CA police chief call for open carry ban

[PRGGodfather]

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.

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.

[ZDL]

*******

[rifleman2000]

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.

I'm crying.

[Paraclete comes]

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

[OTO27]

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.

[glocktogo]

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.

[Irish]

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]

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]

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.