Fremont Assembly candidate at open carry debate

Adnan Shahab is running against Bob Wieckowski in November. He supports open carry and he talks during this KTVU report.

Matt Artz


  1. Looks like a cakewalk for Bob unless it comes out that he’s a closeted bottled-water drinker or something.

  2. Adnan Shahab is the type of candidate everybody should support in Fremont. He has nobody telling him what to do, what to say, or how to run his campaign. This is the type of citizen representative that can be counted on to govern in the best intrests of the people.

  3. Adnan stands up for what he believes in. Is not pushed into anything by back-room deals, and has no big money running him.
    He is a open minded person and will work for the people.

  4. Why is it that most leading law enforcement officials are against open carry?

  5. Adnan Shahab could have been the person to talk about diversity within the Republican Party. I think he would have been great at that, because I believe he could have initiated a respectful dialog. Instead, he busy is going out of his way to be known for this open carry BS and show how would cow-tow to conservatives. Open carry is hardly a pressing issue on the minds of the people of this district, but he doesn’t seem to care. He is showing that he is a single-issue hack. And it is a shame, because I think he is smart and capable.

    People won’t necessarily vote against Shahab because he is a Republican– I strongly believe that people in this area are open to voting for people who demonstrate that they are willing to have an open mind. I believe he could have done this. It is a wasted opportunity.

  6. I am not running on the issue of open carry, and I do not kowtow to anyone. Whoever claims otherwise clearly does not know anything about me or my campaign.

    I am running on issues of controlling government spending and getting people back to work by reducing stifling government regulations on businesses. Open carry just happened to come up as an issue because I was made aware of its legality in December 2009, and I incorporated it into my daily life. I had no intention of making open carry a part of my campaign at all. But once I started open carrying, the media, which had completely ignored my campaign up til that point, started covering my position on gun rights and only on gun rights. Since the media ignored me otherwise, it appeared to the general populace that I was running solely on open carry. Unfortunately, I do not have any sort of funding that would allow me to publicly refute the media’s portrayal of me and force attention to be paid to the rest of my campaign.

    In fact, for months leading up to the primary election, I was begging the media to put pressure on the Democrats to debate me on all of the issues facing the state. Both Garrett Yee and Bob Wieckowski dodged me on the debate. In the June 15 issue of the Tri-City Voice, my letter to the editor challenging Bob Wieckowski to a debate in front of the electorate was printed. I have yet to hear back from him on that.

    Where is the outrage from the people of Assembly District 20? Why aren’t the people demanding that Wieckowski debate me? At least Lori Saldana had the guts to attempt to stand up to me face to face. Unless the people demand Wieckowski to stand before the people and be judged, he will be swept into office simply because he has “Democrat” next to his name on the November ballot.

  7. As for law enforcement’s positions on open carry, I have found that most of the “higher ups”, the police chiefs who are appointed to office, are the ones who take public positions against open carry. It would make sense that these bureaucrats would kowtow to the wishes of the liberal officials who appointed them to their cushy jobs.

    But I have spoken with many rank and file officers, both in California and outside of this state, and I have found that many of them support carry rights. So, when you see law enforcement agencies taking “official” positions against open carry (or concealed carry), you are hearing the position of the bureaucrats at the top, not necessarily the opinions of the true heroes who are on the front line.

  8. Let me get this straight, Mr. Shahab: the media brought you to all those open carry rallies and forced you to do all those interviews on the subject? Poor you.

    If open carry is not the only issue you’re behind, it is your job as the candidate to communicate that to us citizens.

    Like I said, people in this area are open minded, and I don’t think people will automatically vote for someone simply with a “D” next to his or her name. You seem to be bright and capable, but your response to me seems like you believe you’re the victim of some conspiracy.

  9. No, that is not what I said. What I said is that the media ONLY covers me when I am open carrying. There is no effort on their part to cover anything else that I stand for, and there is no effort on their part to pressure Wieckowski into debating me publicly.

    By calling open carry events “rallies”, you are buying into the myth that they are political demonstrations of some sort. In fact, they are ways to educate the public about what their legal rights are with regards to carrying firearms and providing them with the information to make a decision for themselves as to whether they would like to carry or not. The ultimate goal is not to continue having open carry events indefinitely. The ultimate goal is to educate individuals, law enforcement, and society as a whole that not only cops and criminals carry firearms. The police cannot be everywhere, and they can’t always respond immediately. Law abiding citizens carry firearms in order to protect themselves from violent criminals.

