ConditionThree
State Pioneer
http://www.bradycampaign.org/chapters/ca/legaffairs
The link above takes you to the location where you can download their 'fact' sheet on AB1934. I took a moment to respond to the section on the 'need' for this legislation.
The 'need' for this bill has arisen as a response to the renewed interest in Second Amendment liberty. Open carry is not 'new' to California- it has been presumptively legal since before California became a state in 1850. While the scope and focus of the social events has elicited some surprised reactions, each of the events has been conducted within the law and often with the involvement and cooperation of local law enforcement. They have been successful in contributing to the training of law enforcement officers and the education of the bystanding public. These events have spawned numerous training memos that have made the practice of open carry safer not just for those who advocate it, but for the police as well. These larger events have been held almost exclusively in areas where concealed carry licensing is not an option made available through the local police chief or county sherriff- this is not by coincidence... these people want to carry to defend themselves, but the absense of issuance makes no other alternative available. So, in effect, it is the restrictive policies of issuing agencies that has instigated this renewed interest in open carry.
Yes, those who carry guns for self-defense do carry ammunition for the weapon they carry- otherwise the practice would be purely a political demonstration (1st amendment). We advocate training and practice for the purpose of being prepared in the event a violent crime is committed either against or near us. These reload drills are something that police and military train for regularly- but unlike them, California residents are not being allowed to have the same level of readiness that could preserve life and limb by carrying a loaded weapon.
Existing law prohibiting possession in certain areas and criminalizing loaded weapons creates dangerous situations. When someone who carries a weapon for self-defense is placed in the position of handling their firearm in public to comply with 626.9 (the gun free school zone law) and 12031 (the criminalization of loaded carry), this creates circumstances where a persons actions could be misconstrued as hostile, whereas a holstered weapon cannot do anything of itself. In jurisdictions where it is impossible to be licensed for concealed carry, carrying exposed is the only option for lawful carry.
This is an assumption that is not supported by facts. The Brady Campaign (or any other group) cannot possibly know what ratio of open carry results in a call to police. Dozens of advocates across the state carry in public without being reported to the police every day. They further cannot tell you how many reports of a man-with-a-gun result in police being dispatched to confront an open carry advocate. There is no statistical data available.
Additionally, with proper training it is possible for dispatchers to get the necessary details to relay to police- that is not to say they havent already been trained to ask as many questions as required to get a more complete picture for responding officers. In a recent video, a San Diego open carry advocate called the non-emergency line and reported himself to police as an anonymous tipster, wherein the dispatcher asked about important details and advised the caller that this was legal. No police were sent to the scene.
Peace officers are not required to determine whether the guns are loaded.
I cite
Peace officers have been authorized to inspect the loaded condition of a firearm... there is no real or imagined obligation for them to conduct this search. In fact, the obligation of the police is to not conduct this search until they can articulate what crime if any, has been or is about to be committed (4th Amendment) . So when it is put into the correct context, the choice as to whether resources should be expended upon investigating a non-crime lay solely with the CLEO of the department and their subordinates.
The worry is often placed in their minds by anti-gun groups like LCAV and the Brady Campaign. Private businesses have a bottom line to preserve and are easily swayed by focused campaigns promising boycott if they permit open carry in their establishments. It is not necessarily fear of gun violence that they are reacting to, but the political fallout for crossing a very vocal and organized minority.
The link above takes you to the location where you can download their 'fact' sheet on AB1934. I took a moment to respond to the section on the 'need' for this legislation.
The 'need' for this bill has arisen as a response to the renewed interest in Second Amendment liberty. Open carry is not 'new' to California- it has been presumptively legal since before California became a state in 1850. While the scope and focus of the social events has elicited some surprised reactions, each of the events has been conducted within the law and often with the involvement and cooperation of local law enforcement. They have been successful in contributing to the training of law enforcement officers and the education of the bystanding public. These events have spawned numerous training memos that have made the practice of open carry safer not just for those who advocate it, but for the police as well. These larger events have been held almost exclusively in areas where concealed carry licensing is not an option made available through the local police chief or county sherriff- this is not by coincidence... these people want to carry to defend themselves, but the absense of issuance makes no other alternative available. So, in effect, it is the restrictive policies of issuing agencies that has instigated this renewed interest in open carry.
Yes, those who carry guns for self-defense do carry ammunition for the weapon they carry- otherwise the practice would be purely a political demonstration (1st amendment). We advocate training and practice for the purpose of being prepared in the event a violent crime is committed either against or near us. These reload drills are something that police and military train for regularly- but unlike them, California residents are not being allowed to have the same level of readiness that could preserve life and limb by carrying a loaded weapon.
Existing law prohibiting possession in certain areas and criminalizing loaded weapons creates dangerous situations. When someone who carries a weapon for self-defense is placed in the position of handling their firearm in public to comply with 626.9 (the gun free school zone law) and 12031 (the criminalization of loaded carry), this creates circumstances where a persons actions could be misconstrued as hostile, whereas a holstered weapon cannot do anything of itself. In jurisdictions where it is impossible to be licensed for concealed carry, carrying exposed is the only option for lawful carry.
This is an assumption that is not supported by facts. The Brady Campaign (or any other group) cannot possibly know what ratio of open carry results in a call to police. Dozens of advocates across the state carry in public without being reported to the police every day. They further cannot tell you how many reports of a man-with-a-gun result in police being dispatched to confront an open carry advocate. There is no statistical data available.
Additionally, with proper training it is possible for dispatchers to get the necessary details to relay to police- that is not to say they havent already been trained to ask as many questions as required to get a more complete picture for responding officers. In a recent video, a San Diego open carry advocate called the non-emergency line and reported himself to police as an anonymous tipster, wherein the dispatcher asked about important details and advised the caller that this was legal. No police were sent to the scene.
Peace officers are not required to determine whether the guns are loaded.
I cite
Peace officers have been authorized to inspect the loaded condition of a firearm... there is no real or imagined obligation for them to conduct this search. In fact, the obligation of the police is to not conduct this search until they can articulate what crime if any, has been or is about to be committed (4th Amendment) . So when it is put into the correct context, the choice as to whether resources should be expended upon investigating a non-crime lay solely with the CLEO of the department and their subordinates.
The worry is often placed in their minds by anti-gun groups like LCAV and the Brady Campaign. Private businesses have a bottom line to preserve and are easily swayed by focused campaigns promising boycott if they permit open carry in their establishments. It is not necessarily fear of gun violence that they are reacting to, but the political fallout for crossing a very vocal and organized minority.
