California Bill Targets 'Open-Carry' Of Guns

California handgun owners would no longer be able to carry their weapons in public under legislation unveiled Wednesday at the state Capitol.

-----

"We view open-carry as an officer safety issue," Emeryville Police Chief Ken James said. "Officers are taught from day one in the academy that guns are a threat."

"Closing this loophole and looking at this practice more carefully is important, an important step to protect the public," Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego, said.

Saldana authored the bill.

At the state Capitol, law enforcement lobbyists expressed their support for a new bill that would make the practice illegal.

http://www.kcra.com/politics/23154665/detail.html

I live in Southern Oregon but I spend a lot of time in Northern California and open carry there regularly. Just one more example of why Southern Oregon and Northern California need to fracture off of their respective states and form The State of Jefferson.

Now, I'm going to set aside the fact that the state has no moral and arguably no legal right to tell me I can't carry a gun, for those of you that think this is such a great idea, riddle me this:

Even if you think open carry is a problem and that these policies do some good in the large urban sprawls of southern and central California, what on earth does it have to do with those of us that live in the mountains in Northern California? I grew up in a town with 350 people and the largest town in Siskiyou County is Yreka with a population of about 7,000. Do you really think these gun laws do any good up here? Do you realize that 2 legged predators aren't the only ones you might have to worry about out in rural Northern California?

I haven't looked at the laws for California in a while but I'm going to have to look over them and this proposed bill to see what effect it might have on carrying with me when I'm backpacking. In all honesty though, even if it does, I know for a fact none of the law enforcement around where I grew up are going to stop people from carrying when they're in the mountains. They have more good sense and integrity than to enforce such draconian laws.

where California gun laws make no sense. I have a friend who owns 70 acres in a very sparsely populated area in SoCal where the nearest sheriff is miles away. There's no reason he shouldn't have the right to own an effective rifle to defend his family.

It doesn't seem to be a problem in any of the other states that have the practice.

Got evidence?

If you don't want open-carry, then you might head it off at the pass by supporting "shall issue" concealed-carry legislation in California. This would obviate the need for open-carry, even if it were legal, and you would see it as often as a Florida Panther.

Now wouldn't that be some "sanity?"

There may be rights but the thought of people carrying guns everywhere scares the hell out of me and I lived in one of the most dangerous places in the Los Angeles area out side of South Central where I never feared being shot.

More laws aren't going to stop those people. Your fear-based reaction to other people legally defending themselves isn't valid.

without evidence scares the hell out of me.


Yeah, that's better....

a tire needs a nail.

And people who donate heavily to the sheriff.


So no worries for you lil' fella.

Generally, if you want a CCW permit in L.A. County, you have to go see the police chief of Culver City, and tell 'em the sheriff's department sent you.

Still only got one because he is rich and famous. Surprising for someone who is so antigun otherwise, so far as the "common man" is concerned, but typical as well.

It's next to impossible to get a CCW permit in Marin County unless you're retired law enforcement, a judge, or work for the D.A.'s office.

and fewer firearms in the hands of criminals and the politically corrupt.

How does that sound?

to keep you from having more dope, right? Your argument has gone flat.

Laws should be based on demonstrated societal needs, with any legislation geared to effectively (and constitutionally) deal with those needs in a measurable manner.

Your fears and scares are not the proper purview of law.

carry irrational fear. Of course that doesn't excuse the fearful -- as has been pointed out, the internet has leveled the playing field by provided facts on gun control not provided by the mainstream media. The media can't be given all of the blame at this point for the fear of so many of our rabid pro-control fellow Dems.

Clearly, MSM has fallen on hard-times. It no longer is the arbiter (often for the "good") of what constitutes societal problems in need of societal corrections. They, and the Big 3 broadcast media, were cock-of-the-walk when I was listening to Blue Oyster Cult. The Civil Rights Movement is ending! Oh, what do do? Go after a fast & dirty victory over civilian possession of firearms. You had it all: the dominant, straight white male who controls his women, suppresses other races and holds power with a gun because he can't handle it otherwise. Post-60s Liberals grabbed a bloody icon and pinned it onto the bogey de jour, those hicks who lost their Second Civil War. But wait! There's more! Ever sub-rosa, out minted-breaths of Republicans and Democrats alike, from the long-hairs of California to the hep-cat artistes of New York, were whisperings of dark flashes and flapping rubber in the dark: every Black man in a Northern ghetto, every Panther on a street as foreign as a lane in Recife. What a team! Good & evil! Payback! Righteousness! We can re-make SOMETHING! That's what MSM wanted, but didn't get.

