Baird v Bonta - Open Carry - Awesome news- Injunction

[Texasgrillchef]

Baird V Bonta… open Carry. injunction issued today 8-9-2022 effective untill at least 10-21-2022

Injunction against the enforcement of open carry of firearms!
Permitless open carry of handguns is now effective in California!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.353395/gov.uscourts.caed.353395.65.0.pdf

EDIT….
Goof on my part… my apologies…. This is just a motion for injunction. It has NOT been granted!

 

[cyberalex]

Baird V Bonta… open Carry. injunction issued today 8-9-2022 effective untill at least 10-22-2022

Injunction against the enforcement of open carry of firearms!
Permitless open carry of handguns is now effective in California!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.353395/gov.uscourts.caed.353395.65.0.pdf

I do not see anything about a permit in the penal codes.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

The two penal codes the injunction prohibits enforcing are:

26350 & 25850

Law section

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

26350

Law section

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

25850

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I do not see anything about a permit in the penal codes.

Exactly… if it doesn’t mention any permit requirements one way or the other.… and the injunction prohibits enforcement of both penal code 26350 and 25850

It means Permitless open carry as I read it…

I have a call into my California Firearms lawyer, and he is looking over to verify.

 

[cyberalex]

Exactly… if it doesn’t mention any permit requirements one way or the other.… and the injunction prohibits enforcement of both penal code 26350 and 25850

It means Permitless open carry as I read it…

I have a call into my California Firearms lawyer, and he is looking over to verify.

To me, it sounds more like people cannot be arrested, charged, or convicted merely for carrying a firearm into the locations covered in the 2 penal codes, including a vehicle, which is retarded because people who carry drive vehicles, and they are not public property or places. WTF? It even says that people that have a valid carry permit are exempt from 26350.

 

[teratos]

Exactly… if it doesn’t mention any permit requirements one way or the other.… and the injunction prohibits enforcement of both penal code 26350 and 25850

It means Permitless open carry as I read it…

I have a call into my California Firearms lawyer, and he is looking over to verify.

I seem to recall permitless open carry being permitted in many areas of CA until a few years back.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

My apologies… goof on my part…. That was a motion for injunction. It has yet to be granted.

we Will know tomorrow if it is granted.

 

[cyberalex]

I seem to recall permitless open carry being permitted in many areas of CA until a few years back.

It blows my mind because to me, Constitutional Carry, a.k.a., Permitless Carry is unheard of in California.

 

[teratos]

It blows my mind because to me, Constitutional Carry, a.k.a., Permitless Carry is unheard of in California.

They might have had to be unloaded or some such nonsense, but you could carry ammo.

 

[teratos]

Yep. Here’s an article from just before it was outlawed:

Open carry: It's not for California

Open carry: It's not for California

www.latimes.com

 

[cyberalex]

They might have had to be unloaded or some such nonsense, but you could carry ammo.

I heard that South Carolina has the caviat of carrying a firearm without a permit, but it had to be concealed. I do not understand why the government would have an issue with open carry, let alone carrying without a permit. Eventually, the permit scheme will be struck down. I do not know of any law from the 1800s that required a permit to carry a firearm in public. The Safe/Sullivan Act in New York was enacted in 1912.

 

[cyberalex]

Yep. Here’s an article from just before it was outlawed:

Open carry: It's not for California

Open carry: It's not for California

www.latimes.com

Who cares how long it takes to load a magazine in a gun when taking it out of a holster? I ask that question in the sense that the time it takes to draw a firearm has no weight on our right to carry a firearm in public. "Well, it doesn't take long to do so" So what? The other thing is they say that an armed society is deadly. Maybe if you're talking about NFAC, yes, but ordinary, law-abiding citizens like us, who do not threaten law enforcement and do not harrass people for the color of their skin, have the right to carry a firearm in public. I was scratching my head when a so-called "expert" on militias said that the NFAC is not as bad as the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, or the Proud Boys. The leader of the Proud Boys is an African American, and his group is under criticism for being extreme, and yet the leader of the NFAC, who allegedly pointed a firearm at federal law enforcement officers, is not under the same criticism by the media and by politicians for making threats online and not knowing how firearms work. He said that when "The bolt goes forward, the weapon has fired. I didn't touch the trigger. I just simply banged it on the table." He forgot to mention the firing pin, which has to strike the primer on the cartridge to ignite the powder, which would expel the bullet from the cartridge, out of the chamber, traveling out the barrel, and then onward to its destination. For the firing pin to strike the primer on the cartridge, you have to pull the trigger. I know that old guns do fire without pulling the trigger, but since Grandmaster "Jay" used an AR-15 style rifle, it is impossible for it to fire without pulling the trigger. Firearms 101.

 

[press1280]

I heard that South Carolina has the caviat of carrying a firearm without a permit, but it had to be concealed. I do not understand why the government would have an issue with open carry, let alone carrying without a permit. Eventually, the permit scheme will be struck down. I do not know of any law from the 1800s that required a permit to carry a firearm in public. The Safe/Sullivan Act in New York was enacted in 1912.

They're not alone (NY, FL, IL,DC, most populated areas of CA). And why? Because others piss their pants on sight of a firearm. Can't have that right?

 

[cyberalex]

They're not alone (NY, FL, IL,DC, most populated areas of CA). And why? Because others piss their pants on sight of a firearm. Can't have that right?

I also just heard that Minnesota is in a court battle for its statute prohibiting 18 to 20 year olds from carrying a firearm outside of their home. Didn't 16 and 17 year olds fight off the Redcoats during the Revolutionary War?

 

[RoadDawg]

I also just heard that Minnesota is in a court battle for its statute prohibiting 18 to 20 year olds from carrying a firearm outside of their home. Didn't 16 and 17 year olds fight off the Redcoats during the Revolutionary War?

The government did not consider 26 year old living at home going to college persons to be juveniles in need of supervision then either.

They do now.

Candyazziz need the gooberments protection now.

 

[Biggfoot44]

It blows my mind because to me, Constitutional Carry, a.k.a., Permitless Carry is unheard of in California.

What you were thinking of was Locked , Unloaded , Open Carry


Ie, Unloaded , in a fanny pack . that was itself secured by a padlock .

 

[cyberalex]

What you were thinking of was Locked , Unloaded , Open Carry


Ie, Unloaded , in a fanny pack . that was itself secured by a padlock .

Just in general, California is not friendly to the second amendment. I even just heard that they banned any clothing with 2A apparel for minors. Smh!

 

[TI-tick]

Just in general, California is not friendly to the second amendment. I even just heard that they banned any clothing with 2A apparel for minors. Smh!

Don't confuse the state with the people.
The CA state has been at the forefront of infringing 2A rights and the people have resisted all the way. Now the SC ruled and that anti 2A house of cards is folding.

Similar to Hunter Biden in a cracked out gay bathouse hearing about monkypox.

 

[Bob A]

Just in general, California is not friendly to the second amendment. I even just heard that they banned any clothing with 2A apparel for minors. Smh!

Actually, that's a 1st Amendment infringement.

 

[cyberalex]

Actually, that's a 1st Amendment infringement.

I know. How I look at it is we either respect 100% of the Constitution or we do not respect the Constitution at all. That simple. California thinks that they can get away with telling people that kids should not be trusted to wear 2A clothes, which is ridiculous!