View Full Version : CA - Brown bans OC and passes long-gun registration.
I care less about anyone's opinion on how viable OC is in terms of self defense. The erosion of our Constitutional rights continues... http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/09/3898230/lawmakers-pass-ban-on-openly-carrying.html
I care less about anyone's opinion on how viable OC is in terms of self defense. The erosion of our Constitutional rights continues... http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/09/3898230/lawmakers-pass-ban-on-openly-carrying.html
At first I thought you were talking about OC spray and thought it was sad. This is just down right crazy. What a waste that a beautiful state like CA is run by left wing retards.
Belmont31R
09-11-11, 12:25
Another state ruined by a couple liberal metro areas. Most of the state is as conservative as anywhere else.
Boiling a frog a few degrees at a time...
Eurodriver
09-11-11, 13:57
Incredible. The rest of the country is granting shall issue permits and California is already at the completely opposite end of the spectrum.
Legislature passed it, now onto Governor Jerry Brown to either sign it or veto it.
Honestly, not sure which way he will go.
Since, he recently vetoed a bunch of bills while saying "I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law."
Just confused that a democrat would say that.
pilotguyo540
09-11-11, 18:19
I am praying for a light at the end of this tunnel. A judge ruled against "shall issue CC" because we had OC. This may end up a good thing in the end.
Belmont is correct. We are held hostage by a few large metro areas. It doesn't help when so called pro 2A "advocates" promote stripping away our rights for "common sense" and "public safety." While I think these things are good, it does not help in negotiations when your side drops drawers before they walk through the door.
My first thought:
CA - Lawmakers pass ban on OC. = Ban OC spray? Bad.
My second thought:
CA - Lawmakers pass ban on OC. = Ban Orange County? Good.
Then I read the article. Good luck, CA. Get out while you can, guys.
From my understanding the Governor has 30 days to sign this into law. To the best of my knowledge nothing's been done yet.
This sucks for folks in CA But really what good is carrying a unloaded sidearm ???? I think that really Nothing surprises me when it comes from Kalifornia and the dumb ass Laws they Pass on law-abiding Gun owners .Think the thugs care about the laws ?they need to focus On them, Not the people who follow the Laws and jump through the hoops to be able to have a Right to posses a Firearm.I really wish Somebody would challenge these dumb ass laws they Pass
I don't get openly carrying unloaded firearms. I get carrying loaded concealed firearms. Carrying an obviously unloaded firearm in the open invites getting robbed by a thug with a loaded firearm.
In regards to the unloaded open carry (UOC) comments...
CA use to be a loaded open carry state.
But due to racisim, CA was changed into an unloaded open carry state.
During the 1960s, some minorities realized they could legally open carry loaded firearms for protections. This caused the legislators to pass a bill banning the open carrying of loaded firearms in public places and that bill was singed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967.
What was left, was the legal open carrying of unloaded firearms in public places and the legal open carrying of loaded firearms in non-prohibited areas of unincorporated lands.
A few years ago, some people began open carrying unloaded handguns because it was legal to do so. Regardless of what their motivations were (ranged for personal protections to political statement over carrying of firearms in CA), this caused the legislators to pass a bill banning the open carrying of unloaded firearms in public places.
Another reason why I will never live in Commifornia again. To many people in that state think they are doing good but are only making it worse for everyone else that lives there. Some of these people who vote for certain laws have no clue what it is about and how its taking certain rights away from people. They all need to go back to school and relearn the constitution. Sorry I hate that state with a passion.
Fried Chicken Blowout
09-18-11, 12:42
Well thank goodness the law makers are making new laws... I don't know what we would do if they left things along for more than a few days... We'd all be so worse off if that ever happened.... Please continue to make more wonderful laws to tell me how I need to act and live my life, I'm not capable to making those decision without injuring myself or someone else...
Thanks you from the bottom of my heart for making the world a better place!
PRGGodfather
09-18-11, 13:36
In regards to the unloaded open carry (UOC) comments...
CA use to be a loaded open carry state.
But due to racisim, CA was changed into an unloaded open carry state.
During the 1960s, some minorities realized they could legally open carry loaded firearms for protections. This caused the legislators to pass a bill banning the open carrying of loaded firearms in public places and that bill was singed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967.
What was left, was the legal open carrying of unloaded firearms in public places and the legal open carrying of loaded firearms in non-prohibited areas of unincorporated lands.
A few years ago, some people began open carrying unloaded handguns because it was legal to do so. Regardless of what their motivations were (ranged for personal protections to political statement over carrying of firearms in CA), this caused the legislators to pass a bill banning the open carrying of unloaded firearms in public places.
Absolutely correct. But the correct term is UOC: Unloaded Open Carry.
Unloaded Open Carry is a political movement, conducted primarily in areas where political appointees refuse to issue CCWs, like the major metropolitan areas in the Queen of the Nanny States.
