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
