Police respond to Open Carry incident at Fry’s
By Matt Artz
Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 9:34 am in Uncategorized.
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.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
February 1st, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Sounds like Fast and Easy Mart needs better protection. The police didn’t make it there in time? Big surprise! Maybe the cops were too busy conducting an unreasonable search on a law abiding citizen at Fry’s
February 1st, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Oh look, 3 blurbs attempting to put law-abiding gun owners on the same level as criminals. Oh well, the government doesn’t want anyone to defend themselves, and the media can’t be counted upon to muckrake anymore, just parrot the victim disarmament/suicide cult message.
February 1st, 2010 at 3:00 pm
The alleged gun at Fry’s may have been mistaken for the new Apple i-357magnum. Which is a phone, mp3 player and hot weather spray mister.
February 1st, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Checking out someone walking around with a handgun on their hip in a store is not unreasonable. They have no way of knowing it is a law abiding citizen until they check it out do they?
February 1st, 2010 at 3:15 pm
VOR, you are operating under a “guilty until proven innocent” mentality. That is the wrong mindset and is exactly why the search was unreasonable. The police can not search someone to make sure they are following the law. A search is unreasonable unless a crime has been committed or there is probable cause that a crime is committed. Since open carry is legal, that in itself is not probable cause.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:00 pm
David, I’m sure you would love to debate this, but I am not a legal expert. I just personally believe the need to “be packin” at Fry’s or any other retail establishment of no value. End of my discussion on this string.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:16 pm
This guy’s probably part of the Open Carry Movement that’s making it’s rounds through the ranks of our conservative brethren. Another incident:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14247470?source=most_viewed
Not much consolation in knowing that he had his ammo there on his belt, ready to go. Has this guy been POST certified to know the circumstances where it is appropriate to use deadly force? Is he going to plug an innocent bystander at Frys for accidentally being in the line of fire between him and somebody who looked at him funny?
February 1st, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Matt Artz, So Fry’s may ban open carry because a few employees got nervous and called police about someone “legally” carrying a firearm? That seems odd, uncalled for and a bit reactionary to me. Is that your personal opinion, or do you have reason to make such a statement? Please explain why you would combine the lawful act of openly carrying a firearm with the completely illegal acts of theft (with a rock) and armed robbery in the same post. What do the they have to do with one another?
I think that you should take this opportunity to help inform your readers about the open carry movement going on right here in the Bay Area. Right when you got to the interesting part of your posting (“officers released him.”) you lost track and went off topic.
Let me see if I can provide some assistance…
Yes, TCB viewers, it is legal to openly carry an unloaded firearm on your person in public throughout the State of California.
Yes, you can carry live ammunition on your person as well, just as long as it’s not attached to the firearm in any way.
Yes, you can drive a motor vehicle while openly carrying an unloaded firearm on your person.
Keep in mind that you must stay 1000 feet away from K-12 schools (Penal Code 626.9) and can not enter government buildings, colleges, or secure areas of airports. While driving a vehicle, you must have your firearm locked up and in the trunk if passing within 1000 feet of a K-12 school.
There is a racist law on the books (Penal Code 12031)that was passed back in the late 60′s that makes it illegal to carry loaded firearms in public. For the purpose of enforcing this section of the law, police are authorized to inspect any firearm carried in public to determine of it’s loaded. Since openly carrying an unloaded firearm on your person in public is “legal,” law enforcement can not demand ID, or detain after the firearm is determined to be in compliance with the law.
Get more info here: http://www.californiaopencarry.org/
February 1st, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Come on Niles…
You sound a lot like the folks from the Brady Campaign. You stated quite an assumption on your part that the UOC individual from Fry’s would just up and shoot someone in retaliation for a stern look.
Your flippant argument does not hold any water my friend. At least attempt to cite some facts when making posts (on any topic).
Best Regards
February 1st, 2010 at 4:42 pm
There is a profound liability these folks have seemingly decided to shoulder that cannot be avoided . . . . look what trained law enforcement goes through if a firearm is discharged (frequently unfairly so, IMHO) – - I can only imagine what a private citizen might encounter.
In the very unlikely instance that one of these folks does find themselves in some kind of exchange, I hope they possess the economic wherewithall to defend themselves at least as aggressively in the courts as they appear to want to defend themselves on the streets.
February 1st, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Hey guys. I heard that there was a discussion going on in here that I might be interested in.
Why is the police stop of a citizen who did not break the law in any way whatsoever in the same story as the two gun-related (and one rock) crimes?
