California Violates Second Amendment by banning Open Carry

California Bans Open Carry(The Blaze/Associated Press)

California became the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed the ban into law late Sunday night amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

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 on Jan 1.

The right to keep and BEAR arms has been violated by the anti-self defense crowd once again. This time, predictably, in the state of California. Of course the Brady campaign has their hands all over this one. Citing false notions that open carry causes people to enter into conflicts by the mere fact of being armed, the Brady campaign has successfully convinced the state legislature of California, with a sympathetic governor, to violate the right of the people of California to bear arms.

Score another one for the progressive anti-self defense crowd in California...'cause, you know, gun control seems to be working so well there.

I never will understand the mindset of these anti-gun folks.

“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,” Dallas Stout, president of the California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement.

^^ From OP article

I must be missing how the carry of an unloaded firearm was ever a concern for being shot. Although by this logic, apparently being shot by a raving lunatic (with a long history of felony convictions) at his leisure, since no one else is armed and he knows it, is somehow better? I am so happy that I live in a Shall-Issue CCW state and where the carrying of loaded firearms within one's own vehicle requires NO permit at all. A person simply needs to legally own it.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It's typical of more left-wing states to do this sort of thing.

Disarming the citizens is the best way to shove dictatorship down their throats. California is a basket case.

does it apply to concealed carry. open carry has probably saved more lives, mainly criminals, than actually using the firearm.

the ability to defend yourself and the fact that any criminal intent on doing you harm and looking for potential targets will see 2 smith and wesson .44 magnums holstered on each hip, will cause any robber with more than 1 braincell to go home.

no matter how much pcp or crack he has taken a wallet isn't worth anything when he's dodging bullets.

reply to post by projectvxn

I left Ca 14 years ago. Moved to Ga, where a gun is respected, and treated as a Constitutional right.

Ca doesn't deserve to be called a State, in the United States of America. The sold that right to the bleeding heart liberals years ago...JMOHO.

... I'm In Fresno Ca,

I will continue to have my gun on me at all times...
I have a perfect record never even a speeding ticket
I have been robbed before and anyone who has ever had a gun in their face understands the fear
Ever since that day I carry a gun everywhere ( small 22)

If I get arrested for this ,,,, I hope I become the poster boy for Open carrying as my Perfect NON existant Police Record would hold me Up, showing that I am a level headed , Contributing member of society. and not some nut who just wants to have big balls....

sad what this world is coming to... actaully EVEN sadder what California has become... if I could leave I would

Not good. Bearing arms, in this case with an unloaded gun, should be the right of every citizen, to protect themselves against those who carry guns illegally.

No one is scared of registered gun owners. We're scared of the ones which are illegally in the wrong hands. This does nothing but make all of us easier targets. Shouldn't the government be more focused on all the cops who apparently have itchy trigger fingers?

I'm much more worried about getting shot by a cop high on his authority, or a gang banger(who wouldn't have a registered gun), then I am of a law abiding citizen exercising his constitutional right.

Through out Human history every time a Government dis-arms it’s citizens tyranny follows.

EVERYTIME !

Never has there been any other result.

If this action is NOT opposed strongly by the outcry of the Populace…well, look out

So, first we arm the drug cartels with Fast and Furious, then we disarm Californians.

Do you ever wonder sometimes who politicians are actually working for?

reply to post by nutzmctaffy


Your post is worded in such a way as to imply you CARRY your 22, but do not display it in open view so everyone can see it. If you do not...that is concealment, and not the same as "open carry".

Open carry does give the authorities the 'opportunity" to at least see you coming armed, your legal right to carry. I think tho you should clarify just where you carry that 22. Thanks!. And stay safe!

reply to post by LazloFarnsworth


Honestly I keep it concealed..... as wrong as that may be...

I mean I;ve had a gun pointed straight in my face before and I really thought I was going to die...

since that day I refuse to leave without it... If I am breaking the law concealing it.... then so be it... I could always switch it up with a knife it this gun law gets way out of hand..

