UOC for self defence, you should do so. CGF has been primarily opposed to protests, UOC group meetups, and other in-your-face open carry activism as counter-productive.

If this law passes, which is likely, the quiet users of the UOC option will have been screwed by the noisy activists.

I am not a CGF representative, and they'll surely chime in if my understanding of policy is incorrect.

MasterYong
01-14-2011, 3:33 PM
SWEET!!!!! MAKE IT PASS PAH-LEEEZE!!!!!

If they ban OC, the unintended consequences for the antis would be a sweet win for us!!!

If I can't OC as my only way of bearing a firearm legally, then CC would be the only other way.

First, I'm not sure you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Second, your lightning-fast willingness to completely sell your fellow gun owners and Californians up the river just because you prefer to CCW over OC is sad. We all have 2A rights, not just you, and we should be allowed to carry however we choose so long as it's safe and responsible. There is nothing unsafe or irresponsible about OC, especially UOC (except maybe those UOC "activists" that think it's fun to berate LEOs).

In fact, I think it's enough just to say that it's sad you are in support of any type of restrictive gun control laws, but even worse that you would applaud their passage just to suit your own ends. For shame.

Havoc70
01-14-2011, 3:34 PM
I believe it has long been the position of CGF that, if you feel the need to quietly UOC for self defence, you should do so. CGF has been primarily opposed to protests, UOC group meetups, and other in-your-face open carry activism as counter-productive.

I am not a CGF representative, and they'll surely chime in if my understanding of policy is incorrect.

And I have to agree, then again large meetups and "in-your-face" don't have to be the same. A whole bunch of us got together at a restaurant in Concord for a relaxed dinner and no one said a word about it, a lot of people asked us what it was about and were more curious than anything.

I'm selective with what meetups I attend now. I try to see if it will help or hurt the general cause of gun ownership in CA and decide to attend accordingly.

Of course, with my new job I haven't even had the time to even consider going to any events, working 18 hour days kinda puts a crimp in one's free time to do things.

ETA: As much as I respect and like my friends who UOC, holding events merely for the effect of goading a protest, or to basically throw it in people's face is counter intuitive and I also find it somewhat offensive to be gleeful about shoving something in people's face. I don't care what it is, don't shove it in folks' face. Go about your business with respect and quietly. Have a large meetup like that dinner where things are low key and folks just chilling out works. When I carry by myself, no even notices I'm carrying, and my waist is at eye level to some folks :). Well, not really, but it's not like a sig sauer P226 strapped to my waist is hard to notice.

Getting together and shouting, "F*** YOU!" even metaphorically serves no purpose.

Window_Seat
01-14-2011, 3:35 PM
That said, let's not pile on UOC. It's legitimate 1A expressive conduct we should be working to preserve.

Such as this (which I hate to bring up) in Anderson v. Hermosa Beach (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/09/08-56914.pdf)?

And even where conduct expressive of an idea is protected by the First Amendment, “[t]he government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 406 (1989). Restrictions on protected expressive conduct are analyzed under the four-part test announced in O’Brien, a less stringent test than those established for regulations of pure speech.

And then...

26375. Section 26350 does not apply to, or affect, the open
carrying of an unloaded handgun by an authorized participant in, or
an authorized employee or agent of a supplier of firearms for, a
motion picture, television or video production, or entertainment
event, when the participant lawfully uses the handgun as part of that
production or event, as part of rehearsing or practicing for
participation in that production or event, or while the participant
or authorized employee or agent is at that production or event, or
rehearsal or practice for that production or event.


So if it does pass (which I expect it will), how can this not pass muster in an EP case when it comes to the Scottish Games (if Nordyke rules that the GS ban is struck based in part on the Scottish Games being able to hold their's), as well as it being "protected (since the 2nd is a fundamental right) expressed activity"? Is UOCing conduct expressive of an idea, or is it purely expressive activity?

Is Walter engaging purely expressed activity, or conduct expressive of an idea? Again, no IANAL, just my IANAL thoughts. Is the LPD putting themselves into a "be careful what you wish for" situation when they set themselves up to be given a 1A, 2A, 4A & 5A & 14A lecture by Walter on video inside that coffee shop?

Erik.

voiceofreason
01-14-2011, 3:38 PM
I'd UOC, except where I live, there is a school every mile or so.

voiceofreason
01-14-2011, 3:42 PM
Without access to a CCW, effectively... the Constitution may state that I have the right to bear arms, but basically...

I don't.

Unless I want to risk getting arrested.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 3:50 PM
Without access to a CCW, effectively... the Constitution may state that I have the right to bear arms, but basically...

I don't.

Unless I want to risk getting arrested.

Exactly.

And this is much of the reason why passage of AB144 may help us all in the long-term. It'd mean that the probability of Shall Issue CCW goes up - and I've long maintained that Shall Issue CCW will be leveraged into LOC.

SI CCW and LOC would be preferable to UOC and CCW as we have now.

Still, the short-term damage to the RKBA of the folks who UOC is not worth whatever potential gain we might have from the passage of AB144.

wildhawker
01-14-2011, 4:01 PM
If you're asking if UOC group expression may require a permit, possibly yes. However, remember that restrictions on expressive conduct are required to be content neutral. Further, there is a change in expressive positioning after California has some equitable manner of carrying a loaded firearm.

-Brandon

Such as this (which I hate to bring up) in Anderson v. Hermosa Beach (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/09/08-56914.pdf)?

And then...

So if it does pass (which I expect it will), how can this not pass muster in an EP case when it comes to the Scottish Games (if Nordyke rules that the GS ban is struck based in part on the Scottish Games being able to hold their's), as well as it being "protected (since the 2nd is a fundamental right) expressed activity"? Is UOCing conduct expressive of an idea, or is it purely expressive activity?

Is Walter engaging purely expressed activity, or conduct expressive of an idea? Again, no IANAL, just my IANAL thoughts. Is the LPD putting themselves into a "be careful what you wish for" situation when they set themselves up to be given a 1A, 2A, 4A & 5A & 14A lecture by Walter on video inside that coffee shop?

Erik.

the_quark
01-14-2011, 4:05 PM
I believe it has long been the position of CGF that, if you feel the need to quietly UOC for self defence, you should do so. CGF has been primarily opposed to protests, UOC group meetups, and other in-your-face open carry activism as counter-productive.


CGF really can't have an "opinion" on something like this. But I know my opinion (and Gene's) is that, if you really feel you need to UOC for your safety, please do so. We would never ask anyone not to take the steps he or she feels is needed for self defense. Just try to be discreet about it, and obviously follow the law.

If you're UOCing because you want to "educate people" or "change minds" or "alter the culture", and you're meeting up with other UOCers for this purpose, and talking to the media, and calling the police on yourself - you're causing trouble we don't need right now. All of us want loaded open carry. If this UOC ban passes, we may not get it in the long game.

Dirtbozz
01-14-2011, 4:09 PM
........Still, the short-term damage to the RKBA of the folks who UOC is not worth whatever potential gain we might have from the passage of AB144.

Given the swing to the left this state made during the last election, there may be no choice in the matter. It will probably pass. But the possible end result will help us all, including those that currently carry unloaded openly. Those unloaded open carry guys probably won't mind it if carrying a concealed, loaded weapon becomes the only choice we have. I could be wrong.

707electrician
01-14-2011, 4:14 PM
I say let em ban UOC, itll get us CC or LOC faster that way.

Doubtful!

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 4:15 PM
Given the swing to the left this state made during the last election, there may be no choice in the matter. It will probably pass. But the possible end result will help us all, including those that currently carry unloaded openly. Those unloaded open carry guys probably won't mind it if carrying a concealed, loaded weapon becomes the only choice we have. I could be wrong.

There's a lot of truth in what you are saying.

But as it turns out, there is likely to be a substantial delay between the passage of a UOC ban and the imposition of effective Shall Issue CCW - during that time our UOC brothers and sisters will have had their RKBA infringed to a very great degree. Also, there is a lot more cost associated with getting your CCW than there is just strapping on a Hi-Point.

Since I think almost all UOC'ers would really prefer LOC I think they will like the ultimate outcome which I envision, but until then it will be just plain wrong for far too long.

Anchors
01-14-2011, 4:26 PM
Why would they be? Dont the UOCers have their own organized and funded legal team to fight stuff like this? Wasnt it the UOC crowd (without the help of the CGF) that defeated the UOC ban last year? (all sarcasm BTW)

I say let em ban UOC, itll get us CC or LOC faster that way.

That is true, but still. It is just one more restriction until then.

I don't think this bill will matter that much. The legislature is within their power to ban open carry as long as we have concealed carry available to us. And the courts should fix the discretionary license policy for us. Patrick said it succinctly in another thread and to paraphrase he said that "UOC is a gift or rather an oversight from the legislature." The legislature is taking back that gift or correcting a mistake, depending on how you look at it.

True.

You could reasonably argue that in the long-term this bill (if enacted) would hasten progress toward getting both effective Shall Issue CCW and LOC. But in the short-term it is a serious blow to the freedom of those who UOC in areas where you really aren't likely to be able to get CCW.

It's a bad bill and should be defeated.

Pretty much how I feel about it.

Here is the press release version I got which won't be seeing publication. Emailed to me yesterday too.
If you want to voice your opinion, this is the email address from the staffer that sent me the press release.
Wendy.Gordon@asm.ca.gov

Portantino joins Police Chiefs and Rank and File Police Officers in calling on
California to ban the open display of firearms
AB 144 will ban the “Open Carry” of unloaded handguns

Sacramento – A sensible gun ban that should already be California law is being given a second chance. Assemblymember Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) has introduced legislation to outlaw the “open carry” of unloaded handguns in California. The prior bill made it through the legislature last year, but failed to get to the Governor’s desk when the legislative session adjourned at midnight without completing its business.

“We have laws to license weapons in California and this bill will improve them. It keeps guns out of public places by individuals who are not properly and legally licensed to carry weapons,” explained Assemblymember Portantino. “Certainly, most folks would not want people walking down the grocery isle or sitting in a public park displaying weapons. There’s a proper place for firearms and having a proliferation of them strapped to hips is something that belongs in a Western movie, not Main Street, California.”

Because of the miscue at the end of the 2010 session, AB 1934 by former Assemblymember Lori Saldaña did not make it to the Governor’s desk. This oversight means that Californians may walk into a grocery store carrying an unloaded weapon on one hip and the bullets on the other. After seeing a rise in these types of needless public displays, law enforcement officials sought the ban on this open display of firearms. Portantino took up the cause and has worked with law enforcement to re-introduce the “open carry” ban.

San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer, President of the California Police Chiefs Association explains why her group is endorsing Portantino’s AB 144. “The California Police Chiefs Association is strongly in support of Assembly Member Portantino’s open-carry bill. The open display of firearms in crowded public places creates very real public safety issues – both for the public and for police officers. This is a good-sense public safety bill and we are committed to securing its passage.”

Portantino’s bill, AB 144, which was introduced Thursday, makes it illegal to carry an unloaded handgun in any public place or street. Law enforcement personnel are exempt as are hunters and others carrying unloaded weapons under specified licensed circumstances.

“PORAC members are committed to keeping our communities safe, and this practice wastes a huge amount of law enforcement officers’ time. These people work in groups and they are trained on how to confront peace officers. It is scary for our neighborhoods and businesses,” said Lt. Ron Cottingham, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, PORAC. “It is not safe, and I fear a horrible accident could happen if something is not done about it. That is why PORAC supports AB 144.”

California is one of many states that allow so-called “open carry” which gives gun owners the right to display weapons, though in California those guns must be unloaded. Carrying loaded firearms in public is already against the law in California. The dispute came to a head last year when gun enthusiasts began showing up in coffee shops and public beaches with unloaded guns strapped to their hips.

“Average Californians understand police officers displaying loaded weapons, they understand hunters, and they even understand those folks who are legally licensed to a carry a weapon. What they don’t want is a proliferation of public displays of weapons for no purpose. It’s imperative that the public safety of our families and our neighbors’ families is protected. It only takes a few seconds to load and fire. This bill is a sensible public safety protection that will make such an occurrence less likely in our neighborhoods,” concluded Portantino.

If you want to voice your opinion, this is the email address from the staffer that sent me the press release.
Wendy.Gordon@asm.ca.gov

I'm going to vomit. I didn't realize that an accident could occur with an unloaded firearm?
And it takes seconds to load and fire? That is the point!!!
No one is open carrying before they go on their shooting spree.

I seriously don't understand.

They're right about Californians not understanding openly displayed weapons.
I say that I'm a gun owner sometimes to coworkers or classmates and most of the time they are just interested in firearms, but quite often I get the "What? Why would you ever need or want a gun? What if a kid gets it? What if you shoot someone? What if it loads itself and crawls out of your safe and goes on a baby killing spree!?"

I'm really missing Arizona right now. Hopefully they won't change their laws based on the stupid events there (I doubt they will).
I grew up in Phoenix. It is the 5th largest city in the country and bigger than every city in California except Los Angeles and no one gives a crap if you have a sidearm.
You see it all day, everyday. No one gasps or acts weird.
I feel like I got lost in the Twilight Zone.

Sorry. End rant.

glockwise2000
01-14-2011, 4:27 PM
Not again. When are they going to stop? If this would pass, can we challenge the decision on the Peruta vs SD, since it would be illegal to open carry.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 4:31 PM
Not again. When are they going to stop? If this would pass, can we challenge the decision on the Peruta vs SD, since it would be illegal to open carry.

I'm pretty sure Peruta will be going through the appeals process. If this passes at the appropriate time I think it might be quite relevant. IANAL, but I'm sort of wondering if the appellate court mightn't remand the decision back to the lower court to re-hear in view of the new law.

Dirtbozz
01-14-2011, 4:32 PM
Not again. When are they going to stop? If this would pass, can we challenge the decision on the Peruta vs SD, since it would be illegal to open carry.

Unfortunatly I don't think unloaded open carry availablility was the primary basis for her decision, just a secondary reference.

wildhawker
01-14-2011, 4:41 PM
Peruta is already at CA9.

I'm pretty sure Peruta will be going through the appeals process. If this passes at the appropriate time I think it might be quite relevant. IANAL, but I'm sort of wondering if the appellate court mightn't remand the decision back to the lower court to re-hear in view of the new law.

JeffM
01-14-2011, 6:53 PM
I really hope no one is dumb enough to put money or effort into seeing this bill defeated.

As long as UOCers shove their sh*t down the public's throat, the legislature will shove this sh*t down ours.

UOCers were warned... and warned... and warned... and warned...

Anyone who advocates UOC is a goddamn idiot. And anyone who wants to throw money down a hole to support them is doubly so.

