Open Carry Ban Heads to Governor


Posted on 13 September 2011

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend by emailSend by email

By Assemblymember Anthony Portantino

Finally, the ban on the open carrying of unloaded handguns is on the Governor’s desk. This bill is both necessary and urgently needed. Imagine walking into your local coffee shop and running into a man or woman carrying a semi-automatic pistol. Or, imagine getting out of your car, family in tow, and three armed men are walking through the parking lot.  Would you call the police or would you get back in your car and go home?

If you called the police, you’d be like many other Californians who beckon law enforcement and report the proliferation of gun-toters on Main Street, California. When the police officers arrive, they have to approach every public display of weapons as if those guns were loaded. In fact, most gun owners themselves are taught to treat every weapon as if it were loaded as a pure safety precaution.  Certainly, the police officer on the street is trained no differently.

In California, we have laws to register guns and a license is needed to carry a concealed weapon. The open carry loophole allows modern-day cowboys to walk around carrying a gun on one hip and bullets or clips on the other. The California Police Chiefs Association and rank and file law enforcement believe that it’s only a matter of time before one of these unnecessary police stops turns ugly and someone gets hurt, or worse. I agree.  That’s why I authored AB 144 to ban the open carry of unloaded weapons. 

During these very tough economic times, law enforcement should not be wasting its time and attention on unnecessary confrontations with gun packing citizens on Main Street, California. The nearby family who called the police or who are sitting at the restaurant should be able to conduct their activities without the fear that one of these police calls might go violent. It is important to consider that AB 144 was drafted at the request of law enforcement to avoid the accidental or purposeful discharge of a weapon during one of the many “open carry” investigations. AB 144 passed the Senate on Thursday, the Assembly on Friday, and is now awaiting action from Governor Brown.

Gun owners who support California’s open carry are hoping to draw attention to what they see as the Constitutional guarantee to bear arms.  Because California law prohibits openly carried guns from being loaded, open carry has come to symbolize the fight for Second Amendment Rights.  The Second Amendment gives gun owners the right to defend their homes and property, not to put our public safety officers and families on Main Street in harm’s way. 

While AB 144 was working through the system, the California Brady Campaign, which supports AB 144, began calling on all restaurant owners to establish a gun-free dining policy to protect their customers and employees. As they put it, “families should be able to dine in peace without being subjected to second-hand crossfire”. If AB 144 is signed into law, this would be unnecessary as unlicensed pistol packers would now be facing a $1,000 fine.

Another disturbing part of the open carry movement is the use of weapons as a political statement and for political purposes. It seems to me that the last thing we need in politics are weapons.  Political discourse is about ideas and passionate and robust debate.  It is not, and should not, be a formula for intimidation and violence. For my own brand of politics, I will stand up to my own party leaders if I think they are wrong and I will propose sensible gun laws at a time when many in politics find gun regulation too hot to handle. 

Unfortunately, in their efforts to discourage me, the open carry activists have peppered my home phone and Facebook with nasty comments since I introduced AB 144. There is even a wanted poster on the Internet with my photo front and center. The heightened rhetoric of the open carry debate will not deter me from doing my job: to see that California’s citizens are protected and Main Street, California is safe for families and law enforcement.

It is certainly appropriate for folks to join me in asking the Governor to sign AB 144.  Governor Brown can be reached at (916) 445-2841 or www.gov.ca.gov.  Don’t hesitate to share your views.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Assemblymember Anthony Portantino was elected to serve the 44th Assembly District in November, 2006.

Okay...all you gun nuts, teabaggers, and knuckle draggers...don't hold back...let all your crazy out in the comment section as you have in the past...you've got a high bar to clear, so really let your insanity and ignorance out in all its glory...

Let the crazy begin!!!

lmao...

What a joke.

He even uses the movie term "clip" when referring to magazines...

Pathetic...

The right to defend yourself, your family, & others from harm while in public is exactly that, a RIGHT.

I routinely open carry in San Diego & no one ever cares, no one calls the cops, no one gives a crap, why? because it's holstered!

How many criminals have you seen with exposed holstered sidearms?

This bill & the idiot who authored it are the enemy of basic commonsense logic.

I just wanted to say that I second this comment. Anti-gun people are so indoctrinated with fear that they don't see common sense, and they refuse to even try.

Lol ! This must be one of portantino's ignorant followers . Based off of that article what is factual ? Nothing ...... All portantino does is claims people will b in fear when seeing someone with a gun ? That is true ignorance , the poeple that need to be feared are the ones that carry concealed by that i mean criminals . Lets see here ..... He wants to get a seat in congress but needs financial backing ? Brady campaign and the pig association contributed to him ..... Both anti gun morons . Its not that hard to figure out who paid to have this bill initiated .

