California governor Jerry Brown signs bills restricting rifles, 'open carry' of guns

Forums: Guns Are Not The Answer
Email this Topic • Print this Page

October 10, 2011
October 10, 2011
Jerry Brown signs bills restricting rifles, 'open carry' of guns

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation criminalizing openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public and requiring the state to keep records of rifle sales, as it currently does for handguns, Brown announced this morning.

The open-carry ban, Assembly Bill 144, by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada-Flintridge, pitted law enforcement groups against gun rights advocates. The legislation targeted the "open carry" movement, in which people displayed firearms in public places to protest gun-control laws.

The measure exempts peace officers, military gatherings, gun shows and hunting.
Assembly Bill 809, by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, requires the state to keep records of rifle sales starting in January 2014.

"Since the state already retains handgun purchaser information, I see no reason why the state should not also retain information pertaining to the sales of long guns," Brown, a Democrat, said in a signing statement.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence praised Brown's signings, notably the open carry bill. "By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante," said Dallas Stout, president of the group's California chapter.

Editor's Note: This post has been updated with comments from the Brady campaign. Updated 9:34 a.m., Oct. 10, 2011.

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/10/jerry-brown-signs-bills-restricting-rifles-open-carry-of-guns.html#ixzz1aP0pJwEP

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 897 • Replies: 7

No top replies

It remains to be seen how well thay hold up
in the face of the USSC's holdings,
recognizing the individual right to keep and bear arms,
in the HELLER and the McDONALD cases.

Spare tires in your trunk are not the answer either
so long as u do not get a flat tire.

David

0 Replies

Its hard (IMPOSSIBLE, in my opinion)
to reconcile the concepts of licensure,
i.e., discrimination, as to the right to defend your life
from predatory violence, with the Constitutional anti-discrimination
concept -- mandate-- of "equal protection of the laws". The USSC has not addressed that yet.

I think that the idea of "gun control" was never viable, from the start
(tho government has long had the power to isolate people whose
histories of violence have proven them to be intolerably dangerous).

David

0 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

I wonder whether, in time, THIS
can fruitfully be brought to bear upon the State of California leaders:

UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18
CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I
CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

§§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, . . .
to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . .
shall be fined not more than $1,000
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

0 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

Here is a nice case to which the USSC has lovingly cited with approval
in D.C. v. Heller 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)

The USSC says the following:

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court
construed the Second Amendment as
protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore
struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.

Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause
[i.e.: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"]
of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in
the prefatory clause, [i.e., the militia clause]
in continuity with the English right:

“The right of the whole people,
old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only,
to keep and bear arms of every description,
and not such merely as are used by the militia,
shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon,
in the smallest degree;
and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.

Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant
to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,
originally belonging to our forefathers,
trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked
sons and successors, re-established by the revolution
of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists,
and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

0 Replies

I think it's a dumb law. People with the right permit will still be able to carry concealed. If someone is toting a handgun in my immediate vicinity I'd rather be aware of it than have it concealed from me.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

I think it's a dumb law. People with the right permit will still be able to carry concealed.
If someone is toting a handgun in my immediate vicinity I'd rather be aware of it than have it concealed from me.

Maybe u will ACT DIFFERENTLY if u are aware of it.

David

0 Replies

In HELLER (supra) the USSC declares:

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right
is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

* * * Putting all of these textual elements together, we find
that they guarantee the individual right to possess
and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

0 Replies

California governor Jerry Brown signs bills restricting rifles, 'open carry' of guns

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know