PDA

View Full Version : Help defeat ab 144 the bill that would ban open carry in california


Clearwave
01-21-2011, 11:57 AM
Please help fight the Open Carry of Firearms Bill that would Ban open Carry in CA. Call California Assemblyman Anthony Portantino's office the Author of the Bill @ (916) 319-2044 and ask them to Please not push this Bill , you can also contact your assembly person at this link http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/MEM...emberdir_1.asp

And ask them to OPPOSE AB 144
Thanks

E Pluribus Unum
01-21-2011, 12:00 PM
Please help fight the Open Carry of Firearms Bill that would Ban open Carry in CA. Call California Assemblyman Anthony Portantino's office the Author of the Bill @ (916) 319-2044 and ask them to Please not push this Bill , you can also contact your assembly person at this link http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/MEM...emberdir_1.asp

And ask them to OPPOSE AB 144
Thanks

Actually... I would think that passage of this bill might help us in the long run.


When fighting for shall issue CCW, the courts could say "Shall issue CCW is not required, because open carry is legal".

By passing this ban, California will make it absolutely prohibited to possess guns outside the home for personal defense. It strengthens the "we need CCW" voice.

That is, of course, In My Ignorant Opinion.

HowardW56
01-21-2011, 12:06 PM
When fighting for shall issue CCW, the courts could say "Shall issue CCW is not required, because open carry is legal".



That is what the District Court Judge used as her theory in Peruta v. County of San Diego.

This ruling ends the case in U.S. District Court. The Judge found summary judgment for Sheriff Gore and Plaintiffslost the case on all points. In her written opinion the Judge wrote that UOC is okay for self defense and the Court does not need to decide whether the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a loaded handgun in public.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peruta_v._County_of_San_Diego

Gray Peterson
01-21-2011, 12:20 PM
Folks,

As much as I generally berate political UOC'ers, this bill should be opposed. It is anti-gun, and regardless of whether or not it was "invited" by the UOC movements actions, it should be opposed.

Also, don't think for a minute that Judge Gonzalez would have decided differently. She essentially ruled that an Illinois style total carry ban would pass constitutional muster. Her extended explanation's aside, she ruled that 2A didn't apply outside of the home.

someR1
01-21-2011, 12:34 PM
Actually... I would think that passage of this bill might help us in the long run.

so did this mean you're going to vote to approve the bill ? Do you fully understand what the second ammendment represents ?

you sicken me.

.............................

wash
01-21-2011, 12:40 PM
I'm with Grey here.

Any law that limits our gun rights is a step in the wrong direction.

I would much rather not have this bill than possibly make the fight for shall issue CCW a tiny bit easier.

No one should support this bill or be happy that it has been proposed. We don't need it, we don't want it.

Shotgun Man
01-21-2011, 12:47 PM
so did this mean you're going to vote to approve the bill ? Do you fully understand what the second ammendment represents ?

you sicken me.

.............................

How could EPU vote to approve the bill? he's not a member of the california state legislature. he's just somebody with an opinion. he thinks that this open carry ban may end up promoting the second amendment in the long run.

GM4spd
01-21-2011, 12:47 PM
Good luck stopping this one. In the present gun climate-- passage of this
is pretty much a done deal. Pete

someR1
01-21-2011, 1:01 PM
How could EPU vote to approve the bill? he's not a member of the california state legislature. he's just somebody with an opinion. he thinks that this open carry ban may end up promoting the second amendment in the long run.

I didn't mean litterally approve the bill. I meant approve of the bill, like support it.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if you truely care about gun rights, why would you support any anti-gun law? Please explain how a OC ban would promote the second ammendment.

someR1
01-21-2011, 1:04 PM
The ammendment specifically states: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".....pretty sure that includes OC as well :rolleyes:

Decoligny
01-21-2011, 1:21 PM
I didn't mean litterally approve the bill. I meant approve of the bill, like support it.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if you truely care about gun rights, why would you support any anti-gun law? Please explain how a OC ban would promote the second ammendment.

