POST TITLE (with addendum showing dates published & updated, length & short-link):

California ‘Open Carry’ Ban passed Senate…and passing the Assembly Public Safety Committee: Some Domestic Violence Questions (Publ. Sept. 10, 2011, Format-only update Aug. 10, 2019)  short-link ends “-QY,” originally about 15,200 words**; added remarks about 800 more.  Some broken image links removed, etc.

**I see that much of the length is how long the quotes are, and many articles quoted.  My actual comments aren’t that long.  

I just happened to catch this in a news subtitle — it was not discussed at all.  However, a group is definitely tracking Open Carry laws nationwide:

http://opencarry.org/

HOT: Click here to defend open carry rights in California!

Get Involved in Your State By Signing The Appropriate Petition! California Petition Texas Petition Florida Petition Oklahoma Petition South Carolina Petition Arkansas Petition New Here? Join The Forum!

They are talking about California SB 661 and AB 144, part of which I’ve quoted below.

They write, in opposition:

Subject: Oppose AB 1144 & SB 661

Dear Assembly member [or Senator] _______:

I urge you to oppose AB 144 & SB 661.

These bills are aimed at making it difficult or impossible to open carry properly holstered handguns in California. Because California’s concealed handgun permit program allows Sheriffs and police chiefs absolute discretion in issuance of concealed carry permits, open carry is the only way for most California citizens to carry handguns in public.

If these bills pass, California gun owners will be forced to open carry rifles and shotguns in public places – something which remains legal under the bills. California residents deserve to retain their Second Amendment right to carry handguns, and proponents of these bills want to stomp our rights into the ground.

A number of people in our state are allowed to carry concealed weapons, because they have a concealed carry permit.  But not Exposed Unloaded Weapons, because it freaks too many law-abiding citizens out.    Lest we have too many freaked-out citizens (not good for business) around, California is passing another law to stop this

I respond as a domestic violence survivor who had dealt with multiple guns (not the only weapon) in the home.   It was actually the knives that frightened me more, along with the previous injuries involving neither gun nor knife.  Overall, living in fear is no way to live, period.   After years of attempting other law-abiding ways to deal with law-breaking behaviors, I sometimes look back and wonder how it might have played out had I learned to be more aggressive, and had come into life (including marriage) with the ability to handle a firearm and self-defense training.

By the end of this (ever-extending) post, you’ll read about an Open Carry advocate soccer mom, who was shot to death by her parole officer husband anyhow (they had young children and were not even separated); about how groups that are typically anti-DV laws (if not feminism) that are quite alert as to violation of civil liberties, and how the domestic violence response typically is, well, er — despite how hated it is by certain groups — still ineffective.

This topic hits close to home, which means it may NOT be my best post, but I’m putting this information out FYI, food for thought.  Nibble on some of it, and I hope digest some — if Open Carry is a misdemeanor, then how are women to stay alive and keep their kids alive when there is real — not false allegations, not trumped-up reasons (as it ALLEGEDLY happens so often in courts) — real danger to life, limb, and bystanders because of earlier poor choice of partners followed by the No Exit systems which the family custody arena truly is?

I wonder whether the father who just allegedly shot his two-year old to death, and himself, was  illegally carrying a concealed weapon.

If the open carry ban finishes its course through California Legislature (both houses) and is signed into law, then this situation might have been an illegal open-carry violation.  Either way, it BEGAN at least in violation of a family court custody/visitation order.    And Mr. Samaan comes from a family with an attorney and a father in the family court business, and his mother (Mrs. Marak Samaan) a marriage counselor emphasizing, or at least selling, to the Christian community.

[No news article to date has mentioned any role the child support system played in this case, either, just a note…]

DV Laws protested by Men’s Father’s and certain OpenCarry, etc. Groups:

When it comes to claiming VAWA and Domestic Violence laws violate civil rights, as to carrying guns, some groups are right on it.  Good for them, I guess — but where would a woman in these groups go if being assaulted by a husband, stalked by an ex, and left open and unprotected by the courts, including certifiably insane restraining order/suggestions?   The domestic violence entities, while being assailed by father’s rights as too feminist, and violating civil rights (although abuse in the home violates that individual’s a good deal more than rights) have in fact (as I look at the funding in particular, and the rhetoric) lost their feminist edge & fire.

Where is the conversation to the contrary? — on women who have already been threatened, stalked, assaulted, etc. by specific individuals, what about their right to protect themselves, and the impact of no open carry on that?  Particularly when the person has gone to jail and been sprung again, as in the case of the infamous Toms’ River murder in NJ?

Anti-VAWA and Anti-DV policies groups are “all over” how domestic violence laws and policies violate their civil rights, including to carry guns, but why are DV Advocates so silent, that a woman might have a cause to?

Instead, they propose (along with these groups), counselings, interventions, publications, and ‘fatherhood’ (programs) as a tool to mitigate abuse!  Even absent proof that these schemes even lessen custody- and domestic violence-related male on female homicides & infanticides!

An earlier post on this blog compared approximately 10 years of domestic violence incidents — and I do not remember whether in PA or MN (but probably one of those two states).  The topic was likely around mother’s day or fathers’ day, “Can we call it a day?”  What I discovered was that the one case where the mother was NOT shot to death in front of her kids, and or a variation of that — was a woman who had a restraining order on, AND a gun in the home, and had informed her neighbors of this.  The man violated the restraining order, and was shot — to death.  She was not incarcerated for this.   However horrible this is, if it were closer to the norm — rather than leaving women cowering in fear, or stranded/beached in false hope for enforcement, or legal protections which don’t, really exist — how many fewer deaths would there be?

Right now, mothers and children are being sent a CLEAR message that if they do not conform, not to the court orders, but to the father’s demands, someone is going to die.  And instead of handling this, the press reports “bitter custody dispute” and “resource centers” like “Endabuse.org” (renamed the idealistic “Futures Without Violence”) or “Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs” (Minnesota Program Development), or the NCJFCJ (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, a Reno, Nevada based corporation which supports an amazing database of information on custody, violence, etc. — but is basically connected strongly to the AFCC elements, i.e., family preservation except where there’s been “parental alienation” in which case, punish that bitch for breaking up the family) and other “resource centers” as I have been blogging — these groups run more and more studies, on the government dole, and put up more websites.

Rarely mentioned is how, for example, a family court judge in New Hampshire moved to President of the NCJFCJ, and then on to the Executive Branch USA of Office of Violence Against Women.  (I’m speaking of Susan Carbon), and the impact this may have on who gets which grants.

