Link. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/1 ... 03843.html

AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect Jan 1.

The bill exempts hunting and shooting events and does not apply to those who are given permits to carry a concealed weapon by local law enforcement authorities.

Portantino said the bill is an opportunity to prevent tragedy before it happens.

I foresee this as a law that will sweep the nation. It's got to be a good thing. Opinions?

Obviously a very bad thing.
The real reason was that 2nd Amendment activists were exercising their rights by demonstrating carrying their guns.

Wanting to shut down these demonstrations was the sole (and willfully unconstitutional) motivation for this law.

Makes you wonder..

If Californians had the guts the Arab youth have shown in the arab spring, 50,000 people would turn out daring the "authorities" to arrest them.

Since they could never attempt to arrest that many armed people, this act of public disobedience would make this law an unenforced, and therefore due to precedent, an unenforcable, absurdity.

So what's the fine for a loaded gun?

California also has laws against displaying intelligence in public.

Z

Palmer, that's not how precedent works. If the police fail to arrest all 50,000, it doesn't stand to reason that they couldn't arrest some of the 50,000. And even if they failed to arrest any of the 50,000 on Monday, there wouldn't be anything stopping them from arresting you on Tuesday.

Also, I originally was in agreement with Justice Scalia's interpretation of the Second Amendment, but am coming around to Justice Stevens's. The intent of the Second is not only made clear by the militia clause, but also in the language of the commanding portion of the law itself: "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"Bear arms" is a phrase that had a particular meaning. It didn't mean "brandish" or "show" or "carry." It meant "go to war," as in "bear arms against ______." I suppose it's possible to suppose that owning firearms is either separate from this ("keep AND bear") or that for fear of limiting the latter, you shan't limit the former, but that seems to me that your conclusion should be the following:

While a State may not (unduly) limit your ability to own firearms, it may limit the ways in which you use them.

I am glad that in OUR state we are allowed to Open Carry and Conceal Carry (with a permit), loaded AND unload firearms.

Sorry havent been around lately, and I dont really have time for this but Im going to endulge anyway.

I almost hate to say it but I dont see the point of contention here. The bill quoted above says it exempts anyone with a conceal permit right? And the law applies to exposed unloaded weapons? Why the hell would you carry an unloaded weapon, at least in my estimation, unless you are a two bit thug with intentions of appearing threatening, of course I speak generally, there may be an exception to this, but for the most part I just dont see why this harms or infringes on the 2nd amendment. May as well say its illegal to carry a 2 pound steel ingot, thats all an unloaded gun is anyway, expect with a fancy shape.

Why carry and unloaded weapon?
1. To a gunsmith
2. To sell to a gun store

Need I go on? What is interesting is that it says it excepts hunting and shooting events, but does not stipulate if the transportation of a firearm to one of these events are exempted as well. Would be an interesting question.

So if you were going to a gunsmith or gun store, you'd just tuck your piece in your belt or hip-holster and walk down the street, eh?

Most people I know who own guns carry them in a case any time they aren't shooting them. This law says nothing about carrying an unloaded firearm that is in a case, box, bag, wrapped in a cloth, etc etc.

Unloaded and EXPOSED.

like i said in my earlier post this bill was passed to go after the second amendment activists that demonstrate in that state against gun control by openly carrying a gun during the dmeonstration.

For safety reasons they generally keep them unloaded.

it is this specific activity that this law was designed to go after.

I did get a chuckle out of the 'prevent tragedy' comment. The purpose of this bill is to restrict people from carrying unloaded firearms…How would a tragedy occur with an unloaded firearm? I suspect that this is not the goal of the Bill’s sponsor.

Encryptshun wrote:So if you were going to a gunsmith or gun store, you'd just tuck your piece in your belt or hip-holster and walk down the street, eh?

Most people I know who own guns carry them in a case any time they aren't shooting them. This law says nothing about carrying an unloaded firearm that is in a case, box, bag, wrapped in a cloth, etc etc.

Unloaded and EXPOSED.

As long as I am not carrying on a school property or in a governmental building, why would the local police or citizenry care how and where I carry my firearm? (The only exemption I can think of is if I am doing so in a threatening manner.) I guess in Indiana it is really a non issue.
To be honest, one of our local gun stores requests that we carry (open) and unloaded. While I realize this is private property, but walking from the street (my car) on to the gun store property I carry open (exposed) in my Fobus holster and unloaded. I really think this is a mentality issue rather than a safety issue.

