Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open Carry On Its Way Out In California?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by opencarry View Post
    I do know some people OC just for the shock factor and try to get attention doing it, but a lot of OCers do it for just lawful self defense
    Okay, I can agree with that. So.... Let me ask you an honest question: When dispatch calls us to answer a call that there's a man (YOU) with a gun, how are we supposed to know which variety of individual you are?

    Understand that I'm not dogging anyone out for open carrying. I don't think I've ever said anything against open carrying, although I personally never choose to openly carry my weapon.

    On the one hand, someone stated that cops simply shouldn't bother checking on someone who is openly carrying a weapon, but if we are dispatched to a call, we MUST respond. There are many of the open carry crowd who all but salivate at the thought of a confrontation with law enforcement over their 2nd amendment rights.

    Officers sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution have no interest in trampling anyone's 2nd amendment rights, but if we are dispatched to a call of a man with a gun, we usually aren't told, "There's a man with a gun in a holster, buying a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, and a dozen eggs."

    The call comes across that there is a man with a gun. When we show up on the scene, we are responding to a potentially lethal threat, based on the abbreviated information that has been given us. So when officers respond, they aren't going to regard it as casually as a call for a barking dog or a party with loud music. See?

    When we make contact with YOU, you explain to us that you have the right to open carry. We see from your demeanor, that you're just out picking up some groceries. You aren't robbing the place, you aren't throwing a big tantrum. You're a mellow citizen who's going about their business.

    If you have a carry permit, (in the case of someone holding a permit and accidentally revealing their weapon, and we receive a call), then I'll call back and validate that permit. I have to do that, or else I am being derelict in my duties. It is standard procedure. Your permit comes back valid, I may admonish you to be more careful in concealing your weapon, and tell you to have a nice day.

    If you are open carrying, I may have to look up the statute that allows you to do so, and then see that the statute stipulates that your weapon being open carried may not be loaded. So I have to ask to check your weapon to ensure that it is not loaded, and that you are in compliance with the laws. Again, I have to do that, or else I am being derelict in my duties. I see that your weapon is not loaded, return it to you, you holster it, and I thank you for your time and cooperation, and I'm 10-8, back in service for the next call.

    No problem, right?

    Now, then:

    Same situation, and I answer a call for "man with a gun." I arrive on the scene, and there's this agitated man standing there with a visible firearm, growing red in the face and on a soap box about his rights, raising his voice, and doing what he can to cause a scene. I'm already a little nervous because as I said, I've only received abbreviated information about a man with a gun. As the fella' grows more agitated, my own tensions rise. I don't know if he's going to become angry enough to draw down on me, and I don't know if he's going to endanger my life, or the lives of other people in the grocery store.

    Things have taken an altogether less pleasant turn, with a lot of unknown variables, and my job and the requirements of my job, have suddenly become needlessly more difficult and complex.

    You see how the same situation can be very very different, based on the kind of person exercising their 2nd amendment rights, right? I think this is where the real rub comes in, and why many officers would prefer that the entire open carry "movement" just go away.

    The ordinary citizen is not the problem. Fanatics, no matter what right they're exercising or advocating for, are always a problem.
    Last edited by BCSD Frank; 06-05-2010, 04:35 PM.
    Sure, that badge will get you midgets, but those midgets will get that badge!

    The more I learn about people, the more I prefer the company of my dogs.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by avalon42 View Post
      You're right. PD or SO don't have time to waste on that sort of thing.

      I understand that SOME of the OCers are following the law, even contacting the PD to let them know that they going to be demonstrating (like Tustin). I understand that they are advocating for gun rights, and I can respect that (I am a gun nut myself) but they went about it the wrong way. Walking around Starbucks or a grocery store isn't the way to press the issue for CCWs.
      My suspicion is that the group needed some type of permit or wanted to inform the PD that they would be present at a specified location for a specific period advising their intentions. They could have put the PD at bay by OCing individually throughout the city, would this be conspiracy to attempt to open carry. I will agree some things are stupid and there may appear to be better methods, but....