I can't think of any reason for anyone to support an anti-gun law, but I think I can understand the possible unintended consequences if this law passes.

If UOC is made illegal, then CCW would be the only legal method of exercising the 2A in CA. CCW would have to become shall issue because 2A is a fundamental right. If CCW is the only method of exercising this fundamental right, and SCOTUS has already ruled that a state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a fundamental right, then the fees to get a CCW would be ripe for challenge as unconstitutional.

Don29palms
01-21-2011, 1:24 PM
Can someone explain to me where it says in the 2A that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in the home only?

magsnubby
01-21-2011, 1:32 PM
"I'm a hunter. I don't need no damn assault weapon to hunt deer".

"I'm a hunter. I don't need no damn handgun to hunt deer".

"I'm a hunter. I don't need to UOC to hunt deer".

And so it goes until no one is allowed to own firearms.

SupportGeek
01-21-2011, 1:39 PM
If this were passed, sure it may help CCW, but we would have to challenge that in court wouldnt we? Then wait as it winds its way through the court system, appeals and whatever, in the meantime we would have no way to exercise 2a outside the home for however long it took to get sorted?
Suppporting the ban of UOC seems like its all round a bad move.

Decoligny
01-21-2011, 1:40 PM
Can someone explain to me where it says in the 2A that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in the home only?


It is a misreading from a statement in Heller about "self-defense, most notably in the home, is a fundamental right" (paraphrased).

The anti's take "most notably" to mean "only" which is an example of the anti's ability to distort and intentionally misread the English language.

stix213
01-21-2011, 1:48 PM
I oppose this law and will contact my representavies to oppose it. Though if it passes and somehow puts us closer to state wide shall issue CCW, I'll take that silver lining.

Don29palms
01-21-2011, 1:50 PM
It is a misreading from a statement in Heller about "self-defense, most notably in the home, is a fundamental right" (paraphrased).

The anti's take "most notably" to mean "only" which is an example of the anti's ability to distort and intentionally misread the English language.

I do understand that but even that is not a true statement. In my opinion and as far as I can tell the 2A doesn't say anywhere "With applicable restrictions". To me and many others as far as I can tell "Shall not be infringed" means no restrictions.

Also wouldn't "most notably" also mean the same as especially.

wash
01-21-2011, 1:56 PM
The reality of the situation is that the second amendment does not mention the home but our current laws make most carry outside of the home illegal and the media demonizes the legal forms.

Even though the constitution is on our side that doesn't stop the legislature from infringing our civil rights until a court fixes the problem.

But the courts are not a guarantee, it takes time and money to fight for our rights and a lot of times the courts get things wrong.

We can't let the legislature do this and then hope that the courts fix it, they might not.

JJE
01-21-2011, 2:00 PM
so did this mean you're going to vote to approve the bill ? Do you fully understand what the second ammendment represents ?

Relax - EPU didn't write this bill - he's making the observation, based on case law, that banning open carry creates a clear, compelling argument in favor of "shall issue". Believe it or not, some states with "shall issue" don't allow open carry.

We all know what the 2nd amendment says and means, but we need to deal with the reality of existing laws, existing case law and strategies to move forward. In the near future, we may well be faced with the choice: Do we get Shall Issue and give up Open Carry? If that happens, there will be a few people calling the rest of us names and holding out for Unlimited Carry.

BluNorthern
01-21-2011, 2:01 PM
I don't UOC and frankly am not a fan of it's use as a political statement. I think it hurts us given the mind-set of the citizens of this State. I oppose this bill though on the previously stated idea that it is yet again another whittling away at our rights, and an action which is yet another incremental step in disarming us.

E Pluribus Unum
01-21-2011, 2:21 PM
so did this mean you're going to vote to approve the bill ? Do you fully understand what the second ammendment represents ?

you sicken me.

.............................

Whoah... tap the brakes there Hoss. Maybe you should verify your assumptions before you go off half-cocked and insult people.

I'm the biggest gun nut on this board. If I could afford a shoulder-fired nuclear weapon, and it were legal, you need to know I would have one.

I think that the phrase "shall not be infringed" means exactly that. The other amendments do not have that verbiage, so reasonable restrictions are warranted. The second amendment says it shall not be infringed at all, reasonable or not. The SCOTUS ruled that the "shall not be infringed" is inferred in every amendment; I disagree.

So, before you allow my assumed liberalism to sicken you, maybe you should stick around a little longer and get to know me before you make assumptions about my beliefs.

someR1
01-21-2011, 3:14 PM
How can you claim to be a "gun nut", and imply that you support an anti-gun law? That's an oxymoron.

They will ban OC, and then ban CC right after. I don't see this helping CC at all.

someR1
01-21-2011, 3:16 PM
I don't UOC and frankly am not a fan of it's use as a political statement. I think it hurts us given the mind-set of the citizens of this State. I oppose this bill though on the previously stated idea that it is yet again another whittling away at our rights, and an action which is yet another incremental step in disarming us.

EXACTLY. They disarm us slowly, but surely. First comes OC, then CC.

We have very little rights AS IT IS, why in the hell should we take away what little we have?

reznunt
01-21-2011, 3:22 PM
I can't think of any reason for anyone to support an anti-gun law, but I think I can understand the possible unintended consequences if this law passes.

If UOC is made illegal, then CCW would be the only legal method of exercising the 2A in CA. CCW would have to become shall issue because 2A is a fundamental right. If CCW is the only method of exercising this fundamental right, and SCOTUS has already ruled that a state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a fundamental right, then the fees to get a CCW would be ripe for challenge as unconstitutional.

man i hope you're right about this one.

rero360
01-21-2011, 3:30 PM
I'm with E Pluribus Unum on this one.

While I am against any and all anti-gun bills and laws on principle alone, I also believe that if UOC is banned then it would make the push for shall issue CCW that much easier.

I also think UOC is nothing more than a political statement, all one has on their hip is an expensive paperweight when its not loaded. I'm fine with open carry if the gun is actually loaded, but I realize that is not possible in this state as well.

Its all about the big picture, sometimes allowing an enemy a small pointless victory puts them in a position that makes them easier to be defeated completely. This is chess not checkers.

reznunt
01-21-2011, 3:34 PM
Its all about the big picture, sometimes allowing an enemy a small pointless victory puts them in a position that makes them easier to be defeated completely. This is chess not checkers.

greater good, people.

wash
01-21-2011, 3:44 PM
There is to much may and too little will here.

WE DON'T NEED THIS BAN

What it would do is restrict our rights.

WE DON'T WANT THIS BAN

scarville
01-21-2011, 3:50 PM
greater good, people.
The "greater good" sounds so nice; until it's your turn to get thrown under the bus.

srt4geezer
01-21-2011, 4:27 PM
How about this.....Give us more CCW, then kill UOC. This is just like the games we play with our kids. We pretend we'll give them more leeway if they just listen to us this time. Does it ever go the kids way???? Hell No!

They are afraid of you with an UNLOADED GUN, why the hell would you think they will open up to Loaded guns for more people. Naevity is abuntant with you EPU. To think it will make a stronger case for more dangerous civilians is laughable at best.

J.D.Allen
01-21-2011, 4:30 PM
How about this.....Give us more CCW, then kill UOC. This is just like the games we play with our kids. We pretend we'll give them more leeway if they just listen to us this time. Does it ever go the kids way???? Hell No!

They are afraid of you with an UNLOADED GUN, why the hell would you think they will open up to Loaded guns for more people. Naevity is abuntant with you EPU. To think it will make a stronger case for more dangerous civilians is laughable at best.

I oppose, and will continue to oppose, this bill. However, EPU is talking about a battle in the courts, not the legislature. We already know the latter is futile.

