[Librarian]

Which is, of course, one of the exception items to PC 12025, carrying a concealed weapon.

12026.2. (a) Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
... and so on...

I really like the web, but not everything is out there yet, so this post doesn't answer much; I think it gives some indications, but it isn't The Answer.

According to West's Annotated California Codes, Penal Code, 12026.2 was passed as "The Keene-Hauser Safe Transport Law" and added in 1987. (12026.1 was added in 1986)

The authors were Senator Barry Keene, D-Benicia (Santa Rosa?) and Assemblyman Dan Hauser, D-1st district (I think he was from Eureka or Arcata). Keene was a former DA and former Assemblyman, and apparently Hauser took Keene's Assembly seat when Keene went to the Senate. They worked together on a lot of things - Coastal Commission, ecology, stuff like that.

http://www.archive.org/details/barrykeeneoral00keenrich
has a transcript of an oral history interview with Keene, from about 1994.

It's a 17 meg PDF file; note that they seem to have scanned both sides of a document typed only on one side, so there are blank pages after every text page. Odd, but so long as you don't print the thing, OK.

"HICKE" is the interviewer.

p 164, Keene identifies himself as a liberal Democrat

But the loss of Al Rodda was regarded as a terrible loss, enough to require a redirection of leadership into a more politically protective mode.

David Roberti sensed that, and organized a group of basically liberal legislators, and Mills was a liberal in most senses of the word, to replace Mills. I was in that group, and it was something for which Mills I think has never forgiven me. We ve not seen each other and talked since his departure. Others in the group were [Senators] Alan Sieroty, one of the most liberal legislators from southern California; Bill Greene, an African-American legislator from Watts; John Garamendi, who became Roberti s majority leader; [Nicholas C.] Nick Petris, a liberal Democrat from Oakland; and I m probably forgetting one or two others.

p 170 and following - interesting discussion on redistricting; apparently he was not completely doctrinaire, but he states the purpose of redistricting was to prevent Republicans from ever getting a majority again.

p200 Wasn't in tune with most writers here...

HICKE: I noticed in this crime bill that in order to get it passed, one of the things they did was take out money for what I would consider crime prevention, and put it into prisons. Isn't that about what happened?

KEENE: Yes. There s a certain irony, though, in all of that stuff-people fighting for guns at the same time that they re trying to reduce crime in the streets. Somebody from Mars will come here and look at this society, and the decline and fall, and they ll be amazed that something like that can happen.

p223 Introduced a form of background check (similar legislation in Congress today)

OK. There was one that became fairly controversial, in that there were some episodes of people who had been institutionalized in mental institutions who acquired guns and committed acts of violence. So I carried some legislation to create a central index whereby the attorney general would be contacted when someone was purchasing a gun and would be able to provide information within a relatively short period of time as to whether that person had been institutionalized.

Keene was also a Roberti supporter.

So, indications:

• Roberti supporter (remember a bill Roberti sponsored, passed in 1989?)
• liberal democrat
• introduced a form of background check

I'd suggest Keene-Hauser was not meant to be a loosening of CCW restrictions. It sure would be possible to take 12026.1 to mean what a lot of people would like it to mean; it looks like Keene-Hauser was introduced to 'fix' that. (The 1994 version of that law I have has only 12 exceptions.)

I don't yet have a good line on California Stats 1987, but the bill language ought to be interesting.

[Shotgun Man]

Originally Posted by Librarian

[...]

I'd suggest Keene-Hauser was not meant to be a loosening of CCW restrictions. It sure would be possible to take 12026.1 to mean what a lot of people would like it to mean; it looks like Keene-Hauser was introduced to 'fix' that. (The 1994 version of that law I have has only 12 exceptions.)

I don't yet have a good line on California Stats 1987, but the bill language ought to be interesting.

Thank you for your researched and thought-out post. But if 12026.2 was meant in some way to repeal 12026.1 they did a poor job of evincing that legislative intent. They should have flat-out repealed it.

From what I understand, legislative intent becomes relevant in a court's interpetation of a law when there is an ambiguity or contradiction in the law. Lacking that, the courts are stuck with the plain words of the statute.

As a previous poster pointed out, 12026.1 seems to allow citizens to carry a handgun in their trunk or locked container. 12026.2 allows non-citizens to do other things with their guns (i.e., transport them to the range, etc.) Hence no contradiction.

It could be that 12026.2 is somehow unconsitutional as I think states are limited in their ability to grant rights to citizens that they disallow to legal permanent residents or green card holders.

BTW, my interest in this topic is driven my desire to go to the range spontaneously, rather than having to map out my trip a day in advance and drive directly to there. I've been told repeatedly to just carry a rifle or shotgun in my trunk, but safety is not my concern.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by greg_9

Thank you for your researched and thought-out post. But if 12026.2 was meant in some way to repeal 12026.1 they did a poor job of evincing that legislative intent. They should have flat-out repealed it.

I don't think they could - I still think .2 is a layer on top of .1, just as .1 is a layer on top of 12026.

Look, for example at 12022 - all those 12022.xx things need to be taken together as modifiers to 12022.

To repeal 12026.1 would mean no one could ever move a handgun anywhere without CCW (or open carry); while I'm sure there are people who would find that condition favorable, I see no evidence any legislator thought there would be support for that change.

Originally Posted by greg_9

From what I understand, legislative intent becomes relevant in a court's interpetation of a law when there is an ambiguity or contradiction in the law. Lacking that, the courts are stuck with the plain words of the statute.

Yep, I agree. But we seem to have different ideas of what those plain words mean. Not being courts, that doesn't actually matter.

I'm looking for something that would support my "layering" idea, and I expect to find it in the bill docs, if ever I get them.

Originally Posted by greg_9

BTW, my interest in this topic is driven my desire to go to the range spontaneously, rather than having to map out my trip a day in advance and drive directly to there. I've been told repeatedly to just carry a rifle or shotgun in my trunk, but safety is not my concern.

Yes, I saw that earlier. Pain in the rump, that is.

And gee, I wish my links to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html would work more than once ...