Police respond to Open Carry incident at Fry’s

UPDATE: A man who says he was the gun carrier at Fry’s posted a comment on the blog. Here it is:

As the man that was stopped at Fry’s, I carry to protect myself and my family. I dont have the ability to carry on police officer in my pocket or on my back. i follow the letter of the law when carrying. While I felt the Fremont PD’s response was a little overboard, they handed themselves professionally and after check that my gun was unloaded, sent me on my way. A short talk about the call(they wouldnt say who called it in). the officer said had they received more information other my decription and what I was driving they most likely wouldnt have had some many officers respond.( five patrol units) As the the other note in the notes posted, the incident at Ardenwood is not even in Fremont that in Newark.

Don’t be surprised if Fry’s joins Peet’s and California Pizza Kitchen in banning people who wear their unloaded guns strapped at their hips.

Fremont police Saturday were called to Fry’s electronics after store workers spotted a shopper wearing a thigh holster, police said. The cops stopped the man while he was driving from the store. The gun strapped to his leg was unloaded, but he did have two loaded magazines attached to his belt. He told officers he is part of the Open Carry movement and officers released him.

In other cop news over the weekend:

A teenager brought a gun into the Fast and Easy Mart in Ardenwood Friday. Only this gun was probably loaded and the teen used it to get himself some cash.

On Sunday, a gun-totter robbed the  the Chevron gas station a 2020t Driscoll Road.

Meanwhile, burglars used a rock to smash the window and grab cash out of the register of the Royal Food Mart, 1602 Washington Boulevard.

Matt Artz


  1. Thank you for your respect Mr. Shahab. I will look for the businesses displaying the No Firearms decals and support their right.

  2. bbox231,

    Facts and data are important when one is trying to limit the rights of others. Personal feelings are perfectly valid when one is legally going about one’s own business and not violating the rights of others.

  3. When you walk into a shop with a gun on your hip, you are intruding on the rights of others to relax and enjoy their day. You feel safer wearing your gun. Good for you. I guess that trumps the discomfort it might bring to others who don’t know if your intentions are peaceful or not.

    This open carry stuff is the equivalent of walking around shouting one’s political opinions. Sure, you can, but is it the best way to make a point? It’s rather annoying for others, and selfish.

    Like I said, I am not against responsible gun ownership. I’m all for it. But stunts like this open carry nonsense are not responsible and will lead to stricter gun laws sooner or later. Which I am sure is the opposite of what you are after, Mr. Shahab, but you’ll see.

    What will you do when most local businesses adopt a no guns policy? You should think about that, because your insistence on carrying around a firearm is going to lead to that.

  4. That’s an interesting perspective, Adnan.

    For me, *any* decision of significance starts with information and knowledge, first – – –

    As individuals, we each are permitted to choose to what degree the whimsy of our personal emotion and feelings may, as you suggest, enter a given decision.

    Certainly gut feeling may be the only consideration where time is of the essence, in matters of the heart. . . . or perhaps for the most trivial of decisions.

    I appreciate that not all share this kind of prioity.

  5. If you expect an eye for an eye, the whole world will be blind.

    If everyone carries a weapon everywhere they go, you’ll be looking at a lot of collateral damage. It’s the inevitable consequence of the use of firearms in public places.

    Go ahead, assert your rights. The evidence against limiting those rights (in the form of deaths and injuries) will stack up until eventually something will have to be done about limiting those rights to protect the public welfare.

    It’s the difference between short-term and long-term thinking. If you want to keep that right in the long term, you must use it judiciously.

  6. RingoStirr has never heard of anyone except his own notoriety, I believe.
    I’ve had a lifetime of espionage, so that means most people think I have lowly character without any status – And therefore rights at all. Yet, ironically, my job entails reporting on in-line government corruption wherever I see it here within the US (I got put to ground for a big reason: http://www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com).
    You’ve got absolutely NO CONCEPTION that the 2nd Amdmt allows the “Average, lowly citizen” to protect himself not only from CRIMINALS – But moreso: CRIMINALS IN GOVERNMENT.
    You know what the scariest time of day is for me?The daily visit to my Post Office box where everybody knows; I am unarmed. And a government building to boot.
    Think on something for a second: The Chandra Levy trial is being targeted again against the Gary Condit(s).
    What kind of “Disposal Service” do you think they might provide that has not only allowed him to infiltrate Congress, but to have SUCH high-ranking political and police protection since?
    Just know one thing: The one Congressperson who voted against kicking him out was… Nancy Pelosi.

