I sat down and had a listen while I cleaned my Ruger.
I think its very important that we make every effort to attend these events, even though they seem to be organized to eliminate the possiblity of practical open carry. We can use that to illustrate that if some violent act was to occur during the meeting, that there would be nothing for an individual to do to protect themselves and that police are not responsible for any individual's safety.
We should also be attending to get the other sides strategy on how they intend to push their agenda.
It seems to me that Ms. Thomas and Ms. Saldana are hanging their hats on their misinterpretation of Heller and McDonald. They have taken the rulings to exclusively apply in the confines of an individual's home and that since prior laws had been upheld with this interpretation, that this would continue be the case. They ignore that if AB1934 is passed, that between it, and the de facto ban on concealed carry, that there remains no other lawful alternative to the second amendment in California. They dont even acknowledge that Stevens left the door open for “a right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation". Yeah, they can't do that, because that would exclude the myriad of reasonable restrictions on who, how, when, where, and why people carry weapons, which when they are combined as a whole, are nothing more than a ban on possession.
Saldana claims open carriers are doing nothing but exploiting a loophole in our gun control laws. Well, if Ms. Saldana's armed security are exempted from violation of 171b in the California Penal Code, they too are exploiting a loophole. For normal people the absense of a restriction is called 'liberty'. A liberty that Saldana doesnt like; a loophole...
She brought up the conundrum of trying to make a distinction between good guys and bad guys. How do the police tell the difference? Well for one, the bad guys usually run away from the cops because they dont want to get caught and guilt tells them to evade capture. And if that isnt enough information for the police to make a well-informed decision, most criminals do not carry their firearms openly in a belt holster. The criminal will almost always conceal their weapon in their clothing without a holster. Why? Criminals cannot tolerate the additional scrutiny that a firearm would bring and having a piece of gun paraphanalia like a holster will only raise more questions from an investigating officer even if they manage to ditch the gun. The answer to the quandry of determining who is a good guy and who is a bad guy is already being resolved with training. Training that police must recieve anyway, despite Saldana's implication that open carry is too difficult for police to work around.
She and Ms Thomas are hung up on 4th amendment issues; thinking that somehow a firearm automatically triggers some right to know who is carrying a weapon. They clearly do not believe in a persons innocence before being proven guilty. This is tantamount to assuming that since Ms. Saldana is Hispanic in appearance, that she must speak Spanish and be an illegal alien, so police would be justified in proving her identity.
It is clear that both Ms. Saldana and Ms. Thomas are either aware of or understand the reality that since most issuing authorities use their discretion as a proxy ban on carry in their jurisdictions- I caught the laughter- it wasnt nearly loud or mocking enough in my opinion.
I heard Nate's frustration in the sighs and Uhms. I dont fault him, because Im not sure I would fair much better. Like the videos that he and Sam put together illustrate, its very important to roleplay scenarios over and over so you know what to expect before something pops up. Public speaking is super tough, and I applaud Nate for standing up to these know-it-alls; we need more stand up operators like Nate and more practice at addressing the public and presenting our beliefs.