Letter to KPIX-TV Re: 1-14-10 Open Carry News Story

imported post

Below is the letter that is now on its way to KPIX-TV.

Carry On,

Livermoron


January 15, 2010


KPIX-TV
Broadcast Journalism Staff
855 Battery Street
San Francicso, California 94111

Jon Schwartz
Bay Area Open Carry
Livermore, California
http://www.baoc.us


Regarding: Lead Story on “Open Carry”, Evening News Broadcast, January 14[sup]th[/sup] 2010

Dear Sirs & Madams,

As you may be aware there is a growing movement of individuals around the country, and here in California, which advocate and practice the open carry of firearms. The primary reasons generally orated by Open Carriers as to why they Open Carry are personal protection and the exercise of a Constitutional Right. Much like the freedom of the press, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is crucial to the survival of this great nation.

In your broadcast of last night you chose to begin the story on Open Carry with the words, “…Gun owners are flaunting it.” I cannot adequately explain my strong feelings that this inflammatory statement served only to editorialize the “news story” from the outset. When I studied Journalism I was always instructed to only report the facts of the news and save editorials for the editorial section. To say that gun owners are “flaunting it” by practicing Open Carry makes about as much sense as to say that people who are walking are flaunting their legs.

Ownership of firearms, and the open carry of them, is absolutely legal in California. Further, the open carry of firearms is largely the only practical means for law-abiding citizens to be secure in their person at all times. The simple fact is that Police have no requirement to protect you. Due to the nearly unattainable requirements in the application process to obtain a Concealed Carry Weapons Permit in California, Open Carry of a firearm is the only option for the average law-abiding citizen. Truly, “when seconds count the police are only minutes away” and you are on your own if your life is threatened. This is not conjecture; it is fact.

If given the choice I will actively defend myself and my precious family against any attacker with deadly force as warranted. I always, of course, take steps to not place myself, or my family, in obviously dangerous situations. However, danger and evil actively seeks a target. You must always be vigilant in your personal security.
The premise for your news story (the January 14[sup]th[/sup] open letter written by Lt. Ray Lunny from the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office on the topic of “Unloaded Open Carry”) is an example of how poorly trained many law enforcement agencies are on this topic. This letter could also seen to be a standing open threat by law enforcement to law-abiding citizens that choose to protect themselves responsibly with a firearm by practicing Open Carry. The tactics apparently currently approved by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office do not make sense. The Sheriff’s Office intends to treat a citizen who is legally and safely carrying a firearm as if the citizen were a violent criminal until proven otherwise. This policy is just plain wrong.

Does the Sheriff’s Office also intend to pull over every driver on the road to complete a warrantless search of his or her vehicle at will? I do not think so. Under the 4[sup]th[/sup] Amendment we as Americans are afforded certain protections against such warrantless searches. The mere appearance of a firearm in public, especially legally carried openly in a holster, does not equal commission of a crime, period. This knee-jerk reactionary policy by law enforcement outlined in the San Mateo County letter needs to be quickly and closely studied and revised so as to not infringe on the rights we enjoy as a people.

The San Mateo County staff, such as 911 Operators, dispatchers and officers in the field, need to ask the right questions when a “man with a gun” call comes in. Basic questions like, “What is the person doing? Is this person doing anything threatening? Is the gun in a holster? Does this person appear to be intoxicated?” seem to be a good place to start. If the Sheriff’s Office is not already doing this they should immediately start. The officer(s) on the way to the radio call will then have an informed expectation of what the situation will be when arriving at the location. Then, a low-key, safe and even cordial meeting between officer and citizen may take place. The interaction to confirm the “load condition”, under California Penal Code Section 12031(e), of the firearm might only take 30 seconds and not have any unfortunate consequences.

In conclusion, I will tell you that people who participate in the Open Carry “movement” are not out looking for trouble. We are not seeking to test the law and law enforcement at every turn. We are not yelling, picketing, or causing riots. We are not accosting people on the street and forcing unwanted information down their throats. We do, however, seek to be safe and continue to lawfully exercise our rights as Americans. We do seek to further public awareness that this responsible practice is as legal and as common as going to the movies, walking your dog, or spending time with your family.

Ask anyone who has been the victim of a violent crime if they wished they’d had the means to defend against their aggressor at the time. The logical and likely answer will be a resounding “yes”. I do not wish to be a victim at all and will stand up for my rights as a law-abiding American citizen.


Sincerely,

imported post

Nice letter. My fear is that, instead of asking the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office about how they would respond to your letter, KPIX will simply ignore it. Let's see if anything happens.

imported post

Good letter.

imported post

Livermoron,

I think your letter to KPIX was great! I am a police officer at an agency in San Mateo County with over 15 years of service. While I have never responded to a call with a citizen legally carrying an unconcealed and unloaded firearm, one has to remember that for police officers, we consider all gun calls as, "high risk" situations. It is just the nature of the beast, we are not mind readers, nor can we tell from a call screener what the intent of the person who is carrying the firearm is. Simply put, if I and any of my fellow officers were to be dispatched to a person at, lets say taco bell eating a taco, with a gun holstered, we would respond as if the person has the intent of holding up the place or doing something else more serious. Officer safety, just like the safety you discussed in defending yourself and family against an attacker, demands that we treat anyone with a gun, as a possible threat against our lives or the lives as others.

No amount of call screening and officer training, can tell us what your intentions are until we contact who ever is wearing the firearm. It's just a fact of life. Just like you want to keep you and your family safe by wearing a unloaded gun in public, we as police officers want to go home to our families and of course keep the public safe. I never want to run into this situation because the outcome could end up tragically. When I mean tragically I mean for the citizen who was carrying and unloaded and unconcealed weapon, and for the officer who may use tactics and force that could have been prevented.

