But the mention of ammo is in 26350 subdivision b paragraph 2 subparagraph A. And before that, in 26350 subdivision b paragraph 2, it says that the conditions specified in subdivision b paragraph 2 subparagraphs B must also be present: the person must not be in lawful possession of the handgun.
Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of 26350.b.2? Is it not narrowing the conditions specified in 26350.a as to what is considered a crime? Or is it in addition to 26350.a, and that 26350.a makes it a misdemeanor to openly carry a gun in many places, ammo or no?
I’m sure a lawsuit will happen, but I don’t see why you say “the 2nd amendment is definitively violated”.
You personally may feel that prohibiting open carry while restricting concealed carry very very tightly is not in accordance with the spirit of the Second Amendment, and I’m not telling you that you can’t feel that way.
However, AFAIK the Supreme Court has not deemed that level of gun regulation unconstitutional. The Court did rule in Columbia v. Heller that it was unconstitutional for the District of Columbia to flat-out ban handgun ownership, but that didn’t affect the constitutionality of restricting or prohibiting handgun carry.
So while I agree with you that gun advocates will doubtless try to challenge the new California law in court, I am not persuaded that it will “eventually make its way to the Supreme Court”, or that any court will rule the law unconstitutional.
This law will open up a can of worms for CA. Their permit system has been challenged in court several times and always upheld as there were other options, now they have removed lawful OC (unloaded), let’s see how this case plays out:
In Peruta v. San Diego, U.S. District Court Judge Irma Gonzalez cited the exceptions that would allow the plaintiff, Edward Peruta, to have armed self-defense outside the home. One of those exceptions under California law was unloaded open carry. Because of this, she felt justified in denying Mr. Peruta the ability to obtain a concealed carry permit. With Gov. Brown’s signing AB 144, this exception is now removed. The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the foreclosing of this option could well have an impact upon the case.
I think this law stinks. Commifornia is definitely going the opposite way of the rest of the country when it comes to gun rights.
But I don’t see any grounds for a successful legal challenge. Other states (including New York, Florida, South Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and even Texas) have laws against open carry. Illinois has no provisions whatsoever in their law for civilians to carry openly or concealed. I know of no law suits that have changed this.
It seems to me that these two paragraphs are at odds. The first apparently invites debate on this bill with reference to Second Amendment issues. And despite the request in the second, I don’t see how the effect of the bill can be discussed without reference to broader issues. So I think the best course is to move this to GD.
I do. But unfortunately I’ve seen nothing to suggest a law suit holding that position would be successful. If so Illinois would already have been forced to have some form of legal way to carry in public. And states like Hawaii, Maryland, and New Jersey would have to reform their issuance of permits, as it is all but impossible to get one in those states.
You need to do your homework, newbie. You will not find a more a more pro-gun doper than me on these boards.
The chipping away of the IL laws has already begun. They have been prevented from requiring range training to get a permit while not allowing gun ranges. The courts move slowly and the Supreme Court likes to pick and choose its cases carefully. There are several justices who are hostile to civil rights such as those embodied in the 2nd Amendment so basically whether the 2nd Amendment exists in any rational form is completely up to Justice Kennedy since he is the tie breaker. I suspect that if the make-up of the court becomes more pro-civil rights after the next election then the court will be more likely to take up other issues such as permitting.
Governor Brown and the CA legislator have certainly been on a tear though lately. They recently tried to ban “rave music” but ultimately had to settle for LED gloves, pacifiers etc… There is not a more pathetic sight in the universe than watching a bunch of lawyers and politicians try to define a musical genre or ban a sub-culture. As broke as CA is, it is not broke enough if the governor and legislature still have time and resources to create all of this mischief.
Seriously, lawsuits take time and each individual statute needs to be challenged. They need to be done in order so as to build on the results of themselves. The same team who won McDonald in Chicago won Heller in DC two years before. McDonald was not possible without Heller, but when Heller was won it would have been premature to say there was no effect in Chicago.
The same will happen in other places in time - I hope.
What exactly is the procedure to get a gun license in CA?
I keep hearing that its impossible to get one in certain areas like LA or NYC, but is it simply that its too expensive (I’ve heard permits could be thousands of $) or there are a bunch of competing agencies and entities all telling you different things? HOW is it difficult to get a gun here?
The county sheriff decides what’s a good reason. Some county sheriffs are CCW-friendly. Some aren’t. As in “You volunteer for a charity as a treasurer and sometimes carry large sums of money? Then quit.”
Is there any way around this? Not that I can see. It is essentially a total ban on any form of open carry. There are states that have such a ban, and this would seem to be no different. The political element behind it is really the only way this gets overturned, because it will be challenged and the reason for the ban will be what’s at issue.
Sure, and when the numbers are not traced back to you the police slap the cuffs on you and take you to the pokey. they confiscate the firearm, charge you with the full smash, and then your lawyer who you retained at great cost will get the charges reduced. then your friend, the lawful owner of the firearm, will get it back after 6 months or so, if he’s lucky, after paying a fee for storage of the firearm, hopefully in good condition, something the police are not noted for.
All this just to violate someone’s free speech rights. This law should be challenged on 1st, not 2nd, Amendment grounds. Yes, I said free speech, because this was a form of non-violent political protest, and we are not allowed to ban the KKK from marching in a Christmas parade if they choose to or put someone in jail for burning the American flag, either. This is a political statement that is being suppressed due to moral panic, not any actual crime resulting from the practice. As a matter of principle, we are not allowed to ban things related to political protest just because we don’t like them or what they represent. You never can tell how a court will rule, but I’m thinking that in the end it gets tossed.
You’re not going to participate in a hijack you created with this post? I challenge you to find a single person who has ever said this or anything like it here. Just one. Well, since you have no interest in “hijacking” the thread, I open it up to anyone to find a post that says this or something substantially similar to it.
Yep. California is what is known as a “May Issue” state. You have to justify your reasons for wanting to carry a weapon. Some officials accept any reason, others are less permissive, and still others will not issue one for any reason whatsoever. People who live in those locales are screwed because they can’t go to another county that is more permissive and get one, while those people who live in permissive counties can go anywhere it is legally permitted, including the "no-issue’ counties, with impunity.
Most states are now “Shall Issue”, which means that unless they come up with a justification to deny you under specific guidelines they have to give you a permit. An anti-gun official can’t punish you with his biases, he simply has no choice.
