http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0J4_wrXU0
The bill that would ban open carry in the state that time forgot California has landed on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk. While gun owners statewide sit on the edges of their seats, Governor Moonbeam, a gun owner himself, hasn’t indicated whether or not he’ll sign the bill into law. If he does, the once-golden state would be the first since 1987 to outlaw open carry.
Meanwhile, the prospect of a gun control measure – anywhere at all – actually becoming law has the little hearts of the poor dears at the Brady Campaign all aflutter.
“Openly carrying a gun with [an ammunition] magazine in your back pocket into Starbucks and other establishments creates a culture of fear and intimidation,” said Brian Malte, director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “It is irresponsible and dangerous.”
“People in other states look to see what California does,” he said. If Brown signs the bill, “other states will follow suit.”
Not likely. There’s very little about California that other states want to emulate any more. If Brown does sign the bill, it will be a marginal step backwards in the inexorable advance of gun rights across the country. Twenty-three steps forward, one step back. In so many ways – and on gun control in particular – California is no longer the bellwether it once was.
But keep that to yourself. The gun grabbers at Brady and the VPC have so little these days. Let’s not dash their illusions on the cruel, jagged rocks of reality.
I think this would void a federal district court decision that concealed carry wasn’t needed in CA due to the state allowing open carry.
Was just gonna chime in on that! Could actually “Force” Shall Issue by default…
This.
Which is the better option; Unloaded open carry for all, or shall-issue for loaded CC?
Honestly, the latter is more useful, and is a reasonably likely outcome if the California governor signs this bill into law.
At this time though, it is important to remember who was Governor of Ca when the current law stating that OC must be unloaded was signed…
Note: current CA law already outlaws open carry—in the sense that a citizen is not allowed to carry a LOADED gun.
The important thing to remember is the Governor who signed THAT into law. I guess nobody can be perfect…
The only thing loaded in California is the Governor. He’ll sign the bill so all Californicators can feel safe.
Cough. If Whitman had been elected, these would already be signed. She all but welcomes ANY gun control legislation. She dislikes 2A that much.
Governor Brown is a Democrat, but don’t let that fool you. This is NOT the Governor Moonbeam from decades ago. He’s developed a strong Libertarian streak over the years. He dislikes the nanny state, and has already stated he’s got 600 bills in front of him for 600 so called problems that probably don’t need a legislative fix. He does not favor regulations that are not easily enforced, or laws that aren’t applied equally. As example, he has problems with gun laws passed where LE were exempt. Think about that.
And give the guy some credit, he did write an amicus brief ON HIS OWN in favor of the 2nd amendment when everyone else in the department refused to write one. Give the man a chance for God’s sake.
He’s got 3 guns bills to consider. Changing how DROS fees are spent (which he’ll probably veto). The registration of all long guns (also a likely veto). And Open Carry which he might sign. OR he may veto this one as well. Or he may tell the legislation to change the discretionary powers with Sheriffs on CCW laws before he’ll consider it.
You’re just going to have some patience and see what Brown will do.
I predict he will sign the bill. Even though open carry is better from a self defense perspective and is arguably the most powerful force in the normalization of guns in the popular culture (which is the key to lasting victory), the NRA and many of its members don’t want to understand this.But outlawing open carry will work out for them: I also predict it will help their legal case for shall issue concealed carry. The courts over there rejected a challenge to their discretionary licensing because unloaded open carry was available.
If the challengers were smarter, they would have argued not for shall issue concealed carry, which they should have known the court wouldn’t have granted, but for loaded open carry. They could have demonstrated how ineffectual that is for self defense. If the court had said loaded open carry was a right, CA would have shall issue concealed carry pass in the legislature next year to encourage all those evil patriots to hide their guns under shirts.
Many people disagree with this point, though you are presenting it as some sort of fact.
My experience/opinion/training tells me that concealed carry, in an environment where concealed carry is relatively common, trumps open carry. Not only does open carry immediately make me a target for folks who are making aggressive, planned attacks, it also limits my ability to deploy a weapon discretely. In places where the fact that CCW permits are available is widely known, most of the benefit of open carry is presented, with none of the target indicator downsides.