CGF/NRA/CRPA/SAF/etc. I earnestly hope you do not get involved in stopping this bill, wasting the donations of your members and supporters. PLEASE FIGHT THE REAL 2A FIGHTS, Let these UOC idiots twist in the wind until they give in and apply for their CCWs. Let them find themselves unarmed in a dark alley because they didn't listen and no longer have the "right" to open carry.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 6:56 PM
I really hope no one is dumb enough to put money or effort into seeing this bill defeated.

As long as UOCers shove their sh*t down the public's throat, the legislature will shove this sh*t down ours.

UOCers were warned... and warned... and warned... and warned...

Anyone who advocates UOC is a goddamn idiot. And anyone who wants to throw money down a hole to support them is doubly so.

CGF/NRA/CRPA/SAF/etc. I earnestly hope you do not get involved in stopping this bill, wasting the donations of your members and supporters. PLEASE FIGHT THE REAL 2A FIGHTS, Let these UOC idiots twist in the wind until they give in and apply for their CCWs. Let them find themselves unarmed in a dark alley because they didn't listen and no longer have the "right" to open carry.

So we can't count on your showing up for the UOC event in Lake Forest? ;):43:

hoffmang
01-14-2011, 7:08 PM
He'd sign it in a second. That wouldn't be very interesting at all.
Should the bill make it to Governor Brown's desk, I expect he'll sign it just like Arnold would have or Meg would have.

CGF really can't have an "opinion" on something like this. But I know my opinion (and Gene's) is that, if you really feel you need to UOC for your safety, please do so. We would never ask anyone not to take the steps he or she feels is needed for self defense. Just try to be discreet about it, and obviously follow the law. I would add that I would also like someone who can't get a 12050 license and thinks that they need UOC to very seriously consider their LUCC options as it is usually a superior carry method from a practical point of view.

This bill has a very good chance of passage. I had thought it was a slam dunk but there are some rumblings that it has a small chance of not passing. I would suggest that politically, UOCers need to be careful to not create catalyzing events until the window for amendments is over this fall.

-Gene

jpigeon
01-14-2011, 7:13 PM
This could actually work in our favor... Complete ban of exercising 2A outside of home would really raise some eyebrows in the courts...

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 7:18 PM
I really hope no one is dumb enough to put money or effort into seeing this bill defeated.

As long as UOCers shove their sh*t down the public's throat, the legislature will shove this sh*t down ours.

UOCers were warned... and warned... and warned... and warned...

Anyone who advocates UOC is a goddamn idiot. And anyone who wants to throw money down a hole to support them is doubly so.

CGF/NRA/CRPA/SAF/etc. I earnestly hope you do not get involved in stopping this bill, wasting the donations of your members and supporters. PLEASE FIGHT THE REAL 2A FIGHTS, Let these UOC idiots twist in the wind until they give in and apply for their CCWs. Let them find themselves unarmed in a dark alley because they didn't listen and no longer have the "right" to open carry.
It is always nice to see that people on this forum do not support the 2A when it suits them. Nor who understand how this great states legislature thinks.

I recall the white gun owners said the same things about the BPP in regards to LOC. Its nice to know that peoples hate and prejudice are still used to excuse the removal of rights from those who they do not like, politically, or personally.

It is thinking like that which opened the doors, and continues, to the Anti-Rights Power Brokers in this Country. Not just for the 2A, but for every Right and the constitution itself. Give them an inch and they will take a foot, etc.

Gene, how is LUCC of any practical value? In all honesty? I would like to know capacity to provide for defense it provides. Just having a gun locked in a case and unloaded does not seem to provide for any function at all except for something psychological of the holder. Lets assume a backpack with a locking case for the pistol inside it. How long to open the bag, remove everthing in the way, retreive the locked case, unlock the case, load the pistol....?????

hoffmang
01-14-2011, 7:28 PM
Gene, how is LUCC of any practical value?

With the correct locking bag (and it takes some thinking to understand what I mean by 'correct') it gives you all of the ease of use of UOC while not drawing a police response and not keeping you 1000' away from a school.

-Gene

Write Winger
01-14-2011, 7:29 PM
I'm throwing my support behind UOC and Meaty here. Rosa Parks was part of a group that was staging events to 'upset the apple cart' as it were. She wasn't just a lady who had enough and decided on her own to not sit at the back of the bus. Not supporting UOC would be like telling her 'Dont bring attention to yourself!'. We do need to bring attention to ourselves and how our fundamental civil right to self defense is being violated at every turn. March damn it!

Write Winger
01-14-2011, 7:32 PM
Hell, I say go loaded open carry, let them arrest you, and fight it up to the supreme court (if that hasn't already been tried).

JeffM
01-14-2011, 7:32 PM
It is always nice to see that people on this forum do not support the 2A when it suits them. Nor who understand how this great states legislature thinks.

I recall the white gun owners said the same things about the BPP in regards to LOC. Its nice to know that peoples hate and prejudice are still used to excuse the removal of rights from those who they do not like, politically, or personally.

It is thinking like that which opened the doors, and continues, to the Anti-Rights Power Brokers in this Country. Not just for the 2A, but for every Right and the constitution itself. Give them an inch and they will take a foot, etc.

Yet again, a UOCer misses the point completely.

I'm a rabid 2A supporter. But unlike the UOC community, I WANT TO WIN THE FIGHT and focus our resources to that effect.

Rather than making idiotic kamikaze gestures that hurt our long-run efforts, the UOCers would do well to listen to those who have earned their rank and title as "The Right People" among Civil Rights advocates fighting for the Second Amendment.

When engaged in any significant conflict, there are these things called "Tactics" and "Strategies"

I could care less if OUCers wanted to impale themselves in a sacrificial act to appease the gun gods, IF they were not hurting MY Second Amendment rights.

UOCers do NOTHING but HURT our Second Amendment. They are falling on their swords while stabbing the rest of us in the back.

the_quark
01-14-2011, 7:33 PM
Gene, how is LUCC of any practical value? In all honesty? I would like to know capacity to provide for defense it provides. Just having a gun locked in a case and unloaded does not seem to provide for any function at all except for something psychological of the holder. Lets assume a backpack with a locking case for the pistol inside it. How long to open the bag, remove everthing in the way, retreive the locked case, unlock the case, load the pistol....?????

You're doing it wrong. When I LUCCed, I put it, with a magazine right next to it, in the top zipper pocket of my backpack. On the zipper pocket, I put a little combination lock, locking the zippers together. That's "locked" under California law.

To get to it, you pop open the lock, open the zipper, and you have your pistol in your hand.

You can also do this in a satchel ("murse"), locking briefcase or a fanny pack if any of those items don't offend your fashion sensibilities.

You lose probably 3-5 seconds on the draw versus UOC, but in exchange you're A) incognito and B) immune from GFSZ stuff.

the_quark
01-14-2011, 7:35 PM
I really hope no one is dumb enough to put money or effort into seeing this bill defeated.


CRPA and NRA will, again, use their time and money to try to defeat this bill.

I wonder, though, since the UOCers claim credit for the defeat, last year - if it passes, this year, will they admit it was their fault? Or howl about how they were abandoned?

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 7:37 PM
I'm throwing my support behind UOC and Meaty here. Rosa Parks was part of a group that was staging events to 'upset the apple cart' as it were. She wasn't just a lady who had enough and decided on her own to not sit at the back of the bus. Not supporting UOC would be like telling her 'Dont bring attention to yourself!'. We do need to bring attention to ourselves and how our fundamental civil right to self defense is being violated at every turn. March damn it!

You're missing what happened with Rosa Parks.

The Rosa Parks event was very carefully designed and managed. She was not a random woman who got fed up with racist policies and stood up for her rights. She was selected as a sympathetic figure. They had friendly media. They had a sympathetic audience (not particularly referring to the local population). She had a media-savvy organization poised to exploit the situation.

The UOC movement in California has very few points in common with the Rosa Parks incident.

In terms of comparable events in history it would be more apt to compare to the Tianenmen Square massacre.

Write Winger
01-14-2011, 7:40 PM
Lol, hilarious

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 7:41 PM
With the correct locking bag (and it takes some thinking to understand what I mean by 'correct') it gives you all of the ease of use of UOC while not drawing a police response and not keeping you 1000' away from a school.

-Gene

Forgive my ignorance as to the make and models of locking boxes of today, but I can draw and load a firearm in less than 2 seconds, depending on the weapon 1 seconds. How can a locked box achieve this?

I agree that the GFSZ is one hell of an issue with UOC, I think only a fool would contend that it wasnt in this... "great state". I do not UOC, as its too much of an issue here. Again, my contact with LEO have been favorable towards carrying civilians. In fact wish there could be more of it. In fact, in their eyes, they would even like to see Carrying in Schools.

Like any sensible person, CCW would be nice. The reality is that I doubt the foundations abillity to win here, in the long haul. I am still seeking to leave the state to a place where I can. The problem with CCW is in a culture with a fear of gun your CCW puts you at risk from the citizenry themselves. Though incidental exposure, printing, or some other unforseen accident. Their over response has resulted in some bad ends for the CCWer.

The issue really is I think less the LEAs than the general citizenry who are TRAINED into an irrational fear. We have a very unfriendly enviroment to operate in, something that does not exist as strongly in other states. I just don't see the media blitz, the organize and galvanise the issue and the push for a De-Programming movement to aid our fight. We are operating from an unfavorable position. *shrug*

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 7:42 PM
You're missing what happened with Rosa Parks.

The Rosa Parks event was very carefully designed and managed. She was not a random woman who got fed up with racist policies and stood up for her rights. She was selected as a sympathetic figure. They had friendly media. They had a sympathetic audience (not particularly referring to the local population). She had a media-savvy organization poised to exploit the situation.

The UOC movement in California has very few points in common with the Rosa Parks incident.

In terms of comparable events in history it would be more apt to compare to the Tianenmen Square massacre.

Or more locally: The BPP to the rest of the Civil Rights Movement.

You're doing it wrong. When I LUCCed, I put it, with a magazine right next to it, in the top zipper pocket of my backpack. On the zipper pocket, I put a little combination lock, locking the zippers together. That's "locked" under California law.

To get to it, you pop open the lock, open the zipper, and you have your pistol in your hand.

You can also do this in a satchel ("murse"), locking briefcase or a fanny pack if any of those items don't offend your fashion sensibilities.

You lose probably 3-5 seconds on the draw versus UOC, but in exchange you're A) incognito and B) immune from GFSZ stuff.

I must be doing it wrong, but I can see your point. I would suppose that in any situation where you are not the direct target and able to load a UOC then you would reasonably have the time to access a LUCC similar to what you described. However I would hazzard a guess that if I was personally in such a position, escape would be on my mind rather than enguagement and I would be more worried about Brandishing charges if I attempted to escape with my gun loaded for safety. Gaaah, any option in california is fraught with soo many gotchas. Just as they intended.

OleCuss
01-14-2011, 7:42 PM
You're doing it wrong. When I LUCCed, I put it, with a magazine right next to it, in the top zipper pocket of my backpack. On the zipper pocket, I put a little combination lock, locking the zippers together. That's "locked" under California law.

To get to it, you pop open the lock, open the zipper, and you have your pistol in your hand.

You can also do this in a satchel ("murse"), locking briefcase or a fanny pack if any of those items don't offend your fashion sensibilities.

You lose probably 3-5 seconds on the draw versus UOC, but in exchange you're A) incognito and B) immune from GFSZ stuff.

Couldn't you use one of these combination travel locks (a cable rather than a hasp) with a little button on top? Even if you leave the thing dialed in to the proper combination it would seem to me that it is technically locked. . . So with one of my quick open gun packs I could simply pop the button on the lock and give a quick yank on the pack and have my pistol and ammo in my hand. I'd bet it would add about 1/2-1 second to a UOC draw and maybe less than that.

Ape
01-14-2011, 7:47 PM
Wow???? So let me get this straight. Many of you here are hoping this gets passed so you can be forced to have to pay money and have over bearing licensing regs in order to be able to defend yourselves when not at home????? :eek::confused:

Is everyone really that conditioned into compliance by the ruling left so much so that you actually think this would be some sort of victory?
I'm sorry if I keep asking this question, but it's just mind boggling to believe!
And to hear supposed 2A supporters talking about how OCer's are somehow causing everyone to lose rights??? This just blows me away!

I've been OCing for a long time now even though I've had my CCW for quite a while. And the main reason I do so is because I firmly believe the country should have to OC rather than CC. Carrying concealed almost seems ridiculous to me in that we have to have "special permission" to do so.
I also believe that if everyone was OCing you'd see a heck of a lot less crime!

the_quark
01-14-2011, 7:49 PM
Couldn't you use one of these combination travel locks (a cable rather than a hasp) with a little button on top? Even if you leave the thing dialed in to the proper combination it would seem to me that it is technically locked. . . So with one of my quick open gun packs I could simply pop the button on the lock and give a quick yank on the pack and have my pistol and ammo in my hand. I'd bet it would add about 1/2-1 second to a UOC draw and maybe less than that.

Well, I was thinking "walking down the street with the backpack on my back". Realistically I'd think it'd be on the order of 5 seconds to get the bag off my back, set the tumblers, open the lock and pop it open. I personally would want the combination lock to be off the actual combination, but there's no legal standard I'm aware of.

tonelar
01-14-2011, 7:58 PM
ah I see, they're doing it at the bequest of Law Enforcement? Oh that makes so much sense.

hoffmang
01-14-2011, 8:04 PM
How can a locked box achieve this?
I didn't say locked box. I was alluding to the exact sort of carry the_quark is explaining.

The reality is that I doubt the foundations abillity to win here, in the long haul.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

-Gene

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 8:05 PM
Yet again, a UOCer misses the point completely.

I'm a rabid 2A supporter. But unlike the UOC community, I WANT TO WIN THE FIGHT and focus our resources to that effect.

Rather than making idiotic kamikaze gestures that hurt our long-run efforts, the UOCers would do well to listen to those who have earned their rank and title as "The Right People" among Civil Rights advocates fighting for the Second Amendment.

When engaged in any significant conflict, there are these things called "Tactics" and "Strategies"

I could care less if OUCers wanted to impale themselves in a sacrificial act to appease the gun gods, IF they were not hurting MY Second Amendment rights.

UOCers do NOTHING but HURT our Second Amendment. They are falling on their swords while stabbing the rest of us in the back.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but you are not supporting your comment that you are a rabbid supporter of the 2A. Rights are not selective. Also you assume I am a UOCer. You know that just makes you end up the Azz part of assume. Gene and Quark offered reasonable discourse on the issue. You come across as a raving loony that sounds very very much like those who populate the other side of the fence, you just happen to exist on our side. Thats not a compliment.

