Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: East Bay police chief calls for open-carry ban

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010...pen-carry-ban/
    East Bay police chief calls for open-carry ban
    By Josh Richman
    Monday, April 12th, 2010 at 5:58 pm in Assembly, Legislation, Public safety.
    An East Bay police chief will be in Sacramento on Wednesday to advocate for a bill that would crack down on the “open carry” movement, in which gun enthusiasts say they’re exercise their Second Amendment rights and protecting their personal safety by carrying unloaded firearms in plain sight in public places.
    Emeryville Police Chief Ken James said he’ll be representing the California Police Chiefs Association, which has thrown its support behind AB 1934, the bill being unveiled this week by Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego. Saldaña amended the bill last week so that it would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun in specified public areas. Open-carry advocates say it’s a further abridgment of their Constitituonal rights.
    Open carry has been an issue here in the East Bay and across California for several months now; some businesses have adopted policies barring customers from bringing firearms inside.
    James said his concerns about the open-carry movement are twofold. “One is officer safety – this puts an officer between a rock and hard spot. Do we treat the gun as ‘Oh, it’s just an open carry’ or do we treat it as were trained to do from day one at the academy that it’s possibly a danger?”
    The other is an issue of public safety, he said. “If the assumption is being made that the guns aren’t loaded … and if I see you walking down the street with that nice handgun … and I have my loaded gun and I decide to take your unloaded gun from you, I have the advantage. It’s an open target for people to be robbed of their unloaded handguns.”
    “All the polls I’ve seen, the average citizen is uneasy seeing a gun. We have always in Emeryville (Police Department) had a policy that when you are not in uniform, you do not expose your weapon, simply because people don’t feel comfortable seeing them,” he said, noting plainclothes officers and detectives must ensure they’re wearing something over their sidearms even on the hottest days.
    He said the California Police Chiefs Association did a statewide survey to gauge its members’ concern about the open-carry movement, and what the best approach would be to address that concern. One possibility was a statewide ban. Another was local choice and control by city or county ordinance, but James said “that creates a lot of issues for the poor citizen who needs to know 58 counties and more than 500 municipalities that all might have something different.”
    A third option was changing state law to give officers more authority to check on weapons and the people who carry them. James said all an officer can do right now is demand to see whether the gun is unloaded; the officer can’t ask for ID to see if the person is legally allowed to have the weapon (convicted felons and mentally ill people are forbidden from carrying, for example) and can’t run the gun’s serial number to see if it has been stolen from its rightful owner.
    “By far, the survey of membership was ‘ban it completely.’ It just makes it simpler,” James said.
    Open-carry advocates clearly disagree. As Walter Stanley of Livermore told my colleagues a few months ago, when everyone carries a gun, misreading situations is less likely: “We want not just police and criminals to be carrying guns, but law-abiding citizens as well. … An armed society is a polite society
    I guess the Chief will not admit that his NO ISSUANCECCW policiesare not to blame, that the OC'rs are fully responsible for unnecessarily challenging his officer's lack of training, and that his city cannot afford to spend another dime on enforcement.

    The Emeryville Police Cheif has violated his oath- futhermore I believe him to be coward and a traitor for giving aid to those enemies of the United States and her constitution.
    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

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    The Emeryville Police Cheif has violated his oath- futhermore I believe him to be coward and a traitor for giving aid to those enemies of the United States and her constitution.
    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
    Out of curiosity, is there an official list of enemies that the U.S. maintains? If there isn't, how does anybody get prosecuted for treason? I'd certainly love it if we could show that these blatant violators of the constitution to be traitors.

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Just a thought...

    Anyone want to hypothesize what would happen if aprotest was organized (pick a weekday and havea 100 or more drop by)to apply for a concealed carry license at Emeryville PD? Think the Cheif would make a connection?
    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

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Antioch, California, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    My feeling is that if they want to have all the power and authority of policing law-abiding citizens then they should have the responsibility that comes with it. That would mean that government, law-enforcement, and others, willing to take away individual rights to provide a safe environment should be held responsible when they fail at that task.

    Let it be known that officer and politician safety trumps the safety of the unnamed citizen 24/7 in the PRK.

    Protecting the few that control the many. And I thought that all men were created equal. At least under the law.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Antioch, California, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    Just a thought...

    Anyone want to hypothesize what would happen if aprotest was organized (pick a weekday and havea 100 or more drop by)to apply for a concealed carry license at Emeryville PD? Think the Cheif would make a connection?
    What we would need then is 100 or so residents of Emeryville to show up. In reality he was representing the California PoliceChiefs Association so if we got everyone around the state to go to their local PD and apply for a CCW that would probably get some attention. But theywould probably welcome it as citizens volunteering their money to the PD because there is no way that any of the CCW's would be issued at least not in the more populated areas of the state.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post


