California bans open carry

[smokeyburnout]

I would like to say that I deeply disagree with the ruling in california and buggybears look on the situation as well. Law enforcement and politicians should never work to inact laws that prohibit any rights as granted by the constitution. This is America where you are innocent until proven guilty. It seems all to common these days that police feel it is their job to make citizens guilty until proven innocent. What ever happened to "To Serve And Protect"? This not only means to protect citizens from crime but to also protect the constitution and all that it stands for.
While I do understand the LEO's wanting to make their jobs easier they are the ones who decided to persue a challenging and dangerous line of work. The LEO's have no more of a right to safety than the general public. I can see that after 27 years of service you would be strong in your beliefs and opinions but your job does not allow for these things to influence your decisions while operating under the badge. I can also understand that nothing I say to you will change your opinion or beliefs and I can accept that. I can only hope that some of the things mentioned in this thread will make you think and maybe cause you to rethink some of the opinions that you have expressed.

 

[okboomer]

I had the pleasure of having lunch with a former Californian, who was also a former LEO in that state, and he related to us at the table how out of touch things were in that state when it came to citizens being armed in public. He was S-O-O-O-O happy to be in Virginia where normalcy tends to be the rule in such matters. Hard to take California seriously when they produce such political figures like Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Henry Waxman.

:monkey:monkey:monkey ROFLOL so much it hurts!!!! Amen Brother!

 

[okboomer]

This claim is pure unadulterated bull crap. I know it, every freedom loving member of this forum knows it, and unless you've had your head buried in the sand most of your life, you know it. There is absolutely NO backing for such a claim. Making such a claim only taints your credibility and the credibility of your officers.

Ah, it's what they have been trained to say ... remember, the libtards are in control in Kalifornication ... but it does call into question their ability to actually think for themselves.

 

[Aknazer]

Wow after reading through everything I just don't know where to start. The antis posting here disregard the opinions of others but then demand we listen to them. When one posts about the Constitution they just seem to say "well, we have a different mindset out here so that doesn't matter." In fact when anything contrary to the anti's view is posted they seem to say that about Kali. And if you suggest that they are doing it wrong and give proof? Oh, well this is how we do it and it's the right way and we're not going to listen to what you say because this is our way.

The circular logic and refusal to look at the constitution and the facts about OC just makes my head hurt.

 

[okboomer]

First, most of my responses have been handled way better than I would probably have been able to fumble my way through. I did understand that you are a 27-year veteran of the police force, not that you are "only 27 years old"

Second, I don't know buggybear, I don't know his education, qualifications, experience, but, I do have a bone to pick with the overall attitude of just the posts in this thread in which you come off as condescending, patronizing, and dismissive. Looking at the timeline, just over 24 hours after the original post, and 21 other posts before yours, you post a dissenting opinion. So, did you not read any of the previous posts, or were you intentionally trolling the "holier than thou" attitude you expressed in post #22?

There is a saying in my local PD ... "don't come in my house and talk sh*t" ... and yet, that is basically what you did. You did not come in here to have a discussion, you came in here to proclaim your opinion, backed up by the "LAPD" culture that prevails in many PDs across this nation, insinuating that OCers are in the wrong. Ah, well, some of us understand that is how you were "raised" and can make allowances. Others, well, as you have seen, have a bit more assertive responses. But, if you want respect, you might extend it first.

Then, after a couple of responses which I thought were no more "antagonistic" than your own, you start throwing out patronizing, dismissive statements on one hand, then have a little hissy fit over someone questioning your motives for posting and equating you to a troll on the other hand. Seriously? The term "keyboard commando" comes to mind. And to outright insult folks in the way I have seen you do here, is uncalled for and childish on your part. As recommended, look in the mirror before pushing send.

Basically, you are more than welcome to come in here and have a discussion about the merits of your opinions, but if you cannot defend your stance with logic and facts (cites are de rigueur BTW), then I would suggest that you preface your statements with "in my opinion," or "if I recall correctly," etc. to help keep the annimosity to a low roar. :lol:

 

[okboomer]

Now, to the point of my post. After the eloquent response by since9 and other equally specific posters, you then post this:

Wow, kudos and credit for the passionate responses. Several were very well written, researched and relayed in a respectful manner. I've never understood the personal attacks, however. They accomplish nothing beneficial and clearly reveal much more about the author than the receiver.

Hmm, backhanded cheap shot. Noted. Although, I can certainly understand how your patronizing attitude in your post #22 and your dismissive tone in post #29 can result in successive degeneration of the content of later posts.

Frequently, it becomes apparent that the emotion generated by the discussion prohibits thorough reading of all the posts prior to submitting a response. It is this "back and forth" repetition that has me beginning to understand why so many members have thousands of posts....and why I would find myself not visiting regularly.

Actually, if you would visit more often, you will see that there are many rational, informative discussions and the members with the highest post count are generally in the lead of the most compelling and/or interesting discussions. Again, a cheap shot with no proof to back it up. I am also not saying that a discussion will not devolve into a "slap-and-tickle-fest" at times Some of the funniest observations are one-liners, and there is value in one line posts that cut to the heart of the matter at times. I have seen such redirect the course of a discussion, and not always in a bad way.

I appreciate some of the support for differing opinions by several of you. It is not as common as I would hope (or as I see in different discussion forums), but it is welcome nonetheless.

It is probably more common than you have experienced here, as this forum has members from across the globe (several post as/when they can from military theaters), and as a general rule-of-thumb, you might consider that it takes many regular members a week or more to have time to read and post, so you are limiting yourself to judging the group on the availability of a few. But, then you have demonstrated already that you will judge the whole based on a few (three that you mentioned) interactions, and then you assign motives with little or no proof in support.

I have been a part of this forum for 3 years, though I haven't posted in well over 1 year. It appears that my other posts, numbered at 20-30, are erased after a period of non-participation.

Or, they were lost during the migration of the old forum to a new forum format/host. Before the migration, there were several incidents that caused a disruption of the forum.

My objective was not a proverbial "hit and run" post yesterday, but, as I had shared the recent Fall 2011 Point of View (Alameda County D.A. publication) article on OC and the results of AB144 with my officers, I thought I would participate in some exchange of opinions.

I don't recall seeing the mentioned DA publication, did you post it in the California State forum? I applaud you for seeking outside opinions and discussion about legislation and publications that impact you so intimately. As has been noted, members here live under all the different interpretations of the 2A ... and there is a wealth of discussion here dissecting in intimate detail the pros and cons of the differing states and how the states and even individual DAs apply the relevant state laws. As the supervisor, you are in a unique position to influence not only your superiors in their rules of conduct, but also the young officers who will one day be in your position. They are watching and listening ... are you promulgating a "Canton Cop" atmosphere, or a more relevant, evenhanded, responsive atmosphere of respect for LawAbidingCitizens and their Bill of Rights?

Some of those exchanges went well; some not so much. Questioning my honor, ethics, intelligence and/or effort, after almost 28 years of service to my community, was never going to be received well....especially since I've made no personal attacks on any of you.

Maybe not individually, but I think I have made my case that you did question us collectively.

None of you know me....or none of you know you know me, one might say. And for the two of you who seemingly wanted to pull out your weenie and measure how much you've "done" compared to me....rest assured, by your challenge alone, you've already lost. No truly great man or woman feels the need to compare themselves to anyone; their accomplishments represent their qualities and sacrifices.

So, by virtue of your lauded 27+ years of experience, you should not be questioned as to your intentions? Looks like weenie whacking to me.

I have honored my oath to the laws of my nation, my state and my city to the best of my ability. Yet, the Constitution is not a perfect work. It wasn't when it was completed, it is not now, nor will it be 100 years from now when it is "massaged" though the decades. Anything touched by man is inherently flawed; do not follow so easily without question or reserve that which you believe in.......use caution with unabated faith.

Ok, I can accept that and, along with many other's here, we thank you for your service, and wish you many happy years in retirement! But, during your years of service, at any time, did you ever question how the department's application of the law was compromising any law abiding citizen's civil rights? It is an apparant failure to question that has many questioning your statements and opinions.

I believe I have my finger on two pulses; law enforcement and the community I live/work in. I do not, in any way, claim to have insight into the pulse of the OC movement or it's members. In my humble opinion, many....most?.....of you need to taper down the rhetoric and the ranting.

Point of clarification ... is the part in bold aimed specifically at the members of this forum, or to OCers in general, or to anyone who wants their 2A Rights uninfringed at all times for any method of carry in any state? Remember, one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary.

Ranting? Dude, you haven't seen ranting yet if you think folks in this thread were ranting. :banana:

You are not going to win on this issue using a club as your microphone. Screaming at the top of your lungs to any listener; "I WANT TO CARRY A GUN!!!", probably has most people hoping that you're the last person in possession of a gun. That's just the way it is here in California, I think. If you want to change that, maybe a change in your message might be needed.

As for "how things are" in California, I am quite amazed that anyone in LE or State Government has "heard" anything from OCers over the hysterical, chicken-little prattle from the BradyGroup. There are "other things" in California that IMHO contributed far more to the demonizing of guns than the current OC movement.

Again, welcome back, stick around and join in ... you may not always get the response you expect, but you will get an interesting read :lol:

 

[SouthernBoy]

Just wanted to hop in and say: awesome thread guys (girls?). Southerboy, since9... I have always had the sense that you two were worth my respect, and your responses in this thread cement that for me. I salute you. Carry on.

Sent using tapatalk

Thanks so much for the kind words, my friend. You do quite an admirable job here yourself. Are we going to see you at noon this Saturday at Glory Days in Centreville for lunch?

 

[smokeyburnout]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...cated_drug_raps_for_quotas.html#ixzz1affkS1qA


Still wonder why OCers carry recording devices?

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

If they would have turned to corrupt cops, they wouldn't have any issue meeting their quota.

 

[Baked on Grease]

Thanks so much for the kind words, my friend. You do quite an admirable job here yourself. Are we going to see you at noon this Saturday at Glory Days in Centreville for lunch?

I've worked every Saturday for the past 6 years, unfortunately. Otherwise I would.live to come... I will be at the breakfast at Joe's on Sunday though.

Sent using tapatalk

 

[Superlite27]

Wow, kudos and credit for the passionate responses. Several were very well written, researched and relayed in a respectful manner. I've never understood the personal attacks, however. They accomplish nothing beneficial and clearly reveal much more about the author than the receiver. Frequently, it becomes apparent that the emotion generated by the discussion prohibits thorough reading of all the posts prior to submitting a response. It is this "back and forth" repetition that has me beginning to understand why so many members have thousands of posts....and why I would find myself not visiting regularly.

Ahhhhh......I see.

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is:

"I can hold a "tit-for-tat" argument and go toe-to-toe with anyone here for several days....

....but after reading since9's eloquent, well thought out post, I choose not to respond because I have no answer to the relevant points he makes. Therefore, I'll point out how pointless the quid-pro-quo is, and remain silent."

(More succinctly: Sour grapes.)

Am I getting the jist of it?

If I'm wrong, you can easily prove it by responding to since9.

 

[Alexcabbie]

I'm not confrontational, and I respect the rank-and-file police. The upper brass, however, are nothing more than politicians with guns. Every damn time you hear of "law enforcement support" for some idiotic restriction it comes from some guy who is either a Chief of Police or a guy who is a field sergeant with his eye on collecting a series of collar brass culminating in an eagle or some stars.

So it is with this latest Krapola from Kalifornia. Governor Moonbeam cited the "complaints from law enforcement officials" (Such as the Chief of the LAPD) that "Hysterical calls about people carrying guns" and the allocation of personnel to respond to those calls were detracting from the resources police needed to deal with "real emergencies". So he admits that lawful open-carry is not a "real emergency".

Now, actually "California-style" "Open Carry" is damn near worthless. Carrying an UNLOADED firearm is stupid. When the situation arises in which one needs a firearm, then by the time things have progressed to where one needs to use it and would be justified in doing so there is not going to be enough time to load the damn thing. It's like telling a woman to carry a chastity belt in her handbag and saying she can't put it on unless she is justified in believing she is about to be raped.


No, when you need a firearm you need it, loaded and ready to go, RIGHT NOW! Open-carrying an unloaded firearm is just showing off the hardware. Californians haven't really lost all that much with this new law. The only person who has lost all that much is Governor Brown, who has lost his marbles; but that happened decades ago.


California is one effed-up state. This open-carry contremps is not the problem, it is a symptom of the larger problem that RKBA advocates fight nationwide. Wherever there is trouble that people in general are confused about, it makes for fertilizer from which springs statist lefties. And inevitably, a priority of the statist lefties is to go after the RKBA.

<sarcasm on> I wonder why that is? <sarcasm off>

 

[revjen45]

"I am always in awe of the sheer stroke of good fortune that these men were in the same place at the same time in history, and that was here. "
Right on SouthernBoy. We can call it "the sheer stroke of good fortune" or Divine Providence. History has very rarely seen a confluence of great men to equal the Founders of The Republic. At the risk of everything that is dear, including Life Itself, they took on a task of such magnitude that it had no historical precedent. To the execution of this impossible task they mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Today we have a cabal of buffoons, poltroons, lechers, liars, knaves, shysters, thieves, and Quislings who have usurped the positions of leadership. Why should we expect or accept less than our forefathers?

