PDA

View Full Version : AB144 / LTC / Virtual Shall Issue


Bigtime1
10-12-2011, 12:17 PM
I apologize in advance if this is addressed elsewhere, but cruising through the various posts made in the aftermath of Moonbeam's signing festival I haven't seen any info addressing the "next steps".

IIRC a large part of the recent ruling on SDSO was that since UOC was an option us minions weren't worthy of an LTC.

I've also seen posts that indicate CA will be virtual shall-issue in 2012.

Are these two now intertwined? Any plan of attacking the earlier ruling now that the feeble excuse put forth buy the judge has been made moot by Moonbeam's pen?

Would it be a good time for more LTC applicants in SD, and should those applicants cite the loss of UOC for self-defense within the application?

Inquiring minds are inquiring.

Justchill
10-12-2011, 12:38 PM
I would also like to know where we stand after Moonbeams liberal signing frenzy!

Librarian
10-12-2011, 12:59 PM
You do realize it's only Wednesday, the third day after the signing.

Does Macy's tell Gimbels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy%27s#In_popular_culture)?

dantodd
10-12-2011, 1:46 PM
Most likely the first fall out from AB144 that you will se is the next filing in Richards v. Prieto. my guess is that we will see a filing from the food guys that essentially says "the last judge said we have a right to bear arms outside the home. They also said that we can't force the sheriff to accept self-defense for good cause because we could open carry. Now that we can no longer open carry please force the sheriff to issue licenses to carry so that we may exercise the right that is already recognized in this case."

HowardW56
10-12-2011, 2:12 PM
Most likely the first fall out from AB144 that you will se is the next filing in Richards v. Prieto. my guess is that we will see a filing from the food guys that essentially says "the last judge said we have a right to bear arms outside the home. They also said that we can't force the sheriff to accept self-defense for good cause because we could open carry. Now that we can no longer open carry please force the sheriff to issue licenses to carry so that we may exercise the right that is already recognized in this case."

:innocent:

:D :rolleyes: :thumbsup:

Bigtime1
10-12-2011, 2:22 PM
Most likely the first fall out from AB144 that you will se is the next filing in Richards v. Prieto. my guess is that we will see a filing from the food guys that essentially says "the last judge said we have a right to bear arms outside the home. They also said that we can't force the sheriff to accept self-defense for good cause because we could open carry. Now that we can no longer open carry please force the sheriff to issue licenses to carry so that we may exercise the right that is already recognized in this case."

1) Who are the "food guys"?

2) Librarian: Touche!

stix213
10-12-2011, 2:41 PM
I'm sure you'll see something interesting with Gura's name on it in the next few weeks. As always, he has to spend just a bit extra time intertwining his witty humor into the arguments :D Something like this in Chicago:

The only thing that Defendant City has managed to render moot, before it was even filed, is its motion to dismiss the case for mootness.

palakaboy
10-12-2011, 2:41 PM
Maybe he means fud?

OleCuss
10-12-2011, 2:41 PM
Pretty much what dantodd said.

But it is also my understanding that Chuck Michel effectively told our legislators that passing AB144 would mean virtual Shall Issue carry licensing for this state. The way I understand it is that Peruta (represented by Michel's firm) goes back to the district court and asks that the court's decision be vacated since officially legal UOC was her reason for denying Peruta relief. Similar scenario to what dantodd outlined except that Peruta actually has to go back to the court.

But I really suspect there is another element to what is going to happen with regard to AB144. When I heard Chuck Michel on the radio he sounded like he just might be representing a UOC group. Others who are more plugged in believe I'm taking this too far and they may be right.

But my exceedingly limited legal knowledge suggests that AB144 is inviting a 1st Amendment challenge. It would not shock me if RCoC has retained Michel's firm and is planning a public event to kick off a legal action. And no, no one has told me anything beyond what is publicly available so I could be wrong to a huge degree.

But note that there is some synergy to having a 1A case against AB144 and at the same time having a case which may be vacated due to AB144's passage.

