My reading is that it does NOT make open carry illegal. Rather, it says that if you carry concealed, it has to be carried concealed.
Section 1272. said:
Section 1290.2 said:
Yeah, from what I saw, it would allow SDA holders to keep a weapon in their vehicles on campus without being in violation.
The other big change I saw was in relation to government buildings. From what I can tell, it says it is illegal to carry a weapon into a government building where the primary purpose is to serve the public and said building provides security and metal detectors.
The "and" is the key there, I believe. If it is a public servicing building but doesn't provide security and metal detectors, then I would presume you could carry without question, or at least that is how I read it.
I think that would be to get around the whole "you can't go into the ranger station at the park" type of thing?
It also looks like it does away with the "no parking lot" loophole regarding prisons and as mentioned, schools.
... I'm so glad I never went into law, yeesh.
The other big change I saw was in relation to government buildings. From what I can tell, it says it is illegal to carry a weapon into a government building where the primary purpose is to serve the public and said building provides security and metal detectors.
The "and" is the key there, I believe. If it is a public servicing building but doesn't provide security and metal detectors, then I would presume you could carry without question, or at least that is how I read it.
I think that would be to get around the whole "you can't go into the ranger station at the park" type of thing?
It also looks like it does away with the "no parking lot" loophole regarding prisons and as mentioned, schools.
... I'm so glad I never went into law, yeesh.
Firecop, my reading says not much would change regarding knives.
Bold is my emphasis. The struck out portion is still covered under the bolded section.
Section 1272. said:
Bold is my emphasis. The struck out portion is still covered under the bolded section.
It appears to me that all of you are reading it correctly or close to correctly.
Anyone living in this guys district need to send him letters, make calls and send him emails to politely tell him that you don't like his proposed legislation.
Anyone living in this guys district need to send him letters, make calls and send him emails to politely tell him that you don't like his proposed legislation.
I can see that, though it is a bit ambiguous, really. Accidental exposure of a concealed weapon isn't an issue, but intentional is? I guess that goes with the idea of brandishing/intimidation? I don't know how that would play out. What happens when you conceal with a jacket, but take the jacket off to have dinner and you're not open carrying?
Most of the changes are good, no? Parking lots would never be off limits for storing a weapon, including schools. Government building are only no-carry zones if they have security and metal detectors.
Basically, they're saying they won't disarm the populous unless they are actively providing protection. I kind of like that idea.
Regarding where and where not to carry:
My understanding here is that the "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly" would cover you if you had accidentally left something in a bag or your car. Be pretty hard to argue if it was on your body.
As a poster above me inferred, the "primary" means that just because a government entity leases/rents/uses a building for a temporary use, does not mean it is barred. ALSO, for any government building to be barred from carry, they must provide armed security and metal detectors. Another change is it removes the "any meeting of government officials" from the barred list.
The following section I'm not sure I like:
It looks to be removing the exclusion of parks/fairgrounds from the barred list. That would mean if they put up metal detectors(meaningless on such a large outside event) and armed security (already done), they could legally restrict carry. I don't like that.
Section 1277. said:
My understanding here is that the "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly" would cover you if you had accidentally left something in a bag or your car. Be pretty hard to argue if it was on your body.
As a poster above me inferred, the "primary" means that just because a government entity leases/rents/uses a building for a temporary use, does not mean it is barred. ALSO, for any government building to be barred from carry, they must provide armed security and metal detectors. Another change is it removes the "any meeting of government officials" from the barred list.
The following section I'm not sure I like:
Section 1277. said:
It looks to be removing the exclusion of parks/fairgrounds from the barred list. That would mean if they put up metal detectors(meaningless on such a large outside event) and armed security (already done), they could legally restrict carry. I don't like that.
Not quite. My understanding would be that if you are intending to conceal, but it is obvious you have a gun, then you are outside the law. Concealing with a jacket, then removing at dinner would be changing from concealed to unconcealed.
The idea is that "I'm going to conceal, just not be that concerned with hiding it" won't be allowable. Either conceal it, like you had to before, or open carry it. The difference is that an accidental exposure is no longer a worry.