Here’s a  brief sample of the “Resource Center Concept,” if you can catch the language — none of which enables a single person to protect him or herself from a determined abuser with an illegal or unregistered gun (or other lethal weapon, which might include a car, fire, or other household items turned lethal).  This is from an HHS/ACF.gov  site, i.e., Federal policies & funding:

Domestic Violence Resource Network

The Domestic Violence Resource Network (DVRN) is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to inform and strengthen domestic violence intervention and prevention efforts at the individual, community, and societal levels. View this document in printer-friendly Adobe Acrobat format (PDF, 282KB). The DVRN works collaboratively to promote practices and strategies to improve our nation’s response to domestic violence and make safety and justice not just a priority, but also a reality. DVRN member agencies ensure that victims of domestic violence, advocates, community-based programs, educators, legal assistance providers, law enforcement and court personnel, health care providers, policy makers, and government leaders at the local, state, tribal and federal levels have access to up-to date information on best practices, policies, research and victim resources. The DVRN includes two national resource centers, three special issue resource centers, four culturally-specific Institutes, the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline. National Resource Centers National Resource Center on Domestic Violence 800-537-2238 www.vawnet.org  The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV), a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, provides a wide range of free, comprehensive and individualized technical assistance, training and resource materials. The scope of NRCDV’s technical assistance is broad and includes domestic violence intervention and prevention, community education and organizing, public policy and systems advocacy, and funding.

Another of these resource centers includes the BWJP — Battered Women’s Justice Project, which has by now collaborated and is collaborating with the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) ,to the point of making presentations at AFCC conferences.  Why not?  It’s where the money is!

Battered Women’s Justice Project
Criminal and Civil Center

www.bwjp.org

The Battered Women’s Justice Project consists of two partnering agencies that operate
in separate locations.

The Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP) promotes change within the civil and
criminal justice systems that enhances their effectiveness in providing safety, security
and justice for battered women and their families.

Does it say, in the Family Law systems?  No!  This is common among DV advocates.  They “forget” the dynamic between family & criminal laws, or at least

they forget to tell women served in their nonprofits helping women, about this dynamic.

BWJP provides technical assistance   {{information posted on websites, consultations, publications, conferences, etc.}}
to advocates, civil attorneys, judges and court personnel, law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, probation officers, batterers intervention program staff, defense attorneys
and policymakers; and to victims of domestic violence and their families and friends.

Notice how “victims of domestic violence” is (a) last and (b) not even a separate category, lumped in with “their families and friends.”

Through trainings and consultations, we disseminate up-to-date information on recent
research findings and promote the implementation of best practices and policies that
emerge from the work of pioneering communities around the country.

They disseminate information on research findings (including some that they participated in producing) and promote practices and policies emerging from

“Pioneering communities” (such as these nonprofits are the model for) around the country.

DOES THAT STOP A BULLET?  DOES IT ENABLE A DV VICTIM’S FAMILY & KIDS TO RELOCATE OUTSIDE OF THE RANGE OF THAT BULLET?

No.

This is why, when it comes to an Open Carry Ban, our ears should perk up.

THE CONTRARY PERSPECTIVE — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS ENDANGER CONStitUTIONAL RIGHTS:

Domestic Violence and Your Right to Bear Arms

By: Derek A. DeBrosse, Esq. Coordinator, Ohioans for Concealed Carry Owner, The Law Office of Derek A. DeBrosse  {{emphases mine except title}}

Domestic violence is a fact of life in today’s society. Numerous laws and regulations exist not only to try to protect the victim, but also to punish the guilty. Unfortunately, the unscrupulous family member or significant other to deprive an innocent party of his or her right to keep and bear arms can also use these laws. Any time a claim of domestic violence is raised, firearms rights are jeopardized.

A Difficult Situation

A gun enthusiast who is facing a wrongful accusation of domestic violence may have many options at his or her disposal. Most importantly, however, the individual must consult with a competent attorney immediately and before making any statements or signing any paperwork. During the initial consultation, the accused must let the attorney know that he or she is a gun owner, and that keeping his or her Second Amendment rights is one of the client’s goals.

Many times, domestic violence charges can be thrown out for lack of evidence. More often, though, prosecutors will not dismiss even questionable claims out of a desire not to appear unsympathetic to the victims.

A Teacher in Oregon sues for right to carry a gun to school for protection from DV.   Right….

PETER SLEETH
The Oregonian Staff

An Oregon teacher fighting to carry a handgun to class took her case to court Tuesday, asking a judge to validate her right to carry a concealed weapon in school.

“Jane Doe,” who has asked to keep her name secret, says she is a victim of domestic violence. She teaches high school in Medford, a city of 75,000 in southern Oregon.

In her filing in Jackson County Circuit Court, she asked the judge to tell the Medford School District to stop interfering with her right to carry a Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistol to work. She says her mission is twofold: to protect herself from an abusive ex-husband and to strike a blow in favor of the right to bear arms.

“I want to be able to carry one because it is my Second Amendment right,” she said.

Her attorney said Tuesday that he considered the case a constitutional one; her safety concerns only enhance the argument.

–snip–

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/bas…

To which some commented:

Perhaps if she is in so much danger from her ex she should not be working with children in the first place. I’m certainly sympathetic to her DV issues, but in my mind if she is so concerned about being attacked at school that she needs a gun, then she is putting everyones eles in harm’s way.

I would be removing my child from her class immediately, but the problem is she is going as a “Jane Doe”. I’m sure there are some fairly nervous parents in Medford, Oregon right now.

I cannot imagine this situation.  Reality check would say, the woman should consider the safety of the children she is in front of first, be willing to make a career change if necessary, economic hit or no economic hit, and insist that the school have measures to keep prohibited persons, such as her ex, off campus, or remove herself from in front of children that might be subject to stray bullets.    In 2008, a woman was stabbed in front of her classroom (plus shots fired):

PORTSMOUTH, Ohio — A man charged into a school where his estranged wife was a teacher Thursday morning, fired a gun before he stabbed her as her fifth-grade class watched, police said. He later was found dead in his home after apparently shooting himself during a standoff with police.

Police originally said William Michael Layne shot his wife at Notre Dame Elementary, but Chief Charles Horner said it was unclear whether a gunshot fired in the school hit her.

Minutes before the teacher was stabbed, police say her husband stabbed and wounded a different woman in an alley about five blocks from the school.

Horner said at a news conference that he did not know whether that victim, Stephanie Loop, 22, knew the teacher. Loop was also in critical condition.

Christi Layne had filed for divorce Jan. 25.

I remember this case.  The man was 56, his girlfriend, that he feared losing, as we see 34 years younger, and the wife closer to his own age, obviously “estranged.”  A student describes witnessing the carnage in the elementary school classroom:

The shooting happened around 9 a.m. at the Catholic school on Portsmouth’s main road. Student Emmaly Baker said she hid in the classroom’s coatroom when the gunman came in.

“We heard gunshots, and we heard her yelling. I was scared,” she told WSAZ-TV. “The police officer came and got us and she was still laying there and she was hurt really bad.”

The suspect fled, and for hours after the shooting, a SWAT team surrounded a house about two miles away. Neighbors saw officers shooting at the house at one point, and police said those shots were with low-caliber bullets used to disable a surveillance camera Layne had installed in his yard.

Neighbor Jack Freeland said police eventually broke through the door with a battering ram and sent in a robot.

Suspect shoots himself
Police had been involved in a domestic dispute between the Laynes about two weeks ago, Horner said, but he did not give details.

It was of course just a “dispute,” although police were called in to settle it or separate them, evidently.

The 56-year-old suspect, known as Mike, was a retired assistant director at the city’s water distribution plant. He apparently shot himself in the head with a shotgun, Coroner Terry Johnson said. He was found in the garage behind his house near the school, Horner said   …

The scene was chaotic, with police cars and few ambulances descending on the school, and the fire department blocked off the street.

The school and another Catholic school nearby were locked down, said Deacon Tom Berg, vice chancellor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus. The diocese was sending a crisis team. Local public schools also were locked down, said Superintendent Jan Broughton, who oversees the community’s public schools.

This is  The Associated Press co. 2011, and my understanding is this here is Fair Use and not a violation of that copyright.

A Colorado Criminal Defense Attorney discusses the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968  This site (URL “Domestic Violence Lawyer.com”)  addresses how it affects military convicted of DV whose job requires them to carry arms

Colorado Criminal Law Domestic Violence Right to Bear Arms

Colorado Criminal Law: Why Military (Soliders) and Law Enforcement Need to Understand the Impact of a Domestic Violence Conviction on The Right to Bear Arms

The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, effective 30 September 1996, makes it a felony for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition.

The Amendment also makes it a felony to transfer a firearm or ammunition to an individual known, or reasonably believed, to have such a conviction. Soldiers are not exempt from the Lautenberg Amendment.

What are Felony Convictions?

Depending on State law, and the type of Felony conviction, there may be a restriction to the right to possess firearms.

The Lautenberg Amendment. The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended in 1996, makes it a federal felony for anyone who has a qualifying misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition.

For the Lautenberg Amendment, “misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence” are predicate offenses; any crime that “has, as an element, the use . . . of physical force” qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Military regulations have made the act applicable to domestic violence felonies.

What qualifies for a felony conviction must be examined in each case and considered for its elements.

For example under current law in the 9th Circuit, Federal Court of Appeals… violence. has been interpreted to be “physical force” more forceful than de minimis (minimal ) contact, that being something like bare physical contact, whereas other Federal Courts have considered any bare physical contact with another as a use of “physical force” against that person.

There are no exceptions to the Lautenberg prohibition and unless it is avoided entirely, or cured by dismissal, expungment or some legal action to remove it from the individualfs criminal history… the soldier or police officerfs career is at risk since he/she cannot legally carry weapons or ammunition until it is cleared.

It is also a felony for someone to issue or dispose of firearms or ammunition to anyone with a qualifying conviction if you know, or should know, about the conviction.

This dates from 2005 and lists 10 case precedents affirming it.  Source is a Tea Party promoter, “FreeRepublic”, self-advertised as:

Welcome to Free Republic!

Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We’re working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT, ANYHOW:

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is “You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980’s when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.”

“It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.”

Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection
Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty – April 2000
by Richard W. StevensRichard Stevens is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die (Mazel Freedom Press, 1999).Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.Statistics confirm the obvious truth that the police in America cannot prevent violent crime. In 1997 for example, nationwide there were 18,209 murders, 497,950 robberies, and 96,122 rapes.[1] All those crimes were unprevented and undeterred by the police and the criminal justice system.

Many criminals use firearms to commit their crimes. For example, in 1997 criminals did so in 68 percent of murders and 40 percent of robberies.[2] Thus criminals either have or can obtain firearms. The existing “gun control” laws do not stop serious criminals from getting guns and using them in crimes.Practically speaking, it makes little sense to disarm the innocent victims while the criminals are armed. It is especially silly to disarm the victims when too often the police are simply unable to protect them. As Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, has observed: “Police do very little to prevent violent crime. We investigate crime after the fact.”

Yet does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect.[3] The 911 bottom line: “cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare.”[4]

No Duty to ProtectIt’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”[5]

Prof. Leddy, formerly a N.Y. officer, cites personal experience: The ability of the state to protect us from personal violence is limited by resources and personnel shortages [in addition to which] the state is usually unable to know that we need protection until it is too late. By the time that the police can be notified and then arrive at the scene the violent criminal has ample opportunity to do serious harm. I once waited 20 minutes for the New York City Police to respond to an “officer needs assistance” call which has their highest priority. On the other hand, a gun provides immediate protection. Even where the police are prompt and efficient, the gun is speedier.Reference: Silver and Kates, “Handgun Ownership, Self-defense and the Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society” in RESTRICTING HANDGUNS at 144-7.

In fact there is little lack when it comes to men’s groups (in particular) talking about how bad DV laws are and how they restrict their civil rights.

For example, (also from Maryland — as the last excerpt was), two pages from a “Special Report” (co. 2011) by “SAVE”  — “Stop Abusive and Violent Environments”

Note:  3 of their

Ten Principles to Reform Domestic Violence Policies  (#s 7 – 10) include

7. Counseling, Not Incarceration – Counseling and treatment are preferred over criminal justice interventions, especially for minor and one-time incidents.

8. Qualified Personnel – Staff who provide counseling and treatment need to have appropriate qualifications and expertise.

9. Family Preservation – Programs must be designed to preserve families and partner relationships whenever it is possible and safe to do so.”

P.O. Box 1221 Rockville, MD 20849 www.saveservices.org

Historical Development

Over the years, representatives of the domestic violence field have worked tirelessly to expand the legal scope and effect of our nation’s domestic violence laws.

The process began in the 1980s when the first state-level laws were enacted to permit the issuance of restraining orders for partner abuse. In 1984, the federal government passed the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, which provided funding to abuse shelters. Ten years later, the federal government enacted the Violence Against Women Act, designed to strengthen the response of the criminal justice system to domestic violence cases.

That milestone set the stage for a dramatic expansion of state domestic violence laws. From 1997 to 2003, states enacted an estimated 1,500 domestic violence laws.2 These laws encompass

1all facets of the criminal justice system: response to 911 calls, issuance of civil restraining orders, arrest, prosecution, and judicial education.

Analysis of Effects on Civil Rights

This Special Report enumerates nine fundamental civil liberties that are affected by domestic violence laws. For each of the civil rights, this report identifies the relevant Constitutional Amendment(s), cites illustrative Supreme Court rulings, documents offending domestic violence laws and policies, and estimates the number of persons whose rights are compromised each year.

This information is presented in the Appendix of this report, “Analysis of Civil Rights and Domestic Violence Policies.”3 The findings are summarized here:

Civil Restraining Orders

1. Freedom of speech 2. Protection from governmental intrusion 3. Due process 4. Freedom to marry and the right to privacy in family matters 5. Right to parent one’s own children 6. Right to bear arms

Estimated number of persons whose rights are harmed each year by restraining orders: 1.5 million

Criminal Justice System

7. Right to be secure in their persons

8. Right to a fair trial

Estimated number of persons whose rights are harmed each year by biased criminal justice procedures: 462,000

Treatment Services

9. Equal treatment under the law

Estimated number of persons whose rights are harmed each year by discriminatory treatment services: 272,000

These numbers add up to an estimated 2.2 million persons. Since some individuals experience repeated violations of their civil liberties in a given year, a more conservative number is 2 million persons whose constitutionally protected rights are compromised each year by domestic violence laws and policies.

While I’m here:

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments 
P.O. Box 1221
Rockville, MD 20849

SAVE is a 501(c)3 organization incorporated in the State of Maryland.

Maybe it was, but here’s the search page now:

http://www.sos.state.md.us/Charity/SearchCharity.aspx  “

Here’s another:  ‘Equal Justice Foundation” in Colorado, associated with “dvmen.org”

Research

During 2003 the Equal Justice Foundation conducted research and published papers in areas ranging from:

• Domestic violence. To quell the hysteria surrounding family violence the EJF has undertaken studies of the causes, prevalence, and legal and social remedies for domestic violence and abuse of men, women, and children without regard to sex. Our objective remains to fix the problem, not the blame.

The research paper by Corry, Fiebert, and Pizzey titled “Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men” (ejfi.org/DV/dv-6.htm) remains heavily accessed with about 20 users a day. Our paper was referenced in several local and national news articles during 2003.

20 users a day is “heavy”?  I get much more than that……

Dr. Corry continues to attend the monthly meetings of the Colorado Domestic Violence Offender Management Board (DVOMB) in Lakewood, and serves on the research committee of the DVOMB. A major goal of the DVOMB research committee is to determine the efficacy of current treatment practices for offenders convicted of domestic violence.

• Marriage and families. We advocate for the preservation of families and strengthening the institution of marriage as a contract between two individuals. Working in close affiliation with Prof. Stephen Baskerville of Howard University, a great deal of information was published on our web sites concerning the very negative impact of current laws and government practices on children, families, and marriage.

It is our fundamental tenet that children need both parents in order to develop into healthy, educated, and productive citizens, and we work toward keeping children with their parents whenever possible.

EJI’s outlook — typified in an anecdote, Timothy Joe Emerson, a medical doctor and guns collector:

At the time Dr. Emerson was the lawful owner of approximately 30 firearms of varying types that he had owned both before and all during the marriage. His collection included a 9mm model 92F Beretta pistol purchased on October 10, 1997, that he kept in his office. It is fairly common, and prudent for medical doctors who have many drugs in their offices to also keep a firearm there.
Note that about half of the hundreds of married men who have contacted the Equal Justice Foundation have been charged with domestic violence or abuse after finding their wives were having an affair. Allegations of domestic violence or abuse are a standard tactic in a divorce today with virtually no recourse for the husband. Under current laws such false allegations are standard as they give the adulterous wife the house, the car, the kids, the bank account, and anything else she wants with no questions asked, i.e., due process is a thing of the past. She will also almost certainly receive child support even if the child(ren) prove not to be her husband’s. And there is no penalty for her perjury.

Temporary orders hearing for divorce

I think you get the picture:  DV allegations are just adulterous women trying to rip off honest, hard-working men.  This goes on to detail how he lost his medical practice because of this.  Meanwhile, women in family court fighting fatherhood-grants-funded practices also sometimes lose their professions (I did mine!), and sometimes their lives.  Or their children lose their lives, too.

WHAT EJI propounds:

• Citizens shall not be torn from their homes and children in the middle of the night based on nothing more than hearsay.

• Men and women shall not be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

• A secret tribunal shall not have the power to force a man from his home without notice or hearing.

• Police shall not have the right to enter and search a citizen’s home without a warrant.

• Citizens shall not be imprisoned based only on hearsay.

• Citizens are not more afraid of the police than they are of criminals.

• A legal system exists that does not tolerate perjury or the subornation of perjury.

Then logically speaking, the family law system would have to be dismantled, as it’s run primarily by people more interested in subjective, than objective facts, which your local court professional will then interpret.

• Citizens shall not be censured by public officials for crimes they have not committed.

• Men and women are not made to work as indentured servants or held in thrall to others for acts they have not committed.

• A marriage license does not make men and women servants of the State or give courts possession of their children.

(that was enabled decades ago in Conciliation law — see AFCC; most people don’t notice til it hits them).

This is a vocal, but not large, nonprofit:

Equal Justice Foundation, per its site: (bottom of page):

A non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity incorporated under the laws of the State of Colorado.

Incorporated in 2001 in Colorado:

Purpose stated is to promote equal treatment of both sexes and anything else a corporation can do:

They got off to a good start in the ‘equality’ with the phrase “Know all men by these presents” ( (:  were women allowed to know also?)

The members pay dues as determined by the three directors, and an odd phrase, that directors shall not be personally liable to the corporation or members for “monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty, except under (law — CRS 7-128-402) for which such immunity can’t be given.   It does not show under a State of Colorado Charitable Registry search, nor any other charity under “Charles Corry,”  but otherwise seems to be filing timely 990s.  A search of charities in El Paso County also shows nothing by this name.

While many other “Equal Justice Foundations” in other states seem focused on providing legal services (access) to indigent or low-income people, this one is focusing on equalizing the supposed disparity (represented especially by DV laws, in practice) in justice systems against men.

In effect, the intent of the Colorado Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act is negated once domestic violence or abuse is alleged. The apparent advantages to a woman of alleging abuse are so great, however, that the temptation may well be irresistible. But given the “no drop” provisions of current law, the woman is likely to be trapped in a morass of feminist-inspired laws that are locally fomented by feminists such as Dr. Walker and groups such the NCADV. Likely the individual filing the charges was totally unaware of the implications of her actions, or the repercussions from which there is no escape for her or the man she has accused.

California scheming

Colorado is not the only state, by far, where restraining orders are grossly abused. In a 2006 article attorney Jeffrey Leving and activist Glenn Sacks noted that nearly 250,000 domestic violence restraining orders are currently active in California.

They referred to a recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explains that the bar is concerned that “protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody.” The authors note that protective orders are

“…almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person…it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.”

Such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused’s knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. His first chance to defend himself against the charges is usually two weeks later, at the hearing to make the order permanent. Yet these hearings generally last no more than 15 minutes. The due process they afford the men can be gauged by the State of California’s advice for men contesting restraining orders:

Not mentioned: hearings to also switch custody are conducted in similar manner and can take no more than 20 minutes, if that.  Probably because the case was decided by dynamics outside that hearing, which was a mere formality, in advance — generally speaking, in a mediator’s office, or the child support office.

841578107 EIN.    For whatever reasons (i looked fairly hard), I see no charitable registration for this group at the state level, or county.  The income is very low, obviously —   If it is soliciting contributions in Colorado (website notes contributions are tax-deductible), unless Colorado doesn’t require registration, it appears this one never did in the now 10 years of operation.     On a side note, one of the incorporators (Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.) served as a Marine, as did his two sons, and he was born in Salt Lake City (Mormon?).   this, from website by his name.  He spends a lot of time detailing “abuse of protection orders.”   His background is geologist, which would include detailed examination of physical facts.  So, what’s with the non-registration as a charity in Colorado?  Do membership-based charities (not soliciting actively from others) not need to register in that state?

Abuse Of Protection Orders by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.This site is copyrighted, supported, and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.

In short, the entity very concerned about civil rights violations has focused diligently on the abuse of these rights when it comes to men subjected to restraining orders and treated unfairly in re: domestic violence.      The alarm will be sounded as to feminism, in particular.

