Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: A few questions about carrying

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Hello,


    I have a few questions about open carry as well as CCW:


    1. Would not open carry using the current "legal" method be much more dangerous than open carry with a loaded mag in the gun? Seriously, all it takes is for a couple of core thugs so look at your gun as you walk past them and before you know it you feel a knife pressing into your side and hear a voice next to your ear telling you to pull your gun out and hand it over. This is aside from the additional fact that lets say you are present during a bank robbery, guess who is the first to get shot... that is right you are! Or lets say they do not notice your sidearm, by some miracle... do you think they will not hear your clip sliding in and and the the gun racking a case into the chamber? [BTW, are there any such know cases, of open carry folks being robbed/jacked of their unloaded weapons in public?]

    I can understand not keeping a round in the chamber, that makes sense to me (it reduces the chances of accidental firing by a large percentage), but not to keep a mag in the gun, that is not only ludicrous, but it is dangerous! It exposes you to great risk. [personally I plan on keeping an empty clip in the gun, but still that is lame!]

    2. Carrying CCW, do you still need to keep the gun empty?

    3. Carrying CCW, when in some form of transportation, be it a car, horse, plane, or motorcycle, do you have to put your gun in a "lock box", then when getting out, you get to but it back on after you arrive at your destination.

    4. If somebody attempts to grab your unloaded firearm is it (still) legally justified to stick a knife into their throat or chest, (or is the tummy or arm more appropriate or should you just let them take your gun at suck it up as a loss and hope some form of insurance will cover the loss of your personal property)?

    5. Does anybody else notice that the only places you are not permitted to carry (regardless if open or CCW) are also where the most violent gun related crimes have occurred, (this is of course assuming you cannot CCW at the places you cant open carry at[?]).

    6. Isn't the federal government suppose to protect the peoples rights? By this I mean they have implemented laws that protect ones sexual preference, religion, color, age, etc., because that is their rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, right? This is regardless if they employer is public or private, right? But when it comes to carrying a firearm, which is specifically addressed in the II Amendment, they begin to act retarded, [... the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!]. Though their excuse is private employers can do as they wish (just as long is it does not have to do with sexual preference, religion, color, age, etc., right?)! In other words, should there not be a law telling private employers that if a customer comes in with a firearm, they can't refuse service or if an employee turns in an application armed with a firearm they have to treat them as any other potential employee?

    7. It is not illegal to carry and use handcuffs in accordance with your rights to citizens arrest under PC837, correct?

    OK, that is all I can think of for now, TIA.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Lets see now, chambered round....
    0% chance of discharge without pulling the trigger,
    no round in chamber
    0% chance of discharge without pulling the trigger.

    Looks like the same odds to me.


    If you use an empty mag, I would suggest loading it with dummy rounds,
    the extra mass will assist in ejecting the worthless mag so you can load
    a good one.
    But I would keep mag in the gun to keep the dirt and grime out of it.


    #1: Simple answer, move to a place that allows loaded guns.:celebrate:celebrate


    #4: Well if he announces that he has no ammo for the gun, and I believe him
    then I might only wing him. I don't expect this ever to be a realistic incident.

    If bad guy has your gun, then leathal force is mandated.
    Remember the Brady campaigns, people are killed by their own guns.



    #5: Oh yes we notice, hence the students for CC groups, and removal
    of restrictions on everything else.


    #6: Guess you skipped government school. They are not going to read
    anything that doesn't say they can get away with mistreating
    the subjects.


    #7: Dead guys don't need handcuffs.





  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Heh, I was just thinking of the dummy round idea. I was wondering if that was illegal to do or not. That would be good because, worst case is you scare the crap out of them to buy some time to drop the clip and load a live clip. Perhaps put in two dummy rounds with one in the pipe, fire, fire, gun is empty and slides back, drop the clip, slide in the clip and rack it, you are ready for a live fire scenario. So actually that might cut down your loading time because you will not have to rack it and as well you have got yourself some (safe) cover fire. So long as using dummy rounds are legal that is.