Now please read on, because I believe this would affect both parties in a positive way. I do believe in the right for citizens to defend themselves! I do believe that citizens have the right to carry firearms! Most importantly I do believe that citizens should have the right to carry concealed and loaded firearms, given a few small restrictions!

I don't believe anyone should have to show cause as to why they need or want to carry a concealed firearm! I do believe that the average citizen should take a class to know the legal justifications as to when they should pull their firearm, and when they should fire their firearm and how to interact with police with a concealed firearm. The reason for this class is unfortunately I have run into situations where honest law abiding citizens have used their firearms in situations like vandalism or burglary, where it was only the citizen's property that was threatened or damaged. I also believe they should be fully aware of the legal consequences of using a firearm, both criminally or civilly so they might think before they act in an unjustified manner. I don't believe that this class should be something hard, more something informative, that not every law abiding gun owner would look upon as common knowledge.

After successful completion of that class, (which I might add could be done at any gun range, sporting goods stores, police or sheriffs office, etc., for the minimalist fees as possible) I believe that the a background check should be conducted, and some sort of psychological check, I.E. through the background process should be conducted, again at the most minimalist fee's as absolutely possible.

The reason I bring up background and psychological testing, is that these are the standardized tests that law enforcement officers are required to go through, and I don't believe that you would want a peace officer or a citizen to go without one. It's just an extra layer of protection for those people who are issued such a permit.

I am not about big brother, or the government taking the money you earn out of your pocket to pay for the states, counties, and cities problems. Like I say these fees should be limited to cover the expenses of conducting such checks and that’s all. I also believe that once a background is completed on a person, that those files should be sealed or destroyed! Again I am not interested in the Government knowing anyone’s business.

Barring any glaring problems in the background or the psychological testing, such as felony convictions, or psychological problems which would mean that the person was a danger to themselves or others, the permit should be issued!

I know that in a perfect world we would not ask people to go through backgrounds or psychological screenings, but this is not a perfect world, and as responsible law abiding gun owners these steps would be necessary to protect not only the reputations of the owners, but of their fellow owners who chose to carry a loaded concealed weapon for self defense.

Open carry while not as many hoops to jump through, can and one day may lead to a tragedy that could have been prevented by having a weapon concealed and not in plane view of the public. In an urban environment some people see firearms and just freak out. Where as if the firearm was concealed upon the person, no one would be the wiser, and thus law enforcements involvement in such calls would be dialed down quite a bit.

I understand and agree with many Californians’ when they say that obtaining a carry concealed weapon permit is next to impossible. I feel and honestly due believe that is a fact which needs to be changed! We as taxpayers pay for police and sheriffs agencies, and the state government which made these crazy and impracticable laws. We should have a say on these laws and have them replaced with rational laws that actually help protect and defend our citizens.

To all open carry people out there I ask that you band together and force law enforcement to change, so that you can change and thus we can remain partners in protecting ourselves. I hate the us vs. them mentality of law enforcement. It needs to change. Allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons would be one step in the right direction.

Tell me what you think. I appreciate any advice or comments, and I would be willing to get on board to any legislation that advocates a rational concealed weapons policy.

imported post

I think that you a one of the few officer with out a chip on their shoulders.

Your first paragraph is whats gets me. Something that my BUDS instructor told me, 20 years ago fits in the police agency."Assumption is what gets you killed, captured or FUBAR'd"

Your going to assume that MWAG is automatically out to rob, kill threaten, etc. Fine, I can accept that, but almost every officer I know or have seen, proceed in that mind set, have walked over an individuals constitutional rights with out a first thought or second thought. Have you seen the video of Walter getting interviewed and the overreaction of some of the officers, or how about the video of just about the entire LAPD showing up for an open carry meet, and just about treating them like a bunch of terrorists. Officers overreact to every situation and the 911 operators dont help.

To me, that SMS letter, is an open threat of overreaction and that if I UOC in that town, that I will be shot first and if Im alive will be ask if its unloaded after.

imported post

After SCOTUS rules on McDonald, California is going to have to allow a shall issue CCW or LOC. Due to recent changes in Penal Code section 12031 (went into effect 1/1/10) it seems unlikely LOC will be the route California chooses. In fact it seems pretty clear that LOC will never be a legal option in California, at least for many years.

I am not sure how long it is going to take for one of these methods to be allowed after McDonald, but I have to think that we will have a shall issue ccw within a year of that decision.

imported post

straight shooter,

Although we cannot confirm your identity, I am pleased to see a police officer from the county department in question respond to this issue, and this letter. To me this shows that you are responsive and considerate of the needs and concerns of those in your county.

I do want to address a couple of points you made, because I think they are either in error, or the policies are outdated. While the concerns of you and officers are understandable, the current department policies will need to change in order to align with the rights of Californian citizens.

we consider all gun calls as, "high risk" situations.

Click to expand...

Unloaded open carry is not a high risk situation, since unloaded open carry is a legally recognised method of carrying a gun, and does not inherently imply malicious intent.

The current policy of assuming all MWAG calls as "high risk" situations, was formed in a social environment that did not readily accept citizens openly carrying a firearm. Instead, the policy was formed in response to criminals displaying weapons in the commission of a crime. Therefore, it would make sense that when there is a MWAG call, you would respond to it as a "high risk" situation. This clearly makes sense.

However, the environment is clearly changing, and the policy will need to change as well.
MWAG calls will subside as OC is normalized. The police department would simply not receive the calls as it once did. As the OC movement grows and becomes accepted (or tolerated), your department will find itself faced with political opposition towards such policies, with a demand for change. Public pressure from gun rights groups will continue to mount, and the department could be faced with lawsuits.

