Bay Area Gun Law Activists, Police React to Passage of Open Carry Law

Bill bans Californians from openly carrying unloaded handguns.

Hours after Gov. Jerry Brown announced he had signed a bill to prohibit Californians from openly carrying unloaded handguns, law enforcement officials and Bay Area activists on both sides of the issue were divided about the newly passed legislation.

AB 144 bans the open carrying of handguns in public places or in vehicles, and makes the act a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison or a maximum $1,000 fine.

Law enforcement officials throughout the state praised the governor's move today, saying the new law would promote public safety.

"We view the open carrying of unloaded handguns as a threat to the safety of the communities we police and the safety of our officers," said David L. Maggard, Jr., president of the California Police Chiefs Association. "The governor's leadership in signing this legislation will help assure that felons and gang members cannot openly carry an unloaded gun with impunity, all the while carrying the ammunitions for the weapon on their person."

Livermore police Officer David Blake said that while he respects constitutional gun rights, the open carrying of guns has had a negative impact on the community, prompting numerous concerned calls from citizens.

"We can't prejudge what the intentions are -- we treat all guns as if they are loaded," Blake said.

Bay Area gun control advocates also commended the governor's decision on the open carry bill today.

"We are elated that the governor had the courage to stand up to the NRA and stand with law enforcement and many victims of gun violence to pass AB 144," said Karen Arntzen, who works with the Contra Costa County chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Over the past two years, Arntzen has helped organize protests at Bay Area restaurants where open carry proponent groups have hosted armed meetings.

Those groups include statewide chapters of Responsible Citizens of California, an organization that advocates the right to open carry.

Yih-Chau Chang, the organization's press secretary, said the group was disappointed with the governor's approval of AB 144, but that "this certainly is not going to stop the open carry of handguns."

He said open carry proponents statewide are already planning to challenge the law in court.

Chang added that many such advocates, including himself, carry exposed, unloaded handguns on a daily basis and will likely choose to openly carry unloaded long guns in lieu of handguns once the law takes effect in January.