I can't help speculating. But it is not much (if any) more than speculation.

Edit: I had just heard excerpts previously and it sounded stronger (toward UOC representation) than did the full interview. I found the interview and while it is suggestive it is not as strong as the spliced together comments. Here's a link: http://wpc.309d.edgecastcdn.net/80309D/kmjl/common/global_audio/174/36796.mp3

viet4lifeOC
10-12-2011, 3:24 PM
I'm confused. Why fight UOC ban when it is a great way to argue whaypt we want..shall issue LTC? Personally, I see anything short of shall, issue LTC as losing.



Pretty much what dantodd said.

But it is also my understanding that Chuck Michel effectively told our legislators that passing AB144 would mean virtual Shall Issue carry licensing for this state. The way I understand it is that Peruta (represented by Michel's firm) goes back to the district court and asks that the court's decision be vacated since officially legal UOC was her reason for denying Peruta relief. Similar scenario to what dantodd outlined except that Peruta actually has to go back to the court.

But I really suspect there is another element to what is going to happen with regard to AB144. When I heard Chuck Michel on the radio he sounded like he just might be representing a UOC group. Others who are more plugged in believe I'm taking this too far and they may be right.

But my exceedingly limited legal knowledge suggests that AB144 is inviting a 1st Amendment challenge. It would not shock me if RCoC has retained Michel's firm and is planning a public event to kick off a legal action. And no, no one has told me anything beyond what is publicly available so I could be wrong to a huge degree.

But note that there is some synergy to having a 1A case against AB144 and at the same time having a case which may be vacated due to AB144's passage.

I can't help speculating. But it is not much (if any) more than speculation.

Edit: I had just heard excerpts previously and it sounded stronger (toward UOC representation) than did the full interview. I found the interview and while it is suggestive it is not as strong as the spliced together comments. Here's a link: http://wpc.309d.edgecastcdn.net/80309D/kmjl/common/global_audio/174/36796.mp3

OleCuss
10-12-2011, 3:37 PM
The sequencing should work out pretty well. Peruta and Richards get their respective injunctions.

Then if some entity such as RCoC wins an injunction against AB144 on 1A grounds, effectively locking UOC into case law as a free speech issue rather than as a RKBA issue - then it remedies many of the issues people are going to have with transporting their non-functional firearms and should make it at least somewhat difficult for someone to go back to the court and say, "Well, they got their 1A right back so now we can once again kill off their 2A rights".

Much better scenario than if someone managed to go to a court asking for an injunction based on 2A grounds. That might mean that you get a rather moronic court to lock UOC into case law as a 2A issue - and that might mean you don't get UOC and you may damage virtual shall issue as well.

So I see a common interest for Peruta and for UOC to get UOC established in court as a 1A right and get it reversed on those grounds.

But IANAL and could be way off base.

A more direct answer is that we believe in all civil rights. AB144 is violating our 1A right to free speech and should be reversed.

nicki
10-12-2011, 3:41 PM
On could argue that AB144 came into existence because of public rallies supporting open carry.

It definitely was in the news and it was a form of "unpopular political expression" just like say "flag burning".

Of course talking about a lawsuit and filing a proper one is another story, what seems like a "good idea" often is alot more complicated when you have to do the "details".

In theory I would like to see a lawsuit attacking not only AB144, but the Mulford Act and the 1000 foot school zone as well since all of those laws combined don't just regulate our right to bear arms, they eliminate it.

Since the right of "self defense" doesn't stop outside one's doorstep, the argument that the 2nd amendment applies only in one's home is absurd.

A person should have some means of being able to exercise their self defense rights without having to wait months for government approval if that approval is to come at all.

The history of the Mulford act is blantantly racists and the 1000 foot school zone garbage was a feel good law that doesn't deal with the problems that created them in the first place.