    East Bay police chief calls for open-carry ban
    By Josh Richman
    Monday, April 12th, 2010 at 5:58 pm in Assembly, Legislation, Public safety.
    An East Bay police chief will be in Sacramento on Wednesday to advocate for a bill that would crack down on the “open carry” movement, in which gun enthusiasts say they’re exercise their Second Amendment rights and protecting their personal safety by carrying unloaded firearms in plain sight in public places.
    Emeryville Police Chief Ken James said he’ll be representing the California Police Chiefs Association, which has thrown its support behind AB 1934, the bill being unveiled this week by Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego. Saldaña amended the bill last week so that it would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun in specified public areas. Open-carry advocates say it’s a further abridgment of their Constitituonal rights.
    Open carry has been an issue here in the East Bay and across California for several months now; some businesses have adopted policies barring customers from bringing firearms inside.
    James said his concerns about the open-carry movement are twofold. “One is officer safety You could learn from AZ police, theysee loaded open carry all the time and dont pee their pants. – this puts an officer between a rock and hard spot. Do we treat the gun as ‘Oh, it’s just an open carry’ or do we treat it as were trained to do from day one at the academy that it’s possibly a danger?”
    The other is an issue of public safety, Cops are more dangerous than OC'ers he said. “If the assumption is being made that the guns aren’t loaded … and if I see you walking down the street with that nice handgun … and I have my loaded gun and I decide to take your unloaded gun from you, I have the advantage. It’s an open target for people to be robbed of their unloaded handguns.” He admits we are an easy target....give us the right to open carry and that will end.
    “All the polls I’ve seen, the average citizen is uneasy seeing a gun. I haven't seen any polls, show us one. We have always in Emeryville (Police Department) had a policy that when you are not in uniform, you do not expose your weapon, Give out CCW's so we can carry concealed too. simply because people don’t feel comfortable seeing them,” he said, noting plainclothes officers and detectives must ensure they’re wearing something over their sidearms even on the hottest days.
    He said the California Police Chiefs Association did a statewide survey to gauge its members’ concern about the open-carry movement, and what the best approach would be to address that concern. One possibility was a statewide ban. Another was local choice and control by city or county ordinance, Did you forget about premption? but James said “that creates a lot of issues for the poor citizen who needs to know 58 counties and more than 500 municipalities that all might have something different.”
    (A third option was changing state law to give law abiding citizens right to protect themselves) officers more authority to check on weapons and the people who carry them. James said all an officer can do right now is demand to see whether the gun is unloaded; the officer can’t ask for ID to see if the person is legally allowed to have the weapon (convicted felons and mentally ill people are forbidden from carrying, for example) and can’t run the gun’s serial number to see if it has been stolen from its rightful owner. You forgot about Terry stops?
    “By far, the survey of membership was ‘ban it completely.’ It just makes it simpler,” James said.
    Open-carry advocates clearly disagree. As Walter Stanley of Livermore told my colleagues a few months ago, when everyone carries a gun, misreading situations is less likely: “We want not just police and criminals to be carrying guns, but law-abiding citizens as well. … An armed society is a polite society
    Me in blue, Stupid in red.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Antioch, California, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Also I wanted to point out that the issues that the Chief brings up don't have anything to do with public safety. The first, was officer safety and the second was criminal safety. What about the safety of the innocent bystanders. Ohh... that's right there are only two players while playing cops and robbers.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    why is open carry legal? when 12031 was written, it was clearly written to allow unloaded open carry. why didnt they just ban the possession of handguns or all firearms for that matter back then?

    something isnt right. i know many people here say the 2nd amendment isnt recognized by CA, but the CA constitution states that the US constitution is the supreme law of the land, i dont fully understand the contrast there.

    from what ive read, uoc is legal because the 2A exists, because we cant get a ccw under normal circumstances, we have to be allowed to bear arms in some other fashion, i.e. UOC.

    if these freedom haters ban open carry, wouldnt the constitutionality of many CA laws easily be challenged and open the doors for loaded open or concealed carry, especially after incorporation?

    it seems like most of the country is moving toward regaining the 2A, and CA is the only one moving further and further from the constitution... im confused.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Traitors to the U.S. Constitution and enemy of the people:

    1. Lori Saldana

    2. Ken James
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    why is open carry legal? when 12031 was written, it was clearly written to allow unloaded open carry. why didnt they just ban the possession of handguns or all firearms for that matter back then?

    something isnt right. i know many people here say the 2nd amendment isnt recognized by CA, but the CA constitution states that the US constitution is the supreme law of the land, i dont fully understand the contrast there.
    I think I know the answer. When 12031 was written, either having the U.S. constitution be the supreme law of the land meant something (or banning carry altogether was too large of a leap or the legislature didn't think people would UOC). Today legal eagles would argue that that line of the California constitution means jack squat. They'd say the U.S. constitution only applies to the feds, so having it be the supreme law of the land means nothing.

    Now of course, that line is in the California constitution for a reason. Maybe one of us should do some research into the creation of the constitution to find out why it is there. But really, the research will only confirm what we already know. That line is in there because in 1850 when California became a state, the people of our country knew that the bill of rights applied to everybody, and no government entity could strip any person of those rights. This holds contrary to the SCOTUS decision in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, but what other answer could there possibly be? The people must have rejected the very notion that their rights could be infringed upon or have been totally ignorant of that ruling.