The loss of rights is NEVER a good thing, ever, regardless of how people are using it. I could say in the same vein as you are using against the UOCers that you are doing nothing to serve our "cause". In fact are hurting it by hoping for losses of rights and then relying on an uncertain system for redemption from something that should have never been taken in the first place. You harm our cause by not attempting to reduce the MASSIVE SOCIAL PROGRAMMING that causes Phobic reactions by the general public to a Normal Action.

In the Ideal Function of UOCers would work closely with LEA's form solid and friendly releationships. Work all kinds of humanitarian functions along side the LEA's, the goal being to reassociate our Right with GOOD Things. They don't do that, and it just isnt good. As you say, the in you face does harm us in some way, just not as much as you claim. I fail to see our kind out in force forming a Voting Block. I do not see us out there EDUCATING and REDUCING THE PHOBIA. Anyways 2A is a complex issue and we need all our avenues open to us. Closing one is a travesty and takes away a tool from our arsenal for change. In any other free state, LOC or even UOC would not catch a second glance.

UOC should be de-radicalized and brough into the fold of usefulness. A tool to be used for the greater good.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

-Gene

It isnt you guys, its the task you are working against. It is the fact that I don't feel, as stated above, that the movement as a whole is leaning to hard on the Legal Route. You have to admit that a legal challange is always a gamble, a costly gamble. I don't think the foundation should waste its energy on Education, but we do need some organization that tries to retake the Hearts and Minds angle so that perhaps you can have an easier time of it. Change the People and you can change the Leadership and that will, in theory, stop the Unconstitutional Laws. Then its a matter of cleanup of the mess.

I have difficulty sorting what, Nationwide, came first: the change in social perceptions nation wide or the DC Case Decisions? The general social perceptions (media not withstanding) are not what they once were towards our 2A. Thats good. In fact the only place the general attitude has not really improved is here, in California. Have we failed to properly implement what worked elsewhere? California was not always so entrenched anti-gun. That was something that grew with time.

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 8:19 PM
Well, I was thinking "walking down the street with the backpack on my back". Realistically I'd think it'd be on the order of 5 seconds to get the bag off my back, set the tumblers, open the lock and pop it open. I personally would want the combination lock to be off the actual combination, but there's no legal standard I'm aware of.

Scenario 1: You have the combination scrambled. Violent criminal attacks because of no visible armed resistance to deter. Very fine motor skills such as moving combination dial(s) are shot to hell. You are unable to get your gun.

http://www.guerrillaface.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/you_and_your_friends_are_dead.png

Scenario 2: You have the combination in unlocked position. Police spot you. You spot police. You move to scramble the combo to lock the container so they cannot legally search it without a warrant and destroying the lock. Furtive movement. Two weeks off!

http://www.guerrillaface.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/you_and_your_friends_are_dead.png

Librarian
01-14-2011, 8:25 PM
I have difficulty sorting what, Nationwide, came first: the change in social perceptions nation wide or the DC Case Decisions? The general social perceptions (media not withstanding) are not what they once were towards our 2A. Thats good. In fact the only place the general attitude has not really improved is here, in California. Have we failed to properly implement what worked elsewhere? California was not always so entrenched anti-gun. That was something that grew with time.

Well, how do we counter the LA Times, the San Jose Mercury-News and the San Francisco Chronicle, plus all the TV stations?

Those are the information sources for the three major population centers, the ones that continue to elect politicians who feel they benefit from anti-gun statements and bills.

Those 'mainstream media outlets' will not even SELL space for pieces that run counter to their preferred narrative on guns. Their preferred narrative is shaped by a few owners and publishers, whose own safety is purchased by private security and 'special treatment' by public safety agencies.

Find a practical answer to that media problem, and maybe there will be an additional avenue of attack.

In the meanwhile, winning court battles reduces most of those 'outlets' to complaining about sour grapes; I find myself surprised that that problem for them is actually gaining a little traction.

the_quark
01-14-2011, 8:35 PM
UOC should be de-radicalized and brough into the fold of usefulness. A tool to be used for the greater good.


I agree with you that open carry has a time and place to do that. But, in this hostile environment, in which we're still at risk to lose our "bear" rights (even for a few years), I don't think this is the time to be pushing for sociological change. In this case, we've got a good solid five years of legal victories we can rack up. If we don't win by then, I think civil disobedience is in order. Right now, though, it's not winning hearts and minds (IMHO) and it is interfering with our political fight, and could be hurting our legal fight soon, too.

As I've said over and over, if people need to UOC for personal safety, I'm not going to argue. But the idea of doing it to "deradicalize" it is ahead of its time.

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 8:35 PM
Well, how do we counter the LA Times, the San Jose Mercury-News and the San Francisco Chronicle, plus all the TV stations?

Those are the information sources for the three major population centers, the ones that continue to elect politicians who feel they benefit from anti-gun statements and bills.

Those 'mainstream media outlets' will not even SELL space for pieces that run counter to their preferred narrative on guns. Their preferred narrative is shaped by a few owners and publishers, whose own safety is purchased by private security and 'special treatment' by public safety agencies.

Find a practical answer to that media problem, and maybe there will be an additional avenue of attack.

In the meanwhile, winning court battles reduces most of those 'outlets' to complaining about sour grapes; I find myself surprised that that problem for them is actually gaining a little traction.

We don't have to get the mainstream media. That is the Top Down tactic, a Bottom Up Approach is an option open to us, as it has been used by the other groups. This is what is termed "grass roots" by the mainstream media. In theory, UOC was a possible tool, used correctly to be part of that. Gene and the Foundation have made huge inroads and I do see a small, if isolated, changes in perceptions by LEOs. Not usually the Administrative Leadership, but the guys on the streets. The Beligerance of the UOC movement hasn't helped anything. That, really is the problem. Either they Radicalized or we Rejected the Tool. Either way, I feel we missed an opportunity.

There once was a time when Firearms Saftey was something you could get in Schools. Where you could find an event here in California, at a school, supported by officials where gun owners would bring their firearms to school on a weekend and teach families on how to keep their children safe and safe use and storage of firearms. If the education of what is Firearm Saftey is in our Hands, it is a powerful tool. The same power they currently wield by the firearm saftey (fear) they are taught today. Now we likely won't be able to hold school events but is anyone thinking tactically how we can take control of the information stream regarding who provides the source material for the Saftey Aspect of Firearms.

the_quark
01-14-2011, 8:37 PM
Scenario 1...

How about the much-more-likely Scenario 3, in which you get arrested for carrying a firearm within 1000' of a school? All of life is balancing competing risks. I have my balance, you have yours.

JeffM
01-14-2011, 8:40 PM
Well, I hate to break it to you, but you are not supporting your comment that you are a rabbid supporter of the 2A.
What makes you think I need to? You have no idea who I am or what I do.

Also you assume I am a UOCer. You know that just makes you end up the Azz part of assume. Gene and Quark offered reasonable discourse on the issue. You come across as a raving loony that sounds very very much like those who populate the other side of the fence, you just happen to exist on our side. Thats not a compliment.
I'm not here for compliments. I would as soon chop my leg off if I felt the need to fish for compliments here of all places.

The loss of rights is NEVER a good thing, ever, regardless of how people are using it. I could say in the same vein as you are using against the UOCers that you are doing nothing to serve our "cause". In fact are hurting it by hoping for losses of rights and then relying on an uncertain system for redemption from something that should have never been taken in the first place. You harm our cause by not attempting to reduce the MASSIVE SOCIAL PROGRAMMING that causes Phobic reactions by the general public to a Normal Action.
Tactical withdrawals have saved entire armies. This has been a loosing battle from the start, and has been called out as such. Those who set out to fight it should not benefit from a costly attempt at rescue (to then claim victory and push further along in their tilting at windmills)
In the Ideal Function of UOCers would work closely with LEA's form solid and friendly releationships. Work all kinds of humanitarian functions along side the LEA's, the goal being to reassociate our Right with GOOD Things.
I agree. This is not the time or place, as has been said over and over and over.

They don't do that, and it just isnt good. As you say, the in you face does harm us in some way... I fail to see our kind out in force forming a Voting Block. I do not see us out there EDUCATING and REDUCING THE PHOBIA... UOC should be de-radicalized and brough into the fold of usefulness. A tool to be used for the greater good.
I agree. Again, not the time or place. You have to crawl before you can walk, but the UOCers want to do a 100 yard dash. Even the Special Olympics wouldn't be a suitable venue for the UOCers behavior.

Anyways 2A is a complex issue and we need all our avenues open to us. Closing one is a travesty and takes away a tool from our arsenal for change. In any other free state, LOC or even UOC would not catch a second glance.
Agreed. But it's the UOCers that laid the egg that's screwing the pooch for all of us. This is not one of those states. There are other venues for OC, it's done nothing but hurt us here. It's the UOCers who have failed to see it's practical use and consequence in the current political climate. UOCers have absolutely no concept of context.

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 8:44 PM
Excellent, I am glad you and I can walk away from this on equitable and cordial terms.

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 8:54 PM
How about the much-more-likely Scenario 3, in which you get arrested for carrying a firearm within 1000' of a school? All of life is balancing competing risks. I have my balance, you have yours.

Agree on likelihood. I would prefer life to the severity of death though (if I didn't spend most of my time armed with "deadly weapons" - vehicles in public and firearms at home).

LUCC is a balance between trying to run away/to cover (if you're handicapped, KYA goodbye) or heroically running towards a crime in progress because you were far enough away to not be targeted, so you are able to more calmly ready your weapon. Then you, the hero, are subject to the media calling you the killer, and the criminal an innocent choirboy.

There's that sociological aspect of public self-defense that neither UOC nor LUCC has had the luck to realize, as far as we know.

Oh, the one unintended benefit of UOC is if you're constantly swarmed by cops, no criminal's ever going to bother you. :rofl:

locosway
01-14-2011, 9:03 PM
You don't have to like UOC, but the fact is it's a protected right under 1A and 2A. If you don't care about losing UOC because we "may" get something better then you're a loon. The idea that we can give up our basic rights for any reason is impossible to think about.

You don't think that a UOC ban affects you now, but just wait until the wording of the ban is vague, and it leads to more people wondering how they can legally transport or use their firearms in CA. Last thing we need is a law that no longer allows us to holster our weapons inside a shooting range because it's too broad and vague.

I don't UOC, but I do LUCC often. The notion that these forms of protection are useless are overstated. Yes, they are not as good as LOC or CCW, but they're not worthless. Let's stop bickering and stand behind each other as we're all working for the same end result even if our paths are different.

Librarian
01-14-2011, 9:04 PM
Either they Radicalized or we Rejected the Tool. Either way, I feel we missed an opportunity.

There once was a time when Firearms Saftey was something you could get in Schools. Where you could find an event here in California, at a school, supported by officials where gun owners would bring their firearms to school on a weekend and teach families on how to keep their children safe and safe use and storage of firearms. If the education of what is Firearm Saftey is in our Hands, it is a powerful tool. The same power they currently wield by the firearm saftey (fear) they are taught today. Now we likely won't be able to hold school events but is anyone thinking tactically how we can take control of the information stream regarding who provides the source material for the Saftey Aspect of Firearms.
Getting the opportunity to present it is the problem.

If all that most people know is 'guns are bad, we saw that awful story on TV last night', their willingness to participate in anything not 'sanctioned' by the Powers will be, as we see, nil.

Individual acts of 'come shooting with me' have been shown to be often successful at changing minds, but with 30-odd million people in the state (and 6 million or so sensible ones) that is a very slow process. We don't yet have a mechanism that scales to larger groups to counteract the top-down propaganda .

creekside
01-14-2011, 9:13 PM
Well, how do we counter the LA Times, the San Jose Mercury-News and the San Francisco Chronicle, plus all the TV stations?

...

Find a practical answer to that media problem, and maybe there will be an additional avenue of attack.

In the meanwhile, winning court battles reduces most of those 'outlets' to complaining about sour grapes; I find myself surprised that that problem for them is actually gaining a little traction.

Comments in forums have been very helpful, especially in SFGate. Blogs which link back to and demolish media articles and editorials are also very useful. When an article has comments disabled or articles are deleted and reposted to eliminate comments, comment again or on similar articles.

Press releases, letters to the editor and guest editorials would also help. Community newspapers are a particularly undertapped resource. Strategic ad buys in key markets (as with the SF Muni posters).

It is also possible with a bit more work to get documentaries made and on public television stations.

Having lawyers as backup for 1st Amendment rights as well as 2nd Amendment rights is extremely helpful as well.

NorCalDustin
01-14-2011, 9:13 PM
Here we go again. I guess it is time to start calling, emailing, and hoping our friends in the legislature can throw down those awesome delaying tactics.

What worries me is that given the reappearance of this bill that the long-gun registration bill might make a second appearance as well...

Yeah....

meaty-btz
01-14-2011, 9:14 PM
That is something I am mulling over on a regular basis because of the power it represents for us. I have been in the position of being a Public Affairs Officer. I've been interviewed many times and dealt with trying to get the right media slant and so forth. It was a frustraiting and subtle experience.

The idea of the Grass Roots movment though is you start small. Your job, as you say those inviting hey go shooting with me. You then target local "powers" in your city or neighborhood. You target them not to go "against" but to integrate, ingrate, and essentially get them on your side. They do not even have to really be on your side, even at first. You do community events, the nice sort of thing that charities do. You get yourself on TV and in your local paper side by side with the power mongers. First unarmed and not publicly gunnie, then publicly gunnie side by side with the local powers, then (assuming you have and are in an area where you can carry) armed side by side. It is a slow process. The goal really is about a perception change from Guns-Civilians-Bad to Guns+Powers+Civilians Good.

creekside
01-14-2011, 9:30 PM
I do want to say something briefly to UOCers. AB 1934 failed primarily on the argument that it was deeply flawed and needed to come back in the next legislative session. There is now all the time in the world, legislatively speaking, to amend to address individual member objections and overcome the flaws.

If UOCers want to stop this bill, they need to grassroots lobby. Leave your guns at home and go to Sacramento. Get to know not just your legislators but their staff members. Bring your most powerful arguments to the table and line up your allies early and often. Make it clear that you have thousands of one issue voters in swing districts and get at least one legislative member of the Public Safety committee to step up for your point of view.

In my opinion, the most powerful argument against this bill is now the difficulty of actually implementing it to solve what law enforcement says is the problem: "man with a gun" calls tying up police resources, resulting in peace officers 'having to' run loaded checks and expose themselves to risk.

Perhaps the UOC movement could bring a piece of legislation to the table to satisfy what the PDs are asking for without giving up UOC? One obvious concept: a shall issue permit for LOC -- the beginnings of that are in here if you look hard enough. Another: legislation to protect agencies from liability for not conducting loaded checks. Another: amending the bill to clarify the private property issue, which is a huge loophole. Another: an exception for political speech with a courtesy call to local law enforcement. These are just ideas, come up with more, please.

