Jerry Brown just signed into law AB 144. A lot of gun-rights advocates are upset about it. But from what I see, it only prevents open-carry of unloaded firearms by those carrying the guns unlawfully. And lawful means:
So, are gun-rights advocates up in arms (heh) over nothing? Or is there some nefarious way that California can use it to prevent ordinary citizens from toting their guns around?
And let me ask responders, please please please do not turn this into a thread about gun rights, gun nuts, libtards, etc. I want to concentrate on just this bill.
In general, the NRA is against any law that restricts gun rights in any form for any reason. Even a small reasonable law is considered the first step on a slippery slope.
(IANAL). If there is a positive duty for the possessor to prove ownership, or a presumption that a gun is unlawfully possessed unless the possessor presents evidence to rebut it, that might be a problem.
E.g.:
Joe: “The California Highway Patrol stopped me last night on the highway and they saw my gun and confiscated it!”
Bill: “How? I thought you had the right permits for it.”
Joe: “Well, there’s a new law that says that the person carrying the gun must prove ownership in order to possess it, and carrying the gun without proof allows the police to seize it. I have to go find my purchase receipt from Joe’s Guns and take it to Sacramento before the 30’th, or else they’ll melt it down.”
Which line are you looking at specifically? Admittedly, I am not so good at reading legal decisions, but I see the part that goes:
In other words, a person who is violating the law can get jail OR a fine, but get BOTH if they are not in lawful possession, which includes legal ownership, but also being loaned the gun with permission by the lawful owner.
This law is designed to go after people who walk around with an unloaded pistol, mainly as a protest against carry laws. So these people lose their protest symbol. Previously they were legally okay because their pistols weren’t loaded, now it is for any pistol carried openly I believe, or concealed without a permit (which are very difficult to get).
It also seems to account for apparent authority too, so it I stop by Joe’s house and ask to borrow his pistol, and he hands me a pistol that actually belongs to his father and that his father had loaned to Joe with the express condition that it not be sub-loaned to anyone, I’m protected as long as I was reasonable in assuming that Joe had the right to lend me the gun.
I’m looking at the same parts you are. The way I parse it, a person is eligible to be punished with a fine and/or jail time if they break both parts (b.2.A) and (b.2.B) in addition to violating a.1.A.
This law preveents open carry of only unloaded guns? Does this mean it is legal to open carry a loaded gun but not an unloaded one? 'Cause that would be pretty crazy.
Just guessing here, since I’m not a Californian and haven’t followed this bill, but it sounds like a backdoor into registration. If you must prove that you own any gun you’re carrying (or prove that you have permission of the owner), then some document must exist that can prove said ownership. That document would be a registration, right?
I don’t know California law today, but when I lived there, shotguns and rifles did not have to be registered. Since they are “firearms,” doesn’t this new law basically require you to register guns that didn’t formerly need to be registered?
No - the current state of California law is that it’s illegal to openly carry a loaded firearm. It’s legal to openly carry an unloaded firearm. You can carry ammo in a pouch and an unloaded gun in your holster and you are fine. (note: unlawful to carry concealed without a permit -loaded or not. Permits are issued county-by-county. Some counties are tougher than others).
This law makes open carry of an unloaded firearm illegal. Openly carrying a loaded firearm remains illegal.
Honestly - this bill makes a lot of sense to me. I don’t have much problem with carrying concealed for permit holders, but openly carrying a gun on your hip just seems a little Wild West to me.
It doesn’t say you have to carry papers to prove that you own it, it just says you can get both punishments if not in “lawful possession of the firearm”. That would be up to the cops to determine, and I’d assume running the serial numbers is something they do in any gun offense.
No, we can still have it. We’ll just parse it and interpret it to death like the 4th. And the 5th. And the 1st. And the… well you get the picture.
I’m not going to further participate in this (chronic) hijack of every gun thread except to say - when somebody says he doesn’t have a problem with permitted concealed carry, and then 2nd amendment proponents jump on him to say that he shouldn’t have a problem with every school kid open carrying an AK-47 to school because of the 2nd amendment… well… that’s where you lose me.
You may not have a problem with permitting concealed carry, but California certainly does, seeing how it is practically impossible to get that permit there.
Just checking: are you sure about it? CA has very strict laws about car transport, where the gun has to be locked up separate from your person (trunk will suffice) and ammo has to be kept separately from it. To be clear, the people who open-carry protest aren’t usually carrying any ammo.
Depends on the county you’re in. Rural counties are fairly easy. When you get into places like the Bay Area and LA, it’s impossible unless you have connections.
"Ammunition may be carried in the same container as the gun – loose ammunition or ammunition in ammo boxes does not make a gun loaded, because the ammunition is NOT “placed into a position from which it can be fired”.
You may transport loaded magazines and speed loaders, so long as they are not inserted into the magazine well or cylinder of the firearm. That does not make a gun loaded, because the ammunition carried that way is NOT “placed into a position from which it can be fired”.
A loaded magazine is not the same as a loaded weapon, and possession of a weapon and a loaded magazine for that weapon does not, necessarily, mean you have a loaded weapon."
You are right that there are much different rules about transporting a weapon in a vehicle. But you are incorrect about the open carry protestors. They do carry ammo - it just cannot be in or attached to the firearm itself. The ones I’ve seen either carry an ammo pouch or speed loaders in their pockets. But don’t take my word for it - if you google open carry California, there are plenty of sites that will detail the rules.
Under the old law: Concealed carry almost impossible in urban counties. Open carry of a loaded pistol unlawful. So what people who wanted to carry guns did, was openly carry an unloaded semi-automatic pistol on his hip with a loaded magazine in his pocket. If trouble started, you are about 3 seconds away from having a loaded gun.
Under the new law: You can’t open carry an unloaded pistol if you have ammo anywhere on your person. It takes away the “loophole”.
So then under the new law, the 2nd amendment is definitively violated, at least in “urban counties”. I am sure a lawsuit will happen and will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.