      As long as they were assmbling in a lawful manner who is to say it was right or wrong their choice. I passed a picket line this past week and my first thought was how stupid of them. Those people make decent money with decent benny's, right. My second thought was good for them if they want to strike, I'm glad they have the right to do so.

      Funny thing, I'm far from being a gun nut the issue is about individuals rights, my opinion. I don't recall having seen or heard of a handgun charged with a homicide even in front of a grand jury.

      Comment


      • #63
        I think Frank pretty well covered this issue from the Officer's perspective, and at the end of the day, it's the Officer's perspective which will trump all the others. Far too many OC folks seem desireous of a confrontation with Law Enforcement. Such confrontations are totally needless, serve no legitimate purpose, and give the anti-gunners more amuunition with which to legally deny what is a basic right. But, here comes the caution once more. With every right comes an equal responsibility. One can't exist without the other. I can't add to Frank's excellent representation of an Officer's responsibilities in regard to a "man with a gun" call. The sooner some of the Open Carry advocates understand this perspective, the sooner we can present a united, responsible front to the anti-gun crowd. BTW, this "crowd" is totally united in it's efforts to deprive law abiding citizens of the basic right to armed self defense. We need to be equally united in it's defense. We do anything less, and we lose.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by avalon42 View Post
          This is my thoughts on why politicians are getting rid of OC in CA.

          1) Law enforcement diverted to deal with call of a "man with a gun" versus responding to a different call or doing some pro-active work. Takes time to 97, legally detain to verify that it is an OC and the weapon is clear, give it back, and then hop back in the car and off to the other calls. Times that by how many units have to respond for cover when they get a "man with a gun call". That's 2-4 officers down from calls.
          So why is it not an issue in many other states? Why waste time with it at all? Educate the people that others are exerciseing a Civil Right, and no concern is warrented unless the individual is actually breaking a law or directly threatening others.

          P.S. Thank you for your civil response.

          Comment


          • #65
            Pave Pusher, ALL the responses you've been given thus far have been civil in tone. Perhaps a reply which challenges you to back up your assertions is not civil in your lexicon, but if that's the case with you, it's also your problem.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by BCSD Frank View Post
              Okay, I can agree with that. So.... Let me ask you an honest question: When dispatch calls us to answer a call that there's a man (YOU) with a gun, how are we supposed to know which variety of individual you are?

              Understand that I'm not dogging anyone out for open carrying. I don't think I've ever said anything against open carrying, although I personally never choose to openly carry my weapon.

              On the one hand, someone stated that cops simply shouldn't bother checking on someone who is openly carrying a weapon, but if we are dispatched to a call, we MUST respond. There are many of the open carry crowd who all but salivate at the thought of a confrontation with law enforcement over their 2nd amendment rights.

              Officers sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution have no interest in trampling anyone's 2nd amendment rights, but if we are dispatched to a call of a man with a gun, we usually aren't told, "There's a man with a gun in a holster, buying a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, and a dozen eggs."

              The call comes across that there is a man with a gun. When we show up on the scene, we are responding to a potentially lethal threat, based on the abbreviated information that has been given us. So when officers respond, they aren't going to regard it as casually as a call for a barking dog or a party with loud music. See?

              When we make contact with YOU, you explain to us that you have the right to open carry. We see from your demeanor, that you're just out picking up some groceries. You aren't robbing the place, you aren't throwing a big tantrum. You're a mellow citizen who's going about their business.

              If you have a carry permit, (in the case of someone holding a permit and accidentally revealing their weapon, and we receive a call), then I'll call back and validate that permit. I have to do that, or else I am being derelict in my duties. It is standard procedure. Your permit comes back valid, I may admonish you to be more careful in concealing your weapon, and tell you to have a nice day.

