California outlaws open carry

[Atypical Liberal]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/10/gov-jerry-brown-makes-it-illegal-to-openly-carry-a-handgun-in-public.html

"Gov. Jerry Brown has outlawed the open carrying of handguns in public in California, targeting a practice that top law enforcement officials had denounced as dangerous.

L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck and L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca were among those who supported the prohibition on grounds that open toting of guns wastes officers’ time responding to calls about armed "suspects" and can lead accidentally to violent confrontation."

I have no problem with this law. Concealed Carry is the way to carry a firearm in public.

[Arctic Dave]

1. I see nothing wrong with this.

[slackmaster]

2. The only good that can come from this is the counties may be forced to loosen up on concealed carry

Other than that, no good will come of it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. what is going on in California?

first the pot, now the guns.

[DissedByBush]

5. The pot wasn't California

They've been doing well for supporting rights on that front.

It's the feds that want to continue prohibition.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. true.

[petronius]

14. He vetoed the industrial hemp bill at the same time - not the finest day for our gov

:(

It's true that the main opposition to hemp and marijuana freedom is federal, and we have a couple of RW-leaning DAs around the state who prefer to toe the federal line rather than state law, but the majority sense among Californians is toward legalization. It would have been nice to see Brown flip his positions on both these bills...

[DissedByBush]

28. Didn't know that one, sad n/t

[DissedByBush]

4. Good, make CA a shall-issue state

OTOH, when is the bar so low for a constitutional right that it can be infringed simply because it "wastes officers' time" and could possibly lead to a violent confrontation?

And since in this case the gun isn't loaded, the violent confrontation would be started by the police.

We've already seen how violently police can react just knowing a citizen who is being calm and following orders is armed.

Since when do we limit rights based on the fact we have jack-booted thugs who don't give a damn about rights in law enforcement?

[PavePusher]

10. Where are these "violent confrontations" in the states surrounding California?

I can roam the length and breadth of Arizona, Nevada and Oregon, open carrying the entire way, and have no problems. Why does California and it's power-brokers continue to lie and sell fear and hate?

[DissedByBush]

12. There was one video recently

The cop went ballistic and threatened to shoot the CCW holder.

The holder had tried to tell the cop he was carrying, but the cop repeatedly told him to shut up.

When the cop found out I thought he was going to shoot the guy for having the gall to concealed carry.

[PavePusher]

13. I believe that was an incident in Ohio....

and was about concealed carry.

And it's a demonstration of the need to choke-collar a small but dangerous segment of our police, not in any way a need to restrict carry by the Citizenry.

[DissedByBush]

18. Exactly my point

If it's dangerous in relation to law enforcement, it's because some law enforcement doesn't like people carrying and get itchy trigger fingers.

If this flies, then the government should be able to shut me up because it fears its reaction to what I might say.

[PavePusher]

19. Heh, got it, still caffeinating... Good point. n/t

[rrneck]

7. If they're going to legislate how people look

they need to get to work on baggy pants.

[ileus]

8. The most progressive form of gun ownership and now it's gone.

Sad day for our OC friends in Ca....but then again I don't think you could OC with a loaded firearm so it wasn't much of a right anyway.


CC is better for a skittish population of humans.

[PavePusher]

11. Actually, you could. California is/was one of the hubs of the open carry movement. n/t

[petronius]

15. Not loaded, I believe, but you could carry accessible ammunition (nt)

[PavePusher]

16. Yes, and thanks for the clarification, still getting caffeinated.

In incorporated areas, open carry was limited to unloaded only (no ammunition in or attached to firearm), but you could carry loaded magazines or speadloaders/moon-clips on your belt/pocket/etc.

In un-incorporated areas one could carry a loaded sidearm.

Silly, stupid laws that did nothing about reducing crime, but set Citizens up to inadvertently break the law when they missed an invisible political line across a street or field.

[PavePusher]

9. Please don't ever let me catch you with visible or recognizable books....

in a public setting. Keep that stuff decently hidden from the eyes of the easily stampeded masses.

