Though we lost the bill at the capitol we are not giving up. You can find the CalGuns legal opinion here:

Find and hold your legislators responsible here:

Long gun carry is still legal and so are many other ways to carry handguns if you fall in an exempted situation. Airguns may also be purchased and carried both handgun and long gun styles.

When in doubt there is locked unloaded concealed carry.

Stay tuned for updates and never compromise on our gun rights. Giving up one right will never lead to bettering others it will only open the way to greater impact against our rights.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Legal Analysis CalGuns AB 144

DocStoc Version:
AB 144"; CalGuns Analysis AB 144 -

CalGuns Analysis AB 144

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Veto Requests for Governor Jerry Brown

Dear Members,
The bill to ban Open Carry in the state did make it further than before but we are looking at the opportunities of a veto. If you write the Governor keep it respectful, bullet-pointed and ONE page because he will read these if received next week. If AB 144 is not vetoed we are looking at January 1st 2012 as a start to the ban and we will be looking into the exemptions and will sit down with a team and run all through attorneys so we can all still carry. It will take creative, hard work but very obtainable to still carry (not just long guns).

We may be asking for help and this will be temporary because AB 144 will be successfully overturned thanks to the serious drafting errors and loopholes. The attorneys who are handling this are very skilled and we will work very closely with them to ensure successful outcomes for the citizens of the state.

The author who wrote this nonsense legislation is Irwin Nowick and he was very insistent on hurting all of our rights to prove he could. I know he would appreciate all your calls and emails since he likes to debate.

We will update you when we get a veto and as soon as we are informed if a suit is filed.

Take Care and Carry On

Contact Information for Governor Brown:
Mailing address:
Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160

Monday, August 29, 2011

Lives of Equal Value Deserve Equal Protections to Defend Life.

This police chief and gun lobbyist both agree they are equals, why does the California legislators disagree?

All life should have the same value. All people should have the same rights and obligations under the law. Allow the police and the public the ability to work together, keep them equal. Ask your legislators to vote no on AB 144. Find your legislator HERE

Friday, August 19, 2011

We are not equal in California, but we can be.

Most crime and major tragedies in the United States are stopped or intervened in by average citizens, police are regular citizens with the same rights and are accountable to levels equal when it comes to the laws, only on the job they have added protection. Without the people crime would be far worse and police would be ineffective.

In 1992 LA Riots it took 6 days to be brought under control, during this time defense was left to the people. In some jurisdictions in California police can take up to 2 hours to respond, in our area (the Bay Area Northern CA) it can take upwards of 11 minutes from the time of the dialed call to police. In Pleasant Hill during an assault when police were called (assault by anti-gunner against pro-gunner) it took almost 3 minutes to explain to dispatch and a total of 11 minutes for police to arrive, most assaults and crimes happen in far less time than this.

In areas where police have been cut back such as Oakland the residents have been refusing to intervene due to potential retaliatory actions. These areas the police have a very difficult time.

The people must step in and stop cuts to law enforcement budgets as well as have means necessary to protect themselves. Staying alive until police arrive is essential to preservation of life.

During an earthquake our phone lines and police get tied up simple or complex states of emergency you will need the right to be able to carry a firearm to adequately protect yourself and get safely from location to location. This in and of itself should be enough for people to want to protect the right to open carry.

The other reason or purpose to carry for self protection is when an individual is under direct threat of death or duress and it is the only lawful way to carry until a permit may be obtained if you are in a one of the rare counties that issue permits. We have a law that allows us to carry loaded but to risk confiscation and prosecution while that item to protect yourself is needed is an unnecessary risk.

Individuals in witness protection programs in California are unable to buy firearms due to no ability to prove residency. People who file retraining orders for protection in areas of Contra Costa and other counties risk losing their rights to own guns during periods where they need protected most due to mutual orders being issued. The owner of this site has worked with the FBI due to threats and has been denied a concealed weapon from Contra Costa County Sheriff. The stance of the department at the time was one had to be attacked first prior to obtaining the ability to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit.

Right now most counties do not issue permits to those trained. I can attest to the level of training available to the open carry groups and the level most people take. Most the people who carry also care enough to go through training. If an individual is allowed a permit it would still take months to get a permit and cost prohibitive. During an immediate need, time is of essence.

This is your rights to self-defense under fire. Protect it! Help us to defend these rights today, every little bit counts whether involvement, monetary or both. All funds taken in go 100% to lobbying to maintain these rights. There are no admin costs since we are all volunteers.

Please read the other articles on this site for more information. Last year this author researched constantly and wrote more than 350 pages on the topic of open carry.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

AB 144 is a Law Our Cities and Departments Cannot Afford.

In California we have numerous restrictions on the ability to carry firearms for self-protection. It takes the average open carry advocate 3-6 months to be able to learn and abide by the law.

