Posted on 10/02/2010 5:18:24 AM PDT by marktwain
Though the guns that will be holstered to dozens of people at this weekend’s Hometown Fair won’t be loaded, the debate over the right to carry them has been.
Despite initial warnings from Hometown Fair Board members and the Manhattan Beach Police Department that people with firearms at the event would be arrested, volunteers of South Bay Open Carry (SBOC) made it clear that they will not leave their guns at home, citing their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
A quarrel over guns at the event began with the fair board threatening arrests.
“They are opening themselves up to a huge lawsuit,” Harley Green, founder of SBOC, said on Monday. “My hope is that by Oct. 2, they will have done their research and uphold the law. If they do arrest, they will be hit with major civil rights lawsuits. There are volunteers with attorneys lined up that will sue if they are so much as touched for legally open carrying.”
The 38-year-old fair, held near American Martyrs Catholic Church, is put on by a private non-profit group of 20 residents. The city contributed roughly $48,000 to this year’s event, which will feature several games geared towards children and young adults, giving special rise for concern among the fair’s board members.
Jeffrey Phillips and his son visit the South Bay Open Carry booth at this summer’s Fiesta Hermosa. “He came with a gun to protect himself and his child,” said Harley Green, founder of SBOC. Photo courtesy of South Bay Open Carry
“The [fair] board is keenly focused on keeping their privately-run event safe for all,” said Mayor Mitch Ward, who is the City Council’s fair liaison. “The board recognizes that guns and ammo around children and adults for that matter in public events presents serious concerns.”
In recent weeks, volunteers of SBOC have threatened litigation against the city, the fair’s board and the nearby American Martyrs School, after fair officials said they would not allow guns at the event.
“The Open Carry threats of a lawsuit have been successful,” said Police Chief Rod Uyeda, who met with fair coordinators Monday night to help craft a new policy which will allow unloaded guns at the event. “They burdened people who have put this event on for 20 years with this fear of a lawsuit. These poor people are scared.”
State law permits people to openly carry unloaded firearms in public places, subject to inspection by authorities. Ammunition can be carried separately but must not be loaded into the gun. State law restricts open carry within 1,000 feet of schools, according to the Gun-Free School Zone Act adopted in 1995.
Hermosa resident Green, 24, founded SBOC in June — shortly after he purchased his first gun — to encourage the exercise of the Constitution’s right to bear arms.
Over the summer, Green organized a trash-pickup in Hermosa Beach, during which volunteers openly carried. Strapped volunteers also set up a booth at the recent Fiesta Hermosa street fair, educating the public on their rights.
Green met with Hermosa officials prior to the events.
“A big part of what we do is educate police departments,” he said. “There’s nothing illegal about carrying firearms in California. I like to meet ahead of time for their convenience.”
South Bay Open Carry volunteers (l-r) Robert Schuffman, Adrienne Lemon Green, Edward Jaffe, (unidentified), Gene McCarthy and Sergio J. A. Sánchez wore their guns to the recent Fiesta Hermosa. Photo courtesy of South Bay Open Carry
“[Hermosa Beach Police Chief Greg] Savelli personally came out to make sure the booth was in the free speech area,” he added. “It was very positive. People enjoyed hearing about rights they didn’t know they have.”
On Aug. 31, Green met with the MBPD officials to alert them that SBOC planned on open carrying at the Hometown Fair. Green was provided with a map of open carry restricted areas, which did not include fair grounds.
Fair officials later told Green that private security would be instructed to arrest anyone carrying a gun, since the right to bear arms is restricted to public property.
“The fair tried to say they rented the property and that it would be considered private property for the time that the fair is there,” he said.
Green contends that the property is not private during the duration of the fair, because the Hometown Fair has not paid rent to the city and is required to uphold local, state and federal laws, according to its land use agreement.
Citing a court ruling after attendees at a garlic festival were asked to remove gang colors, City Attorney Robert Wadden said the Hometown Fair rules “would not give rise to a violation of civil rights.”
When Green contacted the MBPD again, he was provided with a new map that highlighted portions of the fair restricted to open carry, due to a 1,000-foot radius surrounding American Martyrs Church and School.
Green insists that the church — which would extend the restricted radius onto fair grounds — is not an educational facility and shouldn’t have been included on the map.
“It’s a political game with the law to keep us from the fair.” Green said.
Uyeda said that Green was told the first map was merely a draft drawn in an attempt to quickly begin working with SBOC. He also said that the church is considered a part of the school since American Martyrs students use it for worship.
On Sept. 24, SBOC sent a letter to the school demanding it clarify that the church is not used for educational purposes.
“It’s outrageous and preposterous for a group like this to dictate and define what is Catholic religious practice or education,” said Tod Tamberg, media relations director for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, of which American Martyrs is a parish. “Religious formation is an intricate part of Catholic education all across the world and in Manhattan Beach. Where kids are is where education is — if in our church, then that’s educational at that time.”
On Tuesday, Uyeda sent out a statement to SBOC regarding the fair’s new policy:
“While they will continue to ask all Fair goers not to bring weapons to the Fair…they have informed us that they will not seek to make any arrests for unloaded firearms being brought into the Fair in violation of their ‘no weapons’ request.”
In a statement this week, fair board president Maggie Movius continued to request that weapons not be brought to the fair.
Uyeda said that open carriers who cross over into the portion of fair grounds that lie within 1,000 feet of American Martyrs will be subject to arrest by MBPD. Additional private security will be hired by the MBPD for the event.
“I deeply respect their rights to bear firearms as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others or violate the law,” he said.
Uyeda also requests that no alcohol be consumed by armed individuals and that the group refrain from speaking to minors without parental consent.
SBOC volunteers will meet at Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, 321 Manhattan Beach Blvd. at 1 p.m. on Saturday before heading to the fair.
“I am not asking them to bend the law or give us any special priorities,” Green said. “We just want them to support the existing state, local and federal laws.”
L
All I'm saying is that I prefer Rosa Parks' approach instead, and it was far more effective. Why are you having such a hard time with that?
Rosa Parks exercised her rights in a public place on a public conveyance. These people in California are doing exactly the same thing. She exercised her right to sit wherever she damn well pleased on a public bus and dared the police to arrest her.
These people are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in a public place and daring the police to arrest them.
I don't see a dimes worth of difference between them.
No, they are not. Considering the several distinctions I've drawn already, to argue that they are exactly the same is plainly false. Rosa Parks needed to ride the bus and took the same bus she takes every day. She wasn't part of an organized demonstration of five to ten people boarding the bus at once.
Hence, she did that which any of us would normally do, she got on the bus and sat down on the first available seat. That is why her action was so much more effective than if it had been an organized demonstration, because most people would easily identify with what she did. Had ten people got on the bus in the first instance, the average third party reading about it would detect a belligerent purpose. That identification would then have been lost, regardless of how predisposed to be sympathetic the reader might be.
This is a political battle. Best that we act in the most effective manner. Building upon natural sympathies is a more intelligent and effective than group assertions. Better to stage the group effort in support of a "Rosa Parks" trial.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one I guess.
I bid you a pleasant evening.
L
But let us not lose sight of the fact that the good guys won this round.
As far as the law is concerned, of course. As far as politics from which laws, illegitimate or otherwise, develop, of course not.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one I guess.
Yup. It's a difference in tactics, not strategy.
I bid you a pleasant evening.
Thank you. You too.
LOL, I would see it as a victory legally, but a Pyrrhic victory politically. If five guys were there and one or two had weapons, it would have been perfect. The presence of mixed group helps communicate the "normalcy" of the circumstances leading to a LEO response that would then be perceived justifiably as disproportionate.
You do think tactically. I'm rather impressed.
I’m looking at getting out of CA myself.
I was born here almost 38 years ago and I love my state but not enough to ignore the obvious.
I want what both of us want, which is the freedom to possess the means to defend myself, my family, or my community for that matter. I want liberty. I can't stand the police model.
"Professionalized" law enforcement is too much power for the control freaks of this world and permits WAY too many operant constraints on procedure derived from the fevered imaginations of VERY expensive lawyers, judges, psychologists, prison guards, parole counselors... It takes the law out of the hands of the people and removes the constraints by which common sense and natural law would otherwise bind its construction. Fewer simpler laws are indeed better; let juries decide the gray areas.
The problem is, "How do we get there?" It is my belief that creating a culture that accepts bearing arms as commonplace and law enforcement as the responsibility of the people is the only truly effective means of getting "there." That takes public education, because let's face it, stupid people need control. Hence, unless our tactics appeal to their common sense by which to engage and educate them, our efforts will fail.
Accordingly, creating an artificial environment for the public to observe, in which the unarmed people among those carrying are comfortable and at ease, allows the observer to subtly take the cue from those unarmed people that those observably carrying are no threat. It would be even better if, within that group, those armed were little tiny women among those great big burly guys.
By contrast, let's examine the scenario above. Somebody gets uncomfortable with a group that is armed to the teeth, even if they are sitting there peaceably. They call the robocops because there are five big guys sitting there, with guns!!! In comes the SWAT unit (the union needs the overtime). Those five big guys with guns could argue the law all they want with the police, but all the observer will see is those five big guys cuffed and led away, leaving them to make the conclusion, "they must be bad people." In come the mediots, with an ax to grind. They'll find some communist law professor to pontificate an "expert" opinion. Even if the cops were sued, the people would read it in the papers, and think, "we'll just have to change that law; those people were clearly dangerous."
I just think that's a bad way to win a political war. However illegitimate and abhorrent such an infringement of individual civil rights may be, believe me, collective power is sufficient to inculcate and institute the means to violate them. Individual liberty truly is in the hands of the people as a whole, a social contract in which we all understand our individual stake in crushing the siren song of collective control. The only way that desire for collective control is instituted, is if the individual believes he or she NEEDS protection beyond his means as an individual (which is why we have a military). Hence, I am opposed to those political means which invoke that perception.
I'm out to win this war the easy way. Creating a way for the public to be comfortable with weapons around, to learn to feel comfortable to trust their fellow citizens to provide the common defense, THAT is the way to win. Getting into an unnecessary confrontation, is a waste of energy we cannot afford.
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.