    After doing some research into treason, it appears that charges of treason have only been successfully tried when we were at war, or for the conspiracy to assassinate president Lincoln. I almost want to say that since we're not at war right now, that if an American helped the Taliban that he/she wouldn't be able to be tried for treason. But, I think that's a losing argument since it's common knowledge that American forces are fighting the Taliban. Surely there's some list that the federal government maintains that has known enemies on it? I'm hoping that there is some list and a long time ago when people with ethics and brains ran the federal government that they added some enemy definition that included idiots that willfully violated the inalienable rights of everybody.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deep Behind Enemy Lines, California, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    There is an old saying about the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. . . .

    I really wish the leaders of OCDO would see that UOCing in CA at this time actively hurts the CA OC movement and our soon-to-be-incorporated 2nd A RKBA. Because of that, I further wish that the leaders would delete all threads being used to organize meet-ups until McDonald is published. Sure, if people want to OC individually because their life is in peril and they can't wait less than 12 weeks until McDonald, go for it. And if they want to organize meet-ups, fine, the 1st A is in place. But they cannot use this forum to hurt the OC movement in CA by organizing here. But that is just my wish . . .

    Having meet-ups now just puts more media pressure on Sacto to restrict our rights. If a bill banning UOC becomes law, will the organizers of these meet-ups pony up the money to fight them in court after McDonald? Maybe they should prove their good intentions by putting a few tens of thousands of dollars in an escrow account for that purpose.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Paladin4CA wrote:
    There is an old saying about the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. . . .

    I really wish the leaders of OCDO would see that UOCing in CA at this time actively hurts the CA OC movement and our soon-to-be-incorporated 2nd A RKBA. Because of that, I further wish that the leaders would delete all threads being used to organize meet-ups until McDonald is published. Sure, if people want to OC individually because their life is in peril and they can't wait less than 12 weeks until McDonald, go for it. And if they want to organize meet-ups, fine, the 1st A is in place. But they cannot use this forum to hurt the OC movement in CA by organizing here. But that is just my wish . . .

    Having meet-ups now just puts more media pressure on Sacto to restrict our rights. If a bill banning UOC becomes law, will the organizers of these meet-ups pony up the money to fight them in court after McDonald? Maybe they should prove their good intentions by putting a few tens of thousands of dollars in an escrow account for that purpose.
    Agreed.

    /Rant on

    I cannot believe what a big fat bowl of Betty Crocker **** these lame politicians and hyperglycemic cops are coming up with now. Holy hell.

    I have pretty much lost all faith, even with incorporation.
    /Rant off

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    Comment left at the article (the first), and a rebuttal to the second comment.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    why is open carry legal? when 12031 was written, it was clearly written to allow unloaded open carry. why didnt they just ban the possession of handguns or all firearms for that matter back then?

    something isnt right. i know many people here say the 2nd amendment isnt recognized by CA, but the CA constitution states that the US constitution is the supreme law of the land, i dont fully understand the contrast there.

    from what ive read, uoc is legal because the 2A exists, because we cant get a ccw under normal circumstances, we have to be allowed to bear arms in some other fashion, i.e. UOC.

    if these freedom haters ban open carry, wouldnt the constitutionality of many CA laws easily be challenged and open the doors for loaded open or concealed carry, especially after incorporation?

    it seems like most of the country is moving toward regaining the 2A, and CA is the only one moving further and further from the constitution... im confused.
    The contrast is really very simple. The Constitution is the law of the land. The Constitution (2A specifically) is currently viewed as only applying to the Federal Government.

    So California fully recognizes that the Federal Government cannot infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. California also recognizes that under the current set of Constitutional rules, it can.

    Until the McDonald case is ruled on by SCOTUS, and the 2A is incorporated, that will not change.

  15. #15
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355

    Post imported post

    Given the direction most of the rest of the U.S. is moving as far as firearms are concerned, California just absolutely baffles me!

    I guess they're trying to get as many and as restrictive laws as possible before SCOTUS rules on 2A.
    $2 Bill - Calling Card of the 2A Movement
    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
    Seriously, who is John Galt?
    Vires et honestas

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, Ca.
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    March Hare wrote:
    Given the direction most of the rest of the U.S. is moving as far as firearms are concerned, California just absolutely baffles me!

    I guess they're trying to get as many and as restrictive laws as possible before SCOTUS rules on 2A.
    Speaking of that case i'd eat my left left shoe for at least a decent update to whats going on
    "Sooner or later we all must die. Warriors choose to do so on their feet, standing between their enemies and those they hold dear. With a weapon in their hands. Cowards choose to do so on their bellies. Unarmed."
    - Dave Gell (inspired by author David Weber)

    "The tragic history of civilian disarmament cries a warning against any systematic attempts to render innocent citizens ill-equipped to defend themselves from tyrant terrorists, despots or oppressive majorities,"
    - Daniel Schmutter

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    dirtykoala wrote:
    why is open carry legal? when 12031 was written, it was clearly written to allow unloaded open carry. why didnt they just ban the possession of handguns or all firearms for that matter back then?

    something isnt right. i know many people here say the 2nd amendment isnt recognized by CA, but the CA constitution states that the US constitution is the supreme law of the land, i dont fully understand the contrast there.

    from what ive read, uoc is legal because the 2A exists, because we cant get a ccw under normal circumstances, we have to be allowed to bear arms in some other fashion, i.e. UOC.

    if these freedom haters ban open carry, wouldnt the constitutionality of many CA laws easily be challenged and open the doors for loaded open or concealed carry, especially after incorporation?

    it seems like most of the country is moving toward regaining the 2A, and CA is the only one moving further and further from the constitution... im confused.
    The contrast is really very simple. The Constitution is the law of the land. The Constitution (2A specifically) is currently viewed as only applying to the Federal Government.

