CA Legislative response to Shall Issue.

[Legasat]

They will never stop coming after us. Period. Even if we win everything we need in court, they will keep trying to limit our rights until they are effectively nil.

[bruss01]

The CA carry permit has always been a choice plum - difficult to obtain, but if you actually GET one, it is one of the best permits to have in terms of time/place/manner of carry. The catch was that only certain people could get one (mostly, connected folks) so this limited the availability.

I suspect that in going to a virtual "shall issue" policy they will want to restrict the usefulness of the permit to the point that average folks will consider it too much bother. Of course the "connected" folks such as LEO and politicians will exempt themselves from the new restrictions. Things such as making it illegal to carry into any venue that serves or sells any alcohol. There go most "family" restaurants that have a tap and most sports stadiums - even grocery outlets that have a beer/wine/liquor aisle. Depending on wording it could include a family barbecue if uncle Elmer cracks open a cold & frosty. Outlaw carry into retail establishments or entertainment venues. You'd still (technically) have the ability to defend yourself in public, but it would take away any reason for you to go out into public if you happen to be carrying, since you can't go to sporting events, out to dinner at a decent restaurant, take in a show, or go shopping. Justification would be "public safety" because there are too many people at those places who could get hurt and alcohol plus firearms you know. Of course elected officials, judges, and LEO would be exempt because they are a special class of super-citizen who need extra protection.

Since the CA permit would then be virtually useless except to carry on your person in the car while driving, not many folks will see it as being worth the trouble and expense to re-up every 2 years. There, problem solved.

This will probably eventually be challenged in court, and will linger in the court system for 5+ years before being struck down. After which, they will try to find another way to make the exercise of the right impractical to actually exercise. That's exactly what happened at the federal level with the 1000 foot school zone law. Just tweak the law to sidestep the judicial ruling on a technicality, ad infinitum.

[IVC]

Daley was Chicago, and since he won at 7CA, he did not choose to appeal.
In Heller v. DC, Adrian Fenty was mayor.

DOH!

No idea how I put Daley and Heller together. Come to think of it, I believe I made this obvious mistake more than once when trying to make a point "antis are their own worst enemy."

[the86d]

Pay off debt, change jobs that would allow transfer to a state that cares about the Constitution... Priceless.

[El Toro]

... The current ruling in Peruta was completely expected, and there's not a damn thing the legislature can do about it without it becoming obvious that they are just trying to take away rights instead of "protect the children".

Agreed, however as Bruss01 points out, I do expect them to try limiting the right so that it is almost effectively nullified.

In another thread discussing how OCSD has removed the requirement to inspect each handgun on your license, it occurred to me that the State would see inspection and approval as another discouragement. The public safety aspect of ensuring your weapon doesnt have a 'hair trigger', uses a legal mag configuration, safety, chamber loaded indicator will be all they need to ram through this as law. Plus you'll be required to have it 'smogged' every two years.... for a fee to the State. Not trying to give them ideas but we should anticipate the enemies tactics.

[chainsaw]

My forecast (and I have had no contact with the legislature on this issue, so it is just a guess): Nothing will happen until the two cases are completely done, and the various LEAs have come up with a new modus vivendi. I think the legislature will act afterwards, to change the permitting process, in a way that meets the letter of the decisions in those cases, while giving CLEOs as much leeway as possible in accepting or denying applications. LOC will not change, except perhaps licensed LOC in very rural areas at the discretion of the CLEO.

[IVC]

If Peruta stands, the "letter of the decision" is going to be less of a problem than the "spirit of the decision."

The panel itself broadened the question asked by putting it into (proper) context of "carry outside the home." I would speculate that any attempt to circumvent Peruta will result in more "good precedent" for our side after litigation.

[Sutcliffe]

They are duty and honor bound to do something

The penalty for violating the law and our rights has no substance.
As long as they are immune from civil or criminal penalty-game one.

[majtom94]

Fellow CGN'er-

With all due respect, the legislative staff that are writing bills now are all too aware of these cases we are following. Please don't underestimate their prowess, ability, will, etc. when it comes to the 2A. They feel that they have the ultimate authority/responsibility/power to see to it that the rights (2A) and some others are too important for us to handle and furthermore, they must craft them in their own fashion and with their own skewed interpretations, to save us from ourselves.

Case law seems to be putting holes in their boat, maybe the shipment of termites has been overturned.

Ca is shall issue in two weeks, 2014 elections will see statist in the unemployment line and maybe Barry will become a golf pro or gun salesman as he his pen is without ink.

[chris]

It's one thing to demonize and go after "assault weapons" - which as we know were defined last year as including certain .22s. Routine handguns are another.

When the California populace figures out that California is the least free state in the nation, and that in over 40 other states law abiding citizens can carry but Californians are "too special" to be trusted, its going to be expensive for certain Legislators. California gun control proponents claim California is "too urban" for shall issue, which is coded racism, and in any event, it works OK in Miami, Atlanta, Seattle, Dallas, Phoenix, Houston, Birmingham . . . the list goes on and on.

Our rabidly pro-gun-control legislature has been playing with fire, and if they try to take away CCW, they will get burned. There is no way for them to explain why Californians can't have the same Constitutional rights as citizens of other states, and this issue (unlike "assault weapons" which to many are more of a niche interest) will get wide interest and traction. Imo, at least.

gun control is racism it's too bad that minorities just don't see it that's what it is.

[3.1Kfps]

My guess is that they legislate GMC to Mother Teresa levels... The only way that CA politicians will lighten up is if the majority of constituents demand it. That may take another Rodney King riot or for us to convince our low-information brothers and sisters that 'Battlefield: Los Angeles' was a war documentary and not Sci-Fi...

[JDay]

Loaded open carry would be awesome. However I know they'll just place insane restriction on where you can conceal carry, so many that you won't be able to conceal carry anywhere in public.