Calls for return to open carry in California following Perutra decision

[Augustin]

Great OC article about Kalifornistan:

"Calls For Return to Open Carry in California Following Perutra Decision

4/14/14 | by Chris Eger

With gaining momentum for shall issue in California, there are now renewed calls for open carry to make a comeback as well.

The practice, which was regulated away 4 years ago after a series of public events by open carry advocates brought retribution from lawmakers, is seen by many as ready for reinstatement in the Golden State.

“That’s the next logical step in the evolution of gun rights in California,” Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California in Folsom, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

He said that open carry gatherings “have died off because they were squelched and our people are law-abiding. But that doesn’t mean we’re not preparing for the next round, which is the courts.”

Current California law prohibits open carry in all but rural areas (see People v Knight) whether the weapon is loaded or unloaded.

Up until 2011, open carry was legal in the state as long as the firearm was unloaded. However, in that year Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB144 into law that closed even that narrow window.

Violations of the law carry a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in county jail.

New blood was pumped into the fight for open carry in California following the Feb. 14 opinion from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court in Peruta v San Diego. In its 132-page finding, the court acknowledged that “to ban both the open and concealed carriage of pistols ‘would be to prohibit the bearing of those arms’ altogether.”

Shortly after Peruta came out, UCLA constitutional law Professor Adam Winkler penned an op-ed in the LA Times arguing that open carry laws could lead to fewer guns on California streets.

“Very few gun owners want to carry openly displayed guns. The police hassle you, stores refuse to serve you and some people won’t talk to you. Criminals might even target you, seeking to steal your expensive sidearm,” Winkler wrote."

For full article and MAP OF OPEN CARRY STATES:

http://www.guns.com/2014/04/14/call...n-carry-california-following-perutra-decision

 

[California Right To Carry]

Sam Paredes of Gun Owners of California must be having another raffle because he has no intention of bringing a lawsuit to restore Open Carry to California.

In fact, his organization filed an Amicus Brief in support of upholding California's Loaded Open Carry ban and in support of upholding California's Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995. There is only one lawsuit seeking to restore Loaded Open Carry to California and I'm the one who filed it and I am the one who has been waging the legal battle for two and a half years without the help of Sam Paredes and without the help of any of the so called gun-rights groups.


Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org


"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Sam Paredes of Gun Owners of California must be having another raffle because he has no intention of bringing a lawsuit to restore Open Carry to California.

In fact, his organization filed an Amicus Brief in support of upholding California's Loaded Open Carry ban and in support of upholding California's Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995. There is only one lawsuit seeking to restore Loaded Open Carry to California and I'm the one who filed it and I am the one who has been waging the legal battle for two and a half years without the help of Sam Paredes and without the help of any of the so called gun-rights groups.
.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/DBK-Amicus-Brief-Filed.pdf

this the brief you noted? i don't see the brief seeing gfz's as being ok..kinda discusses how goofy they are.

i did like the discussion of the ccw laws applying to blacks only in one case ... shows the origin of these goofy laws

 

[California Right To Carry]

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/DBK-Amicus-Brief-Filed.pdf

this the brief you noted? i don't see the brief seeing gfz's as being ok..kinda discusses how goofy they are.

i did like the discussion of the ccw laws applying to blacks only in one case ... shows the origin of these goofy laws

It seems like I have gone over this before, if not with you then with others. When a party files an Amicus Brief he does so either in support of one side, in opposition to one side, or neutral. Gun Owners of California filed an Amicus Brief in support of Peruta. The NRA lawyer, Chuck Michel, argued to uphold California's 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry and argued to uphold California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995.

If Gun Owners of California opposed the Loaded Open Carry Ban and opposed the California Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 then it should have filed an Amicus Brief in support of neither side.

But rather than go through this dance again, why don't you ask Sam Parades when Gun Owners of California is going to be filing its lawsuit to restore Loaded Open Carry to California?

And then post his response here.

Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org


"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.