I don't even look on the DPRK as being part of America. It's a Communist country which unfortunately is in a position to afflict the rest of the Republic with the likes of Princess Botox (Nancy Pelosi), Diane Fineswine, Henry Waxman, Babs ("Call me Senator") Boxer, et. al. At least Moonbeam can only destroy the freedom and prosperity of the DPRK.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

History has very rarely seen a confluence of great men to equal the Founders of The Republic. At the risk of everything that is dear, including Life Itself, they took on a task of such magnitude that it had no historical precedent. To the execution of this impossible task they mutually pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Today we have a cabal of buffoons, poltroons, lechers, liars, knaves, shysters, thieves, and Quislings who have usurped the positions of leadership. Why should we expect or accept less than our forefathers?

So very true, but we can take it one step further. Our founding fathers chose to stand up and change the world around them; surely they had buffoons, liars and etc in their time too. The question is; who will take the actions of our forefathers to challenge the liars and knaves that plague us today?

 

[smokeyburnout]

What ever happened to this ruling.... "Last week the United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment secures the right
to keep and bear (i.e, "carry") arms (3), including handguns. (4) But the Court also acknowledged
previously stated holding in many cases that there is no constitutional right to carry “concealed”
handguns. (5) By implication, the right to carry handguns openly is constitutionally protected, and
even a licensure scheme for open carry is Constitutionally suspect. (6).". Thats taken straight off the Press Center part of this website.

http://opencarry.org/Press/June-29-08.pdf

 

[matt2636]

I've got to tell all of you; personally speaking, I'm happy about this new law. For complete disclosure, I'm a 27 year police Lieutenant here in California. I had the distinct displeasure in having to deal with three OC situations within my city. Each one called for my officers to conduct a tactical contact under difficult circumstances (remember, these simply come out as;"man with a gun" calls) and deal with OCers who were seemingly enjoying the stir their conduct generated. Now, I can't speak for other states and their social environments which might be conducive to open carry....but, here in California, this isn't the wild west anymore. Here, if you show you have a gun....if you pretend you have a gun.....if you imply or even mention that you have a gun....you are going to get rained on with cops and the confrontation WILL TAKE PLACE! And because that is the enviroment of this state, very few Californians were tolerant of, or gave a rats ass to, the Open Carry movement.

Like every state in this nation, there is good and bad unique to that state. And so it is with California on this issue, and there wasn't much doubt as to the outcome.

So where were you with the recent salon shooting that killed 6? Was there someone there or around there who was following the law and not carrying their gun? Maybe I don't know. But no one wants to give it a chance. As "observant" as you cops say you are you sure can't, or won't, know who's a bad guy or good guy. You can tell by posture and the way a person dresses and carries them self if there "good" or "bad" instead people are guilty on the spot it seems like. No this isn't the wild west none of us want it to be the wild west. I'll tell you want the day god comes down to earth an guarantees me no one person is capable of harm anymore ill be the first to hand my guns in. I'd like to know why you carry a gun if you believe good citizens can't?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Looks like Buggy needs to read my no bad apple post...... Buggy do you fudge the truth in court too? I already saw you used the cop boiler plate word of "confrontational" and then proceeded with ad hominem attack, interesting, do you use this in your reports too when someone tries to exercise their natural rights when you encroach upon them? Are you familiar with what a Brady cop is? If not read Brady vs Maryland.

It's not just guns, it's our rights they detest. They are agents of the state pure and simple and so a large portion of them will be statist/socialist.

Oh and I can't stand the "until you seen what I seen" argument, such a ridiculous argument designed to make himself our public employee our payed servant seem like his opinion should matter more than those who pay his salary. And then to drag out that "constitution" isn't perfect to justify trampling it? Wow!

Here's some homework,

Read: Roberts and Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions , How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.

For fun read Roger Roots "Are Cops Constitutional".

Police need to learn their proper place in Society instead of just furthering their bureaucracy and strengthening their comradeship.

 

[since9]

Wow, kudos and credit for the passionate responses. Several were very well written, researched and relayed in a respectful manner.

This may sound presumptuous, but as I'm a professional writer and spend an entire afternoon responding to a couple of your posts, I'll accept that as a complement.

...though I haven't posted in well over 1 year. It appears that my other posts, numbered at 20-30, are erased after a period of non-participation.

That's a common occurrence with a forum upgrade. OCDO went through that a little more than a year ago.

And for the two of you who seemingly wanted to pull out your weenie and measure how much you've "done" compared to me....rest assured, by your challenge alone, you've already lost.

If you're referring to my post wherein I very briefly stated my own credentials in response to your having stated you own, then by your own logic, you've lost as well.

No truly great man or woman feels the need to compare themselves to anyone; their accomplishments represent their qualities and sacrifices.

Knowing this, why is it you felt the need to pull out your weenie in the first place?

I have honored my oath to the laws of my nation, my state and my city to the best of my ability. Yet, the Constitution is not a perfect work.

If that's your excuse, then you have not honored your oath to the laws of your nation.

It wasn't when it was completed, it is not now, nor will it be 100 years from now when it is "massaged" though the decades.

No. However, it was better than anything else when it was completed and has remained at or near the top ever sense. Bottom line, it's the law of the land, and our government has had 235 years to perfect it, so it's about as perfect as any nation or people can make it.

Anything touched by man is inherently flawed...

Another excuse?

...do not follow so easily without question or reserve that which you believe in...

Sorry, pal, but when I take an oath, I mean it. In fact, my oath specifically included the term "reservation." Let's see if you can find the needle in the haystack. Hint: It's blue: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I do not, in any way, claim to have insight into the pulse of the OC movement or it's members.

I find it interesting that you should come here and presume to tell us what's what and why without first familiarizing yourself what we're about and why.

That's just the way it is here in California, I think.

That's not the way it is throughout most of the rest of the United States of America. However, if that's the way of California... Have you considered seceding from the Union? If your opinions are representative of the rest of California, then I think perhaps that's a bad fit.

Police need to learn their proper place in Society instead of just furthering their bureaucracy and strengthening their comradeship.

Quite. When I served our country through military service... I could continue, but the point's been made. Unless one has a servant's heart, one is not fit for duty in any public service. Essentially, buggybear, 1 man, came here to tell us "that's not the way things are." When we, with almost 26,000 members, many of whom are current or former law enforcement and/or military servicemen responded, buggybear put on his best writers cap and attempted to squirm away.

Bottom line, he didn't learn a darn thing.

Why? Does he think he's better than us? More highly educated? Better trained? More highly experienced?

Whatever the reason, he's unteachable. Since he's demonstrated that he's unteachable, we can only assume his motive for coming here is to tell us we're all wrong.

 

[SouthernBoy]

What ever happened to this ruling.... "Further, the United States Supreme Court said last week that the open carry of handguns is constitutionally protected while concealed carry is not.". Thats taken straight off the Press Center part of this website.

Actually they're wrong. Both modes of carry for the simple fact that neither is specifically address in the Bill of Rights. We must always interpret these documents, as much as we are able, in the context of the language at the time or their writing. We do this by not only understanding the English language but by also reading their writings in support of these documents.

The Second Amendment ends by stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The word "bear" meant to carry "on or about the person". It does not specifically reference a mode of bearing, only that the bearing of Arms is not to be infringed; the beauty of their simplicity and their use of the language.

Another phrase in this amendment which is frequently misused by anti's, and even by some in the gun culture is, "A well regulated Militia" with the operative word being "regulated". At the time of the writing, this word in the context used in the Second Amendment meant, "to keep and make regular". It did not mean controlled or disciplined or trained or drilled. One can see how words can be twisted and therefore entire meanings of sentences and paragraphs can be altered to fit an agenda or sinister plot.

 

[SovereignAxe]

Everyone please forgive me if this question has already been asked, as this thread is too long with not enough debate (it's one sided so far) for me to have read it all, but I have a serious question for this guy, buggybear.

The reasoning behind this law that was given by the lawmakers to the people/press was that police were being inconvenienced with MWAG calls, and since you guys had this ridiculous law that disallowed the gun to be loaded, you had to stop people to make sure (nevermind the fact that this was unconstitutional). I'm not going to get into how ridiculous it is to pass a law just because police are being inconvenienced, but I want to throw out another idea lawmakers could have considered that would have made everyone happy. Why not just drop the restriction on keeping the gun loaded? That way gun owners are happy and police don't have to check to make sure it's not loaded. Everyone wins. And before you go on about how to tell whether or not a carrier is a criminal or not, the only way you'd be able to tell is if you trample the 4th Amendment, stop and ID them and run their ID, etc. further wasting the police's time-which is the same thing you'd have to do for every other person walking the street. I second the motion to bring us any cases where a felon was caught because the police stopped and IDed them for open carrying.

Not only that, but you'd be set up the same way several other states are including NC, VA, WA, MT, NV and several other states where it's working out perfectly well. I've been to CA a few times, and while I'll admit that your state and the people in it are pretty strange, it's not that much stranger than Asheville, NC, which is like an east coast version of San Fransisco without the bay, and open carry is completely unrestricted there.