CA - Assembly Passes Bill Prohibiting "Open Carry"

[Kevlar]

California lawmakers are taking aim at a protest movement that encourages participants to show up at public places en masse with handguns strapped to their side.

The "Open Carry" movement sparked shock waves last year when about a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, stood outside an Arizona convention center where President Barack Obama was speaking.

The California Assembly narrowly passed legislation Tuesday to prohibit the practice, which typically is meant to protest gun-control laws or the scarcity of concealed-weapons permits. It is legal if the guns are not loaded.

Republicans and gun-owner groups oppose the bill, which passed by the bare minimum number of votes required, 41-25. It now goes to the Senate.....

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/54219.

 

[JohnFH]

bummer, now the cops all have to ccw.....

 

[M1911]

bummer, now the cops all have to ccw.....

I'm sure there will an exception for the police. I expect that the legislation will pass and will be signed by the governor. I understand the goals of the open carry movement, but in states like CA it comes with significant risk.

 

[soloman02]

Just keep digging...

 

[RKG]

At the risk of bring much wrath upon my head, this could be taken as proof of the wisdom that sometimes calling too much attention to oneself isn't a good idea.

 

[buketduder]

Since most of these people cannot obtain a CCW..They have to OC...Cali is a mess...

And what was so shocking about someone open carrying a rifle or handguns? Open Carry is only going to grow...They can't force gun owners to conceal there rights or be ashamed..

 

[cekim]

The California Assembly narrowly passed legislation Tuesday to prohibit the practice, which typically is meant to protest gun-control laws or the scarcity of concealed-weapons permits.

if they establish it as 'political speech' all the better!

 

[economist]

This is why I don't go to church, avoid public gatherings, always invite police into my house to look around, and keep my thoughts to myself. Exercise your freedoms and government just takes them away. Boy those open carry folks really messed up, huh?

 

[M1911]

They can't force gun owners to conceal

That is exactly what the CA legislature is doing. They can and they will. They have the votes. The CA gun owners don't. It is as simple as that.

 

[M1911]

This is why I don't go to church, avoid public gatherings, always invite police into my house to look around, and keep my thoughts to myself. Exercise your freedoms and government just takes them away. Boy those open carry folks really messed up, huh?

If they had not done open carry events that caught the attention that they wanted, then this legislation would not have been passed by the House. Before the open carry movement, they could carry opening. After the open carry movement, they likely will not be able to. So tell me, are they better off now, after the open carry movement?

 

[Twigg]

At the risk of bring much wrath upon my head, this could be taken as proof of the wisdom that sometimes calling too much attention to oneself isn't a good idea.

I'll be gentle; When should one stop surrendering constitutional rights ?

When you need a license ?

When a doctor's letter is required ?

When a psychiatric exam is required ?

When you can't have certain firearms ?

When there is "discretionary" licensing ?

When you can have only a "no carry" license ?

When you can have only a limited number of firearms ?

Let's all just be real quiet and hope our overlords don't take away our [STRIKE]right[/STRIKE] privilege to keep and bear arms, after all, it isn't too bad, eh? Some of you are graciously allowed to have firearms in your home, yet you can't lawfully use then to defend yourself outside your house.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not bashing Massachusetts or any individuals here but I just don't get the head-in-the-sand mentatity expressed here. While the right to carry movement is doing well, the populations in the most oppressed states (it would seem) are just rolling over and taking it.

Sooner or later these folks are going to be forced to kneel as their homes are ransacked and their property taken by force.

Anyone residing in any of these states concerned about their loss of constitutional rights needs to call attention to themselves, expose the politicans responsible for what they really are and give them what the deserve.

[STRIKE]The exit door. [/STRIKE] The end of a rope.
The day this happens I'll bet there'll be lots of people open carrying. Rifles.

 

[RichM]

+ reps, Mr. Twigg...

 

[cekim]

At the risk of bring much wrath upon my head, this could be taken as proof of the wisdom that sometimes calling too much attention to oneself isn't a good idea.

At this point, the legislature's action should be welcomed by the gun rights community as a means of both mobilizing those on the fence as well as providing fodder for litigation...

Abuse of power can be the best thing for cleansing a corrupt system provided that 50.1% of the people recognize it for what it is and/or you have a functional Constitutionally limited government government with checks and balances... If used correctly, it helps with the apathy that comes from "not me" to include a wide group of people. So, now its not just the OC exhibitionists, its everyone who ever open carried.

As they say, the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce the heck out of it...

Silence (yours) is the primary tool of oppressive governments. I am not an open carry exhibitionist, but to those who suggest we should just be quiet and hope they leave us alone, we have plenty of history to show that doesn't work.

