I disagree.
Already being discussed here:
http://forums.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?89700-A-LEO-who-gets-it
Read the article very carefully. It is in no way fair and equally balanced. It is very passive-agressively against open carry.
Of course, California is a completely separate beast, with your requirement to be unloaded while open carrying, so you do have distinct issues to deal with.
Hey NavyLT:
I understand why you have reached your conclusion, but I don't agree that it reaches a passive-aggressive level.
The author failed to point out that LEO is being sued for 4A violations, and in some cases their qualified immunity was removed. The author should have written a more in-depth paragraph about LEO liability.
The author has a common mental affliction that most police officer's possess, which is: They believe that the target they wear (uniform, gun, badge, cruiser) can be removed by violating the rights of the law-abiding (IMHO).
LEO volunteered to wear the "target." LEO needs to man-up and accept the risk they signed-up for. Rationalizing about how dangerous a law-abiding citizen could be to an individual LEO is a mental disorder.
I know, I am splitting hairs. Rationalizing and passive-aggressiveness are different (I am generalizing--there are mentally deranged cops).
Thanks for your insight. I always look for you posts.
markm