Gun Owners of California's Sam Paredes & others carried loaded guns to Commonwealth Club debate

imported post

http://trueslant.com/franjohns/2010/05/28/handguns-the-second-amendment-and-the-public-safety

SNIP

May. 28 2010 - 2:51 pm | 3 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments
Handguns, the second amendment and the public safety
By FRAN JOHNS


Two sides of the gun control debate squared off in San Francisco this week, focus of a mini-battle over the fully loaded question: Does your right to walk around with a loaded gun in public override my right to feel safe when I don’t know if you might go off your rocker? This writer discovered, thanks to a show of hands at the Commonwealth Club sponsored panel, that I was the only unarmed person within a back-of-the-house three-row section. This revelation guarantees discomfort but keeps you alert.

. . .

At the end of the discussion, moderator John Diaz, editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, asked a question about whether panelists were packing heat during this event. Off-duty Police Chief James was not, because he feels guns invite problems. Professor Zimring was not, because he said if he tried to hit a target everyone around would be in trouble. Citizen Paredes was. A concealed weapon, because you never know if another citizen might need you to leap into action. Was it loaded? Yes.

. . .

imported post

Does your right to walk around with a loaded gun in public override my right to feel safe....

Click to expand...

it never ceases to amaze me that people think they have this right, and that this imaginary "right" should trump others' Constitutionally guaranteed rights. mind boggling.

Bobby

imported post

I've read the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the California Constitution. Nowhere in any of them did I find "the right to feel safe". I think I did read something about the right to keep and bear arms somewhere in there.

Using their logic, does this mean if you are driving a car and I don't feel safe with your driving skills that you should be banned from driving?

I'm always amazed at how people sling the word "right" around like it is a personal option. In almost every store there's a sign like "We reserve the right to <insert your desire here>". Just because you want something your way doesn't make it a "right".

imported post

Anthony_I_Am wrote:

I've read the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the California Constitution. Nowhere in any of them did I find "the right to feel safe".

Click to expand...

I'm not defending Ken James' position. I completely disagree with his logic. But, the California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 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."

We just need to be careful that we do our research before responding.

imported post

This is interesting, SofL how then do we answer the question, that being the right to FEEL safe vs the ability to obtain safety


Is feeling safe and obtaining safety the same under Cal Constitution.

Is there a tangble difference in feeling and obtaining.

If I feel safe have I obtained safety? If I carry a firearm in pursuit of safety I am then trying to obtain safety. Is there any contradiction here?

Am I making sense.

imported post

Anthony_I_Am wrote:

I've read the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the California Constitution. Nowhere in any of them did I find "the right to feel safe". I think I did read something about the right to keep and bear arms somewhere in there.

Using their logic, does this mean if you are driving a car and I don't feel safe with your driving skills that you should be banned from driving?

I'm always amazed at how people sling the word "right" around like it is a personal option. In almost every store there's a sign like "We reserve the right to <insert your desire here>". Just because you want something your way doesn't make it a "right".

Click to expand...

Liberals think the Constitution says women have the right to government paid abortions also. I don't think that was an issue when the constitution was written. Go figure.

imported post

Anthony_I_Am wrote:

I've read the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the California Constitution. Nowhere in any of them did I find "the right to feel safe". I think I did read something about the right to keep and bear arms somewhere in there.

Using their logic, does this mean if you are driving a car and I don't feel safe with your driving skills that you should be banned from driving?

I'm always amazed at how people sling the word "right" around like it is a personal option. In almost every store there's a sign like "We reserve the right to <insert your desire here>". Just because you want something your way doesn't make it a "right".

Click to expand...

Signs that read, "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone," are, in fact, stating a right--one that has been infringed by the concept of "public accommodation," but a right nonetheless.

imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:

Anthony_I_Am wrote:

I've read the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the California Constitution. Nowhere in any of them did I find "the right to feel safe".

Click to expand...

I'm not defending Ken James' position. I completely disagree with his logic. But, the California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 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."

We just need to be careful that we do our research before responding.

Click to expand...

A right to feel safe is not the same as the right to pursue and obtain safety. The former is used to argue against the RKBA and the latter is an argument for the RKBA. The first is nebulous, deals with feelings, and will vary from person to person. The second is more concrete, talking about actions.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

Anthony_I_Am wrote:

I've read the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the California Constitution. Nowhere in any of them did I find "the right to feel safe".

Click to expand...

I'm not defending Ken James' position. I completely disagree with his logic. But, the California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 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."

We just need to be careful that we do our research before responding.

Click to expand...

A right to feel safe is not the same as the right to pursue and obtain safety. The former is used to argue against the RKBA and the latter is an argument for the RKBA. The first is nebulous, deals with feelings, and will vary from person to person. The second is more concrete, talking about actions.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Safety is not the concept on which we disagree.

We should emphasize that a "feeling" is not a right. The acts of "defending", "protecting", and "pursuing and obtaining" are what Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution declares. These are individual actions and are not secured by depriving others of their rights to these, including my individual right to bear arms in the pursuit and the securing my personal safety.

I feel unsafe dealing with a government and officials who want to disarm me. Whatare tyrants like Lori Saldana and Ken James going to do about that?!

Resigning would be a good first step.

imported post

Is there video of this debate/discussion?

imported post

"Does your right to walk around with a loaded gun in public override my right to feel safe..."

I love this, works both ways actually. My right to feel safe includes me being armed, and that is the right that comes above all others, so being armed is thus right either way!!

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

Is there video of this debate/discussion?

Click to expand...

http://cantate-domino.blogspot.com/2010/06/guns-in-public-exploring-californias.html

imported post

Iopencarry wrote:

coolusername2007 wrote:

Is there video of this debate/discussion?

Click to expand...

http://cantate-domino.blogspot.com/2010/06/guns-in-public-exploring-californias.html

Click to expand...

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

Can you of you Californians pm me the contact information for the Chief of Police on the panel. I want to write that man a letter. 99.5%........FBS. 99.995 % may be acceptable, but not 99.5%. That is one out of every 200 people.IF you watch the entire video, you will know what I am getting at.

imported post

From watching the video it is clear to me the Chief Ken James is not fit to serve. And not just because he's clearly an anti-gunner. But he believes in a constitutional right to safety, yet he does not believe in the clearly articulated 2nd Amendment right that is an integral part of our American heritage.

How can one reasonably expect him toperform his duties under the oath he took when he clearly does not know and/or understand what the Constitution says and its meaning?

The Supreme Court was correct as the lawyer panelist pointed out, individual rights are more important than the nebulous public safety argument. Anything to the contrary would severely jeopardize individual liberty and would turn this country upside down.

Further Chief James clearly articulated his personal beliefs that guns in public are a danger to society. If he truly believes that then why doesn't he disarm his officers? Why does he insist that only police forces should have the priviledge of keeping and bearing arms. That scenario leads only to a police state mentality and behavior when out conducting law enforcement duties. Which CA is virtually operating under.

Even more, Chief James is clearly perturbed that his profession is the only public service profession that must endure a complaint handling process. The horror. Does he really believe that the police force should not in some way be held accountable to the People when the use of that force comes intoquestion? What an incredibly dangerous proposition to individual liberty!

With people like Chief James leading Law enforcement officers, the People need to take action to put this profession back on the right track. Law enforcement officers' safety does not trump individual liberty. Law enforcement officers' actions must be held in check if we are to maintain individual liberty. The Constitution does not defend itself, it requires defending by the People, and defending it is our duty to posterity.

After listening to Chief James, it became crystal clear to me that law enforcement in this state must he held accountable to the People and the only way that I see to achieve that is to remove the police themselves from the complaint investigation process, and put it in the hands of the People. The Constitution and individual liberty is not a bargaining chip, its not negotiable, andits not for sale. But it can be stolen. And with police chiefs such as James out there, it is under direct threat.

imported post

BROKENSPROKET wrote:

Iopencarry wrote:

coolusername2007 wrote:

Is there video of this debate/discussion?

Click to expand...

http://cantate-domino.blogspot.com/2010/06/guns-in-public-exploring-californias.html

Click to expand...

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

Can you of you Californians pm me the contact information for the Chief of Police on the panel. I want to write that man a letter. 99.5%........FBS. 99.995 % may be acceptable, but not 99.5%. That is one out of every 200 people.IF you watch the entire video, you will know what I am getting at.

Click to expand...

Here is his contact info...

http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=123

imported post

thank you Cool for getting James' comtact info.

I just seen the request, you beat me to it.

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

BROKENSPROKET wrote:

Iopencarry wrote:

coolusername2007 wrote:

Is there video of this debate/discussion?

Click to expand...

http://cantate-domino.blogspot.com/2010/06/guns-in-public-exploring-californias.html

Click to expand...

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

Can you of you Californians pm me the contact information for the Chief of Police on the panel. I want to write that man a letter. 99.5%........FBS. 99.995 % may be acceptable, but not 99.5%. That is one out of every 200 people.IF you watch the entire video, you will know what I am getting at.

Click to expand...

Here is his contact info...

http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=123

Click to expand...

Thank you. IF i get a response, I will post it.

imported post

Hmmm - I was at that event and no one said that they were armed. The question was "do you own a handgun", not "are you carrying a handgun".

Contacting Ken James will get you as far as contacting Josh Sugarmann. James is a zealot. He's also borderline hysterical (as in nuts). There are a couple instances during the discussion where you start to hear his voice rise in pitch as he gets frustrated. I also doubt that he's fit to serve.

There was a meeting of the Emeryville City Council in early April regarding an ammunition and gun store ordinance. A bunch of folks from the NRA, Calguns, etc. decided to show up and make public comments for the record. James mobilized 15 officers to stand at each entrance to the chamber, the base of the stairs and each entrance to the building. They had nice bundles of flex-cuffs on the back of their duty belts, too.

To contrast, a couple of weeks before, the Oakland City Council had a similar meeting. The same pro-gunnies showed up. There was one cop in the chamber, and he was a detective testifying in favor of the proposed ordinance.

imported post

Ken James and the others like him in the PRK are a reason why I decided to leave the state.
Others feelings > a persons right to protection is retarded. Would not be surprised if I ever read about a case of some one being charged with a federal felony because they "hurt another persons feelings in the commission of a crime."

imported post

Wow, just watched the video and that Chief James guy is some work of art. I don't even know where to begin. Yeah, 500 out of 100,000 isn't too bad like he said, unless you're one of the 500, then it really sucks. And what he basically said was that California cops are not as good as cops in the rest of the country(all the other states that allow carry, not just open carry). They just aren't able to deal with the fact that people can carry guns like all the other cops deal with- unloaded guns at that. What would they do if they had to deal with people carrying loaded guns, OMG!!

Edit: Forgot to mention that the video made me want to throw-up. And when I heard the lawyer being introduced as from UC Berkley, he delivered exactly what I expected.