What kind of policy is needed? Something along the lines of asking the caller if the person is open carrying, and if the person is making a threat, is acting in a threatening manner, or waving the gun around pointing it at people. Otherwise, inform the caller there is no need to respond. This is exactly what happened in my city, when we had a private open carry event in a public park. At least two MWAG calls were made, and the callers were told open carry was legal.

It is just the nature of the beast, we are not mind readers, nor can we tell from a call screener what the intent of the person who is carrying the firearm is. Simply put, if I and any of my fellow officers were to be dispatched to a person at, lets say taco bell eating a taco, with a gun holstered, we would respond as if the person has the intent of holding up the place or doing something else more serious. Officer safety, just like the safety you discussed in defending yourself and family against an attacker, demands that we treat anyone with a gun, as a possible threat against our lives or the lives as others.

Click to expand...

The nature of the beast is changing. Harassing legally unloaded open carrying gun owners is not a good idea, unless they are suspected of a crime. The department needs to change its policy.

imported post

Straight Shooter,

Welcome!

While you're welcome to assume anything you want, your assumptions and irrational fears do not justify disregard for my rights and your oath to protect the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens. Consider how you would handle yourself if you worked in a state that didn't allow 12031(e) checks, or in a culture that didn't accept the use of excessive force against law-abiding persons. Yes, in CA you can get away with pointing your firearm at me, cuffing me, and maybe even taking me for a ride down town. But in many other places you would end up unemployed, civilly sued, and possibly criminally prosecuted for the very same actions.

Do the officers in these other states unnecessarily risk their lives to deal with "man with a gun" calls? No. They respect the US Constitution and honor the oath they swore. They realize that not every person with a firearm is a criminal, and that a certain segment of the population will try to abuse police services to persecute people/activities they disagree with.

I'll give just one example. See how the Manchester, NH police deal with a man carrying a loaded firearm. Then consider that the officer was reprimanded and the mayor later personally addressed the situation and apologized.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI

I hope you are open to perspective. I think if we can all step back and view a bigger picture we'll see that maybe we're more brainwashed by local culture than we are free thinkers.

imported post

"Officer",

Thanks for your reply and for objectively reading my letter. While I do agree that officer safety is of utmost importance in your profession, there MUST be a careful balance with, and attention given to, my RIGHTS as John Q. Public under the Constitution in the course of your duties.

I think that most of us out here will agree that the PC 12031(e) check, as written, is unconstitutional. As I stated in my letter, the mere appearance of a gun in a public setting does not constitute a crime in progress, or a crime about to be in progress. The fact that a gun is on the hip of a person is NOT probable cause for a warrantless search.

Once you arrive "on scene" to a radio call for MWAG you can use your communication skills and quickly tone down your "hyper-vigilant response" (quoted from the recent San Mateo County S.O.'s letter) to a ready-state, but calm and cordial, interaction with the UOC subject.

I am glad to see you are open to communicating here with us "dangerous situation creating" UOC folks. I think if more LE personnel would reach out, and be open minded, they would see that we are just regular Americans who have had enough of going without protection when we see fit to have it.

I plan to continue to UOC and do it responsibly and safely. I have been a responsible gun owner since I was about 13 years old. I have enrolled in Front Sight for a trip to NV soon and also will be participating locally in additional firearms and tactics training to ensure that I have the educated and skilled means to keep me and my family safe, or as safe as humanly possible.

Best Regards,

Livermoron

imported post

While I have never responded to a call with a citizen legally carrying an unconcealed and unloaded firearm, one has to remember that for police officers, we consider all gun calls as, "high risk" situations. It is just the nature of the beast, we are not mind readers, nor can we tell from a call screener what the intent of the person who is carrying the firearm is. Simply put, if I and any of my fellow officers were to be dispatched to a person at, lets say taco bell eating a taco, with a gun holstered, we would respond as if the person has the intent of holding up the place or doing something else more serious.

Click to expand...

Fine. Then the established standard for all future calls should include a full tactical response, as you never know what could happen. If grandma's eating a chalupa, then I expect a team with at least one Remington 870 with door-breaching rounds to take her down. If this seems to be a bit ludicrous, then my point is aptly made. Minding my own business? Not breaking the law? Leave me the hell alone.

Most importantly I do believe that citizens should have the right to carry concealed and loaded firearms, given a few small restrictions!

I don't believe anyone should have to show cause as to why they need or want to carry a concealed firearm! I do believe that the average citizen should take a class to know the legal justifications as to when they should pull their firearm, and when they should fire their firearm and how to interact with police with a concealed firearm. The reason for this class is unfortunately I have run into situations where honest law abiding citizens have used their firearms in situations like vandalism or burglary, where it was only the citizen's property that was threatened or damaged. I also believe they should be fully aware of the legal consequences of using a firearm, both criminally or civilly so they might think before they act in an unjustified manner. I don't believe that this class should be something hard, more something informative, that not every law abiding gun owner would look upon as common knowledge.

Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is a protected right. Words hurt, insult, and can damage people for life. I might not like what everyone has to say, but I have no expectation that everyone should whisper so as to be less obvious to others. I may choose to whisper because I don't want others privy to my conversation, but my manner of speaking is my prerogative. And I'm probably one of the nicest and most cordial people you'd ever meet.