    So California fully recognizes that the Federal Government cannot infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. California also recognizes that under the current set of Constitutional rules, it can.

    Until the McDonald case is ruled on by SCOTUS, and the 2A is incorporated, that will not change.
    meh... now i remember. ive never been that good and understanding how our courts work. i guess the 14A still ticks me off. howis it thatsomewhere along the lines of Americas history the idea came up that the founding fathers "rules" if you will, should not/ do not apply to the united states until someone proves that they do? wouldnt the founding fathers have put something in the constitution that said "these rights arent real, we are just writing them because we are bored" if they didnt mean for them to apply without due process of incorporation?

    forgive my ignorance of the courts.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  18. #18
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    Paladin4CA wrote:
    There is an old saying about the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. . . .

    I really wish the leaders of OCDO would see that UOCing in CA at this time actively hurts the CA OC movement and our soon-to-be-incorporated 2nd A RKBA. Because of that, I further wish that the leaders would delete all threads being used to organize meet-ups until McDonald is published. Sure, if people want to OC individually because their life is in peril and they can't wait less than 12 weeks until McDonald, go for it. And if they want to organize meet-ups, fine, the 1st A is in place. But they cannot use this forum to hurt the OC movement in CA by organizing here. But that is just my wish . . .

    Having meet-ups now just puts more media pressure on Sacto to restrict our rights. If a bill banning UOC becomes law, will the organizers of these meet-ups pony up the money to fight them in court after McDonald? Maybe they should prove their good intentions by putting a few tens of thousands of dollars in an escrow account for that purpose.
    It never stops to amaze me how Pro-2A folks still believe this. I mean really, its seriously like talking to a battered wife who just thinks if they don't make any waves they won't get beat anymore. And when they do, its their own fault. Its truly sad in every form of the word.

    Let me ask you a few questions to try to understand your position and the potential effects of UOC.

    How exactly does UOC hurt the OC effort? LOC, which is the standard that we all desireis already illegal. So how does UOC hurt? I mean really, nobody wants to UOC, we have to UOC because LOC is illegal. Is anybody here actually content with UOC? I'm not.

    Further, the "leaders" of OCDO in San Diego have all sat down. There haven't been any real UOC events held in SD county to speak of since they stopped UOC'ing. So how have the others contributed to digging the proverbial hole any deeper with an Assemblyman in their district? Unless the SD county rep Saldanais projecting her fears and proposing legislation for other districts of which she does not represent!

    And why continue toblamethe "leaders" of OCDO for more restrictive gun laws to begin with? Your premise is false from the outset. Liberty hating, constitutionally challenged,nanny-statistelected representatives are the ones to blame. Why do you perpetuate the blame-shift thatthey want and need you to perpetuate? Why not put the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who are truly responsible for the infringement on everybody's liberties...the fear mongering, power hungry, control freak progressives who run this state?


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  19. #19
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    This guy posted a well written, well thought out perspective. So I'm posting it here so it doesn't disappear.
    Joe Dixon Says:
    April 13th, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Dear Josh,

    I recently read your article regarding Emeryville Police Chief Ken James and the attempt to ban on openly carrying a firearm. It is little unsettling to see your piece, not just because of the Chiefs position, but because of the missing information that could have been included in this article.

    This is not a personal attack and I do not necessarily blame you as an individual, but its one of those things that gives the media a bad name.

    So, to make this negative into a positive instead of just complaining, I would like to share with you the rest of the story regarding openly carrying a firearm and the “Open Carry” movement. You should note that I am not part of the “Open Carry” movement in any way.

    “Open carry has been an issue here in the East Bay and across California for several months now; some businesses have adopted policies barring customers from bringing firearms inside.”

    And some businesses like Starbucks opted to not bar people from carrying in their establishments if they are not otherwise prohibited by law. This is in spite of the unrelenting attacks by the Brady Camp trying to muscle them into following their wishes. This is nothing new in many other states where it is legal to carry a firearm. Some businesses post a sign if they don’t want firearms in their businesses and some don’t. It is not even close to some new phenomenon.