UOC is actually about LEGAL CONCEALED CARRY.
Because enough twits who frequent Peet's Coffee decided that the mere presense of an UNLOADED gun in their midst would cause involuntary clothed self-defecation, a bunch of alleged representatives passed this notion -- as honestly, UOC isn't really about self-defense in any practical sense. It was ALWAYS about protecting ourselves from bad legislation and bad government.
UOC proponents knew this would come, and this proved their point. Now, for most urban Californians, there is NO LEGAL way to carry a firearm in public, period.
Also, with enough pampered, stupid police officers who began worrying about gang-bangers openly carrying (Hello, gang-bangers carry ILLEGAL CONCEALED AND LOADED weapons! That's is why they run from us, you morons!), it was just a matter of time before both Public Safety and Officer Safety were cited as motives for such legislative horsecrap.
UOC was about exercising rights that continue to be eroded, especially when the nanny insists she needs to protect you from yourself. Frankly, as a Californian and a Peace Officer, I continue to be ashamed of this silliness. Still, this isn't over. Everything is temporary. Some of us don't run.
UOC proponents knew this was coming. We will see how long it takes for Californians to actually fight back legally.
Multiple Pro-2A entities are poised for the barrage of lawsuits, even though this battle should have been fought in the 1960's when the Black Panthers marched with slung M1 Carbines on Sacramento. Unspoken racism fueled fear of firearms, and this continues today. Just listen to what the politicians say.
The late 60's and early 70's triggered a lot of anti-gun legislation because of the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations, and let's face it -- too many hippies were influencing mainstream America, who was too distracted with free love and marijuana to care about protecting themselves. We got caught sleeping on the job, and we reaped the whirlwind. We wanted to be "cosmopolitan" so badly -- just like the current occupant of the White House would have us believe is the answer to the future.
Since many Californians, especially our elected officials, seem to be exceedingly proficient with irrational and public self-defecation, I support suing the state as often as possible. That, and more earthquakes. Or learn to weaponize their poop.
When the big earthquake comes, the folks in SoCal will eat each other. We will be putting out too many fires to worry about spending $15 for a movie ticket.
Army Chief
09-18-11, 13:48
Perhaps it is time to follow the German model, and designate certain cities city-states, so the good people of California, Illinois and New York state won't be subjected to further loss of their freedoms at the hands of those who are preoccupied with restraining the animals in L.A., Chicago and NYC. Our urban centers would seem to be a lost cause.
AC
PRGGodfather
09-18-11, 14:05
Perhaps it is time to follow the German model, and designate certain cities city-states, so the good people of California, Illinois and New York state won't be subjected to further loss of their freedoms at the hands of those who are preoccupied with restraining the animals in L.A., Chicago and NYC. Our urban centers would seem to be a lost cause.
AC
While anathema to true Americans, don't think this can't happen. Complacency and apathy would be all that is necessary to effect it.
It was not that long ago when the rest of the country was heading the way of California. The Federal Assault Weapon Ban happened everywhere, and most of y'all let it. Now, we have more "shall issue" states and the most reciprocity we have ever seen. And there's STILL plenty of work to be done.
We actually had the Supreme Court take on 2A cases in my lifetime. In the 80's, the entire ABA would have told you that would never happen.
The antis would lull us into thinking we are winning, while we splinter our own political clout by encouraging Californians to run away to free states.
The metropolitan centers in CA, like SO many rats in too small a cage, push the vote. The rest of the country watches the news and thinks everyone in CA is fruits, flakes and nuts.
The rest of the state is surprisingly pro-2A.
Unloaded Open Carry is a political movement, conducted primarily in areas where political appointees refuse to issue CCWs, like the major metropolitan areas in the Queen of the Nanny States.
UOC is actually about LEGAL CONCEALED CARRY.
Because enough twits who frequent Peet's Coffee decided that the mere presense of an UNLOADED gun in their midst would cause involuntary clothed self-defecation, a bunch of alleged representatives passed this notion -- as honestly, UOC isn't really about self-defense in any practical sense. It was ALWAYS about protecting ourselves from bad legislation and bad government.
UOC proponents knew this would come, and this proved their point. Now, for most urban Californians, there is NO LEGAL way to carry a firearm in public, period.
Also, with enough pampered, stupid police officers who began worrying about gang-bangers openly carrying (Hello, gang-bangers carry ILLEGAL CONCEALED AND LOADED weapons! That's is why they run from us, you morons!), it was just just a matter of time before both Public Safety and Officer Safety were cited as motives for such legislative horsecrap.
Right on target with this post!
Here's an article from today on the subject. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guns-20110917,0,6149742.story
Long-gun registration passed as well as the OC ban. This article details all the gun laws passed by Gov. Brown. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/california-gov-jerry-brown-doesnt-respect-2nd-amendment
Belmont31R
10-11-11, 14:59
Wow hows that for justification: http://gov.ca.gov/docs/AB_809_Signing_Message.pdf
Stupid ass laws that don't keep criminals from doing whatever they want. They can afford to keep gun owners under their thumb but can't afford to house prisoners for their full sentences.
Reading the Stars and Stripes today a CA lawmaker was quoted as saying "Now our citizens won't have to worry about their children being shot by some crazy gun-toting vigilante"
Makes my ****ing blood boil.
I also just read about this...
Calif. Governor Veto Allows Warrantless Cellphone Searches
http://informationliberation.com/?id=36848
LowSpeed_HighDrag
10-11-11, 17:53
While CA passes laws that give student aide to illegal aliens, they pass other laws that take the rights from legal citizens. They have abandoned the American way of life, they have trampled on the constitution, and they have betrayed this country. Gov Brown and everyone of his lackies are domestic enemies to the constitution. But, the plame for this lies not only on the gov, but also on the people. They made their bed, now they must lie in it.
I have 1 year and 8 days left in CA, I cant wait to leave. For those staying to fight the good fight, Godspeed. I will continue to support you financially and emotionally, but I can not raise my family behind enemy lines any longer.
Myabe this is just hypothetical: Wake up America. Its time to start the peaceful revolution. But, if they fire the first shot, then fire the next 500,000.
pilotguyo540
10-11-11, 21:05
While CA passes laws that give student aide to illegal aliens, they pass other laws that take the rights from legal citizens. They have abandoned the American way of life, they have trampled on the constitution, and they have betrayed this country. Gov Brown and everyone of his lackies are domestic enemies to the constitution. But, the plame for this lies not only on the gov, but also on the people. They made their bed, now they must lie in it.
I have 1 year and 8 days left in CA, I cant wait to leave. For those staying to fight the good fight, Godspeed. I will continue to support you financially and emotionally, but I can not raise my family behind enemy lines any longer.
Myabe this is just hypothetical: Wake up America. Its time to start the peaceful revolution. But, if they fire the first shot, then fire the next 500,000.
I will stay and fight. I fear it may actually come to that. I don't see a way to vote ourselves out of this mess. The people have been brainwashed into thinking this is a democracy.
The long gun registry came out of the blue. I heard nothing of this until today. The OC ban I thought could have a silver lining. After this string of bad news, I am not so optimistic.
Everyone is so damn scared to be labeled a "right wing nut," we have no leadership in our corner. Nobody wants to be the mole to get whacked, but is there none among us to stand up at all? Why is no armed peaceful rally set up in Sacramento? It is our duty to remind the powers that be that freedom is not theirs to control. "Freedom isn't free" is a catchy slogan to make people feel better about sending their loved ones to fight in Iraq. It should be remembered and implimented here first. The tyrants are at the gates, bumping in the night. Its time to bump back.
The OC ban I thought could have a silver lining. After this string of bad news, I am not so optimistic.
The silver lining for those of you who don't know, is the UOC ban opened the backdoor for "shall issue" CCW reform in CA.
CA's state constitution does not have a "right to bear arms" provision.
Hence the reason why, prior to 2010, the court system in CA have consistantly ruled that CA's anti-gun laws were constitutional.
It wasn't until 2010, when SCOTUS ruled the Second Amendment is incorporated and applied to the states, that CA got a "right to bear arms" provision.
In two recent court cases challenging CA's "may issue" CCW system, the judges ruled that CA's "may issue" CCW system was legal because a non-prohibited person could open carry an unloaded handgun as an alternative to being issued a CA LTC permit.
Now that unloaded open carry of a handgun has been banned, it removes that reasoning to prevent "shall issue" CCW reform in CA.
Now that unloaded open carry of a handgun has been banned, it removes that reasoning to prevent "shall issue" CCW reform in CA.
My intention isn't to offend you but there's no logical "reasoning" behind a lot of their laws and if "shall issue" happens for CA I'd be very surprised.
You seem to be knowledgeable about what's happening in terms of 2nd Amendment issues in CA. What is your estimated time line for this to happen? How long should CA residents be forced to defend themselves with sticks and stones?
EDIT: Below.
It wasn't until 2010, when SCOTUS ruled the Second Amendment is incorporated and applied to the states, that CA got a "right to bear arms" provision.
This hasn't done shit for Chicago, New York, DC, etc. I know people are hoping that it'll pass CCW shall issue in CA but I think it's a slim chance. Best of luck!
pilotguyo540
10-12-11, 14:20
The silver lining for those of you who don't know, is the UOC ban opened the backdoor for "shall issue" CCW reform in CA.
CA's state constitution does not have a "right to bear arms" provision.
Hence the reason why, prior to 2010, the court system in CA have consistantly ruled that CA's anti-gun laws were constitutional.