 

[soloman02]

As they say, the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce the heck out of it...

Anyone remember prohibition? They enforced the heck out of it. And it was eventually repealed.

 

[mikem317]

Wait until the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth against the states via McDonald.

 

[Bill Nance]

At this point, the legislature's action should be welcomed by the gun rights community as a means of both mobilizing those on the fence as well as providing fodder for litigation...

Abuse of power can be the best thing for cleansing a corrupt system provided that 50.1% of the people recognize it for what it is and/or you have a functional Constitutionally limited government government with checks and balances... If used correctly, it helps with the apathy that comes from "not me" to include a wide group of people. So, now its not just the OC exhibitionists, its everyone who ever open carried.

As they say, the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce the heck out of it...

Silence (yours) is the primary tool of oppressive governments. I am not an open carry exhibitionist, but to those who suggest we should just be quiet and hope they leave us alone, we have plenty of history to show that doesn't work.

I wouldn't advocate silence, but you are kidding yourself if you think anything other than a tiny minority of the CA population thinks open-carry is a good thing. I spent many years living there, the most recent venture ended in 2001.. The place is full of hoplophobes and is one of the most urbanized (as in anti-gun) places in the country. With a population of about 40 million, even if you get 500,000 gun owners all pissed off, they will be discounted because they are politically powerless outside a few jurisdictions.

Until we do a better job of bringing more people into the sport, the demographics are against us in giant swathes of the country and are likely to get worse.

 

[cekim]

Wait until the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth against the states via McDonald.

Wait until you see what those !@#$holes do with "Reasonable Restrictions" [sad2]

Kagan gave a wonderful (terrible) description of the liberal idea here. Because common law dictates that post-due process your rights can be abridged, that means that 2A isn't without "restriction" under common law and even black letter reading of the Constitution (i.e. "we all agree" that conviction of a felony gives the courts the authority to strip you of various - though not all - Constitutional rights).

They then go a step further and (wrongly) say that because it is subject to that limitation it is therefor subject to other "reasonable limitations".

That is simply not the case, by any rational, historical reading of the Constitution but they have been getting away with that reading for long enough that they now rely on the circular logic to justify this incorrect interpretation... It is a whole-cloth argument that never got questioned in the first place that now drives our dismantling of Constitutionally limited Democracy.

This is where naive, feel good liberal turns into manipulative, word twisting evil...

This is how we got to where we are in MA. They argue because the government regulates this, then clearly it must be able to regulate that and no one questions this logic any longer...

Bill, I've lived in CA too - it was a long time ago, but I know what you are talking about. The bottom line is that speaking up may not work, but silence is guaranteed not to work.

 

[GSG]

The California Assembly narrowly passed legislation Tuesday to prohibit the practice, which typically is meant to protest gun-control laws or the scarcity of concealed-weapons permits. It is legal if the guns are not loaded.

Although many of the people who've drummed up all the attention were protesting, as buketduder said, many people are stuck with open carry as their only legal means of being armed in public. That's like saying that 15 year olds ride their bicycles to work as a means to protest the scarcity of driver's licenses.

At the risk of bring much wrath upon my head, this could be taken as proof of the wisdom that sometimes calling too much attention to oneself isn't a good idea.

I agree.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not bashing Massachusetts or any individuals here but I just don't get the head-in-the-sand mentatity expressed here. While the right to carry movement is doing well, the populations in the most oppressed states (it would seem) are just rolling over and taking it.

In general I agree with your views on this subject. I personally feel that open carry is a right that shall not be infringed, and so did our founding fathers. However, I think that the Caped Crusaders who roll around with an exposed pistol in their pants thinking that their presence will make violent criminals flee in terror are dangerously ignorant of reality.

However, with that said, I moved from MA where OC is legal but not practiced to FL where OC is generally illegal and not practiced. It seems like a minor difference, but I notice the pinch of that restriction much more now; if my gun is exposed in public, I can be charged criminally. Even when I lived in MA I was low key and did everything I could to keep my guns out of sight, but knowing that I can't open carry has made me more passionate about my right to, even though I wouldn't if I could. My only practical use for laws allowing open carry is not getting in trouble if my cover garment rides up, rare as that is.

What I'm saying in a roundabout way is that I don't advocate or support OC on a practical level, but it's a right that I want our government to recognize none the less.

I wouldn't advocate silence, but you are kidding yourself if you think anything other than a tiny minority of the CA population thinks open-carry is a good thing.

You're right. Heck, most gun owners don't care about open carry.

Bill, I've lived in CA too - it was a long time ago, but I know what you are talking about. The bottom line is that speaking up may not work, but silence is guaranteed not to work.