              If you are open carrying, I may have to look up the statute that allows you to do so, and then see that the statute stipulates that your weapon being open carried may not be loaded. So I have to ask to check your weapon to ensure that it is not loaded, and that you are in compliance with the laws. Again, I have to do that, or else I am being derelict in my duties. I see that your weapon is not loaded, return it to you, you holster it, and I thank you for your time and cooperation, and I'm 10-8, back in service for the next call.

              No problem, right?

              Now, then:

              Same situation, and I answer a call for "man with a gun." I arrive on the scene, and there's this agitated man standing there with a visible firearm, growing red in the face and on a soap box about his rights, raising his voice, and doing what he can to cause a scene. I'm already a little nervous because as I said, I've only received abbreviated information about a man with a gun. As the fella' grows more agitated, my own tensions rise. I don't know if he's going to become angry enough to draw down on me, and I don't know if he's going to endanger my life, or the lives of other people in the grocery store.

              Things have taken an altogether less pleasant turn, with a lot of unknown variables, and my job and the requirements of my job, have suddenly become needlessly more difficult and complex.

              You see how the same situation can be very very different, based on the kind of person exercising their 2nd amendment rights, right? I think this is where the real rub comes in, and why many officers would prefer that the entire open carry "movement" just go away.

              The ordinary citizen is not the problem. Fanatics, no matter what right they're exercising or advocating for, are always a problem.
              Could you not, much of the time, simply observe the individuals behavior and then make a determination? Better yet, train call-center/dispatch personnel to gather additional info? "Ma'am/Sir, what is the person doing?.... Buying a coffee and a newspaper is perfectly legal, Ma'am... Sir, is the person yelling or making threats?... No?... Buying a pair of jeans?... That's legal too, Sir..."

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by PhilipCal View Post
                Pave Pusher, ALL the responses you've been given thus far have been civil in tone. Perhaps a reply which challenges you to back up your assertions is not civil in your lexicon, but if that's the case with you, it's also your problem.
                Actually, a few were not, you might notice I was called a troll and something about sexual ejecta.

                No matter, I'm just trying to get the police perspective on why the California government seems to think this is neccesary when it is generally a non-event in so many other states. I'm not trying to make anyone upset and I apologize if anyone is taking it that way. I'm not sure how to better ask the question.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by PavePusher View Post
                  No matter, I'm just trying to get the police perspective on why the California government seems to think this is neccesary when it is generally a non-event in so many other states.
                  Because most governments in California are filled with leftover hippies and peaceniks who, if given the chance, would even cripple the authority of local police in an effort to create their utopian commune. Cali is a prime example of a nanny state and a further example that big government in fact does NOT work as they'd lead you to believe.
                  NRA Life Member

                  The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

                  Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    B.S. You don't want a police perspective, that's simply crap. You've already posted your totally uninformed, incorrect reply to Frank's post on police response. Here's the difference. Frank is a serving Police Officer, and a respected member of this forum. You, on the other hand, are a totally uninformed, as in ignorant troll. In my assessment of you as a troll,(which I stand by) no mention was made by me of sexual ejecta. In fact, it's very possible for one or more of us to tell you are a troll, and to do so in a perfectly civil manner. You might also review Sgt Slaughter's reply to you. He offers a very cogent explanation of California's current problems. Unfortunately, that is a problem which is not limited to California. Now, finally Mr. PavePusher, Sir, when you've aquired Frank's level of experience and skill in our profession, you can come back and lecture us on how YOU'D handle the call he referenced. In the meantime, your opinions to which you're entitled, have no real weight here. Let me put that another way. The Constitution gives you the right to an opinion, and the companion right of expressing it. What the Constitution does not require, is that You know what you're talking about, and be assured, you don't.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by BCSD Frank View Post
                      Okay, I can agree with that. So.... Let me ask you an honest question: When dispatch calls us to answer a call that there's a man (YOU) with a gun, how are we supposed to know which variety of individual you are?