In other states throughout the United States there are less restrictions and guns are loaded. In the years since open carry has been legal in these states open carry causes no issues for authorities and has not placed the public at risk yet here in California there are accusations that our law enforcement officials have issues and less training. We believe these accusations are false. We believe our officers in California are trained and capable even if our elected officials have less faith in our law enforcement departments.

Training of law enforcement have been ongoing in California as part of standard training in police departments and academies throughout California. This training is ensure the public (including those who exercise their rights to carry arms)remain safe and secure.

AB 144 will require all law enforcement academies produce new training manuals, literature and take the time to train all officers on exemptions of this law. The drafting errors in AB 144 will create a nightmare for those burdened with enforcement of the law and will confuse the public when they continue to see open carry.

Law enforcement departments who are currently trained must now undergo a substantial level of new training and redevelopment of departmental policies. If AB 144 is passed into law it will take 3-4 years to train departments on proper handling of citizens who carry and longer to resolve the series of false arrests that will burden the departments and cities. AB 144 is a law that has no local reimbursements for cities and schools and will create a shift of funds away from resources that are already cash strapped.

Restricting self-defense and tools necessary to defend life places the public at risk in more ways than are currently predicted.

Recent Reason Magazine on AB 144

Friday, July 29, 2011

Protections Must Be Defended / Stay Strong and Never Give Up

here are too many common grounds to ignore. Brady Campaign and Terrorism are both acts against the law-abiding citizens to promote attack and crime. Guns belong in the hands of our citizens to assist in our defense against attack both foreign and domestic. We must continue to fight against oppression, racism, attack and crime by denying groups such as the Brady Campaign the ability to continue to operate and promote removal of defensive tools that protect our citizens.

Citizen intervention is the #1 protective means our citizens have with police being secondary means of defense. To remove carry rights and ability of our citizens we render our public defenseless against attacks which will raise our ratings in terrorist targets. To protect California we must all fight for these rights by getting up to the capitol, to our communities and local government officials to strengthen our ability to defend ourselves and out public.

I would like to thank Oleg Volk for spending his time, effort and money to assist us with the gun rights media to defend these critical rights. AB 144 and SB 427 must be defeated.

Monday, July 18, 2011

ALERT via Gun Owners of California / Need your action now!


Five Anti-gun Bills to Oppose

There are 5 major bills that are currently moving through the legislative process. Your immediate action is needed to help stop all of these bills from passing! Thankfully, the legislature is currently on summer recess. All action on these bills will take place after August 15 and before September 9, so please contact them soon.

Contact your local legislators, and especially the members of the corresponding committees listed below, and ask them to oppose these bills. It is critical that members of the legislature hear from you so that they will know the importance of voting “No”. Many are newly elected to the legislature and they need the guidance of their constituents and other members of the public.

Anti-Gun Bill #1

AB 809 (Feuer) Firearms - Would require registration with the Department of Justice of rifle and shotgun sales, and other transfers, making the Department’s registry of information about rifles and shotguns, and their owners, the same as for handguns.

Position: Oppose; Location: Senate Appropriations Committee.


Senate Committee on Appropriations:

Democratic Senators:

Chair: Christine Kehoe (San Diego)


Elaine Alquist (Santa Clara)


Kevin De Leon (Los Angeles)


Fran Pavley (Agoura Hills)


Curren Price (Los Angeles)


Darrell Steinberg (Sacramento)


Republican Senators:

Vice Chair: Mimi Walters (Laguna Niguel)


Bill Emmerson (Riverside)


Mark Wyland. (Escondido)


Anti-Gun Bill #2

SB 124 (De León) Ammunition – Would redefine the term “handgun ammunition” to mean any ammunition “capable” of being used in a handgun. Accordingly, all rifle ammunition cartridges than can be fired in a handgun, such as the Thompson Contender, would be classified as handgun ammunition.

Handgun ammunition “designed” to penetrate metal or armor would be redefined to mean any ammunition, except a shotgun shell, that is designed to penetrate a body vest or body shield when discharged from a handgun and which, by virtue of its shape, cross-sectional density, or any coating applied thereto, is manufactured or designed to breach or penetrate a body vest or body shield (armor piercing). This definition is imperfect and would require interpretation, likely by the Department of Justice or the courts.

Depending upon how the term is interpreted, SB 124 could make it a felony to possess most popular center fire rifle ammunition, as virtually all can be discharged in at least one model of hunting or competition pistol, and all are designed with an aerodynamic shape and cross sectional density sufficient for hunting, competition and other lawful purposes, that would enable the penetration of a body vest or body shield.

When combined with other provisions of existing law, SB 124 would result in any rifle cartridge that can be used in a handgun also being subject to the handgun ammunition buyer registration provisions. The registration law was declared in court to be unconstitutional as written, but SB 124 would re-write the unconstitutional provisions in a manner to make it operational.