Nicki

CHS
10-12-2011, 3:55 PM
I'm confused. Why fight UOC ban when it is a great way to argue whaypt we want..shall issue LTC? Personally, I see anything short of shall, issue LTC as losing.

Because the right should not be limited to one form of carry or another.

You either have a right to carry loaded functional firearms in public, or not.

While *I* am one of those that certainly prefers LTC, what I WANT is an unrestricted right to carry loaded functional firearms for self defense. If that's open and on the belt, or concealed and in the waistband, whatever. I want it for everyone. Period. That's the way it should be.

BMartin1776
10-12-2011, 4:14 PM
If they do make a move to shall issue anyone have any idea how the application process would go. I mean cmon this is CA they will love to find any reason whatsoever to disarm someone or say no.

Does anyone think "personal self defense" will be a sufficient reason to get a CCW now that UOC is banned?

stix213
10-12-2011, 4:26 PM
If they do make a move to shall issue anyone have any idea how the application process would go. I mean cmon this is CA they will love to find any reason whatsoever to disarm someone or say no.

Does anyone think "personal self defense" will be a sufficient reason to get a CCW now that UOC is banned?

There is little expectation that the application process would change at all. The biggest change would be getting approved instead of denied.

nobody_special
10-12-2011, 10:06 PM
Because the right should not be limited to one form of carry or another.

Not that I disagree with that, but Heller specifically upheld restrictions on manner of carry. So that would clearly goes beyond the constitutional minimum.

For that reason, and given the political climate, I do not expect that we will ever again have open carry in California.

DSTER
10-12-2011, 10:48 PM
If I recall correctly Judge England I believe his names is, mentioned UOC in his decision upholding the San Diego Sheriffs CCW policy as an excuse. However I'm CYNICAL about a positive outcome because the 9th circuit to which that case is being appealed is very liberal. Heck they could argue that since you can carry a rifle or shotgun unloaded that the sheriff doesn't have to issue permits LOL. If CA had its own State Amendment regarding arms like 44 other States that would be helpful off-course. Since there are more gun owners in CA than any other State you'd think we would've gotten one by now (???). Someone get a petition going Yee ha!

Bigtime1
10-13-2011, 11:09 AM
... Heck they could argue that since you can carry a rifle or shotgun unloaded that the sheriff doesn't have to issue permits LOL.

I can picture the news coverage of 30 people with EBRs slung over their shoulders enjoy a latte at Starbucks.

Faced with the reality of what we now have to work with I hope that an outcome (note I didn't put an adjective before the word outcome, so breathe deep before pounding on me) is that AB144s passing accelerates the process of the courts forcing virtual shall-issue upon the recalcitrant Sheriff's within California.

I think its important for our side to remain calm, cool and calculating and leave the emotional knee-jerk responses to the loony anti-2A crowd. I don't want to make some big grandstand noise, I don't want to teach anyone a lesson, I just want The State to stop interfering with my desire to exercise my God-Given rights.

sholling
10-13-2011, 2:07 PM
I'm confused. Why fight UOC ban when it is a great way to argue whaypt we want..shall issue LTC? Personally, I see anything short of shall, issue LTC as losing.
There is a niche group within the gun rights community that has no desire for shall-issue LTC to ever happen and instead want loaded open carry only. Within that niche group is an even smaller group that would rather see carry in all forms outlawed than accept concealed carry as the only legal form of carry. Those are the ones threatening to UOC their mean looking rifles.

I can picture the news coverage of 30 people with EBRs slung over their shoulders enjoy a latte at Starbucks.
That would just succeed in getting a law passed forbidding any form of unlicensed carry and possibly get us a NYC style license to buy/possess system put into place based on the theory that some people are too dense to be trusted with guns.

viet4lifeOC
10-13-2011, 3:22 PM
There is a niche group within the gun rights community that has no desire for shall-issue LTC to ever happen and instead want loaded open carry only. Within that niche group is an even smaller group that would rather see carry in all forms outlawed than accept concealed carry as the only legal form of carry.


Thanks for the clarification.