Let what begin?

You call a group of elderly Americans a foul name, disparage those who serve our nation by calling them gun nuts, and I don't know who your foul mouth is referring to when you say knuckle dragger but I would guess it's a family member, perhaps?

You have horrible communication skills, are foul mouthed and disgusting, and have absolutely zero respect for others. I do not care to know you, do not care to engage you in conversation, and can only say that if you Wait a few more years to write here, you may find that you have matured enough to hold a conversation without obscenities.

But I doubt it. Anyone that referrs to older Americans with a name that is a sex act, well, you're pathetic and digusting.

well, since your first sentence was comprised of insults, don't be surprised when all you get back is venom.

as far as the "loophole" is concerned, the lack of a law or legislation is not a loophole. if there's no law against it, it's not illegal. the problem lies not with people who are forced to open carry, it lies with the government denying its citizens the right to carry a gun lawfullt in the first place, concealed. if KKKalifornians don't want to see guns at coffee shops, let your citizens carry concealed. it's not quantum physics, it's pretty damn simple. issue KKKalifornians concealed carry permits, the way almost every other state in America does.

thankfully, i live in PA, and i don't have to care about offending the sensibilities of some granola crunching, Birkenstock wearing, tie dye shirt sporting, dirty, smelly, unshaved hippy moron. if someone doesn't like the sight of me open carrying, they are free to say so, and i'm free to politely tell them to go ahead and screw themselves.

Please keep the Cali people in Cali. The infections they generate in the better parts of this wonderful country, is terrible, I live in Utah and have a ccw permit, Have a very nice pistol and can go out in the desert and target shoot anytime I want. If you would like to visit we would love to see you, bring money,, then please go home. I see people, that try to move here and bring Cali with them, If you like Cali so much, please stay home. tks

LOL you must be rich or stupid. I hope YOU are the person accosted by a criminal, the only people in California with guns, and are unable to protect yourself. I hope your children are the ones who get to watch you get shot, because of your lack of reason. Keep thinking what you're told to.

This is what happens when we elect people like Anthony Portantino, who hasn’t got a clue as to what he is doing, and no leadership qualities whatsoever. What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," don't you understand? I will carry a loaded weapon when and how I decide, it doesn’t say anywhere "just in your home!" Can you guarantee when I am out with my family that we will be safe, and that the police are just around the corner to help? Hopefully this will go to the Supreme Court, and in a 5 to 4 decision this law will be deemed unconstitutional. You will never take my right to bear arms away from me! I will call Governor Brown Immediately to veto this bill!

You are correct. Law enforcement should not busy themselves by checking out all these gun toters (law abiding practicioners of their rights). They should be beating minorities. Oh wait....

When did the police become holy? I think honest citizens with no desire to be a professional authority figure should be respected. They are clearly taking on a much a position with much more scrutiny then most police officers have to endure.

Point me to all the articles about the irresponsible usage of firearms by persons with conceal carry permits in states which allow it or in your own state. I will point you to the articles about police abuses, and you want to tell me the police are BETTER then me. READ... then you will know more.

To equate the carrying of guns to the reckless discharge of them is to compare people's possession of automobiles to the farmers market runaway car tragedy. It could be that your ill equipped mentally to form analogies, or perhaps you know its hyperbole designed to frighten citizens into subjects.

Consider for a moment what the average mugger might feel with all these people walking around with guns, perhaps he will choose property crime instead of a crime which involves contact with people. This is the trend of conceal carry states, less murder, less rape, less assault, more burglary. I'll take that trade-off. You would have us rely on the police, then when they do not arrive in time, lecture us that they are a post-response entity with no obligation to protect.

Your condescending article to the citizenry belies your ignorance. You should be removed from office. I hope all your constituents read your article so they can know exactly what you think of them.

You can strut your stuff like the gang lords saying this is my turf cause I got my gun, but I will carry my Granny's little pearl handled gun in my purse because I believe I am living in an insane world. Probably it will explode if I fired it, BUT I can't carry a bigger gun with my cell phone and stuff. We all voted yesterday that if someone has no health insurance they should die, so probably we need to enlarge the morgue. I won't try to eat next to you in a bar or restaurant even if you run the world. My stomach just will not adjust. And I may have an accident and send a stray bullet flying by your group and I hope you understand I just don't know much about guns.

Bukkiah, your points about law enforcement are well taken. In fact, to get a more comprehensive perspective on exactly what platform the police organizations are speaking from on the Open Carry issue, critical-thinking citizens should examine the facts.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-oakland/should-the-police-be-the-o...

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” You will not take away my constitutional right to bear arms! Any law you pass will not change my right to bear arms! I will carry my firearm loaded whenever I feel like it, let them arrest me, all I need is one juror that is a gun advocate. Thank God we have a conservative leaning supreme court; let’s take it there.

