Follow Us!
News and Blog 
Blog Brandon Combs On the heels of AB 144, CGF publishes 2011 statewide carry license stats
Blog Brandon Combs On the heels of AB 144, CGF publishes 2011 statewide carry license stats
Subscribe to blog
Calguns Foundation Blog
On the heels of AB 144, CGF publishes 2011 statewide carry license stats
Posted by Brandon Combs
on Tuesday, 11 October 2011
in Carry License Initiative
Brandon Combs
Brandon Combs is the Secretary of the Calguns Foundation and a Life Member of SA
User is currently offline
Especially significant in light of California Gov. Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr.'s signing of AB 144 into law - a piece of legislation that does nothing but frustrate the rights of law-abiding gun owners - Calguns Foundation has published statistics on all active carry licenses and licensing authorities across the state. (Continued after the "read more" jump.)
As part of the Carry License Sunshine & Compliance Initiative's 2011 audit, CGF acquired an extensive database of license to carry ("LTC") information from the California Department of Justice. Contained in DOJ's database were records of all LTC licenses and pending applications statewide, identified by type, expiration, and the associated licensing authority. Notably, this detailed information has never before been made public and we are proud to offer this first-of-its-kind look at the state of carry licensing in California. Please take a few moments to download and peruse the report; what you find might (or might not) surprise you.
In an odd twist for those who seek to limit law-abiding Californians' right to bear arms for self-defense outside their home, AB 144 forecloses the very alternative that two Federal district court judges used as a "safety valve", giving them the weasel room to find California's system of licensing people to carry loaded, operable firearms (and the defendant sheriffs' application of subjective standards) to be constitutional. (Note: Both cases, Peruta v. Gore and Richards v. Prieto, respectively, have since been appealed.) Now that California has outright banned all forms (manners) of handgun carry except concealed carry, it appears the state is going "all-in" on hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court will find that California may continue to effectively bar 99.9% of California's roughly 28 million adult residents from carrying firearms for self-defense. (Of California's 28,000,000 adults, only about 33,000 "civilians" are currently licensed to carry a firearm in the state.)
Make no mistake, AB 144 cuts right at California gun owners' ability to bear arms (and, as a first amendment matter, protest the unconstitutional licensing scheme). In many jurisdictions, especially those in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego, residents had no choice but to openly carry unloaded firearms because of thier sheriff's unconstitutional and subjective standards. Law enforcement response to those who chose to Unloaded Open Carry ("UOC") was, unfortunately, predictable: with no recorded instances of violence or threats to public safety, chiefs and sheriffs moved quickly to pressure the Legislature into banning the practice altogether. Last year's attempt by the Legislature to ban UOC, AB 1934, [thankfully] stalled in the home stretch. This year, however, Californians would not be so fortunate. Ramrodded by Assembyman Anthony Portantino, the bill sailed through the Legislature and right onto the Governor's desk.
As one of the last few bills to be acted on this cycle, Gov. Brown signed AB 144 into law with a signing statement reading, in part, "I listened to the California police chiefs." Yes, Governor, and we listen to the Constitution and its framers. Our sources, I suspect, will prove to be vastly more reliable. As it was recently held, "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2822.)
If you're interested in California carry license issues, be sure to read my recent blog post on the Carry License Sunshine and Compliance Initiative and our successful lawsuit of Calguns Foundation, Inc. v. Ventura. For more on our Federal second amendment lawsuit Richards v. Prieto, an Alan Gura and Donald Kilmer-helmed case challenging California's "good cause" and "good moral character" requirements, please see this CGF Wiki article. A table of major cases with links to more information can be found here.
-Brandon
As part of the Carry License Sunshine & Compliance Initiative's 2011 audit, CGF acquired an extensive database of license to carry ("LTC") information from the California Department of Justice. Contained in DOJ's database were records of all LTC licenses and pending applications statewide, identified by type, expiration, and the associated licensing authority. Notably, this detailed information has never before been made public and we are proud to offer this first-of-its-kind look at the state of carry licensing in California. Please take a few moments to download and peruse the report; what you find might (or might not) surprise you.
In an odd twist for those who seek to limit law-abiding Californians' right to bear arms for self-defense outside their home, AB 144 forecloses the very alternative that two Federal district court judges used as a "safety valve", giving them the weasel room to find California's system of licensing people to carry loaded, operable firearms (and the defendant sheriffs' application of subjective standards) to be constitutional. (Note: Both cases, Peruta v. Gore and Richards v. Prieto, respectively, have since been appealed.) Now that California has outright banned all forms (manners) of handgun carry except concealed carry, it appears the state is going "all-in" on hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court will find that California may continue to effectively bar 99.9% of California's roughly 28 million adult residents from carrying firearms for self-defense. (Of California's 28,000,000 adults, only about 33,000 "civilians" are currently licensed to carry a firearm in the state.)
Make no mistake, AB 144 cuts right at California gun owners' ability to bear arms (and, as a first amendment matter, protest the unconstitutional licensing scheme). In many jurisdictions, especially those in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego, residents had no choice but to openly carry unloaded firearms because of thier sheriff's unconstitutional and subjective standards. Law enforcement response to those who chose to Unloaded Open Carry ("UOC") was, unfortunately, predictable: with no recorded instances of violence or threats to public safety, chiefs and sheriffs moved quickly to pressure the Legislature into banning the practice altogether. Last year's attempt by the Legislature to ban UOC, AB 1934, [thankfully] stalled in the home stretch. This year, however, Californians would not be so fortunate. Ramrodded by Assembyman Anthony Portantino, the bill sailed through the Legislature and right onto the Governor's desk.
As one of the last few bills to be acted on this cycle, Gov. Brown signed AB 144 into law with a signing statement reading, in part, "I listened to the California police chiefs." Yes, Governor, and we listen to the Constitution and its framers. Our sources, I suspect, will prove to be vastly more reliable. As it was recently held, "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2822.)
If you're interested in California carry license issues, be sure to read my recent blog post on the Carry License Sunshine and Compliance Initiative and our successful lawsuit of Calguns Foundation, Inc. v. Ventura. For more on our Federal second amendment lawsuit Richards v. Prieto, an Alan Gura and Donald Kilmer-helmed case challenging California's "good cause" and "good moral character" requirements, please see this CGF Wiki article. A table of major cases with links to more information can be found here.
-Brandon
Tags: AB 144, Bear, Carry, CGF, Initiative, Litigation, LTC, Richards v. Prieto, RKBA, Strategy, Sunshine, UOC