CDFingers, this may be of interest to you specifically.

I wasn't much aware of this case but some residents of northern CA are challenging the Mulford Act's open carry ban. Bruen gave them quite a bit of ammunition for the case. The injunction hearing is today. There simply is no historical tradition of banning or licensing open carry. In fact, quite the opposite. Should be interesting.

Link to all the court documents: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15 ... er_by=desc

Thanks for that. Historically, the US has regulated concealed carry way more than open carry. Let's watch this.

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 11:09 am Thanks for that. Historically, the US has regulated concealed carry way more than open carry. Let's watch this.

CDFingers

Precisely. I'm not a huge fan of open carry, but 8f it pushes CA to level the playing field...

Yes good catch featureless! The case started in 2019 and it's being heard by the chief judge of the US District Court for the Eastern District of CA, sitting in Sacramento, CA. I agree the Bruen decision could have an impact, so the CJ can't just defer to the CA AG and close the case which is normal. 200,000 population is just another arbitrary number the legislature selected, like selecting 10 rounds as the legal number for a magazine. I agree, it will be interesting to follow.

What is most interesting is the state can't just waive away "not protected" as it is specifically a "bear" case (that is the state's go to in all the remanded cases currently). Also, there is no historical tradition to appeal to. So, it is the best indicator yet of how CA courts will mash the shit out of what SCOTUS has said.

Yes, both NYSRPA v Bruen and Young v Hawaii have implications for this case. Since the 9th Circuit en banc decision in Young v Hawaii was reversed and remanded back to them by SCOTUS, the district court in this "Mulford" case will probably say that it has to wait until Young has been resolved.

The 9th Circuit en banc on Young.

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of this Court, 992 F.3d 765, and has remanded this case to us “for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022),” Young v. Hawaii, 2022 WL 2347578, at *1 (U.S. 2022). We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings pursuant to the Supreme Court order.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -17808.pdf

Down the ladder Young went and we'll have to see what the HI district court decides. Then it will get appealed to a panel of the 9th and maybe en banc and possibly SCOTUS. When will it ever get resolved?

I read somewhere that Young settled, was issued a license and the case is... I don't know where.

Does anyone who is for the Mulford Act remember how the Mulford Act came to be?

CowboyT wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:17 pm Does anyone who is for the Mulford Act remember how the Mulford Act came to be?

Shhhh. We don't talk about Black Panther club showing up at the Capitol armed and scared rich white guys being horrified by blacks having such power and then banning open carry.

It was a very very different time. The political parties weren't as polarized and there were a lot more moral restrictions in society. Having a bunch of black guys from Oakland at the CA state capitol openly armed and talking about their 2A rights and self defense was perfect for TV news and the front pages of newspapers. The media kept up the drumbeat of what if the Panthers and similar groups got into the Bay Area suburbs. I grew up in Contra Costa County, east of Oakland.

An article from Duke Law.
https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondthough ... amendment/

Yes, it was a different time, but some things never change, like Republicans being terrified of a black man legally holding a gun. Gee. Wonder why that is? Perhaps it's because the media did not cover the Panthers feeding the hungry and policing their neighborhoods.

CDFingers

featureless wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:24 pm

CowboyT wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 10:17 pm Does anyone who is for the Mulford Act remember how the Mulford Act came to be?

Shhhh. We don't talk about Black Panther club showing up at the Capitol armed and scared rich white guys being horrified by blacks having such power and then banning open carry.

Good ole Ronnie raygun thought it was great.

4 states and Washington, D.C. prohibit the possession of firearms on capitol grounds, while 16 states permit the possession of personal firearms within their statehouses in some capacity. Citizens can use concealed carry in 14 of the 51 capitols (27%) and open carry in nine capitols (18%). Seven of the 14 capitols that permit concealed carry of firearms also allow open carry. Two states—Louisiana and Nebraska—permit open carry in their capitol complexes but prohibit concealed carry. Louisiana has no law restricting the open carry of firearms within its capitol. But while open carry is technically legal, online sources indicate that entering the capitol while brandishing a firearm will lead to arrest.

Most states prohibit the possession of firearms within their capitols, but a substantial minority do the opposite.

https://www.csg.org/2021/07/27/the-stat ... -security/

A lot of states currently prohibit carrying of firearms in their state capitols and other state buildings. What set the Mulford Act apart was how and why it happened in 1967 and the Black Panther Party. Plenty of Democrats voted for the Mulford Act, Democrat Jesse M Unruh was speaker of the CA Assembly, he ruled that chamber with an iron fist. Unruh was called Big Daddy Unruh because of his imposing presence. Democrats and Republicans in 1967 aren't the same as Democrats and Republicans in 2022.

Shoot, most of the pols from the California 60's are dead.

CDFingers

Texas is fine so far….
https://www.uslawshield.com/state-capitol-carry-tx/

featureless wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 2:24 pm I read somewhere that Young settled, was issued a license and the case is... I don't know where.

