KTVU News (CA) - Law Professor says "AB 1934 really has nothing to do with public safety"

imported post

http://www.ktvu.com/news/23691070/detail.html

SNIP


Panel In SF Discusses Proposed Open Carry Ban


Posted: 10:31 pm PDT May 26, 2010Updated: 10:38 pm PDT May 26, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO -- [/b]A panel discussion in San Francisco Wednesday evening about a state bill that would ban open carry of firearms in California focused on balancing safety and public order versus individual rights and the Constitution.

The bill, which would outlaw open carry, has made it through two Assembly committees and will soon be heard on the Assembly floor.

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said he strongly opposes the law because he believes it interferes with the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

. . .


Franklin Zimring, a professor of law and criminal justice at the University of California at Berkeley, . . . said AB 1934 really has nothing to do with public safety.


"You have a status conflict where both sides are saying, 'I'm right,'" he said.


He said those who practice open carry tend to be white, older Californians who live in low-crime areas.


"You're not wearing the gun because it's going to save you," he said. "It's being worn as a badge to say, 'We gun owners are right.'"


Similarly, he argued, the proponents of the bill are not introducing it because openly carrying has led to any violent incidents or crimes - it hasn't. The bill's sponsors also just want to show that they're right on the issue of gun control.

. . .

imported post

http://www.ktvu.com/video/23155331/index.html

imported post

edit to new topic.

imported post

Emeryville Police Chief Kevin James, however, is an outspoken supporter of AB 1934 and has a different view of the Constitution.

"People have a Constitutional right to safety and to be safe in public," he said.

Click to expand...

Um. . . No they don't. I don't see that right in the constitution, but maybe they added it since I last read it. You know...that damned piece of paper keeps changing all the time...

He said he doesn't carry a gun when he's off duty because California experiences fewer than 500 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

Click to expand...

Um. . . I am not a professional, so maybe my opinion and feelings don't really matter, but 500 victims/100,000 people? Doesn't California have a population of some 35 million people? That would put the number at 175,000 people every year. Somehow that doesn't make me feel safe.

imported post

Mike wrote:

"You're not wearing the gun because it's going to save you," he said. "It's being worn as a badge to say, 'We gun owners are right.'"


Similarly, he argued, the proponents of the bill are not introducing it because openly carrying has led to any violent incidents or crimes - it hasn't. The bill's sponsors also just want to show that they're right on the issue of gun control.
 

Click to expand...

So basically, in his opinion people who carry guns mainly do so as an expression of a belief and the gun banners ban them mainly to suppress their free expression?

He does seem to be making an argument that gun owners are right. After all, how can it be right in a free society to suppress the expression of your opponents?

He said those who practice open carry tend to be white, older Californians who live in low-crime areas.
"You're not wearing the gun because it's going to save you," he said. "It's being worn as a badge to say, 'We gun owners are right.'"

Click to expand...

Statistically, wouldn't a fire extinguisher also be very rare to need? Does that imply that people who have a fire extinguisher have it for reasons other than putting out a fire? How about a defibrillator? I imagine that is a tool that is even more rarely called for.

Even if I decorated my walls with fire extinguishers mainly to express to guests that fire extinguishers owners are "right", that doesn't exclude me from also considering their actual use in putting out fires as a reason for having them.

Of course here in the U.S. we still have the mentality that there is nothing wrong with fire extinguishers, but I don't think it was too long ago that I was reading about some place in England where they were saying people shouldn't have them because fighting fires needs to be left to the professionals.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3525380.ece

Extinguishers banned as ‘fire risk’
Fire extinguishers may be removed from blocks of flats across Britain after they were deemed dangerous by buildings risk assessors...

...“We do not want to encourage people to leave their flat to fetch a fire extinguisher from a hallway and then return to a blaze. We want people to get out safely.

Click to expand...

imported post

Theseus wrote:

Emeryville Police Chief Kevin James, however, is an outspoken supporter of AB 1934 and has a different view of the Constitution.

"People have a Constitutional right to safety and to be safe in public," he said.

Click to expand...

Um. . . No they don't. I don't see that right in the constitution, but maybe they added it since I last read it. You know...that damned piece of paper keeps changing all the time...

Click to expand...

Kevin James may have been refering to the California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 which states,

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

imported post

I carry a concealed fire extinguisher in my car, and have had to use it on two occasions. Hope I'm not breaking any laws.

imported post

Theseus wrote:

Emeryville Police Chief Kevin James, however, is an outspoken supporter of AB 1934 and has a different view of the Constitution.

"People have a Constitutional right to safety and to be safe in public," he said.

Click to expand...

Um. . . No they don't. I don't see that right in the constitution, but maybe they added it since I last read it. You know...that damned piece of paper keeps changing all the time...

Click to expand...

It seems the good chief isn't up on various court rulings to the contrary:

California:

http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/51629

D.C.:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9108468254125174344&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

SCOTUS:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

imported post

The complete Commonwealth Club "debate" on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-GqhDAkVlg

No surprise. The anti-gunners are a politically appointed police chief and a professor, assisted by a "soft" moderator, against one pro gun-rights guy. Typical attempt to stack the deck, but as always the anti-gun folks attempt to throw out red herrings and straw men, while thepro-gun guy plugs away withthe simple, strong, and straightforward case for self-defense.

imported post

Mr. Zimring is incorrect in his assumption. Gun owners do not carry openly on their hip to prove a point, they carry openly because a radical left wing goverment will not allow them to carry concealed.

imported post

Some of us who have the choice, choose to carry openly.

And, part of the reason is to make a point.

imported post

Point taken. While in Alaska and Alabama we have the choice to do both, in Kalifornia, the land of fruits and nuts, it will now be against the law to do either.

imported post

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud

imported post

bump