Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #8601  
Old 05-24-2017, 5:23 PM
smn smn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 57
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Caetano survived nine relists. Peruta is at seven. I'd love to have another per curiam opinion supporting the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. No other fundamental right requires burdensome permission.
Reply With Quote
  #8602  
Old 05-24-2017, 6:26 PM
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County California
Posts: 1,208
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smn View Post
Caetano survived nine relists. Peruta is at seven. I'd love to have another per curiam opinion supporting the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. No other fundamental right requires burdensome permission.
I did not know that Caetano survived nine relists but that is encouraging. Although 9 relist seems strange, since there apparently was no opposition by the liberals on the court.

I do have a question for the constitutional scholars. Is there any possibility that the court could grant cert and then hold that the 9th should not have allowed the State of California to intervene, because they lacked standing, with a remand to the 9th to deny the request for intervention. What makes me consider this is the gay marriage case when the court held that those supporting the initiative measure did not have standing because they were not representing the State, the same as the AG was not representing Sheriff Gore.
Reply With Quote
  #8603  
Old 05-25-2017, 8:33 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,769
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Yes - I would love to hear from the legal beagles - do procedural rules (not that I think the cert writ contained these arguments) allow one to say "they screwed us procedurally in the 9CA" and on that basis we want the ruling reviewed?

I mean, the en banc Court took great pains to wipe out the 3-judge panel ruling (which was spot on as a matter of law IMHO) and then re-worked the question to address claims not made in the prior litigation
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools

Last edited by Drivedabizness; 05-25-2017 at 8:49 AM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #8604  
Old 05-25-2017, 9:56 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
I did not know that Caetano survived nine relists but that is encouraging. Although 9 relist seems strange, since there apparently was no opposition by the liberals on the court.
Caetano was relisted after Scalia died. The non-Kc explanation is that SCOTUS was going to make another sweeping, awesome 2nd amendment ruling with the perfect plaintiff- then he ****ing died, and we got a weaksauce GVR.

Which would predict we're due for another strong ruling. But then, we don't have the most sympathetic plaintiff ever, about a less-lethal weapon, so maybe not.

Or there's a Kc explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Yes - I wold love to hear from the legal beagles - do procedural rules (not that I think the cert writ contained these arguments) allow one to say "they screwed us procedurally in the 9CA" and on that basis we want the ruling reviewed?

I mean, the en banc Court took great pains to wipe out the 3-judge panel ruling (which was spot on as a matter of law IMHO) and then re-worked the question to address claims not made in the prior litigation
Unless it's a provable, black-and-white issue, it comes down to politics.

Count to five and all that. Of course, if courts have integrity it means that should be a likely challenge. If they're truly outcome based though, then no.

Kc court test confirmed.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #8605  
Old 05-25-2017, 4:30 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
I did not know that Caetano survived nine relists but that is encouraging. Although 9 relist seems strange, since there apparently was no opposition by the liberals on the court.

I do have a question for the constitutional scholars. Is there any possibility that the court could grant cert and then hold that the 9th should not have allowed the State of California to intervene, because they lacked standing, with a remand to the 9th to deny the request for intervention. What makes me consider this is the gay marriage case when the court held that those supporting the initiative measure did not have standing because they were not representing the State, the same as the AG was not representing Sheriff Gore.
Not a constitutional scholar but the intervention issue alone won't accomplish anything and here's why:

The 9th was going to reverse the 3 judge panel's ruling no matter what. Even if the state was barred from intervening, remember the companion Richards case still had Sheriff Prieto willing to fight on and filed for en banc. That case would simply become the vehicle instead of Peruta. The opinion doesn't change much with or without the state's participation.

So, IMO, if SCOTUS were to simply send this back to the 9th saying CA cannot participate, we will end up with several more wasted years and another similar opinion.

Last edited by Librarian; 05-25-2017 at 8:19 PM.. Reason: Moved the [/b] outside the [/quote]
Reply With Quote
  #8606  
Old 05-25-2017, 4:35 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Caetano was relisted after Scalia died. The non-Kc explanation is that SCOTUS was going to make another sweeping, awesome 2nd amendment ruling with the perfect plaintiff- then he ****ing died, and we got a weaksauce GVR.

Which would predict we're due for another strong ruling. But then, we don't have the most sympathetic plaintiff ever, about a less-lethal weapon, so maybe not.

Or there's a Kc explanation.


Unless it's a provable, black-and-white issue, it comes down to politics.

Count to five and all that. Of course, if courts have integrity it means that should be a likely challenge. If they're truly outcome based though, then no.

Kc court test confirmed.
Only Alito and Thomas signed off on the Caetano concurrence, with Scalia that's still only 3
Reply With Quote
  #8607  
Old 05-25-2017, 11:44 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Only Alito and Thomas signed off on the Caetano concurrence, with Scalia that's still only 3
Yes, welcome to the dismal math.

Of course, somehow, magically, Gorsuch by himself will be able to wrangle not only his own vote, but two others- more than DOUBLING the pro-gun justices on the court because of his appointment.

Pretty nifty trick eh? Gorsuch the magic svengali?

Other people have some good theories, and my personal minority report theory of how KC might be wrong is that Caetano was originally going to have the heller 5 reunite for a stronger decision, but Scalia died, and out of frustration Alito wrote the concurrence that neither Kennedy nor Roberts wanted to rock the boat/too far for them.

It would have been a crappy, hand offering to help you up and then kicking you in the ribs while getting pulled up, but half a loaf vs. a full loaf and all that.

If anyone's interested, I'll ask some of my more esoteric friends how to get a death ritual/wish for someone's death. Feel free to PM me if it's too ghoulish to admit to in public.

*note* this should NOT be seen as a call to ACTUAL violence, or any watch-list worthy activities, but free expression and freedom of religion to call for divine powers to intervene, which is expressly not banned or considered incitation of mortals- which is all the laws are concerned with.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #8608  
Old 05-26-2017, 4:53 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Yes, welcome to the dismal math.

Of course, somehow, magically, Gorsuch by himself will be able to wrangle not only his own vote, but two others- more than DOUBLING the pro-gun justices on the court because of his appointment.

Pretty nifty trick eh? Gorsuch the magic svengali?

Other people have some good theories, and my personal minority report theory of how KC might be wrong is that Caetano was originally going to have the heller 5 reunite for a stronger decision, but Scalia died, and out of frustration Alito wrote the concurrence that neither Kennedy nor Roberts wanted to rock the boat/too far for them.

It would have been a crappy, hand offering to help you up and then kicking you in the ribs while getting pulled up, but half a loaf vs. a full loaf and all that.

If anyone's interested, I'll ask some of my more esoteric friends how to get a death ritual/wish for someone's death. Feel free to PM me if it's too ghoulish to admit to in public.

*note* this should NOT be seen as a call to ACTUAL violence, or any watch-list worthy activities, but free expression and freedom of religion to call for divine powers to intervene, which is expressly not banned or considered incitation of mortals- which is all the laws are concerned with.
I agree partially, it's quite clear Alito (and Thomas) are frustrated with the lower courts' refusal to properly apply Heller/McDonald.
I don't agree that the Heller 5 were going to take the case. I think if that were the case, we would have had a concurrence with Roberts & Kennedy, albeit a weaker one and then perhaps the more forceful Alito/Thomas.
Reply With Quote
  #8609  
Old 05-26-2017, 5:38 AM
smn smn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 57
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

On another board I was corrected - Peruta has had only two relists. The rest were reschedules, so we're not to seven relists yet. It doesn't change my hopes one way or another. Today we find out *something*, right? It's still on the relist list.

Quote:
(relisted after the April 28, May 11 and May 18 conferences)
Reply With Quote
  #8610  
Old 05-26-2017, 8:33 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smn View Post
On another board I was corrected - Peruta has had only two relists. The rest were reschedules, so we're not to seven relists yet. It doesn't change my hopes one way or another. Today we find out *something*, right? It's still on the relist list.
No. You must have drank the Kool-Aid offered by the lengthy "experience" of someone here who claimed the results of Thursday conferences was posted either Thursday afternoon or Friday morning. So far he's been 100% wrong.

According the the SCOTUSblog calendar "Orders" will be announced on Tuesday, May 30 (the day after the Memorial Day Monday holiday).
Reply With Quote
  #8611  
Old 05-26-2017, 8:37 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,935
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Relisted / rescheduled ..... tomato / tomaaato ....

New article just published by Ammoland is starting to sound a little more pessimistic in their outlook .... even though they SAY they remain optimistic .

Supreme Court Reschedules Concealed Carry Case For Eighth Time


Quote:
Previously we mentioned a number of reasons why they could be rescheduling the case repeatedly, including:

New Justice Neil Gorsuch is still playing catch-up reading the over 200 cases the court was reviewing when he was confirmed to the court and has not yet read Peruta. This seems less likely since the case actually made it to conference last Friday and was not rescheduled beforehand.
There are 3 justices that want to take the case, out of the four necessary, and there is haggling over the votes.
There are 4 justices who want to take the case, but are doing their due diligence to see if they can get to the magic number 5 to overturn it.
The case is being denied and the Justices who wanted to take it are writing a lengthy dissent.

These reasons, however, make less sense now considering that this is the eighth time that the SCOTUS has rescheduled this case for conference to decide whether or not to hear the case.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #8612  
Old 05-26-2017, 9:18 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Relisted / rescheduled ..... tomato / tomaaato ....

New article just published by Ammoland is starting to sound a little more pessimistic in their outlook .... even though they SAY they remain optimistic .

Supreme Court Reschedules Concealed Carry Case For Eighth Time
Are you saying you believe that when the case is "rescheduled" prior to being officially reviewed/discussed in conference (and then "relisted" after being officially discussed the first time) that they are talking about it at conference or outside of conference with each other? If so, what is the basis for that belief?
Reply With Quote
  #8613  
Old 05-26-2017, 11:59 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Relisted / rescheduled ..... tomato / tomaaato ....

New article just published by Ammoland is starting to sound a little more pessimistic in their outlook .... even though they SAY they remain optimistic .

Supreme Court Reschedules Concealed Carry Case For Eighth Time
The Gorsuch thing is interesting, but someone else on the court had to get the case rescheduled so that Gorsuch can weigh in on it. Other cases that came in at the same time were disposed of.
So, again, something's going on here.
Reply With Quote
  #8614  
Old 05-26-2017, 12:27 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,788
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The Gorsuch thing is interesting, but someone else on the court had to get the case rescheduled so that Gorsuch can weigh in on it. Other cases that came in at the same time were disposed of.
So, again, something's going on here.
P o l i t i c s

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #8615  
Old 05-26-2017, 1:02 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,935
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Are you saying you believe that when the case is "rescheduled" prior to being officially reviewed/discussed in conference (and then "relisted" after being officially discussed the first time) that they are talking about it at conference or outside of conference with each other? If so, what is the basis for that belief?


let me say that again ...



I didn't say (or even imply) any of that. So to answer you first question, NO.
Therefore, Your second question is moot.

Is there a full moon going on I don't know about, or did I accidentally post on OT
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #8616  
Old 05-26-2017, 1:06 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,935
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The Gorsuch thing is interesting, but someone else on the court had to get the case rescheduled so that Gorsuch can weigh in on it. Other cases that came in at the same time were disposed of.
So, again, something's going on here.
Agreed. He just might tip the balance, or at least someone on the court might think so .... and ... wants to give him a shot at weighing in ...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #8617  
Old 05-26-2017, 1:41 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,513
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....les/16-983.htm

Why isn't anyone talking about this? Binderup has been relisted twice and the government asked for cert!

Important to Peruta because cases are being asked for cert at the same time.

Last edited by wireless; 05-26-2017 at 1:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8618  
Old 05-26-2017, 1:52 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post


let me say that again ...



I didn't say (or even imply) any of that. So to answer you first question, NO.
Therefore, Your second question is moot.

Is there a full moon going on I don't know about, or did I accidentally post on OT
Wow. So when you wrote "Relisted / rescheduled ..... tomato / tomaaato ...." you did NOT mean that there is no substantive difference between a "relist" and "reschedule"? Because that's exactly what "tomato/tomaaato" means... no substantive difference, only a "superficial" difference... both words/pronunciations refer to THE EXACT SAME THING.

Here's an actual description: "Used to dismissively suggest that something is a distinction without a difference."

There is clearly a substantial and significant difference between "relist" and "reschedule".

Full moon indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #8619  
Old 05-26-2017, 3:05 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,935
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Wow. So when you wrote "Relisted / rescheduled ..... tomato / tomaaato ...." you did NOT mean that there is no substantive difference between a "relist" and "reschedule"? Because that's exactly what "tomato/tomaaato" means... no substantive difference, only a "superficial" difference... both words/pronunciations refer to THE EXACT SAME THING.

Here's an actual description: "Used to dismissively suggest that something is a distinction without a difference."

There is clearly a substantial and significant difference between "relist" and "reschedule".

Full moon indeed.
Congrats ...

You just earned a three-fer





__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #8620  
Old 05-26-2017, 4:50 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,935
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....les/16-983.htm

Why isn't anyone talking about this? Binderup has been relisted twice and the government asked for cert!

Important to Peruta because cases are being asked for cert at the same time.
Might be for one of the same reasons ... a courtesy to Gorsuch, to let him get up to speed?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #8621  
Old 05-26-2017, 5:30 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Might be for one of the same reasons ... a courtesy to Gorsuch, to let him get up to speed?
Or Gorsuch is evil and wants to destroy the second amendment.

You know, just getting a range of possibilities out there.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #8622  
Old 05-26-2017, 5:46 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,513
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Correctly me if I'm wrong but binderup created a circuit split with the 4th AND the government asked for cert in binderup. The conditions for them taking the case couldn't be better than that?
Reply With Quote
  #8623  
Old 05-26-2017, 6:47 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Correctly me if I'm wrong but binderup created a circuit split with the 4th AND the government asked for cert in binderup. The conditions for them taking the case couldn't be better than that?
I'd take the worst caselaw and a bunch of Thomases and Alitos vs. the best case history and our current court setup.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #8624  
Old 05-26-2017, 7:06 PM
tsnoforn tsnoforn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 90
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Except of course, in Scalia's regulation scenario, open carry was not forbidden by law.


Educate me, is open carry illegal in CA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #8625  
Old 05-26-2017, 7:17 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsnoforn View Post
Educate me, is open carry illegal in CA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, unless you have a permit from a county with less than 100,000, only valid in said county, or on duty with a guard card or as a police officer.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #8626  
Old 05-26-2017, 7:32 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,515
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsnoforn View Post
Educate me, is open carry illegal in CA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Yes, unless you have a permit from a county with less than 100,000, only valid in said county, or on duty with a guard card or as a police officer.
Specifically, PC 25850
Quote:
25850.

(a) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
- you can't carry a loaded firearm at all, without the permit - combined with PC 26350
Quote:
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.

(B) A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county or city and county.

(C) A public place in a prohibited area of a county or city and county.

(2) A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded handgun when that person carries an exposed and unloaded handgun inside or on a vehicle, whether or not on his or her person, while in or on any of the following:

(A) A public place or public street in an incorporated city or city and county.

(B) A public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county or city and county.

(C) A public place in a prohibited area of a county or city and county.
Generally, if you are at a place where it is legal to shoot, you may carry openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, free from violating state law.
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 05-26-2017 at 7:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8627  
Old 05-26-2017, 7:59 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Eastern Ventura County
Posts: 2,440
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Yes, unless you have a permit from a county with less than 100,000, only valid in said county, or on duty with a guard card or as a police officer.
What Librarian said.

CA Penal Codes 26150(b)(2) and 26155(b)(2) apply.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015


Reply With Quote
  #8628  
Old 05-27-2017, 1:37 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Might be for one of the same reasons ... a courtesy to Gorsuch, to let him get up to speed?
Other cases got thrown in the trash without comment, so obviously another court member (or members) specifically want Gorsuch's input if that's the case.
Reply With Quote
  #8629  
Old 05-27-2017, 2:04 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,935
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yup ...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:24 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.