And as for the liability issue involved with discharging a weapon to defend one’s life, I would rather be alive and have to be able to justify my actions than be dead.
February 1st, 2010 at 5:44 pm
I had no idea one could carry a gun. Is this “open carry” law different and apart from the concealed weapon license that I’ve heard about (unloaded vs loaded)? I have heard the latter is very difficult to get.
I do think that a person walking around in public with a gun is an odd site, suspicious to say the least. I’m not saying the man is wrong in any sense, but there is a serious ignorance of this law by the greater public. And I’m sure the media and anti-2nd Amendment sensibilities contribute to that ignorance. I suppose it’s not only criminals who pack heat.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:11 pm
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.
February 1st, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Marty,
I’m happy that this grabbed your interest. If you want to reseach the law click on the link below. It will be of great help to you.
http://www.californiaopencarry.org/
There are You Tube videos that can provide useful information too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWz7BEEg1k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whlci8a5qWU
February 1st, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Nice turn of phrase, B, regarding the inherent liability that accompanies the reckless discharge of a firearm. I’d hate for one of these individuals to fall back on the services of a Public Defender, which would mean that the taxpayers would be on the hook not only for their defense, but also for their care and support during the term of their sentence.
There’s an old approach that was (and in some cases still is) used in some fundamentalist communities when one of their members behaved in a way that threatened the community. It was called shunning – basically, exclusion from the community. Sometimes the old ways still work.
Reasonable adults know that simply because you can doesn’t necessarily mean that you should. Applies in lots of situations.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:37 pm
There was a time when newspapers would stand up to a government so eager to disarm its citizens of its arms and liberties…in that order.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Was it one of those evil black assault rocks that are on the California assault weapons list? Was it being open carried, or concealed? If concealed, and since we know that criminals always obey gun control laws, did the robbers have the expected CCW (Concealed Calcite Wearing) permit for said rock?
Or, was the rock similar to the kind that “Martz” was smoking when he posted his opinions on open carry and tried to pass them up as news?
Inquiring minds want to know.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Look this isn’t the wild west where one might be attacked by coyotes or rattlesnakes or even injun’s. Carrying a gun in our society is done not for protection, but to intimidate and scare people. So enforcing your right to carry a gun, means we have to enforce our safety from nuts carrying guns (Not you, as you really care, but from the gang bangers, mentally incompetent and drunks) who also carry guns and kill innocent people who die in horrible, horrible ways. So please if you want to show off your guns, move to Idaho.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:45 pm
It seems like John is still a little fuzzy on all of this. First of all, I don’t want to carry a gun openly. In fact, I would prefer to have a concealed carry permit. But that option is not available to average citizens (i.e. not rich and/or famous)in populated areas of California. Thus, open carry is the only legal means that I have at my disposal to be able to protect myself if it ever became necessary to do so. Accordingly, your assertion that I openly carry to “intimidate and scare people” is not applicable in my case. Granted, there may be a deterrent effect of an exposed firearm, but that is not my main reason for doing so. Protection is my main concern.
And, secondly, you still don’t seem to be comprehending that criminals and the mentally impaired are already prohibited from carrying firearms by law. Those prohibitions should continue to be enforced. The problem is that criminals are willing to flout the law and carry concealed weapons, and many of them are already doing so. Allowing me to carry a firearm helps to level the playing field. And if you really think about it, criminals don’t want carry firearms openly because it draws extra attention to them, which is probably the last thing that a criminal wants.
February 1st, 2010 at 10:30 pm
OK. Who are these Bruce Willises who want to carry weapons and for protection against what? We have enough problems when people have no weapons and get hot headed for various reasons in public. Back to the Wild Wild West, eh?
Can I carry a Bazooka for my protection? I promise I won’t conceal it.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:15 pm
To Ringo.
I believe a bazooka falls into the the assault weapons area, and also I believe the ATF, FBI and local PD would be interested in that. but I wouldnt have a problem with it as long as it was unloaded. But until CA changes the laws for getting my CCW, you are stuck with looking at my gun on my belt or on my hip. And if you dont like it,dont look. If Im not bothering you, when Im going about my day to day activities wearing my gun, then why do you have to bother me when Im doing my day to day activities wearing my gun.
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:48 am
Mr. Shahab –
Have you considered the possibility that a couple of thugs could see your gun, overpower you, and in the struggle perhaps an innocent bystander is injured or killed? Some person who wanted to enjoy their morning coffee gets shot because you have this idea that you can instantly jump into Clint Eastwood mode and react accordingly. I have my doubts.