MSM turned turtle. Writers jumped ship or were shoved off. Any many, I suspect, will be doing something completely different. For hire. Funny, when an institution fails so breathtakingly fast, you feel a genuine foreboding, yet experience delight when the cheesy neon of crap issues -- the War on Drugs, the Yassah, Boss mentality on military incursions, and the War on Guns -- sputters and steams-off beneath the water.

Now, who's listening? We lost the Big 3, the papers, hell even the Top 40, but where is the forum? The legitimizing community? Are we to be without one? People are so damned concerned with their feelings, how stuff affects them, their comfort zones, their fears (even as they swing the term around like a club), because those town-hall, talent show forums that made a national community have gone down faster than the Lusitania. What is left but to cling to one's self?

The stark differences between "gun control" and "gun rights" forces on the digital battlefield left me with no illusion about what really lies behind the curtain. But legitimacy is another thing. Not because 2A is an exception, but because it is NOT an exception: every Big Issue that once-was is pretty much as pedestrian as the next. The I-net doesn't have (and may not want) a legitimizing function within it. But that is what nations, societies and governments need.

While I am not overly-fearful, severe economic deterioration can rapidly de-stabilize remaining institutions, and render even more government dysfunctional. I'm sure that is what has driven so many to purchase firearms; that and the stockpiling of useful in-kind trade. Of course, there is the more prosaic fear of violent crime; we are "getting away with murder" on that one, but I don't expect it to last as the drug cartels penetrate further into the U.S. economy and culture.

I so wish there was a "movement" to change the things we most need changing; even another party. Trouble is, would I even know it if I saw it?

Sp & edit

"While I am not overly-fearful, severe economic deterioration can rapidly de-stabilize remaining institutions, and render even more government dysfunctional. I'm sure that is what has driven so many to purchase firearms; that and the stockpiling of useful in-kind trade. Of course, there is the more prosaic fear of violent crime; we are "getting away with murder" on that one, but I don't expect it to last as the drug cartels penetrate further into the U.S. economy and culture."

Point especially well made here, I feel.

Regarding guns and gun control.

Bad idea.

But you could sit next to me at any restaurant and never, ever know I was carrying. In years of carrying, I've never pulled it once even when I was so mad I could spit. Going to prison for the rest of my life because someone got me mad isn't in my future. Let that person threaten my personal safety, or the safety of my family, and my attitude changes in a hurry.

Except gun owners don't have to worry about getting voted out of office.


People that provoke the outrage of gun owners through legislation, on the other hand...


:shrug:

She doesn't have to worry about getting voted out of office either.

My reputation is SPOTLESS.

In short, have a good one.

Of the 80,000,000+ gun-owners, how many have a bad name? Your cause is helped by this in what way? Just what is your cause?

trying to speak for real cops

I bet the average Californian, hell even most American's see the title "Police Chief" and automatically associate it with your average cop on the street's opinion, not realizing that those police chief's never even have to have gone through the police academy to get elected to that position.

that serve at the will of the mayor or city council.

iow, a pure political appointee that speaks for his master

He told me that there were three types of people:

One type that was smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others, and made very few major mistakes of their own.

Another type that was at least smart enough to learn from their own mistakes.

And a third catagory that learned from neither.


Sure looks like California falls into catagory #3 to me.

"shall issue" concealed carry?

Of course the fees and requirements would have to be reasonable and not set up to be so high as to eliminate the lower middle and poor classes.

I am not a fan of open carry and would not do so. The success rate for shall issue in my area is something like 0.01%.

Unfortunately many of our politicians seem stuck in the idea that making it harder for people who respect the law to own and carry firearms and purchase ammunition, will somehow have an impact on people who would do whatever it took to own and carry firearms so they can facilitate crime on an unarmed populace.

