PDA

View Full Version : OC ban on hold, Portantino cancels meeting


Maestro Pistolero
03-26-2011, 12:25 AM
http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/portantino-cancels-hearing-to-ban-openly-carried-handguns-ab-144

Tripper
03-26-2011, 12:32 AM
A fairly balanced report even. seems almost Gun Friendly.

NotEnufGarage
03-26-2011, 12:35 AM
I think you mean UOC Ban.. LOC is already banned.

I suspect they figured out the relationship between banning UOC, Heller/Macdonald and may-issue CCW and don't like the implications.

pitchbaby
03-26-2011, 12:41 AM
Nothing wrong with that article.... except for that I don't think Alameda can afford to take their case to SCOTUS.... Oh but wait... quitting when they should just makes way to much sense! (Of course, I am optimistic Nordyke will win this spring!)

Window_Seat
03-26-2011, 12:48 AM
This could be the smartest thing that an anti-2A Lawmaker does during his time in office. Maybe Assemblyman Portantino actually read the 2nd & 14th Amendments. Or maybe he read Peruta? :hide:

Although I'm (clearly & positively not enough) supportive of the CCW Sunshine Initiative, I actually sort of like the idea of having LOC in a way... It would certainly be nice to be able to conduct (lawful) business while... ' :chris:

Hopefully it will happen in "_________", meanwhile I'll just go eat a sandwich and take a nap. :p

ETA:

Nothing wrong with that article.... except for that I don't think Alameda can afford to take their case to SCOTUS.... Oh but wait... quitting when they should just makes way to much sense! (Of course, I am optimistic Nordyke will win this spring!)

I'm pretty confident that Nordyke wins with SS. I seriously doubt (or should I) that CA9 would want SCOTUS to grant cert because of a circuit split (Chester?). Isn't this what we would much rather have, than ALCO quitting?

Erik; still learning.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-26-2011, 4:35 AM
From the article:


Shortly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will release its opinion in the case of Nordyke v King which will decide whether or not fairgrounds, parks, and other areas where large numbers of people congregate are sensitive places under the Heller decision. The attorney for the Nordyke’s who argued the case before the appellate court argued that sensitive places must be historically sensitive places where firearms have been restricted, such as the inside of courtrooms.



Oh, if only that were true. I'm about ready to tear my hair out waiting for the 9th. to issue its Finding.


The Raisuli

Decoligny
03-26-2011, 7:45 AM
From the article "The court said the right could be restricted in public to what it referred to as “sensitive” places and gave two examples; schools and government buildings."

The right can be restricted TO sensitive places?

So, does that mean we only get to carry in sensitive places? :D

OleCuss
03-26-2011, 7:55 AM
Do remember who wrote the article. Not at all surprising that it might be considered "gun friendly".

He gives an interesting perspective and I usually enjoy his articles, but his understanding of the legal aspects is frequently problematic. . .

Shotgun Man
03-26-2011, 7:59 AM
So is this good news or bad news (that UOC ban is on hold)?

OleCuss
03-26-2011, 8:19 AM
So is this good news or bad news (that UOC ban is on hold)?

I don't think we have enough information to know.

AyatollahGondola
03-26-2011, 8:27 AM
I doubt that portantino cancelled the hearing over his concern about legalities of implementing this bill. My suspect would be the numerous bills his colleagues already have, the costs it would impose upon counties and cities during a time when the legislature is making huge cuts, and the many exclusions written into it (how long would it take a cop to read through them and figure out if you were in compliance or not). And...there could also be some scheduling conflict that presented itself.
The legislature has passed many carelessly crafted bills before, knowing in advance they were legally suspect.

jnojr
03-26-2011, 8:29 AM
I think you mean UOC Ban.. LOC is already banned.

In counties with a population of over 200,000 IIRC

NotEnufGarage
03-26-2011, 8:59 AM
In counties with a population of over 200,000 IIRC

I don't believe that's correct. I just looked at 12031 and it applies in all incorporated areas and prohibited areas of unicorporated areas, which is anywhere that it is illegal to discharge a firearm.

So, you're kinda-sorta right, but that's not the wording of the law. It would be legal to carry loaded in counties of less than 200,000 because that's primarily where the unprohibited areas are (BLM land, etc.), but there's no wording as such in the law. It still would be illegal to LOC in a rural county if you were in a populated area, eg. downtown Hicksville, CA.

