First of all it is every citizens right to be protected by the state and law enforcement. However, with the uprising of gangs, drugs, due to the failure of California, and the Government it has led to the increase in crime caused by lawless individuals who will now pray on citizens that are unable to protect themselves. It is the responsibility of legislation and judges and people in government to provide the ability to protect its citizens but, since they do not, this allows the criminals to take advantage of the situation. It is said that the stronger will always hurt the weaker one and in this case of open carry it takes away the leveling ground citizens have to be able to defend themselves in cases of being victims of lawless people who have no regard to citizens safety and citizens lives. The police has their hands tied and are unable to protect the citizens today and in fact, when lawless people has violent intentions the police are only there to pick up the pieces of an event even if they are present. The ability of an open carry person or a person with a CCW are able to reduce the situation if they had more rights. The California government is quickly becoming a problem to the safety of its citizens by constantly restricting them from protecting themselves from lawless people. I would definitely sue the State of California for not protecting me if I was to get severely injured by a criminal especially when I am restricted from protecting myself by open carrying or having a CCW. I will suggest that any person who is restricted from being able to protect oneself because of California Law have the ability to sue California for not protecting its citizens,tourists, and any visitors coming into the state because each and every citizen requires that California now protect them each and every day since this law will go into affect.

“Accordingly, Defendant argues that concealed
carry pursuant to Penal Code section 12050 is not the sole outlet for carrying a handgun for self defense.
Defendant highlights other California provisions that permit unloaded open carry and loaded
open carry if the individual is in immediate grave danger. In light of the foregoing, and based on
the Supreme Court’s approval of cases upholding concealed weapons bans, Defendant maintains that
the restrictions at issue here are ‘presumptively lawful.’”

In addtion, Chief Federal Judge Irma Gonzales spends pages 8-10 addressing the specifics regarding how California’s Open Carry laws fulfill the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms and subjects the level of scrutiny to reasonableness review or intermediate judicial scrutiny as presented by the Defendant, San Diego County Sheriff, William Gore.

These very clear findings in Peruta were simply confirmed on even more explicit terms in the Prieto case, an example of which Mr. Richman provided above. If Assemblyman Portantino continues to ignore the clear language in these rulings and decides to continue with this unconstitutional legislation, then he can look forward to having AB 144 ruled as unconstitutional in the future even if it somehow makes it past the Senate floor and gains the Governor’s signature. He can then look forward to the same humbling experience that Assemblyman DeLeon witnessed personally as AB 962, the ammunition registration bill for 2010, was deemed unconstitutional in a successful court challenge.

That is the second time a District Court judge came to that conclusion in a 9th Circuit District Court. On May 2nd, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed Open Carry in public.

The US Supreme Court affirmed Open Carry in both the Heller and McDonald decisions.

Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-43) stated quite plainly that AB 144 is unconstitutional, and then voted for it.

Today, the US Supreme Court asked the Maryland Supreme Court why the 2nd Amendment applies only to the home in the Williams v Maryland case in response to a Cert petition from Williams who was sentenced to three years in prison for carrying a loaded gun in public.

The Maryland Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the home and criticized US Supreme Court Justice Scalia for a poorly worded decision.

Any bets on whether or not the five justices who voted for Heller and McDonald are going to agree their decision was poorly worded?

“…there were no damsels fainting at the sight of holstered, unloaded weapons…”

They will the first time the people showing up with guns strapped on to make a statement about 2nd Amendment rights don’t look like they’re from the neighborhood, if you get my drift.