Thus, if SB 124 is passed and becomes law, a hunter or other rifle ammunition buyer would be required to register his or her thumbprint and personal information at the time of purchase in order to buy either handgun or rifle ammunition that can be used in a handgun (providing that SB 124 is later amended so that rifle ammunition is clearly defined not to be armor piercing). Position: Oppose; Location: Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Anti-Gun Bill #3

SB 819 (Leno) Firearms – Would allow the firearms buyer’s background check money (DROS Fee) to be used to fund the Department of Justice’s firearms-related regulatory and enforcement activities dealing with the illegal possession of firearms by persons not lawfully eligible to possess them. This would be a misuse of the DROS fee. It is intended to fund the background check for prospective firearms purchasers.Position: Oppose; Location: Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Please note that both Bill 2 and Bill 3 are in the Assembly Appropriation Committee. You can use one phone call to oppose both bills!

CONTACT IN OPPOSITION TO SB 124 (Bill #2) and SB 819 (Bill #3):

Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Democratic Assemblymembers:

Chair: Felipe Fuentes (Los Angeles)


Robert Blumenfield (Van Nuys)


Steven Bradford (Inglewood)


Charles Calderon (Whittier)


Nora Campos (San Jose)


Mike Davis (Los Angeles)


Mike Gatto (Burbank)


Isadore Hall (Los Angeles)


Jerry Hill (South San Francisco)


Ricardo Lara (South Gate)


Holly Mitchell (Los Angeles)


Jose Solorio (Santa Ana)


Republican Assemblymembers:

Vice-Chair: Diane Harkey (Laguna Niguel)


Tim Donnelly (Hesperia)


Jim Nielsen (Biggs)\


Chris Norby (Fullerton)


Donald Wagner (Irvine)


Anti-Gun Bill #4

SB 427 (De León) Ammunition – Existing law (AB 962, declared in court to be unconstitutionally vague) requires handgun ammunition vendors, when selling or otherwise transferring ownership of any handgun ammunition, to obtain personal information about the purchaser or transferee (handgun ammunition buyer registration).

SB 427 is an attempt to help resolve the unconstitutionally vague provisions of AB 962 and to add new provisions affecting purchasers and retailers of handgun ammunition.

Existing law provides that the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition may only occur in a face-to-face transaction with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity from the purchaser or other transferee.

This bill would also provide that handgun ammunition may be purchased over the internet or through other means of remote ordering only if a handgun ammunition vendor in California initially receives the ammunition and registers the transfer.

SB 427 was recently amended to define handgun ammunition for purposes of the handgun ammunition buyer’s registry by creating a list of calibers of various popular handgun cartridges, several of which are also rifle calibers. Position: Oppose; Location: Assembly Floor.

Anti-Gun Bill #5

SB 798 (De León) Firearms: BB devices: imitation firearms – Would originally have required Airsoft, BB and Pellet guns to be brightly colored in their entirety, just like toys.

The bill failed passage in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, largely because federal law preempts state laws affecting airsoft, paintball, BB, and pellet guns (BB devices). Reconsideration was granted by the committee, and the bill was subsequently amended in an attempt to get around the federal preemption issue.

All previous language was stricken from the bill and, in its place, a repeal of the state preemption over local laws dealing with the manufacture, sale and possession of BB devices was inserted.

If passed in this form, each local government could adopt different ordinances governing the above, except for coloration, identification marks and a complete prohibition on sales, which are federally preempted. For example, they could pass local laws on where and how BB devices could be possessed, how they are sold, power limitations, mandatory safety equipment, and other features, etc!

Accordingly, a person traveling with a BB device through several local jurisdictions could be in and out of violation of local laws multiple times, and subject to penalties, without even knowing about it.

Without the statewide uniformity now provided by state preemption over local laws, it would be virtually impossible to stay in compliance with the different local laws of various local governments. That’s why it is so important that laws dealing with all types of guns be uniform statewide!Position: Oppose; Status: Assembly Floor.

Please note that both Bill #4 and Bill #5 are on the Assembly Floor. Please use one phone call to your own Assembly Member to oppose both bills! These bills when passed will go back to their house of origin. Please contact your Senator as well as your Assembly Member about these two bills.

CONTACT IN OPPOSITION TO SB 427 (Bill #4) and SB 798 (Bill #5):




Please go to

Scroll down the map of California and enter your street address, city and zip code in the boxes below; click on “Find”. Your Assemblymember and contact information will then be available.

GOC is working closely with many of our friends including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, California Association of Firearms Retailers, Safari Club International and a whole bunch of sportsmen’s groups to defeat these bills. Thank you for helping to protect our Second Amendment Rights!!