--Bay City News

Charles January 05, 2012 at 01:45 AM
Oklahoma Mother, 18, Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home While on Phone With 911 11 hours ago - ABC News 2:11 | 4,115,421 views http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/oklahoma-mother-18-kills-intruder-breaking-into-her-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html
Charles January 11, 2012 at 08:27 PM
More and more women embracing gun ownership (CBS News) The face of the American gun owner is changing. More women than ever are picking up rifles, shotguns, and handguns. And target shooting is one of the fastest-growing female sports. But, looks can be deceiving. We're not talking "Dirty Harriet" here, notes "Early Show" contributor Katrina Szish. Female participation in target shooting in the U.S. has nearly doubled in the last decade, growing to nearly five million women since 2001. Pistol-shooting mommas and rifle-wielding yoga instructors may not be the type of woman who comes to mind when you hear about female shooters, but they're dominating the sport. They say they shoot not only for self-protection, but because it relieves stress, helps them find peace and concentration and - feel feminine. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57348612/more-and-more-women-embracing-gun-ownership/
Charles January 12, 2012 at 06:57 PM
Retired California Law Enforcement Officers Want to Keep Their Rifles Over the last decade, California law enforcement agencies have allowed their officers to purchase their own rifles for on-duty use. Many of these rifles are considered “assault weapons” under California’s draconian gun laws, and therefore cannot be purchased or owned by civilians. Additionally, these officers have been forced to turn in their rifles once they retire. As reported by the Associated Press, “A lobbying group in California says it will pursue legislation [in 2012] that would allow police officers to keep assault weapons after they retire … the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which represents rank-and-file personnel, is reacting to an opinion issued last year by the state attorney general’s office. It states that officers must turn in their weapons when they leave law enforcement work.” “Over 7,600 officers have bought such firearms since the California began allowing the practice 10 years ago. The association’s president, Ron Cottingham says that the attorney general’s opinion punishes retiring officers who bought their own weapons while they were employed.” Source: Associated Press
Pretty Asian... January 16, 2012 at 08:28 PM
i am all for a gunless society.
Charles January 18, 2012 at 06:49 AM
with a gunless law abiding society all you have then is criminals with guns...
Charles January 22, 2012 at 03:22 AM
Finally: ATF Officials Involved in Fast and Furious Reprimanded ATF Deputy Director Tom Brandon has suspended ATF Assistant Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility and Security Operations Bill McMahon, ATF Acting Deputy Director Billy Hoover and ATF Assistant Director in Charge of Field Operations Mark Chait until further notice from their cushy ATF management positions as the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, of which McMahon, Hoover and Chait were heavily involved in, is on going. The rumor is that Brandon has a rough draft copy of the Justice Department Inspector General Report on hand, sparking the move. This is great news, however it should have happened a year ago. McMahon, Hoover and Chait made terrible decisions in Fast and Furious, and used their positions within ATF to legislate from the bureau by pushing new gun control measures. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/01/09/finally_atf_officials_involved_in_fast_and_furious_reprimanded
Charles January 22, 2012 at 03:36 AM
Officials travel armed. When a contingent of our officials visits any other country, they bring armed personnel in classic right-to-bear-arms manner. Life is dangerous and the ability to protect yourself is a reasonable and prudent thing, a fundamental human right of existence, a moral imperative. So they go armed. It's only rational. Hillary and similar bring along enough firepower that if some of their group go one way while some head off in another, they're both covered. The same is true in reverse. When an ambassador from Trashcanistan comes to the United States, discreetly armed bodyguards accompany the party at all times, "laws to the contrary notwithstanding." That's lawyer-speak for "their right to carry supersedes any other rules," or in plainer English, "We're above those laws." The ambassador might decide to personally carry too. I'm guessing Hillary does not. There's this whole "second system" of gun possession and carry here domestically, another layer of rules on top of the common ones you must follow, operating quietly with people in the know cooperating. Where are the laws for this exception to every gun law on the U.S. books? How does this special class of people exempt themselves from laws controlling the rest of us?
Charles January 22, 2012 at 03:37 AM
No one is harmed by their exemption. In fact, community safety increases, because assaults on those armed people are naturally deterred, even defensible if needed. Should we the people maybe have Diplomatic Carry too? Is a diplomat's life truly at more risk -- or worth more -- than any "commoner"? How does this comply with equal protection under the law? Local authorities understand implicitly that these armed folks aren't going to randomly shoot people, or settle arguments with gunfire, the same as you and me when we're armed. They enjoy proper respect (even if they come from regimes that don't deserve it). We on the other hand have rights denied haphazardly, even with Constitutional Carry. As good as it is, Constitutional Carry is not enough.
Charles January 22, 2012 at 03:39 AM
Americans need and deserve the next step, Diplomatic Carry. The body politic moves slowly. After several decades of experience, police nationwide understand and operate just fine within a framework of millions of people traveling armed. As the number of people carrying arms for crime control has increased, assaultive crimes have decreased. The media generally calls this "a surprising decrease in crime that has the experts baffled." All these people are walking around armed, expressly to forestall crime, and the media can't understand why crime has dropped. But I digress. Oh sure, armed forces within the U.S. -- from local police to secretive agents our government is now filled with -- keep a watchful eye on the armed diplomats, as well they should. They also provide backup in the event of need. The same as for us. But in the big picture, diplomats have less need for an ever-present armed escort than the public. A rare few diplomats face death at the hands of the mobs. Thousands of citizens are murdered each year. Who needs protection more? The freedom of Diplomatic Carry, a concept many of us can easily grasp, is mind boggling to the great unwashed. So insulated from any truth about firearms, victims of television and the government-run school system, they have imbedded ignorance that is hard to shake. Destructively misinformed kids and teachers compound the problem. I digress again.
Charles January 22, 2012 at 03:44 AM
Cond. Now, Diplomatic Carry is not going to happen overnight. Many voices will be raised in objection to such freedom. And unfortunately, some opposition will come from people who consider themselves firearms enthusiasts. Establishing everyone's uninfringed freedom to carry is scary, at least to some. But that's OK. Real freedom is a house high on a hill. Diplomatic Carry is a paradigm shift. A window into a world that could be, and ought to be, a lofty goal. Your right to your life and its protection cannot morally be denied. It is denied only by force, and there is only one viable countermeasure to force unfortunately, in this best of all possible worlds, and that's countervailing force. I don't like it, but there it is. Diplomatic Carry is a new level of autonomy, of personal sovereignty. It raises the bar. In this country, the people are the sovereigns and the government is the servant. How do you justify the servants carrying arms if the masters cannot? The only consistent position for free people to take is this: Anything short of Diplomatic Carry is infringement. Copyright 2012 Alan Korwin http://www.gunlaws.com Permission to circulate granted
Charles January 22, 2012 at 03:53 AM
After several decades of experience with CCW permits and discreet carry, police nationwide understand and operate just fine within a framework of millions of people traveling armed. Slow waiters are all still alive. Dodge City has no blood in its streets. Stop signs don't have stacks of road-rage victims. Something else has happened. As the numbers of people carrying arms for crime control increases assaultive crime has decreased. The media generally calls this “a surprising decrease in crime that has the experts baffled.” All these good people are walking around armed, expressly to forestall crime, and the media can’t understand why crime has dropped. Maybe a chart will help. The blue line represents the number of people with CCW permits, increasing constantly over time. The red line is violent crime, dropping while more guns are in people's hands. The correlation is dead obvious. The idea that more guns lead to more crime is again proven false. In fact, it is the opposite of reality. This is what we're dealing with in the struggle to protect rights -- a large body of people, driven largely by the media, whose perception of reality is exactly opposite of what it actually is. More guns means less crime, because guns save lives. Guns protect you. Guns are good. http://by170w.bay170.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?n=468095659#n=1175888472&fid=1&mid=4fd9af45-3d27-11e1-88b1-00237de3f246&fv=1
Doug Radtke January 22, 2012 at 06:13 AM
It's kind of hard to have firearm suicide in a household if there's not a firearm in the house to begin with. What kind of asinine study is this?
Doug Radtke January 22, 2012 at 06:15 AM
Obesity is quickly becoming the leading cause of death in America. Let's ban fat people because the government and "studies" know so much better than we do!
Doug Radtke January 22, 2012 at 06:18 AM
You guys are preaching to a wall. Conrad is one of those "true believers" that really believes disarming the populace is going to make the world a safer place. I recommend you visit a place like China where the leading cause of violent death isn't gun violence, it's STABBINGS! It's also a lot easier for the government to bully, beat, abuse, and herd the populace since none of them can fight back (the cops and military in China have the guns). Disarming the populace is the first step to a tyrannical government controlling your life from the cradle to the grave.
Doug Radtke January 22, 2012 at 06:20 AM
There won't be a gunless society. What you get is law abiding people cowering in fear because all the wrong people (criminals) have guns!
Charles January 29, 2012 at 12:00 AM
