• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Bruen has changed everything. Licensed Open Carry

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,227
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
A license to open carry is available in California by statute under 26150(b)(2).

The Bruen opinion by SCOTUS has changed carry licensing nation wide by applying a new test, and eliminating "good cause".

The following list of 30 counties in California have populations of fewer than 200,000 residents.

Is anyone applying or planning to apply to their issuing agency under the new shall issue environment?

Alpine County 1,159
Amador County 39,023
Calaveras County 45,828
Colusa County 21,491
Del Norte County 27,692
El Dorado County 190,345
Glenn County 28,06
Humboldt County 136,101
Imperial County 180,580
Inyo County 17,930
Kings County 151,090
Lake County 64,276
Lassen County 30,600
Madera County 155,925
Mariposa County 17,319
Mendocino County 87,110
Modoc County 8,853
Mono County 14,395
Napa County 138,572
Nevada County 99,417
Plumas County 18,844
San Benito County 61,547
Shasta County 179,267
Sierra County 2,898
Siskiyou County 43,516
Sutter County 96,315
Tehama County 64,176
Trinity County 12,541
Tuolumne County 54,147
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,841
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The statute says "may issue". Effectively, the supreme court says it must now be "shall issue". You have many other problems. "Shall issue" based on population. Calif. is going to put-up as many roadblocks as possible and make you sue them.

Good luck.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,227
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
The statute says "may issue". Effectively, the supreme court says it must now be "shall issue". You have many other problems. "Shall issue" based on population. Calif. is going to put-up as many roadblocks as possible and make you sue them.

Good luck.
Thanks.

May issue is irrelevant, wherever it appears.

The OAG has issued a legal alert (read: suggestion) that good cause cannot be used in the licensing process. The shift to using "good moral character" is going to net them the same results. Thats because the new test is text, history and tradition.

Right now, antigun lawyers are pouring through 200 years of regulation to find laws forbidding carry based on moral grounds.

We may also excite the legislature to undo the Mulford act provisions for licensed exposed carry. We will see.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,409
Location
northern wis
T
Thanks.

May issue is irrelevant, wherever it appears.

The OAG has issued a legal alert (read: suggestion) that good cause cannot be used in the licensing process. The shift to using "good moral character" is going to net them the same results. Thats because the new test is text, history and tradition.

Right now, antigun lawyers are pouring through 200 years of regulation to find laws forbidding carry based on moral grounds.

We may also excite the legislature to undo the Mulford act provisions for licensed exposed carry. We will see.


They have a very tough row ahead of them.

It is going to take law suits and the loss of millions of dollars for the anti's to cave in a little bit.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,841
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
What have I've preached on the forum for years? Definition, definition and definition.

Blacks Law Dictionary 6th. edition:
Moral turpitude. The act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in private and social duties which man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. State v. Adkins, 40 Ohio App.2d 473, 320 N.E.2d 308, 311, 69 O.O.2d 416. Act or behavior that gravely violates moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of community and is a morally culpable quality held to be present in some criminal offenses as distinguished from others. Lee v. Wisconsin State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 29 Wis.2d 330, 139 N.W.2d 61, 65. The quality of a crime involving grave infringement of the moral sentiment of the community as distinguished from statutory mala prohibita. People v. Ferguson, 55 Misc.2d 7 1 1 , 286 N.Y.S.2d 976, 981 . See also Turpitude.
Conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Marsh v. State Bar of California, 210 Cal. 303, 291 P. 583, 584.
Turpitude It:lrpat(y)uwd/. In its ordinary sense, inherent baseness or vileness of principle or action; shameful
wickedness; depravity. In its legal sense, everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
An action showing gross depravity. Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Russell, Tex.Civ.App., 99 S.W.2d 1079, 1084.
Moral turpitude. A term of frequent occurrence in statutes, especially those providing that a witness' conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude may be shown as tending to impeach his credibility. In general, it means neither more nor less than "turpitude," i.e., anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It is also commonly defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow man or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. Although a vague term, it implies something immoral in itself, regardless of its being punishable by law. Thus excluding unintentional wrong, or an improper act done without unlawful or improper intent. It is also said to be restricted to the gravest offenses, consisting of felonies, infamous crimes, and those that are malum in se and disclose a depraved mind. Bartos v. United States District Court for District of Nebraska, C.C.A.Neb., 19 F.2d 722, 724.
"Although a vague term" we don't know what it is, but we know it when we see it.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,227
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
What have I've preached on the forum for years? Definition, definition and definition.

Blacks Law Dictionary 6th. edition:



"Although a vague term" we don't know what it is, but we know it when we see it.
You seem to not understand.

A condition of 'good moral character' on the right to bear is cut from the same unconstitutional cloth as 'good cause'. Its not relevant whether you define it or how.

The more obvious problem for California is that the courts will no longer be able to employ interest balancing to impose restrictions on the right to bear arms. They will be held to the new test, and there is no history or tradition of gun laws disarming people that surf the internet for porn or committed adultery.

Argue if you like, but California must accept applications for public carry licenses. And, yeah, they will need to be sued.

(Especially after they introduced SB918, to broaden sensitive places to include any location where there are breathing bodies to limit where those with carry licenses my have their concealed gun.)
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,841
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
You seem to not understand.

A condition of 'good moral character' on the right to bear is cut from the same unconstitutional cloth as 'good cause'. Its not relevant whether you define it or how.

The more obvious problem for California is that the courts will no longer be able to employ interest balancing to impose restrictions on the right to bear arms. They will be held to the new test, and there is no history or tradition of gun laws disarming people that surf the internet for porn or committed adultery.

Argue if you like, but California must accept applications for public carry licenses. And, yeah, they will need to be sued.

(Especially after they introduced SB918, to broaden sensitive places to include any location where there are breathing bodies to limit where those with carry licenses my have their concealed gun.)
No, I understand completely. You need to spend more time reading my posts. If you did, you would not have jumped to that conclusion.

These states are going to loose on this "sensitive places" idea. Have a read:
 

Gypsy47

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2020
Messages
20
Thanks.

May issue is irrelevant, wherever it appears.

The OAG has issued a legal alert (read: suggestion) that good cause cannot be used in the licensing process. The shift to using "good moral character" is going to net them the same results. Thats because the new test is text, history and tradition.

Right now, antigun lawyers are pouring through 200 years of regulation to find laws forbidding carry based on moral grounds.

We may also excite the legislature to undo the Mulford act provisions for licensed exposed carry. We will see.
I have to agree, I read the whole thing, its at this site Thanks !

 

Gypsy47

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2020
Messages
20
I read an article on the state with the most "Mass shootings" guess which state it was ! you got it California
just like Chicago the more gun laws the more killings and crime, well who would have thought that ?
Anyway lets continue to pray California will start turning back to reality, and being able to self defend again !
 
Top