After successful completion of that class, (which I might add could be done at any gun range, sporting goods stores, police or sheriffs office, etc., for the minimalist fees as possible) I believe that the a background check should be conducted, and some sort of psychological check, I.E. through the background process should be conducted, again at the most minimalist fee's as absolutely possible. The reason I bring up background and psychological testing, is that these are the standardized tests that law enforcement officers are required to go through, and I don't believe that you would want a peace officer or a citizen to go without one. It's just an extra layer of protection for those people who are issued such a permit.

Click to expand...

We grant the law enforcement community their authority to enforce laws on our behalf. As such, there are standards enacted to ensure those individuals acting in our stead are stable enough to do so. The same does not apply to the citizenry. We deem driving to be a privilege and license people as such. There is no expectation that they will be going in harm's way at the request of their fellow citizens. Otherwise, I want the soccer mom in the "desert mica" minivan to complete a tactical driving course and learn to perform a PIT maneuver and show annual proficiency at it. She needs the practice. If you can't prove to me that a LEO won't at some point in the future commit a crime as a result of psych testing, then we certainly do not think this argument has a leg to stand on. Right, class?

FWIW, I spent the better part of my adult life in California, and I am qualified to comment on this.

imported post

Simply put, if I and any of my fellow officers were to be dispatched to a person at, lets say taco bell eating a taco, with a gun holstered, we would respond as if the person has the intent of holding up the place or doing something else more serious.

So, if you see me pushing a shopping cart across the parking lot while UOC'ing, you will assume i am stealing the groceries. If you see me getting into my car, you will assume I am a car theif? You need to adjust your evaluation procedures.

imported post

Please do not write and submit letters about OC at this time...

Sorry, I couldn't resist, :celebrate


Nice letter.

imported post

straight shooter wrote:

Livermoron,

I think your letter to KPIX was great! I am a police officer at an agency in San Mateo County with over 15 years of service. While I have never responded to a call with a citizen legally carrying an unconcealed and unloaded firearm, one has to remember that for police officers, we consider all gun calls as, "high risk" situations. It is just the nature of the beast, we are not mind readers, nor can we tell from a call screener what the intent of the person who is carrying the firearm is. Simply put, if I and any of my fellow officers were to be dispatched to a person at, lets say taco bell eating a taco, with a gun holstered, we would respond as if the person has the intent of holding up the place or doing something else more serious. Officer safety, just like the safety you discussed in defending yourself and family against an attacker, demands that we treat anyone with a gun, as a possible threat against our lives or the lives as others.

No amount of call screening and officer training, can tell us what your intentions are until we contact who ever is wearing the firearm. It's just a fact of life

Click to expand...

Ask an officer that lives in AZ about open carry and I believe his answers would be quite different than yours. It is possible to ascertain what a citizen is doing, and if he is doing anything illegal from a phone call. The dispatcher can ask discovery questions and find out if he/she believes a crime is, was or is about to be committed.

Your training has conditioned you to think the way you do, about OC and a person with a gun, whether they are committing a crime or eating at taco bell.

How can you not see the difference between someone sitting and eating lunch with a holstered gun, and someone that is waving the gun around in the commission of a crime? This is the US and even in the anti-gun PRK simply possessing a gun does not constitute a crime is, was or is about to be committed.

E check me if you want, but treat me like a high risk criminal all for your safety??
Last time I checked you (police in general) worked for us.

imported post

straight shooter wrote:

1) Officer safety, just like the safety you discussed in defending yourself and family against an attacker, demands that we treat anyone with a gun, as a possible threat against our lives or the lives as others.

Click to expand...

2) I believe that the a background check should be conducted, and some sort of psychological check, I.E. through the background process should be conducted...The reason I bring up background and psychological testing, is that these are the standardized tests that law enforcement officers are required to go through, and I don't believe that you would want a peace officer or a citizen to go without one. It's just an extra layer of protection for those people who are issued such a permit.

Click to expand...

3) Open carry while not as many hoops to jump through, can and one day may lead to a tragedy that could have been prevented by having a weapon concealed and not in plane view of the public. In an urban environment some people see firearms and just freak out. Where as if the firearm was concealed upon the person, no one would be the wiser, and thus law enforcements involvement in such calls would be dialed down quite a bit.

I understand and agree with many Californians’ when they say that obtaining a carry concealed weapon permit is next to impossible... Allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons would be one step in the right direction.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the board. I have a couple of issues with some of your assertions-

1) Employment as a peace officer is voluntary. If a peace officer is concerned about their own safety at the expense ofsomeone's liberty, they have selected the wrong vocation and violated their oath. You say you want to go home to your family- I would like you not only do that, but for you to retain your integrity as well. A holstered firearm is not a threat to anyone but criminal or tyrannical enterprise.

2) The People are not police. We do not deal with the same daily stress as peace officer's do as a part of their occupation. Psychological testing, background checks, and other tests of worthiness are an afront to the unihibited right to keep and bear arms. The fact of the matter is, even when you do measure people's capacity or worthiness, this cannot account for any change in their ability to handle firearms in the future. No one can predict what a person will in the future, based on what we can discern about them today.

3) Open carry requires very little- and that is certainly the appeal. No invasive application. No fingerprinting. No interview. No fee. No background check. What is particularly interesting is that in most cases, those who carry firearms openly are less suspect than those furitively adjusting their clothing.

The general perception, even in California, is that those that are carrying exposed are authorized to do so.Even when a 911 call does come in, the RPsounds like one of two types of people- 1) they sound like they are asking whether or notexposed guns are okay or 2) they sound like they are a tattletale playing"GOTCHA"on the telephone. In NONE of the released 911 recordings does it sound like the RP is 'Fr3AkinG 0ut!'. I have not heard of an anecdote about open carry that has resulted in people of any number running away, in shrieking hysteria.

I think your statement about the limited issuance of licenses to carry is the most accurate remark you wrote. San Mateo County will not issue to regular people, and that is only part of the trouble. Police involvment in carry issues are unnecessary, frivilous uses of their time unless a real crime is afoot. In not recognizing the people's right to be armed and making threats against those that they are supposed to serve, they are inviting the consternation of liberty minded people everywhere. "CCW" however, is not sufficient- concealed weapons are not a deterent to crime, as much as an armed populous is.

imported post

Welcome to the forum Straight Shooter. I'm glad you're here as it gives us some insight into the LEO's perspective. I was working on a somewhat lengthy, more eloquentreply to your many points, but sadly lost them by inadverdently hitting the back button.

Suffice to say, there is very little in your message that I am in agreement with. As the British would say...have you gone completely mad?!

You seem to prefer safety over liberty, you want to put the shrinks in control over my inalienable rights at the behest of government perview (but you aren't in favor ofbig brother), and you cannot discern a man eating a taco with a madman bent on causing mayhem. And you are so worried about happening upon an open carrier that you "never want to runinto this situation" which clearly shows a jadedness that borders on the dangerous.

imported post

Straight shooter,

First I would like to thank you for your service and commitment to the law enforcement community. Second I am new to opencarry.org but I read all that I can and try hard to understand all that I read. I am learning fast and my interest in this matter is not academic. Though I have yet to exercise the right to open carry, I do intend to at some point. I read your response letter and do recognize your legitimate concern of officer safety. I am sure others such as myself do empathize with you. We are all concerned for the safety of our families, selves and even innocent strangers. In regard to carry rights so we always have the means to defense, we must disregard the opinions, preconceptions and suspicious prejudices of those who do not agree. I often hear of judges, law makers, enforcement officials or even those on the street attempting to define our rights. Quite frankly it does not take a supreme court to figure out the meaning of a few very simple sentences. I would hope you who like many of those who have sworn an oath to protect the rights of others would understand that too many of these laws are infringing upon rights that are very difficult to get back. I submit to you that it is time for officials at all levels to try as hard to restore these rightsto us as they have been trying to take them away.

I once explained it to someone this way. If an officer carries open on duty and then however he chooses off duty he does so by the peace officer status granted him by the state. This is usually done within a years time with no more knowledge of an individuals rightsthan most individuals have. Combined with less weapons and tactical training than your averagearmy private fresh out of basic training.if a citizen carries concealed they must do so by the grace ofastate issued permit that is on the off chance that the state sees fit. If a citizen carries open it must be unloaded putting them at a distinct tactical disadvantage to their would be adversary. This castrated version of what are supposed our rights is what is left of the second amendement which is granted by a federal document which is recognized by the state of California as the law of the land. this tells me that your average citizens rights are granted by a higher power than that of an officer and should be further reinforced by state recognition. I know that these views are not popular with many of those afforementioned officials but it seems that they are due for a change of agenda. Take a look at Washington D.C. these days seems they are ignoring the will of the people and that is not working well for them. I guess I have unloaded enough, no pun intended. All that is left to say is hope for the future and God bless america.

imported post

Livermoron, you are by no means any sort of "moron." This letter is absolutely outstanding!

It's precisely the fine line between "in your face" and "total submission." Unfortunately, we didn't define that line to be so fine. That was largely the responsibility of the media.

Your letter took on the anti-guns and the media without really taking any of them on, directly, but while clearly delineating the issue.s

I would encourage each and every one who reads this board to use this letter as a pattern for future correspondence with the media, particularly as I have seen both writings and the videos of the Newport News gathering in which much the same was said, I think with great effect, to the reporter who attended.

Carry on!

imported post

Straightshooter:

I agree with your post in general, and do not agree with the "are you mad" response delivered by another.

As a 20-year military vet armed in several combat zones, however, I've been there, and shot at, albeit on a more international scale.

I would like you to consider three things, however:

1. A CWP holder has passed several hurdles with respect to sanity and civic duty. Please afford him that respect.

2. A person engaged in properly-holstered Open Carry is about as far distant a profile from your average criminal as you can get.

3. Criminals do not openly carry weapons. They conceal them. Perhaps it is your department's policy to make this known so far and wide that no criminal adopts open carry!

While I understand the reasoning, it nevertheless violates state and federal law, even in California.

In all 50 states, open carry, if allowed by state law, is prohibited against detention or harrassment by Federal judgement. I believe a Judge Black, hearing a case in Airizona, but applying to all states as it was heard in a federal court, applies, including in your situation.

What I'd really like you to take away from this is the fact that OC people, provided they/we behave them/ourselves (hint, hint, foot-stomp), are staunch supporters of the law.

And I'd question you: Why would you go above and beyond to harass someone who is simply following the law? Is it because you've been taught that guns=criminals? If so, please examine what's on your own hip!

Seriously. I served 20+ years in the military. I've carried both concealed and open in many of our United States, for whose rights I fought while in the military. I've rarely encountered any problem, either with criminals or law enforcement officials.

Hey! We're on the same side!

Seriously - you have enough to worry about with the criminals, without resorting to criminalizing the honest, law-abiding citizens of our land.

Thanks for your understanding and support.

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

You seem to prefer safety over liberty...

Click to expand...

I think someone once said, "freedom is never free, and safety is never safe." They meant that both have a price.

I think some LEO's would argue it is their sole right to pay that price. However, as I'll always be on the scene while they'll always be between a few minutes and more than an hour late, I am, by sheer right of reality, the first responder. As such, it's my choice, my right, my civic duty, as well as my civic obligation to those around me, to correctly ascertain the situation and take the appropriate action until the arrival of law enforcement.