This bill is an answer to what the police feel is a problem, rightly or wrongly. Find another answer.

But if UOCers decide to get up on their holy high horse and declaim that their rights are being infringed without both 1) fighting the good fight AND 2) coming up with alternatives tolerable to police and palatable to the majority of the general public, this legislation is going to pass to the detriment of all law abiding handgun owners.

turbosbox
01-14-2011, 9:39 PM
The only funny thing is Gene's comment on 'thanks for the vote of confidence'.

The rest of this fallout is not funny. UOC for the wrong reasons is bad. I'll leave it at that. @$#$! Pretty much sums up my feelings on reading this AB. Not surprised nor happy to be a Californian when I see these things. Sure is a good thing they don't go after the Meth problems or gangs we have destroying us from the inside out :(

N6ATF
01-14-2011, 9:45 PM
Another: legislation to protect agencies from liability for not conducting loaded checks.

They have zero liability at present, according to decades if not over a century of legal precedent. Such legislation would be redundant. They just want to assuage criminals' fear by showing them they are keeping their victims (functionally) disarmed and scared of even daring to defend themselves at all, anywhere.

wildhawker
01-14-2011, 9:46 PM
I have to disagree. AB1934 failed because of sick Dem members and a disorganized last-minute push by a sponsor even Dems thought was a nut (body armor, really?).

This is far too early in the year to mount any substantive anti-legislation efforts. Allow the pros (e.g., Tom & Ed, not the poseurs) to work, stay out of the way, and be ready to move when we need to.

Remember that this bill isn't about what the leg analysis or some LEA soundbite says it is. Your proposed policies are either impossible or damaging, if not unconstitutional. I like to keep it simple. My answer to the bill:

http://hoffmang.com/firearms/emoticons/guraanimate1.gif

I do want to say something briefly to UOCers. AB 1934 failed primarily on the argument that it was deeply flawed and needed to come back in the next legislative session. There is now all the time in the world, legislatively speaking, to amend to address individual member objections and overcome the flaws.

If UOCers want to stop this bill, they need to grassroots lobby. Leave your guns at home and go to Sacramento. Get to know not just your legislators but their staff members. Bring your most powerful arguments to the table and line up your allies early and often. Make it clear that you have thousands of one issue voters in swing districts and get at least one legislative member of the Public Safety committee to step up for your point of view.

In my opinion, the most powerful argument against this bill is now the difficulty of actually implementing it to solve what law enforcement says is the problem: "man with a gun" calls tying up police resources, resulting in peace officers 'having to' run loaded checks and expose themselves to risk.

Perhaps the UOC movement could bring a piece of legislation to the table to satisfy what the PDs are asking for without giving up UOC? One obvious concept: a shall issue permit for LOC -- the beginnings of that are in here if you look hard enough. Another: legislation to protect agencies from liability for not conducting loaded checks. Another: amending the bill to clarify the private property issue, which is a huge loophole. Another: an exception for political speech with a courtesy call to local law enforcement. These are just ideas, come up with more, please.

This bill is an answer to what the police feel is a problem, rightly or wrongly. Find another answer.

But if UOCers decide to get up on their holy high horse and declaim that their rights are being infringed without both 1) fighting the good fight AND 2) coming up with alternatives tolerable to police and palatable to the majority of the general public, this legislation is going to pass to the detriment of all law abiding handgun owners.

warbird
01-14-2011, 10:26 PM
well, this bill got news coverage tonight on channel 13 in Sacramento where is is claimed to be working it's way through the legislature. Of course you have to look at the news station saying it as to the creditability of the report. The main point is they are giving it air time and I suspect it will get more time as time goes by. Also the so-called fingerprint to buy ammo law is creating lots of logistical problems for law enforcement and if they cannot figure it out does that mean no ammo sales until they do. Might be buying ammo in Reno for a while (LOL).

Window_Seat
01-14-2011, 10:28 PM
It was also featured on KTVU 2 (10:00 news), and the pro-side was actually given more (if not all) air time (IMO).

Erik.

kalalp
01-14-2011, 10:52 PM
It's been a while since I visited these threads but having read through this one I get a feeling that the tenor is of anxiety, probably due to the events of last weekend in AZ.
The anti 2nd amendment group is not about to waste time on this. They are going to come agressively, and often, statewide and national. We in CA are about to lose many ammo purchase rights and UOC. There is an opeining for control and it is coming. The Jerry Brown fanbois on this site will be mighty embarrassed before this is over.
The steamroller is coming in CA, Supreme Court be d****d. The chance of overturning any anti 2nd amendment legislation or proposal is ZERO for the next four years.

Goldseeker
01-14-2011, 11:27 PM
"UOC is a gift ....from the legislature."

Do their boots taste good?

wildhawker
01-14-2011, 11:36 PM
Boy, after a compelling and substantive argument like that, I may as well pack up and move on to other rights issues...

-Brandon

It's been a while since I visited these threads but having read through this one I get a feeling that the tenor is of anxiety, probably due to the events of last weekend in AZ.
The anti 2nd amendment group is not about to waste time on this. They are going to come agressively, and often, statewide and national. We in CA are about to lose many ammo purchase rights and UOC. There is an opeining for control and it is coming. The Jerry Brown fanbois on this site will be mighty embarrassed before this is over.
The steamroller is coming in CA, Supreme Court be d****d. The chance of overturning any anti 2nd amendment legislation or proposal is ZERO for the next four years.

hoffmang
01-14-2011, 11:39 PM
Agree on likelihood. I would prefer life to the severity of death though (if I didn't spend most of my time armed with "deadly weapons" - vehicles in public and firearms at home).

How about some actual evidence then.

Number of UOCers who've been able to defend themselves since 2006: 0.

Number of UOCers who've lost their liberty due to a GFSZ since 2006: 2 that I'm aware of and probably more.

That's your dataset for risk.

-Gene

locosway
01-14-2011, 11:41 PM
How about some actual evidence then.

Number of UOCers who've been able to defend themselves since 2006: 0.

Number of UOCers who've lost their liberty due to a GFSZ since 2006: 2 that I'm aware of and probably more.

That's your dataset for risk.

-Gene

You of all people should know that this means nothing. Simply because there's been no reports of someone keeping trouble away by UOC doesn't mean it's never happened.

hoffmang
01-14-2011, 11:58 PM
You of all people should know that this means nothing. Simply because there's been no reports of someone keeping trouble away by UOC doesn't mean it's never happened.

In this case I'm skeptical that the personality of those who UOC would correlate with the discretion necessary to not mention a defensive gun use publicly.

However, it is this social knowledge that I refer to above that seems most missing in those who analyze the value of UOC to the effort to re-establish the right to keep and bear arms.

-Gene

locosway
01-15-2011, 12:02 AM
In this case I'm skeptical that the personality of those who UOC would correlate with the discretion necessary to not mention a defensive gun use publicly.

However, it is this social knowledge that I refer to above that seems most missing in those who analyze the value of UOC to the effort to re-establish the right to keep and bear arms.

-Gene

I agree with your analysis, but I don't think we can simply sit back and look at a number and draw a conclusion. We'll never know if someone was deterred simply by seeing someone carry. A gang banger isn't likely to be up on the laws, and they may think that if someone or a group of people is carrying, that it may be LEO's or authorized persons.

N6ATF
01-15-2011, 12:26 AM
A gang banger isn't likely to be up on the laws, and they may think that if someone or a group of people is carrying, that it may be LEO's or authorized persons.

They don't even have to assume or be knowledgeable. It's funny to think that in the early days when 12031(e) was claimed to be mandatory for all MWAG calls or spottings, bangers saw UOCers and then police showing up like a Pavlovian response shortly thereafter. They probably spread the word amongst their gang, that if you ever see guys with guns, the po-po's comin, and it's time to book it out of there.

I wouldn't mind police showing up when UOCers are falsely reported as being criminals, as long as they stay back, don't contact, and don't violate civil rights. It would multiply the deterrent effect of crime if criminals were conditioned to expect, what looks to them, to be police backup every time they saw someone with a gun.

OleCuss
01-15-2011, 4:12 AM
In this case I'm skeptical that the personality of those who UOC would correlate with the discretion necessary to not mention a defensive gun use publicly.

However, it is this social knowledge that I refer to above that seems most missing in those who analyze the value of UOC to the effort to re-establish the right to keep and bear arms.

-Gene

Using rational thought I'd agree that UOC in most cases is more likely to jeopardize someone's liberty than to secure it.

But even if UOC'ers were likely to trumpet any defensive successes I think the dataset is still not valid.

As I understand it, part of the concept of UOC for self defense is that the bad guys/gals know that you are armed and able to defend yourself so they leave you alone. If the hypothesis is valid (and it is at least a somewhat attractive one) then the number of potentially life-threatening confrontations avoided might be quite high.

So while I agree with you that I think it likely that UOC is more likely to be jeopardizing someone's liberty than to be securing it, I don't think the dataset is very helpful.

Ape
01-15-2011, 7:03 AM
So now instead of trumpeting how Open Carry being banned would somehow be a good thing for the plight of CCW gains, I'm now seeing people debate if OCing is even effective for anyone doing so????? Really? So rationalizing it as being a good thing because it's somehow dangerous makes it OK now huh? :rolleyes:

I can't be the only one seeing the ludicrousness of these arguments, can I? I mean come on people! You should be fighting for the right to OC whith a loaded gun! Not acting like trained sheep and finding reasons as to why OCing should be banned!

I just can't seem to wrap my head around how many of you are willing to let your rights to be stomped on in order to preserve another right??? Are you that conditioned from all the years of ridiculous PCing there????

Agent Orange
01-15-2011, 8:19 AM
I don't have much to say except:

1) This bill is no surprise and will be enacted.

2) I continue to be greatly amused by those who claim they UOC for protection.

QQQ
01-15-2011, 8:23 AM
So it begins again. And there are those among us think we can compromise with the anti's and they'll quit trying to take our rights away. :rolleyes:


This.

I would not UOC myself, but if you think a ban on UOC will help the RKBA in this state, you'd be dead wrong.

I also have no confidence whatsoever that Jerry Brown will do anything to stop this bill from going through, should it reach his desk.
You should have voted for Ogden.

stix213
01-15-2011, 8:31 AM
I was almost killed by a UOCing gang banger once.... Hurray for safety!

oh wait that has never happened in the history of humanity, my mistake.

OleCuss
01-15-2011, 8:41 AM
So now instead of trumpeting how Open Carry being banned would somehow be a good thing for the plight of CCW gains, I'm now seeing people debate if OCing is even effective for anyone doing so????? Really? So rationalizing it as being a good thing because it's somehow dangerous makes it OK now huh? :rolleyes:

I can't be the only one seeing the ludicrousness of these arguments, can I? I mean come on people! You should be fighting for the right to OC whith a loaded gun! Not acting like trained sheep and finding reasons as to why OCing should be banned!

I just can't seem to wrap my head around how many of you are willing to let your rights to be stomped on in order to preserve another right??? Are you that conditioned from all the years of ridiculous PCing there????

Since I think your post may be at least partly in response to my most recent, I'm going to come back at you.

If you had tracked what I'd been posting on this thread, I've been consistently been saying we must work to defeat AB144. IIRC, that's as early as the 2nd post on this thread?

That said, I think it is perfectly legitimate to question the risk/benefit ratio of UOC. That should also be done for CCW, LOC, or almost any aspect of your life.

I don't think people should smoke. It's unhealthful to sky-dive. SCUBA requires a lot of training to keep it from being ridiculously dangerous.

That said, I've done a little SCUBA. I may someday try skydiving. No, I've never smoked and never will - but I think people should be able to do so responsibly even if I find it offensive.

There are many of us on this thread and forum who evaluate risk/benefit ratios differently from some others. That does not mean that we believe a right should be lost just because we think it is unwise to exercise that right. Those are two very separate issues.

So I believe that everyone has the right to armed self-defense in the form of CCW and LOC. But if you go out and LOC in a GFSZ without heavy credentials/licensure you will lose your liberty. That means that the risk/benefit ratio almost certainly does not favor your doing that.

I think UOC'ers should carefully evaluate what they do and make sure it makes good sense for them. I think demonstrations are a bad idea. I think that if their own personal assessment of the risks and benefits of UOC for their own defense says that they should UOC - then I think they should UOC. I also think they should consider creative LUCC as an alternative.

If you can CCW I think that given the current political situation and LEA attitudes that getting your CCW should be a greatly preferred alternative to UOC.

But again, risk/benefit evaluations are always appropriate.

QQQ
01-15-2011, 9:00 AM
I also think they should consider creative LUCC as an alternative.


LUCC ftw. And you'll stay out of trouble if you venture within 1000', too.

meaty-btz
01-15-2011, 9:07 AM
If you can CCW I think that given the current political situation and LEA attitudes that getting your CCW should be a greatly preferred alternative to UOC.

But again, risk/benefit evaluations are always appropriate.

I know Gene and CGF and others here seem to suggest LUCC, but I read the PC and am I wrong in seeing that it contains significant restrictions on that form of carry. Aka, it was designed to not be used for daily carry as there are limits on how it is legal to be used.

As for UOC vs CCW. CCW may always be prefered, I prefer it, Hell I can't think of a UOCer that wouldn't prefer to CCW.. except for the fact that to get one requires $$$$$$$$$$. Level of LEGAL defense should not be a restricted right based on ones INCOME LEVEL. Often those who need it the most are the most poor.

A good example would be, lets assume that they locked the fee to like, $25. This coveres everything that the LEA must do (background, paperwork, fingerprinting) but ooh wait, you need to take a class first. Ok, thats not so bad.. sorry class is $300. You just removed it from reach of the people who need it the most.

If the State offered classes or a Fee Waver for CCW I would consider CCW a fair and equitable solution. However, as long as CCW remains an expensive option it is not the way to go, dispite all of its other advantages. Having been extremely impoverished at times and having lived at those times in some of the most dangerous places I can attest that it was at those times I needed my 2A the most, but I was least able to exercise it.

Have we considered this angle?

kalalp
01-15-2011, 9:14 AM
Boy, after a compelling and substantive argument like that, I may as well pack up and move on to other rights issues...

-Brandon


I am not attempting to make an argument, simply to point out the political winds that are blowing through Sacramento.
First of all, a violation of constitutional rights is not going to deter the heavily liberal weighted legislature from enacting anti 2nd amendment laws. Those that believe that they can lose the right for UOC and come back with, OK, now you have to issue CCW are living in dreamland. Once you lose rights they are gone forever. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court 2nd amendment decision what has changed? In fifteen days you have to be fingerprinted to buy ammo locally, none mailorder. Fed Ex taking fingerprints? Good luck with that. UOC will be gone before the year is over. "Assault weapons" ban still in effect. Mag capacity restrictions. Waiting periods. One handgun per 30 days. School gotcha regulations. Shall we go on? All "sensible" gun regulations that are allowed by the court, according to gun control advocates. And I guarantee you, more to come. They take a mile, you claw back an inch. Pretty hard to move forward.
Good luck battling all this. But I am not optimistic. Yet I have contributed to CGF and will do so more in the future. Never give up.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 9:21 AM
Have we considered this angle?