Did you know that a property crime happens every 3 seconds; one burglary occurs every 10 seconds, one violent crime occurs every 20 seconds, one aggravated assault occurs every 35 seconds... Most people are not willing to do what is necessary to protect themselves, their family members, and their home from the ruthless attack of a violent felon...
Charles February 11, 2012 at 08:39 PM
Bloomberg: Police Your Police Despite Mayor Bloomberg’s publicity stunt last week in the form of a Super Bowl gun control ad with his gun-grabbing cohort, Boston Mayor Tom Menino, Bloomberg’s time in reducing gun crime could better be spent policing his own…police. In a follow up to a story we reported on last October, on Monday, one of Bloomberg’s police officers pleaded guilty to charges that he led a group that took cash to illegally transport firearms into New York. The officer could face up to 20 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June. Perhaps instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on TV ads, calling for national gun control laws, and sending private investigators into other states to surreptitiously video tape vendors at gun shows, Bloomberg should re-focus his efforts and his city’s finances on ensuring that his officers, who are sworn to uphold the law and arrest criminals who violate gun laws, are not breaking the law themselves.
Doug Radtke February 11, 2012 at 08:51 PM
these loons who bomb abortion clinics and rant foaming at the mouth about "my body my rights" would then turn around and say people who pro-guns are "nuts" and "obsessive". that's the kind of world we live in!
Diet T February 13, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Charles, I am a gun rights advocate but you are scaring me with your obsessive rants over the last FOUR MONTHS! You are a prime example of a person who should NOT own a gun. Please temper your monologue down a little. You are setting our cause back years, IMO. Your passion is admirable but you need to take a breath and realize that you don't have to totally dominate and overwhelm the opposition on this issue. Nobody likes a bully, even a words-bully.......and that is especially true when one is talking about open carry of handguns
Charles February 14, 2012 at 02:54 AM
Jane Anne Shimzu, Marketing Director at Gunsite, in Paulden, Ariz., the world-class shooting academy established by Col. Cooper, writes on Feb. 2, 2010: Alan, found this today in Cooper's Gargantuan Gossip II Dated 1997 "We read a notice from Canada to the effect that 'The purpose of anti-gun legislation is to establish criminal supremacy over the citizen by awarding the goblins the status of being the sole armed caste of the population.' The publisher has gone on to state that the time has come to ask ourselves what is behind all this. "Well, we know what motivates the hoplophobe. He simply envies the man who can cope where he, the hoplophobe, cannot. A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment different from that of others. This is not egalitarian! The man who cannot cut it, envies, fears and sometimes hates the man who can. This is all very clear, it is just a pity that so many people choose to hide their perfidious motivation behind what they claim to be ãcrime control."
Charles February 14, 2012 at 03:10 AM
Diet T, " I am a gun rights advocate" Really? You sound like an anti-gun, anti second amendment, anti-rights person to me and maybe even an Hoplophobe. These are not obsessive rants, these are facts.. People like you who want people like me to sit back and not challenge the lies by the liberal media and the anti-gun people jeopardizes our freedoms IMO.. You do not know me, have you had any training with firearms or expertise to say that I should NOT own a gun. Do you even belong to the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Cal-Guns etc. I think NOT..
Charles February 14, 2012 at 03:30 AM
It is so totally American, and replacing the current state of TV-fueled gun ignorance with enlightenment and understanding, accidents will drop, safety will improve, national readiness will skyrocket, and the fear that there won't be enough training opportunities will fall apart as the stale BS it is. Push for Constitutional Carry in your state.
Diet T February 15, 2012 at 05:44 AM
Charles, exxxcuuuuse me! I didn't realize one had to belong to the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Cal-Guns etc., to enjoy shooting guns or be an advocate for owning firearms. When I visit my friends in the Midwest and shoot clays behind their barn or reduce the population of prairie dogs on a neighbor's farm, I didn't realize I had to join the NRA to be a REAL gun enthusiast. Sorry, but as a woman and mother, I enjoy taking my daughter to the shooting range and showing her how handle firearms safely and not to be afraid of them. I don't need or like a blowhard like you to harangue me and many of The Patch readers, ad nauseam, about gun control or the right to prance around with an empty sidearm with rounds in your pocket. I much prefer a Vermont or Alaska solution, but realize demographics probably effects the viability of legalizing CCW in California.
Charles February 15, 2012 at 06:17 AM
Diet T, I am happy to hear that you enjoy shooting and taking your daughter to the range. That is what we need in this state/country to keep our second amendment rights. To show people that good responsible people like yourself can own a gun and shoot and do it safely. Of course you don't have to belong to the NRA or SAF etc. to enjoy shooting or be an advocate for owning a firearm. BUT we as members of the NRA feel If you are not an NRA member, you are sitting in the wagon, and the rest of us are having to pull your load. We need the help. We need for you to spend the cost of a single box of steel shot magnum loads and join. Then we need you to get your friends to join, or to sign them up. Just think about it and keep shooting.. I too would prefer to have a CCW over open carry if given the choice. Please read my next posting on open carry and try to keep a open mind.
