Open Carry for Entertainment

Recently enacted P.C. Section 26405 provides that "Section 26400 does not apply to, or affect, the carrying of an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun in any of the following circumstances: [...] (r) By an authorized participant in, or an authorized employee or agent of a supplier of firearms for, a motion picture, television or video production, or entertainment event, when the participant lawfully uses that firearm as part of that production or event, as part of rehearsing or practicing for participation in that production or event, or while the participant or authorized employee or agent is at that production or event, or rehearsal or practice for that production or event." P.C. Section 26375 affords a similar exemption to the previous Section 26350 ban on the open carrying of an unloaded handgun. As a seasoned performance artist and budding amateur filmmaker, I offer my services in operating my cinema gear for open carry events in Southern and Northern California.



--
Michael@massmeans.com | Zeleny@post.harvard.edu | 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 | 323.363.1860 | http://www.subrah.com
http://larvatus.livejournal.com | "All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett

Michael Zeleny said:

. As a seasoned performance artist and budding amateur filmmaker, I offer my services in operating my cinema gear for open carry events in Southern and Northern California.

View attachment 9489

--
Michael@massmeans.com | Zeleny@post.harvard.edu | 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 | 323.363.1860 | http://www.subrah.com
http://larvatus.livejournal.com | "All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett

Click to expand...

I'm in Sac, and plan on events of this nature. Are you ever up this way?

First off, AB1527 has not been enacted. It will go in force on January 1st 2013. This applies just to long guns and as you should already be aware, this forum's primary focus is the lawful open carry of handguns.

Not to worry, PC 26350 (AB144) has duplicative exemptions that also include the video production and entertainment criterion (PC 26375).

While 'costumes' and 'street theater' might further your assertion of the exemption, the antics of playing dress up in body armor, fatigues, and other militaria do not help normalize the carry and ownership of defense firearms. In fact, this is extremely damaging to the premise that having guns and carrying them is normal.

This caveat aside, I wholly embrace the establishment of amatuer video production endeavors, either singly or in small groups (3-5). All you would need to 'produce' videos is a camera, a YouTube channel, perhaps a little social media and 'authorized participants'.

Save Our State said:

I'm in Sac, and plan on events of this nature. Are you ever up this way?

Click to expand...

I will be around there in a couple of weeks, picking up a bike.

ConditionThree said:

While 'costumes' and 'street theater' might further your assertion of the exemption, the antics of playing dress up in body armor, fatigues, and other militaria do not help normalize the carry and ownership of defense firearms. In fact, this is extremely damaging to the premise that having guns and carrying them is normal..

Click to expand...

Was that suggested or implied somewhere, somehow?

Save Our State said:

Was that suggested or implied somewhere, somehow?

Click to expand...

Of course. Previous postings on the forum.

ConditionThree said:

First off, AB1527 has not been enacted. It will go in force on January 1st 2013. This applies just to long guns and as you should already be aware, this forum's primary focus is the lawful open carry of handguns.

Not to worry, PC 26350 (AB144) has duplicative exemptions that also include the video production and entertainment criterion (PC 26375).

Click to expand...

That's just what I said. It's not my intention to dictate who gets to carry what where and when, but merely to offer my free services for a common cause.

ConditionThree said:

While 'costumes' and 'street theater' might further your assertion of the exemption, the antics of playing dress up in body armor, fatigues, and other militaria do not help normalize the carry and ownership of defense firearms. In fact, this is extremely damaging to the premise that having guns and carrying them is normal.

Click to expand...

While my personal agenda involve street theater, that is not at issue in the matter at hand.

ConditionThree said:

This caveat aside, I wholly embrace the establishment of amatuer video production endeavors, either singly or in small groups (3-5). All you would need to 'produce' videos is a camera, a YouTube channel, perhaps a little social media and 'authorized participants'.

Click to expand...

This "legal analysis" leaves a lot to be desired. Questions of fact, such as whether or not a "YouTube commando" is an authorized participant in a motion picture, television or video production, or what constitutes an entertainment event, are decided by the jury. All a prosecutor needs to indict is probable cause. Accordingly, anyone who wishes to seek a safe harbor in the P.C. Sections 26405(r) or 26375, had better err on the side of extra professionalism.

--
Michael@massmeans.com | Zeleny@post.harvard.edu | 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 | 323.363.1860 | http://www.subrah.com
http://larvatus.livejournal.com | "All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett

Michael Zeleny said:

That's just what I said. It's not my intention to dictate who gets to carry what where and when, but merely to offer my free services for a common cause.

Click to expand...

You quotation of PC 26405 might suggest a preference. The discussion of long gun open carry is off topic unless it is prohibited by jurisdiction. Under the context of the exploiting the exemptions found in California law, the equally apply to both handguns and longguns. Pick whatever you like, but according to the forum rules it is off topic in this context.

Michael Zeleny said:

While my personal agenda involve street theater, that is not at issue in the matter at hand.

Click to expand...

I think this claim is dubious, at least until such time as you have exihibited some restraint in using tactics and behavior that could be harmful to the perception of gun owners. Quietly run a camera for the safety of authorized participants- great. March around in body armor and fatigues with a rifle and make a spectacle- not so much.

Michael Zeleny said:

This "legal analysis" leaves a lot to be desired. Questions of fact, such as whether or not a "YouTube commando" is an authorized participant in a motion picture, television or video production, or what constitutes an entertainment event, are decided by the jury. All a prosecutor needs to indict is probable cause. Accordingly, anyone who wishes to seek a safe harbor in the P.C. Sections 26405(r) or 26375, had better err on the side of extra professionalism.

Click to expand...

A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich- but that doesn't ensure that they will get a conviction. You can attack the 'legal analysis' if you like, but something tells me that it isnt the analysis you really have a problem with. What I find most ironic, is your warning that those who would partake in these activities err on the side of 'extra professionalism'. Trying to picture this professionalism with the body armor, helmet and fatigues marching around an urban street in southern California blunts the reasonableness of the suggestion.

ConditionThree said:

You quotation of PC 26405 might suggest a preference. The discussion of long gun open carry is off topic unless it is prohibited by jurisdiction. Under the context of the exploiting the exemptions found in California law, the equally apply to both handguns and longguns. Pick whatever you like, but according to the forum rules it is off topic in this context.

Click to expand...

Long gun open carry is about to be prohibited by jurisdiction. So it bears notice that the same exemptions apply to all non-NFA guns.

ConditionThree said:

I think this claim is dubious, at least until such time as you have exihibited some restraint in using tactics and behavior that could be harmful to the perception of gun owners. Quietly run a camera for the safety of authorized participants- great. March around in body armor and fatigues with a rifle and make a spectacle- not so much.

Click to expand...

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, grasshopper. As Dr Freud pointed out, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. My combat gear is reserved for special occasions. This is nothing of the sort.

ConditionThree said:

A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich- but that doesn't ensure that they will get a conviction. You can attack the 'legal analysis' if you like, but something tells me that it isnt the analysis you really have a problem with. What I find most ironic, is your warning that those who would partake in these activities err on the side of 'extra professionalism'. Trying to picture this professionalism with the body armor, helmet and fatigues marching around an urban street in southern California blunts the reasonableness of the suggestion.

Click to expand...

I have the means and motives for seeking a judicial forum in this matter, but for most normal people, beating even the least plausible indictment is no walk in the park. To them, I offer this opportunity to minimize the likelihood of malicious prosecution.


--
Michael@massmeans.com | Zeleny@post.harvard.edu | 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 | 323.363.1860 | http://www.subrah.com
http://larvatus.livejournal.com | "All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett