Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   AB 1527 Open carry of long guns & AB 1559 passed by the Governor (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=625628)

taperxz 09-28-2012 12:58 PM

AB 1527 Open carry of long guns & AB 1559 passed by the Governor
 
Brown signed these two pieces of legislation.

http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17766


Open carry of long guns will be illegal!!

taperxz 09-28-2012 1:16 PM

I no longer believe JB is a good governor or friend of firearms. :(

OleCuss 09-28-2012 1:23 PM

He's not a good governor, and he is not a good friend of the RKBA.

He's just better than we've recently had.

meaty-btz 09-28-2012 1:24 PM

1559 confuses me.

As for 1527, so... winning are we?

stix213 09-28-2012 1:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 9415584)
I no longer believe JB is a good governor or friend of firearms. :(

Friend may be too strong, but he was the most pro-gun out of the two options.

Mg911guy 09-28-2012 1:24 PM

Does this help us with any current court cases? We now have no option to open carry any firearms. Wasn't there a previous case that was dismissed because we had the option to open carry?

OleCuss 09-28-2012 1:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 9415656)
Friend may be too strong, but he was the most pro-gun out of the two options.

I understand the arguments behind that and why a reasonable person could believe it.

But I think Meg Whitman would have been better for us in both the short- and the long-term.

taperxz 09-28-2012 1:27 PM

I sure hope a lawsuit is filed by the NRA or SAF on this matter!!

taperxz 09-28-2012 1:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 9415656)
Friend may be too strong, but he was the most pro-gun out of the two options.

Yes i understand that. I was truly hoping he would "shoot" this one down though! urrrrr

cdtx2001 09-28-2012 1:28 PM

There is no way to legally carry a firearm in CA without the blessing/permission of the gooberment. Where do I sue?

tenpercentfirearms 09-28-2012 1:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdtx2001 (Post 9415699)
There is no way to legally carry a firearm in CA without the blessing/permission of the gooberment. Where do I sue?

Yeah I am thinking they just want a court case to go through as fast as possible.

taperxz 09-28-2012 1:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms (Post 9415736)
Yeah I am thinking they just want a court case to go through as fast as possible.

Really? or should your comment be taken with sarcasm. Just asking...

Dantedamean 09-28-2012 1:36 PM

What the hell does 1559 do? I read it but I don't really understand what's its saying.

meaty-btz 09-28-2012 1:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dantedamean (Post 9415766)
What the hell does 1559 do? I read it but I don't really understand what's its saying.

I read it all the way through four times and it still does not make any sense. Does anyone know the impact of 1559.

I think we all get the impact of banning all open carry but seriously, is 1559 some kind of super secret back door ban/impactor. They are unlikely to put effort into a bill that does not restrict. So what then does it restrict.

CCWFacts 09-28-2012 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mg911guy (Post 9415657)
Does this help us with any current court cases? We now have no option to open carry any firearms. Wasn't there a previous case that was dismissed because we had the option to open carry?

I had the same thought when I saw this. This might be helpful to us in our court cases. If there's any right to bear (carry) arms in California, the only way to exercise that right is a LTC.

tenpercentfirearms 09-28-2012 1:44 PM

1559 reduces the amount of money that business has to pay to buy guns you can't have and enables the movie industry to make money on guns you can't have. It actually is a pro-business deal, but a little hypocritical since we can't be trusted with guns, but the movie prop guys can.

meaty-btz 09-28-2012 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms (Post 9415830)
1559 reduces the amount of money that business has to pay to buy guns you can't have and enables the movie industry to make money on guns you can't have. It actually is a pro-business deal, but a little hypocritical since we can't be trusted with guns, but the movie prop guys can.

Is that really it? Hmmm...

J.D.Allen 09-28-2012 1:46 PM

When does the long gun open carry ban go into effect?

chicoredneck 09-28-2012 1:49 PM

I smell a lawsuit. How are you supposed to carry your gun when you are using it?

tenpercentfirearms 09-28-2012 1:49 PM

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01120120AB1527

Uxi 09-28-2012 1:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 9415656)
Friend may be too strong, but he was the most pro-gun out of the two options.

Maybe in the same way that herpes is better than HIV.

stix213 09-28-2012 1:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.D.Allen (Post 9415859)
When does the long gun open carry ban go into effect?

I don't see a date in the bill, so I think that means Jan 1 2013. Someone correct me if wrong.

Mg911guy 09-28-2012 1:58 PM

Hey what does this mean it's from AB1527 didn't he veto SB 1366?
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 16520 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1366, that would become operative only if SB 1366 and this bill are both enacted, both bills become effective on or before January 1, 2013, and this bill is enacted last.

I read it Here

taperxz 09-28-2012 1:59 PM

Hunters are exempted again.

(j) By a licensed hunter while engaged in hunting or while transporting that firearm when going to or returning from that hunting expedition.

sandman21 09-28-2012 2:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 9415785)
I had the same thought when I saw this. This might be helpful to us in our court cases. If there's any right to bear (carry) arms in California, the only way to exercise that right is a LTC.

