Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: San Bernadino Sun covers open carry California!! Comments needed!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Comment section of article is OPEN!

    --

    This article starts the discussion but missed the fact that loaded open carry is lawful in unincorporated areas where shooting ios not prohibited by County ordinance.

    Also, I have no idea where thsi came from: "total carry, which means residents can carry a loaded weapon in public."

    Will ask for a correction to be made.

    ---

    http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_11913496

    Local views clash on carrying guns in public
    Stacia Glenn, Staff Writer
    Posted:03/14/2009 08:09:52 AM PDT

    The guns hooked on their hips are a symbol of freedom and constitutional rights for some. To others, they represent a conundrum cloaked in fear and the unknown.
    A national "Open Carry Movement" has landed in Redlands, bringing local attention to those who openly carry a firearm to exercise their second amendment rights.
    Other law enforcement officials in San Bernardino County say they are unaware of their officers encountering open carriers, but some are passing out pamphlets and briefing the rank-and-file members on how to handle them.
    State law allows adults who are not prohibited by law to visibly carry an unloaded gun in public places, excluding school zones, government buildings, state and national parks and secured areas like airports.
    Police are permitted only to ensure the weapon is not loaded. They cannot run the gun's serial number, ask for the carrier's identification or detain them.
    There are no statistics about how many citizens openly carry weapons, but their reasons range from self-defense to getting the public accustomed to seeing guns on people other than cops and criminals.
    "It becomes a message, not of intimidation, but that we're here and we have rights," said Mike Stollenwerk, a gun rights activist and co-founder of Opencarry.org.
    "People shouldn't treat people carrying guns openly any different than you would treat a person carrying their cell phone on a belt."
    Law enforcement officials vehemently disagree, arguing that open carriers pose a potential danger and nuisance to police and could frighten residents.
    "They are creating an environment that is exceeding dangerous for them, the officers and innocent bystanders," said Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann.
    "I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age, but that they would attempt to goad the officers into behavior that would then allow them to sue or put them in a position where someone could get hurt."
    Yet, a 2006 FBI report finds that would-be cop killers "show signs of being armed that officers miss" and do not regularly use holsters, which is in direct contrast to the rules of open carry.
    Gun rights activists and at least one constitutional law expert said it is usually better if citizens openly carry their guns, although it may initially disturb Californians.
    "Seeing people with firearms has an effect of terrorizing the community in some way," said UCLA School of Law professor Adam Winkler. "I don't think it necessary should. There are plenty of people with guns that you can't see."
    It's not just guns that open carriers have on hand.
    They often keep a recorder and pamphlets explaining gun laws with them at all times, which is strongly encouraged by various open carry Web sites.
    That was the case in the March 7 encounter in Redlands, which started when a passer-by called police to report seeing two men with guns in a Carl's Jr. parking lot.
    An officer responded to the scene, where both men were hanging out at a fundraiser car wash for a local youth soccer team. Both men were in their mid-20s and had .40 caliber handguns slung on their hips in holsters, said city spokesman Carl Baker.
    After the open carriers explained that they are carrying unloaded guns, they gave their names and birthdates to the officer.
    Here's an excerpt from the exchange, which was recorded:
    RPD: So what's uh, you guys trying to make a point or what are you doing?
    Carrier 1: Just going about our lawful business, that's about it.
    RPD: You guys part of a movement or something?
    Carrier 2: We have a right to be armed and we're exercising that right. There are a lot of crazy people out there and we'd like to have some protection.
    "Often we think about carrying firearms as a means of self defense but `open carry' in California is really more about political protest," said Winkler.
    It's unclear whether the Redlands' officer was aware that he was being recorded during the exchange.
    When the open carriers from the Redlands encounter ask how they did on the Californiaopencarry.org forum, some recommend filing a complaint because the officer allegedly detained them for 20 minutes while checking the serial numbers on the gun. They also suggested not sharing the recording with the Police Department.
    No complaint had been filed by late Friday.
    Stollenwerk said run-ins like that could possibly prompt lawsuits against police, who he said are only entitled to "say `Hey, I need to check your gun and make sure it's not loaded."'
    He acknowledged that open carriers usually record encounters with law enforcement as a "precaution."
    After hearing that Redlands police had come across open carriers, watch commanders in several cities patrolled by the Sheriff's Department said they would again brief deputies on open carry laws.
    Fontana police officials said they haven't yet seen open carriers, but they hope that they don't because it could mean an increase in calls for service.
    "If you start carrying a weapon around in the open, we're going to get called on it," said Fontana police Sgt. Jeff Decker. "And we don't have the option not to investigate."
    Open carry is banned in six states: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina and New York.
    Eleven states allow `total carry,' which means residents can carry a loaded weapon in public.
    But California's gun laws are still among the strictest, law experts say, and it's very difficult to get a concealed weapons permit.
    Legislation passed on July 28, 1967 that Californians could not carry a loaded weapon in public, even openly. It was prompted after a group of Black Panthers led a protest march into the California Legislature fully armed in May 1967.
    "I call it fraudulent `open carry' because you can carry your gun but it can't be loaded. The whole purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet," Winkler said.
    Metro editor George Watson contributed to this report.