    “James said his concerns about the open-carry movement are twofold. “One is officer safety – this puts an officer between a rock and hard spot. Do we treat the gun as ‘Oh, it’s just an open carry’ or do we treat it as were trained to do from day one at the academy that it’s possibly a danger?””
    To the uneducated observer this might make sense on its face, but here is what he is not telling you. If the openly carrying of an unloaded firearm is such an officer safety issue, why is it not an officer safety issues in the vast majority of the rest of the United States? 42 other states allow “loaded” open carry without issue. Wouldn’t common sense dictate that situations where a firearm is visible are safer? The police officer then positively knows that a firearm is present and can act/react appropriately. Wouldn’t it be safe to say that a hidden firearm might be more of a danger?
    The second part his statement here is true because, unlike most states, California Police Academies don’t properly train cadets. Why is it that, in other states, cadets are trained properly on this issue and police officers don’t tend to overreact at the sight of a regular person with a gun? For some reason, when you cross the state line into California and a few other states, common sense no longer prevails.

    “The other is an issue of public safety, he said. “If the assumption is being made that the guns aren’t loaded … and if I see you walking down the street with that nice handgun … and I have my loaded gun and I decide to take your unloaded gun from you, I have the advantage. It’s an open target for people to be robbed of their unloaded handguns.””

    Since this has never occurred before, it is only far reaching speculation that it will occur at all. I can speculate there will be peace on earth tomorrow, but that does not make it so. The reality is that the vast majority of criminals prefer more submissive victims. So, with this in mind, the presence of a gun in the possession of a potential victim will more likely cause the criminal to move to the next target. Will the criminal bet his life on it being unloaded or whether the victim can load it quickly and defend himself? Not likely.

    ““All the polls I’ve seen, the average citizen is uneasy seeing a gun. We have always in Emeryville (Police Department) had a policy that when you are not in uniform, you do not expose your weapon, simply because people don’t feel comfortable seeing them,” he said, noting plainclothes officers and detectives must ensure they’re wearing something over their sidearms even on the hottest days.”

    This is a classic example of providing bad information and well as leaving important facts out. Did he happen to provide a copy of these polls he has seen? Who conducted these polls and were they scientific? This comment is a non starter and carries zero weight.

    And, more importantly, many might agree that it would be far better to have a gun out of plain sight. However, did you think to ask how many concealed firearms permits he has issued, if any? And after asking that question, did you ask how many, if any, were issued to regular people for self defense? Do you know how difficult it is to obtain a concealed firearms permit in Ca? 42 of our 50 states are now “shall issue” (meaning if you meet the required standards you will not be denied a permit on someone’s whim) with these permits for self defense. Again, somehow crossing the state line into California somehow changes the common sense factor.

    “He said the California Police Chiefs Association did a statewide survey to gauge its members’ concern about the open-carry movement, and what the best approach would be to address that concern. One possibility was a statewide ban. Another was local choice and control by city or county ordinance, but James said “that creates a lot of issues for the poor citizen who needs to know 58 counties and more than 500 municipalities that all might have something different.” ”

    This comes as no surprise. Would anyone expect a different answer from this group when they believe “only cops should carry guns”? Should we survey the lumber industry and see how they feel about hemp products?

    “A third option was changing state law to give officers more authority to check on weapons and the people who carry them. James said all an officer can do right now is demand to see whether the gun is unloaded; the officer can’t ask for ID to see if the person is legally allowed to have the weapon (convicted felons and mentally ill people are forbidden from carrying, for example) and can’t run the gun’s serial number to see if it has been stolen from its rightful owner.”

    I think part of living in a “free society” is being able to go about your business without unnecessary interference if you’re not breaking the law. That is not too much to ask from anyone’s standpoint. Even the most radical anti gun advocate will admit that the Supreme Court of the United States will most likely incorporate the second Amendment this year. This means that this Amendment, like it or not, will take its place among the other incorporated Amendments and must be provided the same protections.

    “By far, the survey of membership was ‘ban it completely.’ It just makes it simpler,” James said.

    While it might be “simpler” to just ban someone’s right to self defense, does this make any sense? It’s ok to enjoy our right to self defense, as long as it’s not complicated? almost speechless at this statement.

    Key points I hope you consider.

    Whether you believe the second amendment is a fundamental right or not, put that aside for a moment. Would anyone argue the fundamental right of self defense? And since a firearm is the only true equalizer (a 115 lb women is on the same ground as a 250 man), is that not the best method of protection?

    The “Open Carry” movement as it is being called may appear to be some misguided political statement and it some ways you would be right. But the main point that just about everyone is missing is that if given the choice, for obvious reasons, most would prefer to carry their protection concealed. But the good chief failed to mention that this is not allowed either. People in a particular position of power such as the Chief you interviewed, wont allow it. This is in spite of the fact that some 42 states are “Shall issue” and two (soon to be three) of those states don’t require a permit. Yet, we have yet to see those “Blood in the streets” out of control incidents that the anti gun groups keep claiming will happen.

    If you check into the issuance of concealed handgun permits across the state, you will then understand how few are issued (in most counties) and to whom the few are issued to. The chiefs or Sheriff’s in many counties strongly discourage even applying for a permit so they can claim that there is little interest. Then, if you apply for one and get denied, (which is usually the case), that denial goes into your permanent file with the Department of Justice. Most believe, and they are probably correct, that it is a black mark on their record. This further discourages applicants.

    It is interesting how easy it is for Chiefs like this to advocate victim disarmament as well as a person’s basic right to self defense because they are inconvenient. They like to throw out “Officer Safety” as an excuse, yet Law Enforcement professionals in the majority of other states (where it’s legal for regular citizens to carry firearms) are not any less safe. It appears to be the opposite.

