Skip to comments.'Open carry' proponents forced the issue (California)
Posted on 06/04/2010 4:46:17 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
Supporters of the "open carry movement" are proving to be their own worst enemies. In their high-profile display of weaponry, they have led many Californians to question the sanity of a law that allows people to openly carry unloaded handguns in public places.
They certainly caught the attention of the California Assembly, which voted 46-30 this week for legislation by Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, to repeal the open carry law that has been on the books for four decades.
Saldaña introduced AB1934 after several dozen gun-packing demonstrators frightened beachgoers in San Diego last year. She regarded the flaunting of weaponry as an act of intimidation - and a tragedy waiting to happen.
She is not alone. In a Commonwealth Club panel discussion last week, Emeryville Police Chief Ken James described the many ways in which the open presence of guns makes the streets less safe. He explained how police officers are trained to regard the presence of handguns as a potential threat.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Does this mean that she wants to disarm the police. With all of the innocent victims that the police are gunning down it might not be a bad idea.
I know we have the “right” ... but it’s BLING. And stupid. Inflame these people and they’ll take the damn guns away from us ... and if you think they can’t right now, look at Socialized Medicine and CO2 limits, they couldn’t do that either could they? Yeah, I’m going to get a lot of “from my cold dead hands” comments on this one. I appreciate having my weapon on me at all times, but I don’t have to tell the world it is there. It begs for bad guys to take it from me and limits my ability to surprise a bad guy. Quit screwing around with the libs until we get some protection in congress, then make ANY kind of carry legal when the issue belongs to us. Right now, NOTHING belongs to us!
He explained how police officers are trained to regard the presence of handguns as a potential threat.
One answer to your question. Constantly thinking the world is out to GET you, is poor training, and will result in certain things happening that are at best undesirable in a society especially when only one side is sure to be armed.
They are correct. That IS an insane law.
I am in 100% agreement with Kalifornia changing this law. People need to be free to carry LOADED guns.
My question was mainly to point out the hypocrisy of Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego with her viewpoint that police should be armed while the rest of us should not.
My point precisely! That police are not the end all and be all of societal protection, they in many cases, are just the opposite and are well trained toward that end.
—this fiasco reminds me of two trite, perhaps , but old axioms—”discretion is the better part of valor” and the principle of “unintended consequences”-—
Supporters of the “Free Speech movement” are proving to be their own worst enemies. In their high-profile display of openly speaking, they have led many Californians to question the sanity of a law that allows people to openly speak in public places.
They certainly caught the attention of the California Assembly, which voted 46-30 this week for legislation by Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, to repeal the open speech law that has been on the books for four decades.
Saldaña introduced AB1934 after several dozen free speaking demonstrators frightened beachgoers in San Diego last year. She regarded the flaunting of open speech as an act of intimidation - and a tragedy waiting to happen.
She is not alone. In a Commonwealth Club panel discussion last week, Emeryville Police Chief Ken James described the many ways in which the open presence of speech makes the streets less safe. He explained how police officers are trained to regard the presence of talk as a potential threat.
Also, since the law allows a person to have a voice, the distinction between a speaker and non speaker is all but moot. A non speaker can speak within seconds, James pointed out - as was demonstrated in a video shown during the legislative testimony.
At least two factors are driving the open-speech movement in California. One is the frustration with the difficulty of obtaining a locally issued speech permit, particularly in urban areas. The other is the more fundamental belief that “a right unexercised is a right lost.”
Sam Paredes, executive director of the Open Speakers of California, attempted to make the case for open speech at the Commonwealth Club. But his argument separated from reality when he refused to concede that the visible presence of openly speaking on the streets posed a greater threat in more populated areas.
“America is America,” Paredes insisted, taking a near-absolutist view of the First Amendment.
In 1967, the California Legislature passed and a Republican governor named Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited openly speaking in public places. AB1934 is a sensible extension of this public-safety measure.
The Saldaña bill now goes to the Senate, which should send it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for his signature.
That would be profiling, and should inflame the lefties.
I would agree that walking around carrying an unloaded handgun, “just because you can” is moronic. It is in no way going to accomplish anything useful and is certain to cause the easily offended to become apoplectic.