I take this commitment as seriously as the time I organized a bucket brigade to put out a fire in a neighbor's apartment. Yes! We called 911! But if I'd waited until the department arrived, without taking the requisite action, the complex would have burned to the ground. As it was, there was only minor damage in the neighboring apartment.

This analogy extends to all who exercise their constitutional rights, not against fire, but against those who choose to break the law.

The harassment of OC's is little different than a fire marshal's detention of someone walking along carrying a bucket of water. "That's my job!" he thinks, but he'd be wrong.

First responders are citizens who do what is necessary to protect life, limb, and property. In most states, that's been extended to the life and limb of those within our immediate vicinity.

It's simply what honest, law-abiding human beings do for one another, to protect each other against the very few (less than 5%) of the criminals who do not share our regard for our rights and seek to deprive us of life, limb, and property.

Your focus, Sir, should be on that latter element! Not on those of us who are merely exercising our Constitutional rights to defend ourselves against the criminal element.

That you and others consistently place yourselves in the role of our adversaries is, quite honestly, rather perplexing! We are, after all, on the same team against the criminal element, are we not?

If so, let us please start acting like it.

imported post

Hello Everyone,

I thank you for your responses. Little did I know that I would be walking into a firestorm, but that’s O.K.. Everyone’s point of view will help myself, fellow officers, and yes all of you oc’s, know where we all stand.

First off to Statesman, let me say I would be happy to identify myself and my department, except I do not want to deal with the punitive consequences from my department, for what I have said, or what I will say. Police chiefs tend to take a dim view on officers airing out the departments and the professions dirty laundry. I hope you will all understand that and respect the fact that I am an honest citizen as well as an honest officer who will not lie to any of you and wants to seek a way for us to all get along.

Let me first start off by giving you a little background on myself. I am an active NRA member. I have been around all types of firearms since I was about four years old. I fired my first handgun, when I was 10 years old, and have fired shotguns, riffles, and automatic weapons. I am an avid hunter (birds, and big game). I became a peace officer more than 15 years ago, and I know it is going to sound cliché but, I wanted to give something back to the community, and protect and help people who can’t always help themselves. I have served as a patrol officer, detective, swat officer, and when I was injured a call taker/dispatcher. I have been involved in several shooting incidents, where I was either shot at, someone else was shot at, or I had to shot to defend my life. Fortunately I have never taken a life, but I would if I was forced to.

Regarding RaycerX96 post, “Assumptions are what get you killed…”. Well in Law Enforcement, unfortunately you have to make a lot of snap decisions, and yes a lot of assumptions. We have to do so because a lot of the information we get is incomplete, and of course we can’t read peoples minds and know what their intent is until we interview them. A lackadaisical attitude out on the streets is what gets officers killed. A lot of these assumptions reflect how we perceive a potential threat, and we always error on the side of officer safety. I know that I do, after a fellow law enforcement officer and friend of mine, Joel Davis, of East Palo Alto Police Department, was gunned down in cold blood. Again perceptions are everything. Unfortunately when we make these snap decisions we are not always right and we do violate citizen’s rights and liberties. It is something that we don’t want or mean to do, but it does happen. By the way I have not seen the Walter video, or the LAPD oc meet, so I cannot comment on how the officer, or officer’s reacted. In regards to your comment that if you “oc that you will be shot and if you are alive will be asked if it’s an unloaded firearm” well I would hope that smart police tactics and your willingness to comply to our commands would never let that happen. Like I mentioned before, a person with a gun call gets officers to use tactics that will provide them with the greatest officer safety possible. Provided no one does something crazy, or the police don’t totally over react, then the chances are that we would approach you, with guns drawn, from behind cover, order you to the ground, handcuff you, disarm you, and then check to see if the gun was unloaded. Once we discover that the gun is unloaded, then you will be un-cuffed and dusted off. The officers, may conduct a field interview to understand why you are carrying an unloaded firearm in plain view, but then that’s all that should happen. Now if we have contacted you before for the same sort of call, I would like to think that the call would be handled much differently, and it would be merely a consensual contact, the weapon would be checked and the officers would be on their way. You and others may not agree with this, but again I am speaking purely from an officer safety standpoint.

To address Statesman, again, you said, “Unloaded open Carry is not a high risk situation”. Unfortunately Statesman we cannot tell that the weapon is unloaded. We can’t take your word for it, because as you know people lie to the police every day. Even if it has the magazine removed, and we could see that, as you know most firearms can still be fired if there is one in the pipe. As far as revolvers, forget about it, you have to physically inspect the weapon to know it is unloaded. So in that regard that is why we consider any gun call as “high risk”. As far as intent to use the firearm, well that go’s without saying, we (police/sheriffs) don’t know what anyone’s intent is until we contact them and are able to speak to them about what is going on. You also bring up a very valid point, which is the high-risk gun calls were formed in response to criminals displaying a weapon. Unfortunately my response to this is that it only takes a few bad apples to ruin everything for the rest of us. I agree that policy’s and laws need to be changed, that why I wrote the first letter to begin with.

One of the policy’s I believe need to be changed is how citizens receive CCW permits. Right now in not only my agency, but in most other agencies in my county and other counties as well, you have to be a friend of the chief of police or sheriff. I say that because when I worked detectives, I had to do backgrounds on potential CCW applicants. In a majority that I recommended, they were rejected, because they held no political power, or were not the chief’s friends. Those people who were friends of our chief, or could provide the chief with some sort of political muscle were given these permits as if they were party favors. Those people who had good cause, I.E. a victim of domestic violence, a rape victim, a home invasion victim, or people trying just to protect their businesses, were flatly rejected no matter how compelling the case might be. I found this to be morally wrong on a number of levels. Again I will state that law abiding citizens, should not have to show good cause to be issued a CCW permit!

