California's latest handgun lunacy!

TDC

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
1,313
Reaction score
873
Location
Oregon
Mods....I don't believe anything about this issue has been posted before. If it's redundant please delete.

-----------------------------

If you think California's current laws are ridiculous check this proposal out.... All it lacks is the governors signature to be passed! What about target shooters at ranges, hunters, etc???.....

Open-carry gun control bill in Gov. Brown's hands - latimes.com
 
Register to hide this ad
I detest open carry, just my opinion. The current open carry law is useless in Cali, unloaded open carry, ridiculous.

Unfortunately the gun laws in Cali were started because of those animal Black Panthers. Instead of taking the rights of all citizens away, they should have just waited to get them. Unfortunately, they killed many cops, including a personal family friend in NYC.

I do however resent any gun rights being repealed. It should become easier to carry a gun, concealed in my opinion, to any lawful citizen.

As a retired cop, I responded to scenes where if the victim had a gun, they may be alive today. By the time 911 is called and the Police get there, it is too late.

I will get killed for this opinion, but if citizens had guns, we would not have to hire as many police. At my house in NJ, I pay 10k in property tax, then there is sanitation, water and personal income taxes. If they got rid of the Township police and went to County police, there should be a big savings. This township has a pretty large PD. Yet they have a volunteer FD. For my 10k a year, I get a large PD and maybe a few potholes repaired.
 
Last edited:
Ca. gun laws

I agree with 27145, I live in No. Calif. I would never carry an unloaded gun. To me that is like saying " see my nice gun, show me your loaded gun and you can have my empty one"
That said, I hate to more restrictive gun laws but I'm not going to lose sleep over this one.
 
>"It wastes law enforcement time and attention dealing with unnecessary 911 calls about gun-toting men and women in coffee shops, restaurants and malls."<

So, if you call 911, in California, the call goes like this?

"911 Operator, what is your emergency?"

"The guy next door is cutting his lawn!!!!!"

"Stay on the line, Sir, we'll send a car right out there."

Or does the 911 operator say, "Yeah, so? Cutting the lawn isn't illegal. What's your problem?"

So when they get the call - "OH MY GOD!!! There is a man in Starbucks WEARING A GUN!!!!!!!!!", can't they just say, "Yeah, so? That's not illegal. What's your problem?"
 
I agree with 27145, I live in No. Calif. I would never carry an unloaded gun. To me that is like saying " see my nice gun, show me your loaded gun and you can have my empty one"
That said, I hate to more restrictive gun laws but I'm not going to lose sleep over this one.

Please don't let this just pass and go to sleep. Do felons/bad guys open carry? NO, they carry concealed and sure as heck don't have a CCW. I have to simply ask, do we pass restrictive laws because something makes us and the LEOS uncomfortable? Are we citizens or servants?

When Gov Brown makes this law, will we have a must issue CCW law to follow. You know it's NOT going to happen in the Peoples Republic of California.
 
A question for those of you living in the PRC. I'm just curious about something.

If open carry is legal if the gun is unloaded, what does the law say about you having ammo for that gun on your person? Is it legal to have a loaded magazine for it in your pocket that you could quickly insert to have a properly functioning firearm in case of a life-threatening emergency?

The article obliquely mentioned it but wasn't clear.
 
A question for those of you living in the PRC. I'm just curious about something.

If open carry is legal if the gun is unloaded, what does the law say about you having ammo for that gun on your person? Is it legal to have a loaded magazine for it in your pocket that you could quickly insert to have a properly functioning firearm in case of a life-threatening emergency?

The article obliquely mentioned it but wasn't clear.

As long as the weapon is unloaded, you can keep a mag in your back pocket.
 
I'm no fan of unloaded open carry.
But it is still legal unless this law passes.
Not that it's much good for anything except making a political statement.

Police in most communities in the PRC are used to being the "sole legal possessors of firearms in public", so any call with a man with a gun in a public area gets their attention. Not always for the better. Education of agencies does work and many have simply stopped doing illegal things like running serial numbers and being insulting to the carrying citizen.

But, in one sense, I want to see Brown sign it. He'll be doing us a favor. It will codify the fact that in California, one may not carry an accessible firearm anywhere except in the home (or business) without a government permission slip.

That will violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. And while Scalia's opinion in Heller didn't directly address "carry", they did include "bear" (to carry) as part of the individual right. Scalia even used Justice Ginsberg's own words from another decision to make it clear that "bear" meant "To carry".

The .gov will argue it has a compelling interest in maintaining public safety and order and anti-carry laws do that. CCW permits and their like help them keep order. But the .gov has a compelling interest in stopping speech that incites riots and preventing ADW's from happening, yet they don't require a permit to speak out, nor do they limit access to tire irons, baseball bats, metal pipes, claw hammers or other potential weapons.

Once it's law, we can show the federal courts that California has banned "bearing" arms in the state in violation of the 2nd Amendment. That will leave the state to chose which form of carry (open or concealed) it will allow citizens to use without a permit.
 
I would argue against your assumptions. The Left enjoys the removal of freedoms. It's about control of the serfs and nothing more. Once gone, it's near impossible to get it back. Remember what ole Ben Franklin said. Those that trade freedom for safety deserve nether.
 
As an aside, I always thought the laws were rather backwards. CCW needs a permit (most states) and open carry needs none. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it opposite? Why would CCW need a license?

To identify who has a firearm? There are too many CCW licenses out there. CCW is less intrusive to the public. It's only when people open carry is when people panic. But if a license is issued, including the typical training & background check, for open carry, then perhaps people would complain less knowing what is involve to get a license.

Badguys? They are gonna conceal their guns. Do LE's charge BDs for not having a license? Their guns are probably stolen anyways. Also, a record of not having a license isn't going to stop BD.

Just my $.02
 
Last edited:
Mods....I don't believe anything about this issue has been posted before. If it's redundant please delete.

-----------------------------

If you think California's current laws are ridiculous check this proposal out.... All it lacks is the governors signature to be passed! What about target shooters at ranges, hunters, etc???.....

Open-carry gun control bill in Gov. Brown's hands - latimes.com

Doesn't California still issue concealed carry permits? Or is "may-issue" a bogus concept?
 
I would argue against your assumptions. The Left enjoys the removal of freedoms. It's about control of the serfs and nothing more. Once gone, it's near impossible to get it back. Remember what ole Ben Franklin said. Those that trade freedom for safety deserve nether.
Sorry, the Right enjoys removing Freedoms just as much as the Left. Just different ones sometimes, many times the same.

We would all benefit if we could see the politicians as pro wrestlers. They come, put on a show for the audience, and all go to the back room to hang out. One day your guy won, the next he lost, but it only matters to you, because they were just putting on a show.
 
Doesn't California still issue concealed carry permits? Or is "may-issue" a bogus concept?

California is a "May Issue" state; the decision to grant a CCW (Carry a Concealed Weapon) Permit being granted (or refused) at the discretion of the County Sheriff or Police Chief. Some sheriffs/chiefs issue on a reasonable basis, others can be next to impossible to persuade.

Here's a map of issue in the CA counties:
Concealed Firearm Carry Permit in California: Information Database

IMHO when counties with hundreds of thousands population only issue a hundred CHLs, "may issue" is a bogus concept.
Just glancing over the new law banning "unloaded open carry", I suspect it will cause problems with transporting guns for sporting purposes. IANAL
 
As OKFC05 pointed out, the "May Issue" concept in California is merely lip service to the ability of citizens to obtain a CCW.

In the past, one could appy in any county to obtain a CCW. You could find a sympathetic sheriff in say, Alpine County to issue a permit that was good statewide. Or a chief of police would do. But the big county sheriff's complained to Sacramento that some small city chiefs were issuing more permits than their city had residents and the law was changed. You must now apply in the county where you live or a county where you spend a "significant" amount of time -- e.g. the county you work in. This had the effect of shutting down a revenue source for small jurisdictions and killing some 25,000 CCWs upon renewal.

California CLEO's (Chief Law Enforcement Officers) aren't worried about equal protection or fair issuance. If you are John or Jane Doe with thugs threatening you in numbers or with knives, the cops will say "dial 911" and deny your permit. Yet dipsticks like Sean Penn are granted a permit even though the live behind walls and gates.

Re: Open carry law changes and sporting uses. IANAL either, but I don't think there will be a significant impact. Current law provides exceptions for transporting firearms in your vehicle for lawful purposes. There are also exceptions to loaded carry for licensed hunters when "transiting" a highway (crossing a road but not walking along the road).
 
As an aside, I always thought the laws were rather backwards. CCW needs a permit (most states) and open carry needs none. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it opposite? Why would CCW need a license?
This is due to the history of firearms carry. In the first century of our nation, openly carrying a firearm was considered appropriate and, in some locales, necessary. A man who concealed his firearm was viewed as cowardly, hiding the fact that he was armed. This allowed him to approach others as non-threatening and then pull his gun when it was too late. For most of our history, a concealed gun has been associated with criminal dealings.


To identify who has a firearm? There are too many CCW licenses out there. CCW is less intrusive to the public. It's only when people open carry is when people panic. But if a license is issued, including the typical training & background check, for open carry, then perhaps people would complain less knowing what is involve to get a license.
Your statements are dubious.
Too many CCW licenses out there? Depends on how you view it. Correct if you assume that permits should not be required. But if you believe a permit can be required, there are not anywhere near enough permit holders (permit holders only amount to about 3% of the population).

It's also dubious that anti-gun people will stop complaining simply because someone openly carrying has a license. They will complain that the licensing isn't strict enough (elitist enough) or that the sight of guns is unnerving, frightening to their children and as intimidating as "living in an armed camp".

Badguys? They are gonna conceal their guns. Do LE's charge BDs for not having a license? Their guns are probably stolen anyways. Also, a record [or] not having a license isn't going to stop BD.

You just expounded upon my earlier statements regarding concealed guns being the perview of criminals. One reason for issuance of CCW permits is that it does serve to differentiate between criminals and law abiding citizens.

However with modern communications, computers and records systems, it is much easier for police to determine if a person has a prior criminal record. (it's less easy for him to determine if you're actually a prohibited person.)

My view is that if open carry is allowed and you carry a sidearm openly, then you've already announced your armed status. Thus, if your second firearm rides under your armpit there should be no violation of law - a concealed carry violation should only occur if it appears you are unarmed.
 
>"It wastes law enforcement time and attention dealing with unnecessary 911 calls about gun-toting men and women in coffee shops, restaurants and malls."<

So, if you call 911, in California, the call goes like this?

"911 Operator, what is your emergency?"

"The guy next door is cutting his lawn!!!!!"

"Stay on the line, Sir, we'll send a car right out there."

Or does the 911 operator say, "Yeah, so? Cutting the lawn isn't illegal. What's your problem?"

So when they get the call - "OH MY GOD!!! There is a man in Starbucks WEARING A GUN!!!!!!!!!", can't they just say, "Yeah, so? That's not illegal. What's your problem?"

What's worse is all the FUDD's out there.
 
One thing that seems to have been overlooked here is the reason the people were exercising the open carry law in the first place and why the politicians are trying to remove the right. The people were demonstrating to gain access to CCW's, perhaps it's just my opinion, but what they are attempting with the new law not only tramples the second amendment but the first as well. California's issuance of CCW's is discretionary, in San Diego, the Sheriff's department requires applicants to demonstrate a need to carry a firearm concealed, if you do not have a reason, they will deny your application. I was able to articulate a need to be armed in California, however, most are unable to qualify. Police chiefs are politicians, they typically oppose lawful firearms ownership and rights. The rank and file law enforcement officers usually are not uncomfortable with armed friendlies in society.
 
We need to limit the number of guns in public, not increase them by wearing them on our hips," Beck said. "This is not Dodge City…. We are a modern civilized community, and we should work on peaceful solutions to end criminal behavior."

This quote is why California will eventually try to ban guns period.The majority of the rank and file voters plus the political base feel that their society is too posh and sophisticated to require one to defend oneself,as crime is what happens to other, unluckier people after all yes? :-(


Because of this attitude the majority in that state feel the right of the gal next to you to feel safe trumps your right to survive a criminal stickup.
 
Back
Top