I absolutely fail to see how open carry “normalizes” guns.
Look at how few citizens hold CCW permits and how few CCW permit holders actually carry. I’ll bet that, at any given time, you are talking about 2-3% of the population carrying (legally). If that ratio continued for open carry, than good citizens toting firearms would NOT reach the critical mass down at the Starbucks required to “normalize” firearms. It will continue the way it is now – a few folks get together to get coffee while packing and everyone in the area (who notices) freaks out.
We do not need visibility. We need the protections enshrined in the Constitution to be provided the way they should be.
Look at how CCW works in states where it becomes provided anew and look at the (small) number of businesses who ban CCW permit holders from carrying in their facilities. Most people simply do not care. Once CCW passes, it becomes a virtually invisible issue. A few stores post no-carry signs that go on to be forgotten and collect dust (like the Diners Club card sticker) and life goes on.
With open carry, the issue not only comes to the forefront, but there is a constant visual reminder that people are carrying firearms. All it takes is one or two freak outs from customers for a manager/property owner to go get his free “No Carry!” sticker and be done.
With CCW, that never happens. The changes in firearms laws we’ve seen going positive for the last 15 years or so have been driven by organic interest amongst the population (9/11 and Katrina helped to convince a lot of people that keeping a firearm around is a good thing). Bludgeoning the population by exercising our rights in an obnoxious matter will only serve to draw people AWAY from wanting to exercise those rights and support our cause.
We understand the argument. We just don’t agree with it.
Your arguments are the same ones I was referring to. They’re quite worn, and they don’t make sense/correspond to reality. So, I just assume most people don’t want to do something socially out of the norm, i.e. don’t want to understand.
“We do not need visibility. We need the protections enshrined in the Constitution to be provided the way they should be.”
This is not how the world works, unfortunately. You need popular, cultural acceptance.
Such as the popular, cultural acceptance of freaking people out so much that they try to pass a law banning it, despite not really being bothered by the right for 20 years?
Open carry has as much effect on changing minds and normalizing behavior as gay pride parades – ie, none. What normalizes a practice is convincing everyone that the people who want to do it are normal – ie, just like you, ie, not a crazy, immoral activist going around looking to argue with someone and “endanger” everyone in starbucks. Will and Grace had an effect on normalizing gays. Ellen had the same. Guys in crotchless chaps wearing giant fake penises did not. Open carry advocates are the guys in chaps.
This legislation says to me that the open carry movement is achieving the exact opposite of their goals. If your point is to get in people’s face and force things to a point, good job. If your goal is to change minds… yeah, apparently not happening.
I’m hugely supportive of open carry as a *right*. But as a political maneuver… it’s not having the effect we want it to have.
Open carry just seems foolish.Displaying your weapon makes you target #1 for bad guys. Thugs will just off the armed man first and then mop up.
Of course, this applies more to urban centers than out in the country.
The culture of intimidation already exists in California thanks to gangs and the Thirld World hordes. Brady Campaigners need to acknowledge that demographic warfare is far more lethal than gun related crime.
Flawed logic. You’re assuming only one person is carrying (openly at least). If they bust into a store and there are15 people with a gun on their hip, how many of those 15 do you think they can shoot before someone puts a bullet in their head?
How often do thugs burst into a store to learn there are 15 people with guns on their hips? Assault and robbery do not have to occur in a store. It can happen on a sidewalk or a parking lot when there are or not other people in the area.
If you’re walking in a part of town like THAT, you should already have your hand on the gun ready to draw, regardless of it it’s concealed or not. Besides, if you’re in a situation like that, you’re almost always alone, thus you’re the sole target to be shot anyways.
To a strong degree I agree. I lived in California when that open-carry law was being rolled out. The best part was watching the anti-gunners throw a tantrum. Seriously, in some areas I agree that an open-carry person can be targeted with assault and knocked out/knifed whatever before they could know what hit them, and then their gun can be stolen. However, I’m not aware of anything like that yet happening.
Five gang members walking into a coffee shop creates a climate of fear.
Police walking around with guns and immunity from the law creates a climate of fear.
No one should be above the law. I’m against the police unfairly targeting minorities based on race, religion, etc etc. I’m far more concerned with gang members use of guns than I am with police officers using them. I don’t have a problem with the police being tough with gang members and thugs.
Funny, I’m far less concerned with a thug that I’ve yet to come across having a gun than I am with a cops who I’m much more likely to encounter having a gun.
If your mythical world in whicl “cops are tough on gang members” were real, then I’d be much more accepting of the thugs in blue being armed. However, they decided decades ago that if you don’t have a badge, you are the enemy, regardless of if you’re a criminal or not – that makes them a threat to everyone in the country.
Unfortunately for those of us stuck in Ca., I can’t see any easing of firearms restrictions what so ever. Look at the prices we’re paying at the stores for pete’s sake. I don’t see the dealers wanting to give up that extra $150 plus dollars a pistol we get charged, not to mention those $35 buck 10 round mags and $25 bullet buttons. I haven’t seen a dealer willing to haggle one red cent in years. The industry has no incentive, and the libtards seem to be the only ones that vote. Not to mention the opposition of the police and prison guards unions. If we can’t even get standard mags, what makes you think we’ll get shall issue carry?
Easy solution – move out of California.
Why do you idiots all give that patented response, “Why don’t you move”. I guess you rent instead of own your home, and have no job, so moving to a gun friendly state would be a piece of cake! But for those that live, work and want a better gun environment in their state, they can only hope the political environment changes.
You mean you can’t find a new job and sell your house, where you could find a job making roughly the same but with cost of living being about 1/3 of what it is in California because everyone wants to be trendy and live there? Granted, with the current economy you might be able to argue that you can’t find a new job, but that doesn’t excuse all the decades of a good economy where people continue to live in the cesspool that is CA.
You could easily live and work in a state that already has a decent gun environment instead of living in the Liberal Mecca where you’ll only continue to see your gun rights erode. But instead you continually go on forums and complain about how much you hate California while refusing to ever leave. We all know that short of the a massive natural disaster / attack that wipes out 70% of the population of California that the political situation there is not going to change, so don’t try to claim that it’s realistic to hope that you can have an effect on state / local politics there.
I guess you don’t watch the news much, or you would have noticed, there is 1 job for every 4.3 folks looking or needing a job, so changing jobs, kind of out of the question right now. As for selling your home in this environment, good luck. If you could sell, at what price, most peoples homes are worth a lot less than they owe, and no it’s not always their fault. even though some news organization would have you believe only deadbeats are losing their homes or are upside down in their mortgages.
And I’m lucky, I live in a very pro-gun friendly state (MO), and do not have to move if I so choose. But I will not castigate those that live in anti-gun states like IL, MA, NY, NJ, etc, because of the political climate that destroys their rights, with sarcastic slams like “why don’t you move a way if you don’t like it”. In reality, most if not all, don’t have that luxury!
And if you read most post on gun blogs like this, you would see, that many feel, the timing is starting to go in our favor for places like IL, and now CA, if they do ban open carry.
There are many folks, and they are on both sides of the political spectrum, whether you want to believe that or not, that are against open and concealed carry. In fact, I know of two very good friends who are as far right as you can get, both hunt and shoot clays with semi auto shotguns, but can not understand why anyone would need an AR-15, especially with an extended magazine. Plus they are adamantly against concealed carry! And one of them is going to move back to Il when he retires next year, so once he gets back there, which way do you think he would vote for conceal carry? And with friends like that, who needs enemies?
Again, I said RIGHT NOW there is a reasonable excuse to not move. However, there were plenty of years BEFORE the recession in which to move. California did not suddenly become anti-gun, anti-capitalism, etc in the three years since the recession started – it’s been that way for DECADES…and it’s not like it’s a secret either.
All I did was point out that the people who complain about the laws in California due to California being full of wackos made a decision to live in California among the wackos.
Comments are closed.