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

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.

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.

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 . . . . . .

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…

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?

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.

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”.