IMO the issue is that we're becoming our own worst enemy here by speaking up without any kind of plan.

 

[xtry51]

[STRIKE]The exit door. [/STRIKE] The end of a rope.
The day this happens I'll bet there'll be lots of people open carrying. Rifles.

+1

 

[EC1]

if they establish it as 'political speech' all the better!

Maybe the way to approach this would be as the "freedom of expression" (which has been determineed as not only just speach), which is already incorporated under the 1 and 14th amendments?

 

[Bill Nance]

Maybe the way to approach this would be as the "freedom of expression" (which has been determineed as not only just speach), which is already incorporated under the 1 and 14th amendments?

This was my thought as well, but I doubt the Supreme Court, made up of Ivy-League urban people are going to see the expression part. I think they're going to see it as intimidation.

 

[Pilgrim]

they are banning the open carry of EMPTY guns !

They might as well ban the carrying of hammers, as it's actually a similar shape.

 

[RadiCS]

they are banning the open carry of EMPTY guns !

They might as well ban the carrying of hammers, as it's actually a similar shape.

Actually the hammer might serve better for protection that an empty gun!!

 

[jasons]

At the risk of bring much wrath upon my head, this could be taken as proof of the wisdom that sometimes calling too much attention to oneself isn't a good idea.

And sometimes it is. Will this be the drop that floods the dam? (Probably not, but one never knows.)

California gun owners lost the "right" to open carry an empty gun. They gained a potentially powerful rallying cry. All in all I think they came out ahead. I just hope they don't squander it.

 

[Bill Nance]

And sometimes it is. Will this be the drop that floods the dam? (Probably not, but one never knows.)

California gun owners lost the "right" to open carry an empty gun. They gained a potentially powerful rallying cry. All in all I think they came out ahead. I just hope they don't squander it.

You're kidding yourself.

Again, most people who are urbanites and people who've never held a gun or have no information about it find open-carry intimidating as Hell. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S A RATIONAL FEAR. People are NOT rational animals and fear is the most powerful of all emotions. Rallying cry? In California? Sure, a rallying cry for the Antis. Not enough people in California like the idea of open-carry to make this a normal practice that's no big deal. Not going to happen any time in the near future.

Open carry protests in places like California may have their place. ACT-UP actually served a useful purpose in the long run for Gay rights even if their tactics were radical and offensive to most people. If that's the view of the open-carry stuff in CA then I tend to support it. If it's the intention to change anyone's mind in the near future it's catastrophically counter-productive.

 

[jasons]

You're kidding yourself.

Again, most people who are urbanites and people who've never held a gun or have no information about it find open-carry intimidating as Hell. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S A RATIONAL FEAR. People are NOT rational animals and fear is the most powerful of all emotions. Rallying cry? In California? Sure, a rallying cry for the Antis. Not enough people in California like the idea of open-carry to make this a normal practice that's no big deal. Not going to happen any time in the near future.

Open carry protests in places like California may have their place. ACT-UP actually served a useful purpose in the long run for Gay rights even if their tactics were radical and offensive to most people. If that's the view of the open-carry stuff in CA then I tend to support it. If it's the intention to change anyone's mind in the near future it's catastrophically counter-productive.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " --Sam Adams

 

[seanc]

What really needs to happen here is to get things really started is to have somebody repeal all of the exemptions for firearms used in movies.
Convicted Felon/ non eligible actor w/ a gun?
Non CA compliant gun?
CC w/o a permit, etc..

This would hit them extremely hard and you'd see every movie studio in Ca howl.

 

[Bill Nance]

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " --Sam Adams

That's a bogus quote. He never said it.

And even if it was accurate, just because one of the founders said it in one context doesn't mean it holds true in another totally different situation. Throwing out a random quote from one of the founders is no substitute for an argument.

 

[Bill Nance]

What really needs to happen here is to get things really started is to have somebody repeal all of the exemptions for firearms used in movies.
Convicted Felon/ non eligible actor w/ a gun?
Non CA compliant gun?
CC w/o a permit, etc..

This would hit them extremely hard and you'd see every movie studio in Ca howl.

Never happen. You don't stay in office in California by pissing off all of Los Angeles. Besides, gun control is for the little people.

 

[jasons]

That's a bogus quote. He never said it.

And even if it was accurate, just because one of the founders said it in one context doesn't mean it holds true in another totally different situation. Throwing out a random quote from one of the founders is no substitute for an argument.

Dude, who's arguing? I just said it might not be a bad thing. They lost something of zero value - the ability to carry an EMPTY gun. Take lemons and turn them into lemonaid - use this to rally the tireless minority. Doesn't really matter who said it when it's true.

Or not. Whatever.