By Steven Avila |Staff Writer|
Last week, the San Bernardino Sun reported the ban of “open carry” of unloaded guns was passed in Assembly Appropriations, and thank God.
The bill, authored by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, would ban openly carrying guns and make doing so punishable by up to a $1,000 fine or even a year in jail, as reported by the Pasadena-Star News.
In the already chaotic time we live in this is exactly what we need right now.
Guns are so widespread in this country, what is the need to add fuel to the fire by carrying them to a ball game or run errands, unloaded or not?
The opponents of this ban, such as South Bay Open Carry, an organization originating in Los Angeles, argue that this a constitutional issue.
The mission is to “support the rights protected by the United States Constitution to keep and bear arms,” says South Bay’s website.
“We believe that the right to self-defense as guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the Constitution is a right that cannot and must not be infringed.”
In fact, most of the arguments around banning open carry seem focused on that amendment.
True, it’s a constitutional right, I’ll grant that.
But every time these kind of arguments are employed, it seems to be forgotten that they are rights as long as they don’t infringe on other people.
Frankly I don’t see the reason I or people like me–average citizens in other words–should have to watch an elderly grandparent have a panic attack at the sight of a person carrying a gun at their doctor’s office just because it’s his legal right.
Or why should a parent have to see their young child freak out when a person carrying a Glock gets into line behind them at the local McDonald’s?
Here’s another thing people need to remember.
Our forefathers guaranteed us many rights, including the right to bear arms.
But, back in 1791, a person “bearing arms” would be lucky to fire off three shots in a minute.
It’s simply a technology issue.
If those same forefathers saw a gun capable of spewing 15 shots in a matter of seconds only to be reloaded in about another three seconds, they may just have had second thoughts.
California’s not the only state going through this.
In Arizona, as reported by the The Sun, Gov. Jan Brewer shot down a bill in favor of open carry.
In that bill it would be legal to pack heat on state college campuses.
Brewer has been a highly conservative governor, so when even she’s dropping a bill like this, what does that tell us?
We have enough trouble on college campuses. Anyone else remember Virginia Tech?
We have the same trouble on our streets as well. Bottom line: no one is telling gun enthusiasts they can’t own guns.
Buy them, own them in their home, it’s no difference to me.
But the fact is, no matter what way anyone wants to spin it, guns, as a piece of technology, were originally designed for only purpose: to harm or kill.
So we don’t need them on our streets or in our stores; the rest of us have our legal right to say no.
If the state of California would grant concealed carry permits then people wouldn’t need to carry openly. Most of the people that own firearms are 100% normal level headed and of no concern what so ever, (unless you happen to have antlers that is). It is the <<<<<1% of people that are not so stable that should be feared. Those people will use what ever is at their disposal to do harm to others. You can't prevent that. Do not blame a saw for cutting off the hand.
In reallity, more people are killed every year from automobile accidents than guns. So why not prevent driving in public? Should we pass a law banning all autos from public roads? That way we could all get fit again by riding bicycles everywhere.
So you don't like guns, fine. But to say that there is no reallistic need to carry a firearm to defend yourself or others, is not a very well thought out statement. Perhaps the people in the San Ysidro McDonalds may have been spared if one of them were legally allowed to have a Glock on them. But they weren't allowed to, and it is too late for 21 of them to know.
Better to have a gun (and know how to use it) and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.
Remember VA Tech? Where ” killed 32 people and wounded many others[1] before committing suicide. ”
Well now let’s contrast that to a campus where 2 students had firearms
“January 16, 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law…..Three people were killed and three others were wounded when a former student, 43-year-old Peter Odighizuwa, opened fire in the school with a handgun.” and then what happened? The shootings were stopped when ….” he was approached by two students with personal firearms[4] and one unarmed student”
“According to Bridges: at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to retrieve their personally-owned firearms[6] placed in their glove compartments. Mikael Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[7] Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy from Asheville, North Carolina[8] retrieved his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver’s seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe.[9] Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.[10] Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.”
Net lives saved by the use of firearms is 29 lives if the same intention. I am proud of well trained gun owners who were willing to risk their lives to save so many more. Guns save lives far more than destroy it.
I do not even know where to begin. Our constitutional rights are contingent on you being comfortable with them? So what you’re saying is that I have a right to choose my own religion, as long as it does not cause a “child to freak out”? Because if a child freaks out, I should just choose another religion so that child will be happy? That really does not sound like a right to me.