I’m really not an anti-gun person. I have no problem with reasonable people owning weapons. But I don’t think walking around with a gun on one’s hip is reasonable.
You say that you are for enforcement of the current laws. Well, how can the police be expected to know who should and should not be walking around with a gun unless they ask some questions? Imagine the fate of an officer who winds up not asking some convicted felon about the gun he’s wearing, and that felon goes on to commit a crime. You open carry folks are paving the way for some really awful crimes of opportunity.
You see yourself as “leveling the playing field.” Well, it isn’t a game. You are actually endangering a whole lot of innocent bystanders. And further, it’ll take just one tragedy of the type I described above to truly come up with a whole slew of fresh gun laws and restrictions that will not go in a direction you’d likely prefer. You open carry guys are going to push people like me, who are actually fine with gun ownership, toward the direction of stricter laws.
Think it over.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:41 am
I’m a gun owner myself (going back to Boy Scout rifle team days), but I think the main result of this “open carry” movement will be signs saying “no guns allowed”.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:32 am
I am curious. Are all the Open Carry people Republicans or Minute Men
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:40 am
That would certainly fit nicely into your box o’ prejudices, bill.
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:10 am
Adan, yes your argument that we need to enforce the laws we have is hadkneyed. Civilization is based on people acting according to local norms. Carrying a gun in public is not a local norm, nor is it needed for defence from anything, so all it does is upset people. Just like its not normal to walk around naked, or for men to dress up in skirts its NOT normal to carry a gun or any other weapon in public (machetes, knives, hatchets) while walking down the street. So I suggest you either conform to our local norm (lock your weapon up) or move to Idaho where this may be an accepted practice. I for one do NOT ever want to see this an accepted practice here.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:02 am
So as citizens we have a right to carry if we choose. It’s another right that we have whether it’s wrong or right.
Common sense dictates how we choose to use that right.
Also, seeing a person walk into a store with a pistol is as rare as seeing no traffic on 880 on a Monday morning. It just doesn’t happen. You’re going to get reactions of citizens heading to call 911.. Especially with today’s society. You can’t blame anyone for that.
If this were the 1800′s then that would be different because all of society would be having sidearm’s but, that was then and this is now.
Again, it’s a right but, it’s one that needs to used with common sense.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
People need to stop with the “go to Idaho” talk. Citizens have the right to walk around and do their normal business with a gun exposed on their person in the vast majority of the states. California is ABNORMAL in the sense that people in this state do not exercise that right as frequently as in other states. Perhaps if more people started open carrying, or at least more people became educated about the legality of open carry, it wouldn’t be as shocking as it currently seems to some Californians. I would also like to note that California has a higher crime rate than many of the states where open carry occurs more frequently.
I do not see how a law-abiding citizen carrying an unloaded firearm endangers innocent bystanders in any way whatsoever. If somebody can articulate the theory behind that, please do so. And if the case were to ever arise when a weapon would have to be drawn, the individual firing the weapon should be responsible enough to properly operate that firearm. We trust millions of citizens to drive multi-ton automobiles each and every day. A few years ago, an individual in Fremont decided to deliberately crash into a pedestrian, then drive to San Francisco and run over countless other pedestrians. The natural reaction was not to ban all people from being able to drive cars. We blamed that one bad individual for his actions, incarcerated him, and continue to trust others in society to operate cars in a safe manner. The same should be done for firearms.
As for the notion of police not knowing who is legally carrying and who is not, I have two responses, without even going into Penal Code 12031(e). First, if a person is acting in a suspicious manner, the police have a right to stop and question that person. The mere presence of a gun is not sufficient for a reasonable and articulable search, but other behaviors are. Secondly, the theory doesn’t necessarily hold water. If a criminal who is not acting suspiciously is carrying a firearm CONCEALED and walks by a police officer, and that criminal soon afterward commits a crime, the officer is not at fault. The same would be the case if a criminal were stupid enough to open carry. But, keep in mind, that the officer is more likely to give that person a second look if they have an openly carried weapon on their person. That second look could cause the officer to find a reasonable and articulable reason to question the individual before a crime happens.
I also love all the theories of how an open carrier might be overpowered by thugs who take the firearm from the individual. Firearms are readily available to criminals on the streets. As a law-abiding citizen, I would have absolutely not idea how to obtain an illegal firearm, illicit drugs, or counterfeit documents. But the criminals are already getting their hands on these things. If a criminal wants to shoot someone, the opportunity for them to obtain a weapon is already available to them. And, logically, would a criminal rather attack an armed target or one that doesn’t seem alert enough to have thought about how to protect him or herself?