It wasn't until 2010, when SCOTUS ruled the Second Amendment is incorporated and applied to the states, that CA got a "right to bear arms" provision.
In two recent court cases challenging CA's "may issue" CCW system, the judges ruled that CA's "may issue" CCW system was legal because a non-prohibited person could open carry an unloaded handgun as an alternative to being issued a CA LTC permit.
Now that unloaded open carry of a handgun has been banned, it removes that reasoning to prevent "shall issue" CCW reform in CA.
The United States Constitution does. In order to be part of the United states of America, the states had to adopt the Constitution. This seems to have been lost along the way.
I covered my hopes for the UOC ban on page 1 here and in other threads. The pessimist in me is currently prevailing. The silver lining is barely visible from my vantage point. I really hope you are right.
Belmont31R
10-12-11, 14:27
The United States Constitution does. In order to be part of the United states of America, the states had to adopt the Constitution. This seems to have been lost along the way.
I covered my hopes for the UOC ban on page 1 here and in other threads. The pessimist in me is currently prevailing. The silver lining is barely visible from my vantage point. I really hope you are right.
Not quite. The BOR only applied to the Federal government at the time of ratification.
The 14th Amendment was supposed to apply the BOR to the states.
A couple shitty SCOTUS rulings in the Reconstruction era voided the 14th Amendment for this purpose.
Since then SCOTUS has had to incorporate pieces of each amendment to the states as cases come up. The 2nd Amendment was not incorporated to the states until the McDonald case in 2010.
We still need a ruling on the level of scrutiny the 2nd will have which basically sets the tone for what restrictions the governments are allowed to enact. We have incorporation but are in a gray area where cases are going to establish what restrictions are acceptable.
pilotguyo540
10-12-11, 15:51
While I believe you Belmont, I am failing to understand how it can not apply to the states. It would seem useless to have the bill of rights if you state could consider it, or sections thereof, invalid. When states pass laws, these can be challanged on constitutional grounds going all the way to SCOTUS. I am failing to understand just how the constitution works on a stste by state level.
Belmont31R
10-12-11, 16:06
While I believe you Belmont, I am failing to understand how it can not apply to the states. It would seem useless to have the bill of rights if you state could consider it, or sections thereof, invalid. When states pass laws, these can be challanged on constitutional grounds going all the way to SCOTUS. I am failing to understand just how the constitution works on a stste by state level.
Yes the BOR was limitations on the Federal government not the states.
It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was passed that the states were bound by the BOR.
SCOTUS basically overuled the 14th Amendment, and then later courts have had to incorporate sections of each amendment to the states as cases presented themselves.
McDonald vs. Chicago is the case that incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states.
Read these: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
Multiple Pro-2A entities are poised for the barrage of lawsuits, even though this battle should have been fought in the 1960's when the Black Panthers marched with slung M1 Carbines on Sacramento. Unspoken racism fueled fear of firearms, and this continues today.
Yes... and many other states adopted laws to deal with situations like that without flatly outlawing open carry of a loaded firearm.
Washington has one like this. I have heard this talked about as a vague racist law that talks around what it was actually intended to prevent (angry black guys in public places with guns). It became law in 1969.
"RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons..."
Bold emphasis mine. Note Washington still allows open carry of a loaded firearm as long as it is not "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."
So in the 60s America was afraid of black people in public with guns. Now we are afraid of everyone in public with guns. How egalitarian of us. Look at the Progress we have made.
;)
pilotguyo540
10-12-11, 16:56
Yes the BOR was limitations on the Federal government not the states.
It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was passed that the states were bound by the BOR.
SCOTUS basically overuled the 14th Amendment, and then later courts have had to incorporate sections of each amendment to the states as cases presented themselves.
McDonald vs. Chicago is the case that incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states.
Read these: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
You are a gentlemen and a scholar.
I am going to take a nap now.
Belmont31R
10-13-11, 13:39
Also trying to ban people from putting pacifiers in their mouth and wearing gloves with lights on them....
(Video has some scantily clad females so maybe NSFW) http://youtu.be/hm3qQyWXoe0
Notice how dumb the "lawmaker" admits to being. She says she didn't even know what she was trying to legislate, and didn't know you can't ban a certain type of music. 'Oh we found it was uh um unconstitutional to ban a type of music and oh um........'.
I wonder what she would say about these laws that just got signed in. Probably equally as stupid and unaware of what they're constitutionally allowed to regulate.
ForTehNguyen
10-14-11, 13:09
Reading the Stars and Stripes today a CA lawmaker was quoted as saying "Now our citizens won't have to worry about their children being shot by some crazy gun-toting vigilante"
Makes my ****ing blood boil.
http://news.yahoo.com/8-killed-southern-california-salon-shooting-234451134.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.