                      Understand that I'm not dogging anyone out for open carrying. I don't think I've ever said anything against open carrying, although I personally never choose to openly carry my weapon.

                      On the one hand, someone stated that cops simply shouldn't bother checking on someone who is openly carrying a weapon, but if we are dispatched to a call, we MUST respond. There are many of the open carry crowd who all but salivate at the thought of a confrontation with law enforcement over their 2nd amendment rights.

                      Officers sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution have no interest in trampling anyone's 2nd amendment rights, but if we are dispatched to a call of a man with a gun, we usually aren't told, "There's a man with a gun in a holster, buying a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, and a dozen eggs."

                      The call comes across that there is a man with a gun. When we show up on the scene, we are responding to a potentially lethal threat, based on the abbreviated information that has been given us. So when officers respond, they aren't going to regard it as casually as a call for a barking dog or a party with loud music. See?

                      When we make contact with YOU, you explain to us that you have the right to open carry. We see from your demeanor, that you're just out picking up some groceries. You aren't robbing the place, you aren't throwing a big tantrum. You're a mellow citizen who's going about their business.

                      If you have a carry permit, (in the case of someone holding a permit and accidentally revealing their weapon, and we receive a call), then I'll call back and validate that permit. I have to do that, or else I am being derelict in my duties. It is standard procedure. Your permit comes back valid, I may admonish you to be more careful in concealing your weapon, and tell you to have a nice day.

                      If you are open carrying, I may have to look up the statute that allows you to do so, and then see that the statute stipulates that your weapon being open carried may not be loaded. So I have to ask to check your weapon to ensure that it is not loaded, and that you are in compliance with the laws. Again, I have to do that, or else I am being derelict in my duties. I see that your weapon is not loaded, return it to you, you holster it, and I thank you for your time and cooperation, and I'm 10-8, back in service for the next call.

                      No problem, right?

                      Now, then:

                      Same situation, and I answer a call for "man with a gun." I arrive on the scene, and there's this agitated man standing there with a visible firearm, growing red in the face and on a soap box about his rights, raising his voice, and doing what he can to cause a scene. I'm already a little nervous because as I said, I've only received abbreviated information about a man with a gun. As the fella' grows more agitated, my own tensions rise. I don't know if he's going to become angry enough to draw down on me, and I don't know if he's going to endanger my life, or the lives of other people in the grocery store.

                      Things have taken an altogether less pleasant turn, with a lot of unknown variables, and my job and the requirements of my job, have suddenly become needlessly more difficult and complex.

                      You see how the same situation can be very very different, based on the kind of person exercising their 2nd amendment rights, right? I think this is where the real rub comes in, and why many officers would prefer that the entire open carry "movement" just go away.

                      The ordinary citizen is not the problem. Fanatics, no matter what right they're exercising or advocating for, are always a problem.
                      In some states a permit is required and in some, such as mine it is not. Where required I do not see a problem with it being validated at all. Ok.. well I think the best way I can respond is to say that in a lot of cases ( at least in michigan) officers are given the proper information and dispatch often gathers it. In most cases where there is a confrontation with a LEO it is very common for people to FOIA the entire thing so we have heard the information given in a lot of cases. In some cases the specific information has been -- there is a man walking down the street with a gun in a holster and I was wondering if that was legal or not - The response to that particular call was a officer pulling up and having his gun drawn and aimed at the OCer before he even exited his car. And I will say for every negative encounter in Michigan that we have there are a hundred more that are not negative, but it is the negative ones I think that keep a lot of us from being "compliant" so to speak during a encounter. There have been some cities here where the same officer has stopped the same person 3-5 times for open carrying, having known from the previous encounters that the person was clean... but they continued to stop and detain them to try to deter them from open carrying. Seeing a lot of these encounters makes a lot of people nervous when dealing with the police. Some of the FOIA information has allowed people to listen in to officers standing at their patrol car behind a OCers car they have stopped discussing how to "trip them up", what questions to ask to try to "get them". These things all add up to us the same as the idiot OCer that is walking around with a AK47 adds up to you.