Even in the wild West they checked their guns at the door. I want you away from my family. You may have a gun, but that doesn't mean you get to bully people with it. I don't remember the Founding Fathers packing in their legislative meetings although no doubt they all knew how to use a gun. If you are a trained person with a sane mind and no criminal background, I have no problem with you owning a gun. It is how you abuse it that bothers me.

Owning a gun is useless for self defense unless you have it with you. Unfortunately California has unconstitutional laws that prohibit law abiding people from carrying a concealed pistol. Hence people are forced to carry openly. That is not ideal. Allow people to carry concealed and you won't have to see the steps people are taking to defend themselves and their loved ones.

carrying a firearm does not equate to bullying. The practice is not meant to intimidate, it's meant to deter unwanted, negative activity. Furthermore, carrying a gun is not an abuse of rights at all. Its exercising them. Police officers carry openly all the time, and you'd bf surprised how many of them, upon further review of their skills are less qualified to do so than those who take their safety and that of their loved ones as a personal responsibility as opposed to an occupational requirement. However, we are straying from the main issue, which is a lack of education of the general public on what firearms really are. The vast majority of people dont have a clue, and they are led by misconceptions fed to them by a multitude of sources. Lastly, what people really need to see is that this type of legislation, in any form, be it gun control, knife control, even motor vehicle legislation, do something far worse than infringe against our constitutional rights; they exonerate and remove responsibility from the INDIVIDUAL. Everyone speaks about how guns (in this case ) are the problem, but what about the people holding them? Do their mindsets and decisions account for no part of the problem?

I'll leave you all with this.. For those of you so inclined, carry on! For those of you against the practice and/or against guns in general, please, read up on them. Do your best to learn more about what they actually are, how they have revolutionized society, and what we had before them.. If you still feel the same way after, thats fine, you're entitled to your opinions and I won't criticize you for it.

My parents and their families were country people who were all expert with their weapons. We typically went target shooting on Sunday which meant we pulled off the road, set up something and shot at it. No big deal. My husband grew up in New York City. No guns except for police and criminals. That has been my adult life. What is it about where you live that makes you feel you must always carry a gun? Is it crime? Have you been attacked? Once I was afraid of someone and went home to get a gun. My family said unless I could manage the gun and be willing to shoot someone, I should not have it. There is a big difference between police or a military person carrying a gun and a stranger who feels they must always be "packing". I support gun training, background checks and a permit to carry.

I respect your background and opinions, and furthermore i appreciate your ability to conduct this discourse without resorting to "lower" forms of debate.

I live in Los Angeles, CA. Gangs, violence, and related issues are all around us here in LA. I disagree, there is not a BIG difference between police and regular citizens, on most occasions. The "stranger" (as mentioned in my previous post) has made the safety of himself and his loved ones his PERSONAL responsibility, as opposed to just an occupational requirement. Furthermore, given the nature of the police job these days, they have become purely reactionary. I could call them during a confrontation, however there is a good chance i'll be dead or severely injured long before they get there.

I as well support gun training, background checks, and permits to allow carry. I am not at all supporting legislation that states anyone can carry a gun at any time. Definitely document, interview, and train those individuals (or mandate that they undergo training). Absolutely.

In answer to your question, yes, i have been attacked.. twice. I will attest, however, that it was a good thing that during my first experience i wasn't carrying a firearm. I was much younger, and a much different person than i am today. However, during the second one, the encounter might have gone a whole lot differently.

These days, you only hear about gun crime; you never hear when a citizen uses their firearm to deter a crime, or save their life. But that's the problem with the MSM, and an entirely different issue.

I also agree that one must be mentally and physically prepared to use it, should the need arise. I personally have spent countless hours practicing with my primary firearm, and i've made the mental committment to use it, although I honestly pray that the day never comes. Every night before I put it away to go to sleep, I'm thankful that another day went by without the firearm's justification.

All that being said, I'd like it to be known that I do not advocate the practice of openly carrying an unloaded firearm as a means of tactical self defense. Tactically, it's not a smart practice. I don't promote openly carrying as a means to show off. I don't carry to be macho, or to intimidate. I don't carry because i'm looking for a fight, i carry because I want to be left alone. I'd much rather be able to conceal it, however, in good ol' california, it's damn near impossible to get a permit.

I'll end this comment by reiterating that most all gun control legislation does something far worse than infringing on our 2nd amendment rights; it exonerates and relieves of responsibility the INDIVIDUAL who uses it improperly.

-J

ACtually they did carry in legislative meeetings, often.

Yeah but that was PRIVATE enterprise deciding that. Not the government banning it. Businesses should be free to make whatever policies they want because people have a choice to participate in those businesses.