I suspect in California, they are trying to mitigate a problem of gang bangers carrying unloaded weapons in public and evading California law pertaining to Firearms. So they pass a law like this that will target lawful gun owners/operators.

I would think any legislation that allows open carry of unloaded firearms but dissallows open carry of loaded firearms would be problematic to enforce. If a cop sees a guy packing a piece, how is that cop supposed to know if it's loaded or not? So just saying "hey, it's fine, it wasn't loaded" isn't going to not get you shot in the face if the officer thinks you are making a movement toward the holster.

So if you're going to make it illegal to carry a loaded gun without a conceal/carry permit, then you should make it illegal to carry an UNloaded gun without the same.

Should it not, then, be illegal to carry anything that looks remotely similar to a firearm? If your argument is that the officer is going to shoot if he sees you moving towards your holster (regardless of the loaded/unloaded state of the firearm), would that same officer not be equally inclined to shoot if you were making a move towards something they perceived as a weapon?

Why then would you even need to enforce this law in the first place, is what I was getting at with my comments. I suspect the true intent is to make anyone carrying a firearm (with the exemption of permit holders, people hunting or at the range) a criminal so that it is easier for police to identify the bad guys without having to do any work. I am always skeptical about these types of legislation because of the burden it puts on lawful gun owners/operators and that it is usually just an attempt to create new legislation to give a perception that crime has been fought. What you find is that existing laws (that are usually adequate enough) are not enforced.

All I can say is that in Indiana we are bound by different laws. It is not illegal to open carry in public (with a few exceptions) or conceal carry (with a permit). I think what you find is that certain states and government systems initially trust its citizenry until they commit a crime. Others don’t. Which is why I stated that this legislation is a matter of a ‘mentality issue’ towards firearms and not a safety issue (which was cited as the reason for the legislation).

Sorry if this is a sidebar, but can someone explain to me why anyone other than a member of law enforcement or armed security/P.I. would openly carry a handgun in the first place?

Simple, to defend your person, your property or another person. The police cannot be everywhere at every moment to defend the populous. And thus the great debate on what the individual citizen’s obligation to defend oneself continues.

How does carrying a gun allow you to protect yourself or someone else? (I'm not trolling -- I'm honestly asking).

I would think as a deterrence against criminal activity.

One facet that would be interesting to explore would be, is the nature of defending your person, property or fellow citizens different between doing so as an individual versus as a group (National Guard, National Military).

Encryptshun wrote:Sorry if this is a sidebar, but can someone explain to me why anyone other than a member of law enforcement or armed security/P.I. would openly carry a handgun in the first place?

Please see my earlier post on the history and target of this legislation.

Cold_Zero wrote:I did get a chuckle out of the 'prevent tragedy' comment. The purpose of this bill is to restrict people from carrying unloaded firearms…How would a tragedy occur with an unloaded firearm? I suspect that this is not the goal of the Bill’s sponsor.

Because it's totally outside the realm of possibility for someone to think that it's loaded and act accordingly?

Cold_Zero wrote:I would think as a deterrence against criminal activity.

One facet that would be interesting to explore would be, is the nature of defending your person, property or fellow citizens different between doing so as an individual versus as a group (National Guard, National Military).

Might it not just draw attention to you from criminals and non-criminals alike? I don't look at some random guy walking into McDonald's with openly carrying and think, "He must be well-trained and responsible." I think, "The kind of person who'd bring a gun to McDonald's is probably not the most hinged." Further, if I'm a criminal bent on violence, I'd think, "I'm going to shoot him first."

Didn't anyone read the narrative earlier in this thread about what this law is aimed at?

IBCoupe wrote: Because it's totally outside the realm of possibility for someone to think that it's loaded and act accordingly?

My question to you would be, in what state or municipality would it be legal to shoot a person for just open carrying a firearm, loaded or unloaded? Remember, intimidation with a firearm (which is what I assume you are trying to get at) is most likely already a crime in California and most likely not covered under this bit of legislation. And I am also sure that California law stipulates that it is a crime regardless of the firearm being loaded or not. Not to mention that deranged and criminals typically don’t obey laws in the first place. So my question still stands, what tragedy would be prevented by this legislation?

