View Full Version : CA police chief call for open carry ban
Littlelebowski
04-25-10, 16:13
Though I normally do not support open carry advocates, I feel that the guys in CA are doing what they can with the privileges they still have to raise awareness.
Article (http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010/04/12/east-bay-police-chief-calls-for-open-carry-ban/)
East Bay police chief calls for open-carry ban
By Josh Richman
Monday, April 12th, 2010 at 5:58 pm in Assembly, Legislation, Public safety.
An East Bay police chief will be in Sacramento on Wednesday to advocate for a bill that would crack down on the “open carry” movement, in which gun enthusiasts say they’re exercise their Second Amendment rights and protecting their personal safety by carrying unloaded firearms in plain sight in public places.
Emeryville Police Chief Ken James said he’ll be representing the California Police Chiefs Association, which has thrown its support behind AB 1934, the bill being unveiled this week by Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego. Saldaña amended the bill last week so that it would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun in specified public areas. Open-carry advocates say it’s a further abridgment of their Constitituonal rights.
Open carry has been an issue here in the East Bay and across California for several months now; some businesses have adopted policies barring customers from bringing firearms inside.
James said his concerns about the open-carry movement are twofold. “One is officer safety – this puts an officer between a rock and hard spot. Do we treat the gun as ‘Oh, it’s just an open carry’ or do we treat it as were trained to do from day one at the academy that it’s possibly a danger?”
The other is an issue of public safety, he said. “If the assumption is being made that the guns aren’t loaded … and if I see you walking down the street with that nice handgun … and I have my loaded gun and I decide to take your unloaded gun from you, I have the advantage. It’s an open target for people to be robbed of their unloaded handguns.”
“All the polls I’ve seen, the average citizen is uneasy seeing a gun. We have always in Emeryville (Police Department) had a policy that when you are not in uniform, you do not expose your weapon, simply because people don’t feel comfortable seeing them,” he said, noting plainclothes officers and detectives must ensure they’re wearing something over their sidearms even on the hottest days.
He said the California Police Chiefs Association did a statewide survey to gauge its members’ concern about the open-carry movement, and what the best approach would be to address that concern. One possibility was a statewide ban. Another was local choice and control by city or county ordinance, but James said “that creates a lot of issues for the poor citizen who needs to know 58 counties and more than 500 municipalities that all might have something different.”
A third option was changing state law to give officers more authority to check on weapons and the people who carry them. James said all an officer can do right now is demand to see whether the gun is unloaded; the officer can’t ask for ID to see if the person is legally allowed to have the weapon (convicted felons and mentally ill people are forbidden from carrying, for example) and can’t run the gun’s serial number to see if it has been stolen from its rightful owner.
“By far, the survey of membership was ‘ban it completely.’ It just makes it simpler,” James said.
Open-carry advocates clearly disagree. As Walter Stanley of Livermore told my colleagues a few months ago, when everyone carries a gun, misreading situations is less likely: “We want not just police and criminals to be carrying guns, but law-abiding citizens as well. … An armed society is a polite society.”
Comedy gold! Did I read this right? The chief wants to ban the practice outright as a favor (my word) to those who open-carry, since it'd be maybe kinda hard to know about the various requirements/legalities concerning open-carry in the various counties..? How thoughtful!:rolleyes: I am gonna go out on a limb and say that this chief is against CCW (except for his sworn personnel, that is. maybe.) too.
bubabootie
04-25-10, 16:42
i'm so glad there aren't a lot of Army bases in california...i'd never want to PCS there. That place is so damn close to being communist it isnt even funny
Littlelebowski
04-25-10, 16:46
What's really funny is there is no reported problem with open carry in CA other than people whining about the terrifying sight of an unloaded weapon.
Sad state of affairs over here and it was only a matter of time. It really is a love/hate relationship I have with CA. But uprooting the family is not an option at this time.
Littlelebowski
04-25-10, 18:25
From a tactical or moral POV?
Tactical.
I don't like or recommend open carry.
-but-
I don't like controls on it or laws that ban it even more.
theblackknight
04-25-10, 20:25
i'm so glad there aren't a lot of Army bases in california...i'd never want to PCS there. That place is so damn close to being communist it isnt even funny
Im with you dude. glad I got East coast
John_Wayne777
04-25-10, 20:36
One more in a long line of police administrators that can go fornicate themselves with a cactus.
GermanSynergy
04-25-10, 21:01
I don't like or recommend open carry.
-but-
I don't like controls on it or laws that ban it even more.
Precisely. Not like this or any other gun ban sceme will stop violent felons from doing whatever they want.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-26-10, 00:06
I've got a solution to the problem for Chief James; CCW for all non felon citizens.
I agree with the fact that it is an officer/citizen safety issue. Lets say "officer" comes across Mr. dumy who is excercising his right to open carry, sure he is following the law by maintining an unloaded firearm. The officer in the other hand has no way of confirming this until he makes physical contact with the weapon. Officer tells Mr dumy dont reach for your weapon, Mr dumy says "oh its not loaded" as he reaches for it, Officer does what every peace officer is trained from day one in the academy, draws down on Mr. dummy and yells drop the weapon, MR. dumy is stuborned because he knows hes done nothing wrong since his weapon is unloaded and refuses to drop it. Officer fears for his life nad assumes Mr. dummy is a threat to his life. Officer shoots Mr. dummy... well you all get the picture.
Are you for real? Every time I read one of your posts I cringe. You seem to think that only LE are worthy of carrying and having firearms.
If you are stupid enough to reach for your firearm when approached by LE (for any reason) then you shouldn't be carrying. Common sense will dictate that you allow the officer to "investigate".
You need to give the average citizens who are also gun owners a little more credit than you have been. There are plenty of smart non-LE types out there.
I agree with the fact that it is an officer/citizen safety issue. Lets say "officer" comes across Mr. dumy who is excercising his right to open carry, sure he is following the law by maintining an unloaded firearm. The officer in the other hand has no way of confirming this until he makes physical contact with the weapon. Officer tells Mr dumy dont reach for your weapon, Mr dumy says "oh its not loaded" as he reaches for it, Officer does what every peace officer is trained from day one in the academy, draws down on Mr. dummy and yells drop the weapon, MR. dumy is stuborned because he knows hes done nothing wrong since his weapon is unloaded and refuses to drop it. Officer fears for his life nad assumes Mr. dummy is a threat to his life. Officer shoots Mr. dummy... well you all get the picture.
Are you for real? Every time I read one of your posts I cringe. You seem to think that only LE are worthy of carrying and having firearms.
If you are stupid enough to reach for your firearm when approached by LE (for any reason) then you shouldn't be carrying. Common sense will dictate that you allow the officer to "investigate".
You need to give the average citizens who are also gun owners a little more credit than you have been. There are plenty of smart non-LE types out there.
remember, common sense is not so common. I know most of us in this forum, wether you are LE or not have their minds in the right place when it comes to firearms, thats why we come here to self improve our knowledge collectively. I personally have come across some very "stupid" people who carry openly a fireamr and are "stupid" enough to reach for it in my precense. Their defense is "I was just going to hand it to you" Usually when they see a barrel pointed at their direction they tend to stop reaching, but does it really need to get to that level. The point is **some** people, not all, need to be educated on some basic common sense things when it involves firearms and contact with police. This is why I am a big fan of CHLs. Every person I have come across with a CHL has done what they were trained to do when a police officer aproaches them, no chl holder has gotten hurt in my precense yet.
People seem to think that LEOs are these people that feel only they should carry and no one else, and the constitution only aplies to them. Let me go ahead and let you know that I as LE had to give up many of the rights that most of you citizens have in order to protect and serve. For example, the right to carry what ever firearm of your choosing. I can now only carry a fireamr aproved by the department, including when off duty.
Well your CHL/CCW argument really doesn't hold water. In Washington State there is not training requirement at all to get a CCW. You simply pay the fee and submit the paperwork. How often do we hear about police shooting citizens because they didn't follow procedures? IIRC, Oregon also does not require any test or demonstrated ability.
Alaska and Vermont also have no CCW requirenment and people aren't being shot by the police on a daily basis.
Also, I am a big fan of Darwinism. If you are stupid enough not to heed the officers instructions when he says "stop" or "don't make any sudden moves" while you are armed then so be it.
remember, common sense is not so common. I know most of us in this forum, wether you are LE or not have their minds in the right place when it comes to firearms, thats why we come here to self improve our knowledge collectively. I personally have come across some very "stupid" people who carry openly a fireamr and are "stupid" enough to reach for it in my precense. Their defense is "I was just going to hand it to you" Usually when they see a barrel pointed at their direction they tend to stop reaching, but does it really need to get to that level. The point is **some** people, not all, need to be educated on some basic common sense things when it involves firearms and contact with police. This is why I am a big fan of CHLs. Every person I have come across with a CHL has done what they were trained to do when a police officer aproaches them, no chl holder has gotten hurt in my precense yet.
People seem to think that LEOs are these people that feel only they should carry and no one else, and the constitution only aplies to them. Let me go ahead and let you know that I as LE had to give up many of the rights that most of you citizens have in order to protect and serve. For example, the right to carry what ever firearm of your choosing. I can now only carry a fireamr aproved by the department, including when off duty.
From the article it is hard to tell if he is against concealed carry, he might fully support it. Personally, I do not think people exercising their right to open carry unloaded is going to help anything, and just seems to be hurting them. I really do not see anything positive about living in that state, I honestly have no desire to ever even visit it.
mnagant762
04-26-10, 03:54
Yeah there is no training or quals here in PA either, just pass the background check and pay up.
Magic_Salad0892
04-26-10, 05:29
CA, my former state of residence.
I hate the Peoples' Republik.
Littlelebowski
04-26-10, 06:24
People seem to think that LEOs are these people that feel only they should carry and no one else, and the constitution only aplies to them. Let me go ahead and let you know that I as LE had to give up many of the rights that most of you citizens have in order to protect and serve. For example, the right to carry what ever firearm of your choosing. I can now only carry a fireamr aproved by the department, including when off duty.
Boo freaking hoo. Don't ever join the military.
John_Wayne777
04-26-10, 07:03
For example, the right to carry what ever firearm of your choosing. I can now only carry a fireamr aproved by the department, including when off duty.
...at least you can still carry a gun in a useful condition. Lots of folks can't do that because they don't have government's permission to do it. You won't find too much sympathy on that particular claim of hardship, bro.
From the article it is hard to tell if he is against concealed carry, he might fully support it.
Somehow I doubt it. Usually those who are trying to ban carrying guns are generally in favor of banning the carrying of guns no matter how they are carried. Concealed weapons are painted as a danger to police officers and so it should be banned. Openly carried guns are a danger to police officers and so it should be banned...etc. If he's pro concealed carry then he really sucks at ensuring his POV on that came through in the story.
remember, common sense is not so common.
Irrelevant, however laudable it may be and how much we enjoy it when others display it. Legislation attempting to forcibly induce it on the populace, in direct contravention to constitutionally mandated freedoms, is not the answer.
What you're talking about is simply something that you perceive will make it so that you won't have to engage in a particular mode of critical thought while at work. The citizenry should in no way give up their chosen method of carry for no better reason than you, or any other LEO, don't want to have to think too hard while on duty. Constant wargaming in your head and doing threat assessments as your environment and what's in it changes...that's part and parcel with your job.
If you don't want to have to do that, find something else to do. Otherwise, accept the fact that there's no earthly reason why you can't judge the presence of a visible firearm in nearly any situation against the actions of the individual carting it around. Gun, 2x4 with a nail in it, tire iron, prayer beads, 25# dumbell. No different than any other inanimate object. Anybody like me could snuff a life with any of those. For which one are you willing to detain or arrest with no other reason than having seen it?
rifleman2000
04-26-10, 09:15
I agree with the fact that it is an officer/citizen safety issue. Lets say "officer" comes across Mr. dumy who is excercising his right to open carry, sure he is following the law by maintining an unloaded firearm. The officer in the other hand has no way of confirming this until he makes physical contact with the weapon. Officer tells Mr dumy dont reach for your weapon, Mr dumy says "oh its not loaded" as he reaches for it, Officer does what every peace officer is trained from day one in the academy, draws down on Mr. dummy and yells drop the weapon, MR. dumy is stuborned because he knows hes done nothing wrong since his weapon is unloaded and refuses to drop it. Officer fears for his life nad assumes Mr. dummy is a threat to his life. Officer shoots Mr. dummy... well you all get the picture.
Officer safety concern? Maintaining a paper law creates the "issue". Why is it illegal for a citizen to carry a loaded gun in the first place? And if it was legal, you would not have to "check" thus creating your uber paranoid response because of course any damn body with a gun that is not a LEO must be a criminal. Glad you are not in my state.
I agree with the fact that it is an officer/citizen safety issue. Lets say "officer" comes across Mr. dumy who is excercising his right to open carry, sure he is following the law by maintining an unloaded firearm. The officer in the other hand has no way of confirming this until he makes physical contact with the weapon.
How about leaving the citizen alone unless they're committing a crime?
This is why I am a big fan of CHLs. Every person I have come across with a CHL has done what they were trained to do when a police officer aproaches them, no chl holder has gotten hurt in my precense yet.
If CA were a "shall issue" state rather than a "may issue" state you would have a leg to stand on. Why not leave the open carrying person alone if they're not breaking a law? With no other alternatives available, gun owners have adopted the only lawful means of protecting themselves when law enforcement is not readily available to intervene during a forcible felony in progress.
People seem to think that LEOs are these people that feel only they should carry and no one else, and the constitution only aplies to them.
Obviously they feel that way when CA cops go around conducting unwarranted searches of people and their property when they aren't breaking any laws.
remember, common sense is not so common. I know most of us in this forum, wether you are LE or not have their minds in the right place when it comes to firearms, thats why we come here to self improve our knowledge collectively. I personally have come across some very "stupid" people who carry openly a fireamr and are "stupid" enough to reach for it in my precense. Their defense is "I was just going to hand it to you" Usually when they see a barrel pointed at their direction they tend to stop reaching, but does it really need to get to that level. The point is **some** people, not all, need to be educated on some basic common sense things when it involves firearms and contact with police. This is why I am a big fan of CHLs. Every person I have come across with a CHL has done what they were trained to do when a police officer aproaches them, no chl holder has gotten hurt in my precense yet.
People seem to think that LEOs are these people that feel only they should carry and no one else, and the constitution only aplies to them. Let me go ahead and let you know that I as LE had to give up many of the rights that most of you citizens have in order to protect and serve. For example, the right to carry what ever firearm of your choosing. I can now only carry a fireamr aproved by the department, including when off duty.
Do us all a favor and remember that you're a citizen too. You may have certain powers granted to you that give you authority over your fellow citizens, but you are not above them or apart from them in any way.
When you start believing you are is when problems arise.
“By far, the survey of membership was ‘ban it completely.’ It just makes it simpler,” James said.
I'm sure your jobs would be simpler if there was no 4th or 5th Amendments either, Chief. Luckily for us (except for those who live in California, apparently), freedom is not subordinate to making your damn job "simple".
Someone on this forum wrote this, says it quite well:
We should err on the side of liberty and recognize liberty is not about guaranteeing our safety, or the efficiency or comfort of government agents...
Officer safety concern? Maintaining a paper law creates the "issue". Why is it illegal for a citizen to carry a loaded gun in the first place? And if it was legal, you would not have to "check" thus creating your uber paranoid response because of course any damn body with a gun that is not a LEO must be a criminal. Glad you are not in my state.
Absolutely dead on.
I agree with the fact that it is an officer/citizen safety issue. Lets say "officer" comes across Mr. dumy who is excercising his right to open carry, sure he is following the law by maintining an unloaded firearm. The officer in the other hand has no way of confirming this until he makes physical contact with the weapon. Officer tells Mr dumy dont reach for your weapon, Mr dumy says "oh its not loaded" as he reaches for it, Officer does what every peace officer is trained from day one in the academy, draws down on Mr. dummy and yells drop the weapon, MR. dumy is stuborned because he knows hes done nothing wrong since his weapon is unloaded and refuses to drop it. Officer fears for his life nad assumes Mr. dummy is a threat to his life. Officer shoots Mr. dummy... well you all get the picture.
Wow. This is dripping with pure irony (among other things...). It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Do you run your reports through a word processor with a spell check feature before you submit them? Just curious.
One more in a long line of police administrators that can go fornicate themselves with a cactus.
Another epic one-liner from JW. Thanks brother, you just picked me up from my post-lunch crash.
Boo freaking hoo. Don't ever join the military.
Did 5 years in my beloved Corps before going LE. I dont see why everyone gets so offended whe I simply point out point of view on this issue. I never said I was against conceal carry, my opinion simply was, as LE I cant help but be against open carry, theres just many too unknowns. Yes there are states that already have this in place and it works for them. However throw that into a high crime city and lets see what happens.
Maybe you should all attend a 9 month academy, another 9 months of FTO training, then get placed in the toughest neighborhoods, and see if your thoughts change.
I strongly support CCW, at least here in Texas you need back ground and a class, you get tought laws, safety, and obviously weapons handleling. But openly carrying you firearm unloaded just screams... I AM A LAW ABIDING CITYCEN WITH AN UNLOADED WEAPON, COME ROB ME AND TAKE MY GUN!
I don't see the point in carrying an unloaded firearm.
rifleman2000
04-26-10, 13:17
as LE I cant help but be against open carry, theres just many too unknowns.
This is pathetic.
How many criminals carry openly?
Why does a LEO have a special bubble around him/her that nobody can openly carry a gun in, yet you would happily (and rightly) support people carrying concealed around you (as you said).
When you see someone carrying openly, is it some pavlovian instinct to "stick em up" and frisk them?
If you can't tolerate being a LEO within the confines of the Constitution, then quit.
Did 5 years in my beloved Corps before going LE. I dont see why everyone gets so offended whe I simply point out my point of you on this issue. I never said I was against conceal carry, my opinion simply was, as LE I cant help but be against open carry, theres just many too unknowns. Yes there are states that already have this in place and it works for them. However throw that into a high crime city and lets see what happens.
Maybe you should all attend a 9 month academy, another 9 months of FTO training, then get placed in the toughest neighborhoods, and see if your thoughts change.
I strongly support CCW, at least here in Texas you need back ground and a class, you get tought laws, safety, and obviously weapons handleling. But openly carrying you firearm unloaded just screams... I AM A LAW ABIDING CITYCEN WITH AN UNLOADED WEAPON, COME ROB ME AND TAKE MY GUN!
Sppel chek, youse it. You obviously have no idea how difficult it is to get a concealed permit for the vast majority of citizens living in CA. Everybody talks about bad guys taking away an unloaded, openly carried weapon, please cite for me an incident or possibly two so that this fear can actually be shown to be based in reality. The difference between a wingnut OC'ing and concealing is a piece of clothing, get over it. As an American citizen I should not have to ask the government permission nor pay a tax to defend myself and my family, period.
Littlelebowski
04-26-10, 13:20
Maybe you should all attend a 9 month academy, another 9 months of FTO training, then get placed in the toughest neighborhoods, and see if your thoughts change.
Man, you whine a lot. Do you think you're the only LEO on here? What was your MOS?
I don't see the point in carrying an unloaded firearm.
They can't obtain a concealed carry permit. They can openly carry an unloaded weapon. If by chance they should need it they can insert a magazine, rack it and attempt to defend themselves. Many people in CA use it as a form of protest and a way to bring attention to their plight.
Sppel chek, youse it. You obviously have no idea how difficult it is to get a concealed permit for the vast majority of citizens living in CA. Everybody talks about bad guys taking away an unloaded, openly carried weapon, please cite for me an incident or possibly two so that this fear can actually be shown to be based in reality. The difference between a wingnut OC'ing and concealing is a piece of clothing, get over it. As an American citizen I should not have to ask the government permission nor pay a tax to defend myself and my family, period.
Sorry about spelling, typing on my phone and buttons are small as it is. I cant show you the incidents I have been part of due to civil liability issues, but lets just say I take these kind of robery reports daily. You may not hear about it on the news because is just all too common at least here were I live.
John_Wayne777
04-26-10, 13:29
Yes there are states that already have this in place and it works for them. However throw that into a high crime city and lets see what happens.
Open carry is legal in Virginia for anyone who isn't prohibited from possessing a firearm. We have some areas you could describe as "high crime".
Up until the last few weeks we also had a law in place that required those legally carrying a concealed firearm to either openly carry their firearm or leave it in the car if they wanted to go into a restaurant that had a license for on-premises consumption of alcohol. This idiotic provision caused hysterical man-with-a-gun 911 calls that police had to respond to....even in high crime areas. (Richmond was, at one point, the murder capitol of the United States. Hard to argue that's not a "high crime" area...)
The police seemed to handle it pretty well for the most part. There were a couple of instances where some people (including those in uniform) wanted to have a dick measuring contest, but the situations never ended in gunfire between law enforcement and "Mr. Dumb" who was obeying Virginia law to the letter. A couple of false arrests and some lawsuit money awarded, but no gunfights.
Some deficiencies in Virginia's police guidebooks were even identified and corrected as a result of the false arrests.
The whole blood in the streets argument seems to ring hollow when there are other places in this nation where law abiding people can openly carry a firearm...even in "high crime" areas...and yet there has not been a rash of them being mistakenly shot by the police. Instead of histrionic hypotheticals, it's possible to look at real instances of real interactions between real citizens and real police officers that didn't end in anything more than hurt feelings.
The measure discussed by this dipstick of a police chief is nothing more than a continuation of government officials getting their knickers in a twist over nothing and then trying to get legislation passed to stop people from having ready access to a means of self defense because said officials think it's icky....which is the basis of California's stupid gun laws in the first place.
Maybe you should all attend a 9 month academy, another 9 months of FTO training, then get placed in the toughest neighborhoods, and see if your thoughts change.
I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you try being left at the mercy of some scumbag who tries to shoot you in the face for fun because you are not permitted to have ready access to an effective means of self defense by the laws that the bad guys ignore. While I can't describe the experience as a pleasant one, bleeding from a GSW certainly helped me sort some things out. Perhaps a similar experience would show you why people are keenly interested in carrying a firearm and might get rather indignant in some jackass police administrator trying to take away that already severely neutered ability for their own good.
See, the bad guys you arrest? They only come on your radar after they try and harm people who don't have a badge pinned to their chest. You are issued body armor and firearms to deal with them...and if you report shots fired on the radio everything else stops as every cop in the area rushes to your aid.
...but those who don't have a badge are supposed to dial 911 and just pray the bad guys don't hurt them?
I firmly reject that notion, sir.
Sorry about spelling, typing on my phone and buttons are small as it is. I cant show you the incidents I have been part of due to civil liability issues, but lets just say I take these kind of robery reports daily. You may not hear about it on the news because is just all too common at least here were I live.
Seems to me that there's a pretty obvious solution to people's unloaded firearms being stolen from them. Let them carry loaded guns. If the bad guys know that the government is stupid enough to make the task easy for them, why not risk it?
If, however, a few citizens pull a gun and kill a few of the bad guys I'm guessing the prevalence of that sort of thing would drop off rather substantially.
rifleman2000
04-26-10, 13:32
Did 5 years in my beloved Corps before going LE. I dont see why everyone gets so offended whe I simply point out point of view on this issue. I never said I was against conceal carry,
Not against concealed carry, so citizens can be around you armed with loaded guns... unknown to you...
my opinion simply was, as LE I cant help but be against open carry, theres just many too unknowns.
But open carry you can see them!!!! They are more dangerous now!!! SEARCH THEM!!!! Actually, using your logic, an officer simply has to close his/her eyes to be safe at this point.
Yes there are states that already have this in place and it works for them. However throw that into a high crime city and lets see what happens.
It's probably high crime because people like you don't tolerate law abiding citizens that want to defend themselves.