    Also I another question I had was is, are inside the pants holsters illegal for open carry? I was thinking they might afford a bit more protection than paddle or exterior belt holsters.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    105

    Post imported post

    Weston White wrote:
    Heh, I was just thinking of the dummy round idea. I was wondering if that was illegal to do or not. That would be good because, worst case is you scare the crap out of them to buy some time to drop the clip and load a live clip. Perhaps put in two dummy rounds with one in the pipe, fire, fire, gun is empty and slides back, drop the clip, slide in the clip and rack it, you are ready for a live fire scenario. So actually that might cut down your loading time because you will not have to rack it and as well you have got yourself some (safe) cover fire. So long as using dummy rounds are legal that is.

    Also I another question I had was is, are inside the pants holsters illegal for open carry? I was thinking they might afford a bit more protection than paddle or exterior belt holsters.


    Not sure about dummy rounds but I believe they don't have enough power to kick the slide back. Someone else said something about that on a previous forum, not sure where. I've never used blanks so I couldn't say from personal experience.

    Inside the waistband holsters aren't spelled out as illegal, however if I were you I would refrain from using one for OC at least for the time being. It's possible a cop might say you gun was concealed. I don't believe there's any kind of precedent in CA for IWB holsters, I don't know of anybody that has carried with one. The law spells out:

    (f) Firearms
    carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.

    Now, this is only an example, but could be misconstrued by an otherwise well-meaning law enforcement officer as a limitation. I've asked around on the forums about open shoulder holsters, and I've gotten mostly the same response: they're legal, but it's risky ground. So your best bet is probably to stick to an outside the waistband belt holster.

    And I agree with you, the government has done everything they can to restrict our 2nd amendment freedoms. It's a load of crap.

    Good luck, and God bless.





  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    I would be worried about a 'blank' in the chamber, they do fire a primer, and powder,.
    and the judges out there could hang you since it did "FIRE".
    No I was thinking empty non-primed just in the mag so you have more weight
    to help drop the thing out in a hurry.
    Plus when you do move to a normal state, or finally get common sense in yours,
    you will already have yourself carrying and drawing the correct weighted weapon.

    If you drill a whole through the grip to allow a "safety pin" to keep the bullets
    down so they can't be chambered. Sort of like a grenades
    Would pulling this pin be counted as one of the "Steps away from fire"?
    You could tie it to the holster so it pulls out on the draw.


  6. #6
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    1. Would not open carry using the current "legal" method be much moredangerous than open carry with a loaded mag in the gun?

    Possibly, but we don't have the legal option of open carry loaded in a incorporated cities.

    Seriously, all it takes is for a couple of core thugs so look at your gun as you walk past them and before you know it you feel a knife pressing into your side and hear a voice next to your ear telling you to pull your gun out and hand it over.

    This is a case of situational awareness. If you are so oblivious to your surroundings that you would walk past a couple of thugs without being in condition orange, then you are just not looking out for yourself.

    This is aside from the additional fact that lets say you are present during a bank robbery, guess who is the first to get shot... that is right you are! Or lets say they do not notice your sidearm, by some miracle... do you think they will not hear your clip sliding in and and the the gun racking a case into the chamber?

    This is an old arguement. This has been stated many times, yet NOBODY can show one single documented case where it has actually happened.

    [BTW, are there any such know cases, of open carry folks being robbed/jacked of their unloaded weapons in public?]

    Don't know of any in California, which is the only Statewere you have to carry completely unloaded.

    I can understand not keeping a round in the chamber, that makes sense to me (it reduces the chances of accidental firing by a large percentage), but not to keep a mag in the gun, that is not only ludicrous, but it is dangerous! It exposes you to great risk. [personally I plan on keeping an empty clip in the gun, but still that is lame!]

    I agree that it is lame that we have to abide by this law, but it is the law. Work is being done to change these laws, but it takes time, until then we carry within the legal limitations.

    2. Carrying CCW, do you still need to keep the gun empty?

    No. You can carry with a full magazine and one in the chamber, just not openly.



    3. Carrying CCW, when in some form of transportation, be it a car, horse, plane, or motorcycle, do you have to put your gun in a "lock box", then when getting out, you get to but it back on after you arrive at your destination.

    When you have a License to Conceal (LTC, not CCW, only retired LEO can get CCW) you do not have to use a lock box. You can carry in your car, on your horse, riding your tricycle, or jumping on a pogo stick.

    4. If somebody attempts to grab your unloaded firearm is it (still) legally justified to stick a knife into their throat or chest, (or is the tummy or arm more appropriate or should you just let them take your gun at suck it up as a loss and hope some form of insurance will cover the loss of your personal property)?

