A good article on AB 144 from the California Independent Voter Network. A pretty even-handed article I would say. But what really got my attention was in the comments, one in particular from Charles Nichols, the well-known LA History Examiner:
By the way, we have already had two Federal court cases in the 9th Circuit upholding the right to openly carry a firearm in public. The first was US v Vongxay, which dealt with it indirectly, and Peruta v San Diego where the Chief Federal judge invited a challenge to California's unique requirement that firearms be unloaded until a person is in danger (plus a few other exceptions). She said she could not rule on the constitutionality of that law because neither party in the case challenged it. However, the right to openly carry a firearm, and have matching ammunition with you, was affirmed.
Which means we are just one lawsuit away from Loaded Open Carry being legal in California.
AB 144. the State ban on Open Carry is unconstitutional the moment it is passed. All it will take is a Federal injunction to stop its enforcement. I guess Portantino never took Law 101. The US Supreme Court sets the minimum level of rights when it concerns a Federal question, like the Bill of Rights.
Does anyone know if this is true? Is AB 144 unconstitutional on its face? Is loaded open carry really that close to legality?
4 comments:
yes it is unconstitutional. here is more food for thought:if this passes a lot more constitutional infringements will come to light. the current concealed carry law is written as a "may" as opposed to "shall" law.here is an article that may help: http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/california-law/83-california-proposed-municipal-ordinances/945-in-contemplating-ban-on-openly-carrying-unloaded-firearms-los-angeles-city-council-unwittingly-invites-legal-challenge-to-citys-restrictive-ccw-policy.html
yes it is unconstitutional. here is more food for thought:if this passes a lot more constitutional infringements will come to light. the current concealed carry law is written as a "may" as opposed to "shall" law.here is an article that may help: http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/california-law/83-california-proposed-municipal-ordinances/945-in-contemplating-ban-on-openly-carrying-unloaded-firearms-los-angeles-city-council-unwittingly-invites-legal-challenge-to-citys-restrictive-ccw-policy.html
How will a jogging women protect herself from rapists, or anyone else from muggers? The rapists now know they can attack with impunity. How will a biker in a public park or just about anywhere else protect from a mountain lion attack. I guess Brown has given them all up for dead.
While I believe that AB 144 is unconstitutional, filing a lawsuit to challenge the law is not really in our interest.
What we all want is a credible form of self defense, and carrying an unloaded firearm is not that. We must win back the ability to carry loaded firearms for self defense.
To answer your question more directly, the answer is that your jogger must apply for a license to carry, and if granted, carry a firearm. Since this application will usually be denied, she will have no credible means to self defense.
AB 144 being signed into law may do one thing for us: it closes the alternate option cited by judges in Peruta and Richards v. Prieto to deny carry licenses to the plaintiffs. I am sure the new fact of AB 144 will be pointed out by plaintiffs attorneys during appeal.
Litigation is our only hope for increased carry rights, and recent developments in Sacramento County give me hope for the future.
Post a Comment