  7. I have carried openly here in Wyoming since 1995, each and every day. The one doctor’s office who prohibited me from carrying within her public establishment I reported to the NRA (And they maintain a list) is no longer in business. This is hunting and fishing country, with plenty of outdoorsmen and the like.
    Ironically, it is Carbon County Sheriff Jerry Colson who won’t let me carry polite, civil and concealed in any event, and I guess that’s because Senior FBI Agent Jonstono dragged me into Encampment PD one day, and started shouting at me “SOMETHING HOMOSEXUAL HAPPENED TO YOU AT THE DUESSELDORF CONSULATE, DIDN’T IT, DIDN’T IT!”
    I was in enlisted US Army M.I. in the mid-’70’s and utilized as an undercover espionage operative. How a person’s supposed sexual orientation (It was a “Sting” operation – I’m not Queer) can be the reason Wyoming authorities would want one to “Meet” Henderson & McKinney – Long before they killed Matthew Shepard in Laramie – unarmed simply explains itself.
    I’d even reported in detail my and my son’s encounter with those two paid-off meth-heads (The local Drug Baron ran a bar besides my house & thought I was a “Narc”) to Sheriff Colson and Saratoga and Encampment PD, and was laughed off. The Mckinneys & Hendersons are very old families here…
    What saved me & my son that day camping was the .357 I wore openly on my belt. They were high & just kept looking at each other, my face, and my gun, asking really stupid questions like “Are you camping here?” before suddenly leaving.
    They went on with their joy-kills (I’m sure there were more) before they finally got caught doing Sheppard.
    I could hear footsteps coming into our camp that night, and hurriedly run away as I chambered my shotgun. Which I was carrying – OPENLY.
    Interesting how Liberals take their own insecurities and turn them into “Eutopia,” if only they can run everyone else’s life. It’s like “Communism would work, if only it were worldwide…”
    It’s a RIGHT to carry OPEN, or, actually, in any way anyone sees FIT! I wouldn’t carry open to church, and so I’m thusly prohibited from going to church!
    People at first give glances and many reach for their cell-phones. But the Police tire of getting such false reports, and then simply turn them away.
    You do you American Duty by desensitizing the public from their “Man with a gun” propaganda programming by having the patriotic courage to carry open.
    DO SO!

  8. Is it just me, or did it just get very weird in here?

    The last two posts are, without a doubt, the best arguments for gun control that I’ve seen in a very long time. Clearly, mental illness is not currently picked up in background checks.

  9. Whoa… I don’t even know what to think about all of that. lol

    One thing I do know is that Matt Artz should draft a few more posts on open carry so that we can advance the discussion on this important topic.

  10. Let me get this straight. It is being suggested that I and others should not open carry because, as a result of open carrying, businesses will prohibit us from carrying in their establishments and legislators will draft laws that limit are ability to open carry. Is that correct? Well, if I must stop open carrying in order to avoid these things from happening, haven’t I, essentially, already lost my right to open carry? Unless I am allowed to exercise my right to open carry, the right does not really exist, does it? Think about it.

  11. Post #58 – Something about keeping ones’ distance from the monkey cages comes to mind . . ..

  12. I am curious. Are all the Open Carry people Republicans or Minute Men.
    I had asked this before and only got a typical far right answer, from you know who.
    Those who support and do the Open Carry, what are your political affilations?

  13. Supporters of open carry are usually doing a bad job of risk analysis. Unless you live in unusual circumstances, the chances of carrying a gun saving your life are far outweighed by the physical dangers: accidental discharge, poor judgment, and suicide. When you add in the social, legal, and liability consequences, carrying a weapon looks foolish.

    The best weapons for avoiding trouble are the brain and mouth. Somehow I’ve managed to make it through life without getting mugged or shot. They’re also a lot cheaper than a gun. Even getting mugged is cheaper than a gun.

  14. Jon –

    Post #52 responds to your point –

    Adnan states that this is not an information-based choice.

    The decision to open carry is (at least for Adnan) based on “feelings”.

  15. bbox231,

    I did not say that my decision to open carry is based exclusively on feelings. I didn’t even say that emotions are a significant reason for me carrying. What I said that it is perfectly valid for a person to include feelings in their decisions to do legal things. There are completely logical reasons to open carry. Many of these reasons have already been expressed in this thread. But at the end of the day, on top of everything else, there is nothing wrong with me feeling safer with a firearm at my disposal if the need were to ever arise.