If you really want to accomplish anything regarding freedom to enjoy your Constitutional rights, the method should involve replacing every politician that believes they have to pass laws to control everything they don't agree with.
The Second Amendment protects the right to BEAR arms as well as keep them. Maybe this display of civil rights was designed to demonstrate that constitutional reality or to force a court test.
You're absolutely right. That makes NO sense at all and does WAY more harm than good. What are you going to do with an unloaded handgun besides chuck it at someone?
You might as well carry a rock in a holster. It's cheaper and more effrective (the aerodynamics of a thrown handgun can't be all that great).
Carrying a handgun openly gives anyone who sees it the warning that you have it. Someone up to no good will take note, and if you are a hinderance to their plan they will take you out first. Why wouldn't they? And someone standing there with a unloaded handgun is going to be the worlds biggest (and possibly dead) loser in that situation.
Much better to have the advantage of surprise and the deadly force you can get from a concealed, loaded weapon. I think everyone who qualifies (felons and illegals need not apply) should take a CCW class and get their permit.
I'm trying to talk my wife into taking the class now. I told her I'll even take the class again if she doesn't want to go alone.
If you really want to accomplish anything regarding freedom to enjoy your Constitutional rights, the method should involve replacing every politician that believes they have to pass laws to control everything they don’t agree with.
I take issue with the individuals, and the mothers and fathers, who taught their children to become controlling individuals, believing they have to pass laws to control everything they don’t agree with.
On another subject, rolling back a certain change, er amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, would solve at least 50% if the problem to begin with.
But then putting Pandora back in her box would prove problematic at best, and will likely cause flame proof underwear and fire suit to be clothes du jour.
On another note, having just returned from a cross country road trip, if women vote the way they drive, all is lost. With apologies in advance to those who realize you are driving for yourself, AND all those within your area of influence, which includes those you do not, cannot, or refuse to see.
Men get no pass, in some cases, they are capable of being worse, just because they think they are men.
What good is the right to carry if you are so intimidated by the pressure of the media and the left that you never use it?
A right that is not exercised is a right that is lost.
Supporters of the “civil rights movement” are proving to be their own worst enemies. In their high-profile display of lunch-counter sit-ins and front of the bus disobedience, they have led many citizens to question the sanity of laws that allows people to be treated equally under the law, regardless of race.
It took eleven posts to get to that... on FreeRepublic.
It took eleven posts to get to that... [even] on FreeRepublic.I added the even C_O for a reason.
Even on FR we suffer from being Politically Cowed. The fear of being ridiculed for making a statement rarely heard is very strong. Timid souls wait for someone else to make the statement before they chime in. In some locales, the wait is forever, and the disarmers advance another step.
Iron Jack didn't wait for someone else to say it. He didn't wait for a bloc to form. It took him to say it before anyone could get behind it.
That's how blocs are formed people. Someone needs to be brave enough to state what they know we be greeted with jeers and worse from the usual suspects. You can't build a counter force until the others who think like you do know there are others willing to break the ice.
Someone needs to be brave enough to state what they know WILL be greeted with jeers and worse from the usual suspects.
So instead Californians want to tiptoe around in one of the worst gun law environments in the country hoping that next year, maybe, will be the year they don't try to pass half a dozen more restrictions on guns.
Perhaps finally bringing this situation to a head with a flagrant legislative violation of the Heller and McDonald decisions will prove to be good in the long run, and we can finally lance the boil.
I'm not intimidated, I carry every day almost everywhere I go. I just don't "flaunt it" like some gangbanger with a new silver keychain. Its not necessary. I have the gun, I have the right, I have the permit. But "blinging" it right now is STUPID ... these people are in a frenzy ... and they are doing things that have never happened before in this country. They took away my health care, perhaps my right to continue living (I'm 68) with their damned death panels. But I don't intend to bring it to their "attention" that I'm carrying ... they DO have the power to take that away too. I'd rather be silent and armed, than put it in their FACE. We'll get control soon, then things will be different but for now. Let them worry about Cap and Trade and I'll stay locked and loaded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.