Charles February 15, 2012 at 06:22 AM
Open Carry -- Foolish Grandstanding or Activism? by Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Everyone getting this newsletter knows about concealed carry, and how the right to carry is available to citizens in 48 states. Many lives have been saved by good people with carry permits. This is not about that. Imagine wearing your handgun in the open, where everyone can see it, as you go through your daily routine. Shopping, jogging, at work, or just walking downtown, you just put a holstered gun on your belt and strike out. That's what many people are now doing. It's called open carry, and it's legal in many states. That doesn't mean it's easy, though. A quick reading of postings on various online firearms bulletin boards turns up many cases of police harassing or even arresting people who are legally carrying their guns openly. Some have been confronted by officers who got a "man with a gun" call from a member of public frightened of the very sight of someone carrying a gun. Recently, a Louisiana man was awarded a substantial amount of money after he sued the police department for arresting him when he was legally carrying openly.
Charles February 15, 2012 at 06:23 AM
cont. What's this all about? It's a movement. If you view open carry with that in mind, it makes sense. Visit www.opencarry.org for more info, or just drop into any firearms forum, and you'll find people talking about it. Check out the Virginia Citizen's Defense League to see how an active state group not only protects a right, but expands it. As I have been following this movement for quite some time, I wasn't sure how to present it in context, and last weekend I figured it out. (Stay with me here, and don't wig out, okay?) I had the TV on, mostly for company, and stumbled on a show about the sexual revolution of the 1960s. (See, I said you had to cut me some slack, here.) What struck me were the scenes of the gay activists in the streets, and the comments they made. Some were "in your face," some were just quietly assertive, and some were saying, basically, don't make waves. Flash back to the fight for women's rights, or the fight for civil rights for African Americans, and you have the same factions. That's what we are seeing in the Open Carry Movement (OCM). Some are "out there," pushing hard. They want the confrontation with authorities so they can make the point that good, honest people carry guns, that it's legal, and that they should be left alone. They stage open carry picnics in parks, and invite the media. Ohioans for Concealed Carry is a leader in this, holding very successful open carry walks.
Charles February 15, 2012 at 06:24 AM
cont. Some people just engage in open carry quietly, answering questions from friends or people who ask, but not looking for any opportunity to make a point. Naturally, some gun owners argue that open carry is a bad idea, that it's tactically unsound, that it frightens the public, and that we should all just get concealed carry permits and quietly go about our business. Rights, like muscles, must be exercised. To not use open carry is to lose that right. If the police are restricting and arresting people for engaging in a legal act, we have a serious problem. You and I may differ in our opinions as to whether carrying a gun openly is smart from a tactical sense, but that's a different issue. OCM, as a "movement," now has achieved the position that concealed carry had 20 years ago, except that the battle then was to get carry laws passed. Many states do not prohibit open carry, so the movement is to get more people to do it, and to change the laws so good people can open carry in more states. Each person has her or his level of comfort with activism. In the coming weeks, we'll have guests on Gun Talk radio talking about open carry -- why do it, what's involved, what's the law, what holsters (think security) would be good choices, etc. One line of thinking is that the entire idea of asking permission to carry a gun -- through getting a permit for concealed carry -- is contrary to the Second Amendment being a basic right.
Charles February 15, 2012 at 06:27 AM
cont. We don't apply for a permit to engage in free speech or practice religion. The very act, say some, of applying for a carry permit validates the idea that the government should give you permission to bear arms. Why get involved in the OCM? Why carry openly? Comfort? Making a point? Just to exercise a right, perhaps? All valid reasons, in my opinion. Maybe it's just one person's way to show others that good people carry guns. It might not be for everyone, but it's a movement that's growing.
Charles February 16, 2012 at 07:31 PM
Trigger The Vote http://www.triggerthevote.org/landing2/
Charles May 05, 2012 at 08:57 PM
The Armed Citizen Alliance is the only national organization created for the sole purpose of assisting ordinary American citizens in preparing themselves for the responsibilities of armed personal and home defense. It is supported by a broad-based nationwide coalition of companies and organizations from the shooting sports and firearms community. The ACA offers an avenue to learning how to react with confidence should you face your worst nightmare. http://www.armedcitizenalliance.com/


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something