"It's latte time!" (WSJ)
Last week, the California State Assembly passed a bill to ban Open Carry, the practice of openly carrying handguns in public. The bill now heads to the State Senate. Should it become law, that practice would become a crime.
It's currently legal to openly carry a gun in public in California as long as it's not loaded. Some open carry practitioners will carry ammo in a separate pocket.
Supporters of the bill argue that the practice intimidates the unarmed and wastes police resources because officers frequently have to respond to worried callers saying there's a person with a gun outside Starbucks, or a similarly crowded public space.
In fact, the bill was introduced by Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D-San Diego) after about 60 armed open carry demonstrators "frightened" (she claims) families and tourists at a local beach last year.
Opponents argue that there have been no serious incidents associated with openly carrying firearms in California and that the bill is an attempt to stifle the constitutional right to bear arms.
The ban is supported by the California Police Chiefs Association.
It's currently legal to openly carry a gun in public in California as long as it's not loaded. Some gun enthusiasts have been known to carry ammunition in a separate pocket.
Many responding to the article in the Sacramento Bee were angered by the bill, but a letter to the editor sparked a different tone.
Finally, someone in the Legislature has some sense.Some of the proponents of "open carry" actions may, in fact, be responsible gun owners. My concern is that I have no way of knowing who is to be trusted, and who is a potential criminal. I have no way of knowing which weapon is loaded and which is not. [Boldface mine]Am I to believe that the weapon is in fact unloaded simply because a stranger says so?My family and I will walk out of any business which allows such complete disregard for public safety, and we will announce the reason for that departure to the business.The argument that the police can determine the status of the gun owner and his or her weapon is specious to say the least. Our brave law enforcement officers have better ways to spend their time, and our tax dollars, than checking each cowboy at each public area.
The emboldened portion of the letter isn't just a concern of the letter's author; it's also a concern for police, which is why they support the ban.
Some opponents of open carry say it's an accident waiting to happen. It's not hard to envision the scenario of a cop gunning down an innocent civilian who happened to have a gun in his hand at the scene of a crime. It's not like the cop can be expected to hesitate when lives are at stake, not the least of which is his or her own.
There are some who argue that open carry is a deterrent but how do you prove that? If you're in a Starbucks with an openly carried weapon, can you tell me how many robbers you thwarted that day? How do you keep stats on that? Who tallies up the number of people who don't show up for a robbery? It's all conjecture.
Last year, a man walked into a coffee shop and gunned down four uniformed police officers. Dressed in blue, weapons openly carried, individuals trained to use them in high stress situations. Dead. If they weren't a deterrent to gun violence, it's hard to believe you're going to intimidate the bad guy with your 9mm with a six-shot clip.
Carrying a gun out in the open is, to me, the equivalent of the guy in the next car with the blaring, bass-heavy stereo system. Okay, great, so you've got a loud radio; what exactly does that prove other than that you know where "10" is on the volume knob? Are you going to peel out and burn rubber when the light turns green, too, just so you can stop at the next red light two blocks away?
There's nothing wrong with people owning guns. But seeing a group of guys gather at the local caffeinator with sidearms strapped feels like overkill. What exactly are you trying to prove? It doesn't sounds like someone exercising a Second Amendment right. It doesn't even sound like someone who wanted to get a cup of coffee. It sounds like someone with a really loud radio who wanted to play it really loud so you'd know he's got a really loud radio.
Comments
An unloaded firearm is as much help as Obama in a major oil spill.
BO + BP = tragedy!
Once upon a time,open carry was as common as respect for others.
If journalists were as devoted to the rest of the Constitution as they were to freedom of the press, what would the nation look like?
The right of Code Pink to spew hateful vitriol at wounded heros at Walter Reed is acceptable. The Right of the members of Westboro Baptist Church to scream homophobic epithets at people is protected (two examples of rights that are "uncomfortable," could lead to violence and create an unnecessary burden for police.
But when people choose to exercise their right "to bear arms..." in public where are the fervent defenders of constitutional rights? (crickets churping).
If people said they objected to your writing because it made them uncomfortable, or fomented violence, you would be screaming from the rooftops that, as Jefferson said, it is better to deal with the challenges of too much liberty than the difficulties of too little of it.
But since this Right does not fit your sensibilities its OK to trample it.
BO stands for bend over.
I wish the gun banners from Obama to the Brady Bunch to Daley were intellectually honest with themselves AND the public they preach to.
If they were honest, they would move to REPEAL the 2nd Amendment and not chip at it from the corners.
