I thought that part of the reason the Federal judge found against the CCW carry suit in CA back in May was because they had open carry. I wonder if in the long run the CA Government will come to rue this decision?
Almost certainly, yes. At some point, a case from an essentially no-issue county will make it through the courts and the lack of viable carry options will be deemed a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. At that point, California will have the choice between reinstating open carry or becoming shall issue.
I came here to say the same thing; I’m glad I’m not the only one to make the association…
The suit is pending before the 9th Circuit and yes, they have asked the court to take judicial notice of this little constitutional problem. Clearly whomever is providing the CA Legislature with legal advice needs to be terminated. This was a dumb law.
Here comes shall issue for kalifornia. Their politicians just had to play with fire.
I’d love to think that was the plot of the open carry advocates all along, but somehow I doubt it.
“Here comes shall issue for kalifornia. Their politicians just had to play with fire.”
So I sincerely hope and pray.
I don’t live there anymore, but on occasion did throw my 1911 on the dashboard while traveling. Better than nothing.
As such I was really annoyed with the OC’er making a stink.
Hopefully, it will come out for all the better.
California open carry is stupid. Why carry an unloaded weapon? For a pretty paper weight? I can carry a loaded weapon in condition 1 (cocked and locked) in Kentucky all day long. When I worked at Lowe’s we had a contractor that open carried every day, and neither management nor the police or even the customers ever said a word about it. Not once. Yet another reason I’m glad to be from the number 1 gun toting state (42.5 guns per 100 citizens last stats I saw!!). Californian needs to declare itself its own country so we can nuke the hippies. All the surrounding states would get a nice contact high from the smoke 🙂
California needs open carry more than any other state in the union. When people see a father with a gun strapped to his hip (even if its unloaded) buying ice cream for his kids it normalizes firearms. California needs this to remove their irrational fear of seeing guns.
It will be a great day in America when Californians are no longer afraid of the sight of a law abiding citizen carrying an inanimate object.
“It will be a great day in America when Californians are no longer afraid of the sight of a law abiding citizen carrying an inanimate object”
this could apply in Maryland, the California of the upper south. Here you can legally buy a suppressor, but gtfoh if you are a normal person who wants a CCW or open carry for than matter.
+1
“California open carry is stupid. Why carry an unloaded weapon? For a pretty paper weight?”
Agreed, and we can thank Ronald Reagan for that.
In the mean time, without making a demonstration of it, many of us did take advantage of that limited liberty.
hey I live in california so don’t nuke me! i Wish our laws were as awesome as kentucky’s! Not everybody is a hippy here….
The idea is (was) that loaded mags on your person but not in the gun constituted an unloaded weapon. Not as good as loaded carry, but still only a second or so away from protecting yourself if the situation arises. Compared to now, cowering behind a table trying to dial 911.
This also made carry in national parks legal as long as you followed the state UOC regulations. Not sure what it does to national parks now, but I’m pretty sure I need to get me a small locking case to keep in my backpack for the next time I’m in Yosemite or Sequoia again. Almost pointless, I know, but better than wishing I hadn’t left it locked in the car if I need it. Assuming I can get to it in time.
That’s a good question, why carry an unloaded weapon. The thing is they’re unloaded for only the two seconds it takes to grab the magazine off the other hip, slip it into the gun and rack the slide.
I don’t call that unloaded. I call that aggression and intimidation, which is really what these guys are all about.
It seems the California Legislature has other ideas about concealed carry and shall issue. I remember House Rep. Dan Lundgren stating in the House debate floor regarding HR 822 that the CA Legislature WILL cancel all concealed carry licenses if the bill became law.That statement makes the problem obvious.As far as the state government is concerned no one without gang tats ,celebrity status,or police powers deserves to be armed ; and that is a policy they are committed to enforcing irrespective of logic or the Constitution.
As for the story, thumbs down on the author for this blurb:
“I am carrying a 6 hour P226 .40 Smith & Wesson, so that’s just a regular sidearm,” said another gun activist.
If they did that, they’d be in violation of the Second Amendment has it was defined in Heller, because they would have completely outlawed the carrying of handguns. They would lose in court and they would have to choose between either open or concealed carry.
As for the guy in the story, I’m pretty sure I heard him say Sig Sauer. Otherwise, what’s the bad here?
As long as they did not ban guns outright they would not be in violation of the Second Amendment per Heller. I suspect that the California Courts will uphold May issue.
From the Heller decision: Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. (emphasis mine)
Previous challenges to May Issue in California had been struck because open carry was an option. With that gone, and the practice of many counties of not issuing carry permits to anyone, the carrying of handguns will have been banned in many parts of California. That would be in violation of the Second Amendment, as found in Heller, and incorporated against the states in McDonald.
That is ambiguous. Heller has not forced DC, Chicago or New York to allow concealed or open carry. Confrontation in Heller is in your home or on your property. Future decisions may clarify that but as of this moment Heller confers the right to bear arms only on your property or in your house.
Future decisions may clarify that but as of this moment Heller confers the right to bear arms only on your property or in your house.
You are correct. Personally, I find it hard to believe that my right to self-defense begins and ends at my front door, but that is the extent of the law right now.
fortunately, the lawsuit pending is in federal court.
The reason both CCW lawsuits lost is because the US Supreme Court said that states may ban concealed carry.
The lawyers in the two lawsuits didn’t help their cases by failing to challenge the constitutionality of any California law.
The Supreme Court was quite clear on the manner of carry which is constitutionally protected and that is Open Carry.
There is now a Federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. Unlike the NRA/SAF lawyers in their lawsuits, mine unequivocally challenges the constitutionality of California’s Open Carry ban.
I thought that part of the reason the Federal judge found against the CCW carry suit in CA back in May was because they had open carry. I wonder if in the long run the CA Government will come to rue this decision?
Almost certainly, yes. At some point, a case from an essentially no-issue county will make it through the courts and the lack of viable carry options will be deemed a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. At that point, California will have the choice between reinstating open carry or becoming shall issue.
I came here to say the same thing; I’m glad I’m not the only one to make the association…
The suit is pending before the 9th Circuit and yes, they have asked the court to take judicial notice of this little constitutional problem. Clearly whomever is providing the CA Legislature with legal advice needs to be terminated. This was a dumb law.
Here comes shall issue for kalifornia. Their politicians just had to play with fire.
I’d love to think that was the plot of the open carry advocates all along, but somehow I doubt it.
“Here comes shall issue for kalifornia. Their politicians just had to play with fire.”
So I sincerely hope and pray.
I don’t live there anymore, but on occasion did throw my 1911 on the dashboard while traveling. Better than nothing.
As such I was really annoyed with the OC’er making a stink.
Hopefully, it will come out for all the better.
California open carry is stupid. Why carry an unloaded weapon? For a pretty paper weight? I can carry a loaded weapon in condition 1 (cocked and locked) in Kentucky all day long. When I worked at Lowe’s we had a contractor that open carried every day, and neither management nor the police or even the customers ever said a word about it. Not once. Yet another reason I’m glad to be from the number 1 gun toting state (42.5 guns per 100 citizens last stats I saw!!). Californian needs to declare itself its own country so we can nuke the hippies. All the surrounding states would get a nice contact high from the smoke 🙂
California needs open carry more than any other state in the union. When people see a father with a gun strapped to his hip (even if its unloaded) buying ice cream for his kids it normalizes firearms. California needs this to remove their irrational fear of seeing guns.
It will be a great day in America when Californians are no longer afraid of the sight of a law abiding citizen carrying an inanimate object.
“It will be a great day in America when Californians are no longer afraid of the sight of a law abiding citizen carrying an inanimate object”
this could apply in Maryland, the California of the upper south. Here you can legally buy a suppressor, but gtfoh if you are a normal person who wants a CCW or open carry for than matter.
+1
“California open carry is stupid. Why carry an unloaded weapon? For a pretty paper weight?”
Agreed, and we can thank Ronald Reagan for that.
In the mean time, without making a demonstration of it, many of us did take advantage of that limited liberty.
hey I live in california so don’t nuke me! i Wish our laws were as awesome as kentucky’s! Not everybody is a hippy here….
The idea is (was) that loaded mags on your person but not in the gun constituted an unloaded weapon. Not as good as loaded carry, but still only a second or so away from protecting yourself if the situation arises. Compared to now, cowering behind a table trying to dial 911.
This also made carry in national parks legal as long as you followed the state UOC regulations. Not sure what it does to national parks now, but I’m pretty sure I need to get me a small locking case to keep in my backpack for the next time I’m in Yosemite or Sequoia again. Almost pointless, I know, but better than wishing I hadn’t left it locked in the car if I need it. Assuming I can get to it in time.
That’s a good question, why carry an unloaded weapon. The thing is they’re unloaded for only the two seconds it takes to grab the magazine off the other hip, slip it into the gun and rack the slide.
I don’t call that unloaded. I call that aggression and intimidation, which is really what these guys are all about.
It seems the California Legislature has other ideas about concealed carry and shall issue. I remember House Rep. Dan Lundgren stating in the House debate floor regarding HR 822 that the CA Legislature WILL cancel all concealed carry licenses if the bill became law.That statement makes the problem obvious.As far as the state government is concerned no one without gang tats ,celebrity status,or police powers deserves to be armed ; and that is a policy they are committed to enforcing irrespective of logic or the Constitution.
As for the story, thumbs down on the author for this blurb:
“I am carrying a 6 hour P226 .40 Smith & Wesson, so that’s just a regular sidearm,” said another gun activist.
If they did that, they’d be in violation of the Second Amendment has it was defined in Heller, because they would have completely outlawed the carrying of handguns. They would lose in court and they would have to choose between either open or concealed carry.
As for the guy in the story, I’m pretty sure I heard him say Sig Sauer. Otherwise, what’s the bad here?
As long as they did not ban guns outright they would not be in violation of the Second Amendment per Heller. I suspect that the California Courts will uphold May issue.
Previous challenges to May Issue in California had been struck because open carry was an option. With that gone, and the practice of many counties of not issuing carry permits to anyone, the carrying of handguns will have been banned in many parts of California. That would be in violation of the Second Amendment, as found in Heller, and incorporated against the states in McDonald.
That is ambiguous. Heller has not forced DC, Chicago or New York to allow concealed or open carry. Confrontation in Heller is in your home or on your property. Future decisions may clarify that but as of this moment Heller confers the right to bear arms only on your property or in your house.
Future decisions may clarify that but as of this moment Heller confers the right to bear arms only on your property or in your house.
You are correct. Personally, I find it hard to believe that my right to self-defense begins and ends at my front door, but that is the extent of the law right now.
fortunately, the lawsuit pending is in federal court.
The reason both CCW lawsuits lost is because the US Supreme Court said that states may ban concealed carry.
The lawyers in the two lawsuits didn’t help their cases by failing to challenge the constitutionality of any California law.
The Supreme Court was quite clear on the manner of carry which is constitutionally protected and that is Open Carry.
There is now a Federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. Unlike the NRA/SAF lawyers in their lawsuits, mine unequivocally challenges the constitutionality of California’s Open Carry ban.
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
Comments are closed.