Haha! A feeble and weak mind at work. Your argument holds no merit "Guns" Read the constitution. Who spoke of or implied bullying?

"Imagine walking into your local coffee shop and running into a man or woman carrying a semi-automatic pistol. Or, imagine getting out of your car, family in tow, and three armed men are walking through the parking lot. "

It is already happening, everywhere. The criminals are already doing this, they just conceal their guns. The fact that people 'do not see' it does NOT make them any safer. Sure, they FEEL safer, similar to the ostrich with his head in the sand.

The ONLY people affected by this law (and all people control laws) are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. What do you have to fear from Law Abiding Citizens?

The real issue is a concealed carry permit plan. In many states, citizens are allowed to carry a gun if they undergo a background check, take training, and pass a basic test. The question is this: how does such a program impact crime?

Not a simple question to answer. One can find studies supporting conclusions on both sides of this issue. Having looked at many of these studies I believe that a concealed gun carry program does reduce crime but only slightly.

I personally believe a person having taken and passed a concealed carry course and test should be able to carry a weapon to defend themself.

The numbers of murders performed by concealed carry permit holders is vanishingly small (well under 1%).

First, understand that *nobody* likes "unloaded open carry". Us "gunnies" detest it, and do so only in groups so that the bad guys won't rob us for free guns.

It would be total idiocy, except it's really a protest move made necessary by the sheriffs and police chiefs who are selling concealed carry permits for campaign contributions and/or limiting them to the "political and social elite".

Here's the real kicker: so far two federal district court judges have said that the extreme limits on the issuance of concealed carry permits doesn't "infringe" on the right to "bear arms" ONLY because unloaded open carry is still legal. The moment the ban on unloaded open carry kicks in, those two decisions crash and burn - and both are headed up the federal appellate court food chain.

So go right ahead, Governor - throw us poor "gun nuts" into this particular briar patch. Trash a series of political protests that have a perfect record for violence and crime (zero) because you think guns are "icky" or the like. Force reforms to the concealed permit system, switching us from subjective standard$ to objective (background check and training). After all, when you were mayor in Oakland the sole permitholder was your personal best friend, roommate and unofficial bodyguard who your city had to pay out multiple payments for his serial sexual harassment. Gun carry based purely on cronyism stinks and you personally have reason to know it - google "zen and the art of CCW abuse" if anybody else wants that hilarious story.

Why are you bringing Gov. Brown into this? He owns guns, has been endorsed by NRA, and doesn't seem hostile to law abiding people defending themselves and exercising their constitutional rights.

Well let's see here. Brown's personal best friend, campaign staffer and long-time roommate was the SOLE person to score a CCW permit in Oakland.

On being asked, the police chief said that he'd issued that one and that he wasn't going to issue any more.

So explain to me how Brown doesn't have a personal history of supporting "CCW for the political elite"?

If he signs this turkey, it'll be simply more of the same, except it'll backfire on him.

Issuance of a CCW permit is at the discretion of the local law enforcement agency, not the Mayor. The decision to grant a CCW permit was a decision of the Chief of Police, not Brown.

lol, hope your ready for shotguns and rifles.

wow!i`am so glad i live in florida where we allow citizen`s to even open carry to and from fishing,camping,and hunting!soon full open carry will be back!communist kalifornia has the lamest laws that never accomplish a thing!10 round magazine laws,magazine locks,etc. have done nothing at all to curb any violence there!in florida where citizen`s have right`s i can conceal carry,open carry(as explained),posses regular capacity or high capacity magazines,have as much ammo as i want without a signature or micro-stamping,have almost magazines,ammo,and almost complete guns sent to my house all day long without any problems or cops having to respond because i`am in possesion of any of these things!there are no problems in this state as there are none in california!the only problem i see are ignorant thinkers like the assembly member!i hope the governer vetoes this and the people vote this smuck out of office to leave peace loving people alone!this is the right thing to do!

C'mon "people"...you're crazier and more ignorant than this (though this string of comments is impressive in both breadth and scope...kind of like a bunch of sociopathic Forrest Gumps)...don't hold back how you really feel cowards...tell us why you need to have open carried guns in restaurants and coffee shops I go to...

jeffson, you sound disappointed that there hasn't been some barrage of insane, racist wackos ranting against this.

as a gun-owning liberal Democrat, i can tell you that most gun owners i encounter are well-spoken, level-headed, civil-rights minded individuals - Dem, Republican, independent, whatever. my firearm mentors were married lesbian retirees. the members of my gun club are smart, often well-educated folks. i discuss gun politics with a magnum-shooting pot-growing transgendered woman.

i bet you hate when people see you as a "liberal" and make a zillion assumptions about your politics, your past, and your way of thinking. stop pigeonholing others and we might actually get something done around here.

