AmmoLand.com

California Legislature To Consider Bill To Force Open Carry Of Long Guns
AB144 misses the mark Will have unintended consequences Contains serious drafting errors Will force long-gun open carry.

OpenCarry.org

Sacramento, California --(Ammoland.com)- The purported goal of AB144, introduced by Assemblymember Anthony J. Portantino (D- Pasadena), is to outlaw unloaded open carry across the state.

The bill was introduced in response to an increasing number of Californians who have been openly carrying unloaded handguns as the only legal means of self-defense in the face of arbitrary and discriminatory denials of concealed carry permits.

But instead of correcting the discriminatory may-issue permitting system, Portantino’s solution is to remove even this limited right from the law-abiding citizens of California. But AB144 is such a poorly drafted piece of legislation that it will have significant unintended consequences.

Interestingly enough, one of the consequences should AB144 become law will be a real possibility of the courts striking down California’s arbitrary, may-issue concealed carry issuance process. In two recent court cases, the court cited the availability of open carry as a reason to not strike down the concealed carry process.

In Peruta v. County of San Diego 1 , the court noted that:

Both Chandler and Nunn, the two cases relied upon by the Supreme Court, concerned prohibitions on carrying of concealed weapons where the affected individuals had alternate ways to exercise their Second Amendment rights—by openly carrying those weapons. And in Richards v. County of Yolo

2 , the court ruled substantially the same way, stating:

In determining whether government action “substantially burdens” a constitutionally- protected right, courts “typically ask whether the restriction leaves open sufficient alternative avenues” for exercising the right.

–

[E]ven if Plaintiffs are denied a concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur in a public setting.

In both cases, the availability of unloaded open carry allowed the court to determine that sufficient alternative avenues existed for citizens to exercise their right to self-defense. Once unloaded open carry is no longer available, future challenges will likely find that a may-issue permitting scheme cannot pass constitutional muster.

Another consequence of AB144 will be to force those citizens who wish to exercise their rights to do so by openly carrying long guns, which are not affected by the handgun ban in the bill. Portantino and those who support AB144 should expect to see shotguns and rifles carried on the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica and in Starbucks from San Francisco to San Diego if AB 144 passes.

• http://tiny.cc/pvvaw
• http://tiny.cc/owqjs

Finally, AB144 is a lengthy complicated mishmash which contains several serious drafting errors, discriminates against off duty police who work as security guards, and creates a complex web of confusing bans and exceptions to handgun carry that neither law enforcement nor the public will be able to understand.

OpenCarry.org joins with other gun rights groups in California to call upon the California Legislature to reject this attack on the rights of law-abiding citizens and is collecting citizen signatures at www.petitiononline.com/CalOCPet/petition.html

About:
OpenCarry.org was founded in 2004 by Virginia gun-rights activists John Pierce and Mike Stollenwerk and has served to ignite the “Open Carry Movement” that is sweeping the country. In addition to being an invaluable legal resource for gun owners, the site has quickly grown to be a social networking portal for thousands of American gun owners. Visit: www.OpenCarry.org

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland 1 Comment »

NRA & CRPA Oppose Oakley CA’s Ordinance Over-Regulating Firearms Vendors

California Rifle and Pistol Association

Sacramento, CA --(Ammoland.com)-On June 14, 2011, the City Council for the City of Oakley with little notice passed an “urgency ordinance” that will drastically expand its regulation of firearms vendors in the City.

See ordinance documents here. Being an “urgency ordinance,” it became law as soon as the mayor signed it on June 16th.

The ordinance appears to have been proposed because the City Council realized that its current laws do not regulate home-based firearm vendors. But rather than just prohibit home-based firearm vendors, or adopt a reasonable zoning and/or licensing scheme covering them, the City adopted an oppressive set of regulations, including a 15-day wait period for firearm transactions (as opposed to a 10-day wait period as state law requires), and a requirement that all firearm vendors be located certain distances from places like schools and adult entertainment establishments.

In reality, the zoning restrictions leave few if any places where a gun store could open. And it strands the City’s only gun store in its present location, while subjecting it to other unlawful, business-unfriendly provisions of the ordinance.

Attorneys for NRA and CRPA, through their joint Local Ordinance Project (“LOP”) have submitted a letter explaining the legal shortcomings of the ordinance. (See the letter here). The letter explains how Oakley’s new ordinance is not only preempted by state law, but also raises Second Amendment issues that will need to be litigated. Since the Second Amendment is a newly court-recognized right, the contours of the Second Amendment’s protections are still being litigated in courtrooms across the country. The letter amicably explains the current legal landscape regarding firearm regulation, and suggests Oakley should avoid entering the litigation fray on these issues by repealing, or at least amending, the ordinance.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP’s litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released.

About:
The California Rifle and Pistol Association “CRPA,” founded in 1875, is dedicated to defending the rights of law-abiding citizens to responsibly use firearms for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, for sport, and for all other legal activities. CRPA is the official state association of the National Rifle Association. A California non-profit association, CRPA is independently directed by its own Board of Directors. CRPA’s members include law enforcement officers, prosecutors, professionals, firearm experts, the general public, and loving parents. CRPA has always worked to reduce the criminal misuse of firearms and firearms accidents, while actively promoting and organizing the competitive shooting sports and Olympic training programs in California. We are proud to say that many CRPA competitors are among the best in the world. Visit: www.crpa.org

Filed under: Gun Rights News by Ammoland 1 Comment »