Open Carry California

[Tyburn Cross]

California became the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed the ban into law amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect on Jan 1.

Source [http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/calif-gov-enacts-ban-open-handgun-carrying-14703202]

A subject somewhat near and dear to my heart finally came up: The new law in California has outlawed the open carry of an unloaded handgun. It has been touted as a new measure to reduce crime.

"By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante," Dallas Stout, president of the California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement.

Happens to me every Wednesday. The hospital bills sure are starting to pile up.

I honestly fail to see the point in this. Does the government in California really believe that gangbangers carry guns openly on a regular basis? Does anyone here know a single criminal that wants to attract more attention to their criminal activities?

Now, I imagine some folks are going to bring up the Concealed Carry issue. Concealed Carry is still legal via permit. What a lot of people don't tell you is that the permit initially costs $500, and then costs $250 every two years after that (My native city/state, Portland Oregon, charged me something like $50 for a four year permit). Add this onto a bunch of regulations concerning what type of handgun you can carry, modifications to those weapons, where you can carry, blah blah blah, it is almost pointless to even bother with the process unless your work requires it.

Again, I don't hate the law for what it does... I just question why it exists in the first place. This is not going to prevent crime whatsoever. In fact, I would almost expect crime rates to rise. Crime is something that happens because we allow violence (And celebrate it) as a culture, rather than whether or not someone is carrying a handgun. For another example, I can point to the firearm ban in England. Firearm related crimes dropped... Knife crime and other related fields rose dramatically. Connection? You tell me.

So finally, I want to know what the Escapist thinks. Is there something I am missing? I mostly lurk on these forums, so I want to see where this thread goes socially/politically.

California CHL FAQ stuff [http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html]

 

[Tyburn Cross]

What's the problem, guns can still be used for home defense. I thought that was the whole point of them and not for carrying at all times.

In Oregon at least, it is actually phrased as "Self Defense," rather than Home Defense. These two have huge differences. One refers to property protection. You may not shoot somebody if they are robbing your property unless you can justify a threat to your person or family. That is where self defense comes in. If you feel like your life is at risk, you can then take the step to eliminate that risk. The safest way being through the use of a firearm.

The police are not going to be a big help, because any issue that has your life at stake probably isn't going to last long enough for the police to respond. The police are not going to protect you, but they will clean up the mess afterword. The average mugging (Not a real statistic, but having been mugged, that's a pretty generous amount of time) takes less than a minute, while if you Google "Average police response time in the US," you will get an answer between 5-20 minutes.

If you've ever been in a situation like that, you know by that response time that a criminal could be anywhere from 1 mile (On foot) to 20 miles (By vehicle) away.

 

[EvilPicnic]

I think part of the point of the law is that now, if the police see someone walking down the street carrying a gun they can think, 'Hey, maybe he intends to shoot someone with it' and proceed with the proper course of action, rather than having to second guess whether someone is a criminal or not.

This seems rather sensible to me.

I don't really see how carrying a gun would make you safer anyhow. If you're being mugged the person has the drop on you, and the most likely situation is that they relieve you of your valuables. If they mug you and you're carrying, then the most likely situation seems to me that they relieve you of your valuables and your life.

For another example, I can point to the firearm ban in England. Firearm related crimes dropped... Knife crime and other related fields rose dramatically. Connection? You tell me.

The main difference and benefit is that knives kill people one at a time, whereas uzis kill indiscriminately.

This morning there was an incident near me (I live in London) where a crazy lady stole a knife, injured one person and killed another. Horrific, yes. But if she had had access to a gun...

 

[Kolby Jack]

I don't particularly like open carry laws, because all it does it add a huge amount of tension when a guy with a gun walks into a place. Concealed carry laws not only avoid this, but also decrease crime in the states they are permitted in. Think about it: you wanna rob a place, and you see a guy with a gun. All you know now is who to take out first. With concealed carry, you have no idea who's packing and who's not, and since you're just a petty robber you don't feel like taking that chance.

 

[Agayek]

I'm more or less with the OP on this one. This law seems incredibly silly. The people who are going to commit a crime using a gun almost never carry it openly until the crime is to be committed.