So where does this leave  a woman / individual wanting to protect herself after assault/threat/stalking — and when the law has not — assuming that occasionally

this individual might actually leave the home?  The groups that say, right to bear arms, DV is wrong to take them away under XYZ situations, and DV laws are unfair to men — but in the same manner, I’d like to say that personal assaults on women in the home, particularly pregnant or mothers of small children (who may be nearby) related to their gender, or personal beliefs about how to get submission from women (which MANY religions endorse) — they are also violations of our civil rights.  Not to mention, we got the right to vote not til the 1900s, and after quite a bit of fighting for it!

Now here comes:

‘OPEN CARRY’ BAN, CALIFORNIA:

This law reads and sounds a little different to domestic violence survivors who have been dealing with partners with suicidal expressions, during, before, and after restraining order filings.   Well, I will speak my mind on this one:

• We can’t protect ourselves and our kids  in the home with a violent partner.
• We can’t protect ourselves or our kids OUT of the home, really, either, afterwards; we have to wade through psychological profiling because, and mostly because, we attempt to set firm boundaries, wish to detach from violent exes who’ve previously injured us, and because the next round of “parent coordinators” values their retirement plans more than our lives, or our kids.
• How few (like zero) authorities actually recommend women learn to use a gun for self-defense, or get a permit to carry (openly); instead they are encouraged to file for protective orders which don’t, for the most part.

Sometimes I wonder how much BS that might have done, and whether it might’ve empowered some dv victims, who learned their legal restrictions and responsibilities of using weapons as a deterrent, to stay alive, in the case of home invasion by an irate ex.

Anyhow, here’s my brilliant legislature at work again, well-timed to right around 9-11 when fear of sudden attacks is at an all-time high:

Open Carry Ban wins approval in California Senate 

The state Senate has approved legislation today that would make it a crime to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public.

Assembly Bill 144, by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, targets the “open carry” movement, marked by gatherings of people displaying their firearms in public places to protest gun-control laws.

The bill language contains a number of exceptions, including exemptions for peace officers, military gatherings, gun shows and hunting.

Democratic Sen. Kevin de León said the measure would stop a practice that alarms the public and creates a “potentially dangerous” situation when law enforcement officials or members of the public are unsure whether an exposed gun is loaded or not.

“This is not the wild west,” the Los Angeles Democrat said, adding, “How discomforting can it be if you walk into a restaurant, to Starbucks, to Mickey D’s, wherever it is that you may go to, and all of a sudden you see someone walking around with a handgun, and you don’t know, can’t discern if they’re a law enforcement agent.”

No Republicans voted for the bill. Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, criticized the proposal for “further narrowing peoples’ Second Amendment rights.”

“The Second Amendment is not a loophole,” LaMalfa said, adding that open carry is “isn’t a problem for anybody except for the gun grabbers that continually chip away and narrow our basic rights.”

The bill was approved 21-18, with three Democrats joining Republicans in opposing the measure. The bill now returns to the Assembly for consideration of amendments added in the upper house.

RELATED POSTS:

Assembly committee approves ‘open carry’ ban, rife records bill

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/california-senate-open-carry-handguns-assembly-bill-144.html#ixzz1XZyjQmwX

Here (obviously I”m trawling internet for related posts) is an “forum.officer.forum” discussing a DV murder of an open-carry woman, by her husband, distinguishing DV from protection from home invasion, etc.  I think it’s 2009.

The tragic murder of Meleanie Hain by her husband shatters two of Open Carry’s biggest myths:#1 – That carrying a gun makes you safe from those that will do you harm.

#2 – No one who carries legally ever commits a crime.

Mrs. Hain was an huge advocate for carrying a gun and was a member of the OpenCarry.org forums. She, like everyone there, went out of her way to try to stir up attention by open carrying in places sure to cause controversy.

Her husband was a Parole Officer and also an advocate of carrying guns.

Yet neither mattered when it came to her murder.

I wonder how the gun crazies will spin this into a reason why everyone should carry?

There is no reason for anyone to “spin” anything about how being armed prevents crime. This fact has already been proven time and again that it most definately does deter and prevent armed robberies and save lives during home invasions.
You point out this one tragic incident that was all about domestic violence and has nothing to do with prevention. It’s not like anyone would be prepared for their spouse to walk up to them while they are in the normal course of their daily lives and shoot them in their very home. Even if she would have carried walking around in her underwear at home nobody could account for someone you trust suddenly shooting you in your head and that goes for not only soccer mom’s but cops also. I’m sure had it been some stranger who broke in her home the story would be different. It’s also pretty low class to provoke some type of “counter” argument thread against open carry and 2nd ammendment issue’s based on this tragedy. You might as well just stand over her corpse and shout “how did that open carry work out for ya hon?”
It again just proves how irrational those who think only Police should be allowed to carry are in their thinking and logic.

Meleanie Hain: Gun-Carrying Soccer Mom Killed By Husband In Murder Suicide, Police Say (VIDEO)

First Posted: 10- 9-09 11:08 AM

LEBANON, Pa. – A soccer mom who was thrust into the national gun-rights debate after taking a loaded pistol to youth sports events was killed by her husband in a shooting witnessed online by her video chat partner, authorities said Friday.

Scott Hain used his own gun to fire several shots into his 30-year-old wife, Meleanie, while her video chat was active and perhaps as she washed dishes in their kitchen, police said. Scott Hain, 33, later killed himself in an upstairs bedroom.

Meleanie Hain’s loaded pistol — with a bullet ready in the chamber — was in a backpack hanging from the front door.

The couple’s three young children were home just before the murder-suicide, but authorities stopped short of saying they were home at the time. The online friend heard a shot and screams and turned to see Scott Hain firing, they said.

He “observed Scott Hain standing over where Meleanie was and discharging a handgun several times,” Lebanon Police Chief Daniel Wright said at a news conference. The man, who was described as a friend of both Scott and Meleanie Hain, called 911.

“He kept open his Web cam episode; however, he heard nothing or saw nothing after that,” Wright said. The chat was apparently not recorded.

Meleanie Hain became a voice of the gun-rights movement last year when she fought for the right to carry a holstered pistol at her young daughter’s soccer games. Other parents complained, prompting a sheriff to revoke her concealed-weapons permit, a decision a judge later overturned.

. . . .

Scott Hain, a parole officer, owned the 9 mm handgun used to kill his wife. He then killed himself with a shotgun, authorities said after Friday’s autopsies. Police found several handguns, a shotgun, two rifles and several hundred rounds of ammunition in their Lebanon home, as well as six spent shell casings in the kitchen.

Friends and neighbors told police the couple had been having marital problems, but police knew of no immediate cause of the violence. Scott Hain was living at the family home at the time, Wright said.

Their three children are ages 2, 6 and 10.

Neighbor Aileen Fortna has said the children told another neighbor that “daddy shot mommy.”

Conservative Wendy McElroy writes, after Gonzales ruling in 2005:

THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE

Monday, July 18, 2005
By Wendy McElroy

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won’t protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court’s ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.