    If they are trying to take your gun, they are by definition trying to take a deadly weapon from you. They may hit you with it and grab your magazines and then shoot you. If someone is grabbing my weapon, they will receive a quick threat ending knife thrust as close to the center of the throat as I can place the blade, or depending upon angle, side of the neck.

    5. Does anybody else notice that the only places you are not permitted to carry (regardless if open or CCW) are also where the most violent gun related crimes have occurred, (this is of course assuming you cannot CCW at the places you cant open carry at[?]).

    Yes

    6. Isn't the federal government suppose to protect the peoples rights? By this I mean they have implemented laws that protect ones sexual preference, religion, color, age, etc., because that is their rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, right? This is regardless if they employer is public or private, right? But when it comes to carrying a firearm, which is specifically addressed in the II Amendment, they begin to act retarded, [... the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!]. Though their excuse is private employers can do as they wish (just as long is it does not have to do with sexual preference, religion, color, age, etc., right?)! In other words, should there not be a law telling private employers that if a customer comes in with a firearm, they can't refuse service or if an employee turns in an application armed with a firearm they have to treat them as any other potential employee?

    This is because the 2nd Amendment has only recently been deemed to be an individual right and not a "collective" right. As far as employers go, they can indeed deny you certain rights as a prerequisite for employement. While working, you cannot totally exercise your first amendment right to freedom of speech. You are restrained from this activity in so far as it may detract from you doing your job. Private Property rights overrule a lot of individual rights. If you want to come on my front lawn at 3 a.m. and stand there preaching the gospel, my property rights outweigh your freedom of speech and you butt will get kicked off my property. The same thing applies to employers. You pretty much have a choice of abiding by their rules or finding employement elsewhere.

    7. It is not illegal to carry and use handcuffs in accordance with your rights to citizens arrest under PC837, correct?

    Correct, just stay away from the fur lined ones.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    SlackwareRobert wrote:
    I would be worried about a 'blank' in the chamber, they do fire a primer, and powder,.
    and the judges out there could hang you since it did "FIRE".
    No I was thinking empty non-primed just in the mag so you have more weight
    to help drop the thing out in a hurry.
    Plus when you do move to a normal state, or finally get common sense in yours,
    you will already have yourself carrying and drawing the correct weighted weapon.

    If you drill a whole through the grip to allow a "safety pin" to keep the bullets
    down so they can't be chambered. Sort of like a grenades
    Would pulling this pin be counted as one of the "Steps away from fire"?
    You could tie it to the holster so it pulls out on the draw.
    California does not have any certain "steps away from fire" concept in the law.

    Either the gun has ammo in a position from which it can be fired, (through any number of mechanical movements of the firearm), or it is unloaded.

    The current way that prosecutors and LEO look at this is, if there is ammo in the magazine, and the magazine is in the weapon, then it is loaded.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    First off, welcome to the boards.

    Firearm possession doesn't create higher risk - it lowers it. The chances that your possession of a firearm will make you a victim is FAR outweighed by the possibility it will prevent the same thing. I don't know where this FUD comes from, but we hear it here (and from LEOs and antis) all the time. The ideas are simply unfounded.

    If you have some evidence (e.g. statistical data) showing that the above views are true, please do post it. Otherwise, I ask that you question the ideas you're bringing to the discussion.

    To address your original post:

    1) Neither UOC or LOC are dangerous, unless you count the possible oppression by your local 'criminal justice' servants.

    2) CCW holders are exempt from 12031, so they can carry loaded (one of the perks of paying the extra taxes).

    3) There is no requirement to lock up your gun during transport (unless you choose to conceal the gun during transport). CCW holders are exempt from 12025, so they aren't required to lock it up.

    4) Use of deadly force is justified when you reasonably believe you are in immediate, grave danger. It would be up to the jury to determine if your belief is reasonable.

    5) Yes, gun laws are usually enacted in knee-jerk response to crimes. Of course, this does nothing to disarm the criminals. (Like the criminal is going to care about an extra year or two for a 12031 stacker on top of a life sentence for murder.)

    6) While the federal governments intended purpose was essentially to preserve rights and settle disputes between states, it obviously has grabbed up a lot more power than that. Of course, the founding fathers knew this was the natural tendency of governments, which is why they prescribed that the people keep and bear arms.