Yes, absolutely. If shall-issue CCW becomes the way "bear" is implemented i this state (which, again, passage of AB144 would make the overwhelmingly likely result), then there has to be some attempt to keep the fees to a minimum (cost to the agency), and ideally some sort of hardship waiver available.

As an aside, this is a big part of why I'm a plaintiff in one of the roster cases. While I'm reasonably offended that the government won't let me purchase whatever pistols I want, I'm deeply offended at their attempt to make inexpensive handguns unavailable to those who need them most.

That said, outside of people who are desperately poor, a license should cost well under $200. Also, they're far more available in a lot of places than people realize - I think a lot of OCers don't realize they quite possibly could have a 12050 license. I also think anyone who is carrying (concealed or otherwise) should apply for a CCW and get denied. If you get popped in a school zone, you can at least argue, "Hey, I tried to comply with the law".

meaty-btz
01-15-2011, 9:23 AM
Really, the biggest gotcha in the whole thing is the GFSZ Federal (? or state cant recall which one still stands). It stands tall as one of those massive laws that was engineered specificly to turn law abiding actions into crimes.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 9:24 AM
Good luck battling all this. But I am not optimistic. Yet I have contributed to CGF and will do so more in the future. Never give up.

Thank you. We won't.

And, I am optimistic. It take time for us to win in court, and I don't think the recent sad events in Arizona are going to affect that timeline.

Getting the California legislature to stop being stupid will be the last, final victory, but it's still some years out, I expect.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 9:28 AM
I know Gene and CGF and others here seem to suggest LUCC, but I read the PC and am I wrong in seeing that it contains significant restrictions on that form of carry. Aka, it was designed to not be used for daily carry as there are limits on how it is legal to be used.


Again, it's relative risk. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you don't fit into one of those exemptions.

To say nothing of the fact that, with a locked handgun, you don't attract people to call the police on you. With open-carry, you do, and if you've made a miscalculation about the nearest school, you're in big trouble.

But, again, I've said many many times, that while LUCC would be my personal choice, I don't have a problem with people who say "I need to be able to UOC for my personal safety". What I have a problem with is people pulling stunts, calling the police on themselves, prenotifying the media, handing out handbills, etc. I agree we need to raise awareness of the normalcy of this in the long term, but if we can wait a few years, we'll be much better placed for it.

OleCuss
01-15-2011, 9:37 AM
I am not attempting to make an argument, simply to point out the political winds that are blowing through Sacramento.
First of all, a violation of constitutional rights is not going to deter the heavily liberal weighted legislature from enacting anti 2nd amendment laws. Those that believe that they can lose the right for UOC and come back with, OK, now you have to issue CCW are living in dreamland. Once you lose rights they are gone forever. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court 2nd amendment decision what has changed? In fifteen days you have to be fingerprinted to buy ammo locally, none mailorder. Fed Ex taking fingerprints? Good luck with that. UOC will be gone before the year is over. "Assault weapons" ban still in effect. Mag capacity restrictions. Waiting periods. One handgun per 30 days. School gotcha regulations. Shall we go on? All "sensible" gun regulations that are allowed by the court, according to gun control advocates. And I guarantee you, more to come. They take a mile, you claw back an inch. Pretty hard to move forward.
Good luck battling all this. But I am not optimistic. Yet I have contributed to CGF and will do so more in the future. Never give up.

I'm glad you're not giving up. You're really too pessimistic IMHO - but you've a right to your opinion.

You do need to understand that the legislature will eventually start to pay attention. When adequate case work has been done we'll have the happy situation where a law is passed and the courts slap it down before it even takes effect. That will make it embarrassing for them to waste time on it and then get slapped around. They will always, however, try to find the most restrictive laws they can manage.

The high cap magazine ban is about to be gutted.

The AWB will likely die eventually - and has already been largely gutted.

The time will come when GFSZ's will die or be made far less intrusive.

AB962's additional provisions really may never take effect. There is some reason for optimism for our case.


Look at it sort of like building a structure. You generally have to work with an architect, draw up blueprints, get permits, hire the contractor(s), then get to digging the foundation and getting utilities to the site. Once you've dug the foundation and such you might start pouring cement, then frame the structure, get a roof and siding on it and then finish the interior. Then you're going to decorate and then furnish it.

The way I see it, we're still pretty much at the digging the foundation stage - might be pouring. But the framing and such are largely yet to come. It's going to be years (maybe a decade or more) before it's ready for the furnishing stage.

But once it has been furnished about all the legislature and the courts will be doing is rearranging the furniture to make it a little more pleasing to the regulatory eye - not really much changing design or basic structure. Major remodeling will be very difficult.

FWIW.

Bhobbs
01-15-2011, 10:17 AM
Can someone explain to me how giving up UOC would almost guarantee CCW shall issue state wide? We already have CCW licensing but it is difficult for many people to get. How do we know they won't just say that since you can apply for CCW that UOC is not protected and there is no change in how CCWs are issued?

Librarian
01-15-2011, 10:27 AM
With AB 144 it seems reasonably likely it will not be a matter of 'giving up UOC', at least voluntarily.

You need to read the Richards v Prieto thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=384146) and realize no one is 'guaranteeing' CCW.

kalalp
01-15-2011, 10:32 AM
I'm glad you're not giving up. You're really too pessimistic IMHO - but you've a right to your opinion.

You do need to understand that the legislature will eventually start to pay attention. When adequate case work has been done we'll have the happy situation where a law is passed and the courts slap it down before it even takes effect. That will make it embarrassing for them to waste time on it and then get slapped around. They will always, however, try to find the most restrictive laws they can manage.

The high cap magazine ban is about to be gutted.

The AWB will likely die eventually - and has already been largely gutted.

The time will come when GFSZ's will die or be made far less intrusive.

AB962's additional provisions really may never take effect. There is some reason for optimism for our case.


Look at it sort of like building a structure. You generally have to work with an architect, draw up blueprints, get permits, hire the contractor(s), then get to digging the foundation and getting utilities to the site. Once you've dug the foundation and such you might start pouring cement, then frame the structure, get a roof and siding on it and then finish the interior. Then you're going to decorate and then furnish it.

The way I see it, we're still pretty much at the digging the foundation stage - might be pouring. But the framing and such are largely yet to come. It's going to be years (maybe a decade or more) before it's ready for the furnishing stage.

But once it has been furnished about all the legislature and the courts will be doing is rearranging the furniture to make it a little more pleasing to the regulatory eye - not really much changing design or basic structure. Major remodeling will be very difficult.

FWIW.

LOL, I live by the credo that if you expect the worst but do your best to battle for what you believe in, you'll never be disappointed.
I like your building analogy, I've been a General Contractor for 32 yrs.:D

DisgruntledReaper
01-15-2011, 10:36 AM
Anyone know the legal side of 'OCOBA' or 'OCOM"--
Open Carry Of BattleAxe or Open Carry Of Mace---??

Seems like we may as well start carrying 'Viking Style' or carrying Katanas....not as good as a gun but at least you can still keep them at arms length AND the GFSZ does not apply and other 'no guns' policies in various places wont mean poopoo either.......

DisgruntledReaper
01-15-2011, 10:44 AM
ALSO---This cancer ridden state that we decent 'antibodies' live in is now CONTROLLED by about the most cancerous tumor around....politicians,libtards,etc from SF...... ANYONE that thinks things will get better for us,better for the state as a whole, or any RATIONAL thinking will happen........better go take whatever drugs you need to belive it because it WONT HAPPEN........ I am still hoping for a big rocks to nail certain areas when certain groups are around.......kind of like 'chemo for California'

Bhobbs
01-15-2011, 10:49 AM
With AB 144 it seems reasonably likely it will not be a matter of 'giving up UOC', at least voluntarily.

You need to read the Richards v Prieto thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=384146) and realize no one is 'guaranteeing' CCW.

So the people who are saying this passing is a good thing because we get shall issue CCW are wrong?

Window_Seat
01-15-2011, 10:53 AM
So now instead of trumpeting how Open Carry being banned would somehow be a good thing for the plight of CCW gains, I'm now seeing people debate if OCing is even effective for anyone doing so????? Really? So rationalizing it as being a good thing because it's somehow dangerous makes it OK now huh? :rolleyes:

I can't be the only one seeing the ludicrousness of these arguments, can I? I mean come on people! You should be fighting for the right to OC whith a loaded gun! Not acting like trained sheep and finding reasons as to why OCing should be banned!

I just can't seem to wrap my head around how many of you are willing to let your rights to be stomped on in order to preserve another right??? Are you that conditioned from all the years of ridiculous PCing there????This.

I would not UOC myself, but if you think a ban on UOC will help the RKBA in this state, you'd be dead wrong.

I also have no confidence whatsoever that Jerry Brown will do anything to stop this bill from going through, should it reach his desk.
You should have voted for Ogden.

It's more complex. A ban on UOC is not a short term solution to the opposition cause, and it's not as trivial as the Legislature believes. There are going to be significant "be careful what you wish for" moments for the Legislature & the anti's, leading to unintended consequences (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=337882) for them.

If a ban on UOC ultimately passes, one of the burdens of the state is they will have to defend their complete de facto ban on carry of a functional firearm (Heller, citation needed) outside the home while defining what their idea of sensitive places (Heller, citation needed again) should be to a Federal Court. Peruta (below in signature) might have been ruled in our favor, had AB-1934 passed last year.

Erik.

Librarian
01-15-2011, 10:59 AM
So the people who are saying this passing is a good thing because we get shall issue CCW are wrong?

Dunno about 'wrong'.

The arguments are sound, so far as I can understand them. Whether sound arguments get a fair hearing and a fair implementation may be a matter for extended litigation, and 'persuading' California elected officials at several levels may be something of a long process, that may run either in parallel or in sequence to the current cases.

Courts do not run on internet time. We'll just have to be patient with the slow grinding of 'the wheels of justice'.

donw
01-15-2011, 11:09 AM
You could reasonably argue that in the long-term this bill (if enacted) would hasten progress toward getting both effective Shall Issue CCW and LOC. But in the short-term it is a serious blow to the freedom of those who UOC in areas where you really aren't likely to be able to get CCW.

It's a bad bill and should be defeated.

by whom? you can rest assured that any anti-firearms legislation introduced, as long as the like of Kevin de Leon heads the safety committee, will go to the floor then govs desk and we all know about moonbeam, don't we?

i think firearms owners are in for some rough times ahead...sad to say.

i cannot believe that the state of kaliphornia voter/taxpayers let moonbeam back in after his first time as gov...i think they unwittingly signed their pay checks over to the state by way of taxation...

AyatollahGondola
01-15-2011, 12:43 PM
Maybe there's something we can do here. We need to be creative, because the odds are quite lopsided, and not in our favor. Right now, the anti-gun lobby is hoping to cash in on sentiment over recent events, as well as their superior voting numbers. They seldom come to any political harm over anti-gun legislation, so we need to focus on some other angle. I've had an idea that was back burnered some time ago, and I'll dust it off for a review. I'm holding an event at the state capitol this coming week, and two others in the general vicinity before it, but I'll try to get this on the front burner right after.

Mendo223
01-15-2011, 1:01 PM
damn didnt we just strike down Saldanas bill?

are these idiots just gonna keep sacrificing paperwork and time?

its obvious this will go nowhere...democrats do not want to touch gun control right now its a toxis issue that will definately hurt their votes.

wildhawker
01-15-2011, 1:14 PM
Mendo, "we" didn't kill it; it luckily died due to reasons I stated earlier.

The CA Leg Dems aren't subject to the same politics as the national Dems, so your position is quite unfounded.

Bhobbs
01-15-2011, 1:17 PM
damn didnt we just strike down Saldanas bill?

are these idiots just gonna keep sacrificing paperwork and time?

its obvious this will go nowhere...democrats do not want to touch gun control right now its a toxis issue that will definately hurt their votes.

Dems at the Federal level won't touch gun control but Dems at the state level in CA can't wait to pass more gun control.

N6ATF
01-15-2011, 1:27 PM
Yes, absolutely. If shall-issue CCW becomes the way "bear" is implemented i this state (which, again, passage of AB144 would make the overwhelmingly likely result), then there has to be some attempt to keep the fees to a minimum (cost to the agency), and ideally some sort of hardship waiver available.

Check out the fee waiver request form here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/fw001.pdf
I expect that will be adapted for sheriffs' use to continue soft-denying the poor their right to self-defense. It appears that with those income limits, you have to be homeless and/or on government assistance, with zero financial support from your family. In other words, you aren't able to afford the quals if the sheriff doesn't provide them for free.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 3:10 PM
Check out the fee waiver request form here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/fw001.pdf
I expect that will be adapted for sheriffs' use to continue soft-denying the poor their right to self-defense. It appears that with those income limits, you have to be homeless and/or on government assistance, with zero financial support from your family. In other words, you aren't able to afford the quals if the sheriff doesn't provide them for free.

Well, if "shall issue" is forced on the state by the court as the way to exercise your "bear" rights then any expense is going to have to be justified.

Also, it wouldn't surprise me, if this was a real problem, if some charity stepped up and helped those with real financial trouble if that was all that was keeping them from defending themselves. Someone, somewhere must be willing to help out with those sorts of problems.

wazdat
01-15-2011, 5:17 PM
In 1967, members of the Black Panther Party marched on the California State Capitol in Sacramento in protest of a selective ban on weapons. In response, the legislators made it illegal to openly carry a loaded weapon.

The UOC movement may be exercising their 2A rights, but like the BPP protest, the legislators will make it illegal to openly carry any handgun by writing AB144 into law.

Will AB144 be a violation of our rights? Absolutely. Will it open the door to "shall issue CCW"? Not without legal challenge. Will that law and the law against LOC be overturned? Again, not without legal challenge and we all know how slowly the wheels of justice turn.

I've already seen comments from UOCers saying, "If they ban handguns, I'll carry my evil black rifle..." Care to guess what the reaction to that will be?

Please don't get me wrong. I'm as angry as you about the constant infringment of my rights but no good will come from drawing lines in the sand and daring our idiot legislators to cross it.

Stop poking the bear with a stick.

Flame on... :rolleyes:

wellerjohn
01-15-2011, 5:43 PM
Here we go again. I guess it is time to start calling, emailing, and hoping our friends in the legislature can throw down those awesome delaying tactics.