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm
I’ll bet my house that if there were more people like Alan and Adnan walking around, assault and robbery crime would plummet. Perhaps this is one of those laws the public needs to be educated on, because all I see is a bunch of opposing positions based on ignorance and folklore.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
>>And, logically, would a criminal rather attack an armed target or one that doesn’t seem alert enough to have thought about how to protect him or herself?<<
My theory, the one that you "love", is that some criminals look for crimes of opportunity. Add a little meth or desperation to the mix, and "logic" flies out the window. This is the point you seemed to miss in my statement, so I'll repeat it again: Crime of opportunity.
You're certain that you will be able to react in a manner that won't end in disaster. Sorry, I'm not so confident in your abilities.
And using driving as a comparison? Please. There are plenty of terrible drivers one can encounter right here in Fremont on any given day. Likewise, just because someone carries a weapon around to prove a point doesn't mean they're doing anything but putting people at risk.
At least figuratively, open carry folks are shooting off their own feet if the goal is to make gun ownership more acceptable and less cumbersome. But have at it.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:51 pm
>>And, logically, would a criminal rather attack an armed target or one that doesn’t seem alert enough to have thought about how to protect him or herself?<<
My point, which you clearly missed, is that carrying a weapon and ammunition presents a possible crime of opportunity. "Logic" flies out the window if the thug in question is on drugs.
You make the point about all the ends criminals will go to in order to get a gun. True enough. Now imagine said criminal sees you standing there at the checkout line. Very convenient for him.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Wait for Boxer, Feinstein and Pelosi to draft legislation to take away the legal right for citizens to exercise Unloaded Open Carry.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I have to side with my leftist cousins on this topic. Everybody gets angry at somepoint or other. A big chunk of accidental shootings happen at the fleet of the moment. If someone is drunk, having a heated argument, you never know what might happen if the guy had a gun on him. What could have been a punch to the face, might end up making a hole in the head.
Having said that I do understand the argument for guns that criminals are going to get a gun anyway and cops are not always around. Its a hard tough debate on 2nd amendment..
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:08 pm
As it so happens, I have a close relative who owns several properties in Idaho. He is an avid hunter and gun fancier – even loads his own ammo. Fortunately for him, he was raised in Fremont. After living in Idaho for a while, he recently volunteered that, in his opinion, all of the “sane” people live in the Bay Area, and this is from a guy who leans conservative (being the black sheep of the family politically).
He and his wife recently had their first child. Given the choice, even with all of our local problems, they have decided that that child will be raised in Fremont rather than Idaho. Specific concerns included the right-to-work, non-union beliefs in Idaho and their obvious lack of meaningful cultural diversity, which we have in abundance in the Bay Area. The continuing increase in hard-core evangelicals and aryan separatists certainly didn’t help make Idaho more attractive.
Idaho is a lovely place. Nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
Yes, TBone, that’s all Pelosi et al have to worry about these days – how to take your pea shooter away from you. Health Care, DADT, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran – they can all wait while those scary Dems disarm the citizenry. Go shoot something, you’ll feel better.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Ashley, what’s this fascination you have with “right to work” provisions? You’ve presented it before (link below) as condition that contributes to an discontented workforce. Between NUMMI and slashes to public employee wages (current and future), including one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, do you really want to present California as the benchmark for what a pro-union culture can do for the working person?
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2010/01/08/fremont-makes-new-pitch-for-the-as/#comment-9281
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Its always whats your perspective. Like for the case when we talk abortion, pro-choice guys have a snapshot of crazy religious guys stopping abortion requests from a poor woman (may have been a victim of incest) when the so-called baby iteself is just a bunch of fused cells.
Pro-life guys have a snapshot of a non caring woman killing a human looking form with flesh and blood.
Its hard to take sides, even though most people if they see an actual abortion of say 10-20 weeks fetus will swing the pro-choice way
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Hate to stray even further off topic, but compare right-to-work states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_work.svg
…to national unemployment:
http://www.bls.gov/web/mstrtcr1.gif
…and the Philly Fed coincident indicator (overall economic health):
http://www.phil.frb.org/_images/key-indicators/coincident-indexes.jpg
Looks like if anything at all, right-to-work laws have contributed to an improved economic situation for certain states during the recession. Just consider how Toyota chose to expand their production in San Antonio, Texas (right-to-work state) compared to them closing a factory in California (non-right-to-work state). Like the fate of most unions, the gravy train runs thick and heavy until it doesn’t run at all.
It certainly seems that right-to-work law opponents have to rely heavily on the power of collective bargaining, as their marketability as individuals is essentially non-existent. That’s something they’ll have to remedy in the new economy.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:30 pm
So according to Adnan, “California is ABNORMAL in the sense that people in this state do not exercise that right as frequently as in other states” Hmmm.. so I’m ABNORMAL because I choose not to carry a firearm..
Mr Adnan, I been born and raised here in the Tri-City area since the mid-60′s.. I know about the concealed weapon law and I know how to use a firearm. In fact I learn as a kid at a ranch in Tracy with uncles who all had rifles.. these were the days BEFORE Tracy became the burb that it is.
Today I simply choose not to have or carry one but, it’s good to know that IF I do, that right is there.
And as far as I know, people in California are comfortable NOT carrying a weapon.. I know I am..
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:44 pm
The person most likely to get shot by a gun-totin’ guy is his wife.
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:02 pm
All I have seen in terms of rationale from those that wish to carry a weapon in public is basically that they are asserting their 2nd amendment rights.
Why do you want to carry a gun on you at all times? Mr. Shahab asserts that he is protecting himself and his family from gun toting criminals.
I don’t feel like doing the research(although I’m sure there is someone who frequents here who will do the work for me, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if you were to look up the statistics, there are more people killed or injured by a firearm that they personally own and carry or that someone in their family owns than are killed in random shootouts in retail outlets like Fry’s Electronics.
Personally, if I were to feel endangered enough in my daily comings and goings that I needed to pack heat, I need to move.
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
To Alan,
The only reason I look at you if you carry a gun is so I can duck if you try to shoot or start acting all commando in public.
To Gun Toters,
Don’t forget that if you are carrying a weapon, it intimidates others who are not carrying or do not want to carry a weapon. So what do you all gun toters advocate. That every one should carry to equalize, and the world will be at peace? Anyway, who are you all protecting yourselves against? If you are protecting yourself and your families at home I understand. I have no issue with people owning guns. But I see no need to carry it openly or concealed in public. Unless you are a Police Officer.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:02 pm
I’ve carried open in Wyoming for almost 15 years. Because I had an espionage cover to maintain,it’s been very hard for me to be as if a normal person.
My open carry has saved my and my sons’s lives several times, mainly in deterance.
The overt enemy kills moreso in vehicular sabotage and the like, things which are untraceable. My life-long undercover duty demonstrates that well, and this translates into why we have few conservative leaders at the top left. I’m not kidding.
There IS a movement to take over our country at the top, and I don’t think this is something any one of you would want to smirk at any more.
When push comes to shove – Fire with accuracy.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:58 pm
I’ve carried open for nearly 15 years in Wyoming, and you know what? It doesn’t bother anyone, once they get over not knowing you personally. Oh, the occasional “9/11″ calls, all to no worth – Except of the Police resources! They oughta figure- WHy come down had on citizens wiht arms – They ougtha be out there with gooks in the wires with arms!!!!
Well, as long as Jane Fonda runs the mindset, what can we do???
The COMMIE Propaganda machine is our own MP3 Player until them…
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 pm
My position is that citizens (including law enforcement officers) should be educated as to what is legal and not legal with regards to gun rights. Allow citizens to decided for themselves whether they want to open carry or not. I am by no means suggesting that everyone should do it. I believe in allowing a person to make the choice to do whatever he or she feels is right for them when it comes to unloaded open carry.
Many people loosely throw out terms such as “freedom” and “liberty” without ever taking the time to really think about what those words mean. This issue cuts to the core of what society truly believes about those notions when it comes to things that are definitely legal. Where do you stand on the issue?
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Also, I am still waiting for somebody to logically articulate how public safety is diminished by a law-abiding citizen openly carrying a firearm. I am not talking about emotional, gut feelings here. I am also not looking for random “what if a criminal decided to” scenarios either. I want someone to cite an example of an instance where somebody open carrying has caused the public to be less safe, or at least clearly explain why the public would be less safe.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Too bad gun manufacturers just don’t make guns that are glowing neon green when unloaded but turn flashing red when loaded. Seriously.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:24 am
I wasn’t going to make additional comment on this string, but since no one has cited this incident I will.
On November 29, 2009, in Tacoma, WA, four police officers, in uniform, wearing body armor and carrying loaded sidearms, were sitting in a local coffee shop commonly frequented by law enforcement personnel having their morning cup of Joe.
A man walked in, with the sole intention of shooting police officers. He shot and killed all four officers. One managed to get off one shot, wounding the shooter. The gunman was later located and died in a gun battle with police.
Obviously the officers were caught off guard and the element of surprise was on the killer’s side. That is always going to be the case when someone is intent on causing bodily harm. Unless you walk around with your gun at the ready, locked and loaded, chances are the perp gets you before you get him.
In fact, if the scumbag’s intent is armed robbery and sees someone with a holstered gun they may decide to take you out in advance. Or, as you will argue, they may think better of it and leave when they see you are armed. Now, rational thought is not their strong suit. They’re desperate and dumb. So what do you think their next move is?
Guess it will come to what the stores do in the Southeast. If they don’t want weapons in the store they place a sticker at the front door. It is the silhouette of a handgun inside the international symbol for no. Check your guns at the door boys.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:32 am
VOR, That’s a great re-cap of the Tacoma Washington story. Now, please explain to all of us what that has to do with law abiding people openly carrying firearms within the law?
Maurice Clemmons was a convicted felon with an extensive criminal record in two different states. It was illegal for him to own and even posess the firearm that was used during the shootings. He was carrying his firearm concealed (without a permit) when entering Forza coffee shop and firing on the officers.
Multiple laws were broken before Clemmons even started shooting. I guest criminals simply don’t respect the law?
Most criminal opportunist will pick an easy target regardless of if they are desperate, or dumb, or both. Carrying a firearm for personal protection makes an individual less likely to be picked over another individual who has no means of self-protection.
Unarmed = easier target
The simple fact here is that I personally believe that I am safer carrying my firearm. It is my individual right to do so, and I am doing so. Other individuals may disagree for whatever reason and that’s their right to decide for themselves. I respect their personal position regardless of what it is. I ask others not to be offended, but to respect my position as well.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 am
That was a horrible incident that occurred in Washington last year with the four officers getting shot while carrying locked and loaded. And yet I didn’t hear many people saying that police officers should stop carrying firearms around with them because they could be blindsided by an attack. Or perhaps I simply missed that outcry from the public. And I hate having to keep reiterating the fact that criminals are already not allowed to have guns. Maurice Clemmons should never have had a gun in the first place. Instead of limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens, perhaps more focus should be made on keeping guns out of the hand of convicted criminals.
Wow, you are saying that citizens going about their daily business are at risk of criminals doing harm to them? Incredible. I had never thought about that. As for you thinking that a bad guy might want to take out a person with an openly carried weapon first, I disagree. I believe that the criminal will likely decide to hold off on committing the crime if he or she sees someone with firearm. But even if you are, on the odd chance, correct and it eventually happens to an open carrier, the fact that the citizen had the gun did not increase danger to society as a whole, only to him or herself. Every time we get into an automobile, we are increasing the chances of getting injured. And yet, many of us still make the calculated decision to drive an automobile because, in our view, the benefits outweigh the risks.
As open carriers, we respect property rights. If individual businesses have a clear policy that they do not allow firearms in their establishments, we will respect that and take our business elsewhere. Do you see how beautiful that is? Both property rights and Second Amendment rights are maintained, and the free market allows people to spend money in businesses that offer them better customer service. These are all important concepts in America.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:55 am
“I am not talking about emotional, gut feelings here….”
“The simple fact here is that I personally believe that I am safer carrying my firearm. “
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:49 am
Thank you for your respect Mr. Shahab. I will look for the businesses displaying the No Firearms decals and support their right.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:59 am
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.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
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.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
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.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
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.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:10 pm
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.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:27 pm
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!
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:40 pm
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.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:49 pm
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.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:40 pm
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.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:40 pm
*our
February 4th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Post #58 – Something about keeping ones’ distance from the monkey cages comes to mind . . ..
February 4th, 2010 at 9:25 am
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?
February 4th, 2010 at 9:49 am
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.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:19 am
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”.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
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.
February 4th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
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?
February 4th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
“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…
February 4th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
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 . . . . . .
February 4th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Oh Jen, you made me laugh out loud in the office with that closing line. Best yet!
February 4th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
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
February 4th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
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.
February 4th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
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.
March 15th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
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.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=59166&tsp=1#ixzz0iHhBgaLb