Sign the open carry petition for California at www.petitiononline.com/CalOC/petition dot html - and pass the link on to your friends and social networks. And then take action to contact your Senator at www.opencarry.org/ab1934 dot html - let's roll to protect open carry rights in California!
(cont) While Californians sit back and unintermittedly smoke their weed, attend their “raves”, and surf and sun themselves, their government is imposing a totalitarian government right under their noses. In place of educating its population that merely carrying a gun is not a crime they choose to violate a constitutional RIGHT. You may believe that a society can exist, and be better off without guns but that belief is pure FANTASY. Californians want to pride themselves on breaking away from the rest of the country and placing itself above the rest of us because of their “superior civility”. They want to be the “trend setter”. You can look down your plastic noses and fake boobs at gun owners all you want; the rest of the country is laughing at you, because in the end you will be less FREE! Californians do not have what it takes to be self preserving, for they are obviously too full of fear, and apathy.
I normally read anti self defense pieces for entertainment, and laugh at the absurd logic behind them. I support the FACT that the second amendment is an inalienable right to self defense and preservation of state. I normally speak out on an article such as this with offence and insult; however, when it comes to the state of California, I am compelled to believe that what this article suggests is the right thing for Californians. They obviously do not possess the fortitude or valor that the rest of the nation has. They continuously place political candidates on the FAR left into power in their courts, and state/federal representatives. You are getting what you ask for . . . a totalitarian state; So, in addition to lack of fortitude and valor, I would have to throw in a lack of intelligence.
Major, 40% of Mexifornians are dependent on the government ans as such have no responsibility for themselves.
Stan says: "But since this Right does not fit your sensibilities its OK to trample it."
Yes, that's called an opinion. I stand by it, as trampling as it may be. Gun owners have a right to open carry but I think it as obnoxious as the motorist blasting his stereo. A person who feels the need to show that he can open carry impresses me as an insecure individual who uses possessions as an extension of ego --like a car. Some small-weenie type buys a Porsche and that makes him more macho? Not in my book. Are all gun owners (or Porsche owners) like that? No, but that's my general impression. That doesn't mean they don't have the right; I just don't see the point of exercising it, to say nothing about the potential danger it represents in a given police response. I'll trust the judgment of law enforcement here.
The Westboro Baptist Church goers are beyond contempt, but they also have the right to protest --two points on which I've never been silent. (Same goes for the Code Pink idiots.)
Dear Major: Nice speech, but mostly a lot of uninformed, rhetorical bulls***.
Bruce: all of your arguments against open carry fall into two catagories: the inane and the improbable.
The Inane: Just becasue someone's choice to carry openly makesyou think they are compensating for a little weeny; or because it makes people uncomfortable (sob); or because its "rude;" is not a valid rationale for denying a constitutionally guaranteed right. If it were you and I would both be silenced. At least you would for the weeny thing.
The improbable: Unfortunately, most cases of armed civilians deterring crime go unreported (because the perp didn't do anything - duh). As a rule, criminals conceal their weapons becasue the element of surprise is a huge advantage to a coward. (how much did you have to dig to find a story of a nutjob shooting down armed uniformed policemen as a flimsy pretext for your indefensible position?) Two facts that cannot be disproven:
1. open carry is only a threat to criminals
2. the presence of guns deters crime.
3. seeing = believing
I would argue that citizens who carry a CCW and a weapon are THE most law abiding citizens out there. If you believe strong enough in the right to KABA and our other civil rights, after jumping through all the hoops and fingerprinting, and back ground checks and writing that big check to finally get the right to carry, we will DO ANYTHING in our power to AVIOD getting into any trouble that would then be cause to DENY the renewal of that CCW permit.
You see, we have more to lose than those without CCW permits, we lose the right God has given us to defend ourselves according to the man made laws of government. That is not something most who have CCW's is willing to give up for a petty crime.
@Bruce
I believe people that share your view are doing more than "expressing opinion", such as passing legislation that takes away our right to self defense, and demonizing people that choose to exercise their rights. As for impressing you or anyone else, it is not about that. California is not a shall issue state. It's near impossible, except for the well connected and the wealthy to get permits. This is the reason people are choosing to open carry.
Stan, if most cases of armed civilians deterring crime go unreported, where is the quantifiable proof that open carry deters crime? It's just as plausible that it deters nothing. How often does someone rob a Starbucks? (The story of the "nutjob" was national news last year. I didn't have to go far to find it at all.)