                      I know not being a OCer it is hard to understand at times the demeanor that some OCers take but I will try to sum up some food for thought. If we travel back in time 2-3 years open carriers were harassed a lot more, detained and even arrested. It was over that period of time that more and more people started learning their rights AND exercising them, in some cases this meant lawsuits. Now coming back to present day the problems that OCers have are not a fraction of what they were back then, exercising our rights has really quelled a lot of behavior that was uncalled for in a lot of cases. When dealing with the police it is not a issue of the 2nd amendment that people fight against , it is a issue of the 4th. I can tell you personally why I started open carrying and it was about exercising my rights. I first learned about OC when I took my CPL class, they had officers in to handle the law section of the license to conceal carry and they were the ones to bring it up. During this being brought up people started asking questions about OC ( most did not know it was legal ), the officers made no bones about the fact that no one should do it because they WILL be harassed. I asked how someone can be harassed for engaging in legal behavior and they said that the street was their ground and they would arrest people for it.. I will be frank that that did not sit well with me one bit, I am a citizen of this country and having officers say we should not do something legal for fear of harassment from them was unacceptable to me. After the class I started researching OC a bit more and started learning of the unlawful detentions ect ( people were just starting to carry recorders then) and I decided that I would OC and exercise my rights to do so until this changed. After a while I did see that this was the minority of officers and I was OCing here and there to exercise my rights but I was not on the same soap box I was right after the class.

                      Now a days I rarely OC, it is not the problem on the streets it was back then and most of the time I prefer to CC. The only time I OC is if what I wear just makes it more practical or if I am going to a pistol free zone, OC to me is just another option I have not a lifestyle. I will also add that during this and that time period I never attended a OC gathering, I never passed out literature and never joined OCDO the reason is most on OCDO seemed and still do to me to be heavily anti-leo. I know a lot of you on here think that I am and the truth is I am not, I am 100% pro-my rights and will vigiorously defend them with every legal avenue I have at my disposal if needed and I will seek out for anyone whom violates anothers rights to be held fully accountable. I also believe that 99% of LEO's do a fantastic job and during the last few years during interactions with them I never felt the need to file a lawsuit and there were only a couple of occasions where I even made a phone call to a superior to straighten out a issue and never filed a formal complaint. I know for a lot of people during the last few years this was a learning experience and it took some adjustment. I have financially supported a lot of projects in the surrounding communities and have donated regularly to local police associations and will continue to do so in the future, but I do know there are some that try to enforce their opinion instead of the law and I would also support actions against the minority that fall into that category with the same vigilance and means I have supported the ones that do so much for us.

                      Now a question for you, if you get a call that someone is doing something legal why do you have to check it out? If the call says - someone is walking their dogs with a gun holstered on their hip -why respond? I am not trying to be a smartass here but I hear a lot of times people say we have to respond, what if I called and reported someone was playing baseball, or golf, would those calls be checked? How do you know what kind of person anyone on the street is, but we know you cannot check everyone. People are assaulted with bats and golf clubs to... and again, I know this question sounds smart but it is serious, I am not sure how to word it in a way it wouldn't smell like F**K you but please take it as a serious question.

                      Stay safe

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by opencarry View Post
                        Now a question for you, if you get a call that someone is doing something legal why do you have to check it out? If the call says - someone is walking their dogs with a gun holstered on their hip -why respond? I am not trying to be a smartass here but I hear a lot of times people say we have to respond, what if I called and reported someone was playing baseball, or golf, would those calls be checked? How do you know what kind of person anyone on the street is, but we know you cannot check everyone. People are assaulted with bats and golf clubs to... and again, I know this question sounds smart but it is serious, I am not sure how to word it in a way it wouldn't smell like F**K you but please take it as a serious question.

                        Stay safe
                        I understand what you're asking, and it makes logical sense, and yes, maybe dispatchers could/should be trained to gather more information about the situation. Sometimes, more information is available, and that's always a good thing, but it's not a perfect world, and most of the time, the calls come over with a bare minimum of information, so yes, we have to check it out and verify that things are okay.

                        Let's go a different route: Call comes over, "Man with a gun." The police yawn and say, "ho-hum; just another citizen exercising his right to open carry." Meanwhile, this person is on his way to a guy's house down the street, because he's convinced the guy has been sleeping with his wife, and he's going to put a ballistic end to things. Guess who gets sued for not responding? Guess who's liable? Guess who's excoriated and crucified in the press? Guess who gets fired or personally sued for being the officer that didn't respond?

                        It takes five minutes, and it's usually a very civil and pleasant exchange. You go on your way with your weapon, the officers go on their way, satisfied that you aren't some nut-job who's getting ready to kill someone or hold up the supermarket, and everybody's happy.

                        It's not a perfect world and it's not a perfect solution, but in a very human, very flawed society, it's really about the only practical solution there is, as far as I can tell...
                        Sure, that badge will get you midgets, but those midgets will get that badge!

                        The more I learn about people, the more I prefer the company of my dogs.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by BCSD Frank View Post
                          I understand what you're asking, and it makes logical sense, and yes, maybe dispatchers could/should be trained to gather more information about the situation. Sometimes, more information is available, and that's always a good thing, but it's not a perfect world, and most of the time, the calls come over with a bare minimum of information, so yes, we have to check it out and verify that things are okay.

                          Let's go a different route: Call comes over, "Man with a gun." The police yawn and say, "ho-hum; just another citizen exercising his right to open carry." Meanwhile, this person is on his way to a guy's house down the street, because he's convinced the guy has been sleeping with his wife, and he's going to put a ballistic end to things. Guess who gets sued for not responding? Guess who's liable? Guess who's excoriated and crucified in the press? Guess who gets fired or personally sued for being the officer that didn't respond?

                          It takes five minutes, and it's usually a very civil and pleasant exchange. You go on your way with your weapon, the officers go on their way, satisfied that you aren't some nut-job who's getting ready to kill someone or hold up the supermarket, and everybody's happy.

                          It's not a perfect world and it's not a perfect solution, but in a very human, very flawed society, it's really about the only practical solution there is, as far as I can tell...
                          The bold part is the part I would really like to see. No one wants to see you guys spread out to thin, I don't wanna have to call a crackhead if something goes wrong And I see your point also and I do not completely disagree, the manner in which I am approached dictates how I respond and again, in Michigan this is not to much of a issue anymore anyhow

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Well, I can't speak for other officers, but if I were dispatched to a "man with a gun" call, I'm going to be cautious, civil, keep a calm tone of voice, and do my best to de-escalate things before they turn into a real crisis. Then again, that's just part of my personal make-up and approach to most situations. Alert but relaxed... (until things go sour, and then it's time for all that nice and mellow crap to go straight out the window.)

                            Most officers deal with buttholes every single day/night. On a traffic stop, people who act like buttholes. Serving warrants, more buttholes. Questioning people about some incident that's gone down, more buttholes. If I approach someone and they are courteous, calm, and reasonable, then I tend to be courteous, calm, and reasonable. If I approach someone and they insist on being a butthole, then I generally do my best to be professional and courteous, but if they insist, then most officers, myself included, tend to buttholes in kind.
                            Last edited by BCSD Frank; 06-05-2010, 09:12 PM.
                            Sure, that badge will get you midgets, but those midgets will get that badge!

                            The more I learn about people, the more I prefer the company of my dogs.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by PavePusher View Post
                              No matter, I'm just trying to get the police perspective on why the California government seems to think this is neccesary when it is generally a non-event in so many other states.
                              No you didn't You came here to pick a fight. First, you come here and pose questions that assume facts not in evidence and limit us to either/or answers that only pit us against each other:

                              Originally posted by PavePusher View Post
                              1. Are California Citizens that untrustworthy versus their comrades in other States?