Troll alert!

People like Jeffson are what is wrong with this country; NO COMMON SENSE! I would rather have some of my fellow law abiding citizens carrying loaded weapons in the restaurant that me and my family are eating at than gang members and felons that are carrying weapons no matter what the law is! Ask a felon how easy it is to get a gun, typical liberal. The problem with people like Jeffson is that not only do they have no common sense, but they think they are smarter than they actually are.

Open carry happens because many counties have unconstitutional rules barring law-abiding people from carrying a concealed pistol for self defense. Law abiding people would rather carry concealed. Respect the Constitution and allow law-abiding people with clean records to protect themselves and their families. Then you won't have open carry.

As a conservative Jew living in Massachusetts, the problem here is quite simple. It is easy to put bans on objects (ban the guns, ban open carry, ban salty foods, ban too much trans fat, ban unicorns pooping marshmallows as they fly over lib-dem rainbows), but hard work to find, arrest, successfully prosecute, and INCARCERATE criminals. Law abiding citizens will obey the law while criminals will do as they damned well please. Stop banning OBJECTS and tackle the real problem of CRIMINAL ACTS, and guess what, crime will go down and people will both feel safer and actually be safer. Furthermore, the recent federal ruling which is forcing Kalifornistan to release convicted criminals early to reduce prison overcrowding will only add to this problem. Early release, in my far less than humble opinion, does not reward good behavior. It puts socioapths back on the streets. EARLY. People don't like Sheriff Joe in Arizona because he's hard. Guess what . . . criminals respond to his tactics. The good sheriff makes prison (jail) so unpleasant they are highly motivated to not repeat. Folks, this is really simple stuff . . .

Punish the criminal behavior, not the lawful use (open carry) of a basic tool (holstered gun). Lock up the law breaking, stealing, robbing, beating, raping and killing scum and make them server their full sentences. Make the consequences of getting caught so odious as to motivate the criminals to act differently.

And while I have no direct skin in the CA game, MA is just about as bad as CA. Go ahead Gov. Brown. Sigh the bill. Then our local pro second amendment folks can use your court case to overturn our bad laws. After all, like the right to bear arms, using the courst is The American Way.

- Brad

finally, someone who understands the real problem. Who'd have thought that we could hold PEOPLE responsible for their actions?

Great statement brad! Hope there are others out there who understand as well!

I want to thank Sen. Portantino for helping pave the way for guaranteed carry permit issuance.

We've been fighting this carry permit issue for a long time, and we finally have our lever. I don't know why people call him anti-gun, the NRA couldn't've PAID for a better strategy/outcome.

Now, do note that many open carry folks carry this way BECAUSE THEY CAN'T (for now) get a carry permit from their local sheriff. This drama would end if sheriff corruption ends.

CA sheriffs issue carry permits to their political & funding cronies for the most trivial of reaons - and yet then deny permit issuance to someone else for *exactly the same reason* stated in applications. Public records requests reveal this repeatedly, and across numerous CA counties. Some carry permits are issued by some sheriffs to their cronies EVEN WITHOUT ANY GOOD CAUSE BEING SPECIFIED AT ALL (i.e, blank) - and then denying issuance to others who have detailed, profound good cause. Can you say Equal Protection?

The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms - held as valid in 2008 Heller and 'incorporated' into the states by 2010 McDonald decision - requires government to allow people to bear a firearm in public in some manner for immediate self-defense – that is, either openly or concealed. 'Bear' has equal priority to 'keep'.

Government can indeed regulate and choose the manner of carry, but it cannot outlaw both forms of carry. Banning unloaded open carry means that CA sheriffs MUST issue carry permits without great interference: 'good cause' will have to be personal Heller-protected personal protection, and 'good moral character' will be the equivalent to that required to buy a firearm (since 'keep' and 'bear' are not separable and there can be no levels/tiers of differentiation for gun purchase vs gun bearing).

Certain documentation and training requirements may be possible but these cannot be so burdensome in cost, time or requirement of, say, "Superman" skills that the status quo is maintained - remember, we're dealing with an individual fundamental right.

In fact, the recent Peruta case [under appeal] in Federal court essentially stated that if open carry is available, then bans or significant strictures on concealed carry are not burdensome. The converse is just as true.