You argue that open carry is only a threat to criminals and that the presence of guns deters crime. Please provide statistical data to prove this. Can you guarantee that every open carry person isn't a threat? Should trained law enforcement personnel make that assumption? That's simply not a tenable circumstance if we expect them to do their job well and with minimum risk to civilian. If open carry is the rule and a guy walks into an establishment with a sidearm, you might assume he's a law-abiding citizen. When it turns out he's not, he has the element of surprise back on his side. He can simply wait until no one in the coffee shop is carrying, then carry out his crime
Major says: California is not a shall issue state. It's near impossible, except for the well connected and the wealthy to get permits.
That is absolutely untrue. Any law abiding citizen can get permits and the ones I know who have them are neither wealthy or well-connected.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no legal obligation to protect the citizens. It was a DC case I believe.
Firearms are used tens of thousands of times a year to prevent a crime, most times it never has to be fired. As such these instances are never reported and therefore cannot be quantified. Others have scanned the countries news stories in small and large publications and gathered stories of such deterrence.
A few Examiners cover such crime prevention.
California CCW permitting varies by area. It is up to the County Sheriff or Police Chief to issue a CCW. At their whim you might say. Being a "shall issue" state, there is no "right" to a permit.
Many deny permits just because they can. Some use illegal criteria.
Bruce says: "If open carry is the rule and a guy walks into an establishment with a sidearm, you might assume he's a law-abiding citizen. When it turns out he's not, he has the element of surprise back on his side. He can simply wait until no one in the coffee shop is carrying, then carry out his crime."
Bruce: The "hype"othetical you describe applies equally well to a criminal carrying a concealed weapon. It proves nothing except that you are blindly committed to your perspective.
Every law that deters law abiding citizens from carrying, aids armed criminals. Every law that encourages them to carry discourages criminals. If you need statistics to prove that you are brain-damaged.
People's "discomfort" with seeing me armed does not constitute an obligation (and certainly not an invalidation of my constitutional rights) on me.
As for the Sheriff's Association, those are almost always tools for the left. Real cops are glad for armed peaceable citizens.
Stan Transue says: The "hype"othetical you describe applies equally well to a criminal carrying a concealed weapon."
Or it could evolve into the hypothetical I described. If I were a criminal, that's what I'd do. Or, a criminal could take his chances on robbing a place and run into a patron who was carrying, concealed. You could argue that everyone should carry concealed and keep the crooks guessing.
It's not so much that I'm blindly committed to my perspective: I support the Second Amendment and gun ownership and think the "guns kill people" crowd do more than their share of hyping. What seals it for me is law enforcement's position on this. Cops have a tough job as it is; we don't need to add additional variables that might slow his or her response time and thus result in the loss of innocent life. The job is already dangerous enough; anything that increases the risk of danger should be avoided.
I am SO glad I live in Michigan, where we Openly carry LOADED firearms. At least there's no guess work here. :)
Big_Gay_Al says: I am SO glad I live in Michigan, where we Openly carry LOADED firearms. At least there's no guess work here. :)
Except for cops.
Bruce says: "If open carry is the rule and a guy walks into an establishment with a sidearm, you might assume he's a law-abiding citizen. When it turns out he's not, he has the element of surprise back on his side.
Bruce defended Major Hassan for weeks!
Bruce says: Except for cops.
There you go again! If states have "gotten used" to having CCW laws, the rule for law abiding citizens is, if you get pulled over or stopped in any manner by a LEO, THE FIRST thing you do is declare your license and firearm. BEFORE the cop says anything. They love that. Never a problem in my experience. As long as your not UTI your clear.
See, here in Baltimore, we have off duty cops going to gay clubs with their women. A patron touches the butt of a girl, the off duty cop shoots at the guy 16 times hits him 8 times kills him. Black on black thank the Lord! Drunk cop executing another man, an Iraq war vet, for touching his girls ass.
If that Marine would have had a CCW and used it, he may just be alive.
just sayin....
Big_Gay_Al says:
I am SO glad I live in Michigan, where we Openly carry LOADED firearms. At least there's no guess work here. :)
JesusCrisss.....
"Ban on open carry passed in California Assembly"
This is what happens when irrational fears and hoplophobia win out over Constitutional rights, tyranny.
One could hardly expect less from the PRK.
just sayin says: "if you get pulled over or stopped in any manner..."
Cops aren't worried about when they pull someone over; they worry about responding to a call where there might be multiple people with guns drawn. When seconds count, you want them to ask questions? You want the gun owners to say, "I'm one of the good guys?" I don't want cops to be in that position. I can't wait to hear the uproar the minute they shoot an armed citizen who was just "exercising his constitutional rights." Sometimes people have to learn the hard way, but I'll be more than happy to watch the V8 moment.