    7) There is no statute prohibiting the purchase or possession of handcuffs. However, I don't think carrying cuffs is a good idea. In order to cuff someone, you have to physically control them first. In most cases, this means an impromptu wrestling match. At the best, you'll just scratch up the finish on your gun. At the worst, you'll get your ass kicked and while you're knocked out they'll figure out that level 3 holster. IMO, leave the cuffing to the LEOs.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the responses thus far, lots of helpful information.

    I just want to point out a few concerns I thought of in reading them.

    If you know your gun is empty, you also know that that you are no danger of from the act of somebody taking it from you, the same as your hat, wallet, jacket, or shoes, it is mere property. I have been studying pro se litigant and so far I have learned that in defending your property you may assault another though you may not do something life threatening to them and in defending yourself from a life threatening attack, you may do something life threatening to them... so far as the threat remains or persists. That was the reason for that question. You are not in any actual danger from the act of having an unloaded weapon stripped from your position.

    To note, regarding your right to arrest, you do have the right under PC839 to call the aid of others to assist you in making your arrest; however, to my knowledge California has no "good sameritan" law. Though "good sameritan" does not actually mean what the movies have made it out to mean anyways.

    In reading your responses I have concluded that a CCW is truly the way to go vs. open carry and I have signed up for an 8-hour course with a local gun shop/gun range. So hopefuly in a few more months I will get approved to conceal.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    105

    Post imported post

    Well, good luck in getting a concealed carry permit.... from what I hear it's very tough to get one, although that could depend on the county in which you live. But give it a try, if you can get one let us know.

    As far as a BG taking your unloaded weapon: it IS a life-threatening situation. All he has to do is to incapacitate you and then he has access to your clip and ammo, and he could kill you and/or other people. And if he does, you may be liable. Not sure how the law works in this case, but I believe that, for instance, if you allow a minor unauthorized access to a firearm, be it intentionally or through lack of safeguards, and that minor walks onto school property with that firearm (loaded or unloaded) you are subject to criminal charges. If it is loaded you can be charged with a felony. So, in my personal opinion, if a person tries to remove your gun, they are creating a life-threatening situation, and at the very least, could subject you to litigation. So I believe that the use of deadly force to defend your sidearm is fully in the right.

    Here's some food for thought for everyone:

    Committing, or attempting to commit suicide is a crime. Therefore: If we have the legal right to bear arms in our own self-defense, and we either don't excercise that right or we do not defend it, and we allow someone to kill us, either because we are not carrying or have not defended our firearm to the fullest extent that we are capable, then we have, by proxy, committed suicide.

    And murder is a crime. So is being an accomplice to such. Therefore: If we allow another person to be murdered, through our own negligence and lack of weaponry, then we have been an accomplice to murder.



    We have a right, no, we have a DUTY to protect and defend our fellow man. The police do not. If they won't, and if we choose not to, then who will? Our government? Ha.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Weston White wrote:
    Thanks for the responses thus far, lots of helpful information.

    I just want to point out a few concerns I thought of in reading them.

    If you know your gun is empty, you also know that that you are no danger of from the act of somebody taking it from you, the same as your hat, wallet, jacket, or shoes, it is mere property. I have been studying pro se litigant and so far I have learned that in defending your property you may assault another though you may not do something life threatening to them and in defending yourself from a life threatening attack, you may do something life threatening to them... so far as the threat remains or persists. That was the reason for that question. You are not in any actual danger from the act of having an unloaded weapon stripped from your position.

    I agree it is a gray area, and as such it would be decided by the jury. I think that, considering the ammunition is close at hand, it would be very dangerous to not defend yourself. Remember, you don't have to actually be found to have been in immediate, grave danger - you only have to be found to have been reasonable in your fear of the same. I think a jury would easily understand a fear of death or great bodily harm in the given scenario.

    To note, regarding your right to arrest, you do have the right under PC839 to call the aid of others to assist you in making your arrest; however, to my knowledge California has no "good sameritan" law. Though "good sameritan" does not actually mean what the movies have made it out to mean anyways.

    As for assisting an arrest, I believe there is no liability for the persons assisting as long as they act in good faith that the arrest is lawful. I used to do loss prevention for a supermarket chain where we worked in pairs. It was commonplace for only one of us to observe the crime, but we always assisted in the arrest. If it turned out your partner made a bad call, the blame fell on him as he initiated the arrest. (At least, this was the training we received for the job - fortunately I never had to find out for certain as we never made a 'bad' arrest.)