Have yet to see any evidence this makes any difference at all. The folks that are for gun restrictions just dont care about your position.

N6ATF
01-15-2011, 6:01 PM
The only difference it makes is you tie up their public phone lines and staff time, sometimes to the point that they just shut them down, and communicate via cellphones, private lines, and intercom. It's really just phone flooding as protest against a brick wall. Like screaming at a statue of Hitler to stop killing the Jews.

creekside
01-15-2011, 7:15 PM
I respect your informed opinion, but still disagree.

Sick Dems and a . . . weak sponsor certainly made the last-second stalling tactics feasible. However, the Democratic leadership could have pushed 1934 into passing if they really had wanted to spend the political capital and goodwill to do it, and thereby passed a monstrosity that would have needed to be re-written anyway to conform to the CLRC reorganization.

If the UOCers spent a fraction of the effort they spend on bad publicity and pissing matches with cops on organization and building political power through conventional means, I think even they'd be surprised how much voice they could have. That doesn't mean flooding legislative offices with calls today. It does mean figuring out where the gears and levers are in the political process before they need them, which they will.

I have no confidence that the UOC movement will actually do any of this. Influencing moderates is not exactly their strong suit. I am resigned to watching their public antics followed by their dismay at having almost zero behind the scenes influence.

Cue tumbleweeds.

:gene:

I am curious -- what exactly would be damaging about a shall-issue permit for LOC?

I have to disagree. AB1934 failed because of sick Dem members and a disorganized last-minute push by a sponsor even Dems thought was a nut (body armor, really?).

This is far too early in the year to mount any substantive anti-legislation efforts. Allow the pros (e.g., Tom & Ed, not the poseurs) to work, stay out of the way, and be ready to move when we need to.

Remember that this bill isn't about what the leg analysis or some LEA soundbite says it is. Your proposed policies are either impossible or damaging, if not unconstitutional. I like to keep it simple. My answer to the bill:

http://hoffmang.com/firearms/emoticons/guraanimate1.gif

the_quark
01-15-2011, 7:19 PM
I
I am curious -- what exactly would be damaging about a shall-issue permit for LOC?

It won't be LOC if AB144 passes, it'll be shall-issue CCW (eventually, after years of court cases). But, it'll leave no non-permitted carry at all, which will be a loss of freedom.

Window_Seat
01-15-2011, 7:33 PM
It won't be LOC if AB144 passes, it'll be shall-issue CCW (eventually, after years of court cases). But, it'll leave no non-permitted carry at all, which will be a loss of freedom.

If AB-144 passes, will it still have this unintended consequence (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=337882)?

Erik.

hoffmang
01-15-2011, 7:38 PM
I am curious -- what exactly would be damaging about a shall-issue permit for LOC?

It has the risk of leading quickly to a world in which one can't carry at malls, restaurants, Peet's coffee because posted signs come up due to sheep shoppers being scared.

-Gene

creekside
01-15-2011, 7:49 PM
They have zero liability at present, according to decades if not over a century of legal precedent. Such legislation would be redundant. They just want to assuage criminals' fear by showing them they are keeping their victims (functionally) disarmed and scared of even daring to defend themselves at all, anywhere.

Politicians are often motivated by a need to be publicly seen as "doing something." Most bills, and especially bad ones, seem to come from this motivation. So any viable alternative needs to be seen to be doing something, whether it actually does or not.

I'd much rather have the Legislature do something redundant or pointless than do something that takes more rights away.

I'll go further: I am beginning to think that police executives in California have a strong vested interest in criminalizing and/or monopolizing access to guns as much as they possibly can get away with.

Why else does California need a law which makes a naked handgun almost as much (and in some cases more) of a misdemeanor than a naked penis? Except on television of course.

N6ATF
01-15-2011, 9:02 PM
Politicians are often motivated by a need to be publicly seen as "doing something evil."

Fixed.

Zimz
01-15-2011, 9:15 PM
Sorry but whats LUCC and how is that better than UOC or CC?

I UOC sometimes because I don't have my CCW yet and quite frankly it's better than nothing. I do it usually alone or with a friend, but not in structured meet-ups specifically for UOC, it's done as part of my regular routine. I don't do it for a statement or anything like that, and I would prefer to go unnoticed if I can help it.

An argument for OC was brought up on another forum, but basically what it comes down to is being ahead on the attack curve. If you stop the attack at the beginning stage when the BG is doing his initial surveillance, then you have a greater chance of not needing it for response to an attack. Even criminals have a will to survive. Criminals will pick a target that presents the least possible threat for the most gain. If they see a person displaying a weapon, most criminals will rethink their course of action due to that very real threat to their well being. Granted this argument was given for LOC in free states, but it applies to an extent in CA too. Most criminals aren't aware of the unloaded aspect of our law, or are unwilling to test it or see if the person carrying is LE or something... so the argument goes. CCW puts you behind the power curve by forcing you to respond to an attack or threat of attack in progress. OC puts you ahead by possibly stopping an attack before it happens by making the BG rethink his course of action. There's a reason open carriers haven't been attacked, and the only known open carry disarmament has happened to police during struggles related to other matters.

If i had the choice between CCW and UOC, i would chose CCW because my gun is loaded, however I do not think we should so quickly throw away this single means to carry left to those of us who don't or can't get CCW yet.

We should be trying to get LOC and shall issue instead of saying "well, they deserve what they get for flaunting their guns, so be it, it doesn't concern me". A right is a right, don't let them bleed us of them slowly...

tabrisnet
01-15-2011, 9:22 PM
It's only better in that it's harder to get in trouble for it.
and it's Locked Unloaded Concealed Carry.
think in a backpack, inside a locked steel box. unloaded.

(yes, there are [good] arguments that you can just put it in your backpack w/o the steel box)

tabrisnet
01-15-2011, 9:27 PM
You generally can't be harassed by cops, you generally can't have the cops called on you for 'man with a gun'. and there's no GFSZ problem.

It's not better than CCW, but it is perhaps vs UOC

big red
01-15-2011, 9:50 PM
There is another consideration that has to be considered when fighting these proposed bills. Someone was talking about California Democrats versus Washington Democrats and what they will vote on or touch. The feds will often use liberal california as a proving ground for something they know won't pass in Washington. But they work with state democratic leaders to fashion the bill so that when it passes the appropriate federal agency looking for the same restrictions, EPA, ATF, ETC, can now just adopt by regulation what california has passed without risking a fight on the hill or a federal court battle. Is it appropriate? No, but how often have you heard a state politician say california needs to lead the way. That is why. It is important that we defeat any and all bills that restrict our rights. Privilages are another issue but the right to bear arms as envsioned by our forefathers during their time is a right and that includes. CCW, UOC, and anything else. Our forefathers did not divide up our rights into categories and especially concerning the Second Amendment.

Ape
01-16-2011, 5:59 AM
Since I think your post may be at least partly in response to my most recent, I'm going to come back at you.

If you had tracked what I'd been posting on this thread, I've been consistently been saying we must work to defeat AB144. IIRC, that's as early as the 2nd post on this thread?

That said, I think it is perfectly legitimate to question the risk/benefit ratio of UOC. That should also be done for CCW, LOC, or almost any aspect of your life.

I don't think people should smoke. It's unhealthful to sky-dive. SCUBA requires a lot of training to keep it from being ridiculously dangerous.

That said, I've done a little SCUBA. I may someday try skydiving. No, I've never smoked and never will - but I think people should be able to do so responsibly even if I find it offensive.

There are many of us on this thread and forum who evaluate risk/benefit ratios differently from some others. That does not mean that we believe a right should be lost just because we think it is unwise to exercise that right. Those are two very separate issues.

So I believe that everyone has the right to armed self-defense in the form of CCW and LOC. But if you go out and LOC in a GFSZ without heavy credentials/licensure you will lose your liberty. That means that the risk/benefit ratio almost certainly does not favor your doing that.

I think UOC'ers should carefully evaluate what they do and make sure it makes good sense for them. I think demonstrations are a bad idea. I think that if their own personal assessment of the risks and benefits of UOC for their own defense says that they should UOC - then I think they should UOC. I also think they should consider creative LUCC as an alternative.

If you can CCW I think that given the current political situation and LEA attitudes that getting your CCW should be a greatly preferred alternative to UOC.

But again, risk/benefit evaluations are always appropriate.
Nope, wasn't referring to your post at all. I understand where you're coming from with the "risk reward" thoughts and that doesn't bother me at all.
As a matter of fact, that debate is a long standing issue that I've discussed with others many times.
My personal feelings on that issue is two fold I think. I try to OC once or twice a week for a few reasons. Education, normalization and the simple act of practicing my 2A rights. But I do understand that it "could" make me a first target for a BG in a bad situation. However I also believe that if the majority of gun owners/carriers were to carry openly, we'd see a dramatic drop in brazen nefarious deeds due to BG's not wanting to take down 60% of the populace in a given robbery prior to going about their orginal intent.

scarville
01-16-2011, 8:06 AM
The reality is LOC and CCW are different animals and that LOC should be unlicensed and it is not unreasonable that CCW be licensed.
Up until 1967 that was the law in California (except for certain cities).

Licensing of CCW is an unreasonable restriction on RKBA. The only reasonable gun law is one directly related to criminal use. As long as the bearer is not engaged in any criminal activity, there should be no legal restrictions on carrying openly or concealed.

Shiboleth
01-16-2011, 8:57 AM
I really hope no one is dumb enough to put money or effort into seeing this bill defeated.

As long as UOCers shove their sh*t down the public's throat, the legislature will shove this sh*t down ours.

UOCers were warned... and warned... and warned... and warned...

Anyone who advocates UOC is a goddamn idiot. And anyone who wants to throw money down a hole to support them is doubly so.

CGF/NRA/CRPA/SAF/etc. I earnestly hope you do not get involved in stopping this bill, wasting the donations of your members and supporters. PLEASE FIGHT THE REAL 2A FIGHTS, Let these UOC idiots twist in the wind until they give in and apply for their CCWs. Let them find themselves unarmed in a dark alley because they didn't listen and no longer have the "right" to open carry.

You really need to tone down the acidity...

UOC is of course a POS method of carry compared to the ideal of LOC or CCW, we all know and accept that. The fact of the matter is that there is a significant portion of the population for whom neither of those ideal methods are available, who still for some reason would like some way of protecting themselves. You assume in your post that those who UOC are those who could, but have not, applied for a CCW, something you couldn't possibly know.

This bill should be resisted on principle, as should any infringement of our rights. Every new restrictive bill is a possible stepping stone to some other restrictive bill. We got to such a restrictive state in increments.

Shiboleth
01-16-2011, 9:06 AM
Wow???? So let me get this straight. Many of you here are hoping this gets passed so you can be forced to have to pay money and have over bearing licensing regs in order to be able to defend yourselves when not at home????? :eek::confused:

Is everyone really that conditioned into compliance by the ruling left so much so that you actually think this would be some sort of victory?
I'm sorry if I keep asking this question, but it's just mind boggling to believe!
And to hear supposed 2A supporters talking about how OCer's are somehow causing everyone to lose rights??? This just blows me away!

I've been OCing for a long time now even though I've had my CCW for quite a while. And the main reason I do so is because I firmly believe the country should have to OC rather than CC. Carrying concealed almost seems ridiculous to me in that we have to have "special permission" to do so.
I also believe that if everyone was OCing you'd see a heck of a lot less crime!

Pretty sure few people are "hoping" this passes. They are however looking at the eventual silver lining, which would not include overbearing licensing regs, because it would be shall issue.

jak77
01-16-2011, 10:10 AM
Damnit, Portantino is from my city, was on city council and mayor for a few terms. Very disappointed, but frankly, not surprised.

Its funny how all the rhetoric surrounding the AZ shooting (which Im guessing is why Portantino is introducing this bill now) points to the fact that we should further restrict gun rights. And doesnt mention or even touch upon the fact that if more honest and law abiding citizens were carrying, that tragedy might have ended a lot sooner. For them to introduce a new bill that restricts Californians rights to not be able to carry at all seems counterproductive. At least, in my point of view, I would want more honest people carrying to put and end to things like this. But obviously the retards that run this state will never see it that way. I can guarantee that if I saw someone shooting up a bunch of innocent people, and I was open carrying, I would slap a mag in my weapon, rack the slid, and take that mother ****er down! Even though that would take longer than if I was regular CCW. Im sure of bunch of other people share the same mindset. If only the sheeple and the people they elect to run this state saw it my way....

meaty-btz
01-16-2011, 10:44 AM
Up until 1967 that was the law in California (except for certain cities).

Licensing of CCW is an unreasonable restriction on RKBA. The only reasonable gun law is one directly related to criminal use. As long as the bearer is not engaged in any criminal activity, there should be no legal restrictions on carrying openly or concealed.

Historicly Concealed was not fully accepted as intrinsic to the right. The 2A, in the way it was written, references that a Right to Defense is a God Given Right. Something that Preceeds the Constitutions Enumeration there of. So when looking at it we might want to explore the full history of weapons and use.

In the time when men carried swords there was a thing called a Peace Knot. The idea was quite rational that in a heated exchange, or alcohol, that men would draw and fight so the idea came that they needed a few moments for cooler heads to prevail or to make a knot that a drunk man couldn't undo! It may seem silly to us today but at the time, it was quite serious. Local constables could (e)check your weapon (hah!) to ensure it was knotted properly. You would be arrested or have your weapon confiscated or be forced to knott it then and there failing the (e)check.

There are two thoughts historicly on the concept of Concealed Carry of Weapons; the Gentleman's Carry and Only Criminals Need Conceal.

The Gentleman's Carry is interesting in that it was born out of the falling out of fashion, the carrying of a sword or large dagger by the higher classes (noble and merchantile) as well as combined with growing Urbanization. Prior the higher classes carried weapons plainly (excepting a *backup* dirk, or boot dagger). These weapons were often ornate, even the concealed ones, and represented ones wealth and power. Over time the cultural shifts that began to occur and the change in perspectives of governments towards armed citizenry (a threat vs a ready conscription force) lead to the falling out of favor of carrying openly. These shifts occured at different times in different countries and sometimes they shifted back (usuall due to upheaval and war). There was the practical reason too, carrying a sword everywhere is uncomfortable. They are heavy and tend to get in the way of things. OCers today can related. You should hear the LEO's I converse with complain about their gunbelts and the need for "extra wide-load" chairs. Now back to Concealed, well a Gentleman still needed to defend himself so all manner of Concealed Weapon Systems were devised. Classic Cane Swords, Swords in Riding Crops, etc were everywhere. The Gentleman's Carry Concept was not that he just needed to be armed and ready for those unsavory Immigrants and Criminal Ruffians but that you could be armed without afflicting those about you with the undelecate and uncultured and uncouth carrying openly of a weapon. All those delecate sensebillities.. (sound familiar?) would not be viloated. This is a top down attitude born of the Elite in a Culture.

