East Bay police chief calls for open-carry ban
By Josh Richman
Monday, April 12th, 2010 at 5:58 pm in Assembly, Legislation, Public safety.
An East Bay police chief will be in Sacramento on Wednesday to advocate for a bill that would crack down on the “open carry” movement, in which gun enthusiasts say they’re exercise their Second Amendment rights and protecting their personal safety by carrying unloaded firearms in plain sight in public places.
Emeryville Police Chief Ken James said he’ll be representing the California Police Chiefs Association, which has thrown its support behind AB 1934, the bill being unveiled this week by Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego. Saldaña amended the bill last week so that it would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun in specified public areas. Open-carry advocates say it’s a further abridgment of their Constitituonal rights.
Open carry has been an issue here in the East Bay and across California for several months now; some businesses have adopted policies barring customers from bringing firearms inside.
James said his concerns about the open-carry movement are twofold. “One is officer safety – this puts an officer between a rock and hard spot. Do we treat the gun as ‘Oh, it’s just an open carry’ or do we treat it as were trained to do from day one at the academy that it’s possibly a danger?”
The other is an issue of public safety, he said. “If the assumption is being made that the guns aren’t loaded … and if I see you walking down the street with that nice handgun … and I have my loaded gun and I decide to take your unloaded gun from you, I have the advantage. It’s an open target for people to be robbed of their unloaded handguns.”
“All the polls I’ve seen, the average citizen is uneasy seeing a gun. We have always in Emeryville (Police Department) had a policy that when you are not in uniform, you do not expose your weapon, simply because people don’t feel comfortable seeing them,” he said, noting plainclothes officers and detectives must ensure they’re wearing something over their sidearms even on the hottest days.
He said the California Police Chiefs Association did a statewide survey to gauge its members’ concern about the open-carry movement, and what the best approach would be to address that concern. One possibility was a statewide ban. Another was local choice and control by city or county ordinance, but James said “that creates a lot of issues for the poor citizen who needs to know 58 counties and more than 500 municipalities that all might have something different.”
A third option was changing state law to give officers more authority to check on weapons and the people who carry them. James said all an officer can do right now is demand to see whether the gun is unloaded; the officer can’t ask for ID to see if the person is legally allowed to have the weapon (convicted felons and mentally ill people are forbidden from carrying, for example) and can’t run the gun’s serial number to see if it has been stolen from its rightful owner.
“By far, the survey of membership was ‘ban it completely.’ It just makes it simpler,” James said.
Open-carry advocates clearly disagree. As Walter Stanley of Livermore told my colleagues a few months ago, when everyone carries a gun, misreading situations is less likely: “We want not just police and criminals to be carrying guns, but law-abiding citizens as well. … An armed society is a polite society.”
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
April 12th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
SOunds like another California LEO does not understand Constitutional Rights and needs to be in an unemployment line.
April 12th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
The odd thing is CA has been last, among the 49 continental states, in gun ownership per capita. There are better ways to exercise Second Amendment rights.
April 12th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
What part of “Shall no be infringed” don’t you understand?
April 12th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Mr. Pave Pusher has a very unsound view about weapons. He asserts that banning handguns from persons, open carry particularly, infringes on his constitutional right. He doesn’t address the safety issue raised by the chief and he doesn’t understand that the constitutional right to possess a weapon does not extend to carrying one on ordinary business. If a state requires a gun-owner to handle his weapon in a manner which keeps others safe, it is hardly an infringement on his right to possess it.
(And why does Mr. Pave Pusher hide behind an internet handle rather than using his own name? Concerned someone might disagree in person?)
April 13th, 2010 at 1:11 am
“If the assumption is being made that the guns aren’t loaded … and if I see you walking down the street with that nice handgun … and I have my loaded gun and I decide to take your unloaded gun from you, I have the advantage. It’s an open target for people to be robbed of their unloaded handguns.”
“All the polls I’ve seen, the average citizen is uneasy seeing a gun.”
I have an easy solution, ISSUE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS. Problem solved.
April 13th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Chief Ken James and the CPCA members need to find a new line of work; it’s obvious that they don’t care about crime prevention nor the Constitution.
Quote: “By far, the survey of membership was ‘ban it completely.’ It just makes it simpler,” James said.
Of course, it’s simpler to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens, because TYRANTS LOVE UNARMED citizens. Why is that? We all know the answer.
Some chiefs love to cite “officer safety” while actively working to disarm law-abiding citizens. Since most California chiefs will not issue Concealed-Carry Permits (CCP) to “ordinary” citizens (but politicians and their friends get them), most law-abiding citizens cannot carry concealed, so the chiefs scream “Not fair!” when those people carry openly. The chiefs run in circles and scream “Officer safety first!” hoping that some politician will pass an unconstitutional law that prevents law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm, openly or concealed. Criminals LOVE these politicians and chiefs.
These chiefs would rather draw a chalk line around your dead body than allow you to defend yourself and strike terror in the hearts of the scumbag criminals who would think nothing of killing you for $10.
Quote: “All the polls I’ve seen, the average citizen is uneasy seeing a gun.”
That’s because the government schools, politicians, and chiefs vilify guns and gun owners. Solve your problem, CPCA and chiefs, and start issuing CCPs to the “average citizens” who request them. You’ll accomplish two goals: violent crime will go DOWN, and the “average citizen” won’t be afraid, because the streets will be safer and they won’t see any guns.
April 13th, 2010 at 1:47 am
yes, but violating constitutional rights as a matter of convenience for CA police chiefs, because “its just simpler”, is not a viable option. I fear that Americans have totally lost sight of the greater importance of protecting constitutional protections. Without them, we’re slaves. It doesn’t matter if a particular law “makes sense”, or serves some general preference. Start getting comfortable with surrendering rights, and start getting used to being a slave. That is NOT what this country is SUPPOSED to be all about.
ECJ
April 13th, 2010 at 3:10 am
Mr. Hoffmann, there are only two ways to exercise the Right to Bear Arms, openly or concealed. Since California has a defacto ban on concealment for the commoners in most places, Open Carry is the only way to express that Right. You may not like it, and many may not prefer it, but it is a Right and should not be denigrated, prohibited or discouraged.
April 13th, 2010 at 4:23 am
Dear Josh,
I recently read your article regarding Emeryville Police Chief Ken James and the attempt to ban on openly carrying a firearm. It is little unsettling to see your piece, not just because of the Chiefs position, but because of the missing information that could have been included in this article.
This is not a personal attack and I do not necessarily blame you as an individual, but its one of those things that gives the media a bad name.
So, to make this negative into a positive instead of just complaining, I would like to share with you the rest of the story regarding openly carrying a firearm and the “Open Carry” movement. You should note that I am not part of the “Open Carry” movement in any way.
“Open carry has been an issue here in the East Bay and across California for several months now; some businesses have adopted policies barring customers from bringing firearms inside.”
And some businesses like Starbucks opted to not bar people from carrying in their establishments if they are not otherwise prohibited by law. This is in spite of the unrelenting attacks by the Brady Camp trying to muscle them into following their wishes. This is nothing new in many other states where it is legal to carry a firearm. Some businesses post a sign if they don’t want firearms in their businesses and some don’t. It is not even close to some new phenomenon.
“James said his concerns about the open-carry movement are twofold. “One is officer safety – this puts an officer between a rock and hard spot. Do we treat the gun as ‘Oh, it’s just an open carry’ or do we treat it as were trained to do from day one at the academy that it’s possibly a danger?””
To the uneducated observer this might make sense on its face, but here is what he is not telling you. If the openly carrying of an unloaded firearm is such an officer safety issue, why is it not an officer safety issues in the vast majority of the rest of the United States? 42 other states allow “loaded” open carry without issue. Wouldn’t common sense dictate that situations where a firearm is visible are safer? The police officer then positively knows that a firearm is present and can act/react appropriately. Wouldn’t it be safe to say that a hidden firearm might be more of a danger?
The second part his statement here is true because, unlike most states, California Police Academies don’t properly train cadets. Why is it that, in other states, cadets are trained properly on this issue and police officers don’t tend to overreact at the sight of a regular person with a gun? For some reason, when you cross the state line into California and a few other states, common sense no longer prevails.
“The other is an issue of public safety, he said. “If the assumption is being made that the guns aren’t loaded … and if I see you walking down the street with that nice handgun … and I have my loaded gun and I decide to take your unloaded gun from you, I have the advantage. It’s an open target for people to be robbed of their unloaded handguns.””
Since this has never occurred before, it is only far reaching speculation that it will occur at all. I can speculate there will be peace on earth tomorrow, but that does not make it so. The reality is that the vast majority of criminals prefer more submissive victims. So, with this in mind, the presence of a gun in the possession of a potential victim will more likely cause the criminal to move to the next target. Will the criminal bet his life on it being unloaded or whether the victim can load it quickly and defend himself? Not likely.
““All the polls I’ve seen, the average citizen is uneasy seeing a gun. We have always in Emeryville (Police Department) had a policy that when you are not in uniform, you do not expose your weapon, simply because people don’t feel comfortable seeing them,” he said, noting plainclothes officers and detectives must ensure they’re wearing something over their sidearms even on the hottest days.”
This is a classic example of providing bad information and well as leaving important facts out. Did he happen to provide a copy of these polls he has seen? Who conducted these polls and were they scientific? This comment is a non starter and carries zero weight.
And, more importantly, many might agree that it would be far better to have a gun out of plain sight. However, did you think to ask how many concealed firearms permits he has issued, if any? And after asking that question, did you ask how many, if any, were issued to regular people for self defense? Do you know how difficult it is to obtain a concealed firearms permit in Ca? 42 of our 50 states are now “shall issue” (meaning if you meet the required standards you will not be denied a permit on someone’s whim) with these permits for self defense. Again, somehow crossing the state line into California somehow changes the common sense factor.
“He said the California Police Chiefs Association did a statewide survey to gauge its members’ concern about the open-carry movement, and what the best approach would be to address that concern. One possibility was a statewide ban. Another was local choice and control by city or county ordinance, but James said “that creates a lot of issues for the poor citizen who needs to know 58 counties and more than 500 municipalities that all might have something different.” ”
This comes as no surprise. Would anyone expect a different answer from this group when they believe “only cops should carry guns”? Should we survey the lumber industry and see how they feel about hemp products?
“A third option was changing state law to give officers more authority to check on weapons and the people who carry them. James said all an officer can do right now is demand to see whether the gun is unloaded; the officer can’t ask for ID to see if the person is legally allowed to have the weapon (convicted felons and mentally ill people are forbidden from carrying, for example) and can’t run the gun’s serial number to see if it has been stolen from its rightful owner.”
I think part of living in a “free society” is being able to go about your business without unnecessary interference if you’re not breaking the law. That is not too much to ask from anyone’s standpoint. Even the most radical anti gun advocate will admit that the Supreme Court of the United States will most likely incorporate the second Amendment this year. This means that this Amendment, like it or not, will take its place among the other incorporated Amendments and must be provided the same protections.
“By far, the survey of membership was ‘ban it completely.’ It just makes it simpler,” James said.
While it might be “simpler” to just ban someone’s right to self defense, does this make any sense? It’s ok to enjoy our right to self defense, as long as it’s not complicated? almost speechless at this statement.
Key points I hope you consider.
Whether you believe the second amendment is a fundamental right or not, put that aside for a moment. Would anyone argue the fundamental right of self defense? And since a firearm is the only true equalizer (a 115 lb women is on the same ground as a 250 man), is that not the best method of protection?
The “Open Carry” movement as it is being called may appear to be some misguided political statement and it some ways you would be right. But the main point that just about everyone is missing is that if given the choice, for obvious reasons, most would prefer to carry their protection concealed. But the good chief failed to mention that this is not allowed either. People in a particular position of power such as the Chief you interviewed, wont allow it. This is in spite of the fact that some 42 states are “Shall issue” and two (soon to be three) of those states don’t require a permit. Yet, we have yet to see those “Blood in the streets” out of control incidents that the anti gun groups keep claiming will happen.
If you check into the issuance of concealed handgun permits across the state, you will then understand how few are issued (in most counties) and to whom the few are issued to. The chiefs or Sheriff’s in many counties strongly discourage even applying for a permit so they can claim that there is little interest. Then, if you apply for one and get denied, (which is usually the case), that denial goes into your permanent file with the Department of Justice. Most believe, and they are probably correct, that it is a black mark on their record. This further discourages applicants.
It is interesting how easy it is for Chiefs like this to advocate victim disarmament as well as a person’s basic right to self defense because they are inconvenient. They like to throw out “Officer Safety” as an excuse, yet Law Enforcement professionals in the majority of other states (where it’s legal for regular citizens to carry firearms) are not any less safe. It appears to be the opposite.
How much support would this ban get from Law Enforcement if they had to follow the same rules? In other words, if they were not afforded the option of carrying concealed and unloaded open carry was their only option ban it? Officers are in no more danger these days off duty then the average citizen. The slightly elevated chance that they might run into someone they arrested is offset by their knowledge, observation and training. Would they support playing by the same rules? I doubt it.
In closing, I believe that once one takes the emotions out of the argument, all becomes very clear. People have the right to protect themselves in spite of some sheltered persons discomfort. How smart does one have to be to understand that Law Enforcement will most likely not arrive in time should you (or your family) need protection? It is easy for the Chief to discount our needs since he is allowed to carry his gun…….
There is even more to this issue, but I think you get the point. I do understand that you may not have total discretion to write whatever and however you want, but the short second hand comment at the end of the article that represented the opposing side of this argument was not fair reporting. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Sincerely,
JD
April 13th, 2010 at 7:56 am
It’s not a large step from ignoring the Constitution on gun ownership to ignoring the Constitution on Freedom of Speech.
April 13th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Well said, JD. Let’s see how the latte liberals respond.
“Yeah, but still…”
April 13th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Someone openly carrying creates a safety concern for the officer? Really? Oh, right, because criminals openly carry their weapons in compliance with the laws.
Oh, and let’s see, a gun is plainly visible, holstered and not being brandished, but of course this requires a full threat response.
I can’t wait to move out of this jacked up state.
April 13th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Well said J.D. It’s a shame when a police chief who has taken a “sworn” oath to protect and defend the Constitution would violate his oath and want to deny citizen’s their rights. As an L.A. cop (a sergeant) I have over 25 years in California law enforcement and I am constantly amazed at the lack of training from our police academies on the law.
The chief of Emeryville should resign immediately!
Tim.. the working cop!
April 13th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Just one more example of how “The man” wants to keep us peons in our place. They can’t do that as long as we exercise our God given rights, but it won’t stop them from trying to infringe on those rights, every chance they get.
Seems to me, it might be time for a 3rd war of independence.
April 13th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
“Open carry has been an issue here in the East Bay and across California for several months now; some businesses (Peet’s Coffee) have adopted policies barring customers from bringing firearms inside.”
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_14875162?nclick_check=1
I bet if this victim was open carrying her firearm in Peet’s Coffee, the criminal thief would have looked for an easier target elsewhere.
April 13th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
The problem is Americans lost their nuts to stand up to the abusers. Fire this Police Chief, or Commy fu.. that he is and hire a real one. Until Americans ban together and raise hell in the streets the GOVT. will just keep taken. I don’t even own any guns, but I sure as hell don’t want my liberties messed with in any way. Drag this bum out of his office strip this prick of his powers and send him to work with the Illegal aliens he supports, Someday when someone messes with his family I hope that there are no Gun open carry people around to save them
April 13th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Create a citizens police force, any law abiding citizen, I say again “Citizen” who passes a back round check and weapons Safety training can become part of the force and legally exercise their right to bear arms.
If you make the playing field fare for everyone less people get hurt! So far only the law abiding citizen
are the ones getting hurt. After all police officers
are citizens with guns.
Personally I think we citizens are slowly being stripped of our rights.
April 13th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I would like to add that openly carrying is not a danger and has not been shown to increase crime at all. There is not a single incident of a handgun being stolen from an open carrier.
I have had several things happen to my family due to advocating for children. Threats come from people you would not always think of. I feel much safer keeping a gun on me. I keep it in a locked bag in my van within reach. I have pulled it out twice for my protection. One was a thug running around a parking lot checking cars and harassing patrons and the second was when some gang members were in my neighborhood who robbed a house.
I have never had to use my gun and would always use caution. I am trained in defense and have worked security. This does and has kept thugs at a distance from me and my children. I always take precautions like we all should but how do I know at what point I will or will not need it for my protection. The people harassing my family have also disappeared and now stay away from my house knowing I openly carry. This is very peacfull for my family since we have lived in fear for years. If you have ever had to run to get help from being followed or called 911 and watched 15 minutes tick by you would understand. Can you imagine a return call to the police begging when they would arive? Have you ever gotten a message from 911 to leave a message? Have you ever had to run with two young children into a business to call 911? Maybe this is why you fail to understand the importance. We DO NOT live in a safe society. I have been robbed (yes in person not burglery). I have been stalked. I have and do get followed. My family has been threatened. Do you really think you are immune?
April 13th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
As a real “Working Cop”…I will tell you (Tim) that I trust no one other than a man or woman in blue, tan or green carrying a gun in my presensce. L.A. right? How are those mandates going??
Not all cops think an armed society is a polite society. A gun is a tool…did you hear that JD? Tool. Not a right for someone to use as a signal to say; “I’m armed and I would like cream with my coffee.”
I wonder why these Open Carries are not conducted in East Oakland or Richmond?? Because they are scared and know that this posturing will get them killed.
Why not let people carry nunchucks and throwing stars? Switchblades on your belt?? Because in a polite society…we don’t shoot, stab or hurt each other. A working cop keeps his beat clean and kicks ass to make people feel safe so they don’t have to.
- Jack (veteran street cop, night shift only, inner city hell-hole California.)
April 13th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Arizona’s legislature just sent a bill to the governor to allow citizens who can legally purchase a firearm to carry it concealed without a permit. An article in the Mohave county newspaper quotes both the county sheriff and local chief of police as applauding this legislation. Their perspective is that armed law abiding citizens discourage criminals from their areas. They both feel that the concealed carry laws that were enacted a half dozen years ago have proven to make the place safer.
April 13th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Have this uneducated man read the “real facts” about
Gun Rights – Gun History –&- Gun Facts.
Have him read my Condensed Reference Notes at my blog page “Gun Rights – Gun History – Gun Facts”. http://constitutionalvoices.org/bloggers/freedomblogger2/?p=271
The truth at this aformentioned site will embarass any anti-gun advocate and legitimately shut their mouth. Think not? Ask them to pubically debate me. I’ll even pay them to show up for a really embarassing 2 hour session with the truth.
Contact me at CAJeffO@yahoo.com
April 13th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Astounding that a bunch of guys so insecure about their manhood have to trot around with a bunch of guns. Unbelievable that you’d all still be clinging to something written about muskets and Minutemen (see the actual amendment, please, and note that it refers to MILITIAS) over 200 yrs ago.
April 13th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I Issue a challange to any and all LEO’S! I will come to you at your place and you can practice on trying to take my weapon from me. After I show you that you can not, I will gladly train you on how to defend yours. I dont know why all LEO’S think that we are untrained. A great many of us are well trained and more trained than most LEO’s. We do not have SOG’S to follow.
April 13th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
To Jack, the LEO in a “bad” part of town, as you say…
First, anyone who carries a gun should recognize that there are 5 important steps you follow. 1) Situational Awareness. Know what is around you at all times. 2) Avoidance – avoid areas that could potentially lead to a confrontation with force, 3) Recognize the threat – you need to be aware that someone could pose a threat to your safety., 4) Escape and Evade – always try to avoid a confrontation at all costs, because you have the power to take a life if you had to., 5) Resistance – which takes ALL forms, the last of which is the use of deadly force.
Now, speaking from my own position as an Open Carrier, I would be fine going into ANY town, ANY area, SO LONG as it is permitted by law that I can do so. You can react to me however you like, but I am not a threat to you. In fact, since the Supreme Court ruled that it’s not YOUR JOB to protect me from harm, then I’d prefer that I have the means to take care of whatever threat I face. God forbid I ever have to use my gun, but you will NOT take away my Constitutional Rights, thus equating me to a common criminal. Now, go read up on the LAW, so you KNOW how to handle someone appropriately when they are not in violation. Sounds like you need an education.
April 13th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
If you want to start to make a difference, then change California to a “Shall-Issue” state…there were only 4 in 1989, now 40 states have concealed carry, and 40 states had a DECREASE in violent crime.
Look it up for yourselves. When law-abiding citizens are allowed to be armed, crime goes down. Let me repeat. Those who are willing to pay for a permit, go through a background check, and go through specific training are NOT the ones you need to worry about. And we open-carry because that is the ONLY thing allowed by law. We’re trying to educate people on FACTS, not emotions.
April 13th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Yeah, baby! We’ve got a constitutional right to walk around town scaring the crap out of people and putting law enforcement folks in the position of not even being able to check us out. Can’t understand why a cop would be uncomfortable not knowing whether somebody is a law-abiding O-C exhibitionist or a locked and loaded Tim McVeigh nut case. Oh, I forget, they can check to see if the gun is really unloaded. Of course, by that time, they may be dead. When I was in scouts, the NRA gave us gun safety training at camp. They taught us that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun. Even in the Wild West, you often had to check your gun at the marshall’s office before heading to the bar. Funny that the O-C crowd does it’s prancing around in places like Danville and Pleasanton, not in Richmond, Oakland or Bayview. Wonder what they would think if they were sipping lattes in Starbucks one day and a large group of Glock-toting, tattooed bikers walked in, or a black Muslim group. What I wouldn’t give to see the reaction to that. Would they congratulate the group for exercising their First Amendment rights? Wonder how many of the O-C folks ever took their fondness for bearing arms into military service or law enforcement, where it might serve a purpose. Running around town with a weapon is about the last thing most ex-military I know, self included, would want to do. I think Freud would have a thing or two to say about this O-C fetish.
April 13th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Maralago,
Obviously, you are intellectually vacant with the mentality of ten year old…See, I can name call too, rather than engage with substantive argument.
Also, get back to me about the Constitution when you actually learn something about it.
Maralago, you know nothing about the history of the militia. You seem to think militia = army. Wrong. Go look it up and try not to think in leftwing talking points.
Otherwise, you’re just another boring run of the mill liberal with a keyboard.
April 13th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
To Jack, maybe you should wake up and realize that regular citizens are reliable as men & women in blue, tan, or green!
Maybe if the liberal Chiefs out there would issue CCWs to honest citizens, the open-carry people wouldn’t have to do what they do!
One day about 12 years ago, I was in the report writing room of my station; two young cops had a nice, old revolver on the table and were bragging about how they stopped this guy and he had it in the trunk. I asked them, is the guy an ex-con, or have a rap sheet. They said no. They just knew an honest person wouldn’t have a gun in their car. I told them about the law and they were surprised… because their academy training led them to believe that “honest” citizens don’t need their guns.. because the police are there to protect them.. I set these guys straight on the Constitution and CA law!
Just the other night, two of my officers called me; they responded to an LAFD RA (rescue ambulance) request. The FD was taking an older man to the hospital and when they helped him out of his van, they saw this handgun. I asked the officers if it was registered to the man. they said yes. I asked does he have a rap or any warrants/restraining orders.. they said no. I said, lock the van and let the old man know we locked his gun in the van. We did offer to store his van until he got out of the hospital. The old man declined, and since it was parked legally, the officers secured the vehicle and left the location. GEE did I do something wrong? Like protect someone’s rights to their property!
Still TIM the working cop.
April 14th, 2010 at 11:47 am
What bout the uneasyness of me losing more of my Constitutional Rights?
This isn’t aobut making YOUR job easier. This isn’t about making people “feel” more comfortable. It’s a LIBERTY being preserved. The REAL problem is liberals like yourself and the busibody down south in SD that has nothing to do but take more rights away.
She can’t introduce a balanced budget legislation BUT she can support gay marriage, take guns from legal owners yada yada yada.
Do YOUR job and keep your hands off OUR rights. We don’t need to be taken care of, we need you to safegaurd our rights.
April 14th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
I proudly wear a cap, on which is written,”The Second Amendment, NRA of America, America’s Original Homeland Security.”
I occasionally also carry, concealed, legally w/o a permit, for defense only, pepper spray.
To me, these are logical ways for civilians to exercise
Amendment II Rights.
What frustrated Oklahoma legislators are discussing is
NOT logical!
April 14th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I don’t own a gun.
However, I find the notion of banning the open carry of handguns ridiculous.
Right now, thanks to how tough it is to get a concealed carry permit, only crooks carry guns… and they don’t carry them where we can see them.
We need to make it easier for law abiding people to arm themselves, and we need to bring guns out into the open, where they can be seen.
April 14th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Of course he wants to outlaw this. He works in the east bay AKA the Sh**hole of the bay area. His ignorant belief is that this will reduce crime. What a moron. Do your job and inforce laws that will have an impact in your war torn side of the bay. Leave my constitutional rights ALONE!!!!
April 14th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Your job should be to defend the rights of the law abiding american, not work to have them taken away. This will not make your job any easier Sir. Please stop thug/illegal alien gangbangers from terrorizing the streets, and do not make it harder for me to protect myself from those YOUR dept cannot control.
April 14th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
This has nothing to do with “manhood” or feeling tough. This is about rights of the people that are slowly being chipped away at. Those who open carry are obviously not the problem and all legislation and media attention pointed at them is a waste of California’s already scarce money and resources. How bout those politicians work on something that matters like our budget, education, illegal immigration etc…USE YOUR HEADS PEOPLE!
April 14th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Re #34 Rich
“This is about rights of the people that are slowly being chipped away at.”
You’ve got to be kidding! Thanks to gun shows, various local and state laws favoring concealed weapons and open carry laws, failure to renew the assault weapons law, the Supremes, and we Democrats being afraid to even bring up the subject of gun sanity, we now have the most permissive conditions for guns of any civilized nation on the planet and the most permissive conditions that have existed in this country in my 60 plus years. Where is there some big movement (local, state or national) afoot to erode gun rights?
April 14th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
How odd. It seems a law enforcement officer and a liberal politician have banded together to restrict the open carry of handguns. The law enforcement officer wants to limit the activities of honest citizens because of what a criminal might do, for example, steal the gun. The liberal politician wants to remove the rights of honest and innocent citizens to protect themselves with legal firearms. Neither wants to enforce the law and protect our freedoms.
So much for law enforcement and liberals.
April 15th, 2010 at 10:44 am
The Emeryville Police Chief is not unlike large numbers of people that are not educated about their rights. Lot’s of things make a majority of people “uneasy”, like Nazi’s marching in the streets or large numbers of foreign flags at a demonstration, but they are not outlawed. Because he or his officers are “uneasy” or even if a majority of the people are “uneasy” at the sight of a gun is irrellevant. Californian’s should have the right to protect themselves all the time – not just when it doesn’t “make people uneasy”. By the way, it makes me “uneasy” that we are forced to carry those guns unloaded and in the open. A more constitutional approach would be to allow people to carry concealed and loaded and then no one would be “uneasy” at the sight of a gun.
April 15th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Hey cowboy, what part of “a well-regulated militia” don’t you understand?
April 15th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
I agree with Tim the working cop…any honest street officer or deputy will tell you that 90% of the time law enforcement can’t be there in time to prevent you from being killed. At best they get a few witness statements describing your murderer, and leave you to the coroner and the homicide bureau.
Loaded open-carry should remain legal in non-incorporated areas!
The real issue here: CA law needs to be passed mandating that the county sheriff “shall-issue” statewide-valid concealed carry permits to adults with no history of crime or mental disorder, and who pass a basic sheriff-approved course in defensive handgun tactics and their legal implications.
“Good cause” is now just being any person with money or other attractive qualities, walking around in any area of California – places that the king-sheet cops [who covet their elite power status with respect to guns so much that they would strip the rest of us of the natural right to self-defense] have miserably failed to defend.
Self defense is a basic human right!
April 19th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Did anyone else note the absurdity of the claim that it exposes an open carrier to robbery?
Quote: “If the assumption is being made that the guns aren’t loaded … and if I see you walking down the street with that nice handgun … and I have my loaded gun and I decide to take your unloaded gun from you, I have the advantage. It’s an open target for people to be robbed of their unloaded handguns.”
So….because a CRIMINAL, who has an ILLEGAL loaded concealed weapon MIGHT decide to break ANOTHER law and try to rob a LAW-ABIDING open carrier, we should make it illegal for the law abiding citizen to carry?!?!?! I mean, what if a criminal saw my really neat truck, and decided to try and take it from me, MAYBE I shouldn’t be ALLOWED to have a nice truck!!!!!
It seems to me that this “police chief” is protecting and serving criminals, more than anything else.
MICHAEL
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 pm
I vote and I have read the constitution. It’s that simple. This police chief is misguided. Given the state of state, does he not have anything better to pursue than open carry?
April 25th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
For the last few years, stan sniff has controlled the sheriff’s office in Riverside County in Southern Calif… He was NOT elected by the people, he was “inserted in”…by his friends in office…he has ruled the RSO (riverside sheriff’s office) like he owned it….
he swore an oath to protect the US Constitution and all of its amendments, when he became a cop…My 2nd amendment RIGHT to keep and BEAR ARMS is not his to change or load down with his rules…
he is coming up for a real vote by the people, those whom he has ignored….The same people will vote him out of office for this offense….
This is how ‘we the people’ remind those who work for us, not to ignore our RIGHTS.
Frank Robles is running for his office…he ‘says’ he will honor our rights…that he will issue a ccw to honest folks using ‘self and family protection as ‘good cause’….
Can he be trusted?…I dont really know….but I am willing to give him a chance…
If he does not honor our RIGHTS by the US Constitution, he will join sniff in the unemployment line, on the next election….
Will you join me?
May 2nd, 2010 at 1:02 pm
How lovely to see a man who wouldnt go out in the rain without his LOADED gun preach to others about how “dangerous” it is for them to go out with their UNLOADED gun. What a hippocrite.
Dude, if youre such a “scare-dy cop” why dont you go to Arizona where cops “deal” with citizens open-carrying every day. Or maybe youre too busy planning your PTSD claim for the next time you or your so-called officers pee your pants after hearing a radio call for a man with a holstered gun – Oh BOO HOO!
PS: Shouldnt the flag Lori Saldana is posing in front of have a hammer and sickle on it?
May 4th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Hat’s off to Tim the Cop and Retired AZ Patrolman. I will continue to open carry as long as it is legal…the way it should be!
May 4th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
I have a constitutional right to free speech.
I have a constitutional right to own a firearm.
My constitutional right to free speech does not permit me to walk into a crowded theatre and holler “fire”.
Similarly – these folks who feel they are “protecting” their right to OWN with a public display of their right to perceived right to *CARRY* – - will, when the dust settles – (I fear) be shown as being guilty of having successfully built a ground swell of sentiment and legal interpretation which will ultimately work against the very interest they claim to be “protecting”.
May 14th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
[...] could open carry in California with an unloaded gun and an extra loaded mag….WTH! For now… East Bay police chief calls for open-carry ban | Political Blotter __________________ [...]
June 2nd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Several states have laws allowing Open Carry. These states also allow the weapon to be loaded, which California does not. Unsurprisingly the violent crime data for 2008 (the latest year for which data is avaialable) shows that violent crime is higher per capita in California than in all of the Open Carry states but two.
If “Open Carry” is so hazardous, why is it that California is more dangerous than states that allow it?
August 18th, 2010 at 11:04 am
If the police chief wants to make things simpler, why not just jail us all and become another nazi/facist/communistic country where we have no rights and the politicians and cops run rampant over us?
July 16th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Ken James represents the safety of criminals above all their victims. He should be terminated. Please sign the petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/FIREpckj/petition.html
July 17th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Go Get ‘em:
AGREED!!!
July 18th, 2011 at 11:08 am
It’s interesting to me that those who have actually had to carry weapons in the line of duty in the military or law enforcement tend to have the least degree of interest in strutting about town being Starbucks Wyatt Earps in the name of defending the Constitution. We live in an ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) world where people think gun ownership is under seige (all evidence to the contrary) and federal taxes are too high (despite being the lowest in our lifetimes). Oh well!
July 18th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
“It’s interesting to me that those who have actually had to carry weapons in the line of duty in the military or law enforcement tend to have the least degree of interest in strutting about town being Starbucks Wyatt Earps in the name of defending the Constitution”
I’d be interested in knowing how you reached that conclusion,John. Any documentation? Or just your personal opinion?
July 19th, 2011 at 3:24 am
Re: #52
I could disclose my evidence, Elwood, but then I’d have to unholster and shoot you.
Okay, you got me. No hard proof. But come on now, what does your own gut tell you?
I know human nature, as do you, and have specifically known enough law enforcement and and military vets (combat types) to understand their mindset about something like this — that the last thing they would want to do off-duty is to go out on the town and “exercise their Second Amendment rights.” Why the heck would they want to do that? In the ex-military category, there are exceptions of course — like Tim McVeigh! Or the stolen valor types who are vets in their imaginations only — like the math-challenged 30 and 40-somethings who call into radio talk shows to comment on military affairs, claiming to be Vietnam combat vets. I can definitely see the latter doing the Starbucks Strut.
July 19th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Don’t worry, John.
It’s all in your mind. I’ve observed the guys and gals at Starbucks and don’t see any of what you see.
I see citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
July 19th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
They should do their “exercising” at a gym; or, in this case, on the shooting range. If their intent is to win hearts and minds to change the state law on concealed carry, methinks the strategy is, in a manner of speaking, backfiring.
July 19th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
My, John, open carry really does ruffle your feathers, doesn’t it?
Methinks the majority of the population doesn’t really give a rat’s patootie one way or the other.
July 19th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
It does indeed, Elwood. So, to an even greater extent, do unrestricted concealed carry laws in numerous states. But it’s not just about the guns, per se. It’s about the more generalized extremist mindset I associate with those who express themselves via “in your face” gun activism. It’s telling that gun stores nearly sold out of ammo and had a huge spike in firearms sales in the months after Obama’s election. I don’t recall people showing up at political rallies with assault weapons during prior administrations.
July 19th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
“I don’t recall people showing up at political rallies with assault weapons during prior administrations.”
Examples please?