Yet this is what the ENTIRE superstructure of the restraining order apparatus coaches women to do, failing to tell the the whole truth, in perspective.  I have finally deduced that the restraining orders represent head-counts that, most likely, simply enable grants money to go to police departments which may (or may not) respond, or even be able to respond, to a subsequent call for help — though I know many times police do, and sometimes they lose their lives in so doing.

This is not mainstream viewpoint for DV advocates, at all, but at least one person, Bonnie Russell (familylawcourts.com) seems to have comprehended this.

McElroy continues (actually “continued” about 6 years ago):

Nevertheless, most anti-domestic violence advocates strenuously avoid gun ownership as a possible solution to domestic violence. Instead, they appeal for more police intervention even though the police have no obligation to provide protection.

When groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) do focus on gun ownership, it is to make such statements as, “Guns and domestic violence make a lethal combination, injuring and killing women every day.”

In short, NOW addresses the issue of gun ownership and domestic violence only in order to demand a prohibition on the ability of abusers — always defined as men — to own weapons.

There is no love lost between this woman and NOW, for sure ….  and for the record, she’s fairly pro-fatherhood rights in general . .. but does this or does it not make sense?

That position may be defensible. But it ignores half of the equation. It ignores the need of potential victims to defend themselves and their families. Anti-domestic violence and women’s groups create the impression that guns are always part of the problem and never part of the solution.

The current mainstream of feminism — from which most anti-domestic violence advocates proceed — is an expression of left liberalism. It rejects private solutions based on individual rights in favor of laws aimed at achieving social goals. A responsible individual holding a gun in self-defense does not fit their vision of society.

In the final analysis, such advocates do not trust the judgment of the women they claim to be defending. They do not believe that Jessica Gonzales’ three children would have been safer with a mother who was armed and educated in gun use.

…

The true meaning of being anti-domestic violence means is to help victims out of their victimhood and into a position of power.

This can’t be done if one is adamantly anti-divorce, and pro-shared-parenting even with convicted batterers/ molesters.   Clearly (see Sherri Hain) marriage isn’t good for everyone… and is no panacea.  If I’d been left for help from the marriage-promotion-mongers, my kids and I would have been dead years ago.  Thank God for feminism enough to invent the restraining order to get this process started (since few others have the guts to stand up to a man beating on his wife in front of his kids, OR vice versa — and few religious groups are self-less enough to risk losing the income from that man’s family by properly confronting and helping him get arrested, mandated reporters or not.  These groups, like Pacific Justice Institute (and not-legally-incorporated friends, to wit, Capital Resource Institute) are far more concerned about homosexuals, or cities (such as San Leandro, California) expecting churches, also, to abide by zoning laws and not expand infinitely, rewriting them in the process.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, “Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century” (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters’ abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.

The next morning, Simon committed “suicide by cop.” He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon’s pickup truck.

In her lawsuit, Gonzales claimed the police violated her 14th Amendment right to due process and sued them for $30 million. She won at the Appeals level.

What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme Court?

Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, “…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html#ixzz1XaQWNtlN

I was focused on not bargaining away the judicial process to special interests under SB-557, Family One-Stop Justice-Shops (so to speak) and was caught unawares when a TV news bulletin flashed the headline, somewhere inbetween a San Mateo psychiatrist accused of molesting youngsters being sent to a state hospital, and promises that there are more jobs on the horizon, just have a little faith…..

The first thing I notice is how very many different entitities would NOT be subject to the open carry ban, including what looks at first reading to be employees of nonprofit organizations set up for the public good (does this include supervised visitation centers, parent education peddlars, and family counselors who formed — and managed to maintain — nonprofits for the purpose?  Are THEY allowed to do open carry?  I mean, exactly what does this language mean?

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Portantino

                        JANUARY 13, 2011

   An act to amend Sections 7574.14 and 7582.2 of the Business and Professions Code, and to amend Sections 626.9, 16520, 17510, 25595, 25605, and 29805 of, to add Sections 17040, 17295, and 25590 to, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 26350) to Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.

	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

   AB 144, as introduced, Portantino. Firearms.
   Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, makes it an offense
to carry a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as
specified. Existing law provides that firearms carried openly in belt
holsters are not concealed within the meaning of those provisions.
   This bill would establish an exemption to the offense for
transportation of a firearm between certain areas where the firearm
may be carried concealed, or loaded, or openly carried unloaded, as
specified.
   Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, makes it an offense
to carry a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any
public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in
any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of
unincorporated territory.
   The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor 
to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person in specified public areas.
By creating a new offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
   The bill would make conforming and nonsubstantive technical
changes.
   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.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 7574.14 of the Business and Professions Code is
amended to read:
   7574.14. This chapter shall not apply to the following:

Note:  I gather that it's considered that any of the following list are apt to get shot at by irate

people in the course of doing their normal business.  Notice exemption (b), below ....

   (a) An officer or employee of the United States of America, or of
this state or a political subdivision thereof, while the officer or
employee is engaged in the performance of his or her official duties,
including uniformed peace officers employed part time by a public
agency pursuant to a written agreement between a chief of police or
sheriff and the public agency, provided the part-time employment does
not exceed 50 hours in any calendar month.

   (b) A person engaged exclusively in the business of obtaining and
furnishing information as to the financial rating of persons.
(c) A charitable philanthropic society or association incorporated under the laws 
of this state that is organized and duly maintained for the public good and not for private profit.

ANY 501(c)3? ???

   (d) Patrol special police officers appointed by the police commission of any city, 

county, or city and county under the express terms of its charter who also 

under the express terms of the charter
(1) are subject to suspension or dismissal after a hearing on charges
duly filed with the commission after a fair and impartial trial, (2)
must be not less than 18 years of age nor more than 40 years of age,
(3) must possess physical qualifications prescribed by the
commission, and (4) are designated by the police commission as the owners of a certain beat or territory 

as may be fixed from time to time by the police commission.

   (e) An attorney at law in performing his or her duties as an attorney at law.

   (f) A collection agency or an employee thereof while acting within
the scope of his or her employment, while making an investigation
incidental to the business of the agency, including an investigation
of the location of a debtor or his or her property where the contract
with an assignor creditor is for the collection of claims owed or
due or asserted to be owed or due or the equivalent thereof.

 (g) Admitted insurers and agents and insurance brokers licensed by the state,

performing duties in connection with insurance transacted by them.
   (h) Any bank subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Financial Institutions of the State of California under Division 1
(commencing with Section 99) of the Financial Code or the Comptroller
of Currency of the United States.

 (i) A person engaged solely in the business of securing information about persons or property 

from public records.

