BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 144
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 144 (Portantino) - As Amended: May 2, 2011
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and
unloaded handgun in a public place ('open carry').
Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in
county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000, to carry an exposed
and unloaded handgun while in a public place.
2)Creates a lengthy series of exceptions to the prohibition on
open carry, including peace officers, range shooting, hunters
engaged in lawful hunting, incidental transport, gun shows,
entertainment props, etc.
3)Makes a series of conforming and nonsubstantive changes.
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown, likely minor, non-state-reimbursable local law
enforcement and incarceration costs, offset to a degree by
increased fine revenue.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author and proponents contend the absence of a
prohibition on open carry has created a surge in problematic
instances of guns carried in public, alarming people and
causing issues for law enforcement. According to the author:
"Open carry creates a potentially dangerous situation. In
most cases when a person is openly carrying a firearm, law
AB 144
Page 2
enforcement is called to the scene with few details other than
one or more people are present at a location and are armed.
"In these tense situations, the slightest wrong move by the gun
carrier could be construed as threatening by the responding
officer, who may feel compelled to respond in a manner that
could be lethal. In this situation, the practice of 'open
carry' creates an unsafe environment for all parties involved:
the officer, the gun-carrying individual, and for any other
individuals nearby as well.
"Additionally, the increase in 'open carry' calls placed to law
enforcement has taxed departments dealing with under-staffing
and cutbacks due to the current fiscal climate in California,
preventing them from protecting the public in other ways."
2)Current law specifies that carrying a loaded gun or a
concealed gun is generally a misdemeanor, punishable by up to
one year in a county jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000. There
are circumstances, however, where the penalty may be a wobbler
if the offender has a specified prior conviction.
3)Supporters , including the Police Chiefs Association, the Peace
Officer Research Association of CA (PORAC), the CA chapters of
the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and the Legal
Community Against Violence, contend that in recent years,
members of the so-called 'open carry movement' have held open
carry events in public places such as coffee shops,
restaurants, and public parks. Open carry intimidates the
public, wastes law enforcement resources, and increases the
potential for death and injury.
According to the Legal Community Against Violence, "Although
California law requires openly carried firearms to remain
unloaded, this does little to improve public safety, since
state law also permits the carrying of ammunition. The
ability to carry firearms and ammunition makes the distinction
between loaded and unloaded weapons almost meaningless, as
open carry advocates have boasted about their abilities to
load their weapons in a matter of seconds."
4)Opponents , including various gun owner organizations, contend
this bill is part of a continuing effort to disarm the public.
According to the Gun Owners of California in their opposition
to a similar bill last year, "We believe that a ban on 'open
AB 144
Page 3
carrying' of unloaded handguns will bring a chilling effect on
the constitutional rights of all citizens. Since the Second
Amendment includes both the right to keep and bear arms, the
government of California is going to have to come to grips as
to how bearing will take place. As long as Carry Concealed
Weapons Permits (CCWs) are not available to the vast majority
of law-abiding citizens in California, the only other option
is open carry.
"The argument that citizens legally expressing their rights
causes some to be intimidated or uncomfortable is a vapid
excuse for curtailing both the First and Second Amendment
rights of any citizen. It may make some people feel
uncomfortable or intimidated to hear someone espousing
communist or nazi or racist beliefs in the public square, but
as long as they are not breaking the law by exercising their
hate-filled beliefs into actual subversion of the country,
their rights of free speech, no matter how detestable, are
protected even if it makes some people uncomfortable. That is
freedom!"
5)Similar legislation , AB 1934 (Saldana), 2010, passed the
Assembly 46-30, passed the Senate 21-16, and died on the
Assembly floor on concurrence when the 2009-10 session
expired.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081