It's not the guy carrying a weapon for all to see that should worry people. It's the guy with the weapon he doesn't let anyone see that's the problem.

 

[Dreadman75]

I always did think that California was a wee bit backwards thinking. I mean come on, no one besides law enforcement wants or even needs to openly carry firearms.

I honestly fail to see the point in this. Does the government in California really believe that gangbangers carry guns openly on a regular basis? Does anyone here know a single criminal that wants to attract more attention to their criminal activities?
California CHL FAQ stuff [http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html]

This pretty much sums it all up right here. What criminal in their right mind would openly carry a gun around. I'm starting to think that the republicans that want the southern part of Calif. to secede and become the 51st state are absolutely in the right for wanting to do so.

 

[Ghengis John]

California became the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed the ban into law amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

So can I ask a question here? Just what is the point of walking around with an openly displayed yet unloaded weapon? Why do you need to show everyone you have a gun... and what's the point if it's not loaded?

Interesting side point. My brother, while working at blockbuster was robbed with an unloaded gun. Of course maybe some gun expert could tell it wasn't loaded but he had no way of knowing that. The robbers were caught by a plain clothes police man who somehow happened to be outside the building when it happened. What was the result? Even though the guy told my brother and his manager he'd kill them if they didn't fork over the money his weapon brandishing did not count as use of a deadly weapon. He got a chump change sentence. I guess I can sort of see where this law is coming from in that regard, even if that isn't it's main intent it might have helped in that case.

 

[Agayek]

I think part of the point of the law is that now, if the police see someone walking down the street carrying a gun they can think, 'Hey, maybe he intends to shoot someone with it' and proceed with the proper course of action, rather than having to second guess whether someone is a criminal or not.

This seems rather sensible to me.

I don't really see how carrying a gun would make you safer anyhow. If you're being mugged the person has the drop on you, and the most likely situation is that they relieve you of your valuables. If they mug you and you're carrying, then the most likely situation seems to me that they relieve you of your valuables and your life.

In the scenario you describe (which is surprisingly rare, most of the time mugging victims can see it coming a number of seconds before it actually happens, but by then it's usually too late to actually run away), the fact that unless the mugger is incredibly lucky and manages to kill you instantly means he's also going to die is usually a fairly effective method of deterrence. The simple fact of the matter is that unless you get shot in the head or heart, you are almost certainly going to live for several minutes at minimum. If they shoot you, you then have free reign to whip out your gun and pop a few caps right back in them.

Most people who make violence a regular practice know this, and for the most part know that a mugging getting them a grand total of $100 tops isn't generally worth being shot.

That said, having cops determine guilt by who's carrying a weapon openly seems hilariously shortsighted. If I was going to commit a crime, especially a violent one, I'd damn sure have my weapon hidden until right before I needed to use it. It makes no sense to walk down the street blatantly waving a gun around. That would only spook your target and make your job harder. Thus, your criteria fails.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I can?t believe that they are still passing laws based in hoplophobia in the 21st century! What a disgrace! I thought society had advanced beyond such discrimination.

I'm starting to think that the republicans that want the southern part of Calif. to secede and become the 51st state are absolutely in the right for wanting to do so.

Bah, I say, let's get rid of the whole state all togeter. Perhaps sell it back to Mexico! We can make money that way!

 

[Ghengis John]

I can?t believe that they are still passing laws based in hoplophobia in the 21st century! What a disgrace! I thought society had advanced beyond such discrimination.

So can I ask a question here? Just what is the point of walking around with an openly displayed yet unloaded weapon? Why do you need to show everyone you have a gun... and what's the point if it's not loaded?

I'm starting to think that the republicans that want the southern part of Calif. to secede and become the 51st state are absolutely in the right for wanting to do so.

Bah, I say, let's get rid of the whole state all togeter. Perhaps sell it back to Mexico! We can make money that way!

California is the world's fifth largest economy in and of itself, and as one of the states that generates the most wealth it shoulders the brunt of costs for a significant amount of government programs from social security to national defense. I suppose what I'm saying is, that would be an extraordinarily dim maneuver.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I can?t believe that they are still passing laws based in hoplophobia in the 21st century! What a disgrace! I thought society had advanced beyond such discrimination.

So can I ask a question here? Just what is the point of walking around with an openly displayed yet unloaded weapon? Why do you need to show everyone you have a gun... and what's the point if it's not loaded?

I'm starting to think that the republicans that want the southern part of Calif. to secede and become the 51st state are absolutely in the right for wanting to do so.

Bah, I say, let's get rid of the whole state all togeter. Perhaps sell it back to Mexico! We can make money that way!

California is the world's fifth largest economy in and of itself, and as one of the states that generates the most wealth it shoulders the brunt of costs for a significant amount of government programs from social security to national defense. I suppose what I'm saying is, that would be an extraordinarily dim maneuver.

The same is true of the reverse, as is a lot of issues. What's the point of arresting someone who is desplaying an open weapon which isn't loaded. Is that really a good use of time? My guess is no

And I was making a joke about California more than anything else

 

[Dags90]

So can I ask a question here? Just what is the point of walking around with an openly displayed yet unloaded weapon? Why do you need to show everyone you have a gun... and what's the point if it's not loaded?

Also, people seem to be misunderstanding the point of the ban. It isn't for "gangbangers", it's meant to dissuade trigger happy armed civilians from deciding, without standardized training and certification, to shoot at someone breaking the law, possibly in a crowded public place.

 

[Hitokiri_Gensai]

I think its a stupid law. And its unfortunate, as its just another nail in the gun owners coffin for the state of California.

I open carry everyday, in a state where law enforcement recognizes its legal status and respect those who choose to do so.

Its unfortunate how many gun laws California has passed and that they continue to try to pass more. I live just above another state, that does all it can, to keep guns out of honest peoples hands. Damn shame.

 

[Agayek]

So can I ask a question here? Just what is the point of walking around with an openly displayed yet unloaded weapon? Why do you need to show everyone you have a gun... and what's the point if it's not loaded?

Two reasons.

First, so you can strut around like King Shit and have everyone gaze in awe at your glorious manliness. Throw in a few poses and flexes, and you basically win at everything forever.

Second, so you have a really bitching club to beat people with. Like so:

 

[Sentox6]

California has a hard on to stop anyone from having anything to do with defending themselves. Regardless of lethality.

I know the feeling. New Zealand hates self-defense in any capacity. You can't even carry mace here, let alone guns. If someone breaks into your house you better serve light refreshments unless you want the police to come down on you like a ton of bricks. It's just insane.

 

[Croix Sinistre]

I can type endlessly about gun and self-defense laws, but I'm not going to waste my time reiterating some of pro-gun things said here. However, it never fails that when this subject comes up there are quotes like these:

Think about it: you wanna rob a place, and you see a guy with a gun. All you know now is who to take out first. With concealed carry, you have no idea who's packing and who's not, and since you're just a petty robber you don't feel like taking that chance.

I don't really see how carrying a gun would make you safer anyhow. If you're being mugged the person has the drop on you, and the most likely situation is that they relieve you of your valuables. If they mug you and you're carrying, then the most likely situation seems to me that they relieve you of your valuables and your life.

I'm not attacking either of you, just making a point, and in fact, I totally agree with the first quote as far as concealed carry is concerned. My point is that statements like these tend to give the person thinking of committing a crime too much credit. Someone looking to mug you, or rob a gas station you happen to be in is doubtfully deft or crafty enough to identify the armed person (if they even think to look for one) and possibly disarm or kill that person quickly. Sure, its easy for one of us to say "well, if I were to rob someone I would do [insert strategy]" because we are rational, sober, and law-abiding. I mean, have you seen and heard of the stupid things criminals do in the act? Again, too much credit.

However, I guess I give them too much credit as well, that someone desperate enough to commit a criminal act again another person is sane enough to be deterred by that person being armed...


Anyway, I strongly believe that open carry effectively (not totally) deters someone who is thinking of doing something unsavory. Even more so with concealed carry, because, like the first poster above, now that person doesn't have any idea who's armed and who's not.

 

[Vicarious Vangaurd]

If they can show me one instance of a vigilante with an open carry permit harming an innocent bystander within the past 10 years in California, I'll give them a nickel.