CitaDeL
03-26-2011, 9:32 AM
A fairly balanced report even. seems almost Gun Friendly.

Charles Nichols is a open carry supporter.

I think you mean UOC Ban.. LOC is already banned.

I suspect they figured out the relationship between banning UOC, Heller/Macdonald and may-issue CCW and don't like the implications.

Loaded open carry is highly restricted, not banned. It is prohibited in incorporated areas and places where discharge is prohibited by local ordinance.

In counties with a population of over 200,000 IIRC

Uhm no. This is FUD mixed up with the population limitation on the issuance of licenses to carry loaded and exposed in 12050. Yes California law has a provision for licensed open carry.

I don't believe that's correct. I just looked at 12031 and it applies in all incorporated areas and prohibited areas of unicorporated areas, which is anywhere that it is illegal to discharge a firearm.

So, you're kinda-sorta right, but that's not the wording of the law. It would be legal to carry loaded in counties of less than 200,000 because that's primarily where the unprohibited areas are (BLM land, etc.), but there's no wording as such in the law. It still would be illegal to LOC in a rural county if you were in a populated area, eg. downtown Hicksville, CA.

Uhm- wrong again. It would only be illegal to carry a loaded, exposed and holstered firearm under the following circumstances;

While inside incorporated city limits PC12031
While inside a 1000 foot school zone PC626.9
While entering a public building PC171b
While on post office property 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l)
While in an area where discharge is prohibited by local ordinance. PC12031
While in a State Park. Title 14, Div.3, chap. 1, s 4313

So provided that "Hicksville, CA" was not incorporated, was not fully covered by a school zone, you werent at the post office or at the "Hicksville State Historic Park", and there were no local (county, city or town) ordinances you would not be violating the law.

Maestro Pistolero
03-26-2011, 9:36 AM
I think you mean UOC Ban.. LOC is already banned.

I suspect they figured out the relationship between banning UOC, Heller/Macdonald and may-issue CCW and don't like the implications.

Meant to say OC, thanks. I will fix it. They are considering a local open carry ban as I understand it. I thought this was the purview of the state, in any case.

hoffmang
03-26-2011, 11:10 AM
Anyone here could have an examiner column if one wanted to. Don't let the supposed "media" site confuse you.

-Gene

G60
03-26-2011, 11:16 AM
Yup, examiner.com is basically a blog site. Read their 'how to become an examiner' page.

Librarian
03-26-2011, 12:51 PM
So, the take-away is that Portantino cancelled the first hearing. That's essentially meaningless, unless he never gets a hearing before the committee before June 3, and even then the bill might become a '2-year bill'.

See the legislative calendar (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/billslegislature/2011legcalendar.html).

Cokebottle
03-26-2011, 12:56 PM
So, does that mean we only get to carry in sensitive places? :D
http://thunderwearholsters.com/

That should cover carrying most anywhere ;)

Cokebottle
03-26-2011, 1:01 PM
So is this good news or bad news (that UOC ban is on hold)?
I don't think we have enough information to know.
+1

On the one hand, the UOC ban is on hold and UOC remains legal.

On the other hand, the sooner this is implemented, the sooner we can file a lawsuit which will have one of two possible outcomes:

1 - UOC ban is ruled unconstitutional and the ban may never be implemented again.
2 - UOC ban is upheld, but due to 2A incorporation, the state is ordered that without the UOC option, CCW is the only option available to citizens and California goes Shall Issue or Constitutional Carry.

Swiss
03-26-2011, 2:37 PM
Any comment on Assemblywoman Skinner reserving judgement "...on the bill until it comes before her in committee, or on the floor of the Assembly."?

She's my rep and I've met with her once about gun rights so I'm a bit curious if this means anything.

NotEnufGarage
03-26-2011, 2:42 PM
Any comment on Assemblywoman Skinner reserving judgement "...on the bill until it comes before her in committee, or on the floor of the Assembly."?

She's my rep and I've met with her once about gun rights so I'm a bit curious if this means anything.

It probably mean "I don't want to get a bunch of angry emails, letters and phone calls from my constituents, but I'm going to vote for it when it comes up."

Yugo
03-26-2011, 2:58 PM
any one planning to go on april 21? or tonight? (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=162181173834638)