Only Criminals Need to Conceal:
This body is shorter than the above because it is the opposit. While the East was fully in the grasp of the Gentleman's Carry the West was OCNC (only criminals need to conceal). An honest man is honest about his intent and has no need to hide that he is armed. Criminals are furritive and sneaky and cowardly and thus hide their intent and their weapons, the better to ambush their prey. This is a Bottom Up or Middle Out attitude when considering its birth in the Cultural Hirearchy.


I would lump the attitudes of the UOCers in California to: OCNC
while it is obvious via arguments that the CCW crowd is: Gentleman's Carry
Since this is actually a Class and Culture issue I could hazzard that most CCWers here on the forums are White Collar Workers who make a goodly bit. While most OCers will be more worker class. This is a broad generalization of course and there will be flyers in both clusters.

the_quark
01-16-2011, 11:01 AM
That's some nice history, and I do think there's something of a point, there. I'll admit that I'm white collar (though I certainly had a poor background and start). If LOC and CCW were totally unrestricted, given my social circles, I'd almost exclusively CCW.

That said, I'm still strongly in favor LOC being legal, and won't consider the carry fight won until it is. It's just not something that I'll personally do much.

the_quark
01-16-2011, 11:03 AM
PS: I'll also say I wish there were a way to reset this debate. Personally speaking I don't think there's any reason at all for distinguishing between concealed and unconcealed carry from a legal perspective, because making concealed carry illegal is only going to stop people who are by definition law followers.

But, I'm realistic this isn't possible in the short term, and for the next decade, at least, they're going to be seen differently. Probably longer.

meaty-btz
01-16-2011, 11:06 AM
I concur, with you Quark.

My attitudes lean in your direction. Just trying to outline perhaps a little origin in the thinking and attitudes of various groups.

Would it surprise you that the precursor to the "Soccer Mom Scared Rabbit" essentially occupied the same Social Class Position? The Delecate Sensibillities Group references the Soccer Moms Precursors. The Middle Class has always been an Unstable Class where ones wealth could be wiped out in an instant. This essentially means a group dominated by selfish thinking (in order to rise in the middle class you really need a self focus) and outright FEAR. This has been born out throughout the centuries. Even the Burgomeisters were a pretty Rabbity Self Interested Bunch.

Shadowdrop
01-16-2011, 11:11 AM
Case law always begins with a law over-stepping its Constitutional boundaries...

luckystrike
01-16-2011, 6:15 PM
didnt they just try to bad OC?

the_quark
01-16-2011, 6:19 PM
didnt they just try to bad OC?

If by "bad" you mean "ban", yes. The only reason it failed is because they screwed up lining up the vote at the last minute. It'll probably pass, this year.

And, as I said, after the UOCers took credit for victory on this in 2010, it'll be interesting to see if they're willing to own the defeat in 2011. I'm betting not.

ironcross
01-16-2011, 6:51 PM
I have a few questions concerning AB 144. Specifically section 26350. It states it does not apply to, or affect, the open carrying of an unloaded handgun on publicly owned land, if the possession and use of a handgun is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land and the person carrying that handgun is listed as the registered owner of that handgun with the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 11106.

How does this impact a person say going out to BLM lands (construed as public lands) to do some target shooting using an unregistered handgun (pre-registration requirement)? Would you now be guilty of a misdemeanor under this section once you remove the handgun from its lock box in your vehicle and walking over to the firing line?

Ape
01-16-2011, 6:57 PM
Pretty sure few people are "hoping" this passes. They are however looking at the eventual silver lining, which would not include overbearing licensing regs, because it would be shall issue.

Well the majority of posts I read here were actually hoping for, or didn't care, if this law passes. And to me, either one is a vote towards less rights.

As far as there being less overbearing licensing regs and everything turning to a shall issue......... I highly doubt that based on history and current political climates in Cali.
It would seem more probable (if not obvious) that a victory here for the anti gunners would be a simple segway towards even more stringent CCW regs.
After all, who's going to force them to make it easier to gain a CCW license? They (politicians and anti gun people) would now have what could be considered a form of a monopoly on who gets rights and who doesn't. What are you going to do if they wont let you have a CCW license? Carry openly? NOPE!

Librarian
01-16-2011, 7:01 PM
I have a few questions concerning AB 144. Specifically section 26350. It states it does not apply to, or affect, the open carrying of an unloaded handgun on publicly owned land, if the possession and use of a handgun is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land and the person carrying that handgun is listed as the registered owner of that handgun with the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 11106.

How does this impact a person say going out to BLM lands (construed as public lands) to do some target shooting using an unregistered handgun (pre-registration requirement)? Would you now be guilty of a misdemeanor under this section once you remove the handgun from its lock box in your vehicle and walking over to the firing line?

If this bill were to become law in current form, I believe the answer is "yes".

luckystrike
01-16-2011, 7:04 PM
If by "bad" you mean "ban", yes. The only reason it failed is because they screwed up lining up the vote at the last minute. It'll probably pass, this year.

And, as I said, after the UOCers took credit for victory on this in 2010, it'll be interesting to see if they're willing to own the defeat in 2011. I'm betting not.

*ban.

and im guessing your right.....

kcbrown
01-16-2011, 7:16 PM
It won't be LOC if AB144 passes, it'll be shall-issue CCW (eventually, after years of court cases). But, it'll leave no non-permitted carry at all, which will be a loss of freedom.

Hrmph. So much for "most likely inside 36 months after McDonald (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4352431#post4352431)"...


If AB144 passes, then in the event you have to unload in public (either as a result of emptying into a bad guy, or as a result of explicit unloading), you will be violating the law.

dantodd
01-16-2011, 7:59 PM
That's some nice history, and I do think there's something of a point, there. I'll admit that I'm white collar (though I certainly had a poor background and start). If LOC and CCW were totally unrestricted, given my social circles, I'd almost exclusively CCW.

That said, I'm still strongly in favor LOC being legal, and won't consider the carry fight won until it is. It's just not something that I'll personally do much.

I rarely wear clothes that would provide adequate cover for CCW unless I add a moo moo over my jeans and T-shirt. I suppose if I were to have my druthers I'd just wear an IWB to keep from snagging anything and not care much about concealing the top. OC or poor CC you choose. I just want to be able to defend myself and my family in the unlikely event that "something bad" happens.

Barkoff
01-16-2011, 8:13 PM
I remember that last time I called Amiano's office to gripe about CCW, Amiano's people told me we didn't need CCW, if we feel unsafe we can Open Carry. Going to call him back and ask him "now what?"

the_quark
01-16-2011, 8:22 PM
I rarely wear clothes that would provide adequate cover for CCW unless I add a moo moo over my jeans and T-shirt. I suppose if I were to have my druthers I'd just wear an IWB to keep from snagging anything and not care much about concealing the top. OC or poor CC you choose. I just want to be able to defend myself and my family in the unlikely event that "something bad" happens.

You'd be surprised - Gene pointed me towards the Galco Skyops:

http://www.amazon.com/Galco-Skyops-Holster-Sig-Sauer-Black/dp/B0002MJJAS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1295241613&sr=8-4

It's an IWB that lets you tuck a shirt into it between the holster and the belt. It's quite amazing - even my almost-full-size P228 just vanishes.

Also, I'll say, around the house, I'm happy to wear an IWB with the top just sticking out.

dantodd
01-16-2011, 8:27 PM
Arguing about UOC events at this juncture is about as useful as lemmings debating their leader's skill set half way down the cliff.

"It is what it is" as the saying goes.

We are going to have UOC outlawed and that is a bad thing.

However; the state COULD have made an argument in Richards that Open Carry is actually legal with "reasonable" limits which include GFSZ and unloaded where discharge is illegal. Since one of the primary arguments in that case is that the state chose CCW as the preferred mode of exercising our 2A rights the case could have turned into a matter of debating the reasonableness and "sensitive areas" issues surrounding the OC laws. When this law passes the state can no longer make that argument and will have to agree that CCW is the preferred way of carry and then make a case for why some pigs are more equal than others.

Ape
01-16-2011, 8:50 PM
When this law passes the state can no longer make that argument and will have to agree that CCW is the preferred way of carry and then make a case for why some pigs are more equal than others.
BINGO! :thumbsup:

And there in lies the depth of the absolute loss to come of more 2A rights with this piece of legislation!
Sad that so many here are willing to see it as a good thing. :(

RRangel
01-16-2011, 9:12 PM
Arguing about UOC events at this juncture is about as useful as lemmings debating their leader's skill set half way down the cliff.

"It is what it is" as the saying goes.

We are going to have UOC outlawed and that is a bad thing.

However; the state COULD have made an argument in Richards that Open Carry is actually legal with "reasonable" limits which include GFSZ and unloaded where discharge is illegal. Since one of the primary arguments in that case is that the state chose CCW as the preferred mode of exercising our 2A rights the case could have turned into a matter of debating the reasonableness and "sensitive areas" issues surrounding the OC laws. When this law passes the state can no longer make that argument and will have to agree that CCW is the preferred way of carry and then make a case for why some pigs are more equal than others.

If he had actually planned ahead I wonder if Portantino would have introduced the bill. Already this isn't like before incorporation. These gun grabbers are going to have some real roadblocks to contend with. There's definitely more court action on the way.

GettoPhilosopher
01-16-2011, 9:40 PM
I would lump the attitudes of the UOCers in California to: OCNC
while it is obvious via arguments that the CCW crowd is: Gentleman's Carry
Since this is actually a Class and Culture issue I could hazzard that most CCWers here on the forums are White Collar Workers who make a goodly bit. While most OCers will be more worker class. This is a broad generalization of course and there will be flyers in both clusters.

Oh, no no no no no no no.

No.

I'm poor, broke, and supportless. I support CCW specifically *because* I don't have the savings, $20,000 atty fees fund, job security, and lawyers to get me out of dodge if I get arrested trying to UOC. I want to carry a gun for defense; hell, I've been carrying a knife as a tool and for defense since I was about 7. But the way to do so that most appeals to me is the quiet and discrete way: CCW. I don't have the lawyer, job security, or atty fee fund to get myself out of trouble if the police made trouble for me.

I work for an atty. I know I couldn't afford an hour of her time, let alone a criminal case. If I got arrested over UOC, I'd be screwed. I'd much rather get a CCW, and carry daily without worrying about school zones, every cop in a 10 mile radius crawling up my @$$, scaring soccer moms, getting the cops called on me daily, and possibly losing my job.

Even if you count the cost of gear and new clothes that'll cover my gun in with the cost of the permit and training, that's still cheaper than "those without a savings account, attorney on retainer, and a job that won't fire them if they find out you're running around LA with a handgun need not apply".

Shiboleth
01-16-2011, 9:54 PM
As far as there being less overbearing licensing regs and everything turning to a shall issue......... I highly doubt that based on history and current political climates in Cali.

The history took place in a time where the courts did not recognize a fundamental, individual, incorporated right. It's a new ballgame now.

It would seem more probable (if not obvious) that a victory here for the anti gunners would be a simple segway towards even more stringent CCW regs.
How does this seem obvious to you? Have you read the history of pertinent cases, or judge Gonzales's opinion from Peruta? Outright or overly oppressive bans on a particular form of carry have been ruled lawful in the past, but that's been because there was another form of carry available. Judge Gonzales ruled that denying ccw wasn't a 2a infringement only because UOC was available. The situation changes completely without some form of OC. A non-issuing ccw county + no OC = no 2a.

After all, who's going to force them to make it easier to gain a CCW license

The courts...

They (politicians and anti gun people) would now have what could be considered a form of a monopoly on who gets rights and who doesn't.

Which is constitutionally unacceptable, which will be the basis for movement in the courts.

Shiboleth
01-16-2011, 10:01 PM
BINGO! :thumbsup:

And there in lies the depth of the absolute loss to come of more 2A rights with this piece of legislation!
Sad that so many here are willing to see it as a good thing. :(

Unless I'm completely misinterpreting him, the post you're quoting is actually a good thing. He's basically saying the antis didn't think ahead and will have missed their chance to muddy the arguments of the Prieto case.

Ape
01-16-2011, 10:03 PM
And all of these arguments mean exactly what to those in counties or states where getting a CCW is next to impossible? Or even worse yet, so expensive it makes it nearly impossible for the regular Joe to afford one?

Ape
01-16-2011, 10:04 PM
Unless I'm completely misinterpreting him, the post you're quoting is actually a good thing. He's basically saying the antis didn't think ahead and will have missed their chance to muddy the arguments of the Prieto case.

....and then make a case for why some pigs are more equal than others.
This is the point I was heralding. ;)
Which in my opinion means CCW will be for only those who can be elevated monetarily or politically to engage in the honor of owning a CCW license.

N6ATF
01-16-2011, 10:06 PM
I'm poor, broke, and supportless.

One wonders why you support a system which is designed to prevent you and those like us from defending ourselves, then.

big red
01-17-2011, 12:36 AM
this bill is getting a lot more air time on television news programs than any other anti-gun bill I have seen in years. Seems like every night channel 13 is running a report on it and trying to keep it in front of the public and not in a positive manner. channel 13 is even debating the fact that one or two of the crowd had concealed guns in Tucson and that is like mixing apples and oranges. there seems to be a serious effort by the media to stir up a panic frenzy. And the Brady campaign is holding news conferences for this bill as well.

SanPedroShooter
01-17-2011, 5:08 AM
California is the jewel in the somewhat tarnished brady crown. For a group than struggles to remain relevant, they need this one. They've lost everywhere else. This is what happens when you open to the door to this type of scum.
I can see the press release, "brady sponsored bill bans open carrying of handguns, citizens rejoice, your streets are safe again!"
We will be hearing helmke tout this one ad nauseum.

The regular press is just trying to milk the arizona/gun connection for ratings. Joe homeowner is sitting in living room watching TV, he sees coverage about AZ and then coverage about open carry, in his mind the two become basically the same thing.. it could happen here....
The cry goes up across the land, Ban It!!

the_quark
01-17-2011, 5:28 AM
California is the jewel in the somewhat tarnished brady crown. For a group than struggles to remain relevant, they need this one. They've lost everywhere else. This is what happens when you open to the door to this type of scum.
I can see the press release, "brady sponsored bill bans open carrying of handguns, citizens rejoice, your streets are safe again!"
We will be hearing helmke tout this one ad nauseum.


Yup. This victory will re-invigorate our enemies, just when they would've been otherwise ready to quit the field.