    How much support would this ban get from Law Enforcement if they had to follow the same rules? In other words, if they were not afforded the option of carrying concealed and unloaded open carry was their only option ban it? Officers are in no more danger these days off duty then the average citizen. The slightly elevated chance that they might run into someone they arrested is offset by their knowledge, observation and training. Would they support playing by the same rules? I doubt it.

    In closing, I believe that once one takes the emotions out of the argument, all becomes very clear. People have the right to protect themselves in spite of some sheltered persons discomfort. How smart does one have to be to understand that Law Enforcement will most likely not arrive in time should you (or your family) need protection? It is easy for the Chief to discount our needs since he is allowed to carry his gun…….

    There is even more to this issue, but I think you get the point. I do understand that you may not have total discretion to write whatever and however you want, but the short second hand comment at the end of the article that represented the opposing side of this argument was not fair reporting. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.

    Sincerely,

    JD

    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, Ca.
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    Its just a reminder to all the anti-gun people out there, The USA was claimed and founded with guns, it has been defended by guns since then, today it is kept safe from internal and external threats buy guns wither it be by militia, Army, Navy, Marines, Air force, police, FBI, CIA and so on. All these people are citizens of the united states who took up their guns and stood up for their country. c.o.p. = Citizen on patrol why cant people put 2 and 2 together? Guns are important to our society to kept us all safe and we keep these firearms to keep us safe from each other as well.
    "Sooner or later we all must die. Warriors choose to do so on their feet, standing between their enemies and those they hold dear. With a weapon in their hands. Cowards choose to do so on their bellies. Unarmed."
    - Dave Gell (inspired by author David Weber)

    "The tragic history of civilian disarmament cries a warning against any systematic attempts to render innocent citizens ill-equipped to defend themselves from tyrant terrorists, despots or oppressive majorities,"
    - Daniel Schmutter

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    184

    Post imported post

    Chrisc411 wrote:
    Its just a reminder to all the anti-gun people out there, The USA was claimed and founded with guns, it has been defended by guns since then, today it is kept safe from internal and external threats buy guns wither it be by militia, Army, Navy, Marines, Air force, police, FBI, CIA and so on. All these people are citizens of the united states who took up their guns and stood up for their country. c.o.p. = Citizen on patrol why cant people put 2 and 2 together? Guns are important to our society to kept us all safe and we keep these firearms to keep us safe from each other as well.
    I really liked JDs letter. The author was remiss in hisresponsibility to fairjournalism. Now to C'411, the thing that concerns me most is that much of the LE community is monitoring this forum. That in itself is ok with me but in their intelligence gathering they now understand that we are well aware of our rights and yet they seek to deny them. This is not a surprise to me, so as indicated in the letter the majority opinion among the chiefs is in favor of a ban. It is all to obvious that they would do this just to simplify their duties and to appease the traumatized public.

    No recognition made to the fact that a ban is not justified under the authority of making duties more convenient for those "endangered" officers. They knew the job was "---------" when they took it. I see no reason in denying the very tangibleessential right of all people. This has nothing to do with the real issue of officer safety it is based on unreasonable prejudiced ideology. Us verses them for instance. As well as placating what they seem to think is a more significant group of citizens than your average law abiding mind their own type who is concerned with providing for their own defense.I would like to close with, for those who are in authority in these matters fear not we are not your enemy. You should not percieve us as such. Please consider carefully that if a ban on open carry is passedwe willeffectively berendered defenseless.Denied that fundamental humanrightwhich is guaranteedus by the Constitutionwould be akin to sewing our lips shut to prevent us from speeking freely.Consider carefully lest we alllose be itin our homes, on the street, in public opinion polls and on election day.

    Sincerely, Defensor

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deep Behind Enemy Lines, California, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    Paladin4CA wrote:
    There is an old saying about the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. . . .

    I really wish the leaders of OCDO would see that UOCing in CA at this time actively hurts the CA OC movement and our soon-to-be-incorporated 2nd A RKBA. Because of that, I further wish that the leaders would delete all threads being used to organize meet-ups until McDonald is published. Sure, if people want to OC individually because their life is in peril and they can't wait less than 12 weeks until McDonald, go for it. And if they want to organize meet-ups, fine, the 1st A is in place. But they cannot use this forum to hurt the OC movement in CA by organizing here. But that is just my wish . . .

    Having meet-ups now just puts more media pressure on Sacto to restrict our rights. If a bill banning UOC becomes law, will the organizers of these meet-ups pony up the money to fight them in court after McDonald? Maybe they should prove their good intentions by putting a few tens of thousands of dollars in an escrow account for that purpose.
    It never stops to amaze me how Pro-2A folks still believe this. I mean really, its seriously like talking to a battered wife who just thinks if they don't make any waves they won't get beat anymore. And when they do, its their own fault. Its truly sad in every form of the word.

    Let me ask you a few questions to try to understand your position and the potential effects of UOC.

    How exactly does UOC hurt the OC effort? LOC, which is the standard that we all desireis already illegal. So how does UOC hurt? I mean really, nobody wants to UOC, we have to UOC because LOC is illegal. Is anybody here actually content with UOC? I'm not.

    Further, the "leaders" of OCDO in San Diego have all sat down. There haven't been any real UOC events held in SD county to speak of since they stopped UOC'ing. So how have the others contributed to digging the proverbial hole any deeper with an Assemblyman in their district? Unless the SD county rep Saldanais projecting her fears and proposing legislation for other districts of which she does not represent!

    And why continue toblamethe "leaders" of OCDO for more restrictive gun laws to begin with? Your premise is false from the outset. Liberty hating, constitutionally challenged,nanny-statistelected representatives are the ones to blame. Why do you perpetuate the blame-shift thatthey want and need you to perpetuate? Why not put the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who are truly responsible for the infringement on everybody's liberties...the fear mongering, power hungry, control freak progressives who run this state?

    Sorry about not replying to this sooner. I usually only visit/post on wkends.

    You analogy is false: there weren't any moves to ban UOC like this that were gaining both media attention and political traction until the Nor Cal meet-ups. The wise 98 lbs weakling does not get in the bully's face NOW when he knows that he's got a crate-full of steroids arriving in less than 3 months (McDonald). He waits quietly, bidding his time training until he is strong enough to have a good chance at winning.

    As to your questions:

    Q1: "How exactly does UOC hurt the OC effort? LOC, which is the standard that we all desireis already illegal. So how does UOC hurt? I mean really, nobody wants to UOC, we have to UOC because LOC is illegal. Is anybody here actually content with UOC? I'm not."

    A1: The Black Panthers caused us to lose LOC and the UOC'ers who refused to stand down may cause us to lose UOC.

    As I said in my post, now we have to divert time, money, and effort to engage in a political fight that was unnecessary. Last week I got an email from the NRA-ILA alerting NRA members (I assume it was sent only to CA members) about the bill and telling them it is vital they contact all the members of that cmte and ask them not to vote for that bill. So, now I have to waste 1/4 hr of my life making those calls, just as everyone else who cares about our soon-to-be federal RKBA in CA, just because of those UOC'ers who would not heed wise counsel and stand down. Those UOC'ers themselves are too few to stop this bill, so everyone else -- those who did not bring this upon us and those who actively stood against pre-incorporation UOCing -- are being forced to bail all our butts out of this mess that those UOC'ers got us into.

    Let's just guess that, oh, out of the total NRA membership of ~4M, that 300,000 live in CA and guess that of those, oh, 1 out of 10 (30,000) will make those calls. That is 7,500 man-hours of time spent calling, time that could have been used to advance rather than defend the cause. IOW, it is 7,500 man-hours of pro-gunnies' time needlessly wasted.

    ETA: I should mention that to stop the UOC ban will take thousands of man-hours each time it comes up for a vote. So, assuming it goes this route and all the way to the Governor: Assembly Public Safety + Assembly Fiscal + Assembly floor vote + Senate Public Safety + Senate Fiscal + Senate floor vote + Governor's signature/veto = that is 7 votes requiring tens of thousands of hours of pro-gunner time to try (and maybe even then not succeeding) to stop a ban of UOC, a political fight that was unnecessary and that we can ill afford. That is tens of thousands of hours of volunteer time that could have been better used in any number of other ways to actually advance our cause.

    Q2: "Further, the "leaders" of OCDO in San Diego have all sat down. There haven't been any real UOC events held in SD county to speak of since they stopped UOC'ing. So how have the others contributed to digging the proverbial hole any deeper with an Assemblyman in their district? Unless the SD county rep Saldanais projecting her fears and proposing legislation for other districts of which she does not represent!"

    A2: Simple, they are stirring things up in other Assemblymembers' and State Senators' districts and the media is still making it an issue (see today's SF Chronicle front page story which will be online Tues). This will cause many of them to support her whereas if all CA UOC'ers stood down, only the hard-core antis would support her. Not all antis (or Dems) are hard-core antis. (For full disclosure, many Repubs are antis, incl Arnie, who wrote a letter urging Feinstein to vote against national reciprocity legislation (not that she would ever support it).)

    If UOC'ers keep making UOC an issue, the antis, esp the Dems, will be happy to use that as a diversion/distraction to keep some their constituents' attention from the fact that CA is about to go bankrupt and to make 2nd A rights haters happy and willing to fight for Dems this Nov. It stirs up their anti base better than they could do themselves. Don't give them any political cover for the Nov elections!

    Q3: "And why continue toblamethe "leaders" of OCDO for more restrictive gun laws to begin with? Your premise is false from the outset. Liberty hating, constitutionally challenged,nanny-statistelected representatives are the ones to blame. Why do you perpetuate the blame-shift thatthey want and need you to perpetuate? Why not put the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who are truly responsible for the infringement on everybody's liberties...the fear mongering, power hungry, control freak progressives who run this state?"