Maybe you should all attend a 9 month academy, another 9 months of FTO training, then get placed in the toughest neighborhoods, and see if your thoughts change.
I'm sure your training was tough. But I've been in war zones where we recognized and encouraged the need for the locals to be armed. Despite the fact that it was hard to tell them from the enemy. But we knew that people that could defend themselves against the terrorists ultimately helped us and our cause. Get it?
I strongly support CCW, at least here in Texas you need back ground and a class, you get tought laws, safety, and obviously weapons handleling. But openly carrying you firearm unloaded just screams... I AM A LAW ABIDING CITYCEN WITH AN UNLOADED WEAPON, COME ROB ME AND TAKE MY GUN!
So support the right to have a loaded gun??? Maybe? Gee that would be nice. Why do LEOs have the right to carry a loaded gun? To defend themselves from criminals. Who do criminals generally target? Citizens. Why do citizens have the right to carry a loaded gun? Wait, they don't, to protect the LEOs. That is so pathetic it makes me want to puke.
Just my short analysis.
I cant show you the incidents I have been part of due to civil liability issues, but lets just say I take these kind of robery reports daily. You may not hear about it on the news because is just all too common at least here were I live.
Fair enough. Where are you located? What types of robbery reports daily? An open carrying, unloaded weapon being stolen from someone carrying it? Or just a person open carrying having their loaded weapon stolen? And on a daily basis?
Personally, I've never seen a documented case of this happening and that's not to say it hasn't but I'd like for someone to post a link if in fact they have one.
Also, I'd like to hear of one single incident from a vetted LEO on this forum of taking a robbery report of this nature.
FYI - If you would take the time to educate yourself a little about the Open Carry "movement" and look at their forum you'd find a lot of guys on there who know the gun laws around you probably much better than most of the police in your area. Granted, that is a big, general assumption but I'll be damned if those aren't some gun law researching fools.
Enjoy the discussion… Dial back the personal attacks…
B
They can't obtain a concealed carry permit. They can openly carry an unloaded weapon. If by chance they should need it they can insert a magazine, rack it and attempt to defend themselves. Many people in CA use it as a form of protest and a way to bring attention to their plight.
Oh, I didn't know you could also carry a loaded magazine. Makes sense then.
Open carry is legal in Virginia for anyone who isn't prohibited from possessing a firearm. We have some areas you could describe as "high crime".
Up until the last few weeks we also had a law in place that required those legally carrying a concealed firearm to either openly carry their firearm or leave it in the car if they wanted to go into a restaurant that had a license for on-premises consumption of alcohol. This idiotic provision caused hysterical man-with-a-gun 911 calls that police had to respond to....even in high crime areas. (Richmond was, at one point, the murder capitol of the United States. Hard to argue that's not a "high crime" area...)
The police seemed to handle it pretty well for the most part. There were a couple of instances where some people (including those in uniform) wanted to have a dick measuring contest, but the situations never ended in gunfire between law enforcement and "Mr. Dumb" who was obeying Virginia law to the letter. A couple of false arrests and some lawsuit money awarded, but no gunfights.
Some deficiencies in Virginia's police guidebooks were even identified and corrected as a result of the false arrests.
The whole blood in the streets argument seems to ring hollow when there are other places in this nation where law abiding people can openly carry a firearm...even in "high crime" areas...and yet there has not been a rash of them being mistakenly shot by the police. Instead of histrionic hypotheticals, it's possible to look at real instances of real interactions between real citizens and real police officers that didn't end in anything more than hurt feelings.
The measure discussed by this dipstick of a police chief is nothing more than a continuation of government officials getting their knickers in a twist over nothing and then trying to get legislation passed to stop people from having ready access to a means of self defense because said officials think it's icky....which is the basis of California's stupid gun laws in the first place.
I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you try being left at the mercy of some scumbag who tries to shoot you in the face for fun because you are not permitted to have ready access to an effective means of self defense by the laws that the bad guys ignore. While I can't describe the experience as a pleasant one, bleeding from a GSW certainly helped me sort some things out. Perhaps a similar experience would show you why people are keenly interested in carrying a firearm and might get rather indignant in some jackass police administrator trying to take away that already severely neutered ability for their own good.
See, the bad guys you arrest? They only come on your radar after they try and harm people who don't have a badge pinned to their chest.
Nobody is telling anyone you shouldnt be armed to protect your self, I actually encourage it. "criminals" will most likely be always armed, so you should to! Just dont make your self a target by showing that you are basically unarmed, because I dont consider carrying an unloaded firearm "armed". Heck I dont consider having a magazine inserted and no round in the chamber "armed". Whats the point if you got a gun pointed at your head to have an unloaded firearm.... what are you going to do? Tell the criminal.. "hang on let me insert a mag and chamber one ...ok go on you were saying"
John_Wayne777
04-26-10, 13:41
Nobody is telling anyone you shouldnt be armed to protect your self, I actually encourage it.
Well it's good that you hold that view...but that's exactly what this chief and the network of Cali gun laws are telling everyone else. California citizens are placed in this absurd position in the first place because of measures as ridiculous as this one sponsored by police administrators as stupid as this one.
Whats the point if you got a gun pointed at your head to have an unloaded firearm.... what are you going to do, tell the criminal.. "hang on let me insert a mag and chamber one it...ok go on you were saying"
I agree with you on the utility of carrying an unloaded firearm...but if given the choice between carrying an unloaded firearm that I can potentially load if stuff starts to go bad or just using my fingernails, I'll take the unloaded gun, please. ;)
Fair enough. Where are you located? What types of robbery reports daily? An open carrying, unloaded weapon being stolen from someone carrying it? Or just a person open carrying having their loaded weapon stolen? And on a daily basis?
Personally, I've never seen a documented case of this happening and that's not to say it hasn't but I'd like for someone to post a link if in fact they have one.
Also, I'd like to hear of one single incident from a vetted LEO on this forum of taking a robbery report of this nature.
FYI - If you would take the time to educate yourself a little about the Open Carry "movement" and look at their forum you'd find a lot of guys on there who know the gun laws around you probably much better than most of the police in your area. Granted, that is a big, general assumption but I'll be damned if those aren't some gun law researching fools.
If I tell you were I live I am basically disclosing what agency I work for and thats just not good for me.
I agree with you that there are a lot of guys out there that know gun laws better than I would.
Oh, I didn't know you could also carry a loaded magazine. Makes sense then.
It's definitely not ideal but it's better than the alternative.
Nobody is telling anyone you shouldnt be armed to protect your self, I actually encourage it. "criminals" will most likely be always armed, so you should to! Just dont make your self a target by showing that you are basically unarmed, because I dont consider carrying an unloaded firearm "armed". Heck I dont consider having a magazine inserted and no round in the chamber "armed". Whats the point if you got a gun pointed at your head to have an unloaded firearm.... what are you going to do? Tell the criminal.. "hang on let me insert a mag and chamber one ...ok go on you were saying"
You do realize that these people have literally no other way to have a firearm on their person, correct? Seems to me they are doing the best they can in a crappy situation.
PRGGodfather
04-26-10, 13:48
Because California is not America, this issue is NOT about open carry. It's really about concealed carry.
In the metropolitan areas of California, it takes an Act of Congress to get a CCW as only the Chief of Police or the County Sheriff can issue one. So unless you fellate one of those folks on a regular basis, forget about getting a CCW -- since most police administrators pander to the pants poopers who cringe at the sight of an unloaded gun.
California is an openly anti-gun state, so make no mistake, unless you live in the rural areas, it's nearly impossible to get a CCW, even if you met all of the training, background, and licensing requirements that people like to talk about to obfuscate the cental issue:
Start issuing concealed carry permits.
I'm not a fan of open, unloaded carry for a number of tactical reasons. Yet, I fully support the exercising of this right, BECAUSE it is a frakking right -- and that means you can't do diddly to me for doing it, provided I am responsible.
Folks who immediately anticipate that our rights are automatically going to be exercised irresponsibly because of social Darwinism are just as guilty of pants pooping as the libtards, even if you claim you are pro-gun. If you buy into this notion, you are a firearms elitist apologist, and we don't need your "help."
