It’s disappointing, but if Jerry Brown was going to veto one for us, I wouldn’t have expected it to be this one. It will also help deal with the issue of federal judges arguing “Well, you know, if some form of carry is allowed, then the constitutional requirement is satisfied, even if it’s unloaded open carry.” While I’ve been impressed to the degree that federal Judges have twisted intermediate scrutiny to uphold every restrictive gun law in creation, this is now,Â unambiguously, a complete ban on carrying a firearm, except with a permit that’s issued in California in an arbitrary and capricious manner in most juridictions.
17 thoughts on “Jerry Brown Signs Open Carry Ban”
Wonder who sues first – Second Amendment Foundation or NRA? If the 9th circuit articulates a different standard than Ezell, we get a nice Supreme Court fight.
Carry is already being litigated by both parties in the 9th.
not this new law
They should put together another OC rally at a coffee shop this way they can … oh, wait.
Maybe they could have an OC rally at a .. oh, wait.
Hmm. I guess this is a lesson for any other fringe extremists out there who think it’s a good idea to get in get in peoples’ faces with a gun. Sometimes people go to a coffee shop just to enjoy a cup of coffee.
not this new law
I wouldn’t challenge this law specifically. You want to take on California’s carry regime as a whole.
We need not start a new suit to use this law to end discretion in carry license issuing.
He did sign SB610 which is something of a reform bill in permit-processing requirements – not that many agencies even process permits. SB610 will require agencies to determine if an applicant has initial “Good Cause” to be issued a permit BEFORE the applicant is required to fulfill the requirements in training, classes, background checks and pay the sometimes extensive fees required to obtain a permit. SB610 will also specify that issuing agencies CANNOT require CCW applicants to obtain “Liability Insurance” as a condition for being issued a CCW permit.
So now California is just like PRNJ with regards to carry. This marks the first time that CA followed NJ’s lead; usually it’s the other way around. Wherever he is, Jon Corzine is smiling.
I can’t wait for these games to end and the court to settle the issue once and for all.
“Hmm. I guess this is a lesson for any other fringe extremists out there who think itâ€™s a good idea to get in get in peoplesâ€™ faces with a gun. Sometimes people go to a coffee shop just to enjoy a cup of coffee.”
When OC is the only option you’ve got–and open carry of *empty* guns, for crying out loud!–then I see no reason why you shouldn’t do it. It’s too early to see if this has set California back, or merely opened California to a major setback in regulating guns.
I suspect that the Supreme Court is going to come down hard on California, if the Supreme Court doesn’t change before this case gets before them…
In the meantime, what *should* Californian gun owners have done, to further their cause? If this ends up blowing up in gun-owner faces, but you have no other alternative whatsoever, then all you are advocating is “sit back and take it!”…and that option doesn’t seem palatable to me, either.
Gene would have the details but as I recall one of the California CCW cases currently on appeal lost because the judge specifically cited to being able to non-discretionarily openly carry a firearm as a Constitutionally-acceptable alternative to being denied a may-issue concealed permit.
That “option” is now off the table. If I’m reading the ruling correctly, unless the judge or the Appeals court changes that rationale OC or “more shall-issue-ish” CC is likely to be forced on California, particularly if they take note of Ezell’s scrutiny reasoning about infringements on the core of the right.
Fortunately for the 9th Circuit, the D.C. Circuit just provided a whole new set of reasoning to use if they want to decide to rename rational basis review “intermediate scrutiny,” decide the right is implicated, and continue to rule in favor of the state anyway.
The big question in my mind was why NRA continued to fund the case. There are a few theories:
I hope the former, to be honest. Heller II didn’t seem like a bad idea starting out. After all, the DC requirements are ridiculous by any standard. But throwing the assault weapons mess into it was a huge mistake. It was one thing when DC was arguing you could only have a revolver, to argue that was skirting Heller. It plainly was. Quite another thing once they relented on that. Then the case should have only pursued the most restrictive part of DC’s requirements and focused exclusively on that.
So I’d like to think this is Dick Heller’s folly and not NRA’s. I really hope they aren’t crazy enough to believe this case, as it was taken forward, was a good idea.
Point well made.
Though the Ninth already has a system for scrutiny on carry via Nordyke that doesn’t really mesh with DC’s and is closer to Ezell’s.
They’d have to do some obvious back-tracking, particularly given the text of the initial ruling in Peruta.
Alpheus, OC is one thing. What the OC attention whores did in CA is another, and this was the obvious result of their experiment. A bunch of them basically got together, strapped guns on their hips, and paraded around people who couldn’t care less about OC, while screaming “Look at us! Whatcha gonna do about it?!?” and made them care about OC.
He also signed the bill instituting long gun registration.
It’ll be a long time before the courts rule on this measure and the governor knows it. He gets funding while everyone else expends their capital fighting it through the “justice” system.
I have learn some excellent stuff here. Certainly price bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how so much attempt you put to make this kind of fantastic informative website.
Comments are closed.