California moving to ban open carry of long guns

[NavyLCDR]

We knew this was going to happen....

Link Removed

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—California would bar the public display of rifles and shotguns in most cities and towns, under a bill approved by the state Senate on Monday.

The measure responds to gun rights advocates who took to openly carrying unloaded long guns to protest another bill that became law last year. That measure prohibited the public display of unloaded handguns.

The ban was sought by the state police chiefs association and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which represents local, state and federal law enforcement officers. They said it was causing confusion and alarm for officers and citizens who couldn't tell if the guns were loaded.

"The problem right now is we have those individuals who are brandishing shotguns, as well as rifles, in the public arenas. It's been a threat to police officers," said Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, who carried the bill in the Senate.
"A police officer is not sure if you are the bad guy or if you are the good guy," added Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino.

What morons. It was easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys before. The good guys were carrying their guns in holsters and on slings.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Somehow the projection of poor work and laws are placed on the law abiding carrier. The issues will never be resolved when they never address the real problem.

 

[fudo]

As long as History and Civics are ignored subjects in public education these kinds of asshats will continue to get elected.

 

[BluesStringer]

Umm...guys...this isn't really a gun control issue. As long as handguns or long guns had to be carried unloaded, they weren't really bearing arms to begin with. They were bearing replicas.

I never got why the heck any gun owners in CA wanted to strap up unloaded and walk around like they were "carrying." There's a bunch of YouTube videos of groups walking around at the pier where I grew up claiming to be "exercising their rights." The truly idiotic thing is that strapping up was seen by the language in the law as implied consent for LEOs to inspect your now-rendered-simply-a-replica weapon. Instead of exercising their rights, they were giving law enforcement permission to harass them for pretending they even had any rights!

Add to that little detail of the faux open carry law, that someone wishing to steal a gun, and possessed the requisite skill to do it up close and personal, with nothing more than a credible threat of "Gimme dat piece or Ima gonna F you up, b ! t c h!" could have him that bright, shiny hard-chromed Colt Commander and you're out $1500 bucks because you wanted to exercise your faux rights! LOL At least if you bought yourself a gold Krugerrand and hung it by a thread off the back brim of your Indiana Jones Adventurer's Hat so anyone could walk up behind you and pick it like a ripe apple, the cops wouldn't be buggin' you while you're exercising your right to advertise you've got valuables on you that's easy pickins!

Sorry. I don't see this as gun control at all. It's idiot control, and I can't say it really bugs me at all.

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

Umm...guys...this isn't really a gun control issue. As long as handguns or long guns had to be carried unloaded, they weren't really bearing arms to begin with. They were bearing replicas.

I never got why the heck any gun owners in CA wanted to strap up unloaded and walk around like they were "carrying." There's a bunch of YouTube videos of groups walking around at the pier where I grew up claiming to be "exercising their rights." The truly idiotic thing is that strapping up was seen by the language in the law as implied consent for LEOs to inspect your now-rendered-simply-a-replica weapon. Instead of exercising their rights, they were giving law enforcement permission to harass them for pretending they even had any rights!

Add to that little detail of the faux open carry law, that someone wishing to steal a gun, and possessed the requisite skill to do it up close and personal, with nothing more than a credible threat of "Gimme dat piece or Ima gonna F you up, b ! t c h!" could have him that bright, shiny hard-chromed Colt Commander and you're out $1500 bucks because you wanted to exercise your faux rights! LOL At least if you bought yourself a gold Krugerrand and hung it by a thread off the back brim of your Indiana Jones Adventurer's Hat so anyone could walk up behind you and pick it like a ripe apple, the cops wouldn't be buggin' you while you're exercising your right to advertise you've got valuables on you that's easy pickins!

Sorry. I don't see this as gun control at all. It's idiot control, and I can't say it really bugs me at all.

Blues

I recently brought this one up, I pm'd you guys about it, in another forum...they were blaming open carriers for losing the right of open carry in CA...I asked them why they weren't allowed to carry loaded before the complete ban, to which they completely ignored my question...people don't care about the Constitution anymore, from the top to the bottom.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I never got why the heck any gun owners in CA wanted to strap up unloaded and walk around like they were "carrying."

California was sued in court to attempt to force shall issue CCW permits and the state won because the court claimed that California allowing unloaded open carry was enough to not violate the 2nd Amendment. Now that all form of open carry is banned, the lawsuit can be re-addressed and have a much better chance of succeeding. It's pretty sad when we start referring to people attempting to uphold the 2nd Amendment as the idiots....

 

[BluesStringer]

California was sued in court to attempt to force shall issue CCW permits and the state won because the court claimed that California allowing unloaded open carry was enough to not violate the 2nd Amendment. Now that all form of open carry is banned, the lawsuit can be re-addressed and have a much better chance of succeeding. It's pretty sad when we start referring to people attempting to uphold the 2nd Amendment as the idiots....

