In response to the open carry controversy generated in California, it looks like anti-gun activists there are going to run a bill to ban the practice. Obviously there’s going to be opposition to this, but gun owners in California are at a political disadvantage. Whether you agree with open carry or not, this has to be opposed. Now isn’t the time to point fingers at each other.
16 thoughts on “California Considering Open Carry Ban”
You can carry a loaded magazine with you, but you can’t let the ammunition touch the gun.
A few points…
1. In California you can’t carry a sidearm (at least in many counties that refuse to grant carry permits).
2. Carrying an unloaded weapon openly is CURRENTLY legal. Having an unloaded gun and ammo nearby provides a better defense than no gun at all.
While I am not usually in the 3% camp. I also do not live in California. California’s approach on firearms is continually moving toward a point in which I think the 3% viewpoint could be legitimized. Had California enacted the 50 round ban and some of the other items that gun control advocates have pushed for.
California is a mere handful of steps from a statewide ban. That said, we’ve been pushing hard for the 2nd Amendment. And I think we may see some liberalization of gun laws, even in California.
Thanks, that clears it up for me immensely. I guess that’s probably the best you can do to protect yourself and your loved ones in the PRK then. I hope they can defend that last little piece of their liberty successfully, but as for me, I’m never going anywhere near the Sunshine State…
BTW, I love your blog, Sebastian. Keep up the good work!
Open carry activists strike again!
I swear sometimes OC activists are anti-gunners trying to undermine us. If they’re not, they’re doing a damned good job anyway.
The legal restrictions on open carry in California just seem like such a joke to me. If you ask me, all this seems to achieve would be the following:
1) Give apoplectic gun-phobic liberals something more to whine about and protest with picket signs in front of their beloved Starbucks stores and other hipster hangouts that sell overpriced food and drink
2) Waste police resources by virtue of law enforcement officers having to deal with false alarm “man with gun” 911 calls made by ignorant sheeple who don’t understand the legality of open carry in California
3) Subject open carry practitioners to endless scrutiny and pedestrian stops by law enforcement who dutifully must check to see that open carry practitioners are in full compliance with California law and not otherwise committing crime
4) Subject open carry practitioners in California to being possibly targeted by actual criminals for the theft of their firearms and/or other crimes because the criminals know that open carry practitioners in California cannot legally carry their firearms loaded
Okay, I know all too well that next to nothing will ever dissuade liberals from whining about guns and everything else as I described in 1), but I have a sneaking suspicion that the liberal lawmakers in California actually wanted to achieve my other three points whenever it was when they wrote the laws and regulations in California concerning open carry.
That is not always the case. I’m not a big fan of open carry myself, however organized open carry helped get concealed carry passed in some states as we shall see it do in Wisconsin.
If California bans open carry and has already effectively banned concealed carry, all that is left is zero carry. That is contrary to a lot of state constitutions hence the success in open carry marches getting shall issue concealed carry passed.
Lets hope McDonald can be used to force the issue should open carry be banned in the Arnold State.
California’s state constitution does not have a right to bear arms.
That probably complicates things.
“Californiaâ€™s state constitution does not have a right to bear arms.
That probably complicates things.”
This. If carrying — or gun rights — are important to you — LEAVE! Go to a state that protects rights which are important to you, and go to a state where those rights are not subject to the tyrannical whimsy of a 51% vote.
I am in the military and dread being stationed in Kalifornia. But if you’re a civilian, you can leave. Gun owners — statistically — are above average in income, so take your tax dollars somewhere else while you still can. Speaking of that, the collapsing services, failing economy, and confiscatory taxes are all good reasons to leave too.
This is one of the advantages of federalism. Everyone can theoretically have a local community with acceptable norms. If people want to live in a place where only criminals have guns, then let them. It sucks that Kali has gone down the route it has — it is a beautiful place — but they’ve made their bed.
Maybe once the 14th is incorporated, and the courts force Kali to comply, then you can go back. That will take a fair amount of time. Until then — leave!
I like California so I think I’ll stay but that is good advice for those who value gun rights above everything else.
It’s quite clear that the constitution prohibits the banning of bearing arms altogether. This will be reinforced when the 2A is incorporated.
It might well be in California we see the test of what most now predict … government might be able to proscribe how arms are carried (openly or concealed), but they will not be able to prohibit both.
Frankly, it’s good news that the CA gun controllers are pushing this issue, and pushing it now. They are gearing up for a fall.
At the same time there’s suits (on hold pending McDonald) in CA to force shall-issue and gut their approved firearm laws; and a 9th circuit decision (also on hold) incorporating the 2A…
Advising people to leave is all well and good; but it doesn’t help the people who can’t or won’t leave; it just further marginalizes them.
We get a lot of folks fleeing the left coast who move to AK. look around at our non-existent taxes, lack of gun control, etc and freak out and start to agitate for basically making AK more like California. I have a friend from Maine who refers to a similar phenomenon with former Massachusetts residents (they have a less kind name for said individuals…). So, I figure, if it irritates me that people from “Outside” move up here and agitate for changing widely held basic community values, I should respect the right of others to run their local communities the way that they want to as well. That’s one of the great things about federalism.
To Carl from Chicago: is not a State regulation on how one can carry his firearm technically an infrigement upon his right to bear arms and therefore prohibited by an incorporated 2A?
I am a stickler for letting the Constitution mean what it says, and “shall not be infringed” forbids ALL government regulation of fireams, bar none! “Infringed” is all-encompassing, if you check it out in a dictionary. Even the smallest inconvenience or delay fits the literal definition of infringement. That is why I am disappointed with Scalia’s allowance of “reasonable regulation” in Heller. The no infrigement clause does not allow ANY regulation, reasonable or not!
Just thought I’d throw that out there.
To tack on — I want to clarify, I’m a strong RKBA supporter. I just think its worth realizing that people in CA have no more constitutional or civil RKBA than Canadians or Chinese folks.
At least unless McDonald results in incorporation, and even then it will be a difficult road.
“Chinese folks” being citizens of China, of course… That didn’t come out as clearly as I desired at 0130…
Comments are closed.