Yes apparently a settlement has been reached but the details haven't been released.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/up ... lement.pdf

It appears that since counties in Hawaii routinely denied concealed carry applications, they are starting at ground zero post Bruen. Why the counties are doing it and not the Hawaii legislature I don't know.
https://bigislandnow.com/2022/11/03/cou ... mendments/

highdesert wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 11:20 am

4 states and Washington, D.C. prohibit the possession of firearms on capitol grounds, while 16 states permit the possession of personal firearms within their statehouses in some capacity. Citizens can use concealed carry in 14 of the 51 capitols (27%) and open carry in nine capitols (18%). Seven of the 14 capitols that permit concealed carry of firearms also allow open carry. Two states—Louisiana and Nebraska—permit open carry in their capitol complexes but prohibit concealed carry. Louisiana has no law restricting the open carry of firearms within its capitol. But while open carry is technically legal, online sources indicate that entering the capitol while brandishing a firearm will lead to arrest.

Most states prohibit the possession of firearms within their capitols, but a substantial minority do the opposite.

https://www.csg.org/2021/07/27/the-stat ... -security/

A lot of states currently prohibit carrying of firearms in their state capitols and other state buildings. What set the Mulford Act apart was how and why it happened in 1967 and the Black Panther Party. Plenty of Democrats voted for the Mulford Act, Democrat Jesse M Unruh was speaker of the CA Assembly, he ruled that chamber with an iron fist. Unruh was called Big Daddy Unruh because of his imposing presence. Democrats and Republicans in 1967 aren't the same as Democrats and Republicans in 2022.

You're of course referring to the big flip after the Southern Strategy (thank you, Lee Atwater, for actually admitting that this was a problem!). And that big flip really did happen, despite the bleatings of some of our White Conservative brothers and sisters to deny it. But even before that big flip, you had a union of White legislators, regardless of political bent or affiliation, very quickly voting to stop the "black uprising"--and yes, they did use the word "uprising"--out of fear of Black people exercising their rights. Remember, regardless of political bent or affiliation.

However, if you're implying that the Democrats of today aren't racist and scared to death of Black people asserting their rights, then that's just wrong. Quite a few of the "Missy Annes" who've called the police on Black people over the last few years either are or appear to be Democrat supporters. Ain't much changed that way. More below.

CDFingers wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 7:47 am Yes, it was a different time, but some things never change, like Republicans being terrified of a black man legally holding a gun. Gee. Wonder why that is? Perhaps it's because the media did not cover the Panthers feeding the hungry and policing their neighborhoods.

CDFingers

Actually, when I think of White people being terrified by Black people, I think of:

Jennifer Schulte (Barbecue Becky), an environmental chemist at UC Berkeley
Alison Ettel (Permit Patty), the president of a marijuana products company
Theresa Klein (Cornerstore Caroline), whose profession I don't know
Amy Cooper (Central Park Karen), known specifically for being an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter

I also think of the plenty of White female Democrat supporters in the school system I worked in during the 2008 Democratic Primary and the ABSOLUTELY HATEFUL and SHAMEFUL comments they made about the Obamas. Perhaps they thought I was close enough to White and thus "safe" to comment like that in front of me. They were still angry about Obama's historic Dem Primary win even during the last year of Obama's Presidency. Even eight years later! Possibly still sore about it today.

And then there's the White LGBTQ response to Black people after California's Proposition 8. Just look *THAT* up. It really was shameful.

So, it is hardly only the Republicans having a problem with Black people. Far, far from it, sadly. It's simply that too many Democrat supporters don't want to have to face that "their tribe" has a similar problem, and just as strongly. Calling the cops on us for simply minding our own business is not a good way to show your support for civil rights.

And there are many others. It is for very good reason why many Black people have been saying, right up to this day, "the most dangerous creature to Black people is the White Liberal/Progressive". The Confederacy worshipers need to be called out. I'm not suggesting for one second that they shouldn't be. But let's not limit it to them.

I assure you, White Democrat supporters in California would, by and large, be scared to death if they saw brown-skinned people, and especially Black people, walking around carrying guns. Just about every local police precinct would be getting a flood of calls about it. And that, folks, is a huge reason why the Mulford Act continues to exist.

May the racist, horrible Mulford Act die a swift death, and the sooner, the better.

CowboyT wrote: Sun Nov 13, 2022 10:48 pm
--snrp--

And then there's the White LGBTQ response to Black people after California's Proposition 8. Just look *THAT* up. It really was shameful.

--snrp--

May the racist, horrible Mulford Act die a swift death, and the sooner, the better.

I'm retired now, but I used to teach Prop 8. The most important point about it is that in Obergefell it used the 14th Amendment, forcing folks to understand that LGBTQ's are People entitled to equal protection under the law. So it's impossible to prove that they're not. Winning.

CDFingers

I was a teenager when Reagan signed the Mulford Act and I wasn't big into politics then, but I remember the chatter about it. That was the era when women were mostly stay at home moms and husbands were the sole bread winners. Most of the fathers in my neighborhood worked in Oakland or San Francisco and commuted daily, so they got guard dogs for their wives and some got guns if they didn't already own them.