You can still LUCC, that will satisfy carry in CA. This is not going to speed up the process, we have had a ban on UOC for almost a year, no progress on the cases.

First thought I had was, great just lost UOC of rifles because everyone thought it would magically advance the court cases.

Sarde 09-28-2012 2:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicoredneck (Post 9415877)
I smell a lawsuit. How are you supposed to carry your gun when you are using it?

While we all think this is simply the next step to get a substantive ability to carry (i.e. CCW). I never thought unloaded open carry of any form was what the 2nd amendment had in mind for being armed in case of conflict. An unloaded gun is as useful as a hunk of metal (or for you glock lovers a Tupperware of leftovers :hide: )

I cant say I am disappointed because I expected it. I don't like it, but I hope more good may come from it ;)

sakosf 09-28-2012 2:07 PM

"(c) When the firearm is either in a locked container or encased and it is being transported directly between places where a person is not prohibited from possessing that firearm and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances."

Does this only apply if the firearm is not being transported in a motor vehicle?

meaty-btz 09-28-2012 2:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mg911guy (Post 9415947)
Hey what does this mean it's from AB1527 didn't he veto SB 1366?
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 16520 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1366, that would become operative only if SB 1366 and this bill are both enacted, both bills become effective on or before January 1, 2013, and this bill is enacted last.

I read it Here


Wait so.. do.. crap. I admit it, was this a tactical move on Brown's part or am I giving him too much credit? Because it would be brilliant political move, it true, talk about pandering to two opposing sides at once.


EDIT

NO NO NO, that is referring to the alterations to 16520 (firearms definitions) as prescribed in 1366 only if both bills are passed. So only the definitions of a firearm in 16520 are unaltered, the ban stands.

Mg911guy 09-28-2012 2:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meaty-btz (Post 9416031)

Wait so.. do.. crap. I admit it, was this a tactical move on Brown's part or am I giving him too much credit? Because it would be brilliant political move, it true, talk about pandering to two opposing sides at once.


EDIT

NO NO NO, that is referring to the alterations to 16520 (firearms definitions) as prescribed in 1366 only if both bills are passed. So only the definitions of a firearm in 16520 are unaltered, the ban stands.

Thanks I was confused.

Uxi 09-28-2012 2:12 PM

On the whole doesn't affect me anyway since I'm still locked within overlapping victim disarmament zones. I never had a non-infringed right to bear arms in LA county anyway.

meaty-btz 09-28-2012 2:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mg911guy (Post 9416058)
Thanks I was confused.

Me too till I read 1366

Tripper 09-28-2012 2:33 PM

where do I volunteer to be a test case

shy 7th 09-28-2012 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripper (Post 9416228)
where do I volunteer to be a test case

LOL, that's easy. It's specifically mentioned in the text:

Quote:

Originally Posted by the bill
26400.
(a) A person is guilty of carrying an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun in an incorporated city or city and county when that person carries upon his or her person an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun outside a vehicle while in the incorporated city or city and county.

So for most of us, we can volunteer just by walking right out our front doors.

littlejake 09-28-2012 2:50 PM

Let's recall J.B. We got rid of Gray Davis (we didn't get any better with Arnold); but, let's kick them out as fast as they can elect them.

vantec08 09-28-2012 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taperxz (Post 9415962)
Hunters are exempted again.

(j) By a licensed hunter while engaged in hunting or while transporting that firearm when going to or returning from that hunting expedition.

Right. The politicos STILL think the 2nd is about hunting.

morfeeis 09-28-2012 3:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mg911guy (Post 9415657)
Does this help us with any current court cases? We now have no option to open carry any firearms. Wasn't there a previous case that was dismissed because we had the option to open carry?

I don't think there is any help for us, now they'll just say carry a knife or pepper spray.

YubaRiver 09-28-2012 3:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morfeeis (Post 9416453)
I don't think there is any help for us, now they'll just say carry a knife or pepper spray.

Those are already illegal as weapons.

taperxz 09-28-2012 3:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vantec08 (Post 9416423)
Right. The politicos STILL think the 2nd is about hunting.

My take on this is you gotta pay to play in this state. Hunters get more leeway on carry. Hopefully this will mean LTC's for all that want to pay to play at this point anyway.

Cnynrat 09-28-2012 3:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sakosf (Post 9416027)
"(c) When the firearm is either in a locked container or encased and it is being transported directly between places where a person is not prohibited from possessing that firearm and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances."

IANAL, but it would seem to me that this provision could be challenged on the grounds that it is unconstitutionally vague. Who decides what is reasonably necessary?

Flopper 09-28-2012 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morfeeis (Post 9416453)
I don't think there is any help for us, now they'll just say carry a knife or pepper spray.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YubaRiver (Post 9416476)
Those are already illegal as weapons.

To YubaRiver: WTF are you smokin'???


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.