It's just a great equalizer , it's comforting....

I never plan on using it .... I call it my Life insurance ... It's just good to have

Technically, the Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government, not the states. For instance, The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...." because several states had already established an official state church, the "Church of Virginia" being the largest example. So, the states retain the power to infringe on the rights of their own residents to bear arms.....


Be that as it may, it is true that nationwide, you are 11 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a policeman, than you are to be accidentally slain by a private citizen.

"untrained trigger-happy civilians" are not the real problem here. And I suspect the speaker of that quote knows it.

This new law is so badly written that it not funny.

They forbid open carry in public places but then do not define what a public place is.
If i am hiking on a trail in the mountains and meet another group of people and one of them reports me is that a public place.

I always carry when i go hiking. And riding ATVs or motorcycles

And there is another part where they say its legal when hunting to carry a unloaded handgun as long as you have a hunting license.

I don't care if i was hunting or just hiking its going to be loaded.

Years ago i had a amplifier for a CB radio that had been gutted out and i kept my gun in it in my car no cops ever found it.
I also have seen people hide guns in door panels in trucks and the cops never found them but i know cops now search door panels for drugs so i would no longer use that as a hiding place.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


That's not true. The Supremacy clause trumps state laws. States cannot violate the Constitution.

reply to post by nutzmctaffy


Thanks for the reply. I m not gonna judge you by any means, and I do agree with your thoughts. My wife was held up in our driveway by 2 men, by the porch and with the porchlight on. Now, if she had a gun...it would have been different when she reached to hand over her purse. And if it was me, and they asked for my wallet? I'd have dropped them both right then and there.

I have a co-worker who gets in his car without...and the instance he gets out...he straps a Glock to his side, loaded and in plain view and walks the streets without a permit: this is open-carry. And he has had no problems here with Police.

Stay safe and if you could get a CCW, I would if I were you. You certainly seem to have a valid reason to get one. And, explore the "open-carry" groups in your area. There are more than a few. Take care.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

 

That's not true. The Supremacy clause trumps state laws. States cannot violate the Constitution.

Not true Not true.

The Supremacy Clause only applies where there is a conflict between a specific state law and a specific federal law.

As long as state laws don't contradict a federal law, they can stand. And since the feds have never published a blanket concealed carry right (even though it is encompassed within the 2nd amendment), The states can limit such a right within their own state.

But where the Federal government and courts have not ruled, the states retain their sovereignty.

That's called the Tenth Amendment.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft

Wiki

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as Supremacy of National Law , establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

Meaning that since state judges are bound by the supremacy clause when this law makes it to court they will have no choice but to strike it down based on the very clear language and intent of the 2nd Amendment and precedent set by the Heller and McDonald cases.

States cannot just violate the Constitution as they see fit. Otherwise there is no Union.

That's called the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

No where in there does it say that the state can violate the Constitution. It says that the power not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution fall to the state and most importantly to the people.

Even though the 1st amendment guarantees you the right to free speech, a state or local government can put limits on your speech.

Likewise, the 2nd amendment can be limited by smaller level governments; "gun-free zones," limiting concealed carry, etc.

If your logic held, then no state could outlaw the carrying a gun into the liquor store.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Even though the 1st amendment guarantees you the right to free speech, a state or local government can put limits on your speech.

Likewise, the 2nd amendment can be limited by smaller level governments; "gun-free zones," limiting concealed carry, etc.

If your logic held, then no state could outlaw the carrying a gun into the liquor store.

states cannot limit free speech. Free speech does not mean you can say anything anywhere, anytime without recourse.

1st amendment protects your right ( and more specifically the media's right) to critique the goverment without punishment by law.

This was basically written so corrupt politicians couldn't punish the press for writing about them.



secondly, a Liquor store isn't a public place, it's a private business.
Not the same thing at all.

California seems to be a freedom nightmare. I personally don't open carry but i feel for those who prefer it. It probably prevents many assaults. I guess my reason for carrying concealed is just to not draw attention to myself.