Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, was honored this week in Sacramento by a police chiefs association on account of sponsoring legislation banning the open carry of unloaded guns in public.
Portantino was named "Legislator of the Year" in a ceremony held by the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), according to a press release sent by his office.
Last year, Portantino's legislation in public was passed by the California Legislature and signed in to law by Governor Jerry Brown. The legislation was backed by the CPCA and other law enforcement groups.
This year, Portantino sponsored new legislation that would ban the .
That bill, AB 1527, is also supported by the police chiefs association, and will be the subject of hearings during this year's legislative session.
Portantino represents Altadena, La Canada Flintridge, South Pasadena, San Marino, Monrovia, Glendora, Highland Park and other San Gabriel Valley cities.
It can't be repeated often enough: an armed society is a polite society.
Even when the California Supreme Court thought that the Second Amendment was only about militias and applied only to the Federal government, since 1894 the California Supreme Court has recognized Open Carry as the lawful manner of carry in public. In 1924, the California Supreme Court cited Nunn v. Georgia which struck down a ban on carrying handguns in public even though it was still legal to carry loaded rifles and shotguns in public. The US Supreme Court also cited Nunn v. Georgia (as Nunn v. State) in its 2008 landmark decision on the Second Amendment affirming it as an individual right to keep and bear arms; openly in public. But you are entitled to your opinion. Everyone has one. http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
Thank you for the invitation to "try reading" Supreme Court cases. Perhaps you're also a lawyer who has litigated constitutional law issues like me, but I wonder whether you've ever actually read a full Supreme Court opinion. In fact, while some advocates argue that the reasoning of DC v. Heller could be extended to alleged open carry rights, the actual Heller decision is restricted to rights within one's own home. The McDonald v. Chicago case is simply a 14th amendment/incorporation decision and does not expand the scope of Heller. But if you get your information from websites run by gun rights advocacy groups that simply paraphrase case law or offer their own self-serving analysis of those decisions, you might believe otherwise.
Governor Brown, as Attorney General for the State of California filed an Amicus Brief with the US Supreme Court asking them to limit the scope of the Heller decision to one's home when it applied the decision to the states via the McDonald decision. During the oral arguments for McDonald, Justice Scalia said that there wasn't going to be one interpretation of the Second Amendment for the states and another for the Federal government. Governor Brown thinks the Second Amendment applies outside of the home but more importantly, so does the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2009, Peter Vongxay appealed his conviction to the 9th Circuit. His attorney argued that the Second Amendment entails only the right to keep a loaded firearm in one's home; the rest of the decision being meaningless dicta. Not only did the 9th Circuit reject that argument it concluded that the "time, place and manner" paragraph of the Heller decision wasn't meaningless dicta, it is the law. The time, place and manner paragraph cites both Chandler and Nunn, two 19th Century cases which held that there is an individual right to openly carry a handgun in public while affirming bans on concealed carry. I don't think Victor is a lawyer. http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
I'm not sure what you mean when you state that the California Police Chiefs Association is political. It represents all the Police Chiefs in California whose officers protect over 75% of the State's population. It's purpose is support training, resources, technology, etc. to provide public safety to Californians. The organization does take positions on legislation and initiatives that impact public safety. Cal-Chiefs does not financially endorse measures or candidates.
If you are referring to In re Application of Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633 as authority for your point that the California Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban applicable only to aliens - no they did not. They upheld the ban - although the Court's reasoning is suspect in light of Heller and McDonald. And although I suspect you will disagree with me - I put the citation in so everybody who is so inclined can read it and see your analysis is wrong -that is, if you are referring to this old case. As far as your claim that the US Supreme Court upheld open carry - it did not do so in Heller, nor did it do so in McDonald. It did not do so in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 which was decided on commerce clause grounds, nor did it do so in US v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 which would now be inconsistent with Heller. I encourage anybody interested to read the cases. Don't rely upon me. Rely upon your own reading.