>>> This is what happens when irrational fears and hoplophobia win out over Constitutional rights, tyranny. <<<<
No, this is what happens when the left, control the news and information that the average person gets, and thereby, public opinion, which my dears also means, your elections. If Socialists and Marxists are being elected, it's a fair presumption that it was engineered by guess what? Socialist/Marxist, media. There is not other type available to the average person, and then there's the schools....
Anyone who doesn't want to be victimized needs to leave there, now! It's got a head start one the way to hell, so let it go and watch the fun from somewhere else. Or stay if you prefer but don't whine when it gets worse, and it will because these people are serving their interests and not those of the people nor the Constitution and bill of rights.
Stay if you want but there are other places where you could be free +- if you choose to be.
Bruce Maiman,
Why do you and so many califonians hate freedom so much? I bet you feel all warm and fuzzy when you see a skinhead in a black uniform toting a submachine gun. You make me sick. You think a man's rights (in this case, unloaded, half rights) can be canceled because some jackboot licking pussies think its scary. If only there were a way to seal off CA from the rest of the nation.
The story above says that citizens who openly carry are just like people who drive around blasting there stereo just because they have it and can, heres a news flash you are just as guilty. There are many countries that see our free sppech, the ability to vote and other such freedoms as extreme but you as a journalist "blast your stereo becuase you can daily", its a part of your job and lifestyle. For many years young men and women of our Armed Forces have died for freedoms we all gladly enjoy from something you take for granted such as free speech to things you look down upon like openly carrying a firearm. Try being thankful and show it once in awhile to these brave men and women.
rocketman, Bruce is off his meds since he only covers national stories.
rocketman -- Please, not another one of these tired speeches about patriotism. Can you be any less original? This isn't about the price paid by honored men and women in battle. This is a practical matter. Freedom is not free; it has a price. I don't care who owns a gun. I support a person's right to own it, but in my opinion (not fact) the belligerent open carry types who use guns as possessions, not protections, are not only foolish, they're an impedance to law enforcement. When cops respond to a call, I don't them wasting precious seconds guessing who's the legally armed citizen and who isn't. The time lost in trying to apprehend a situation like that can mean the difference between life and death --maybe the cop's, maybe yours. That's a price for freedom I dare say most people would find too costly.
yaba says: If Socialists and Marxists are being elected, it's a fair presumption that it was engineered by guess what? Socialist/Marxist, media.
Do you even know the difference between socialism and Marxism, or do you just parrot hot-button words you heard someone else using? Please take a civics class.
zach says: Why do you and so many califonians hate freedom so much?
I'm not convinced a person who falls back on this tired rhetorical talking point is strapping on a gun because it's a "man's right" (did you forget women have those rights, too?). I'm convinced that more often than not it's because people like that use the ownership of guns as an extension of their ego, so maybe the pussy is you. I don't care if people want to own guns, but the ones who strut them around like trophy pieces are insecure morons. It's the POLICE who most oppose this foolish behavior, and their reasons are absolutely sound. I don't want their duties impeded by moronic cowboys, but if they accidentally gun down the wrong person one day --and they will-- don't come crying to me about the Second Amendment.
"I'm not convinced a person who falls back on this tired rhetorical talking point is strapping on a gun because it's a "man's right" (did you forget women have those rights, too?). I'm convinced that more often than not it's because people like that use the ownership of guns as an extension of their ego, so maybe the pussy is you. I don't care if people want to own guns, but the ones who strut them around like trophy pieces are insecure morons. "
Yep. When the anti-gunners run out of ideas, they just move on to ad hominem slurs, usually about genitalia.
If you want to learn something, Bruce, read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". Even if you disagree with him, you'll learn something about the topic.
Also, read about Gary Kleck and the research on defensive gun uses. You can pick up the links here: (www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html)
"When cops respond to a call, I don't them wasting precious seconds guessing who's the legally armed citizen and who isn't."
Generally, the law abiding citizen isn't the one running from the scene. He will be the one standing by peacefully with weapon securely holstered. Plus, by the time police do arrive their responsibility is pretty much drawing chalk lines around victims and putting up crime scene tape.
That being said, your hand-wringing, limp-wristed emotionalism is plain silly. Go "buy a pair" and man-up.
Bruce darling....
I parrot nothing and was watching these, individuals, do their dirty, deceitful, treasonous, work for many years, prior to anyone else even noticing it. You know, the "it can't happen here crowd"? Well, I am vindicated and you are either blind and dumb, which I do doubt, considering that your entire reason for being here, is to pick fights and stir things up, and that would mean that you are part of their apparatus.