The other point I would like to make having taken calls and dispatched officers to them, is no matter what questions a call screener or dispatcher may ask a potential caller, for example, “is the person wearing the firearm acting in a threatening or irrational manner”, 9 times out of 10 the answer to that question and other probative questions about a man with a gun call, will have the caller say “yes”, and describe something that is false in order to generate a police response. Some groups even advocate telling a call screener that the person had or has a gun in response to a crime, just to generate a faster police response.

So if you look at the totality of this issue, it all boils down to education! Education regarding OC needs to happen in three areas, the general public, Police and Sheriff’s officers, and call screeners. We all need to be on the same page, or else contacts as I described will be continuing, and one of these days an OC person may have had enough with how he/she is treated, and something stupid on either the officers part or the oc citizens part may happen. Lets hope it never comes to this. I see the biggest hurdle to this is the anti gun or non-gun owners who find anyone (yes even cops) carrying a firearm to be offensive. While it is true I have never had anyone call me in as a man wearing a gun, one of my officers have. He was CCW with a badge attached to his shoulder rig, yet his jacket was open, and someone saw the gun. He was in a crowded shopping center, and like I mentioned about officer safety he was contacted by police, ordered to the ground, and disarmed. This true story was circulated around the county, and some officers now know what it is to be considered an armed man. His only crime was that he was carrying a gun!

When I wrote, “it is just the nature of the beast, we are not mind readers, nor can we tell from a call screener what the intent of the person who is carrying the firearm is”, Statesman said, “Harassing legally unloaded open carrying gun owners in not a good idea, unless they are suspected of a crime”. Statesman I agree with you harassing anyone is not a good business practice by the police period. It creates an us vs. them mentality between both groups. The police/sheriff’s are there to serve you, to protect you, to guide you if possible. This us vs. them mentality only makes our jobs harder, and more dangerous. I’m not saying that the us vs. them mentality of many cops doesn’t exist because it does, but we need to do something in order to stop this from happening and create cooperation between both parties.

In regards to CA_Libertarian, you mention that, “your assumptions and irrational fears do not justify disregard for my rights and your oath to protect the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens”. I don’t consider my so-called fears to be “irrational”. My training, both in the academy, and many advanced officer training classes plus my S.W.A.T. training, have shown that even the most routine contacts, can end up getting officers killed. Please look up the number of officers killed each year, and how they were killed and you will be surprised as to the means and the number of deaths caused by just routine calls that have gone south. Most all the officers killed in America were killed by a firearm, some even with their own weapons. I do take offense to the word “irrational”, because if you haven’t walked in my shoes, or any other officers shoes and responded to calls that can be routine, but then turn south, you don’t know what you are talking about. The time I was shot at, was a suspicious person call outside of a shopping center. We respond to these every day. When I arrived and located the person, who looked normal enough, there was nothing routine when he pulled a gun and fired at me. “Irrational” behavior on my part would have been to seek cover, pull my gun on the person, order him to the ground, cuff him, search him “without probable cause” and find the gun. Now that’s “irrational”.

Being a gun owner, I understand that not every gun owner, in fact most gun owners are not criminals. The oath I swore was to protect and defend the constitution of the State of California and the United states, and thus far I feel I have done my best to do so. In fact being a gun owner, has kept my mind open, thus allowing me to afford you and others the best possible protection against those who would call you criminals for OC. I try very hard to balance and provide my utmost attention to every persons rights weather it be gun owners or just other citizens. I work to help people, not harm them.

In regards to Livermoron’s response to my post, again I would like to thank you for your letter to KPIX! I think they were wrong in the fact that you are not flaunting your rights, you are exercising them. I must say that if called I must deal with what the law reads (re: 12031(e)) weather I believe it is unconstitutional or not. I disagree with the letter (which I have not personally seen yet) by the Sheriff of San Mateo County. I don’t think that he should be getting involved in this matter what so ever. He should be relying on his deputies training and tactics to deal with the situations put forth before them. I don’t believe any UOC citizens are dangerous; you are just exercising your rights. I do believe though that until I as a police officer know that you are uoc, we have to use officer safety tactics to ensure our safety as well as yours. By the way Front sight is a very cool place and a great way to hone your skills. Finally I would like to say that I agree that this is a good place to bring law enforcement and uoc citizens together, to reach a common goal, to decriminalize law abiding citizens from carry a firearm. Thank you for letting me speak to everyone on behalf of the LEO’s I am part of.