  2. #2
    Regular Member Legend_AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Redlands, California, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    It looks like we caused quite a stir in our little area of the world.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    said Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann.
    "I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Not only is it dangerous to carry a gun in this day and age, but that they would attempt to goad the officers into behavior that would then allow them to sue or put them in a position where someone could get hurt."
    What the @#$%? What kind of thinking is that.

    Overall, we are causing a stir! We are getting noticed! :celebrate



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Highland, California, USA
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    This is more attention than I thought we would get when we posted that post. kinda cool to be in the paper though

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    It's funny how they can always say that OC is dangerous to the public, but they never explain how it's dangerous.

    Oh, that's right. There is no reason for it to be dangerous.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Woodland, California, USA
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    exactly....oh whats that? i just rolled over on my .38 while laying in bed. so is it dangerous to me,that i am fully loaded right now and if anyone comes into my house to do harm that i am protceted? I just went to mcdonalds with it on my hip, do i feel endangered by going out in the middle of the night, in a not so great area of town even though I am unloaded and have 2 speedloaders present, with a self defense weapon on my hip? I don't see what the big deal is that we follow the law. i see a new headline. "People That Don't Smoke Crack, Their Story" its almost that ridiculous.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Just posted my reply, and so far the four comments on the story are all positive, but the sheeple of California are probably not awake yet. I am not sure how to take Prof. Adam Winkler's comments, he seems both pro and anti-gun simultaneously. Hope Cali. gets their stuff together, we seem to have a problem doing here in Texas. Time for the nasty-grams to my Reps.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Yucaipa, California, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    I read the Sun Telegram article this morning. I was so glad to see this topic. I came right in to the computer and signed up to this site. I believe in the right to carry arms, preferably loaded. I have been stopped for carrying a loaded weapon in the distant past, and was I treated with respect by law enforcement, but I would not count on the situation being the same, presently.

    When I was growing up, in Rialto, it was very common for us kids to carry our rifles and hand guns down to the sand dunes to do some plinking, sadly, if my son were to do that today, I would be on my way down to bail him out of jail.

    I live in Yucaipa, and after reading the Sun article, I turned the page and saw the article about the home invasion robbery that ocurred this weekend. What irony!

    Keep up the good work!!!

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    I thought the article was very even-handed and presented both side fairly. They got a couple points wrong, however; "...and secured areas like airports", should have said "secured areas IN airports.
    And this statement: "Legislation passed on July 28, 1967 that Californians could not carry a loaded weapon in public, even openly", makes it sound like loaded, concealed carry is illegal.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    What in the world is the purpose of open carry without ammunition in the gun? Can't it be argued that the ammunition is part of the weapon, and without it it is not completely assembled or something? I don't know, but the idea is just beyond my reasoning. Why don't we make our soldiers do the same thing in Afghanistan? Just plain stupid if you ask me.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    193

    Post imported post

    my comment:

    Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann should be FIRED for saying about the exercise one's Second Amendment right: "I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior."

    It is reprehensible that the Police Chief is refusing to acknowledge the Second Amendment or the Heller decision by the Supreme Court which says open carry is what is protected expressly by the Second Amendment.

    Bueermann's comments cause a chilling effect and are themselves an unconstitutional statement of policy that is illegal - in addition to being fired, the Redlands police department should be sued under federal Section 1983 for maintaining a policy that infringes on civil rights.

    Carry On!

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Tex4OC wrote:
    Just posted my reply, and so far the four comments on the story are all positive, but the sheeple of California are probably not awake yet. I am not sure how to take Prof. Adam Winkler's comments, he seems both pro and anti-gun simultaneously. Hope Cali. gets their stuff together, we seem to have a problem doing here in Texas. Time for the nasty-grams to my Reps.
    I emailed Winkler last night to make sure he understood the complexity of CA's loading criteria. Let's give him a break for now - this report was a little off on a couplke respects, but not bad.

  13. #13
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    JediWithASniper wrote:
    What in the world is the purpose of open carry without ammunition in the gun? Just plain stupid if you ask me.
    Thanks. I guess we should keep unloaded firearms at home where they cant be loaded in a few seconds to protect ourselves and others from harm. What was I thinking? I must be just plain stupid.
    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

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Loma Linda, California, USA
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    TatankaGap wrote:
    my comment:

    Redlands Police Chief Jim Bueermann should be FIRED for saying about the exercise one's Second Amendment right: "I think this is absolutely reprehensible behavior."

    It is reprehensible that the Police Chief is refusing to acknowledge the Second Amendment or the Heller decision by the Supreme Court which says open carry is what is protected expressly by the Second Amendment.

    Bueermann's comments cause a chilling effect and are themselves an unconstitutional statement of policy that is illegal - in addition to being fired, the Redlands police department should be sued under federal Section 1983 for maintaining a policy that infringes on civil rights.

