UOC Discussion at the Commonwealth Club in SF

A police perspective on 'open carry'

Law enforcement officers are taught that guns are a dangerous and deadly threat to their safety and the safety of the public they serve. They understand that any encounter involving a gun is grave.

"Open carry," the practice of carrying an unloaded handgun exposed in a belt holster, unnecessarily subjects our officers and the public to tense encounters that have unforeseeable consequences. The police officer who approaches an "open carry" subject must rapidly assess the subject's behavior without knowing if the individual has a permit to carry a gun or a gun license. The officer knows only that he or she must detain the subject only long enough to determine whether the gun is unloaded.

An officer has more authority to check on whether a driver is legally driving a car than to stop an individual to verify if the individual has the right to carry a gun.

The officer doesn't know if the individual is a law-abiding citizen or an individual prohibited from owning or carrying a gun. The officer does know that an unloaded weapon can become a loaded weapon in less than 1.3 seconds.

Advocates argue that "open carry" subjects are law-abiding citizens exercising their legal right to carry an unloaded gun. They suggest that any potential danger could be reduced by simply educating the officers to recognize an "open carry" incident. They say this could be accomplished merely by having a dispatcher asking a few clarifying questions. A criminal, they say, would act suspiciously, whereas a law-abiding "open carry" subject would remain calm.

An officer is not going to drop his guard when handling a "man with a gun" incident based on the subjective observations of an unknown third party. These encounters will remain a danger to all involved.

Law enforcement officers encounter gun violence and its tragic aftermaths on a daily basis. Officers have seen guns used in conflicts where the subject, in the passion of the moment, has lost his temper and fired. Advocates argue that carrying unloaded guns openly will reduce the number of these incidents and make the public safer. I contend that additional guns only increase the chance of a violent encounter.

It is my view, shared by the California Police Chiefs Association, that "open carry" is an unnecessary threat to the safety of our officers and the public whom they serve.

Click to expand...

']'Open carry' threatened by proposed law

California is a "may issue" state. That means that people who want to carry a gun concealed on their persons may not do so unless told they may do so by their county sheriff or chief of police. California sheriffs usually do not want to give that permission, even though the citizen asking is mentally capable and law abiding.

This situation has given rise to what is known as the "open carry movement" in California, formed to bring attention to the discrimination in the permit process. Advocates in San Diego and the Bay Area have gained publicity for the movement by holstering their handguns (empty of ammunition according to the law) and gathering in public places. It is completely legal in California to carry an empty firearm on your person in public. It always has been.

To some lawmakers, carrying around an empty gun seems threatening. In a quick response to this perceived but non-threat, AB1934 was drafted to make it a crime to carry an empty firearm in plain view. The bill's author, Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, is quoted as saying, "What I'm concerned about is people, who have no training, can carry a gun for no other purpose than to make a public statement." She failed to say "empty" gun.

Making public statements is an American activity. The "open carry movement" is driven by the inequities and unfair withholding of concealed-carry weapon permits.

The intimidation that the lawmaker, or others, may feel is no reason to make another law. Imagined fears are not justification for punishing laws that threaten innocent citizens. "Fears" were addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960s when the court ruled that people's "fears" were not justification to deny civil and constitutional rights.

Once California becomes a "shall issue" state, and all those who apply who are capable and law abiding are permitted to carry concealed weapons, the concern over empty guns carried in open view will fade.

We all know that the police cannot be on the spot immediately with every crime. Threatening citizens with making the right to bear arms a crime is contrary to our nation's history and unproductive for our future in California.

Sam Paredes is the executive director of Gun Owners of California.

Click to expand...

Location: SF Club Office
Time: 5:30 p.m. networking reception, 6 p.m. program
Cost: $12 members, $20 non-members, $7 students (with valid ID)
Also know: Part of the Charles Geschke Family Series on the U.S. Constitution in the 21st Century. Photo by Flickr user esc.ape(d). As per building management policy, there are no weapons allowed into the building.

Click to expand...

UOC made the editorial page of the SF Chronicle.

For the opposition, our friend and hero, Ken James, Emeryville Police Chief.

A police perspective on 'open carry'

Law enforcement officers are taught that guns are a dangerous and deadly threat to their safety and the safety of the public they serve. They understand that any encounter involving a gun is grave. Perhaps their training should be revised and improved to account for the Constitution and one's unalienable right to keep and bear arms. For the history of this country, and beyond, the natural right to self defense has been the law of the land.

"Open carry," the practice of carrying an unloaded handgun exposed in a belt holster, unnecessarily subjects our officers and the public to tense encounters that have unforeseeable consequences. The police officer who approaches an "open carry" subject must rapidly assess the subject's behavior without knowing if the individual has a permit to carry a gun or a gun license. The officer knows only that he or she must detain the subject only long enough to determine whether the gun is unloaded. "Must detain"? Are you sure about that? PC 12031(e) is clear, a gun inspection for loaded condition is optional, not required. Further, why would an officer approach an open carrier when the officer could observe from a safe distance, even perhaps without the open carrier's knowledge. Is it common for your officers to approachlaw abiding citizens for detainment purposes while they are going about their lawfulbusiness and excercising their constitutionally protected rights? Oh, and in CA there are no gun permits or gun licenses...I would have thought you knew that.

An officer has more authority to check on whether a driver is legally driving a car than to stop an individual to verify if the individual has the right to carry a gun. There'sthat pesky Constitution again. Every American has the individual right to carry a gun. Last I checked I didn't see anything in the Constitution about driving a car.

The officer doesn't know if the individual is a law-abiding citizen or an individual prohibited from owning or carrying a gun. The officer does know that an unloaded weapon can become a loaded weapon in less than 1.3 seconds. And unless the officer has reasonable, articulablesuspicion that a crime is in progress or about to be committed, that officer has no right whatsoever to detain, search, or seize any person or their property. Its called the 4th Amendment, perhaps you should study it. And as far as loading a weapon in 1.3 seconds, well...lets just say I don't think that's going to be an issue for much longer.

Advocates argue that "open carry" subjects are law-abiding citizens exercising their legal right to carry an unloaded gun. They suggest that any potential danger could be reduced by simply educating the officers to recognize an "open carry" incident. They say this could be accomplished merely by having a dispatcher asking a few clarifying questions. A criminal, they say, would act suspiciously, whereas a law-abiding "open carry" subject would remain calm. Yup, and its a system that works very well in the vast majority of states across this great land. Are your dispatchers and officers not capable of accomplishing these simple tasks that so many other professionals across the US have mastered?

An officer is not going to drop his guard when handling a "man with a gun" incident based on the subjective observations of an unknown third party. These encounters will remain a danger to all involved. But your officers will detain, illegally search and seize an individual's lawful property based on...what exactly? And the danger you speak about, do you have any actual scientific studies to support your claims? Because my data suggests the exact opposite. The only people who would possibly be in danger are the bad guys who would attempt to harm me.

Law enforcement officers encounter gun violence and its tragic aftermaths on a daily basis. Officers have seen guns used in conflicts where the subject, in the passion of the moment, has lost his temper and fired. Advocates argue that carrying unloaded guns openly will reduce the number of these incidents and make the public safer. I contend that additional guns only increase the chance of a violent encounter. Unfortunately for you your contentions have no merit. Again all the data suggests just the opposite. Guns in the hands of the law abiding considerably affect crime rates for the better, one only needs to look to Florida for proof. Even Washington D.C. post Heller has seen a considerable crime reduction. With the data being so clearly in favor for the armed law abiding citizen don't you think you have an obligation, even a duty to empower that citizen from those who cannot control their tempers and are likely carrying illegally to begin with?

It is my view, shared by the California Police Chiefs Association, that "open carry" is an unnecessary threat to the safety of our officers and the public whom they serve. Yeah, out of all the Poice Chiefs in the association, exactly how many have fallen in line behind you? Don't take it personally, but that data needs to be verified. On the other hand, it doesn't matter, they are all obligated to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, as they swore to when they took their oath of office. Which by the way I'm sure includes the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I fret because there isn't any organization or coordination.

I fret because the folks who do show up wear camo and HK t-shirts.

I fret because they get into shouting matches with the speakers after the event.

It's friggin aggravating.

Click to expand...