Mikeb
01-21-2011, 4:32 PM
Personally I don't like CCW permits. Why do I need a permit for a right? I believe it should be my right to carry a handgun for all to see. Now if people think I should have a permit to carry a concealed handgun... I don't have a problem with that. But the idea that I have to have a license to exercise a right? OK pay $100 to speak.
take care
Mike

707electrician
01-21-2011, 4:39 PM
I agree that it could (possibly) help the CCW movement but I would vote against it on principle. Like some have said, it would be a step in the wrong direction and we shouldn't compromise on our rights. Also, I think that if this passed it would just give the antis more ammunition against us, they would probably say that it is obvious that the voters want to keep guns out of public areas so why should we get CCW

E Pluribus Unum
01-21-2011, 5:04 PM
How can you claim to be a "gun nut", and imply that you support an anti-gun law? That's an oxymoron.

They will ban OC, and then ban CC right after. I don't see this helping CC at all.

Please quote the statement I made to make you believe I would endorse a ban.

My comment was to point out that even in the case where it passes, there are ancillary benefits.

I thought I was pretty clear in my explanation of what "shall not be infringed" means. I don't believe any gun ban is constitutionally viable, or proper.


I think that the phrase "shall not be infringed" means exactly that. The other amendments do not have that verbiage, so reasonable restrictions are warranted. The second amendment says it shall not be infringed at all, reasonable or not. The SCOTUS ruled that the "shall not be infringed" is inferred in every amendment; I disagree.

wildhawker
01-21-2011, 5:45 PM
I'm with E Pluribus Unum on this one.

While I am against any and all anti-gun bills and laws on principle alone, I also believe that if UOC is banned then it would make the push for shall issue CCW that much easier.

I also think UOC is nothing more than a political statement, all one has on their hip is an expensive paperweight when its not loaded. I'm fine with open carry if the gun is actually loaded, but I realize that is not possible in this state as well.

Its all about the big picture, sometimes allowing an enemy a small pointless victory puts them in a position that makes them easier to be defeated completely. This is chess not checkers.

You're right - this is chess, not checkers. When the people playing chess tell you that it's a bad move, and why, then it seems unreasonable - or at least irrational - to continue asserting that it's somehow useful.

-Brandon

E Pluribus Unum
01-21-2011, 10:12 PM
You're right - this is chess, not checkers. When the people playing chess tell you that it's a bad move, and why, then it seems unreasonable - or at least irrational - to continue asserting that it's somehow useful.

-Brandon

I never meant to infer that we let them have this as a tactical move in our favor. I am simply stating that a loss, is not necessarily all bad.

Lead-Thrower
01-21-2011, 10:45 PM
If I could afford a shoulder-fired nuclear weapon, and it were legal, you need to know I would have one.

:59: :43:

L84CABO
01-21-2011, 10:52 PM
Can someone just explain to me how one is supposed to exercise their Constituional right to bear arms in this damn state? How exactly does one do that? It's so infuriating.

Paul S
01-21-2011, 11:15 PM
It is a misreading from a statement in Heller about "self-defense, most notably in the home, is a fundamental right" (paraphrased).

The anti's take "most notably" to mean "only" which is an example of the anti's ability to distort and intentionally misread the English language.

Indeed sir..you are correct....the exact same thing is at the very heart of the long struggle to get the pols to recognize what the 2A says...not what they CLAIM it means. GRRRRR! :chris:

N6ATF
01-21-2011, 11:16 PM
Can someone just explain to me how one is supposed to exercise their Constituional right to bear arms in this damn state? How exactly does one do that? It's so infuriating.

You do it illegally*. This government for criminals, by criminals, has a long standing tradition of infringing the right to self-defense into oblivion, so criminals have all the power and the law-abiding have none. Before the right to bear cases complete, the only way to beat them has been to join them.

*Nothing in this post should be taken as legal advice or advice of any sort.