Please do call Sen. Portantino and thank him for this progress; I don't think he's very up-to-speed with gun rights litigation and yet he's thrown us a soft pitch we can take to home plate.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Where are you getting your information from ? If ab-144 goes though , it does not mean that "shall issue" will go into affect ! It only opens the door for it , now if you just wanna roll over like a whipped dog and let them voilate our rights then do so ! We should not have to settle for government permission slips and should be allowed our right to our arms . Portantino is a hypocrite pig i would
Like to do more than just thank him ;)

now, you too can be a helpless victim.
your offenders will be hunting you down now
because they know there is nothing you can do about it
congratulations..

you deserve everything you get.

signed,
A well armed american

now, you too can be a helpless victim.
your offenders will be hunting you down now
because they know there is nothing you can do about it
congratulations..

you deserve everything you get.

signed,
A well armed american

Why is the 2nd amendment the only amendment you need a license to exercise (in most states, except in the land of the fruits and the nuts where you just can't exercise it at all)?

I think that there were important points missed. I haven not come to the point of protest in an open carry scenario. I feel that the open carry movement is indeed a protest against the very subjective and unfair discrimination put upon law abiding citizens who wish to obtain concealed carry permits. Those in CA who wish to get a concealed carry permit need to go through additional background checks and training. Sadly, it is quite often nearly impossible for trained, responsible and lawful citizens to obtain them. Other states in the union do not have this problem. Concealed carry citizens do not wish to brandish nor display or even use their weapons. That would fly in the face of the "concealed" definition. What I think the open-carry folk want is some justice to defend their lives and a government who they feel does not value their lives and safety.

It is a fact that criminals do not care for the law, by definition. No matter what gun control law that is put into action, it is certain that criminals are in favor. Criminals carry guns. How do I know? Friends have been shot at after no provocation, two students locally were shot and one paralyzed by gang bangers--these were good kids with bright futures. How often are criminal types seen with that swagger that only says that they are packing heat? If you are nineteen with nothing to loose but only gain credibility in your set. And where are the police? Sorrowfully, a little too late to the scene to make any marked difference. Ask any deputy how often their actions have stopped a crime in progress. I would wager that they are generally there after the fact.

I have recently come to the conclusion that I am in need to be a self reliant citizen. In many of the ways that I wish to have solar panels on my house and a non polluting electric car. I need to live within my budget and means. Understand that I am in no way interested in doing the police's job. I have a good job, a home and a family. I just want to defend my loved ones and myself until they arrive. I have no interest in playing cowboy. For this reason I wish that more lawmakers and citizens in California knew that if more citizens carried guns, there would be far less crime.

I am not a "tea-bagger" nor a republican. I have voted on the left side of many, many issues in the past. However, this is an issue that I feel needs to be divided out of party politic and placed into the debate of California's citizens protecting the lives of themselves and others.

How soon we forget that one of the responders to the Giffords shooting was a concealed carry holder and what if he made it to the scene sooner? Would there be less sorrow and loss of life?

Also is Assemblymember Anthony Portantino defended by a security force who openly carries guns? Perhaps he can respond to this question?

In the interest of fairness, those wishing to examine both sides of the argument over Open Carry in California can get a more comprehensive look at the issue here.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-oakland/ab-144-californi-a-paradig...

The NRA has never had respect for police insisting they be out-gunned and overturning laws to control automatic weapons. Their attitude is either bullying or hysterical. Given their "capture" of Congress with their massive donations, we need some sanity in the gun dialogue especially now that our police are being cut to the minimum. I don't want vigilante justice in the guise of "just trying to help".

Despite the overwhelming mountain of statistical evidence, and sad story after sad story in our news media, gun advocates will never concede that owning a gun actually makes them or someone in their family about 5 times more likely to die as a result of a gunshot. You are NOT safer having a gun on your hip or in your home. FACT. Therefore the only reason you want to carry one is to satisfy some caveman desire to look like a badass.

Half of me wishes that we grant the NRA all their legislative wishes and let all the gun nuts carry whatever they want so that the herd will be thinned, but then I remember that they have innocent children too.

The stock retort to the statistics is "it will never happen to me, I know how to handle a gun." All the dead gun owners said that too.

Bayarean,

You are parroting the refuted Kellerman/Reay 'study' in NEJM (or a variant of).

His metholdology carried from guns to other items showed how ridiculous it was.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html refuted

Americans use firearms to defend their lives at least a million or more times a year. It's hard to get a better handle on this data than this overall range, because
(1) most of the time the gun isn't discharged/bad guy walks away
(2) good guys can go to jail for no reason, so they don't report.
Cops just throw someone in on bogus charges and then charges are dismissed (or in NYC, where handgun ownership is usu illegal).

For example, I'm pretty sure there's no police log of my dad holding a cocked revolver to maliciously drunk assailant's head (he was trying to cut his wife's breast off in our apartment's court/hallway in front of our door) when I was a kid. Yet it indeed happened. [The funnier part was a 25yr old young punk cop with a 'disco' feathered haircut telling my WWII multiply-decorated vet father to "be careful with that gun". Even as a 10 yr old, I recognized the humor].

