PDA

View Full Version : CA Dept. of Finance Neutral on AB 144


wildhawker
07-11-2011, 3:55 PM
Ca. Dept. of Finance has gone neutral on AB 144.

Letter with their analysis here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BzuDXQ308KnoZWIwM2I2MDctNTUzNi00YWQ3LThkYTQ tZmMxYWI0NjA3ZDNh&hl=en_US

BILL SUMMARY: Firearms

This bill would make it a crime to carry an unloaded hanging on one’s person or in a vehicle, make it a crime to openly carry an unlawfully possessed unloaded handgun and ammunition in public, and establish specified exceptions to the offense for transportation of a firearm between certain areas, as specified.

FISCAL SUMMARY

The Department of Justice indicates that there would no fiscal impact to them related to the provisions of this bill.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local entities for increased costs associated with any new program or higher level of service imposed by the state on local entities if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the new program or higher level of service is reimbursable and a state mandate. Any local government costs resulting from the mandate in this measure would not be state-reimbursable because the mandate only involves the definition of a crime or the penalty for conviction of a crime.

COMMENTS

The Department of Finance is neutral on this bill. Although we have no fiscal concerns with this bill, it should be noted that this bill could increase the statewide adult jail population which could impact the flexibility of local counties to manage their jail populations.

Existing law provides that it is a crime to carry a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as specified.

This bill would:
• Establish an exemption to the offense for transportation of a firearm between certain areas where the firearm may be carried concealed, or loaded, or openly carried unloaded, as specified.
• Exempt a security guard authorized to openly carry an unloaded handgun and an honorable retired peace officer authorized to openly carry an unloaded handgun from existing law that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows or reasonably should know is a school zone.
• Make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person or openly and exposed in a motor vehicle in specified public areas and would make it a misdemeanor with specified penalties to openly carry an exposed handgun in a public place or public street, as specified if the person at the same time possess ammunition capable of being discharged from the handgun, and the person is not in lawful possession of the handgun, as specified.
• Make it a misdemeanor for any driver or owner of a motor vehicle to allow a person to bring an open and exposed unloaded handgun into a vehicle, as specified.

taperxz
07-11-2011, 4:06 PM
Brandon, Am i reading this wrong? ONLY unlawfully possessed hand guns can not be UOC?

taperxz
07-11-2011, 4:10 PM
BILL SUMMARY: Firearms

This bill would make it a crime to carry an unloaded hanging on one’s person or in a vehicle, make it a crime to openly carry an unlawfully possessed unloaded handgun and ammunition in public, and establish specified exceptions to the offense for transportation of a firearm between certain areas, as specified.

FISCAL SUMMARY

The Department of Justice indicates that there would no fiscal impact to them related to the provisions of this bill.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local entities for increased costs associated with any new program or higher level of service imposed by the state on local entities if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the new program or higher level of service is reimbursable and a state mandate. Any local government costs resulting from the mandate in this measure would not be state-reimbursable because the mandate only involves the definition of a crime or the penalty for conviction of a crime.

COMMENTS

The Department of Finance is neutral on this bill. Although we have no fiscal concerns with this bill, it should be noted that this bill could increase the statewide adult jail population which could impact the flexibility of local counties to manage their jail populations.

Existing law provides that it is a crime to carry a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as specified.

This bill would:
• Establish an exemption to the offense for transportation of a firearm between certain areas where the firearm may be carried concealed, or loaded, or openly carried unloaded, as specified.
• Exempt a security guard authorized to openly carry an unloaded handgun and an honorable retired peace officer authorized to openly carry an unloaded handgun from existing law that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows or reasonably should know is a school zone.
• Make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person or openly and exposed in a motor vehicle in specified public areas and would make it a misdemeanor with specified penalties to openly carry an exposed handgun in a public place or public street, as specified if the person at the same time possess ammunition capable of being discharged from the handgun, and the person is not in lawful possession of the handgun, as specified.
• Make it a misdemeanor for any driver or owner of a motor vehicle to allow a person to bring an open and exposed unloaded handgun into a vehicle, as specified.

darkwater
07-11-2011, 4:50 PM
Unfortunately, I don't think the analysis carries any legal weight. It's full of errors...like what the heck is an "unloaded hanging"? Is that a noose that is not around someone's neck?

jwkincal
07-11-2011, 5:16 PM
BILL SUMMARY: Firearms

This bill would make it a crime to carry an unloaded hanging on one’s person or in a vehicle, make it a crime to openly carry an unlawfully possessed unloaded handgun and ammunition in public, and establish specified exceptions to the offense for transportation of a firearm between certain areas, as specified.


I can't see how they got that from reading the current bill...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_144_bill_20110601_amended_sen_v97.html

jwkincal
07-11-2011, 5:41 PM
OK here's where they got confused:

26350. (a) (1) 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:
(A) A public place or public street in an incorporated city or
city and county.

... more conditions and more places under more paragraphs ...


(b) (1) Except as specified in paragraph (2), a violation of this
section is a misdemeanor.
(2) A violation of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars
($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, if both of the
following conditions exist:
(A) The handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being
discharged from that handgun are in the immediate possession of that
person.
(B) The person is not in lawful possession of that handgun.

This seems to make it possible to increase penalties of you are not in legal possession AND you have ammunition on your person.

I am not encouraged by the government's failure to interpret its own spew...

wash
07-11-2011, 5:50 PM
Well I guess that means when we get LOC back it will have no fiscal impact.

taperxz
07-11-2011, 5:51 PM
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.

Time for some to get a hunting license. I am always going to or from hunting:D

Ctwo
07-11-2011, 6:09 PM
Does it also mean that one can still UOC, but they just can't have bullets?

So you'd just have to have your buddy carry your ammo for ya?

dustoff31
07-11-2011, 6:12 PM
Unfortunately, I don't think the analysis carries any legal weight. It's full of errors...like what the heck is an "unloaded hanging"? Is that a noose that is not around someone's neck?

It doesn't carry any legal weight. It's not supposed to. It just tells them that it won't cost the state anything extra if they pass the bill. And that is the answer the anti's are looking for.

taperxz
07-11-2011, 6:16 PM
It doesn't carry any legal weight. It's not supposed to. It just tells them that it won't cost the state anything extra if they pass the bill. And that is the answer the anti's are looking for.

If the analysis is full of errors, how can the lawmakers decide if it is fact accurate enough to vote on?

dustoff31
07-11-2011, 7:09 PM
If the analysis is full of errors, how can the lawmakers decide if it is fact accurate enough to vote on?

They don't care if it has errors. It's a financial analysis, not a legal one. They got the answer they want.