A lot of cops fall into this elitist category, too -- and simply, truth be known -- there are a LOT more cops who aren't competent enough to carry guns -- especially when compared to a vast number of civilians at this forum!
I hope the open carry folks in California are able to leverage the politicos into issuing CCW's, since that is what this issue is really all about. IMHO, trying to make unloaded open carry illegal in California is PROOF how stupid politicians, libtards and gun apologists really are.
For goodness sake, the gang-bangers, parolees at large, drug dealers and other criminals ARE ALREADY CARRYING LOADED AND CONCEALED WITH NO PERMITS WHATSOEVER! So in our divine wisdom, we want to disarm the good folks who are using neutered open carry to make a political statement?
THERE is your proof we need the Second Amendment to guarantee the First! It used to be LEGAL to carry OPEN AND LOADED in California, until the Black Panthers showed up in Sacramento with slung M1 carbines! The anti-gun folks want ALL of your guns, stupid -- so get over yourself and choose a frakking side, already!
Safety issue my patoot. Anyone who buys that is a fool. I have a seven-point permit and I look forward to the day more good folks can carry concealed. It's a force multiplier. Look at any state in the Union with must-issue rules and there aren't any shootouts in the street! Yet, California cops continue to get whacked by a-holes using Combloc rifles that were banned first in 1989, then 1994 and again in 2000!
Is it just me, or aren't you paying any frakking attention?
Safety. It's the anti-gun stance that makes us unsafe!
If California Chiefs had the stones to issue CCW's, the unloaded open carry issue in CA would be non-existent.
If I tell you were I live I am basically disclosing what agency I work for and thats just not good for me.
I agree with you that there are a lot of guys out there that know gun laws better than I would.
OK. Where I live and most everywhere I've been there are multiple LE agencies from Metro, HP to Sheriffs in one overlapping area. My intention was to find out where the "toughest neighborhoods" in Texas are out of curiosity. I imagine they'd be in a major metropolitan city where you probably have even more overlap with Rangers, BP, etc.
Out of curiosity what was your MOS?
I normally try to stay away from political arguments, heck thats why I am not even planing on leaving patrol or promoting, things just get too political. By no means am I a politician, my thoughts and views are simply that, they hold no water what so ever other than thats what I believe after dealing with so much BS on the streets. Sorry if I have offended some of you, that was not my intention. By no means am I anti-gun, and that seems to be the stereotype that most LEs bare. Before getting the badge I still owned several handguns and 2 ARs, had a conceal carry and excercised my rights.
OK. Where I live and most everywhere I've been there are multiple LE agencies from Metro, HP to Sheriffs in one overlapping area. My intention was to find out where the "toughest neighborhoods" in Texas are out of curiosity. I imagine they'd be in a major metropolitan city where you probably have even more overlap with Rangers, BP, etc.
Out of curiosity what was your MOS?
My MOS was 6072, Ground Support Equipment, Did a lot of stuff for CH53 helos, many dets, even though I was not infantry I got to learn a lot of things from my comrades.
rifleman2000
04-26-10, 14:45
I normally try to stay away from political arguments, heck thats why I am not even planing on leaving patrol or promoting, things just get too political. By no means am I a politician, my thoughts and views are simply that, they hold no water what so ever other than thats what I believe after dealing with so much BS on the streets. Sorry if I have offended some of you, that was not my intention. By no means am I anti-gun, and that seems to be the stereotype that most LEs bare. Before getting the badge I still owned several handguns and 2 ARs, had a conceal carry and excercised my rights.
It is not so much politics but the assumption that anyone that is open carrying must be considered a threat. That, for many reasons, does not make sense.
I might take it a little hard because I do open carry from time to time, whenever the clothes I wear do not facilitate concealed carry. I have not had any problems from it so far, and this is with eight years plus of open carry on a semi-regular basis.
It is not so much politics but the assumption that anyone that is open carrying must be considered a threat. That, for many reasons, does not make sense.
I might take it a little hard because I do open carry from time to time, whenever the clothes I wear do not facilitate concealed carry. I have not had any problems from it so far, and this is with eight years plus of open carry on a semi-regular basis.
Any LEO will tell you that every person they come in contact with, wether it be some thing as "routine" as a traffic stop or a felony traffic stop will tell you everyone IS a threat, wether they are armed or not makes no diference. I treat every person as if they were armed.
Littlelebowski
04-26-10, 14:55
Well it's tough all over then because that's part of your job. If you have to think a little more when you see someone open carrying, remember that no one asked you to join up.
John_Wayne777
04-26-10, 14:56
Sorry if I have offended some of you, that was not my intention.
No worries. We're all grownups here and should be able to handle a disagreement every now and then. ;)
rifleman2000
04-26-10, 15:04
Any LEO will tell you that every person they come in contact with, wether it be some thing as "routine" as a traffic stop or a felony traffic stop will tell you everyone IS a threat, wether they are armed or not makes no diference. I treat every person as if they were armed.
My best friend is a state trooper.
And there is a difference between treating someone like they are armed, and treating someone like they are a criminal.
From your description, you automatically treat an armed person like a criminal. I have a serious problem like that.
Let me outline something for you... (Obama are you listening?):
The Constitution is not just a document that outlines a private citizen's rights. It is a document that LIMITs the power of the government and representatives of the government; in this case, you. You are limited by the Constitution, and should be if this country is to be free. If you cannot do your job while accepting the limits placed on you by the Constitution, then you have no business being a police officer.
Just like if I had a problem obeying the limits of the Constitution and other rules of war (ROE, for example), I would have no business being an Infantry officer.
ForTehNguyen
04-26-10, 15:07
aint that cute, a police chief wanting to be a legislator :rolleyes:
everyone IS a threat, wether they are armed or not makes no diference. I treat every person as if they were armed.
No, in your own words you treat every person as if they are armed and therefore in violation of the law, whether such a law exists or not.
EDIT: get outta my head, rifleman!
Any LEO will tell you that every person they come in contact with, wether it be some thing as "routine" as a traffic stop or a felony traffic stop will tell you everyone IS a threat, wether they are armed or not makes no diference. I treat every person as if they were armed.
My motto is "Be polite, be professional, have a plan to kill everyone you meet." Accessing your firearm and ordering compliance on every armed person you meet is neither polite nor professional. You may work in a high crime urban area, but your LE job is not the most dangerous one out there. That would fall to the Game Wardens and other LEO's working in remote wilderness areas. nearly everyone they meet is armed and most openly, with rifles and shotguns. That does not mean they can prone out everyone they meet and neither should you.
If your jurisdiction has a legal allowance for open carry (loaded or not), you need to take that into consideration if you contact a citizen openly carrying. Maybe you don't rush in and initiate contact immediately, but observe the persons demeanor first? Nothing says you have to be Flash Gordon if the person isn't actively engaging people you know.
If you can't initiate contact with an armed citizen not displaying hostility without taking physical control, then you're in the wrong line of work. Citizens have rights, one of which is the right to arm themselves against danger. After all, as a LEO, you wouldn't want to be unarmed would you?
For all the legal scholars out there, this is from the Los Angeles County District Attorneys' Office...
LADA ONE-MINUTE BRIEF NO. 2008-22
ISSUE: What investigative steps may law enforcement officers take when confronting a person who is carrying a firearm openly, in a belt holster?
The Second Amendment protects a right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense, at least in federal jurisdictions. DC v. Heller (2008) 128 S.Ct. 2783. The Second Amendment does not preclude enforcement of statutes making it unlawful to carry concealed or loaded handguns in public, or for specified convicts to possess firearms. People v. Flores (2008) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ , DJDAR 18615, WL 5265343.
California selectively prohibits possession of firearms. Prohibitions generally apply to drug addicts and those convicted of felonies and specified misdemeanors, or subject to probation orders or restraining orders that prohibit possession (PC §§ 12021, 12021.1), and those with histories of making deadly threats or receiving mental treatment for dangerous proclivities. (W&I §§ 8100, 8103). Minors may not generally possess concealable firearms. (PC § 12101)
In addition, individuals generally may not possess firearms in certain places, such as public buildings (PC § 171b), airport and passenger vessel terminal "sterile areas" (PC § 171.5), or on the grounds or within 1000 feet of a public or private school, or on a college campus or property. (PC § 626.9) Possession during specified crimes increases the punishment. (Exs: PC §§ 12021.5, 12022, 12022.3, 12022.5, 12023 and 12024)
It is generally unlawful to carry concealed on the person or in a vehicle a handgun or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person (whether it is loaded or not). (PC § 12025) This section is not violated by carrying an unloaded firearm openly, in a belt holster.
It is also generally unlawful to carry a loaded firearm (whether concealed or not) in a public place in incorporated cities and in prohibited areas of unincorporated territory. (PC § 12031) Because "prohibited area" includes any place where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm, this includes all public streets. (PC § 374c)
Peace officers are authorized to inspect any firearm carried in prohibited public areas to determine whether or not it is loaded; refusal to permit inspection is probable cause for arrest for violation of § 12031. (PC § 12031(e)) If the serial number of the weapon comes into plain view during inspection, it may be noted and run against data bases. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) 480 US 321, 324. The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and a data-base check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004) 542 US 177, 187.
Per PC § 12031(g) (also for H&S § 11370.1—possession of certain drugs while armed with a loaded firearm, and for PC § 12035—criminal storage), a firearm is "loaded" if there is matching ammunition in or attached to the weapon in such a way that it can be fired. People v. Clark (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1147. Under this definition, neither § 12025 nor § 12031 is violated merely because a person openly carrying an unloaded firearm in a belt holster has matching ammunition on him, or close at hand. (Contrast: PC §§ 171c and 171d—"loaded" at the state capitol/offices and governor's mansion, and § 12023—"loaded" with intent to commit a felony, all of which define "loaded" as being in possession of the firearm and matching ammunition; F&G § 2006—"loaded" rifle or shotgun in a vehicle on public road, requires chambered shell).
BOTTOM LINE: Police may stop a person who is openly carrying a firearm in a belt holster and may inspect to see if the firearm is loaded. Prompt incidental checks on the person and the weapon may provide probable cause for arrest; however, the person may not be arrested for violating PC § 12031 if ammunition is not in or attached to the weapon so as to allow it to be fired, even though the person may have access to matching ammunition.
I personally have come across some very "stupid" people who carry openly a fireamr and are "stupid" enough to reach for it in my precense. Their defense is "I was just going to hand it to you" Usually when they see a barrel pointed at their direction they tend to stop reaching, but does it really need to get to that level. The point is **some** people, not all, need to be educated on some basic common sense things when it involves firearms and contact with police.
I call bullshit considering that OC is basically illegal in Texas. Your story doesn't add up to the reality of the gun laws in TX, period. Unless of course you're a LEO, Judge, etc. and they are entitled to openly carry a firearm.
Cascades236
04-26-10, 16:38
Any LEO will tell you that every person they come in contact with, wether it be some thing as "routine" as a traffic stop or a felony traffic stop will tell you everyone IS a threat, wether they are armed or not makes no diference. I treat every person as if they were armed.
Everyone can be a threat. This doesn't mean I stop someone for speeding and screw a Glock into their ear. It does however mean that I use sound tactics and should a threat come to fruition I'm reasonably ready for it.
That's me on duty...and off duty. Any responsible gun owner that carries should be ready for a fight.
I have no issue with responsible persons open carrying. However, I don't agree with it at the same level as those of us that wear 5.11's and a polo everywhere...I prefer to be underestimated and not play my card prematurely.
Paraclete comes
04-26-10, 19:31
Oto,
I realize its your personal view but i must say i am very suprised. Having given us your little resume or service record does not impress me.
Having been trained and operated in some of the "most dangerous neighborhoods IN THE WORLD" let me assure you having a gun is not it self a threat unless you are a coddled LEO in the U.S.
Any operator should know that you need to remain aware always jeff cooper gave us the color code. Being aware and judging temper and intent paired with profiling is essential. otherwise you might run around freaking out about everyone carrying a gun openly and legally.
you might also want to add this to your tool box and employ it on a daily basis. judge characteristics of human behavior. George Kingsley Zipf a scientist that studied behavior patterns, came up with the theory that humans given a large number of choices, would always select the choice requiring the least amount of work. In other words, humans are lazy and predictable. Predictability means that behavior patterns can be measured and most importantly observed.
Zipf concluded that humans (under stress) could only remember a small number of things in a sequence. (for example; 911 for emergencies, humans would not remember a longer number under stress.
also that this illustrates that humans follow predictable patterns that can be measured and observed. This characteristic is one example of human behavior. It is very important to illustrate the simpliciy of profiling. the real criminal will unconsciously follow repeatable, predictable patterns that can be studied. these patterns can be observed prior to someone breaking the law or an attack. these observations can lead you to interrupt an attack.
proxemics means betraying affiliations through the dynamics of proximity. (literally your proximity or distance to and from other people)
geographics, people who are familiar with an area act, walk and drive differently than a person who is unfamiliar. further people like to commit crimes within a geographic area they have researched or are familiar with. person having a gang will create habitual areas and anchor point.
atmospherics is how a place sounds, tastes, feels, smells, etc.
body language plays a huge role but not the manner you might expect. Histamines, adrenaline, endorphins, all make the human body respond. redness, swelling, fixed pupils, studying these indicators can warn you of aggression. I don't think average joe open carry is running around at starbucks with his de-cafe grande latte trying to further the right to bear arms is aggressive, do you?
heuristics are high speed methods of mentally imprinting or labeling observed behaviors. kinda like a tactical short cut, maybe this is why LEO's freak out when they see gun. They need to be better trained rather than taking away rights of average Joe open carry who is no criminal.
all that said you need to employ a wide and varied number of tools to judge temper and intent. not fly off the handle every-time someone open carry's.
just so you know I am a brother Marine and have served five years and looking to re-up. Its such a shame that having served in Iraq and Afghan I have to see Billy Bob Mohammed carry his gun and have more rights than some police want me to have when I come home. That is a darn shame, if I want to carry open rather than concealed thats my business not some gov org.
cheers.
Littlelebowski
04-26-10, 19:48
Awesome post, paraclet, thanks for sharing. Loved the part about the coddling :D
This is turning into a thread from which I am learning and that kicks ass.
Oto,
I realize its your personal view but i must say i am very suprised. Having given us your little resume or service record does not impress me.
Having been trained and operated in some of the "most dangerous neighborhoods IN THE WORLD" let me assure you having a gun is not it self a threat unless you are a coddled LEO in the U.S.
Any operator should know that you need to remain aware always jeff cooper gave us the color code. Being aware and judging temper and intent paired with profiling is essential. otherwise you might run around freaking out about everyone carrying a gun openly and legally.
you might also want to add this to your tool box and employ it on a daily basis. judge characteristics of human behavior. George Kingsley Zipf a scientist that studied behavior patterns, came up with the theory that humans given a large number of choices, would always select the choice requiring the least amount of work. In other words, humans are lazy and predictable. Predictability means that behavior patterns can be measured and most importantly observed.
Zipf concluded that humans (under stress) could only remember a small number of things in a sequence. (for example; 911 for emergencies, humans would not remember a longer number under stress.
also that this illustrates that humans follow predictable patterns that can be measured and observed. This characteristic is one example of human behavior. It is very important to illustrate the simpliciy of profiling. the real criminal will unconsciously follow repeatable, predictable patterns that can be studied. these patterns can be observed prior to someone breaking the law or an attack. these observations can lead you to interrupt an attack.
proxemics means betraying affiliations through the dynamics of proximity. (literally your proximity or distance to and from other people)
geographics, people who are familiar with an area act, walk and drive differently than a person who is unfamiliar. further people like to commit crimes within a geographic area they have researched or are familiar with. person having a gang will create habitual areas and anchor point.
atmospherics is how a place sounds, tastes, feels, smells, etc.
body language plays a huge role but not the manner you might expect. Histamines, adrenaline, endorphins, all make the human body respond. redness, swelling, fixed pupils, studying these indicators can warn you of aggression. I don't think average joe open carry is running around at starbucks with his de-cafe grande latte trying to further the right to bear arms is aggressive, do you?
heuristics are high speed methods of mentally imprinting or labeling observed behaviors. kinda like a tactical short cut, maybe this is why LEO's freak out when they see gun. They need to be better trained rather than taking away rights of average Joe open carry who is no criminal.
all that said you need to employ a wide and varied number of tools to judge temper and intent. not fly off the handle every-time someone open carry's.
just so you know I am a brother Marine and have served five years and looking to re-up. Its such a shame that having served in Iraq and Afghan I have to see Billy Bob Mohammed carry his gun and have more rights than some police want me to have when I come home. That is a darn shame, if I want to carry open rather than concealed thats my business not some gov org.
cheers.
Well said
From the article it is hard to tell if he is against concealed carry, he might fully support it. Personally, I do not think people exercising their right to open carry unloaded is going to help anything, and just seems to be hurting them. I really do not see anything positive about living in that state, I honestly have no desire to ever even visit it.
Perhaps. (almost certainly not)
Here's one reason to take an interest, though. Plenty of states are still backward wrt ccw and firearms in general. If CA were to have some kind of pro-ccw breakthrough, it'd be a boon for those in other denied locales. IMO open-carry is a tactical no-no most of the time, but the idea that it's "hurting" the movement is only true to the extent that we- collectively as a nation, not "we" here at m4c- buy into the manufactured narrative about the evils of firearms.
I am encouraged by the fact that many people who are lukewarm on open-carry seem pretty supportive of this effort. For the record, I am not an active participant in the CA open-carry thing.
For example, those 2 black panther idiots standing in front of the polling booths during last election. They were only there, with their club/sticks (whatever it was), to intimate.
:p :D
PRGGodfather
04-26-10, 20:54
Well, for those of us actually watching the unloaded, open carry issue in CA for either professional or personal reasons -- rest assured the folks doing so in this reasonably organized effort are NOT trying to intimidate anyone -- especially at Starbucks.
Are they trying to DESENSITIZE folks to the notion that a visible firearm shouldn't make you poop yourself? ABSOLUTELY! Do they like the press they are getting? YES! Are they committing a crime? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
If we are honest with ourselves, we would recognize some of the static coming from the hoplophobes is "the mere presence of an unloaded, open carry firearm is intimidating." THAT, my friend, is a ridiculous standard for any society to operate within, and it's about time we started saying so, IMHO.
Are these same folks upset at seeing a uniformed officer's holstered sidearm? Would we have the cops not police the area, just because some folks are offended at the sight of a gun? If these folks are so easily upset, doesn't it make sense to LEGALLY allow more of us to CONCEAL them?
Do you think this Police Chief really wants to issue CCWs? Really?
C'mon, guys -- at the end of the day, UNLOADED OC IN CA IS NOT a moral, philosophical or tactical debate. It's about a select few dedicated pro-rights folks who are making a political statement -- and now, the MAN wants these folks to stop, because some of us have such tender sensibilities -- hidden under the pretense of safety.
B-frakking-S.
Internet practical etiquette aside, let's NOT pretend this is some "tactical" issue. Even those folks who are doing the unloaded, open carry thing in CA don't pretend they are being tactial -- which is why they meet in small groups at the suburban Starbucks to exercise a right otherwise attacked from all sides on a regular basis -- including from within. You don't see these folks doing unloaded OC solo at the inner city liquor stores -- because UNLOADED OC IN CA is a political movement, which we can choose to decry or support, but that's ALL it really is -- even if the press won't report it that way, and even if all the folks on the Internet won't discuss it that way.
When I worked on a job in Nevada last year, I saw several folks walking around with exposed, loaded carry at the Wally World -- and I didn't even poop myself with my tree hugging, granola eating CA sensibilities! ;)
(Heck, it made me feel like I was actually in AMERICA!)
It's really time we got over ourselves, and recognize that anyone trying make changes in the world usually risks something -- like all of our soldiers and veterans.
These folks may be just doing this at home, but it's better than most of us crying on the 'net about our trampled rights. If these folks weren't doing this; heck, we'd find something else to whine about, or try to impress folks, or seethe at our keyboards. Sure, I get that. Still, these folks standing up for gun rights in CA deserve more of our support than some Chief "pretending to be a legislator." The SNAFU in CA requires them to act LEGALLY, and apparently, more folks have their panties in a twist about this than the aggravated assaults in the inner city.
Also, as far as being offended -- nope, got too thick of a skin -- and last I checked, there is NO affirmative right to go through life unoffended -- Constitutional or otherwise. And yes, firearms apologists are just as bad as libtards.
I didn't want to support this effort at first blush, either -- and first put on my tactical hat to justify my apprehension --until I realized theirs is a political movement that I DO support, which is to restore our freedoms to protect ourselves. My rights to self-defense didn't start when I became a cop, and I sure as heck don't expect them to end when I stop being one!
Further, anyone who thinks the rest of us need to hold our opinions just to cater to a specific person's irrational sensibility will likely go through life very disappointed.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil if for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke
rifleman2000
04-26-10, 20:54
It amuses me the behavior some of you have towards people with differing opinions and to what level you take it depending on how you identify someone. If someone is joe blow civilian and they disagree with some of you, you might at worst call them a name, flame a bit and move on. When it's a soldier or LEO, some of you foam at the mouth over the exact same shit.
Interesting point of view. Here is my theory on WHY I get upset when it is a Soldier or LEO that does not understand their place within the Constitutional framework.
Because their job and to some degree, our welfare depends on it. Too easy.
A Soldier is obligated to support and defend the Constitution, so I will be upset if they manifest a complete lack of understanding of what it is.
A LEO supports and defends public safety within the confines of the Constitution, so I will be upset if they are instead used as tools by the government to dismantle Constitutional rights.
Darn right I get upset.
rifleman2000
04-26-10, 21:17
First things first. Your expectations of people, particularly public safety personnel and soldiers, is set far far to high. What you want is for the entire population of those who put themselves in harms way to think exactly alike........ Get real.
Next: You are upset over an opinion. Plan to be pissed your entire natural born life if that's the tilt level you set your emotional control at. Be concerned, pissed, irate etc when someone in these fields ACTS on ill formed opinions. People are saying "leave the citizen alone until he breaks the law" I offer the exact same thing back. Cool your jets till the LEO/soldier ****s up. Unless you believe preventative measures only apply to others......?
Don't lecture me. I took that oath many times and administered it even. I will hold those that take an oath to it.
But thanks, Dad.
PRGGodfather
04-26-10, 21:24
I'm not worried about libtard tree huggers or pussies. If by your mere presence you are intimating someone, oh ****ing well. If you're heavy petting your firearm while staring people down and growling, **** you. If my distinction example of the black panthers wasn't enough for you, there is the more colorful version. :cool:
I agree. Black Panthers and idiots heavy petting their firearms are a-holes and deserve a solid middle finger. Three men having a Frappaccino while sporting XD's in FOBUS holsters are worthy of an entirely different kind of derision ;)
Let's understand the folks who have underscored the UNLOADED OPEN CARRY IN CA issue do not fall into the F-YOU category. There is too much cannibalism even in pro-gun circles, we forget we should support the folks trying to get rights restored -- and remember the Police Chief is the pussy.
Let's also be clear this issue a political one, not a tactical one. I will concede there are better ways -- to include issuing CCWs.
THAT, my friend, is what UNLOADED OC IN CA is really all about.
That aside -- yes, IMHO, libtard treehuggers AND pro-gun apologists ARE pussies. I have more respect for the anti-gunners for being entrenched in their stupidity. They at least come by it honestly. Gun apologists suffer from an entirely different kind of intellectual bankruptcy.
I hope that's clear enough.
rifleman2000
04-26-10, 21:36
There you go getting all sore pussy over nothing. I wasn't lecturing you. You stated and implied some things, I responded to what you stated and inferred somethings. I see I got them wrong and obviously hurt your feelings. Point it out, don't pout. :cool:
I'm crying.
Paraclete comes
04-26-10, 22:39
I love it, so many pro gun right folks out here. Well said to the guys who say this is about freedom and more of a political act than one of tactical need although i understand the view.
thanks for all the input guys and all the thought that has gone into this thread. I do not have any hard feeling toward any of you, but sometimes when your passionate its hard not to get fired up. lol! well tak.e it easy guys
Everyone can be a threat. This doesn't mean I stop someone for speeding and screw a Glock into their ear. It does however mean that I use sound tactics and should a threat come to fruition I'm reasonably ready for it.
That's me on duty...and off duty. Any responsible gun owner that carries should be ready for a fight.
I have no issue with responsible persons open carrying. However, I don't agree with it at the same level as those of us that wear 5.11's and a polo everywhere...I prefer to be underestimated and not play my card prematurely.
WOW, just got back from work, I have read at leats 3 different replies of people acusing me of putting a gun on some ones head for no reason. please show me were I said this.
Another thing just because I treat everyone as if they were armed doesnt mean I treat every armed person as if they were a criminal? I think I would have been out of the job by now if that were true.
WOW, just got back from work, I have read at leats 3 different replies of people acusing me of putting a gun on some ones head for no reason. please show me were I said this.
Another thing just because I treat everyone as if they were armed doesnt mean I treat every armed person as if they were a criminal? I think I would have been out of the job by now if that were true.
I would hope so, but there are plenty of circumstances where officers abused citizens for years and their commands were aware of it.
I think PRGGodfather nailed the entire UOC thing in CA, well said sir. With that being said, and not to bust your balls, if you're called to a MWAG are you required to run the S/N and verify unloaded or is it up to your discretion? I realize that 12031(e) gives you the PC and authority to do so but is it mandatory as I've read stated by some? The way I read it, it's up to the officer's discretion although some would argue that point. Just curious and not picking a fight. :)
PRGGodfather
04-27-10, 11:58
Nope, checking it is not required. A violation of 12031 is a misdemeanor, and police officers have some discretion on misdemeanors. In other states, where loaded open carry is still legal, unless citizens report a problem, cops likely don't have the time to check everyone.
In my county, our DA gave local agencies directions that once UOC pistols are confirmed as unloaded, we should NOT check the serial number. We are instructed to respond to the call, confirm the weapon is unloaded, dust off the citizen and move on.
His legal interpretation is that once known to be unloaded, supposedly, there is really nothing else to cause us to believe a crime is being committed. Not sure I agree completely with that one, but it's his call. The DA has the authority to manage our investigative steps, since they are encumbered with prosecuting such violations.
The most reasonable thing to do, based on my recommendation, was to train our dispatchers on the issue; that some dudes having a macchiato or three while sporting some holstered guns should NOT be treated as a "man with a gun" call, but instead as "several men with holstered guns having coffee." Dispatchers were instructed to ask questions, so when some fool other than the coffee shop manager called with, "There are several armed men at Starbucks!" -- we would know if these armed men had holsters on and were just enjoying their Americanos, or sticking up the place.
Most crooks are NOT carrying their guns in holsters, and certainly not unloaded and open. They conceal their loaded weapons and don't want to attract attention.
The UOC folks in CA WANT attention, just like the Brady Bunch wants attention for THEIR agenda. That's why it makes the news in CA, and for the most part, OC in Arizona or Virginia, and other states don't even rate a blip.
Next, we trained our cops how not to end up on the 11 o'clock news by proning out some software engineer wearing a holstered gun with a patrol AR, while the citizen's friends (or his attorney) video the encounter with a ubiquitous i-Phone. Yes, I support UOC politically, but the UOC folks won't be suing MY agency for excessive and/or unreasonable force -- and hopefully, they won't get a photo opportunity, either. In fact, if we do our jobs properly, the UOC probably won't come back, since there is no news to be made. For their cause to get REAL news, a cop has to overreact!
See, this the REAL issue, not some intellectual Internet circle jerk about our perception of UOC.
If the media didn't poop themselves on such issues (if it bleeds, it leads), and the Brady Bunch were not so eager to have a sound bite so they could wring their hands on air, no one would really care -- because this IS NOT, and HAS NOT been a safety issue, tactical or otherwise.
The UOC movement folks have a specific agenda, and any professional LEO worth his or her salt would study the movement to address potential safety and liability issues, rather than throw overwrought emotional overreaction into the mix.
Instead, most of the noise I've read (even on pro-gun forums) is from pansy cops and strident pseudo-intellectuals who are overreacting to a concept that has NOT (and likely will NOT) manifest itself.
Parolees aren't UOCing. Gang bangers aren't UOCing. Just some stridently pro-gun middle class folks making a statement are "untactical" enough to UOC at Starbucks. If parolees and gang bangers start doing this, then cops can DO OUR JOBS and give these folks a room at the graybar hotel. Any REAL COP suggesting he or she cannot tell the difference between a man with a gun, and a CITIZEN UOC should be ashamed. I understand when "treehuggers and pussies" overreact, but COPS need to nut up already. UOC folks aren't nearly as dangerous as that gang-banger wearing FUBU with a chef's knife under his XXXL jacket (or that drunk roofer with the framing hammer) and you can't stop that punk for just wearing those clothes! UOC folks were kind enough to wear their tools openly!
I hope these UOC folks prevail. Cops who poop themselves or cry safety over this should be ashamed. Intellectual libertarians still riding the fence just to hear themselves talk or type are cowards, too.
These folks deserve our support, because the crybabies at the Brady Bunch ALREADY have the attention of this craven Chief and other "tree huggers and pussies."
Until WE pro-gun folks nut up and say, "I might not choose to do this myself, but I support their political position 100% and will vote accordingly," the anti-gun folks have already WON.
These folks essentially put their personal safety on the line for this political movement to restore OUR rights, and some of us want to impress others with our tactical acumen? Ninja, please!
It's not like they're asking US to UOC -- and we can't even commit to political support?
"No, that's stupid, because I'm a super stealthy ninja and anyone who wears 5.11 or camo in the city is a poseur, while I am the real deal, always covert and ready to take on the zombie apocalypse." Ninja, please.
These folks UOCing in CA have more stones than most of the armchair commandoes at their keyboards, and I don't really care how many training courses you have taken or certificates you have on the wall. These folks are putting their money where their mouths are, and GOOD ON THEM. They are actively participating in a political process the best way they know how, and that's a LOT more than folks with just an opinion will do.
In another context, these folks are actually fighting a political fight, and the naysayers want to disempower them while cowering in the gun vault.
Sometimes, it really is embarrassing to be an American gun owner and user of the Internet.
Still, I will defend your right to your own opinion, to the death even -- even if you are a moron.
rifleman2000
04-27-10, 12:07
WOW, just got back from work, I have read at leats 3 different replies of people acusing me of putting a gun on some ones head for no reason. please show me were I said this.
Another thing just because I treat everyone as if they were armed doesnt mean I treat every armed person as if they were a criminal? I think I would have been out of the job by now if that were true.
Ok, I'll show you. Here you explain that your reaction over a citizen open carrying (code word for citizen OC is "dummy") leads you to shoot said dummy over misunderstanding. Problem is, the misunderstanding is on you part... :):):)
In your own words:
I agree with the fact that it is an officer/citizen safety issue. Lets say "officer" comes across Mr. dumy who is excercising his right to open carry, sure he is following the law by maintining an unloaded firearm. The officer in the other hand has no way of confirming this until he makes physical contact with the weapon. Officer tells Mr dumy dont reach for your weapon, Mr dumy says "oh its not loaded" as he reaches for it, Officer does what every peace officer is trained from day one in the academy, draws down on Mr. dummy and yells drop the weapon, MR. dumy is stuborned because he knows hes done nothing wrong since his weapon is unloaded and refuses to drop it. Officer fears for his life nad assumes Mr. dummy is a threat to his life. Officer shoots Mr. dummy... well you all get the picture.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.