You see Bruce, many of us now realize what's happening in our country and who you people really are. Be patient, we'll eventually get around to dealing with you folks. But Bruce there is time for redemption, read the founding fathers and their interpretations of the Bible. Open your eyes to freedom and liberty and burn Mao's little red book.
Marxist philosophy and "scientific socialism" are the greatest modern genocidal causatives known to man. Embrace God and Christ Jesus and freedom and the miracle that changed the world 2000 years ago.
Paul Kersey says: That being said, your hand-wringing, limp-wristed emotionalism is plain silly. Go "buy a pair" and man-up.
Unfortunately, Paul, the cops don't agree with your assessment; they agree with mine. Go tell THEM to man up.
yaba says: "Bruce darling... many of us now realize what's happening in our country and who you people really are. Be patient, we'll eventually get around to dealing with you folks. But Bruce there is time for redemption, read the founding fathers and their interpretations of the Bible. Open your eyes to freedom and liberty and burn Mao's little red book. Marxist philosophy and 'scientific socialism' are the greatest modern genocidal causatives known to man. Embrace God and Christ Jesus and freedom and the miracle that changed the world 2000 years ago."
yawn
"Unfortunately, Paul, the cops don't agree with your assessment; they agree with mine. Go tell THEM to man up. "
The uneducated cops in YOUR state may be against it, but the cops in other states where carry is allowed are NOT against it. It just takes experience. Only lazy cops think that visible gun = bad guy.
yaba says: I parrot nothing
EVERYONE but Bruce parrots everything. Bruce is the ONLY one around with the IQ to think for himself! He has told us that over and over.
Bruce says: cops don't agree with your assessment; they agree with mine.
You see, Bruce has spoken to every cop in the nation so HE KNOWS what they think, YOU don;t! So there! Your wrong and Bruce is right, nanny nanny bo o!
Just sayin... says: Bruce says: cops don't agree with your assessment; they agree with mine. You see, Bruce has spoken to every cop in the nation so HE KNOWS what they think, YOU don;t! So there! Your wrong and Bruce is right, nanny nanny bo o!
This is a bill in California. That's what we're talking about. Law enforcement here is opposed to open carry. You don't have to talk with them; they've already made it clear in public statements and press releases. Now Jim in Houston may call those cops uneducated, but I'd say they're far more experience in law enforcement, conflict management and gun usage than he is, so I'll take their word over his and hope that Jim is never accidentally shot dead by a cop who mistook him for a bad guy while he was pretending he was John Wayne.
Bruce says: Unfortunately, Paul, the cops don't agree with your assessment; they agree with mine. Go tell THEM to man up.
Someone should.
Bruce said: "Now Jim in Houston may call those cops uneducated, but I'd say they're far more experience in law enforcement, conflict management and gun usage than he is, so I'll take their word over his ... "
And that's why the PRK is what it is.
Bruce said: " ... so I'll take their word over his and hope that Jim is never accidentally shot dead by a cop who mistook him for a bad guy while he was pretending he was John Wayne."
A childishly condescending a-hole-of-a-comment if ever there was one.
My mistake! Bruce has talked to EVERY cop in California!
Paul Kersey says:
A childishly condescending a-hole-of-a-comment if ever there was one.
Is there ever any other kind of reply?
Paul Kersey says: A childishly condescending a-hole-of-a-comment if ever there was one.
Just like the guys who open carry because getting a hula tattoo just doesn't make them feel manly enough. There is NO need to open carry. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to.
"hope that Jim is never accidentally shot dead by a cop who mistook him for a bad guy while he was pretending he was John Wayne. "
I hope so too, because my estate will OWN him and the police dept.
Jim In Houston says: "hope that Jim is never accidentally shot dead by a cop who mistook him for a bad guy while he was pretending he was John Wayne. " I hope so too, because my estate will OWN him and the police dept.
That's not a certainty. What will be a certainty is that you'll be dead. I suspect your family would rather have you alive than have the money.
"That's not a certainty. What will be a certainty is that you'll be dead. I suspect your family would rather have you alive than have the money."
You're absolutely right. And fortunately, scenarios such as yours come true only EXTREMELY rarely...I heard of only one last year. An armed homeowner was holding a home invader at gunpoint. A cop entered the home, and even though warned about the homeowner by both the 911 operator and the homeowners wife, shot and killed the homeowner. This falls 100% on the police...the cop utterly failed to obey use of force laws (if you don't know what they are, look them up) -- a visible gun per se does NOT EVER warrant lethal force. The guilty cop and his department will be taken to the cleaners. But the most important step will be EDUCATING those cops and every other cop in the state about the use of force laws.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!