California...open carry ban might lead to "shall issue" concealed carry ...

[spin]

Democrat gun ban creeps along
July 21, 2:02 AMLA History ExaminerCharles Nichols

California Assembly Bill 1934, which would create an entirely new crime of openly carrying a handgun throughout most public places in the state has reportedly bypassed the California Senate Appropriations Committee and will be heard on the Senate floor if the author, Lori Saldana (D-78) can find a state senator to present the bill.

***snip***


In light of the United States Supreme Court Heller and McDonald decisions it is curious that this bill is still alive given that its passage by the California Legislature would be in open defiance of the US Supreme Court. Although the government of Washington D.C., initially stated that they would defy the US Supreme Court when it issued its Heller decision they quickly changed their tune and instead wrote a new law claiming that it is in compliance with the US Supreme Court decision. The City of Chicago has similarly adopted a new ordinance allowing only a single functional firearm in a home after one has completed an onerous five and 1/2 month permit process. In other words, the cities are defying the court while at the same time claiming they are complying with the court. I don't think the US Supreme Court will be amused and we can expect the High Court to smack down both cities claims of compliance next year.

AB1934 goes far beyond the machinations of the City of Chicago and Washington D.C., it expressly makes the following found by the court to be a crime:

What do the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" from the 2nd Amendment mean to the US Supreme Court?

"...we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." - Scalia in Heller

What does it mean to "carry?"

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Scalia in Heller

AB1934 seems to have overlooked the core of what the US Supreme Court said in the Heller and McDonald decisions:

"Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual
self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right." - Alito in McDonald

Given that California does not recognize a right to carry a firearm concealed, openly carrying a firearm is the only legal means left of self-defense. If AB1934 passes, the California State Legislature would be making it a crime to carry a handgun for the purpose of self defense, in direct defiance of the High Court.

http://www.examiner.com/x-26553-LA-History-Examiner~y2010m7d21-Democrat-gun-ban-creeps-along

Would open-carry ban boost concealed weapons permits?
By Malcolm Maclachlan | 07/22/10 12:00 AM PST

Could a bill banning the open carrying of firearms actually result in more guns on California streets?


That’s what some gun rights advocates are saying about AB 1934 by Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego. They claim that the difficulty in getting concealed weapons permits in many California counties is so great that a ban on openly carrying guns would essentially infringe on the right to bear arms. One pro-open carry group, Responsible Citizens of California, has indicated that they are prepared to file a lawsuit as soon as the bill becomes law, if it gets that far.


“There is no question that for the vast majority of cities in California, getting a CCW is impossible,” said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. “When you look at the number of CCWs handed out in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego Counties, counties which represent the majority of the state, they hand out very few.”

California is a so-called “may issue” state. What this means is that county sheriffs can choose to issue permits or not, and that those who are denied permits have no recourse. Forty states are “shall issue” states, with laws stating that permits, if needed at all, shall be issued to anyone who has the proper legal standing to own a gun. Two states, Wisconsin and Illinois, ban concealed weapons entirely.

***snip***

According to figures gathered by Lott, San Francisco County issued a total of six CCWs for all of 2009. Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Diego each issued fewer than 1,500 — the equivalent to less than one per 2,000 people. In some rural counties, by contrast, permits in a single year total over two percent of the population.


Yih-Chau Chang, press secretary for Responsible Citizens, said his group is also looking for an author for a bill that would move California into the “shall issue” column. He said such a move — permits including registration and training — would fix many of the public safety problems Saldana raises in AB 1934.
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=z05cygq5tdlv27&xid=z03k54zggit1vf&done=.z05cygq5teav27

[friendly_iconoclast]

1. "May issue" is not only corrupt in practice, it's now unconstitutional

Lori Saldana may want to think really hard about what the word 'counterproductive' means...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Those icky Second and Fourteenth Amendments are getting you down, eh?

I say to you what I'd say to those other cafeteria Constitutionalists, Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and Gonzales:

Our rights are not yours to ignore, infringe, or trample upon, whatever your claimed necessity may be. Adjust your attitude accordingly.

[Statistical]

4. I think eventually "may issue" will be found to be Unconstitutional.

If person X & Y both have the same background, same training, same level of experience, and proficiency then how can the state say denying x and granting Y is equal protection under the law?

It might take a decade but "may issue" will go away.

Even IF the courts find that carrying in public places is not protected I think states will be required to either:
a) allow all lawful citizens to carry under a uniform standard
b) allow no citizens to carry.

All or nothing. No some people are "more equal than others".

I think the Supreme Court will be conservative (lower case c not capital C) and say something like:

"The State can restrict/regulation carrying of firearms in public but it must be by a uniform standard."

Not the opinion I would like but it is the opinion I think is likely.
It would be a big step for the 10 states which are "may infringe" or "will infringe" right now.

[sailor65]

5. Needs to happen in NY as well

"May issue" is way too subjective.

[Statistical]

6. Oh that will totally upset a certain person on this forum.

She is planning to go to NY to get away from Florida where "anyone can get a gun from Walmart with no questions asked".
Eliminating "may issue/infringe" across the country would give those which wish to deny the rights of others nowhere to hide.

Equal protection under the law. Wow what a concept.

[Katya Mullethov]

7. Wouldn't Chicago be more appropriate ?

You can buy entire blocks of Detroit for several dozens of dollars , but I am not so sure of their handgun laws . The lack of grocery stores in Detroit proper might be a deal breaker . My money is on Chicago as the place to go to avoid gun owners committing gun crime with crime guns .

[sailor65]

8. It's amazing, isn't it?

"Some are more equal than others."

And NY is exactly like that right now.

[spin]

9. Obviously in NY the rich and powerful or the famous are more equal ...

than the average citizen.

Obviously they are much more intelligent and responsible than the normal run of the mill citizen. Just like in the middle age where the king and his noblemen were the truly important and privileged people, only certain people should have the right to carry concealed.

Of the seven categories, the “full carry” handgun licenses have drawn the most attention. In 2006, The New York Post reported that a number of well-known figures in business, entertainment and politics were those with permits to carry concealed weapons, including Ronald S. Lauder, the cosmetics executive; Donald J. Trump, the real estate investor; Edgar Bronfman Sr., founder of Seagrams; the actors Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel; the radio hosts Howard Stern and Don Imus; and the State Senate majority leader at the time, Joseph L. Bruno, who lives upstate but had an office in Manhattan.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/a-guide-to-city-gun-licenses/

Why should some average honest hard working individaul living in a bad area in New York City be allowed to own or carry a firearm. After all, he is far less of a citizen than Donald Trump or Don Imus. Trump and Imus can easily afford security guards to protect their valuable asses. The average honest citizen can't and has no right to self defense.

That sounds like freedom and equality to me.

:sarcasm:

[HspncElvis]

12. Open Carry in San Diego California/Shall Issue

What is the latest news on Open Carry and Shall Issue in California? More specifically, San Diego.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. If the Thune Amendment could be passed, that would solve the problem.

The Thune Amendment was a proposal that would establish national resiprocity. If you had a CCW from any state, it would be good in all states that allowed any form of concealed carry. So a CA resident could get an out-of-state permit from UT and then be able to carry in all but two states.

[spin]

11. I doubt if that will happen but it would be nice. (n/t)