    In reading your responses I have concluded that a CCW is truly the way to go vs. open carry and I have signed up for an 8-hour course with a local gun shop/gun range. So hopefuly in a few more months I will get approved to conceal.

    IMO, CCW is not superior to OC - even if both were completely decriminalized. However, that's not the reason I think you shouldn't get a CCW. The problem with CCW is that you're bartering with politicians. Think of it this way: the government gets (1) to administer a test, (2) collect a tax, and then (3) decide if you goose step well enough to be trusted with a permit. In return you might get a permission slip to carry concealed. Like your driving permit, this will be leveraged against you at any opportunity to deter any activity the local bureaucrat doesn't like.

    Think of all your other rights. Now, ask youself, "would I be mad if my legislature required me to pay a tax and take a test before [voting, going to church, etc]?" Damn right you would.

    We've gotten far too casual with allowing government to usurp power and destroy our rights. I just don't understand how otherwise good people let themselves believe a CCW permit is a good thing. It is the same good, law-abiding sheeple that have allowed this state to deteriorate to the degree that it is nearly impossible for non-elite persons to bear arms.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    So if no permit was required to carry concealed, a la Alaska or Vermont, would you still carry openly?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Opps, position should have read possession.

    Good information that is helpful.

    Regarding taxes, I think the government is permitted to tax certain activities, such as voting, which is a Direct Tax, a "Poll Tax". Though the II Amendment, specifically states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Very simple, very clear. Placing a tax is infringing that right. Moreover, the Amendment does not say only on ones private property or only exterior to schools or government buildings, etc.. So clearly the government has overstepped their bounds, as they have with our fiat currency, the misapplication of the Internal Revenue Code, etc.

    That reminded me over another question, if you are permitted to CCW, can you still open carry, except with a loaded weapon or does the loaded weapon have to be covered up in some fashion, i.e. SOB, ankle, inside waistband or shoulder holster with a shirt over it or sweater or jacket or whatever?

  14. #14
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Weston White wrote:
    if you arelicensed to CCW, can you still open carry, except with a loaded weapon or does the loaded weapon have to be covered up in some fashion, i.e. SOB, ankle, inside waistband or shoulder holster with a shirt over it or sweater or jacket or whatever?
    Fixed it for you.

    This is a matter that is not yet settled. Because of my particular experience, I suggest you chose one or the other, as the issuing agencies are still under the impression that they can dictate the method by which you carry your weapon without stipulating the restriction on the license they issue. The problem of whether such a restriction is 'reasonable' is also an unsettled debate.

    The license to carry concealed 'allows' or 'permits' a holder to be exempt from 12025- there is nothing in 12050 that would prohibit a licensee to carry exposed or require them to conceal, except 12050(b) where restrictions can be placed on the time, place, manner and circumstances the weapon may be carrried. 12050(c) Tells us the restriction shall be indicated on the license.

    The reason why restrictions must be indicated on the license, is that should you be detained by a law enforcement agency other than the issuing agency, the detaining officer or deputy would not know what, if any restrictions were imposed upon the licensee. Without any restrictions indicated on the license, the detaining LEO must assume that there are no restrictions to the time, place, manner or circumstances how you carry your weapon.

    The issue of reasonableness of a restriction of "No exposed carry" is debatable as it subjects licensees to greater limitations than those who carry without a license. This would be similar to issuing a license to speak, then restricting what could be said, while no such restriction applied to any non-licensee. By obtaining a license like this, you are subjected to more regulation instead of excersizing your freedom.

    The license does however, benefit you with specific exemptions- such as 12031, 626.9, and 171b- which may or may not apply while carrying exposed. (Depends on who you ask...)

    I am not a lawyer and this is not advice- This is my interpretation of the law as it is written.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    So if no permit was required to carry concealed, a la Alaska or Vermont, would you still carry openly?
    Precisely.

    I might opt to conceal from time to time, but for the most part I prefer OC. I simply feel more comfortable that way, and feel it is more tactically advantageous.

    I don't mean to sound like I know which method is best for everybody, just what I prefer. Again, my main opposition to CC is that the permit systems in place erode our rights.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •