There are also some very interesting legal ramifications if the bill becomes law. There have been two cases thus far in CA where Federal judges have ruled against CCW applicants who challenged our capricious "may issue" system. In both cases, the judges pointed out that since open carry is legal in this State, denying one a concealed carry permit doesn't infringe on one's right to use a firearms in self defense outside the home. Keep in mind that in both Heller and McDonald, the right of self defense was called a fundamental right that cannot exist without the right to keep and bear arms. Now, if AB144 passes, the only legal alternative to CCW will be outlawed. How then can one exercise the right to armed self defense?
There are only two manners in which one may carry a firearm: Openly or concealed. If one, open carry, is specifically outlawed, that leaves one and only one legal alternative: Concealed carry. The US Supreme Court has recognized the importance of armed self defense; that this is a fundamental right. And through the 14th Amendment, they have recognized that the States and localities have no power to infringe upon that right. Thus no State or locality may have a total ban on an activity related to that right. Total bans on gun possession are unconstitutional and illegal. Total bans on handgun possession are illegal. Do you see where this is going? The briar patch that Portantino threatens to toss us into may result in court-mandated shall-issue concealed carry!
Ed states that legislators were warned about this. The look he got in return is best described as "Bambi in headlights".
Actually, there is a third legal way to carry a firearm in California: unloaded and placed inside a locked case. (A glove compartment does not count.)
I don’t know the cases mentioned by Ed Worley. However, I wonder if this third legal method will be sufficient to defeat the NRA’s argument.