Several counties are already practically shall-issue. Stanislaus is going that way because of financial problems. I'm sure there will be more.

Talk about ass-backwards reasoning. In a jurisdiction where private ownership of firearms and indeed the carrying in public of firearms by private citizens are legal, it is not realistic (I'd even say it's downright irresponsible) to teach your cadets that a firearm in the possession of a private citizen is by definition a threat. It is moreover utterly ludicrous (and more than a little scary) to assert that, where the law and the police academy curriculum are in conflict, it is the law that has to be changed.

Let me draw a crude analogy: if the police academy teaches its cadets that a private citizen's refusal to allow himself, his car, his residence or his place of business to be searched, unless the officer can articulate probable cause or produce a warrant, constitutes "obstruction of justice," would we think that an acceptable opinion on the part of law enforcement? If a police chief subsequently argues that it is the law that needs to be changed to bring it into line with what the academy (incorrectly) teaches its cadets, I would hope there'd be an outcry.

How is Chief James' argument any different in principle? He doesn't present any empirical evidence that open carry actually poses a threat to officer safety; his argument boils down to "it is because we cops have decided it is." What next? "We consider the failure of citizens to kow-tow whenever a police officer passes by as an officer safety issue; officers are taught from day one in the academy that citizens who treat police officers as public servants are a threat"?

You would be AMAZED how much of our 4th amendment jurisprudence is based upon the idea of "officer safety." Even when situations are obviously not threatening in their own context, certain situations are basically considered per se threats and that allows a search for "the protection of the officers." You know, like when they are in a house, waiting to serve an arrest warrant and the suspect's spouse lets them in. It is because of the whole "unreasonable" word in the 4th. Apparently, any search for the safety of officers is per se reasonable, and thus not protected against. So, if the police can convince the other authorities that something is a threat, the law will be changed to allow a search. I guess my point is that the law has always been moved around based on what the police believe is a threat and you shouldn't be surprised that it is being changed to mesh with the academy curricula.

but totally against open carry. I would hope that both become law. People have been shot by cops for reaching for their wallet.

I think there should be some empathy for those that are against seeing guns displayed in public. They have their reasons and that does not make them stupid or idiots. If they want to pass laws to allow open carry in rural areas, thats fine. This is not as black and white an issue as some make it out to be.

I think all laws need to be reasonable, not ideologically based. What is reasonable in some areas is not so much in others.

what makes open carry unreasonable, especially in an urban environment?

One quick positive side would be to remind folks that the Bad Guys are not the only ones who carry. And since it is illegal for the Bad Guys to even possess a gun, they are not going to carry it openly for all the cops to see.

that live in closer proximity. To maintain a sense of self and personal space in a crowded area trust of others, not known, is lowered. Natural for those to see danger where others in a more rural area may not. Fear is personal and can not always be understood by the unafraid. Living in close proximity also requires different rules. Just as I wouldn't think of spiting on a side walk in town, I wouldn't blink doing it in the woods. I have lived in both environments and have noticed how much more friendly people are to strangers in low density places than high density ones. When living in the country, I knew most everyone with in a few miles. In the city, I often did not know the person in the next apartment. For me, I see no problem for different rules in different areas.
My problem with open carry is mostly tactical. I know of no LEOs that would think of open carry off duty. Why give up the advantage of surprise?
Not that it makes any sense to me or you, open carry can intimidate those less familiar with firearms. That fear can and does push those people toward and even greater motivation to push for more gun laws.

" by the un-taaaaamed" .

I also know quite a few cops who carry concealed off duty. Some are required to.

I never really thought about that argument when considering concealed carry and open carry. It's an interesting and in my opinion a valid point.

Florida doesn't allow open carry in public so I'm unfamiliar with seeing people do so.

One occasion where I did witness open carry occurred years ago. In 1985 Hurricane Elena was approaching the Tampa Bay area where I lived so I journeyed to the grocery store with my wife to stock up on beer and canned food. At the time I did not have a concealed weapons permit.

The store was packed with people buying everything in sight. Often people in an emergency have little common sense and the shelves were emptying of items that require refrigeration. I would describe what I seen as panic buying.