   (j) A peace officer of this state or a political subdivision
thereof while the peace officer is employed by a private employer to
engage in off-duty employment in accordance with Section 1126 of the
Government Code. However, nothing herein shall exempt such a peace
officer who either contracts for his or her services or the services
of others as a private patrol operator or contracts for his or her
services as or is employed as an armed private security officer. For
purposes of this subdivision, "armed security officer" means an
individual who carries or uses a firearm in the course and scope of
that contract or employment.
   (k) A retired peace officer of the state or political subdivision
thereof when the retired peace officer is employed by a private
employer in employment approved by the chief law enforcement officer
of the jurisdiction where the employment takes place, provided that
the retired officer is in a uniform of a public law enforcement
agency, has registered with the bureau on a form approved by the
director, and has met any training requirements or their equivalent
as established for security personnel under Section 7583.5. This
officer may not carry  an unloaded and exposed handgun unless he or she is 

exempted under the provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 26361) 
of Chapter 6 of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code, and may not carry 
 a loaded or concealed firearm unless he or she is exempted under the provisions of Sections 25450
to 25475, inclusive, of the Penal Code or Sections 25900 to 25910,
inclusive, of the Penal Code or has met the requirements set forth in
subdivision (d) of Section 26030 of the Penal Code. However, nothing
herein shall exempt the retired peace officer who contracts for his
or her services or the services of others as a private patrol
operator.
   (l) A licensed insurance adjuster in performing his or her duties
within the scope of his or her license as an insurance adjuster.
   (m) Any savings association subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Financial Institutions or the Office of Thrift
Supervision.
   (n) Any secured creditor engaged in the repossession of the creditor's collateral and 
any lessor engaged in the repossession of leased property in which it claims an interest. 
(o) A peace officer in his or her official police uniform acting
in accordance with subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 70 of the
Penal Code.
   (p) An unarmed, uniformed security person employed exclusively and regularly by a motion picture 
studio facility employer who does not provide contract security services for other entities or persons in
connection with the affairs of that employer only and where there
exists an employer-employee relationship if that person at no time
carries or uses any deadly weapon, as defined in subdivision (a), in
the performance of his or her duties, which may include, but are not
limited to, the following business purposes:

And so on ….  This is not a bill to let slip under, or even over, the radar.   For example, exemption for schools:

             j)   The open carrying of an unloaded handgun within a school
               zone, as defined, with the written permission of the school
               district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent
               school authority;

Or          gg)  The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by a person

               when that person is summoned by a peace officer to assist
               in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she
               is actually engaged in assisting that officer;

Votes — Assembly

More detail on this California Penal Code 12050PC from article by SHOUSE law firm, “How to Obtain a California Carry Concealed Weapon (“CCW”) Permit”

Penal Code 12050 PC

• Normally, it’s a crime to possess a concealed firearm in public. But in certain circumstances, a person can obtain a permit to “Carry a Concealed Weapon” (CCW) legally.

In this article, our California criminal defense attorneys¹ will explain the process to acquire a CCW permit by addressing the following:

1. What is a California “Carry a
Concealed Weapon”
CCW Permit?

2. What is the Application
Process?

3. What are the Requirements?

4. What are the Restrictions?

You may also find helpful information in our related articles on California Firearm Offenses; Penal Code 12025 PC Carrying a Concealed Weapon; Penal Code 12031 PC Carrying a Loaded Firearm; California’s Open Carry Laws; Penal Code 12021 PC Felon with a Firearm; Domestic Violence Convictions and Gun Rights; Penal Code 12280 PC Possession of Assault Weapons; Penal Code 12020 PC California’s Law Against Carrying Dangerous Weapons; Penal Code 12020 PC Dirks and Daggers; Penal Code 12303 PC Destructive Devices; Penal Code 417 PC Brandishing a Weapon; and California’s Self-Defense Laws.

 

1. What is a California “Carry a Concealed Weapon” CCW Permit?

A California concealed weapons permit allows you legally to carry a loaded “a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person”.²

When valid, a CCW license prevents you from being convicted of

• Penal Code 12025 PC California’s law against carrying a concealed weapon, or

• Penal Code 12031 PC California’s law against carrying a loaded firearm in public.³

If you live in a county with less than 200,000 people, you may apply for a “modified” concealed weapons permit. Still considered a CCW permit, this license allows you to carry a loaded and exposed pistol, revolver, or other firearm on your person (this law only pertains to persons in counties with less than 200,000 people).⁴

This permit is essentially a hybrid between a license to carry a concealed weapon and California’s open carry laws which generally allow you to carry an unloaded exposed weapon.

Etc. Etc. .. . ..

My, we have come a VERY long way from the 1960s 70s, and 80s:

HUEY P. NEWTON, Narrative Essay:

Huey P. Newton (1942-1989) founded the Afro-American Society and was a co-founder of the Black Panther Party, serving as its minister of defense during much of the 1960s. Later he turned to community service for the poor.

 

Huey P. Newton was born February 17, 1942, in Monroe, Louisiana. The youngest of seven children, Huey was named for former Louisiana governor Huey Pierce Long. The Newton family moved to Oakland, California, in 1945 to take advantage of the job opportunities created by World War II wartime industries. In Oakland the family moved often, and in one house Huey was compelled to sleep in the kitchen. Even though the Newton’s were poor and victims of discrimination and segregation, Huey contends that he never felt deprived as a child and that he never went hungry.

Huey attended the Oakland public schools where, he claimed, he was made to feel “uncomfortable and ashamed of being black.” He responded by constantly and consistently defying authority, which resulted in frequent suspensions. At the age of 14, he was arrested for gun possession and vandalism. In his autobiography, Revolutionary Suicide, Newton wrote, “during those long years in the Oakland public schools, I did not have one teacher who taught me anything relevant to my own life or experience. Not one instructor ever awoke in me a desire to learn more or to question or explore the worlds of literature, science, and history. All they did was try to rob me of the sense of my own uniqueness and worth, and in the process they nearly killed my urge to inquire.”

According to Newton, he did not learn to read well until he had finished high school. “I actually learned to read–really read more than just ‘dog’ and ‘cat,’ which was about all I could do when I left high school–by listening to records of Vincent Price reading great poetry, and then looking up the poems to see how the words looked.” In order to prove that high school counselors were wrong in saying he was not college material, Newton attended Merritt College intermittently, eventually earning an Associate of Arts degree. He also studied law at Oakland City College and at San Francisco Law School.

Newton claimed he studied law to become a better burglar. He was arrested several times for minor offenses while still a teenager and he supported himself in college by burglarizing homes in the Oakland and Berkeley Hills area and running the “short change” game. In 1964, at age 22, he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to six months in the Alameda County jail. Newton spent most of this sentence in solitary confinement, including the “soul breaker”–extreme solitary confinement.

While at Oakland City College, Newton had become politically oriented and socially conscious. He joined the Afro-American Association and played a role in getting the first black history course adopted as part of the college’s curriculum. He read the works of Frantz Fanon, Malcolm X, Chairman Mao Tse-tung, and Che Guevara. A child of the ghetto and a victim of discrimination and the “system,” Newton was very much aware of the plight of Oakland’s African-American community. Realizing that there were few organizations to speak for or represent lower class African-Americans, Newton along with Bobby Seale organized the Black Panther Party for Self Defense in October 1966, with Seale as chairman and Newton as minister of defense. Like a wary panther that would not attack unless attacked, so too was the organization regarded.

Cop-haters since childhood, Newton and Seale decided the police must be stopped from harassing Oakland’s African-Americans; in other words, to “defend the community against the aggression of the power structure, including the military and the armed might of the police.” Newton was familiar with the California penal code and the state’s law regarding weapons and was thus able to convince a number of African-Americans of their right to bear arms. Members of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense began patrolling the Oakland police. Guns were the essential ingredient on these patrols. Newton and other Black Panther members observed police procedure, ensured that African-American citizens were not abused, advised African-Americans of their rights, and posted bail for those arrested. In addition to patrolling the police, Newton and Seale were responsible for writing the Black Panther Party Platform and Program, which called for freedom, full employment, decent housing, education, and military exemption for African-Americans. . . .

More on the Black Panthers from Spartacus Educational (a UK site):

The Black Panthers

  The Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCDO) was established by Stokely Carmichael in Alabama in 1964.

Stokely Carmichael was born in the Port of Spain, Trinidad, on 29th June, 1941. Carmichael moved to the United States in 1952 and attended high school in New York City. He entered Howard University in 1960 and soon afterwards joined the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). 

In 1961 Carmichael became a member of the Freedom Riders. After training in non-violent techniques, black and white volunteers sat next to each other as they travelled through the Deep South. Local police were unwilling to protect these passengers and in several places they were beaten up by white mobs. In Jackson, Mississippi, Carmichael was arrested and jailed for 49 days in Parchman Penitentiary. Carmichael also worked on the Freedom Summer project and in 1966 became chairman of SNCC. 

On 5th June, 1966, James Meredith started a solitary March Against Fear from Memphis to Jackson, to protest against racism. Soon after starting his march he was shot by sniper. When they heard the news, other civil rights campaigners, including Carmichael, Martin Luther King and Floyd McKissick, decided to continue the march in Meredith’s name. 

When the marchers got to Greenwood, Mississippi, Carmichael and some of the other marchers were arrested by the police. It was the 27th time that Carmichael had been arrested and on his release on 16th June, he made his famous Black Power speech. Carmichael called for “black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, and to build a sense of community”. He also advocated that African Americans should form and lead their own organizations and urged a complete rejection of the values of American society.  

In 1973 Bobby Seale ran for mayor of Oakland and came second out of nine candidates with 43,710 votes (40 per cent of votes cast). The following year Elaine Brown was elected party chief and helped to turn it into a supporter of women’s rights. Under her leadership the party successfully supported Lionel Wilson in his campaign to become the first black mayor of Oakland.

In 1975, Frank Church 

became the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities.

This committee investigated alleged abuses of power by the Central Intelligence Agency andFederal Bureau of Intelligence. The committee looked at the case of Fred Hampton and discovered that William O’Neal, Hampton’s bodyguard, was a FBI agent-provocateur who, days before the raid, had delivered an apartment floor-plan to the Bureau with an “X” marking Hampton’s bed. Ballistic evidence showed that most bullets during the raid were aimed at Hampton’s bedroom.

 

 

State Senate backs Portantino bill to ban open carry of firearms

By Brian Charles, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/09/2011 11:44:48 AM PDT

Legislation backed by Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, making it illegal to carry an unloaded gun in public was approved by a razor thin majority in the state Senate late Thursday, officials said.  The bill now moves to back to the state Assembly for what’s known as “concurrence,” which allows for approval of changes in language, according to a statement from Portantino’s office.

If passed, those who violate the open carry ban could be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1000, or both. There are a number of exemptions for law enforcement personnel and hunters as well as others carrying unloaded weapons under specified licensed circumstances.

California is one of many states that gives gun owners the right to display weapons, though in California those guns must be unloaded. Carrying loaded firearms in public is already against the law in California.

Portantino, who led the fight against open carry, welcomed the news of the passage of the open carry ban by the state Senate.

“I am very pleased that my fellow legislators agree this is a sensible gun ban that closes a loophole in the law and I am hopeful that Governor Brown agrees,” Portantino said.”Open Carry puts law enforcement and families at risk on Main Street, California. It wastes law enforcement time and attention dealing with unnecessary 9-1-1 calls about gun-toting men and women in coffee shops, restaurants and malls.”

The dispute came to a

Advertisement

head last year when gun enthusiasts began showing up in coffee shops and public beaches with unloaded guns strapped to their hips.
A gun advocacy group organized a night out in Old Pasadena earlier this year. The gun-toting group strolled through the commercial district asking restaurant owners whether they were willing to seat armed partons.

Similar legislation was introduced in 2010 but did not make it to the Governor’s desk because of a miscue at the end of the session. Portantino took up the cause this year and worked with law enforcement to re-introduce the open carry ban.

“Average Californians understand police officers displaying loaded weapons, they understand hunters, and they even understand those folks who are legally licensed to a carry a weapon.,” Portatino said. “What they don’t want is a proliferation of public displays of weapons for no purpose.”

From Legal News.com, July 2010 article, most of it quoted here:

A right to a gun

By Jermaine A. Wyrick

The crux of the peace versus violence controversy focuses on gun control versus the right to own a handgun. In the watershed McDonald v. Chicago 2010 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the right to own a handgun. The court held the Second Amendment right to bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee. The Constitution restrains state and local governments from restricting an individual’s right to bear arms. The ruling overturned Chicago’s law that banned handgun ownership.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion stated, the “Second Amendment right applies equally to the federal government and the states.” The court held the Second Amendment right is “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149 (1968) and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997).

Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that “states have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose regulations.” Justice Samuel Alito further stated with respect to current regulations, “We repeat those assurances here.”

Neither this decision nor the 2008 decision posed a threat to long-standing restrictions on the sale of firearms to felons and mentally ill people, or to laws that bar guns from “sensitive” venues such as schools and courthouses. In addition, the decision still allows states to impose reasonable regulations, such as requiring handgun owners to take a safety course.

In a vehement dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and John Paul Stevens disagreed with the high court’s determination that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership. Justice Stevens stated the decision “could prove far more destructive – quite literally- to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.” Hence, one can reasonably infer that violence could increase in urban communities.

Prior to 2008, lawmakers in Washington, D.C., a federal city, required handgun owners to register weapons, submit to a multiple-choice test, fingerprinting, and a ballistics test. Owners were also required to demonstrate they had instruction on handling a gun and spent at least an hour on the firing range. In the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. _____ case, the court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and a trigger lock requirement for other guns. In Heller the court held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for self-defense in the home. The court reasoned that self-defense is “highly valued.” Furthermore in Heller, the court stated, “Individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” Moreover, the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute in the home.”

Washington, D.C. prohibited carrying loaded weapons outside the home.

The McDonald decision will have implications for other states. For instance, Massachusetts has a state law that requires gun owners to lock weapons in their homes. Virginia has a law that limits handgun purchases to once per month. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the decision allows cities “to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens.”

Chicago vigorously defended their handgun ban laws in this case before the court. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley emphatically stated, “How many more of our citizens must needlessly die because guns are too easily available in our society?”

Jermaine A. Wyrick is an attorney with the Law Offices of Jermaine Wyrick PLLC in Southfield. He can be reached at (313) 964-8950, or by e-mail at Attyjaw1@Ameritech.net.