Another thing, insinuating that the second amendment should not be valid because technology has changed is ridiculous. That is like saying we should not have free speech because the framers of the constitution could never have imagined the internet. Free speech at time meant everyone who was close enough o hear your voice; Or if you were wealthy enough to have something printed, you could reach a bit farther. Now that everyone can reach billions of people simply by typing on a keyboard, Americans should no longer be trusted with this right. After all, somebody might say something that would cause “an elderly grandparent to have a panic attack”. So we should give up free speech to insure that none of say anything that might offend somebody else.
By the way, open carry in California has been legal for over 150 years. This is not some new thing that they are trying to abolish. I challenge you to find an incident of a crime perpetrated by an open carrier. Here is hint, you will not find a single incident since long before you or I was born. Banning open carry will not decrease crime. It is a mathematical thing. You cannot get less than zero.
You end by saying that you “have the legal right to say no”. Of course you do. Nobody is trying to force you to carry a gun. Nobody is forcing you to live your life the way I choose to live mine. So why are you trying to force me to live my life the way you choose to live yours? Are you really prepared to give up constitutional rights just so somebody does not feel uncomfortable?
A world where nobody is ever uncomfortable and never gets offended is a utopia society that just does not exist. The best we can do is live and let live.
The author seems to be misinformed on a major point–namely the lawful carry by adults convicted of NOTHING, whether openly or concealed, infringes on no one else’s civil rights,
Steven,
Sadly it appears that you have been drinking too much of Anthony Potantino’s Kool-Aid. These “hectic times” are exactly why I carry. Public places are the number one venue chosen by violent criminals. They commit their crimes in burger joints, 7-11’s, gas stations and bank parking lots after you withdraw your hard-earned money from an ATM.
They attack helpless fans in Dodger Stadium’s parking lot, even with a “high” police presence. The Supreme Court has upheld several cases that state that law enforcement have no duty to protect you from crime beyond their due diligence. When you need law enforcement in a matter of seconds, they are just a matter of MINUTES away. The average police response time in major metro areas is well above 20 minutes for 911 calls. That is why I carry. The truth of the matter is that my gun is a deterrent to those that would do me harm. Armed citizens actively stop violent crimes with handguns an average of 4,106 times a day in the US, that is not counting passive deterrence at the sight of a gun either.
You claim that old people have heart attacks and children “freak out” at the sight of a gun? I have never encountered that scenario in the years I’ve carried. 99.9% of the time I get positive feedback from fellow citizens. I have had no negative encounters with law enforcement that Mr. Portantino says happen all of the time. I live in the Pasadena area and have OC’d in Old Town several times with nothing but nods and waves from the police.
In regards to constitutionality, do some reading. Start with these two US Supreme Court cases (DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago). The McDonald v. Cicago case applies the 2nd Amendment via the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment to all of the states. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is “fundamental” to the American “scheme of ordered liberty,” and “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’. They also say that the right to “keep and bear” does not stop at your front door. Their are now 38 states in the union that allow carry of firearms (concealed and or openly carried), with more every year since 1990. More states will change their laws to be be in accordance with federal law in the wake of this decision, some volutarily, others by force of verdict. This AB-144 will be overturned in the courts and much faster than it becomes law.
My suggestion to you is: get used to seeing guns. Go to a range and take a familiarization class, talk to some gun owners before you pass judgement. More and more people are refusing to be mindless sheep and victims of crime. Me, I’m a sheepdog. I protect my “flock” of friends and family from the wolves who who wish to do them harm.
You’re arguments haven no basis. A gun is simply a tool and banning the use of a tool doesn’t end the malice of violent criminals who misuse them.
You’ve also forgotten that it’s illegal to carry a firearm on the Virginia Tech campus. That law no only failed to stop the murderer, but it ensured the only person who could be armed on that campus are those who break the law in the first place.
I don’t know about you, but the only people I fear are the gang members, murderers, and rapists who illegally concealed carry, loaded, illegally acquired firearms. Not the honest citizens who abide by the restrictive laws that only allow for inefficient open carry.
The entire point of carry a firearm is to equalize a confrontation with a violent criminal. A 100lb woman, no matter her bared handed self-defense expertise, will have almost no chance of fighting off a 250lb rapist. Her best defensive option is to carry a handgun.
