WTH

[Ahidog]

Is this for real the way I read it this effectively eliminates hunting

ENROLLED SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
PASSED IN SENATE SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
PASSED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
AMENDED IN SENATE SEPTEMBER 07, 2017
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 28, 2017
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 27, 2017

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 7

Introduced by Assembly Member Gipson
(Coauthors: Senators Portantino and Wiener)

December 05, 2016

An act to amend Section 26400 of, to amend the heading of Article 1 (commencing with Section 26400) of Chapter 7 of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of, and to amend the heading of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 26400) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 7, Gipson. Firearms: open carry.
Existing law prohibits, with certain exceptions, openly carrying an unloaded handgun outside a vehicle while in or upon a public place or public street of an incorporated city or city and county or while in or upon a public place or public street within a prohibited area, being defined as any area in which it is unlawful to discharge a firearm.
Existing law also prohibits, with certain exceptions, carrying an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun, such as a shotgun or rifle, while in an incorporated city or city and county but does not prohibit the carrying of an unloaded firearm other than a handgun in unincorporated areas of a county.
This bill would prohibit the carrying of, and make it a crime to carry, an unloaded firearm other than a handgun while in or upon a public place or public street within a prohibited area located within the unincorporated area of a county.
By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The heading of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 26400) of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
CHAPTER 7. Carrying an Unloaded Firearm That is not a Handgun
SEC. 2. The heading of Article 1 (commencing with Section 26400) of Chapter 7 of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
Article 1. Crime of Carrying an Unloaded Firearm that is not a Handgun
SEC. 3. Section 26400 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
26400. (a) A person is guilty of carrying an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun when that person carries upon his or her person an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun outside a vehicle while in any of the following areas:
(1) An incorporated city or city and county.
(2) A public place or a public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county.
(b) (1) Except as specified in paragraph (2), a violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(2) A violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, if the firearm and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that firearm are in the immediate possession of the person and the person is not in lawful possession of that firearm.
(c) (1) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 29900) of Division 9, Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or any other law with a penalty greater than is set forth in this section.
(2) The provisions of this section are cumulative and shall not be construed as restricting the application of any other law. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision.
(d) Notwithstanding the fact that the term “an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun” is used in this section, each individual firearm shall constitute a distinct and separate offense under this section.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[nicapopolis]

What!? I don't see how this has to do with hunting at all.

Although this is stupid, I think it addresses the fact that currently in an incorporated city, or county, you can walk to your truck with an unloaded shotgun in order to go somewhere, i.e. hunting or the shooting range.

It looks like you won't be able to do that anymore. Most likely will have to be cased.

Unless I totally didn't interpret it right.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[xjon]

Not saying that I completely understand it...But I don't see anything has changed other than what nicapopolis mentioned above. (you can walk to your truck with an unloaded shotgun in order to go somewhere, i.e. hunting or the shooting range.)

Just means that you have to keep all firearms cased until you get to your un-prohibited area.

 

[Ahidog]

So is dove hunting in the IV an unincorporated area? It just never ends here just keep chipping away. You had the right idea nicapopolis...move elsewhere


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[nicapopolis]

Ahi... I think most incorporated communities most likely already have a general No Hunting ordinance, unless they go through special approvals to allow certain hunting, i.e. archery deer hunting in city limits to thin the city deer herd.

No sidewalks, unincorporated... sidewalks, incorporated. Haha... this isn't entirely true, but somewhat true.

Moving is also a great idea.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[xjon]

There's a reason why they keep chipping away...you can blame this guy.

 

[Ahidog]

Agree he is a tool


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bowman]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/trut...et_to_eliminate_last_legal_form_of_open_carry

 

[TonyS]

First, open carry in town is NOT the smart thing to do. That being said, let's address the obvious issue: Misuse of public resources. Does it really take six cops four minutes (24 minutes of wasted time) to check his open carry? I would think all six officers should be cited along with a watch commander and the chief of police.

Have them all come down, with county counsel to explain why it took six of them to accomplish verifiying the guns were not loaded.

I understand why the guy didn't want to leave his firearms in the truck being washed but why did he feel the need to wash his truck with two firearms in the vehicle?

 

[slinky_70]

Assholes like this that give gun owners a bad reputation. Just because he has a legal right to carry an unarmed weapon down a street does not make it right. I would call the police also if someone was carrying a weapon in my neighborhood. As far as police wasting time I commend them for checking the weapon and keeping their cool. People like this should not IMO be allowed to own a weapon. The only thing he is doing is trying to incite a problem.

 

[Stump7100]

There's a reason why they keep chipping away...you can blame this guy.

Yup

 

[Gspman]

Uummm. I don't see any hunting issue with the new laws but I can't stand new laws that will in no way keep anyone safe.


HOWEVER.... the guy above should never be talked about badly. He was some what polite as were the officers envolved. I would not do what he did but he has a right. Think about it. If every single person that owned a gun exercised there right to carry openly and lawfully then the other people (anti gun baby's) would be used to it and the police would not be called because of stuff like this. 1 law abiding citizen with a gun is more powerful then a gang member or some one that is not carrying legally that wants to do harm. Remember a gun range is one of the safest places on the planet. If one psycho goes rouge every one else will put him down. I honestly think we need much much more of this in our country. To go along with that we need officials that will recognize our rights and leave us all alone.

 

[Snake Charmer]

Amen Gspman, we all know the things you describe should never have happened with a law abiding citizen but you have to ask yourself why you would do this in a state where the legislature would predictably react and change a law. Dumb move in my opinion considering we are a minority. Chip Chip Chip That'show they are working this..