Inside the store was an individual who mentioned he was part of the Florida Militia who was dressed in fatigues and had a nickle plated .45 automatic in a holster on his belt. He was strutting around acting important and was largely ignored, but he did catch my attention and it wasn't positive. I wasn't worried about an accident discharge as he never played with his firearm and a holstered firearm is safe. Still, he impressed me as a fool.

So I can understand the feelings of people who are unfamiliar with firearms seeing a civilian openly carrying one.

While I can understand why some people are in favor of open carry, they have to realize that their actions cause a backlash that may lead to further restrictive gun control. Carrying concealed still allows quick access to a weapon if truly necessary and doesn't intimidate people. No one knows you are "packing heat" and you don't attract attention from honest citizens or criminals. I do realize that if a criminal walks into a store and sees a person carrying openly, he may leave. On the other hand he may target the person first and eliminate the threat. In a bad situation, I personally prefer the element of surprise as you mention.

To me, "shall issue" concealed carry is the way to go. People with a clean record and training may carry a firearm without causing unnecessary concern. It's worked extremely well in Florida and many other states and may be a factor in reducing some crime. If you qualify with a clean background and the training, you can carry a firearm concealed. No government official can deny a license because of his racism or political views. You can visit a Starbucks without making a political statement and not influencing the clientele in either a positive or negative manner.

Sure, it's a compromise but a fair one.

but you are totally inconsistent here.

"I think there should be some empathy for those that are against seeing guns displayed in public. They have their reasons and that does not make them stupid or idiots."

vs.

"I think all laws need to be reasonable, not ideologically based."


Catering to some persons illogical paranoia is neither reasonable nor beneficially empathic. By your reasoning, we'd have laws against mixed-race or GLBT couples being seen in public. Or whatever scare-du-jour is in fashion at the moment. Not a sound basis for liberty and Civil Rights.

If laws were all ideologically based on the original writings of the Constitution, women, non-property owner, slaves and Indians couldn't vote or keep and bear arms.

Illogical paranoia isn't people worried about gun laws wearing unloaded guns in town and to demonstrations? You are welcome to your opinion, just as I and others are. Your odds of being killed or injured in a car accident are way higher than suffering gun violence at the hands of a stranger in public.

Consistent is asking for "shall issue" laws rather than "open carry" laws as a fair compromise for both sides, as I stated.

If you feel a need to protect your liberties granted by the Constitution by a visual show to the public, do as I have and wear an Obama tee shirt to a gun show. Now that takes balls, try it.

I especially like wearing them on base when off-duty.

Yes, they clank. :evilgrin:

And I still don't understand what is wrong with the peaceful public display of Civil Rights. After all, again, using your logic, you should just wear a plain, no-message t-shirt.

It can't really reduce crime - open carried guns are unloaded.
I'm sure open carry, what this bill targets, is not a source of violence.

far more than carrying concealed. Often police are called and have to waste time checking out the individuals who are displaying their firearms. A shrewd politician takes advantage of citizen concern.

In areas where open carry including open carry of LOADED firearms is common, people react differently.

Criminals usually conceal their firearms not display them.



If loaded open carry was legal in my state, I would still chose to carry concealed in public. It's my preference to blend in with the crowd, not stick out like a sore thumb.

Law works best when society determines a real, manifest problem and acts to ameliorate that problem in both a constitutional and measurable way. It doesn't work well when the problems are exaggerated and distorted, and the action is cleaver-cut prohibitionist; it fails altogether when backers of these laws mock fellow-citizens by the millions, seeking only to "get off" to some conjured victory.

I am skeptical of open-carry, but favor its passage. Like some, I see some disadvantage in a self-defense/combat situation, but mainly I prefer not to offend my fellow citizens who don't see it my way. However, I don't oppose a law based on my sensibilities. The "hotbeds" of open-carry include those areas where the right to carry-concealed (or in any fashion) is highly circumscribed. I think when the dust settles some years down the line, there will be more people carrying firearms, but said will still be a small fraction of the total population of armed civilians. And fewer still will carry openly. And little societal harm will come from it all, but maybe there will be some good.

Which only serves to underscore the hypocrisy of so many of the pro-reggers.

Very well-stated, Steve.