                              2. Are police in California that improperly/badly trained? Or are their comrades in the other States too lacksidasical?

                              3. What is wrong with politicians (both legislatural and Sheriffs) in California, that they must fear the Citizens so much?
                              Next, you try bait us by alleging nefarious motives on the part of the politicians behind the proposed legislation and suck us into an argument.

                              Originally posted by PavePusher View Post
                              Why do the politicians so distrust the Citizens to bear arms, and so distrust the Police to act correctly to the visible exercise of a Civil Right?
                              When you get called on that, you try to soften it by asking us to explain the position of the politicians offering the legislation, as if we somehow speak on their behalf. Again, you are trying to suck us into an argument.

                              Originally posted by PavePusher View Post
                              I'm just trying to get the police perspective on why the California government seems to think this is neccesary when it is generally a non-event in so many other states.
                              No matter how you sugarcoat it, you are trying to start an argument and you Sir, are a troll. However, if it is will expedite your departure from this forum, I will point you in the direction of the information you seek.

                              Go to http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pageq...ll+Information type in AB1934 and read the entries under the Analyses section. You will find the legislative reasoning behind this bill, both pro and con. Pay special attention to the statements by those who oppose the bill. For some bizarre reason they equate their open carry rights with the right to espouse communist or nazi or racist beliefs in the public square. They say as long as someone is not breaking the law by exercising hate-filled beliefs into actual subversion of the country, their rights of free speech, no matter how detestable, are protected even if it makes some people uncomfortable. You'll find it in the 4/19 and 5/12 entries. Somehow, I think they could have picked a better argument in support of their cause.

                              If you wish to argue the merits of this bill, take it up with the California Legislature and not the members of this forum, the majority of whom are not from California and have no standing in the affairs of that state.
                              Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Chief Wiggum View Post
                                This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

                                Name one true advantage of OC over CCW.
                                I would think that, being a cop, you might be in a better position to answer this question. Why don't patrol officers carry concealed? There has to be a reason, there being no advantage to OC and all...

                                Originally posted by BCSD Frank View Post
                                All the really great stuff Frank said
                                Wow. Very well done post, sir. I only had one issue...
                                The ordinary citizen is not the problem. Fanatics, no matter what right they're exercising or advocating for, are always a problem.
                                When did we make the transition from the Open Carry people to fanatics? Or are you saying the Open Carry people are fanatics? That is an interesting assertion.
                                Originally posted by opencarry View Post
                                All the really great stuff opencarry said (in this post, the others I have no opinion on yet)
                                Nice post. Are the Open Carry guys really that anti-cop? I wonder if a lot of them have had experiences like you mentioned above. Maybe the real problem is that the Open Carry guys tend to attract all the bad cops, and the good cops tend to attract all the nutjobs.

                                Maybe the majority of cops, and the majority of gun people, are really nice guys who just don't get much chance to get to know each other.

                                Originally posted by BCSD Frank View Post
                                Let's go a different route: Call comes over, "Man with a gun." The police yawn and say, "ho-hum; just another citizen exercising his right to open carry." Meanwhile, this person is on his way to a guy's house down the street, because he's convinced the guy has been sleeping with his wife, and he's going to put a ballistic end to things. Guess who gets sued for not responding? Guess who's liable? Guess who's excoriated and crucified in the press? Guess who gets fired or personally sued for being the officer that didn't respond?
                                If it helps, the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the police didn't have a duty to protect a woman who had a protective order against her husband/boyfriend/whatever-he-was (a protective order from Colorado which had a mandatory arrest clause). That being the case, you probably aren't likely to be held personally liable. IANAL, though.

                                That reminds me! A very heartfelt thanks to all LEOs who protect and serve, especially knowing that they have no legal duty to do so.

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 8170 users online. 276 members and 7894 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X