  16. No, bill, you asked dumb question you already know the answer to so you can stroke your bubble-born and narrow minded philosophy of Democrat good, Republican bad.

    Here’s one for you: The ACLU lawyers who defended NAMBLA’s right to publish material on coaxing underage boys into having sex with them… were Democrats or Republicans?

  17. “Carrying a firearm for personal protection makes an individual less likely to be picked over another individual who has no means of self-protection.”

    The persons fired upon in the Tacoma incident were police officers in full uniform with sidearms. VOR’s point (I think) was that if someone is willing to fire upon an officer of the law with sidearm, how does carrying one yourself as a “law abiding citizen” help to protect you from the Maurice Clemmonses of the world? He’s willing to shoot a group of cops eating their morning doughnut, I’m sure the fact that you walk into Fry’s with your gun at your hip isn’t much of a deterrent for folks like that. Or is your argument that he’s just going to shoot up the rest of the place, and not you because you’re armed?

    And I think Rick Hyatt is on a watch list somewhere…

  18. Very interesting, Adnan.

    Silly me.

    I thought the open-carry idea was just some knee jerk emotional response to every-day problems in our society. Thanks for setting me straight !

    Hey – you know what – I see Marty has popped up – no doubt with some constructive contributions to the discussion.

    How convenient – –

    If this were like a real social gathering, this would be a perfect opportunity to introduce Adnan to Marty and Marty to Adnan. I’m sure the two of you will have much to share with one another.

    I’ll be right back . . . . . .

  19. Oh Jen, you made me laugh out loud in the office with that closing line. Best yet!

  20. Ok people, you getting to deep into this discussion and not giving the A’s to Fremont enough attention. FCN might get mad at everyone.. lol

  21. Box, it doesn’t surprise me to see that you missed the greater point. Perhaps Adnan carrying a firearm does nothing to secure his personal safety. And I can completely understand why his methods are objectionable to some.

    BUT, sometimes we’re burdened by people we disagree with doing things we find objectionable, but they do them for the purpose of preserving the rights afforded to us by the constitution. This reality seems to be demonstrated by the open carry movement just as it was demonstrated by the defense of NAMBLA.

    I apologize in advance if this isn’t a simple enough concept both you and Fremont Bill.

  22. In Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919) it was successfully argued that “..there are always circumstances in which unregulated expression can create problematic or dangerous situations. ”

    As a result of this very famous case, it is widely accepted that there are limits on our granted freedoms and those limits frequently follow lines that will readily subordinate (seemingly) guaranteed rights when public safety is called into question.

    The greater point.

  23. Those of you in “the movement” must be so proud of this open carry advocate (from SF Gate):

    Drunk in public and packing heat

    Sure, open-carry advocates, you can flash guns in public all you want. Just don’t be drunk when you do it.

    A 29-year-old man who is well-known to the local cops for his imbibing found that out the hard way in San Bruno.

    Christian George Gonzalez was allegedly plastered when he ambled up to two uniformed San Bruno police officers just after midnight Feb. 12 at a 7-Eleven parking lot, said Steve Wagstaffe, San Mateo County’s chief deputy district attorney.

    He approached Officer Jack Boland and asked, “Jack, want to check me?” Wagstaffe said. Boland and Gonzalez have “known each other for many years,” the prosecutor said, because of Gonzalez’s predilection for alcohol.

    Gonzalez had a holstered .40-caliber handgun in plain view on his belt, Wagstaffe said. The officers confirmed that the gun wasn’t loaded but that Gonzalez quite visibly was, because he “stumbled backwards and fell into the patrol car,” the prosecutor said. Gonzalez was arrested on suspicion of being drunk in public and was arraigned on the charge Monday.

    Two weeks before the Feb. 12 incident, Gonzalez had walked into the same 7-Eleven with a gun on his hip and told the clerk that he could carry the weapon as long as he kept it unloaded, authorities said. Seems Gonzalez is in sympathy with an ad hoc movement seeking to increase awareness of gun rights by visibly holstering weapons in public.

    Gonzalez is right on target as far as his gun rights are concerned, Wagstaffe said. “He knows the open-carry law,” the prosecutor said. “But he was drunk.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *