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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 03-22-2017, 6:52 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

this is just another D-bag Democrat wanting to make a name for himself.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-06-2017, 6:25 PM
bool1tholz bool1tholz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 432
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default Assembly Appropriations Committee Apr 5, 2017

AB-7 Gipson Firearms: open carry. (2017-2018)

Assembly Appropriations Committee Apr 5, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUqMCiGdPAs
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-06-2017, 6:41 PM
2Aallday 2Aallday is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
Next they define a "prohibited area" to be anywhere within 1,000 yards of a deer.
Quite literally a moving target.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-06-2017, 7:56 PM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: AZ & CA
Posts: 3,987
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
Next they define a "prohibited area" to be anywhere within 1,000 yards of a deer.
Oh yeah. This is where they have been heading the whole time.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-06-2017, 7:57 PM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: AZ & CA
Posts: 3,987
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
this is just another D-bag Democrat wanting to make a name for himself.
On our backs.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-07-2017, 7:51 AM
Hunt's Avatar
Hunt Hunt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,832
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

their end game is to make gun laws like Hawaii. Legal gun possession only at "approved" gun range, gunsmith or "approved" hunting area ONLY. Must check in and out of some hunting areas, stop for gas enroute to any of the above and you commit a felony, 10 rounds of ammo = 10 separate felonies. No overnight camping in hunting areas, no guns at campsites anywhere in the State.
__________________
Protect public lands access Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is offering a free 30 day membership. http://www.backcountryhunters.org/
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-08-2017, 1:06 AM
ROMEOHOTEL's Avatar
ROMEOHOTEL ROMEOHOTEL is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: N OC
Posts: 196
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The larger issue here is that of enforcement. Such enforcement may include when the police act as interpreters of the law, especially in mistakes of law. Increasingly, the courts have shown a willingness to uphold police mistakes of the law which not only serve to violate their oath to uphold the law but condone the unlawful depravation of the freedoms of that person(s) accosted by misinterpretation of the law.

Further, any seizure of person or effects made of an unrelated offense are usually upheld by the courts. Clearly this is in violation of 4th Amendment protections. These gun laws, ever more absurd, are tantamount to the 'camel nose inside the tent'. What is needed is finding the individual police officer accountable to tort liability.

Do not think this an attack on LEO. Rather, it is to develop a strategy to correct the 'uncorrectable' of a one party state government. Most here agree that CA's state legislature is impracticable. The judicial is equally as such. For law abiding citizens who find the law onerous, there is this strategy. Failing this, there could be open rebellion.

As is the onus on the citizen to remain informed of and in obedience the law, to maintain themselves as 'law abiding' within an ever narrowing field, the same shall apply to officers and agents engaged in law enforcement. Mistakes cannot be tolerated. 'Ignorance of the law' on one part is no more or less than misinterpretation of the law on the other part.

That the legislature has apparently forfeited their part of the social compact is largely irrelevant to that relationship of citizen and law enforcement. Each shall uphold their oath, whether formal or informal. The consequences of error have grown ever larger, thanks to a tireless yet absconding legislature.
__________________
“The instruments by which governments must act are either the authority of the laws or force. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government there is an end to liberty!”- Alexander Hamilton
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-08-2017, 4:34 AM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 5,470
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROMEOHOTEL View Post
The larger issue here is that of enforcement. Such enforcement may include when the police act as interpreters of the law, especially in mistakes of law. Increasingly, the courts have shown a willingness to uphold police mistakes of the law which not only serve to violate their oath to uphold the law but condone the unlawful depravation of the freedoms of that person(s) accosted by misinterpretation of the law.

Further, any seizure of person or effects made of an unrelated offense are usually upheld by the courts. Clearly this is in violation of 4th Amendment protections. These gun laws, ever more absurd, are tantamount to the 'camel nose inside the tent'. What is needed is finding the individual police officer accountable to tort liability.

Do not think this an attack on LEO. Rather, it is to develop a strategy to correct the 'uncorrectable' of a one party state government. Most here agree that CA's state legislature is impracticable. The judicial is equally as such. For law abiding citizens who find the law onerous, there is this strategy. Failing this, there could be open rebellion.

As is the onus on the citizen to remain informed of and in obedience the law, to maintain themselves as 'law abiding' within an ever narrowing field, the same shall apply to officers and agents engaged in law enforcement. Mistakes cannot be tolerated. 'Ignorance of the law' on one part is no more or less than misinterpretation of the law on the other part.

That the legislature has apparently forfeited their part of the social compact is largely irrelevant to that relationship of citizen and law enforcement. Each shall uphold their oath, whether formal or informal. The consequences of error have grown ever larger, thanks to a tireless yet absconding legislature.
I see what you are saying but this is California we are talking about.
Your Rulers answer is: sit down peasant and obey The Man.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-20-2017, 9:27 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

This bill has now been passed by the Assembly by a vote of 44-29 (55%), and by the Seante Public Safety Committee by a vote of 5-2. Now heading back to Senate Appropriations Committee.

NRA email blast today is recommending calling members of that committee to voice your opposition

Quote:
Committee Members that must hear from you:

Senator Ricardo Lara (Chair) – (916) 651-4033
Senator Jim Beall – (916) 651-4015
Senator Steven Bradford – (916) 651-4035
Senator Jerry Hill – (916) 651-4013
Senator Scott Wiener – (916) 651-4011
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-21-2017, 3:00 AM
Go Navy's Avatar
Go Navy Go Navy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,764
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

What problem is this bill supposed to solve? This is absurd!
__________________
USN Veteran, Gun Owners of Calif. Member, NRA Life Member

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. ” (Ronald Reagan, 1964)
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-21-2017, 4:37 AM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 5,470
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Navy View Post
What problem is this bill supposed to solve? This is absurd!
They want to bust all the rural white gun owners who have guns in their pick up truck windows.

Will rural cops enforce this?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-21-2017, 7:04 AM
rp55's Avatar
rp55 rp55 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,625
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
NRA email blast today is recommending calling members of that committee to voice your opposition
Beall, Hill & Weiner? Really? You might as well call Feinstein and Pelosi while you are at it.
__________________
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j302/rpwhite55/guns/member13443.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-21-2017, 7:28 AM
FeuerFrei's Avatar
FeuerFrei FeuerFrei is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: sign said "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"
Posts: 3,731
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ONE PARTY RULE!


You get what you pay for.
I want my money back G-dammit!
__________________
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
-- Frederick Douglass --

“I didn’t know I was a slave until I found out I couldn’t do the things I wanted.”
– Frederick Douglass --
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-21-2017, 8:55 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rp55 View Post
Beall, Hill & Weiner? Really? You might as well call Feinstein and Pelosi while you are at it.
I thought the same thing when I read the list. They'll probably just tell us to move out of CA if we don't like what they're doing.

Still, pounding on their office phones with calls about their crap legislation is a fun way to pass the time.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-21-2017, 11:01 AM
voit's Avatar
voit voit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not a Cook View Post
Umm... I'm not sure that is correct. I believe it does make a substantial change.

For instance, at my house it is prohibited to discharge a firearm, but open carry of a long gun is NOT currently prohibited.

This bill would change things such that open carry of a long gun on my property would now be a misdemeanor.
As is current law, it should not effect the carrying of any firearm on YOUR personal property. Just don't point at your neighbor!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-21-2017, 11:12 AM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is online now
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 12,561
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
They want to bust all the rural white gun owners who have guns in their pick up truck windows.

Will rural cops enforce this?
This one makes no sense to me. If it is not a prohibited area of an unincorporated county, it is not a prohibited area.

If it is a prohibited area, it is already prohibited.

This bill will change nothing.
__________________
Just taking up space in the second-worst small town in California.

Last edited by Dutch3; 06-21-2017 at 11:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-21-2017, 11:18 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
This one makes no sense to me. If it is not a prohibited area of an unincorporated county, it is not a prohibited area.

If it is a prohibited area, it is already prohibited.

This bill will change nothing.
I've been trying to sort that out too, and I really don't have an answer on what this bill changes

There must be something I'm missing.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-21-2017 at 11:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-21-2017, 11:42 AM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is online now
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 12,561
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I've been trying to sort that out too, and I really don't have an answer on what this bill changes

There must be something I'm missing.
Either that, or Gipson is missing something. His comprehension of the English language seems to be tenuous at best. The bill was likely written by lobbyists anyway, who always seem to be allergic to fact and logic.
__________________
Just taking up space in the second-worst small town in California.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-21-2017, 11:57 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

In the bill analysis by the public safety committee on 6/19, they say this:

Quote:
Senator Portantino in 2011 and 2012 worked on legislation that banned open-carry in California. This legislation has widespread approval by the majority of Californians. Assembly Bill 7 will close a dangerous loophole that allows the open carry of long-guns in unincorporated areas. This is a completely unacceptable loophole because the flaunting of assault weapons invites mayhem, confusion, and fear. I will continue to stand with my colleagues in the legislature, gun safety advocates, and all of my constituents to reduce gun violence in California. I believe we have what it takes to rise above political division and enact laws that will strengthen public safety and reduce the plague of gun violence.
Quote:
When AB 1527 (Portantino) was passed it banned openly carrying a long gun in an incorporated area. At the time, the ban failed to include unincorporated areas. At the time it was thought that this would permit the carrying of firearms in areas which were less interested in prohibitions on open carrying of long guns. Additionally, the people were more likely to be carrying long guns in these areas for sporting or ranching purposes. However, the author and advocates of this legislation have indicated that there are areas within urban environments which are unincorporated. Large portions of Los Angeles County are actually unincorporated areas which are completely surrounded by incorporated areas. These areas are colloquially referred to as "doughnut holes." This bill would apply the ban on long guns to those areas as well.
Full committee analysis, including NRA rebuttal, can be found here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...=201720180AB7#

His justification, in his own words, has nothing to do with reducing gun violence, rather it's purely because he thinks guns look scary.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-21-2017 at 12:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:10 PM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 10,857
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I guess we can learn to shoot our rifles inside the case?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:28 PM
jtake jtake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 309
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

It looks like they eliminated the exception language so that regardless of how the long gun is cased/uncased, it would be illegal to have it outside a vehicle.

Ie in a case carrying it from the street to the range would violate PC 26400, same with having it in your place of business.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:37 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtake View Post
It looks like they eliminated the exception language so that regardless of how the long gun is cased/uncased, it would be illegal to have it outside a vehicle.
I'm not seeing where they eliminated that

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-21-2017 at 12:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:39 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The exact text of the Penal Code as amended by this bill, only says the following:

Quote:
"incorporated city or city and county"

is replaced with

"any of the following areas:
(1) An incorporated city or city and county.
(2) A public place or public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county."
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...d=201720180AB7

In other words, it only adds to the open carry of unloaded longguns law that we'll be prohibited from carrying in prohibited areas. Which, as Dutch3 pointed out, doesn't seem like it changes much since we already can't carry in prohibited areas, that's why they're called prohibited areas

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-21-2017 at 12:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:52 PM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is online now
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 12,561
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
In the bill analysis by the public safety committee on 6/19, they say this:

...snip...


His justification, in his own words, has nothing to do with reducing gun violence, rather it's purely because he thinks guns look scary.
But only if they are being 'flaunted'.

Seriously, how intellectually limited can someone be to equate 'open carry of a long gun' with 'flaunting of assault weapons'?
__________________
Just taking up space in the second-worst small town in California.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:54 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch3 View Post
But only if they are being 'flaunted'.

Seriously, how intellectually limited can someone be to equate 'open carry of a long gun' with 'flaunting of assault weapons'?
And what better place to "flaunt stuff" than in the middle of nowhere?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-21-2017, 1:01 PM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is online now
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 12,561
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
And what better place to "flaunt stuff" than in the middle of nowhere?
Right?

I was thinking about going out and doing some varmint patrol later after it cools off, with my 1981 Coast to Coast Hardware re-branded Mossberg 500. Now I may have to be concerned that I am flaunting an assault weapon, inciting mayhem and fear.
__________________
Just taking up space in the second-worst small town in California.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-21-2017, 2:45 PM
jtake jtake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 309
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Sorry -- looks like the link I clicked brought up the comparison between the different assembly versions where the language was added but then deleted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I'm not seeing where they eliminated that
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-21-2017, 2:51 PM
Scottie15's Avatar
Scottie15 Scottie15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 799
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

I don't see an exemption for hunting? Just:
  • By a licensed hunter while actually engaged in training a dog for the purpose of using the dog in hunting that is not prohibited by law, or while transporting the firearm while going to or returning form the training;

Am I missing something? Or is carrying a gun while hunting already exempted from the stupid OC ban stuff regardless of where that hunting is taking place).
__________________
Its an expensive hobby, but more expensive when you try and convince yourself you don't need what you really want.

Last edited by Scottie15; 06-21-2017 at 2:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-21-2017, 3:00 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottie15 View Post
I don't see an exemption for hunting? Just:
  • By a licensed hunter while actually engaged in training a dog for the purpose of using the dog in hunting that is not prohibited by law, or while transporting the firearm while going to or returning form the training;

Am I missing something? Or is carrying a gun while hunting already exempted from the stupid OC ban stuff regardless of where that hunting is taking place).
Hunting would be exempted by virtue of the fact that you're probably (hopefully) not hunting in an area where shooting is prohibited. You're also probably not hunting with an unloaded gun, and this statute does not apply to loaded guns.

The existing OC ban applies only to incorporated areas. This additional proposed one would extend the ban to prohibited (for shooting) unincorporated areas. Non-prohibited unincorporated areas remain unaffected, it appears.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-21-2017 at 3:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-21-2017, 3:10 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Oh. Hang on guys, I see what this bill does now, and it's not nothing.

Prohibited areas are NOT currently prohibited for unloaded OC of long guns. They are only prohibited for shooting and loaded carry.

So this bill would remove the ability to carry long guns, even unloaded, in areas where shooting is prohibited. Which is otherwise still legal right now.

This essentially means that you have to keep your long gun locked and unloaded any time you're walking on a road or otherwise in an area prohibited for shooting.


Edit: Made some changes above - earlier I made comments about OC versus CC of long guns, but I realize now that the bill does not differentiate between the two, it only says "carry".

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-21-2017 at 5:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-21-2017, 3:47 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Further clarification:

The exemptions listed in PC 26405 still apply, including:

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

(t) At an established public target range while the person is using that firearm upon that target range.


and

(ad) On publicly owned land, if the possession and use of an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land and the person carrying that firearm is in lawful possession of that firearm.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-21-2017 at 3:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-21-2017, 4:18 PM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is online now
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 12,561
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Oh. Hang on guys, I see what this bill does now, and it's not nothing.

Prohibited areas are NOT currently prohibited for unloaded OC of long guns. They are only prohibited for shooting and loaded carry.

So this bill would remove the ability to carry long guns, even unloaded, in areas where shooting is prohibited. Which is otherwise still legal right now.

This essentially means that you have to keep your long gun locked and unloaded any time you're walking on a road or otherwise in an area prohibited for shooting.

Interestingly, this doesn't affect handguns. Meaning, while your rifle/shotgun has to be unloaded and concealed while in a unincorporated prohibited area, I believe your pistol can still be carried unloaded in those places.

Edit: Made some changes above - earlier I made comments about OC versus CC of long guns, but I realize now that the bill does not differentiate between the two, it only says "carry".

I'm not sure if the "licensed hunters/fishermen traveling to or from a hunting/fishing expedition" exemption applies here or not.
Oh, what a tangled web they weave. Who do they expect is going to be able to keep track of (and enforce) this mess? LE won't understand it. DAs and the courts won't understand it.

I foresee well-compensated defense counsel poking holes in the cases that will result from this.
__________________
Just taking up space in the second-worst small town in California.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-21-2017, 4:45 PM
machrono's Avatar
machrono machrono is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 583
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
They want to bust all the rural white gun owners who have guns in their pick up truck windows.

Will rural cops enforce this?
Yes if they don't like the pickup truck owner.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-21-2017, 8:12 PM
PogoJack PogoJack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: The Valley
Posts: 81
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-01-2017, 10:52 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Made it through Sentate committees, now up for a Senate vote at some point soon.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-02-2017, 5:11 AM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 9,864
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To hell with them...
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-02-2017, 6:18 AM
Go Navy's Avatar
Go Navy Go Navy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,764
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

This is a total outrage. It'll be easily passed by the Democrats in Sacramento and signed into law by the Democrat Governor. If you vote Democrat, and support the 2nd Amendment in its simplest, fullest interpretation, you should consider voting differently in the future. The California Democrat party, as well as the National Democrat Party, are permanently devoted to infringing on our rights. It is not about personalities of individual candidates; it is party doctrine, period.
__________________
USN Veteran, Gun Owners of Calif. Member, NRA Life Member

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. ” (Ronald Reagan, 1964)
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-02-2017, 8:01 AM
CAsubject CAsubject is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 47
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Lol... what if we started picket at Gipson's house? All of his info is public, we won that one remember? He could tell us to our faces to wash our mouths out with soap. Just stay off his property, right outside of it.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-02-2017, 5:42 PM
Go Navy's Avatar
Go Navy Go Navy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,764
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAsubject View Post
Lol... what if we started picket at Gipson's house? All of his info is public, we won that one remember? He could tell us to our faces to wash our mouths out with soap. Just stay off his property, right outside of it.
NEVER use the tactics of the left. This idea of going to the homes of officials they oppose and raising hell in front of their homes is bad, bad stuff. Let them occupy the gutter; take the high road.
__________________
USN Veteran, Gun Owners of Calif. Member, NRA Life Member

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. ” (Ronald Reagan, 1964)
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-13-2017, 8:27 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,008
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Passed by Senate yesterday, now it's back in Assembly for a concurrence vote on the Senate's amendments (which were insubstantial).

Assembly voted 44-29 (55%) the first time around, so I'd expect similar with this concurrence vote.

Assembly has until Friday night to pass it.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 09-13-2017 at 8:44 AM..
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 9:23 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.