The two political parties then were less partisan, the wings didn't run the parties. Were they both racist, sexist and homophobic, yes and it hasn't completely gone away. We have laws penalizing sexual harassment, but racism and homophobia are harder to prove.

CA Prop 8 which banned same sex marriage in CA was a ballot proposition approved by voters in 2008, but was later overturned by the courts. Even though some counties mainly along the northern coast voted against it, most CA counties voted for it including Los Angeles County. So much for Democrats and liberal voters supporting gay rights.

Blue areas of the map are counties that voted to ban same sex marriage in CA.



Are there white male and female gays who don't like Blacks, Latins and Asians, of course. As I have no doubt that there are Blacks, Latins and Asians who don't like white or any other color gays male or female. Being a member of a minority group in the US doesn't mean those groups are free of racism, sexism or homophobia. Will it ever totally end I doubt it, but there has been some improvement. We'll never know what people say behind our backs, personally I don't obsess on it.

Seems there's a lot of particular focus on just one of the problems I had brought up, the one about Prop 8. That was actually just one example, and the shortest, of several that I had mentioned, of the problem of racism that brought the Mulford Act into existence and very likely would work to keep it in existence today. Remember, folks, that gun control is inherently racist, and that most definitely includes the Mulford Act.

Agree, CowboyT.

I don't have a super-clear feeling about open carry in Los Angeles, I'm still thinking about it. Top of my head? There should be some exceptions-- like walking your dog or to the grocery store late at night within two miles of your house. Or on a mountain bike on the backside of Griffith Park or the Verdugo mountains, though I suppose you'd have to ride through the city to get there. Or during some emergencies. I'm sure there are other exceptions.

As a day-to-day thing, I'm not crazy about OC in LA, too many damn car-to-car shootings as it is. Took me 30 years of psychotherapy, five years of clinical training and quitting drinking to stop road raging and street racing.

At 65, yeah, I might finally have enough impulse control to be tooling around town with a gun strapped to my hip in LA traffic, but for the half century that preceded it? Not so sure about that!

* * * *

+1 Cowboy. Folks often forget that Martin Luther King owned several guns (though he got rid of them later in life.)

* * * *

Desert, that map is a mind-blower! Holy crap! Scary shit. Had no idea.

Tool around Houston with a pocket snubby, do not have the urge to use it in traffic or due to traffic.

Read this, folks, if you want to know where things like the Mulford Act come from.

https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/ ... cholarship

There you have it. To quote the hip-hop group Tag Team..."whoop, there it is."

It needs to end. NOW.

SunRiseWest wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 11:57 pm I don't have a super-clear feeling about open carry in Los Angeles, I'm still thinking about it. Top of my head? There should be some exceptions-- like walking your dog or to the grocery store late at night within two miles of your house. Or on a mountain bike on the backside of Griffith Park or the Verdugo mountains, though I suppose you'd have to ride through the city to get there. Or during some emergencies. I'm sure there are other exceptions.

As a day-to-day thing, I'm not crazy about OC in LA, too many damn car-to-car shootings as it is. Took me 30 years of psychotherapy, five years of clinical training and quitting drinking to stop road raging and street racing.

At 65, yeah, I might finally have enough impulse control to be tooling around town with a gun strapped to my hip in LA traffic, but for the half century that preceded it? Not so sure about that!

* * * *

+1 Cowboy. Folks often forget that Martin Luther King owned several guns (though he got rid of them later in life.)

* * * *

Desert, that map is a mind-blower! Holy crap! Scary shit. Had no idea.

Perhaps a little racial minority perspective might help with all this.

The Black Panthers of the 1960's did open carry throughout Oakland for very good reason. They had no desire to actually shoot anybody, but they had *every* interest in defending themselves from daily Rodney King-style beatdowns for things like 10-over-the-speed-limit. No, not an exaggeration. The Panthers would listen to the police radio, show up (yes, with those famous shotguns) whenever it was a Black person getting what we would now call "detained" by the police, and make sure the Miranda rights were respected. The beat-downs slowed to a trickle. Funny how that works, ain't it...?

Any sort of carry, open or concealed, needs to always--ALWAYS--be an option. This is why I fully support Vermont Carry nationwide. I have no problem seeing someone "tooling around with a gun" any more than I have a problem seeing a Black person in a predominately White neighborhood. That person is not a threat to me. Whether the gun is concealed or openly carried, I don't care one bit. First, if the gun is concealed, then I don't even know that it's there in the first place. Second, if the gun is openly carried, then that person is letting people know, "I am doing you all the courtesy of letting you know that I am carrying." That person generally has the same mentality that my Dad taught me, which is, "don't start nothin', but don't take nothin' either." That means if someone doesn't actually try to assault me, I have nothing to respond to. If they do, then I will defend myself. That's generally the kind of person that open-carries. This is why I don't have a problem with it. Matter of fact, I'm actually a little relieved if I see that, because that person is being openly honest about it. That's probably the safest person with whom I can interact. And if it's a Black person openly carrying, e. g. in states with Constitutional Carry, then that means, "Charlottesville-style racists, I'm not the one. Leave me in peace and we'll be fine."