I never UOC. I don't oppose those that UOC. I don't blame UOC for the ban because the were exercising a lawful act. I don't buy the argument that UOC should have done it "quietly." However, I would love to get an LTC...and am glad that UOC was banned if it might help CA LTC case in court.

CitaDeL
10-13-2011, 4:00 PM
There is a niche group within the gun rights community that has no desire for shall-issue LTC to ever happen and instead want loaded open carry only. Within that niche group is an even smaller group that would rather see carry in all forms outlawed than accept concealed carry as the only legal form of carry. Those are the ones threatening to UOC their mean looking rifles.


That would just succeed in getting a law passed forbidding any form of unlicensed carry and possibly get us a NYC style license to buy/possess system put into place based on the theory that some people are too dense to be trusted with guns.

I think you are misinterpreting a desire to simply have the choice to carry concealed or carry openly. Further, you are suggesting that the kinds of people who are threatening to UOC long guns have an agenda to get all forms of carry prohibited. Factually, this is already highly restricted or already prohibited- their strategy is for nothing more than exertion in spite of the possible consquences... this does not mean that they intend to have all forms of carry or 'transport' prohibited.

J.D.Allen
10-13-2011, 4:31 PM
Because the right should not be limited to one form of carry or another.

You either have a right to carry loaded functional firearms in public, or not.

While *I* am one of those that certainly prefers LTC, what I WANT is an unrestricted right to carry loaded functional firearms for self defense. If that's open and on the belt, or concealed and in the waistband, whatever. I want it for everyone. Period. That's the way it should be.

Don't forget concealed and on the belt. Some of us carry that way too. :thumbsup:

Maestro Pistolero
10-13-2011, 5:23 PM
I am for an all-out straight challenge to AB144. As long as the state has discretionary issuance of licenses, open carry has got to be protected. It is the only form of carry that the Heller unequivocally referred to as historically protected.

sholling
10-13-2011, 5:28 PM
I think you are misinterpreting a desire to simply have the choice to carry concealed or carry openly.
Sure it would be nice to have a choice. It would be nice to have a lot of things. The reality is that it's going to take at least 10-15 years of shall issue concealed carry before the public is once again comfortable enough with being around guns in public to allow open carry to become legal (if they ever allow it) and no amount of temper tantrums is going to change that reality.

Further, you are suggesting that the kinds of people who are threatening to UOC long guns have an agenda to get all forms of carry prohibited.
That was not what I said. I stated that there is a small group that would rather cost us all any shot at carry rights then accept concealed carry only (see below).

There is a niche group within the gun rights community that has no desire for shall-issue LTC to ever happen and instead want loaded open carry only. Within that niche group is an even smaller group that would rather see carry in all forms outlawed than accept concealed carry as the only legal form of carry. Those are the ones threatening to UOC their mean looking rifles.

their strategy is for nothing more than exertion in spite of the possible consquences
That's what I said. I stand by my statement. In fact one poster said as much in another thread - and no I'm not going to spend my evening looking for his childish post.

gun toting monkeyboy
10-13-2011, 5:50 PM
Personally I would like for us to have the option to LOC or LTC. But I would be happy with one or the other, just so long as there was a legal way to carry a loaded firearm. If the state wants to play games, and say that only long guns are allowed, I am more than happy to go wandering down the street with a shotgun over my shoulder. It won't take more than a couple of weeks to get the soccer moms screaming about it. Same goes for LOC if that is the way they want to do it. As much as the Left hates guns, and the idea of us mere mortals being able to get LTC on demand, I think that their Chicken Little constituents will raise a bigger fuss when they see us taking them up on how we can carry. Their outlawing UOC annoys us for now, but they just shot themselves in the foot long term.

-Mb

Darklyte27
10-13-2011, 6:45 PM
You do realize it's only Wednesday, the third day after the signing.

Does Macy's tell Gimbels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy%27s#In_popular_culture)?

and it feels like 3 years..