The point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the Freedom and Liberty of Individuals, to ensure that those who abide by society’s laws are not oppressed or abused by their government. If we loose open carry in California, we will be punishing millions of law-abiding gun owners who have committed no crime. How exactly is this supposed to stop the criminals who ignore all the laws, including the laws that forbid the unlicensed carry of loaded concealed weapons?
Banning open carry will not be a deterrence to crime, and will only embolden criminals by ensuring their victims will be unarmed.
I’ll keep my guns and open carry and I don’t need your permission or anyone else’s for that matter. Shall not be infringed means exactly that! If you don’t want to protect yourself, don’t! But how dare you infringe on MY RIGHT to!
A well written article however you are grasping at nothing with your arguments. You make a claim that we are infringing on other peoples rights, then sight the following example “…people like me–average citizens in other words–should have to watch an elderly grandparent have a panic attack at the sight of a person carrying a gun at their doctor’s office…” The truth of the matter is you are not “constitutionally guaranteed” a life free of fear and stress much less a lunch break. However our collective right to keep and bear arms, and having the tools and ability to defend myself if I am attacked are very much constitutionally protected.
I can also flip your argument and say that I or average citizens like me, shouldn’t have to put up with seeing people with offensive messages on their shirts because it stresses me out, or makes me afraid, or whatever. Or that I shouldn’t have to dine with people who wear head wraps because they scare me. Are those arguments completely ridiculous? You bet they are, every bit as ridiculous as your argument is see my point? :) Just because I don’t agree with a message on a t-shirt or billboard, or because I get “scared” when a see someone who may resemble a terrorist is no reason why people should have to alter their message, or change their appearance, they are protected under our constitution to have freedom of speech and religion. When we go changing the meaning of the bill of rights to benefit a specific group we start to travel down VERY dangerous territory.
Wow… just wow. It would seem that the author of this article is missing several important points.
Criminals that carry concealed guns illegally do so everywhere, all of the time and don’t care about gun laws. Criminals do care about having the upper hand and despite the rather risky career they’ve chosen they do have a sense of self preservation and will choose a softer target. Open carry, while not ideal imho, is a visual deterrent for most violent criminals.
The real bottom line: gun control activists do want all guns outlawed for law abiding people… Don’t worry, criminals will still have them.
The problem with anti-freedom anti gun activists/politicians is that they are afraid to address the real problems of why there is so much violence. Hint: it’s not the guns.
So you want to get rid of, or limit, our 2nd Amendment rights? What’s next? The first amendment? How about the fourth and fifth? It’s a slippery slope… don’t sell our forefathers short. They set us up with a good set of laws.
I wonder… does the author know about the beginnings of gun control?
‘Frankly I don’t see the reason I or people like me–average citizens in other words–should have to watch an elderly grandparent have a panic attack at the sight of a person carrying a gun at their doctor’s office just because it’s his legal right.
Or why should a parent have to see their young child freak out when a person carrying a Glock gets into line behind them at the local McDonald’s?’
I’m sorry that some people might not like the look of a pistol on somebody’s hip, and I’m also sorry that some people might be frightened by it; unfortunately, that’s not enough of a reason to ban the open carry of firearms.
There are plenty of people out there who might not like the look of a black man next to their young daughter or a bald 30 year old Latino man covered in prison tattoos behind them in Subway; by your logic, we should ban black men and latino men in public view because they look ‘scarey’ and ‘menacing’.
Makes perfect sense right?
Really? your worried about open carry?
have you ever seen a “cop” on the street? have you ever seen a “cop” in mcdonalds?
they are open carrying a loaded gun.
you dont see old people dropping dead from panic attacks in other states that dont have this “ban” do you?
you dont see kids frreaking out in mcdonalds in other states where this “ban” doesnt exist do you?
quit being a child of the nanny state and stand up for your own right to protect your self and others.
“So we don’t need them on our streets or in our stores; the rest of us have our legal right to say no.”
No you’re wrong!!! It’s not clear whether your incorrect answer reflects your poor quality education or your wishful thinking, but you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG!
First, there’s the small matter of the U.S. Constitution. Just like your right to print stupid things, burn flags etc, everyone has a right to keep and BEAR arms.
Second, the position that only union members (cops/LEO’s) and criminals get to carry guns is a bit of a problem for public safety. Cops, at their best, are only there in a few places, the rest of the time they are somewhere else doing something else. (That’s why you and your friends can get away with the illegal things that you do.)
Crime in America has been going down. Open-Carry and Shall Issue Concealed Carry are the laws almost all of the states. Criminals know that, and most of them decide to commit crimes that reduce the possibility of some citizen shooting them. See John Lott: More Guns Less Crime for facts, figures and an academic approach.
Third, you’re assuming that the criminal justice system works. It doesn’t, or at least not very well. It is highly recommended that you spend some time hanging out in the criminal court listening to the proceedings. The system fails at both ends. It prosecutes people who shouldn’t be prosecuted and it fails to deal with people who should be prosecuted. And it has gotten worse over the years, not better. The smart money is betting that it will continue to degrade until California has the same crime rate as Mexico.
You forgot to mention that Arizona is also a SHALL ISSUE state as far as obtaining a CCW on top of being a constitutional carry state. Unlike CA where bastards like Lee Baca can deny anyone who doesn’t have a 6 figure income or better a permit because CA is a may issue state. Do some more research before you run your mouth.
“But every time these kind of arguments are employed, it seems to be forgotten that they are rights as long as they don’t infringe on other people.”
Interesting.
By your logic I should not have to see or hear what you have to say about this issue, ever. Although you have a constitutional right to free speech it’s infringing on my beliefs (rights) so I would ask that you keep your free speech in your home and not out in public.
.
I offer this comment, regarding AB 144 and banning open carry, from one of our members.
Ed Jaffe May 10 at 12:35pm Reply • Report
CA is broke. It makes no fiscal sense to pass new bills that are sure to be overturned on constitutional grounds (Heller & McDonald) after costing taxpayers $ millions in wasted legal fees.
There is no public safety issue. Open carry has been legal in California for 161 years. No violent acts have been linked to anyone open carrying in our lifetimes. (Armed Black Panthers walking into the State Capitol in 1968 were intimidating, but there were no injuries. In any case, open carry of loaded weapons in government buildings is now illegal.)
Disallowing open carry by responsible, law-abiding citizens does nothing to reduce crime or gun violence. In fact, disarming the ‘good guys’ simply tips the balance of power in favor of the criminals, which makes us less safe. There is considerable statical proof that communities are safer with guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens.
The primary argument articulated in the video provided by the LEOs that support AB 144 is that open carry is a drain on police resources. Loaded open carry (as is done in other states) would solve this. The 12031(e) check should be eliminated. Moreover, government is not permitted to use lack of funding/resources as a reason to strip citizens of their rights. Otherwise the police could order people peacefully protesting to go home because they have work to do back at the station. “If you want free speech, go start a blog!” is not an acceptable suggestion.
No new laws are needed. It is already illegal for a person to carry a weapon with criminal intent. Criminals don’t care about the laws. (That’s why we call them criminals.) They brazenly illegally concealed carry all kinds of weapons, including guns. This unseen threat is real, but too-often ignored when emotional, hoplophobic people discuss the issue of open carry.
I always get a laugh when I see articles like this. I pray that some day we will actually get government officials who are sincere about their quest to represent the people for which they serve, because this article surely doesn’t represent my opinions and most of the folks that I know and associate with. I make it a habit to keep up with local and worldwide news as to keep a general idea as to whats happening in our world today. One thing is for certain, and this should sum up most of this article. The world ( Governments ) keeps creating these technological advancements, these amazing wonders that are supposed to create a better way of life, but whenever I watch the news, the common folk are homeless, starving, struggling people with no hopes for a brighter tomorrow while the ” fat cat ” politician’s are living large off of the tax payers dollars. When are we going to lobby the government to take care of the real issue’s that are plaguing this Nation. Unfortunately, that will never happen because ” Power and Greed ” have become the cornerstone of our society. Its not even about the money anymore, its about CONTROL. Rights you say, what rights? The only people in this who have rights anymore are those who can afford it, or those who have the power to squash yours and keep it for themselves.
wow. so this is what our institutions of higher learning crank out? How is tuition justified?
a terse short list:
1. in these chaotic times (and if idiots like you keep electing socialist tyrants like obama, is gonna get worse) there are higher rates of crime, particularly violent crime. while your wonderful state representatives are early-releasing 14000 felons (yes, fourteen thousand) and cutting police (who never prevent a crime anyway) it’s a perfect time for average citizens to carry around guns. Preferably loaded. That will make the scumbags think twice and go find a softer target. Like, in another state.