    Carry On!
    I totally agree if it is in the constitution it's our right to be able to carry, and I for one will be carrying soon!!!!

  15. #15
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    The comments are running 15 to 1 in our favor.

    You guys have been busy!

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I commented, but it didn't post. :X

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    I responded on the behalf of you all. I posted under the name "informed."

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Yucaipa, California, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    10-4

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    Here's my hit:

    SSG David Medzyk Arroyo Grande, CA
    Reply ยป | Report Abuse | #31 9 min ago I think it is reprehensible to allow the Redlands Police Dept to carry firearms in public in this day and age. After all, the armed Police will only instill panic, and goad law abiding citizens to be put into a situation where they could get hurt and sue Chief Bueermann. It goes both ways, Jim.

    The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the Police do NOT have a responsibility to protect the public. I am allowed by law to protect myself in California. I am also allowed in California, to carry an unloaded firearm with ammunition at the ready, in order to protect myself when and where the Police are not required to. I would much prefer to carry a fully loaded firearm on my side, or even concealed. But our overlords in Sacramento do not care for my well being or safety....or yours.

    Mr. Winkler has equated law abiding American citizens with terrorists. That is so sad. More disturbing, is that Mr. Winkler likely qualifies for a coveted Concealed Weapon Permit, when 99% of us do not. I dare say, that Chief Bueermann may have taken a lesson from Mr. Winkler.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    Ha! Tagged me in Arroyo Grande!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    CaCop wrote:
    I responded on the behalf of you all. I posted under the name "informed."
    I liked your post, it was good to see an officer supporting open carry, thanks. However, in reading the link you provided, I was somewhat dismayed with some of the instructions given. I'll quote those here:

    "Safety should be the primary concern when making contact. Contact and cover
    protocols should be fully utilized. The contact officer should give clear direction to the armed individual. He or she should be told to raise his/her hands above their head (away from the weapon) and not to move. He or she will then be told that the weapon will be inspected. Using contact and cover tactics the weapon will be retrieved and inspected. If the weapon is unloaded, it will be returned and the contact ended. If it is loaded, justification will exist to arrest for a violation of PC 12031. If the weapon is not loaded, the detention must end after inspection, absent additional facts to justify a prolonged detention."

    The bolded part sounds pretty miserable. It's a shame that it needs to go to such lengths to verify that a person obeying the law is obeying the law. It makes me more and more grateful to live here in Idaho, where I can open carry and the police just drive by, or just say hello in passing when we're in a convenience store at the same time...and that's with us able to carry loaded weapons.

    I wonder how the statute giving officers the right to stop and inspect the weapons would hold up to a constitutional challange.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Whoa...pump the brakes bro...

    I'm pretty sure he meant the law was stupid, not your post.

    Unloaded OC is like unfueled public driving. Kinda makes owning a car pointless.



    So what's on the radar about Total Carry in California?

    Any progress made yet, or are those bureaucratic pigs still dragging their feet?

    Maybe we should outlaw their right to cash their paychecks. Think they'd get the point?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    193

    Post imported post

    It'd be helpful to have a map of unincorporated areas in CA that do not have a No Shooting ordinance. There are huge portions of large counties where total carry is allowed.

    It's hard to research though because maps of unincorporated areas of CA counties are hard to find and once you find them you have to research the shooting ordinances.

    In my mind the analogy between unloaded OC and total carry is more like driving a hybrid around town on electric and the gas engine kicks in when you need to go uphill or accelerate ~ meaning that if a bad scene starts going down, it's pretty fast to unholster, load and take next steps. Not as fast as OC would be loaded or as fast as a CC draw (probably, but I dunno), but definitely way better than going naked ~

    just my 2 cents ~

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Coming from San Berdo County (Rancho Cucamonga)....I can honestly see how people would get all shook up over this. The thought of everyone carrying a gun openly out there would freak not just the general public, but the police as well. The San Bernardino sheriff's department already has a bad rap for being power hungry and abusive as it is. I couldn't fathom how they would handle a citizen open carrying a firearm.:?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Yucaipa, California, USA
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    I have a revolver that I bought from a LEO in 1989. I want to exercise my right to OC, not for any political reason, but that I used to always carry, LOC when I lived in the mountain area of San Bernardino.

    I couldn't find my bill of sale from way back in '89, so I called the SBSO to verify the serial number. I was told the weapon was stolen! I asked that an officer come out to the house and check the weapon. An officer did come to the house and verified that the numbers that were punched in to the computer were punched incorrectly (the weapon came back as a .22, this is a S & W .357). However, there is no record at all for this weapon. I had the Deputy check for personal guns and law enforcement guns using the correct serial number...no return on either.

    My obvious concern, if I am OC'ing and I am asked to show that the gun is unloaded and the officer runs the number (as happened in Redlands), I could be in some deep stuff. Is this normal for older gun sales? This was a private party sale bettween the LEO and myself.

    BTW, the SBSO officer was very cooperative, I had no problem at all. I don't think the SBSO officer was too thrilled with OC, however.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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