Sounds fucking idiotic, doesn't it?

Apply your assertion to any other Constitutional Civil Right, and you sound like an enormous bigot, and the entire DU community would rightfully castigate you from here to Hell and back.

But no, you've decided to buy into the fear, buy into the lies, buy into the stereotyping, buy into the pressure groups who want to control the unwashed masses.

I urge you to buy out of the hype and buy into actual freedom and liberty, instead of the squalling ninnies eagerly following the dictates of the Mrs. Grundy's of the world.

It is instructional to note that every state that surrounds California, and most of their immediate neighbors, have no problems with open carry. What makes California so screwed up, that the people in power there so fear a Civil Right? That is the question that demands an answer, though I suspect it would lead straight back to the Mulford Act, fear and racism. Maybe it's time for them to step away from that fear and hate. That would be the Democratic, Progressive thing to do.

[Atypical Liberal]

21. Not many people are going to get into a panic about books.

I'm as pro-gun as they come. But I still agree with my martial arts instructor many years ago who said that you never show your weapon until and unless you are going to use it.

To do otherwise causes more problems than it solves.

Carry concealed. Problem solved.

[PavePusher]

22. Surely you have stats to back up this claim, amIrite?

After all, we must hold each other to the same standard we hold the pro-restrictionists...

[Atypical Liberal]

23. Which claim? n/t

[PavePusher]

39. "To do otherwise causes more problems than it solves." n/t

[mvccd1000]

38. That's a silly argument, IMO.

"Never show your weapon until and unless you're going to use it?" That's the same mentality as a police speed trap. You're not interested in deterrence, you're interested in an opportunity to use your weapon.

Personally, if I have to go make a night deposit in the bank or I'm stopping for gas after getting off of work at midnight, I'd rather any potential criminal see my holstered pistol and keep on looking for an easier target. Hey, maybe he'll pick you with your hidden firearm and you'll get that chance to use it. While you're busy filling out police reports or being booked, I'll be home in bed, having successfully avoided any confrontation at all.

[one-eyed fat man]

17. Catch-22?

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/will-judge-s-anti-concealed-carry-ruling-lead-to-catch-22-for-california-gun-own

"“A federal judge ruled Monday there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public..."

U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England’s legal reasoning?

California law currently lets gun owners carry an unloaded weapon so it can be quickly loaded and used in self-defense if needed.

Since the judge ruled that California's discriminatory "may issue" CCW policy did not substantially burden plaintiffs' right to bear and keep arms because they could still carry openly and unloaded...


Catch-22. See, it all depends on the meaning of the term “substantially burden.”

We hate guns!
We hate them here.
We hate them there.
Peons must not carry anywhere.

If you have an important life
Guards will be given for you and your wife
As is for us, who run the State
Just pay your taxes and accept your fate.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. I think this may open the door for "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry.

If a jurisdiction does not permit people to carry concealed, or they have onerous requirements, then that persons to keep AND BEAR arms may be infringed.

[jpak]

24. BacklashBacklash BacklashBacklash BacklashBacklash BacklashBacklash

:thumbsup:

yup

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. You're right - there will be backlash....

Just not the type you're thinking of.

Brown just screwed CA very solidly.

[jpak]

29. Nope - Brown stood up to thugs who flaunted guns - to piss people off

and they succeeded

too bad

yup

[We_Have_A_Problem]

30. ROFL!

That's funny really.

Brown has simply set the stage for a very embarrassing lawsuit the State of California has no hope of winning.

[Iktomiwicasa]

31. Presactly.

[krispos42]

36. Yeah!

Because you can only have rights if you don't flaunt them in people's faces!


Nice to see you supporting the New York and Boston PDs for cracking down on those people flaunting their "free speech" and "free assembly" rights in the faces of honest, decent people. In full view of the public, no less!

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. I can't wait to see the doubletalk when the OCers switch over to rifles and shotguns.

As they have already declared they will:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x467867

"When people I like get busted for doing something that's not illegal, it's wrong and in no way, shape, or form
anything like it is when people I don't like get busted."

Or more succintly, from Animal Farm: Some animals are more equal than others...

[Kennah]

25. I prefer concealed, but I have a problem with the law

First, California is NOT a right to carry state, and the discretion between counties varies more than a bit.

Second, there are times where I think open carry makes more sense, but by and large I carry concealed.

Third, even when carrying concealed, the idea that accidentally "exposing oneself" should be a crime is asinine.

[Logical]

27. I am ok with this if CC is available.

[spin]

32. I'm ok with this if "shall issue" concealed carry becomes the law in California ...

currently California has "may issue" concealed carry.

Concealed carry in the United States

***snip***

May-Issue

A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police). The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met. While an applicant must qualify for a permit by meeting criteria defined in state law, local jurisdictions in May-Issue states often have locally-defined requirements that an applicant must meet before a permit will be granted, such as providing adequate justification to the approval authority for needing a concealed carry permit (self-defense in and of itself may not be sufficient justification in some areas where justification is required). Issuing authorities in May-Issue states often charge arbitrarily-defined fees that go well beyond the basic processing fee for a CCW permit, thereby making the CCW permit unaffordable to most applicants. A state that is de jure a May-Issue jurisdiction may range anywhere from No-Issue to Shall-Issue in practice.<23><24>

The May-Issue category may be further broken down into Permissive May-Issue and Restrictive May-Issue jurisdictions, based on each licensing authority's willingness to issue permits to applicants. Alabama, Connecticut and Delaware are regarded as Permissive May-Issue states, while California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island are considered Restrictive May-Issue states.

***snip***

California gives wide latitude to the county authorities in issuing permits. In California, the usual issuance of the permits ranges from a No-Issue policy, such as San Francisco, to an almost Shall-Issue environment in rural areas. However, a permit to carry is generally valid statewide, although local ordinances may prohibit open or concealed carry with or without a permit in some jurisdictions, usually by circumventing state uniform firearms laws by restricting the possession, purchasing, and transporting of ammunition in such jurisdictions. This county map depicts places with the most permissive and restrictive CCW issuance policies.



A gun owner may apply for a concealed carry permit in a county outside of his or her residence if the applicant's place of business is located there. However to prevent residents of areas with restrictive issuing policies from obtaining permits from jurisdictions with more permissive rules, a business carry permit is only valid in the county where the permit was issued, and the jurisdiction issuing the permit must notify the applicant's home jurisdiction that he or she has a business carry permit in the jurisdiction where his or her workplace is located. For example, a resident of Yolo County (which is effectively No-Issue) with a place of business in nearby Yuba County (which is Shall-Issue in practice), can obtain a business carry permit in Yuba County. The permit is valid only in Yuba County, and the issuing authority in Yuba County must notify Yolo County that the person has been issued a business weapons carry permit in that county.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#May-Issue

The problem with "may issue" is that it can easily result in discrimination and political favoritism. Also the state ends up with a confusing patchwork of laws that apply to the legality of carrying a concealed firearm.

Prior to 1987, Florida was a "may issue" state but despite the predictions of a return to the Wild West with shootouts at every intersection and on main street at high noon, the conversion to "shall issue" has proven to be very successful.

[Logical]

33. I agree with you 100%/ n-t

[gejohnston]

34. what I find interesting is

Orange and San Diego Counties lean to the right, and chances of getting a CCW are closer to zero than San Mateo. In fact, Issa's district is in San Diego County.

[krispos42]

35. Right-wingers don't want to empower the masses.

The current political climate forces them to suck up to RW gun owners by supporting their fantasies of "taking on the government"... when the government is elected Dems.

Notice how the "Second Amendment Remedies" crowd was lulled to sleep during the tyranny of the Bush Administration?


But the RW would disarm them if it wouldn't threaten their ability to get elected.