So you really consider carrying around a lb. or two of steel/alloy/plastic with no capability of firing a single round out of it is "attempting to uphold the 2nd Amendment???" Would carrying a brick around likewise be an attempt to uphold the 2nd Amendment? Because they're equal in their lethality or usefulness in a self-defense situation. Or do you disagree with that statement? If so, please explain how there's any difference. If not, just admit that it's an idiot move to advertise that you have objects of high value on you when you're not allowed to meet the force that would likely be applied to take it from you with equal force. Maybe you'd consider it a "happy" lie if I said it wasn't an idiot move, but sad or not, that's exactly what it is to me.

Otherwise, thanks for explaining how the law came into being. I wasn't aware of that. I just started seeing videos of OC'ers in Redondo, Manhattan and Hermosa Beaches where I grew up, showing up on my "recommended" page whenever I went to YouTube. Interested because of my connection to the places, I watched them and went through several before I ran across one where a cop started asking if the weapon was unloaded, and then realized that all the open "carry" "activists" were totin' unloaded weapons around.

The lawsuit you describe, and the fact that it will probably resume now, is indeed a legitimate attempt at strengthening/asserting 2nd Amendment rights. Carrying an empty gun around is no more, in fact, even less, of an assertion of 2A rights than carrying a 2 lb. bag of golf-ball sized rocks around on your belt. And the bag of rocks probably wouldn't be seen in the eyes of the law as implied consent for cops to harass you. Of course, it is CA we're talking about, so I wouldn't place any bets on that premise, but you know what I mean.

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

it's quite obvious to me now after reaching out to a few other forums that the constitution is completely dead in this country. It's been too long since there has been a revolutionary war, everyone has forgotten the importance of the entire constitution. Just like blues feels "they are acting like they are carrying" when in all reality they are far from exercising their rights. That is happening to every single one of our rights because people just want to resolve their problems as fast as possible, compromising everything they have.

The constitution is dead.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So you really consider carrying around a lb. or two of steel/alloy/plastic with no capability of firing a single round out of it is "attempting to uphold the 2nd Amendment???"

Just as much as a person carrying a concealed firearm who has paid the state a tax in order to obtain a government issued permission slip to do so - a lot of people consider that to be exercising the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Would you consider that to be idiot control as well and not really bug you?

 

[dgifted]

I don't know about other states but Kansas' fee for the CCHL is for processing the application. The amount charged is reasonable for work performed. So, I am satisfied I am exercising my Second Amendment rights when I am carrying, which is almost all the time. It would be nice to be able to not have to get State approval to carry. But, the situation today is not like it was when I could strap on my western revolver and carry a loaded rifle or shotgun back in Montana in the 60's and 70's with no permission needed from anyone.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I don't know about other states but Kansas' fee for the CCHL is for processing the application. The amount charged is reasonable for work performed. So, I am satisfied I am exercising my Second Amendment rights when I am carrying, which is almost all the time. It would be nice to be able to not have to get State approval to carry. But, the situation today is not like it was when I could strap on my western revolver and carry a loaded rifle or shotgun back in Montana in the 60's and 70's with no permission needed from anyone.

Would you consider it OK if you had to get a background check and pay a processing and application fee to attend the church you desire? How about take a proficiency exam and obtain a government permit to post here on the internet? Would you vote if you had to pay for that? Or my favorite - how about we create a 4th Amendment license. If you want 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, you must submit to a background check every 5 years and pay for your "get out of search" free card. Without the card, the police could stop and search you at any time. That would really make the police job easier and make police officers, and everyone safer, wouldn't it? Do you think any of those "reasonable regulations" would be...well, reasonable?

 

[Firefighterchen]

I don't know about other states but Kansas' fee for the CCHL is for processing the application. The amount charged is reasonable for work performed. So, I am satisfied I am exercising my Second Amendment rights when I am carrying, which is almost all the time. It would be nice to be able to not have to get State approval to carry. But, the situation today is not like it was when I could strap on my western revolver and carry a loaded rifle or shotgun back in Montana in the 60's and 70's with no permission needed from anyone.

Would you consider it OK if you had to get a background check and pay a processing and application fee to attend the church you desire? How about take a proficiency exam and obtain a government permit to post here on the internet? Would you vote if you had to pay for that? Or my favorite - how about we create a 4th Amendment license. If you want 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, you must submit to a background check every 5 years and pay for your "get out of search" free card. Without the card, the police could stop and search you at any time. That would really make the police job easier and make police officers, and everyone safer, wouldn't it? Do you think any of those "reasonable regulations" would be...well, reasonable?