In Indiana, we can NOT go around shooting people for carrying firearms. We have to meet a prescribed set of rules for the use of deadly force. This isn’t the wild wild west like Connecticut or California!

IBCoupe wrote: I think, "The kind of person who'd bring a gun to McDonald's is probably not the most hinged." Further, if I'm a criminal bent on violence, I'd think, "I'm going to shoot him first."

Personally, I do not judge the motives of my fellow Hoosiers when they open or conceal carry. I respect their right to do so under Indiana Code and ask all Hoosiers to respect my rights.
I do kind of find it ironic that you will judge someone (who has done nothing wrong in your example) and have no problems with that. But if I 'judge' someone socially as to their actual behavior, well I am the worse kind of human being. Funny how that works.

Encryptshun wrote:Sorry if this is a sidebar, but can someone explain to me why anyone other than a member of law enforcement or armed security/P.I. would openly carry a handgun in the first place?

Why not?

IBCoupe wrote:

Cold_Zero wrote:I did get a chuckle out of the 'prevent tragedy' comment. The purpose of this bill is to restrict people from carrying unloaded firearms…How would a tragedy occur with an unloaded firearm? I suspect that this is not the goal of the Bill’s sponsor.

Because it's totally outside the realm of possibility for someone to think that it's loaded and act accordingly?

What is acting accordingly? How does one act in the presence of a loaded firearm? What tragedy falls into "acting accordingly"?

IBCoupe wrote:

Cold_Zero wrote:I would think as a deterrence against criminal activity.

Might it not just draw attention to you from criminals and non-criminals alike? I don't look at some random guy walking into McDonald's with openly carrying and think, "He must be well-trained and responsible." I think, "The kind of person who'd bring a gun to McDonald's is probably not the most hinged."

It would certainly draw attention to you, no doubt about that. What do you think when you see someone on the street covered in tattoos? Is your stereotype always accurate? TBQH, living in a state that allows open/concealed carry (permit required, of course) has caused me to reevaluate my position. I've seen people openly carrying many times (and concealed more often). It doesn't phase me any more. The guy open carrying is generally going to be lawful. Not only are more people watching what he's doing, but he's lost the element of surprise. Personally, I have no issue and don't think any less of that "person bringing a gun to McDonald's". Plus...

IBCoupe wrote:Further, if I'm a criminal bent on violence, I'd think, "I'm going to shoot him first."

This is almost certainly true. And the guy open carrying buys me a few extra moments to try to escape. Honestly, this is one of the main reasons I choose not to open carry.

We need a Nico 'like' button so I can like ApppleBonker's post.

PalmerWMD wrote:Didn't anyone read the narrative earlier in this thread about what this law is aimed at?

Yes, we did read your posts, but we're talking about something else now.

Now we are talking about the fundamental difference in personality and circumstance that define each side of firearms posession legislation. And I gotta say that I disagree that carrying a gun makes you less likely to be the victim of a violent crime -- it just makes you less likely to walk away from one. For example -- inner city crime involving discharge of firearms is most often perpitrated by gang members shooting at other gang members. The likelihood that each side is carrying a loaded firearm is very high, yet they still go around shooting. What makes people think, then, that someone with a gun is LESS likely to assault someone if that someone has a gun? If you are in the kind of neighborhood where you feel you are threatened enough that you need to openly carry a firearm, then (1) why are you in that neighborhood in the first place and (2) you are probably in a region where the criminals don't care whether they use a knife, a gun, or a friggin rocket launcher. They are more likely to walk up and shoot you and THEN rob you before running away. Therefore, if you aren't carrying a gun you might get punched and have your wallet and watch stolen. If you are carrying a gun, you're going to get shot and then have your wallet, watch and gun stolen. And now there's one more firearm in the hands of criminals.


edit* I was typing my post while Adam was posting his, so I didn't read it until after this one went up.

Cold_Zero wrote:We need a Nico 'like' button so I can like ApppleBonker's post.

While I abhor anytihng reminscent of facebook on car forums I agree with "liking" apple's post

Encryptshun wrote:

PalmerWMD wrote:Didn't anyone read the narrative earlier in this thread about what this law is aimed at?

. If you are carrying a gun, you're going to get shot and then have your wallet, watch and gun stolen. And now there's one more firearm in the hands of criminals.

No it'be one less gun in the possion of criminals.