    A3: Your premise is false from the outset: it is liberty hating, constitutionally challenged voters who elected those reps who are to blame. No, no, wait, it is really the liberty hating, constitutionally challenged public school teachers, university profs, and PBS who are to blame for indoctrinating everyone with falsehoods about the history of our Republic, it's Constitution, and laws and thus cause us to vote for those Liberty hating, constitutionally challenged,nanny-statistelected representatives. No, no, I've got it: it is really the CFR/Trilateral C./Bildenbergers who are to blame who direct all those liberty hating, constitutionally challenged public school teachers, . . . . Whatever.

    The political battlefield is what it is. For pro-RKBA Californians to stir up a hornet's nest of opposition less than 6 months before incorporation (since Jan, when Nor Cal UOCing started getting media attention), was asking for trouble and now we've got it. Sure, Saldana is using the SD UOCing as justification for her bill. But she didn't introduce it until after Nor Cal UOCers caused the MSM to focus on the issue (and Starbucks), making her think it will get support from reps across the state.

    For some UOC'ers to persist in having meet-ups after Starbuck's fiasco rather than wait for getting some federal 2nd A protection, was reckless. "If you act like an [donkey], someone will be willing to ride you." Saldana will happily ride UOCing to gain political power among antis.

    Outta here until next weekend.

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Paladin4CA wrote:
    [SNIP] So, now I have to waste 1/4 hr of my life making those calls, just as everyone else who cares about our soon-to-be federal RKBA in CA, just because of those UOC'ers who would not heed wise counsel and stand down. Those UOC'ers themselves are too few to stop this bill, so everyone else -- those who did not bring this upon us and those who actively stood against pre-incorporation UOCing -- are being forced to bail all our butts out of this mess that those UOC'ers got us into.

    ...For some UOC'ers to persist in having meet-ups after Starbuck's fiasco rather than wait for getting some federal 2nd A protection, was reckless. "If you act like an [donkey], someone will be willing to ride you." Saldana will happily ride UOCing to gain political power among antis.

    Outta here until next weekend.
    Your anger is misdirected. It was not UOCers that introduced the bill. In addition, your aloofness and repugnant attitude toward UOCersare showing. "Fiasco" and "reckless"are words the Brady-types would use to describe the position Starbucks took.

    Glad you only show up on weekends...my spirit couldn't take all of your encouraging words every day of the week!
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Deep Behind Enemy Lines, California, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    Paladin4CA wrote:
    [SNIP] So, now I have to waste 1/4 hr of my life making those calls, just as everyone else who cares about our soon-to-be federal RKBA in CA, just because of those UOC'ers who would not heed wise counsel and stand down. Those UOC'ers themselves are too few to stop this bill, so everyone else -- those who did not bring this upon us and those who actively stood against pre-incorporation UOCing -- are being forced to bail all our butts out of this mess that those UOC'ers got us into.

    ...For some UOC'ers to persist in having meet-ups after Starbuck's fiasco rather than wait for getting some federal 2nd A protection, was reckless. "If you act like an [donkey], someone will be willing to ride you." Saldana will happily ride UOCing to gain political power among antis.

    Outta here until next weekend.
    Your anger is misdirected. It was not UOCers that introduced the bill. In addition, your aloofness and repugnant attitude toward UOCersare showing. "Fiasco" and "reckless"are words the Brady-types would use to describe the position Starbucks took.

    Glad you only show up on weekends...my spirit couldn't take all of your encouraging words every day of the week!
    It was the UOC'ers who wouldn't stand down until after McDonald who made UOCing a political issue in CA where we don't even have a state constitutional RKBA and where antis control both legislative chambers and the governorship. Way to go, rocket scientists!

    Sacto's response was perfectly predictable and predicted (by Gene Hoffman), but certain UOC'ers reckless behavior (and that is exactly what it was, knowing the potential harm but pursing that course of action regardless) put UOCing on Sacto's radar.

    I'm still waiting to hear which of you has put aside tens of thousands of dollars to fight this in the courts if it becomes law . . . . (sounds of crickets)

    I visited this site again to see how many have stepped forward to say they contacted the Assembly Public Safety Committee members asking them to vote against AB1934:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/42555.html
    No one, other than MC and me (and I was waiting until after incorporation to UOC).

    You guys made a mess and now expect all the other CA gunnies to clean it up. Thanks a bunch.

    Your spirit will recover faster than our ability to UOC if this bill becomes law.

  25. #25
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Paladin4CA wrote:
    [SNIP] I'm still waiting to hear which of you has put aside tens of thousands of dollars to fight this in the courts if it becomes law . . . . (sounds of crickets)

    I visited this site again to see how many have stepped forward to say they contacted the Assembly Public Safety Committee members asking them to vote against AB1934:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/42555.html
    No one, other than MC and me (and I was waiting until after incorporation to UOC).

    You guys made a mess and now expect all the other CA gunnies to clean it up. Thanks a bunch.

    Your spirit will recover faster than our ability to UOC if this bill becomes law.
    I don't expect anything out of you. You still don't get it.

    A right is not bought. A right cannot not be nullified by legislation. A right is not determined by a court.

    A right isendowed byour Creator and asserted by those who would defend it.

    Are you willing to defend it?

    If yes, then quit your cryin' and moanin' and concentrate on the enemy on the road ahead.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

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
  •