Fortunately your points besides being invalid - are irrelevant. There is an individual right to keep and bear arms at the Federal level affirmed via the Heller decision and it applies to the state and local level via the McDonald v. Chicago case ("incorporation"). This right was held to be a FUNDAMENTAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHT - putting the 2nd Amendment in the same protected league as the 1st and 4th and 5th Amendments.

If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, try to organize a vote acroos the 50 states to get it repealed. You won't have a chance in hell - people want the means to protect themselves and don't trust the gov't ("dial 911 and die"... "When the criminal's only seconds away, 911 is minutes away"...) Or, move to Europe.

By the way, when you write of "NRA wishes".... that's ME and 4+ million other folks who send lots of money in to fight you. And at least another 6 million people who act like they're members but are too cheap to pay the dues: 10 mil folks claim NRA membership in surveys.] Add to that the passive folks who conceptually support this without being activists and you got some big opposition, baby.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Bill, every gun proponent I've ever met has a story of how a gun saved them from some danger or other, and every non gun owning person I know has never expressed regret at never having had a gun at some point when they faced a specific danger. The point is, your collection of anecdotal yarns about battling evil doers with your .38s and .45s is meaningless.

So gun proponents and a gun advocacy website refute the data. I'm shocked I tell ya, shocked! What did you expect? that they see the data and yell "HOLY $HIT...I better throw my guns out"? Umm no.

And for the record I was referencing the University of Pennsylvania study.

First, there are numerous studies disproving an inverse relationship between gun ownership and crime. For those of you that don't understand that statement (i mean no disrespect at all), that means studies have shown that there is no evidence to support the assertion that with an increase in firearm ownership comes an increase in crime.

That being said, it appears that people are focusing on the GUN ITSELF, and taking responsibility away from the user. How can this be reasonable? How can you honestly say that one human doesn't have a fundamental right to protect themselves from another that means to do them harm? I'm sure that upon thinking about it, you can't. So now, we've narrowed it down to the issue being solely about the method used to do so.

Let's pretend that guns had never been invented, and knives were the pinnacle of weapons technology. The same issue arises. Irresponsible, messed up people will do their best to harm others with those knives. Let's take it one step further and say that we go back to using blunt instruments, like clubs (not golf clubs). Again, the same issue arises. If this pattern of thought continues, i wouldn't be surprised if in 30 years, you weren't allowed to have rocks in your garden because someone could throw one at you and kill you. That's where this type of legislation is headed.

Guns are tools, thats it. Stemmed from technological advancement that revolutionized the world's society. Mostly for the better, however, there are always bad apples amongst all groups who are determined to behave irrationally and inappropriately. The rest of society, however, cannot logically, reasonably, or in good conscience be punished by the actions of those who act contrary to norms just because they feel they can.

The blame lies with the user, not the tool. You wouldn't blame a pen for a spelling error, would you?

In response to another item you mentioned. I'll be the first one to tell you that there were a few times that i was glad i had my firearm on me, and there were a few times that i regretted not having it. I'll also concede that there are a few instances i can think of where i'm glad i DIDN'T have it. I can't in all believability begin to tell you what would have happened if i had had it when i didn't or didn't have it when i did.

I'll leave you with this. I don't advocate carrying a firearm openly. It's tactically stupid, and all it does is draw unwanted attention. However, it appears to have been an acceptable form of social protest. I however do oppose the reasoning for this bill. this bill was not designed to move people toward concealed carry as their method of self defense... it was designed to disarm the citizenry, which i disagree with.

Oh, by the way. You forgot 9s, .40s, .44s, .22s, .223s, .380s, .308s, and 12gas (of the most commonly used).

Bayarean, if you are truly open minded then go read John Lott's "more guns, less crime". John Lott isn't a "gun nut" or On the NRA salary. He's an academic, a statistician by trade, a numbers guy who looked at decades of publicly available government provided data without really caring where the data took him. As an academic his interest was in whether the data showed statistically discernable patterns that might reveal a story about the effect of gun use by law abiding citizens in either deterring or increasing crime rates. It's a given that criminals will always have access to guns regardless of gun restrictions, witness the high level of gun crimes in Chicago despite the total handgun ban that was in place for 25years, so the question Lott looks at is what happens to crime, and the types of crimes, when lawful citizens are either highly restricted from ready access to a handgun or have quite liberal gun possession laws.

Next, if people are really that concerned about violent death why aren't thet railing against automobiles, where 3 million are injured every year, 2 million permanently, and over 40,000 die quite violent deaths, compared to 75,000 injuries due to guns, 30,000 deaths, of which 55 pct are suicides ( I.e. If a suicide didn't have access to a gun they'd likely find some other means to their goal)?

Ok, maybe that was being a smarta$$ ... So let's look at gun possession by criminals. There is "a mountain of evidence" as you refer, that gun laws and even outright bans have little impact on gun use by criminals. Reference crime rates in Chicago and Washington DC while their gun bans were in effect prior to Heller and McDonald decisions. So if it's OK to pass guns laws that significantly infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights of lawful citizens in the name of public safety, so far results show it's not a terribly effective strategy. But say for arguments sake that it's OK for the government to take away constitutional rights in order to provide for the public safety (the position being argued in courts today by government against liberalization of gun restrictions). It's pretty clear the strategy isn't really reducing crime or the use of guns by criminals. So with that precedent established, there's other, much more effective constitutional rights that could be infringed upon that would likely have MUCH more meaningful results. For example let's give up the right preventing unreasonable search and siezure, and also the right against self incrimination. Now police could just bust into homes without a warrant, they could interrogate without a lawyer present, all things that they could use quite effectively to go after gun weilding criminals. That sure improve public safety. Wait, that makes you a little uncomfortable? Oh, so it's 'selective' rights are ok to infringe upon, others not so much. Then let's go after equal protection ... Wait, that's the basis of modern civil rights. Hmmm I get it, it's ok to infringe upon those rights you don't agree with or don't feel YOU personally need, the others you want to keep.

Thank God the Framers of the Constitution didn't say "will not infringe, unless someone doesn't really like this right".

Rights are fundamental, they are for everyone, and they are not granted by the government, they are assumed by the Constitution exist outside the influence of the government. ALL the rights. You nor the government get to pick and choose the ones you like or don't like to protect. It's ALL or none, because once you say it's ok to subvert one in the interests of the gov "greater good" then ALL can and will be subverted. Then the basis of our great nation and experiment in freedom will become just another authoritarian regime run by power brokers and intellegencia, just like many other dead republics over the past few thousand years.

Bayarean, if you are truly open minded then go read John Lott's "more guns, less crime". John Lott isn't a "gun nut" or On the NRA salary. He's an academic, a statistician by trade, a numbers guy who looked at decades of publicly available government provided data without really caring where the data took him. As an academic his interest was in whether the data showed statistically discernable patterns that might reveal a story about the effect of gun use by law abiding citizens in either deterring or increasing crime rates. It's a given that criminals will always have access to guns regardless of gun restrictions, witness the high level of gun crimes in Chicago despite the total handgun ban that was in place for 25years, so the question Lott looks at is what happens to crime, and the types of crimes, when lawful citizens are either highly restricted from ready access to a handgun or have quite liberal gun possession laws.

Next, if people are really that concerned about violent death why aren't thet railing against automobiles, where 3 million are injured every year, 2 million permanently, and over 40,000 die quite violent deaths, compared to 75,000 injuries due to guns, 30,000 deaths, of which 55 pct are suicides ( I.e. If a suicide didn't have access to a gun they'd likely find some other means to their goal)?

Ok, maybe that was being a smarta$$ ... So let's look at gun possession by criminals. There is "a mountain of evidence" as you refer, that gun laws and even outright bans have little impact on gun use by criminals. Reference crime rates in Chicago and Washington DC while their gun bans were in effect prior to Heller and McDonald decisions. So if it's OK to pass guns laws that significantly infringe upon the 2nd amendment rights of lawful citizens in the name of public safety, so far results show it's not a terribly effective strategy. But say for arguments sake that it's OK for the government to take away constitutional rights in order to provide for the public safety (the position being argued in courts today by government against liberalization of gun restrictions). It's pretty clear the strategy isn't really reducing crime or the use of guns by criminals. So with that precedent established, there's other, much more effective constitutional rights that could be infringed upon that would likely have MUCH more meaningful results. For example let's give up the right preventing unreasonable search and siezure, and also the right against self incrimination. Now police could just bust into homes without a warrant, they could interrogate without a lawyer present, all things that they could use quite effectively to go after gun weilding criminals. That sure improve public safety. Wait, that makes you a little uncomfortable? Oh, so it's 'selective' rights are ok to infringe upon, others not so much. Then let's go after equal protection ... Wait, that's the basis of modern civil rights. Hmmm I get it, it's ok to infringe upon those rights you don't agree with or don't feel YOU personally need, the others you want to keep.

Thank God the Framers of the Constitution didn't say "will not infringe, unless someone doesn't really like this right".

Rights are fundamental, they are for everyone, and they are not granted by the government, they are assumed by the Constitution exist outside the influence of the government. ALL the rights. You nor the government get to pick and choose the ones you like or don't like to protect. It's ALL or none, because once you say it's ok to subvert one in the interests of the gov "greater good" then ALL can and will be subverted. Then the basis of our great nation and experiment in freedom will become just another authoritarian regime run by power brokers and intellegencia, just like many other dead republics over the past few thousand years.