Dead I say...the constitution...Dead..Deader than bin Laden...as gunner just put it in another thread...What is it with the pussification of this country?

 

[BluesStringer]

Just as much as a person carrying a concealed firearm who has paid the state a tax in order to obtain a government issued permission slip to do so - a lot of people consider that to be exercising the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Would you consider that to be idiot control as well and not really bug you?

Would you consider it OK if you had to get a background check and pay a processing and application fee to attend the church you desire? How about take a proficiency exam and obtain a government permit to post here on the internet? Would you vote if you had to pay for that? Or my favorite - how about we create a 4th Amendment license. If you want 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, you must submit to a background check every 5 years and pay for your "get out of search" free card. Without the card, the police could stop and search you at any time. That would really make the police job easier and make police officers, and everyone safer, wouldn't it? Do you think any of those "reasonable regulations" would be...well, reasonable?

All great points Navy. Surely you know that I won't argue with the notion that the CCW systems across this country are an infringement on our rights. And yes, I do comply with that law here in Bama, so if you want to say I'm a hypocrite or "hoilier-than-thou" towards the former CA "carriers," have at it if you makes you feel better.

But the analogy is ridiculous in my mind. As much as I dislike having to ask permission to fully exercise my 2A rights here (and everywhere else besides CA that I've lived in my life), at least that permission slip assumes that the purpose of carrying is to defend one's self, and the law does nothing to lessen the meaning of that legal axiom. At least that permission slip does allow me to use a weapon in the full breadth and width of legal reasons one might need to use a weapon. There are other laws here that go hand-in-hand with the common view of both citizen and government that self-defense always justifies the injuring or killing of another predatory human being. It's been more than 20 years now since I've been in CA, but that last statement wasn't true when I left there, and I'd be real surprised if it were any more true today.

Your analogies are interesting, and even valid on an academic level. But on a practical, useful level, they fail miserably.

And sorry, I still don't see carrying around a hunk of metal and/or plastic that can only stop someone else's intentions to do you harm if you throw as good as Nolan Ryan, as a form of exercising any part of the 2nd Amendment.

Blues

 

[Shoobee]

This was the orginal intention of the legislative statute that then-Gov Reagan signed and the black panthers were up in arms back in the 1960s.

So the whole notion of an open carry ban in California has come full circle back to the starting point at which it originally began.

I am surprised it took almost 50 years.

If you don't want your resident black panthers carrying long guns openly, and you are willing to sacrifice the rights of your white sheepdogs as well, then why wait 50 years? Anyway that's how it all started.

Infinitely more communist is for the legislature to legislate that the cities and counties shall decide who gets to be issued a LTC. Since this gives each of the sheriffs and police chiefs the power to nullify the federal 2nd Amendment.

Scalia however agrees that it is not infringing the 2nd Amendment by allowing states to decide their own gun policies.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[Shoobee]

All great points Navy. Surely you know that I won't argue with the notion that the CCW systems across this country are an infringement on our rights. And yes, I do comply with that law here in Bama, so if you want to say I'm a hypocrite or "hoilier-than-thou" towards the former CA "carriers," have at it if you makes you feel better.

But the analogy is ridiculous in my mind. As much as I dislike having to ask permission to fully exercise my 2A rights here (and everywhere else besides CA that I've lived in my life), at least that permission slip assumes that the purpose of carrying is to defend one's self, and the law does nothing to lessen the meaning of that legal axiom. At least that permission slip does allow me to use a weapon in the full breadth and width of legal reasons one might need to use a weapon. There are other laws here that go hand-in-hand with the common view of both citizen and government that self-defense always justifies the injuring or killing of another predatory human being. It's been more than 20 years now since I've been in CA, but that last statement wasn't true when I left there, and I'd be real surprised if it were any more true today.

Your analogies are interesting, and even valid on an academic level. But on a practical, useful level, they fail miserably.

And sorry, I still don't see carrying around a hunk of metal and/or plastic that can only stop someone else's intentions to do you harm if you throw as good as Nolan Ryan, as a form of exercising any part of the 2nd Amendment.

Blues

All that you all need to do is read the USSC case in order to educate yourselves. In the meantime you are just wasting bandwidth.

 

[Shoobee]

Would you consider it OK if you had to get a background check and pay a processing and application fee to attend the church you desire? How about take a proficiency exam and obtain a government permit to post here on the internet? Would you vote if you had to pay for that? Or my favorite - how about we create a 4th Amendment license. If you want 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, you must submit to a background check every 5 years and pay for your "get out of search" free card. Without the card, the police could stop and search you at any time. That would really make the police job easier and make police officers, and everyone safer, wouldn't it? Do you think any of those "reasonable regulations" would be...well, reasonable?

So nobody ever taught you how to read in the Navy huh?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf