Portantino at it again: AB1527 long gun open carry ban

[MadMadi]

[winnre]

We also have the RIGHT to not quarter soldiers in our houses but I don't see anyone sternly reminding the military about this.

[CHS]

Whose side are you REALLY on?!

I'm on the side that gets positive legal and legislative results.

Whose are you on?

[dustoff31]

Those of you that actually BLAME the citizens of this state that choose to exercise their RIGHTS and open carry within the law are the epitome of an oxymoron.

Is it more oxymoronic than carrying around an unloaded gun?

[Uxi]

Indeed. Were there (m)any challenges to the Mulford Act?

[CitaDeL]

Don't be silly. UOC simply wasn't on anyone's radar -- that is until a bunch of folks decided to stage public demonstrations, invite the media and otherwise call attention to themselves. At that point, enough people expressed annoyance that it became apparent that there was political capital to be made by banning the practice.

Let's be intellectually honest for a second, if it's possible.

The detractors of the California open carry movement have asserted that California is politically differentiated from the rest of the country, particularly in how gun policy is being developed.

To say that UOC wasn't on anyone's radar until it was made a spectacle is either completely dishonest or just factually incorrect. I say this with some certainty because first, 'UOC' is a practice of transporting guns in a holster- and guns and gunowners have been the primary motivation for the ever expanding onerous regulations in California that affect every one of us. Their mere existance is sufficient for our legislators to demand that there be a law for public safety.

To say that advocates drawing attention to themselves was what drove legislation home may be true in part, but the evidence of past attempts (AB2828 from 2003/04) to wholly prohibit the carrying of firearms discounts this idea that political filth like Saldana and Portantino needed a spectacle to inspire a new law regulating carry into oblivion. The UOC advocates are a reason, an excuse or patsies, but not the cause of the new law.

[fiddletown]

Those of you that actually BLAME the citizens of this state that choose to exercise their RIGHTS and open carry within the law are the epitome of an oxymoron. You claim to be fighting for gun rights, yet you slander those that exercise those rights...

[1] We're not blaming anyone for exercising rights. We're criticizing the open carriers for engaging in ill advised political action predictably damaging to the RKBA.

[2] It's only slander if it's not true.

Indeed. Were there (m)any challenges to the Mulford Act?

Such as? How would suggest it should have been challenged? When it was enacted int 1967, it was a very popular piece of legislation.

...To say that UOC wasn't on anyone's radar until it was made a spectacle is either completely dishonest or just factually incorrect. I say this with some certainty because first, 'UOC' is a practice of transporting guns in a holster- and guns and gunowners have been the primary motivation for the ever expanding onerous regulations in California that affect every one of us...

But until the most recent UOC demonstrations, not enough people were sufficiently bothered by it to result in the passage of a bill banning it.

...Their mere existance is sufficient for our legislators to demand that there be a law for public safety...

It's not a matter of our legislators. It's a matter of the public who elect and re-elect them.

It's fashionable to blame politicians for restrictive gun laws. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc.

...To say that advocates drawing attention to themselves was what drove legislation home may be true in part, but the evidence of past attempts (AB2828 from 2003/04) to wholly prohibit the carrying of firearms discounts this idea that political filth like Saldana and Portantino needed a spectacle to inspire a new law regulating carry into oblivion. The UOC advocates are a reason, an excuse or patsies, but not the cause of the new law.

Again, you're misunderstanding the political process. Past attempts didn't get anywhere because there was insufficient popular support. And politicians need assurance of sufficient support.

The UOC demonstrations ticked off enough of the public to make enacting a ban a politically desirable thing to do.

[Uxi]

Such as? How would suggest it should have been challenged? When it was enacted int 1967, it was a very popular piece of legislation.

Lawsuits. Extremely likely the collectivist interpretation of the 2nd (and/or lack of incorporation) would have been the response, as they were to the AWB, but given the lack of results I'm finding on searches maybe it's sort of like Miller with the NFA.

[CitaDeL]

Again, you're misunderstanding the political process. Past attempts didn't get anywhere because there was insufficient popular support. And politicians need assurance of sufficient support.

The UOC demonstrations ticked off enough of the public to make enacting a ban a politically desirable thing to do.

Sounds like you weren't even there. The people that were ultimately bent, and were the driving force behind the advancing legislation were organizations like the CPOA. It wasn't John Q. and Mary Y. Public calling legislators demanding that something be done... it was the lobbying efforts of law enforcement groups as well as LCAV.

And you are still missing the point.

• All guns are bad to the California legislators.
• They need no inspiration to make a new law.
• OC in any of its forms did not create a new need for a law.
• Those who chose to do it are being used as the reason or excuse for advancing law that would be offered up by our legislature anyway.

[OleCuss]

The California legislature went for quite a few decades without banning UOC. Kind of odd that the serious attempts to ban UOC came shortly after the UOC demonstrations started.

I'm sure it is pure coincidence.

For that matter, the proposed long-gun UOC ban was not proposed until shortly after people started doing in-your-face LGUOC demonstrations.

I'm sure that is purely coincidental as well.

[CitaDeL]

The California legislature went for quite a few decades without banning UOC. Kind of odd that the serious attempts to ban UOC came shortly after the UOC demonstrations started.

I'm sure it is pure coincidence.

For that matter, the proposed long-gun UOC ban was not proposed until shortly after people started doing in-your-face LGUOC demonstrations.

I'm sure that is purely coincidental as well.

I suppose AB2828 wasn't a serious attempt to ban carry in California a full three years before open carry made landfall locally then. I must be completely wrong. Although I havent dug around much, I think it is concievable that other such attempts have been made. But since you must be right, what is the point of looking?

[Liberty1]

I suppose AB2828 wasn't a serious attempt to ban carry in California a full three years before open carry made landfall locally then. I must be completely wrong. Although I havent dug around much, I think it is concievable that other such attempts have been made. But since you must be right, what is the point of looking?

Was that the one Arnold vetoed?

[huntercf]

Dunno if it has been posted or not. If so...carry on.

The AB1527 bill : http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...ntroduced.html

Long read. The more important stuff is at the first and last thirds of it. Note: it does specifically say that it is legal to unloaded open carry "non handgun" on private property and anywhere it is legal to discharge a firearm, among other places noted.

Does that mean everywhere?, it is my understanding that it is legal to discharge a firearm in defense of one's self or others.
I have to say I am not surprised by this, Portotino was successful with the handgun UOC ban so he is going after the rest. He is not going to stop until he is no longer in the legislature, same with deleon, feinstein, boxer and pelosi.
Does anyone know how much it costs to get an initiative on the ballot? If carefully worded we could have an amendment that the sheeple would vote for that would reverse all of the bad gun laws in this state.
Also, are there any lawsuits that could go class action, IANAL but it would seem if the state were hit with a ton of class action lawsuits they may back down.
To whoever is talking smack to Ron Solo you should probably calm down, stop typing and start reading his posts. Ron is always professional, courteous and extremely knowledgeable plus very supportive of our (& his) 2A rights.

[OleCuss]

I suppose AB2828 wasn't a serious attempt to ban carry in California a full three years before open carry made landfall locally then. I must be completely wrong. Although I havent dug around much, I think it is concievable that other such attempts have been made. But since you must be right, what is the point of looking?

I believe I stand corrected. I'm not sure that UOC was the point of the bill, but it appears to have been a part of it.

Maybe they did not succeed in passage at that time, but there was at least an attempt.

I did not know of the attempt. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

[CitaDeL]

Was that the one Arnold vetoed?

No. Failed in committee in a 3/3 vote.