A parable: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=338401&page=4

GM4spd
01-17-2011, 5:52 AM
This bill can't be passed soon enough. Maybe we can stop wasting threadspace on UOC. Pete

locosway
01-17-2011, 5:54 AM
This bill can't be passed soon enough. Maybe we can stop wasting threadspace on UOC. Pete

Between this and your sig line, I'm going to assume you could care less about everyone else's rights so long as yours aren't infringed.

:rockon:

dantodd
01-17-2011, 7:02 AM
Unless I'm completely misinterpreting him, the post you're quoting is actually a good thing. He's basically saying the antis didn't think ahead and will have missed their chance to muddy the arguments of the Prieto case.

No. I meant that it is a bad thing but a bad thing that might bite the state in the butt. Just because there is a silver lining doesn't mean there isn't also a cloud. I would never advocate intentionally losing a right only pointing out the other consequences. Richards is winnable without AB144 but AB144 does take away one potential defense the sheriff has.

GettoPhilosopher
01-17-2011, 8:25 AM
One wonders why you support a system which is designed to prevent you and those like us from defending ourselves, then.

I was able to save up the $x00 it cost to buy my handgun. I accept that there's a maintenance cost to pay in spending $$$ on range time, plinking ammo, HD ammo, mags, cleaning supplies, etc. I'm willing and able to save up the money to apply for a CCW as soon as I hear that trying in LA County is a good idea.

I don't ever see myself having the money to retain a lawyer, and I don't see myself ever carefully plotting routes around school zones while attracting every cop within 3 miles and considering it safe. I'll stick with a knife and hope for a CCW, kthxbai.

Of course I'd rather have AZ style unlicensed CC. But I think getting me a CCW is a much better idea than becoming a walking press conference everytime I try to walk to the local store. Then again, I've always found keeping attention off me to be a better defense than drawing attention to myself. Probably comes from being the only white boy in my old 'hood. ;)

someR1
01-17-2011, 8:59 AM
O.M.F.G.

I am moving to Arizona.....like.....yesterday ........ :mad:

Arreaux
01-17-2011, 9:15 AM
O.M.F.G.

I am moving to Arizona.....like.....yesterday ........ :mad:

I here ya!

Glock22Fan
01-18-2011, 9:58 AM
The Jerry Brown fanbois on this site will be mighty embarrassed before this is over.

Not until you prove that Meg (or even Arnie) would have done any better for us.

Dirtbozz
01-18-2011, 10:26 AM
Not until you prove that Meg (or even Arnie) would have done any better for us.

I don't recall anyone claiming that "Meg" or "Arnie" was pro gun, as was the case with "Moonbeam" by many on this forum. :D

tabrisnet
01-18-2011, 10:33 AM
Whether or not some ppl misread the signs, all I remember really was that JB was less anti-gun than Meg.

Evil, but less evil.

The alternative being to Vote Cthulhu: Why choose the lesser evil?

Glock22Fan
01-18-2011, 11:49 AM
I don't recall anyone claiming that "Meg" or "Arnie" was pro gun, as was the case with "Moonbeam" by many on this forum. :D


I was, and still am, of the belief that Jerry is a better bet (for us gunnies) than either Arnie or Meg.

Never said he was pro-gun, just that he seemed less anti-gun.

Sure, he will sign some legislation we don't want. So did Arnie, so would Meg have done.

Even if he signs every bit of anti gun legislation that comes his way, all that will prove to me is that the bar that Meg would have had to jump is somewhat lower than I had thought.

If you think that Meg would have vetoed this bill in particular, you are more deluded than you should be. I am positive that she would have had no problems whatsoever in seeing it as a necessary common-sense measure.

Furthermore, look up "Moonbeam" on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). It turns out, with the benefit of hindsight, that it isn't the insult that you clearly think it is.

wash
01-18-2011, 12:18 PM
Furthermore, look up "Moonbeam" on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). It turns out, with the benefit of hindsight, that it isn't the insult that you clearly think it is.
Maybe not but it's still funny that one of his first acts as governor was taking away cell phones.

N6ATF
01-18-2011, 12:22 PM
Weren't they iPhones with unlimited voice/data plans? Most of the time spent using them (for personal use) was probably "Can you hear me know? Aw ****, this ******* thing dropped again!" Total waste of money. Auction them off!

Dirtbozz
01-18-2011, 1:08 PM
.....Furthermore, look up "Moonbeam" on Wikipedia (or elsewhere). It turns out, with the benefit of hindsight, that it isn't the insult that you clearly think it is.

It was not intended as an "insult". I chuckled as I typed it. I am old enough to remember him from last time around.

Did you see his acceptance speech? This guy should be fun to watch. :43:

I still contend that his election to the office will make the "Great California Melt Down" almost an unavoidable given. Our 2nd Amendment rights will be the least of our concerns if it occurs.

locosway
01-18-2011, 1:50 PM
After reading through the bill, I find some areas to be disturbing.

26350. (a) A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded
handgun when that person carries upon his or her person an exposed
and unloaded handgun outside a vehicle while in or on any of the
following:
(1) A public place or public street in an incorporated city or
city and county.
(2) A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area
of a county or city and county.
(3) A public place in a prohibited area of a county or city and
county.
(b) (1) Except as specified in paragraph (2), a violation of this
section is a misdemeanor.
(2) A violation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), if the
handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from
that firearm are in the immediate possession of the person, and the
person is not listed as the registered owner of the firearm with the
Department of Justice pursuant to Section 11106, is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine
not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and
imprisonment.

So, if I'm reading this correctly. If you're caught with an unregistered handgun, or a borrowed handgun, or your spouses handgun, and you have ammo readily available, you will be sitting in jail and quite possibly become a prohibited person.

Shiboleth
01-18-2011, 2:40 PM
And all of these arguments mean exactly what to those in counties or states where getting a CCW is next to impossible? Or even worse yet, so expensive it makes it nearly impossible for the regular Joe to afford one?

Why are you ignoring the relationship of this bill passing to the peruta opinion?

Of course this bill should not pass and should be resisted on principle. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that it will provide us as a stepping stone.

Librarian
01-18-2011, 2:46 PM
After reading through the bill, I find some areas to be disturbing.



So, if I'm reading this correctly. If you're caught with an unregistered handgun, or a borrowed handgun, or your spouses handgun, and you have ammo readily available, you will be sitting in jail and quite possibly become a prohibited person.

That's the same language used for CCW without having the handgun registered to the carrier: 12025 (b)(6) (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/4/2/1/2/s12025)
(b)Carrying a concealed firearm in violation of this section is punishable, as follows:
...
(6)By imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment if both of the following conditions are met:

(A)Both the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that firearm are either in the immediate possession of the person or readily accessible to that person, or the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is loaded as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 12031.

(B)The person is not listed with the Department of Justice pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 11106, as the registered owner of that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

Ape
01-18-2011, 3:12 PM
Why are you ignoring the relationship of this bill passing to the peruta opinion?

Of course this bill should not pass and should be resisted on principle. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that it will provide us as a stepping stone.

While I can understand wanting to find a silver lining in a very bad piece of legislation.......I can't abide by the thought of it being a "good thing" or a "stepping stone" for anything good. Loss of rights is loss of rights no matter how it's sliced.

pointedstick
01-18-2011, 3:36 PM
Jesus. What's with all the hate?! I don't UOC. I have Never UOC'd, I would never UOC. I still oppose this bill and called Portantino's office to say so. Even though it might not personally affect me, rights are precious things, and their diminution is always a tragedy, to say nothing of the invigorating effect the passage of this bill would have for our enemies. Let's band together and kill this bill instead of bickering.

Call this creep and tell him to keep his hands off the second amendment.
(916) 319-2044

Within one ring I got a human being. Let's flood his office.

Quser.619
01-18-2011, 4:34 PM
Have a question, didn't Heller find that an unloaded handgun is not technically considered a working gun until it's loaded or something along those lines?

Shiboleth
01-18-2011, 4:54 PM
While I can understand wanting to find a silver lining in a very bad piece of legislation.......I can't abide by the thought of it being a "good thing" or a "stepping stone" for anything good. Loss of rights is loss of rights no matter how it's sliced.

One or two people (generally those vocal against UOC to begin with) consider this to be a 'good thing'. The vast majority here have stated that this should be resisted. But you seem completely unwilling to acknowledge that there could possibly be a good outcome from something bad.

Shiboleth
01-18-2011, 4:56 PM
Have a question, didn't Heller find that an unloaded handgun is not technically considered a working gun until it's loaded or something along those lines?

Off the top of my head, there was terminology in Heller referring to firearms beings functional, but I can't recall any explicit reference to loaded/unloaded.

the_quark
01-18-2011, 5:35 PM
Off the top of my head, there was terminology in Heller referring to firearms beings functional, but I can't recall any explicit reference to loaded/unloaded.

Unfortunately the opinion said "functional" and "in the home". Judges who don't want to face up to the implications of Heller are focusing on "in the home" (so "bear" doesn't mean anything). There's also been some speculation that they'd try to claim that "functional" doesn't mean "loaded". We may have to have the Supreme Court weigh in on these issues explicitly.

locosway
01-18-2011, 8:35 PM
That's the same language used for CCW without having the handgun registered to the carrier: 12025 (b)(6) (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/4/2/1/2/s12025)

Yes, but I can understand the part about CCW, as it's a highly restricted form of carry that requires a permit.

I think the wording here in general is dangerous. Carrying your unregistered firearms to your vehicle in an incorporated city could land you in jail.

meaty-btz
01-18-2011, 8:57 PM
Yes, but I can understand the part about CCW, as it's a highly restricted form of carry that requires a permit.

I think the wording here in general is dangerous. Carrying your unregistered firearms to your vehicle in an incorporated city could land you in jail.

Exactly, it is well worded to create "Gotchas" where by honest and upright and normal actions with firearms could become a crime. As he says, going from house to car and visa versa could make you a prohibited person. Which is the intent of this law, to trample the 2A as much as they can. To make a lawful act, unlawful.

That is why this law must be fought. These laws are designed directly to be as harmful and unlawful as possible. It should be fought on these grounds or you will always have to keep your firearms hidden and not remove them from you vehicle unless inside a range, but of course you range does not have an enclosed parking area so you could be grabbed going from car to the range entrance if they wanted.... There are those of us here that posses LEGALLY UNREGISTERED FIREARMS. This is wrong. Everyone is after a silver lining rather than bearing witness to the gotchas. We have to have SOME grounds to fight this?

locosway
01-18-2011, 9:09 PM
Exactly, it is well worded to create "Gotchas" where by honest and upright and normal actions with firearms could become a crime. As he says, going from house to car and visa versa could make you a prohibited person. Which is the intent of this law, to trample the 2A as much as they can. To make a lawful act, unlawful.

That is why this law must be fought. These laws are designed directly to be as harmful and unlawful as possible. It should be fought on these grounds or you will always have to keep your firearms hidden and not remove them from you vehicle unless inside a range, but of course you range does not have an enclosed parking area so you could be grabbed going from car to the range entrance if they wanted.... There are those of us here that posses LEGALLY UNREGISTERED FIREARMS. This is wrong. Everyone is after a silver lining rather than bearing witness to the gotchas. We have to have SOME grounds to fight this?

Aye, people can bash UOC all they want. The fact of the matter is bills like this one are dangerous to EVERYONE, not just those that UOC. I wish people would look at the larger picture instead of just want they want.

robcoe
01-18-2011, 9:15 PM
"The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to
openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person in specified public
areas."

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110113_introduced.html

Just introduced yesterday.

It will probably go exactly as far as the last one did, nowhere.

HUTCH 7.62
01-18-2011, 9:17 PM
The antis never stop do they.

BorderBrewer
01-18-2011, 9:23 PM
"An Appeaser is one who feeds a Crocodile hoping it will eat him last" - Winston Churchill

An assault on any facet of our 2A rights should be vigorously opposed. Write and call your assemblyman. Tell him not to set the state up for a costly and losing court battle over AB 144.

dustoff31
01-18-2011, 9:27 PM
Originally Posted by GM4spd
This bill can't be passed soon enough. Maybe we can stop wasting threadspace on UOC. Pete



Between this and your sig line, I'm going to assume you could care less about everyone else's rights so long as yours aren't infringed.

I don't see where he said anything at all about anyone's rights.

His sig line says "UOC= Unintended Onerous Consequences". I'd say that's pretty hard to argue with at this point.

locosway
01-18-2011, 9:30 PM
I don't see where he said anything at all about anyone's rights.

His sig line says "UOC= Unintended Onerous Consequences". I'd say that's pretty hard to argue with at this point.

I'm not arguing that UOC can and has produced bas results. But, that doesn't mean we should jump on the bandwagon and support a bill such as this. Look at my last few posts in this thread and you'll see what I'm talking about. The wording is broad and can lead to bad arrests and case law.

dustoff31
01-18-2011, 9:44 PM
I'm not arguing that UOC can and has produced bas results. But, that doesn't mean we should jump on the bandwagon and support a bill such as this. Look at my last few posts in this thread and you'll see what I'm talking about. The wording is broad and can lead to bad arrests and case law.

Frankly it doesn't matter whether anyone here supports it or not. It is going to pass. It will most likely be signed into law, IMO.

I'm not supporting it. I just recognize reality when I see it.

pointedstick
01-18-2011, 10:23 PM
Frankly it doesn't matter whether anyone here supports it or not. It is going to pass. It will most likely be signed into law, IMO.

I'm not supporting it. I just recognize reality when I see it.

I think AB962 should show us what can happen when we stop despairing and start fighting. If you don't like this bill… do something about it!

tabrisnet
01-18-2011, 10:39 PM
Can I refuse to pay this bill? Will they send a collection agency?

locosway
01-19-2011, 12:15 AM
Frankly it doesn't matter whether anyone here supports it or not. It is going to pass. It will most likely be signed into law, IMO.

I'm not supporting it. I just recognize reality when I see it.

I refuse to bend over and take it. If AB962 showed us anything, it's that we have a voice, and it's only getting louder. Some people will accept the fact that UOC will be banned, just as those same people sold all their handguns because of the "ammo ban". Personally, I purchases reloading equipment. If UOC is banned, you bet your *** I'll fight it, even if I do think UOC is stupid.

the_quark
01-19-2011, 12:28 AM
My prediction: UOC will be banned in the near term. We'll get some sort of carry back in the medium term (through lawsuits), but it may not be open carry of any sort, and it may not be as free of restrictions as it would've been if the political UOCers hadn't stirred the hornet's nest.

donny douchebag
01-19-2011, 7:50 AM
^ This. Unloaded concealed carry for those not permitted. E checks only if caught ;)

cineski
01-19-2011, 7:52 AM
The sooner UOC gets banned, the sooner we can win for Shall Issue CCW.

Tyrenlds
01-19-2011, 8:15 AM
The sooner UOC gets banned, the sooner we can win for Shall Issue CCW.

Agreed. Hoping this passes.