In response to AIC869’s post, I love your sarcasm, especially about grandma eating a chulupa, and you expecting a full tactical response. I will leave you alone, as long as I know you and your grad mother’s intent is not to use your uoc firearm for illegal purposes. Again it all boils down to this, With my city having over 60,000 resident citizens, and other citizens who are traveling through that don’t even live in my city, I can’t tell what everyone of those peoples intent is. Officer safety dictates that we preserve life at all costs, even our own. Now I’m not trying to be flip, but I do have to check out every call that is presented to me, weather it be a barking dog, domestic violence, or UOC citizen just eating a sandwich in front of the sandwich store. If I might infer from your “freedom of speech and whisper” analogy, you believe you should have the right to carry a firearm any way you want to, open unloaded carry or ccw. My point being from my first post was that a rational ccw policy would end all of the controversy. Don’t get me wrong here, but where not in the old west, and this isn’t the eighteen hundreds where toting a gun on your hip was the “norm”. May be it should be. What I am getting at is that wouldn’t you and others have the same level of protection by being able to carry a loaded concealed weapon, rather than an unloaded open carried weapon. Lets put it to you this way, you would be protecting yourself and others if ccw permits were the norm because (1) Criminals would have no idea who was armed and who wasn’t, thus the theory go’s that they would be far less likely to attack people because they don’t know if they are armed and (2) carrying a firearm open, and unloaded might not deter crime, because if criminals know that the gun is unloaded and can see this, they may be more apt to take an OC person on. The simple fact is that your gun is unloaded and it takes critical seconds to load it and get into the fight as they say. Where the criminals don’t carry around unloaded guns, and they are far more likely to use them, even before you have a chance to draw your firearm and load it. Basically what it boils down to is I truly believe and feel that you would be better served by being allowed to carry a loaded concealed weapon. Heck as a cop I can carry open and loaded, but I know from my training and experience that I can get the drop on someone who is trying to harm me by carry concealed. When they ask me for my wallet all I have to do is to pretend to reach for it and pull my firearm and end the situation one way or the other. Finally I would like to address your last issue and that is “We grant the law enforcement community their authority to enforce laws on our behalf.” “There is no expectation that (citizen’s) will be going in harms way at the request of their fellow citizens”. I fully understand your point, and being issued a CCW permit should and doesn’t obligate you to “act as an officer of the court” and bring suspects to justice. Just the opposite, a ccw permit’s only obligation would be to protect you and your loved ones against serious physical harm. I along with many other citizens who have joined the ranks of law enforcement are responsible for enforcing the laws of the state, county and country, and no one else unless paid to do so should have to put themselves in harms way to deal with situations that they either don’t want to get involved in or shouldn’t get involved in. You and other citizens of every community, county, and state pay us to do that.

Gundude, each situation calls for us to evaluate the situation and use the appropriate tactics to protect you and me. Yes a lot of assumptions are made, but bottom line until the oc becomes the norm, we as LEO’s have to think of one thing only and that is officer safety. I’m not going to think you stole anything, but I am going to treat you as an armed and dangerous person until I know otherwise. As I said I just can’t take your word for it. I have to investigate every incident. Thank you for your post.

Condition three, yes becoming a police officer is voluntary, but it is a job that requires brave people to take certain risks, and be of a high moral character. Yes sometimes liberty’s are trampled on, and yes I am guilty of that. I am human, and just like you I am concerned on a daily basis of coming home alive. What do you want from your officers, a bunch of droids who are not afraid of anything, and enforce the laws to the letter of the law? Yes mistakes are made every day in law enforcement, just like any other profession. When we make those mistakes I would like to say that we own up to them, and some of the time we do. Bottom line is either you have droids like red light camera’s that don’t allow for error, or you have people who do this job because they want to help people and make a difference in their community, state, and country. Secondly I am not saying that a background or a psychological test, or any other tests, should be required to own a gun, just to carry one concealed. While open carry is Free and requires no testing, it also causes problems like I have discussed earlier. A CCW, which would require some amount of testing and fees, offers a far greater amount of protection than a UOC would. You are right that 911 tapes don’t have people usually freaking out about a person who is oc, but some people as I have mentioned lie to the dispatchers and that is a problem with public awareness. Finally I agree with you on the point that an armed populous is a deterrent to crime, but if it was widely know that CCW’s were issued to a large portion of the population, that would be an even bigger deterrent to crimes. Criminals would not know who is armed and who isn’t, thus they would be less likely to take on a citizen for that very reason.

Coolusername2007, hey my idea of CCW’s and conducting some simple tests such as the psychological check I mentioned, is not to put a shrink in control of who can carry and who can’t, but just to make sure that the person who is applying is not a threat to him/herself or has any mental disability, lets say bipolar disease, that would cause them to use the CCW in a unsafe way in regards to the general public. Nothing against shrinks (Sorry if there are any out there) but having gone through numerous tests with them, I sort of wonder if you could flat out lie to them and get away with that. By such testing I’m just thinking that we could weed out some of the nuts out there, thus creating a good name for those of you who would be carrying a CW.

Defensor, thanks for your comments. I agree with you that oc citizens are at a distinct tactical disadvantage. That’s why I would like to see the oc movement change to at the very least a loaded oc, but my greatest wish of all is for all citizens to be afforded the right to carry concealed, loaded firearms. That is why I wrote the original letter.

Since9, I also agree with you when it comes to criminals mainly carry concealed firearms. I have run across a couple that did carry the weapon unconcealed, but generally that was when they were running to or from their get away vehicle, or when they wanted to intimidate someone. That’s why I would like to even up the score and allow all law-abiding citizens the privilege to carry loaded and concealed as well. I don’t believe that LEO’s should be allowed the privilege while the common citizen that we are sworn to serve are not. Thanks. In regards to your other comment regarding harassment of oc’s, I do not think we all do that, even though the academy teaches you to do so.

Finally to everyone out there I know that this has been a lengthy post, but I would request that you keep the pressure on your city, county, and states government to afford you the same rights that I have in carrying a concealed weapon. We (the police and sheriff’s of this nation) cannot always be there in time to help you before something seriously happens. I think OC in a way is not the best option for a number of reasons. First and foremost your guns are not loaded! In order to defend yourself you need a loaded firearm! Secondly I feel and strongly believe that every law abiding citizen (and I don’t mean those who violate traffic laws) should enjoy the same privileges as LEO’s do, by being able to carry concealed, loaded, firearms. Finally I think if those privileges were afforded to everyone who wanted to carry concealed, there would be a lot less police contact, and a lot more safety in the fact that the criminals of this country would not know who is carrying and who isn’t thus making everyone just a little more safe. Thank you all for letting me talk to you. I encourage the dialog and hopefully the action to continue. Together we can get this done!