2. before you make the tired old “three shots per minute” argument, you ought to consider a couple things. First, the 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting or personal protection…it’s about murdering tyrannical politicians and their soldiers. Plain and simple. Read your history book…preferable an older one, not the revisionist crap you must have been indoctrinated with. The founders intended that the people be able to meet force with force on the battlefield…Therefore, the founders would be appalled that we AREN’T all owning and carrying the same fully automatic weapons that the (unconstitutional) standing army- (read your Constitution) are carrying. Second, are you REALLY making a technological argument against modern weaponry while typing your missive on a computer to be posted on the internet? At least be consistent. Go back to a quill and parchment…the Constitution wasn’t written on a Macbook Air and if you’re going to claim that our rights are limited to the technology of 1787, you ought to lead by example. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea. Look at all the time I’d save replying to nitwits like you.
3. Brewer vetoed the OC bill because it didn;t do enough for gun rights, not the other way around. Again, do your research and quit guessing.
4. Virgina tech? You’re kidding right? It’s ILLEGAL to shoot people on a college campus. Maybe banning guns on the campus would have stopped Cho, because making his actions illegal didn’t do squat. Except to make sure he could operate unimpeded. But I want you to have your way, so trust me, in that situation I’ll only act to save my own life, not yours. You can cower and bleat and hope REALLY REALLY hard that the cops, when they arrive, don’t wait for 3 hours before entering like they did at Columbine.
5. All you have the legal right to say “no” to is whether you carry a weapon yourself. Typical liberalism…you think you know what’s best for everyone else.
6. If you reply, try your best to use logic and fact instead of emotion and histrionics.
These are some interesting points to consider on the issue of Open Carry in California. However, in the interest of fairness, it would be prudent to also allow the other side of this issue to present their case. Here is an article that provides the reader a look at the gun rights side of this issue beyond the use of subjectively-biased, emotion-based conjecture by focusing on a viewpoint through the lens of facts and evidence.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-oakland/the-case-for-open-carry-california
This Opinion piece is what one might refer to as a target rich opportunity.
1. The bill, AB 144, would provide for up to seven years in prison.
2. South Bay Open Carry is not an organization at this time, it is an informal association, more accurately; a movement.
3. A fundamental, enumerated individual right (such as the 2nd) remains a right even if offends the sensibilities of other people. Had you bothered to read the US Supreme Court decisions, not even crime or public safety is justification for denying the right to openly carry a loaded firearm in public. This was just affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Nordyke v King case. Some people don’t like people of color eating in the same restaurant as them to which I say Tough Sh.t!
4. In 1375 there was a handheld firearm with 8 barrels, each firing 8 rounds in Roman Candle fashion. That is 64 shots from a single “pull of the trigger” (technically, touch of a burning end of a wick). Since then, mankind has made many advances. A 32 round magazine fired from a handgun one at a time is very low technology. Try to keep up with modern technology, or in this case, ancient.
5. Gun Free School Zone laws do not prevent people from killing people. Do you really think someone intent on murder is going to care a single iota about committing a lesser crime? Gun Free School Zones have been around for 20 years, the law has failed. A definition of insanity is trying the same experiment over and over again and expecting a different result.
Gun Free School Zones are the deadliest places one can be. Just look at the LA Times ranking of the 250 or so most dangerous neighborhoods in Los Angeles. All are entirely, or partially, in one or more gun free school zones. The safest neighborhoods are not even near a school.
6. You have no legal right to say “No” in the context you imply. You do have a 1st Amendment right to express an opinion and even that is limited. If one does so in a belligerent manner, he has committed a misdemeanor. If he does so in a threatening manner, he has committed a felony. If he does so in an aggressive manner such that a reasonable person would construe that he is posing a grave threat, great bodily harm; or makes an overt action to destroy property then he can legally be shot (and killed) to prevent it.
But isn’t that the real reason why there are some people who are opposed to the right of the individual to keep and carry a weapon for the purpose of self-defense?
They either want to victimize innocent people themselves or to see other innocent people become victims.
Fortunately, we have had two US Supreme Court decisions and two 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions (not to mention a 9th Circuit District Court opinion) affirming our right to carry a loaded gun in public.
Next month a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit will be brought seeking to overturn California’s restriction on Loaded Open Carry (PC 12031).
It doesn’t matter if AB 144 passes, the law will be slapped with an injunction before it takes effect in January 2012.
Perhaps you would be much happier in Mexico, which has draconian gun laws. I hear their gun control laws are very effective in creating the kind of world the opponents of Open Carry would have us live in.