    As for it being my job to communicate the issues of my campaign to the people, I agree completely. If I am not getting my message out, it is my fault. At the same time, unlike both Democrats who ran for the AD20 Democratic nomination, I don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing into my campaign by special interest groups. Unless the media decides to actually cover my campaign, as opposed to summarily dismissing it as unviable, I have no affordable means to get my message out. I am trying my best, but sometimes a person’s best efforts are not enough. If you have any realistic suggestions to help me get my message out, I would be more than glad to listen.

    You really don’t think people in the Bay Area vote for people simply because they have a “D” next to their name? I would like to hear what Matt Artz thinks about that.

  10. Mr. Shahab,
    If I’m following your line of reasoning correcty … as you state “Law abiding citizens carry firearms in order to protect themselves from violent criminals.” And you go around carrying your firearm as you work/live/campaign in the 20th Assembly District, are you implying this area is under siege by these “violent criminals”? And if so, what kind of message are you sending to residents of the 20th AD?

  11. Thank you for caring enough to respond in the first place Mr. Shahab.

    1) I vehemently disagree with your reasons for supporting open carry– the reason why police cannot be everywhere is because leaders with your political philosophy have gutted public services. That is quite convenient, given that it allows people like yourself to make the argument that the police cannot be responsive enough. But I suppose we will agree to disagree on this issue.

    2) Suggestions how to communicate with citizens: I am not an expert but I simply know that your message is not getting out to me it seems like. If you have some community support, I suggest your friends should spread the word about you. I also believe that the Argus will give you a fair hearing, so why not take advantage of our community newspapers?

    3) If you have such a poor opinion about the people of this District and you are fairly cynical about getting elected as a Republican, then why are you running in the first place?

  12. Wild West: Violent crime can occur in any community. I am not implying that AD20 is under siege. Emeryville Police Chief Ken James recently stated that a person has a 99.5% chance of not being a victim of a violent crime in any given year. That still leaves a 0.5% chance of being the victim of a violent crime. There is a very good chance that I will not be in a severe car accident in any particular year. But I wear a seatbelt as a precaution just in case that violent car accident occurs. I carry a firearm just in case I am violently threatened by a criminal. I believe in having the choice to make that decision.

  13. Gautam:

    1) I don’t know where you get your assertion that people with my “political philosophy” are gutting public safety. Perhaps you are resorting to inaccurate stereotypes of what it means to be a conservative. I fully support in adequate funding for law enforcement. That position is clearly stated on my campaign website (http://www.shahab2010.com) and in my personal blog (http://www.adnanshahab.com). But even if law enforcement is fully funded, the fact remains that the police cannot be everywhere at all times. If your life is put in danger, you might not even have an opportunity to dial your cell phone to call them. And even after you do, there is still a drive/response time for them to get to you. Violent crimes can be over in moments, not minutes. Having a tool at your disposal to defend yourself with is an intelligent way of being prepared.

    2) I am definitely working on word-of-mouth communication, but it is unrealistic that my message will get out to the 450,000+ people in AD20 by that means only. I have asked The Argus, Tri-City Voice, Fremont Bulletin, etc. to cover my campaign and the lack of desire for Yee/Wieckowski to debate me. So far, they haven’t reported on that. (The Tri-City Voice did publish my heavily edited letter to the editor on the debate topic last week, though.) In fact, Matt Artz basically told me that it doesn’t seem like an issue unless Wieckowski is still refusing to debate me in October. That would only leave me a few weeks to prove to the people of AD20 that I am a superior candidate to represent them in Sacramento. By then, it will be too late to get my message out to enough voters to make a decisive difference.

    3) I am not insinuating that there is anything different about the people in AD20 than in any other area of California or the nation. The vast majority of the people don’t take the time to educate themselves about all of the candidates and the issues. I admit that I have done the same thing in the past (2008 and before). If I didn’t know anything about either candidate, I would vote for the Republican over the Democrat simply because of party affiliation. But now I see the error of my ways, and I readily admit that I should have known more about the candidates in many races before casting my vote. Since the vast majority of the registered voters in AD20 are registered Democrats, it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that, assuming they know nothing of either me or Wieckowski, they will vote for the person who is affiliated with the same party as themselves (Democrat).

  14. #14 “the reason why police cannot be everywhere is because leaders with your political philosophy have gutted public services.”

    Nope. Leaders with the political philosophy of Adnan’s opponent have gifted exorbitant compensation to unions in exchange for political support, knowing full well that any sensible revenue scenario would never support these employees. God forbid a fiscal conservative bring this point up from time to time.

    The fact that you’d attempt to promote such a ridiculous argument essentially proves Adnan Shahab’s point about the uphill battle of convincing an entrenched population to vote in their best interest.

    Weickowski is wholly owned by the public employee unions and will surely continue the practice of gifting compensation for political favors. Expect public servants to become even more of a financial burden on communities resulting in further cuts to public services. That’s the result of your political philosophy, Gautam.

  15. I wish someone would put some Goddamned Regulations on the Cable company and the exorbitant amount they are allowed to charge my momma just so I am able to watch all three CSPANS, type my thoughts here, and order some pizza!
    And STILL, sometimes with NO WARNING, I can’t do any of the THREE!!.
    And you think business is OVER regulated?? HA!!
    Go be a good citizen and take your neighbors cat to get vaccinated. Then just wait. You’ll see who’s over regulated.
    And put your damn empty pistol away bozo, before someone steals it right off of you when you’re walking out to the parking lot with your coffee in one hand and your keys in the other.
    good grief.

  16. If people are actually convinced that a gun is going to be taken away from people who are open carrying, why is nobody concerned that guns are going to be taken away from police officers (who also open carry)? Such a situation might happen, in theory, but it doesn’t happen often in reality. I have contacted law enforcement prior to going to certain locations and have voluntarily submitted to 12031(e) checks. Quite often, the officer can’t even remove my firearm from my holster, even with me being fully cooperative and compliant. If I were resisting, the likelihood of someone getting my firearm would be pretty low.

    And as for theories that criminals would want to attack me specifically to take the firearm that I am carrying, why would they do that? Why would they attack someone who is clearly making a conscious effort to be aware of my surroundings and prepared to defend myself? If it’s a gun that they want, they can easily find one on the black market. Criminals have never had a problem obtaining firearms. Regulations only succeed in taking firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

  17. Welcome, Adnan, to Rand Paul territory. See, these days even a candidate for a state assembly seat has to be careful about how he presents himself in relation to the issues. Mr. Paul wants to be a US Senator, but he thinks it’s OK for businesses who purport to serve the public to refuse to serve minorities. You appear to believe that it’s acceptable to walk around armed 24/7. You and Mr. Paul are both ignoring the real-world consequences of your ideologies. You, specifically, seem to have forgotten that Alameda County is overwhelmingly registered Democrat. Strategically speaking, not a great move.

    I never thought something would come along that would push me back toward Bob Wieckowski, who is about as ineffectual as one can imagine, but Bob needs to send you a giant fruit basket in thanks for all the votes you’ve driven to his campaign.

    After all, an ineffectual drone will probably do less damage in the long run than a gun nut. At least there’s a chance that Bob will work toward bipartisan solutions in Sacramento rather than holding fast to flawed ideologies.

    In short, Bob’s trainable, but you can’t fix stupid.

  18. Ashley Butler:

    I find it interesting that you automatically felt the need to resort to name-calling and insulting my intelligence. You have never met me, so you must be basing your assumptions on what I have written. At what point in this dialogue have I said anything that would cause you to logically conclude that I am “stupid”? What exactly about respecting gun rights makes me a “gun nut”?

    I know the real world consequences of my ideology on this issue. Open carry is legal in 43 states, and the vast majority of the other states have lower crime rates than California, where hardly anyone open carries. What part of that is difficult for you to grasp? What part of people having a tool at their disposal to defend themselves with offends you so much?

  19. Ashley, don’t sweat Adnan Shahab. He is no threat to Mr Weickowski, who will do everything in his power to ensure you talentless leaches who suck of the teet of private sector innovation will continue to be paid magnitudes more money than you’d ever earn if you we self-reliant.

    PS, Ashley – Unlike Mr Shahab, I have no qualms with resorting to name calling, so please reply.

  20. Hey Shahab,
    there is a significant difference between YOUR gun and the COPS gun, which makes YOU a much more likely candidate for THREE dudes who want a gun, not for themselves, (and certainly not to buy you dingbat) , for someone else who they will SELL it to.

    And let me say, though I doubt he’ll know I ever said it, due to the not exactly active abilities of our forums platform here, that on June 22nd at approximately 6:39p.m. a guy who goes by the name of Wild West actually advanced the discussion here, or at least tried too. Let me tell you dingbat, if you don’t want to be a dingbat, you should read again and THINK about what he’s saying. Very Important to your ability to complete this task will be your need to disregard the near spontaneous alarm of your ego-defense mechanism which will order you to cease listening likely before the first sentence to read into your brain, then to immediately REACT verbally and otherwise and to cease any further conscious reading of mr. Wild’s insight to enable all familiar ideas agreeable to be creatively assemble in the most expedient way.

    read it THREE times. Do not then begin thinking about a response. Do not even consider it as something that needs to be responded too. Don’t feel threatened by it or belittled.

    It’s advice. Not from an enemy or even someone who sees themselves as superior to you. It’s from an equal, a friend.

    And really, leave your gun put away. Really. You remember what happened to Archie Bunker don’t ya?

    Now here, for everyone’s benifit, I’m rerunning Wild West’s column of the 22nd. Enjoy!

    Mr. Shahab,
    If I’m following your line of reasoning correcty … as you state “Law abiding citizens carry firearms in order to protect themselves from violent criminals.” And you go around carrying your firearm as you work/live/campaign in the 20th Assembly District, are you implying this area is under siege by these “violent criminals”? And if so, what kind of message are you sending to residents of the 20th AD?

  21. Tony Irvington,

    haha Mr. Shahab was pretty prolific in posting there for a bit until you called him out in responding to Wild West’s comment.

  22. What’s to respond to, RNTF? Open carry is the 2nd amendment version of a gay pride parade. Flaming homosexuals don’t meet in the Castro every year to make a case for the flaunting of ass chaps on moving floats. They do it to push public perception.

    Likewise, open carry events surely are not a statement on ones immediate public safety, but rather a way to promote their (admittedly) off the wall agenda.

  23. …. and by the same reasoning (LOL) in #27 – – yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is simply an exercise of free speech rights. . . . .

    Greater good and safety of the larger community is conveniently ignored in the one instance and inconsequential in the other.

  24. Not sure what you’re getting at, box. There are limits to free speech as there are limits to firearm ownership.

    Your second statement is conjecture.

  25. Marty – dont try to feign rational thought – – for whatever reason you’re just not convincing in this role.

    I suggest you stay with the irrational, unthinking, squalor thing . . .

  26. Don’t worry, box. I don’t work too hard when it comes to schooling your dumb (tuchas) back to the rocking chair.

  27. See, I knew we could coax that usual Marty back – -doesn’t THAT feel better now ?

    And, just as you say – it’s a lot less effort. . .

  28. I’ve been silenced by the Invisible Hand!!!
    Can anybody hear me???

  29. I would have responded if Tony Irvington had actually made a point. Since he said nothing of substance, there was no point in me responding. If anyone can actually raise a legitimate point (one which I have not already addressed), I would be more than glad to take part in a rational discussion. But I can’t have a rational discussion with people who are simply going to rely on emotional responses.

    The facts are clear. Criminals carry weapons and commit violent crimes. Law enforcement cannot be everywhere at all times to protect people. Firearms are a tool with which one can defend oneself when confronted by a violent criminal. Concealed weapons permits are not readily made available to law abiding citizens in heavily populated California counties. As a result, open carry is the only legal means currently available to citizens to be able to carry a firearm with which to defend themselves.

    With rights come responsibilities. A firearm can be used to protect one’s life. If a person uses a firearm for self defense, that person must be able to explain to the authorities why they used that weapon. If the person used the firearm inappropriately, charges will be filed, and the person will be judged by his or her peers and face the consequences of their actions.

    What is the problem with that line of reasoning?

  30. They practice open carry in Juarez, right Adnan? Have you open carried your weapons down there to see how it feels when the whole town is armed and ready for action? Or perhaps you could try an armed vacation in Beirut?

  31. Charlotte – Adnan would probably be arrested in minutes, as Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. After his release, he’d probably be kidnapped, beheaded and disposed of on a desert road, as you from your townhouse in Fremont contemplate a world without the US constitution and all those “racists” who support SB1070.

  32. Charlotte Allen: Are you trying to make some sort of point? I am talking about open carrying in the Bay Area, which is where I live. Why are you bringing up hypothetical situations that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand?

Leave a Reply

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