DEC. 13, 2011
By DAVE ROBERTS
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
– Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
You still have a few weeks to strap on your Glock while you do your holiday shopping.
The constitutional guarantee of the right of citizens to bear arms has been under assault by California’s Legislature for decades. The latest salvo was AB 144, which makes it illegal to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public. It takes effect January 1, 2012.
Like a lot of bad legislation, AB 144 passed largely along party lines on the last day of the session when the sausage is cranked out by the barrelful. It is aimed at the so-called “right to carry” or “open carry” gun rights activists, who have in effect shoved their guns in the face of liberal legislators by showing up in groups at Starbucks and other places while packing heat or at least unloaded heat. Naturally, the Democrats shoved back.
“AB 144 seeks to close a loophole, which allows individuals to openly carry unloaded guns almost anywhere in the state of California,” said state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, in the Senate floor debate on Sept. 8. “The absence of a prohibition on an unloaded open carry has created a problematic increase of guns carried in public, alarming unsuspecting individuals and causing issues for law enforcement.
“Open carry creates potentially dangerous situations. In most cases when a person is openly carrying a firearm, law enforcement is called to the scene with very few details other than the fact that there’s one or two or three or four individuals carrying what is presumed a loaded weapon. In these tense situations the slightest wrong move by a gun carrier could be construed as threatening to a responding police officer, who may feel compelled to respond in a manner that could be lethal. The practice of open carry creates an unsafe situation for all parts involved: the police officer, the gun-carrying individual as well as all individuals nearby. Additionally, the increase in open carry calls is very taxing to law enforcement agencies.”
Firing Back
Three Republican senators fired back.
“The Second Amendment is not a loophole. OK?” said state Sen. Doug La Malfa, R-Butte. “It’s something put there by people a lot wiser than us over 200 years ago to give people a chance for self protection, to protect their property, their families, themselves. This open carry thing is another infringement, the further narrowing of people’s Second Amendment rights, because it’s not in style for some. There’s no problem with this. Cops have very few incidents of a problem with somebody open carrying. Very few people use it much. But they ought to have that right to do so. It isn’t a problem for anybody except for the gun grabbers that continually chip away and narrow our basic rights.
“If you don’t want them in the cities, don’t have them. Up where I’m from, it’s seen as a basic component of everyday life. You might have your thermos, your lunch box and, yeah, you have a sidearm. Especially if you’re out in the rural area where drug laws aren’t being enforced in California anymore. So why in the world wouldn’t you have this right? I’m sick and tired of it being chipped away. And it certainly causes more and more of the impetus for people to want to divide the state between the urban areas that seem to want to lose all their rights on everything, as opposed to people in rural California that just want to be left the hell alone.”
No Complaints
State Sen. Ted Gaines, who represents much of the Sierra Nevada from Mono to Modoc counties, said, “I’ve never had a complaint from my 12 counties, I’ve never had a constituent call with a complaint on open carry. When we take a look at the challenges we are having in much of the forest land across my district where there’s a lot of illegal growing of marijuana, I have talked to individuals that are fearful of going to certain places within their own county. They see a drip line or irrigation line going down a path that they are too afraid to walk down. This, in my mind, is just over the top, it’s unnecessary.”
It’s not just rural Republicans opposed to further restrictions on gun rights.State Sen. Joel Anderson, who represents part of San Diego, said, “It was just a short time ago when this body was concerned about concealed [carry] permits – ‘that if we can’t see the weapons, then it makes us nervous and how are the police going to respond if they can’t see the weapons?’ The one thing that we know is open carry people who are doing that are abiding by the law. We are sending a clear signal to law enforcement: ‘We have a weapon, it’s not loaded, we are playing by the rules.’ Criminals hide their weapons. Criminals carry their weapons illegally. Don’t turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. The more we chip away at our ability to protect ourselves, it’s undermining our freedoms.”
Law Enforcement Backing
De Leon, who was carrying the bill in the Senate for Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, had the last word.
“If it impacts only law-abiding citizens, then why is all of law enforcement behind this measure,” asked de Leon. “Let’s be very clear, this is not the Wild West. This does not infringe on the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the right to bear arms. How discomforting can it be if you walk into a restaurant, a Starbucks, to Mickey D’s or wherever it is you may go to, and all of a sudden you see someone walking around with a handgun and you can’t discern whether they are a law enforcement agent or undercover, perhaps maybe they are not.
“If you’re a law-abiding citizen, you can buy all of the ammunition you’d like. If you’re a law-abiding citizen, you can buy long guns as well as a handgun. All it says is it makes it a misdemeanor if you carry an unloaded gun openly. This is 2011. It’s nonsensical that we would walk into any public space, any private space and then you see someone with a holster walking around with guns. It just doesn’t make sense whatsoever. This is not a third world country. This is the eighth largest economy in the world. This is the United States of America.”
Fighting Back
Some would argue that restricting gun rights is actually bringing the United States closer to the gun confiscation typical in third world despotic regimes than the country that fired the ‘shot heard ’round the world’ when the British attempted to raid an armory in Concord. And some are fighting back.
Charles Nichols, president of California Right To Carry, has filed a civil rights lawsuit in the Federal Central District Court for California against the ban on open carry of both unloaded and loaded weapons. He intends to serve it on Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Kamala Harris, the City of Redondo Beach, its police department and police chief on Thursday, Dec. 15, which is the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.
Reagan Ban
The lawsuit notes that the ban on unloaded open carry is an extenuation of the ban on loaded open carry enacted by the California Legislature in 1967 in response to Black Panther intimidation tactics. Panthers would show up at the scene of arrests of black suspects in Oakland with loaded firearms to ensure against police brutality.
The Panthers put a scare into state Sen. John Nejedly, who agreed to meet with the family of a Richmond man killed by a deputy sheriff in the course of a burglary. “I met with the family in good faith only to be confronted with an armed group, the Black Panthers,” Nejedly wrote to then-Gov. Ronald Reagan in April 1967. “This group was armed with pistols and shotguns and threatened to obtain ‘justice’ if their demands were not met. Today, this same group is appearing before the County Administration Building similarly armed.”
In response, Oakland Assemblyman Don Mulford introduced AB 1591, banning the open carry of loaded weapons. The Panthers protested the bill by invading the Assembly Chamber carrying loaded pistols, rifles and a sawed-off shotgun. Chaos ensued and legislators dove under their desks. Needless to say, the Mulford bill passed easily and received Reagan’s signature.
Nichols’ lawsuit states that he received a death threat in September and would like to carry a loaded handgun in public for self-defense. The suit argues that he should be allowed to do so, based on the Second Amendment and legal precedent. Nichols expects to lose at the District Court level, but is confident of victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Tags: California Right to Carry, Charles Nichols, Dave Roberts, Doug La Malfa, Gun rights, John Nejedly, Kevin de Leon, Second Amendment
Open carry? Here’s what’s next:
Police investigating a Mississippi home invasion have broken up what they say is a paramilitary group that trained its members in “hand to hand combat skills, paramilitary training and scriptures.”
Officers with the Gautier Police department were already familiar with the self-styled vigilante group, dubbed “The Savior Unit” or “Tactical Search Unit,” when they took a call about a home invasion and kidnapping on Dec. 6.
Minutes after receiving the alert, police apprehended the group’s alleged “commander,” 32-year-old Michael Shaun Schaffran, and its “captain,” 18-year-old Cody Jacob Rogers. The pair are accused of kicking in the door of a residence while wearing bullet-proof vests and military clothing, dragging out three victims including a 70-year-old man, and assaulting them, according to police press release published on the department’s Facebook page.
Shaffran and Rogers were each hit with three charges of kidnapping and burglary of an occupied residence.
Officers became aware of “The Savior Unit” as they investigated a recent surge in burglaries in south Gautier, though the group has not been formally linked to the crimes, police told The Sun Herald.
The two suspects are believed to have lead a group of four teens. They allegedly trained them in combat skills and religion in a wooded area for the past six weeks.
An operation manual recovered by police describes the group as more of a community service organization than a criminal organization, at least according to an excerpt published by The Mississippi Press:
T.S.U. is a tactical search team that is faith based. Our purpose is to promote Christ. Obtain offenders who are a danger to society, do community service work for churches and halfway houses, and do security for different functions. Our training is a recon and infiltration, apprehension and retrieval. All team members are taught hand to hand combat skills, para military training and scriptures. [SIC]
Local investigators have reportedly contacted the FBI to determine whether the group is a larger threat.
“You can use your imagination and speculate where was this headed, what could have happened, what might have happened,” Gautier Police Captain Kenny McMellon told The Mississippi Press.
I’m not sure what the above rant eas about but, now that we can no longer carry unloaded or loades firearms in public and most of us cannot obtain a “may issue” CCW, how will the common man protect himself? Good luck with your lawsuit.
Donations to the lawsuit can be made here -> http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
“I’m not sure what the above rant eas about but, now that we can no longer carry unloaded or loades firearms in public and most of us cannot obtain a “may issue” CCW, how will the common man protect himself?”
The common man will protect himself regardless of whether the oligarchs allow it or not. Self-survival is man’s strongest instinct.
Thank you for what you are doing Charles!
What we are seeing in California in terms of gun control is a result of the Progressive base becoming more conservative as it ages. Throughout the rest of the nation, youthful vibrant progressives have embraced the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Over 35 states now mandate “shall issue” for carrying of concealed weapons. That is, if you are over 21, not a convicted felon, not mentally adjudicated and had training — you cannot be denied a license to carry a concealed weapon.
I think that as California returns to its progressive roots and embraces change instead of fearing it, cooler heads will prevail and the failed policies of gun control will be reversed.
Firing Back
“The Second Amendment is not a loophole. OK?” said state Sen. Doug La Malfa, R-Butte. “It’s something put there by people a lot wiser than us over 200 years ago to give people a chance for self protection, to protect their property, their families, themselves.
Damn right it’s not a loop hole.
More guns = Less crime…………….easy to remember.
I’m not sure what the above rant eas about but
Steve from sactown is a died in the wool liberal, anything that is left wing and liberal- like anti gun measures-he is all for.
In response, Oakland Assemblyman Don Mulford introduced AB 1591, banning the open carry of loaded weapons. The Panthers protested the bill by invading the Assembly Chamber carrying loaded pistols, rifles and a sawed-off shotgun. Chaos ensued and legislators dove under their desks. Needless to say, the Mulford bill passed easily and received Reagan’s signature.
LOL…I remember this so clearly-funny as hell….Black Panters walking the halls of the State Capitol fully amed with shotguns!
Nichols expects to lose at the District Court level, but is confident of victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
He has NO CHANCE of winning at the 9th. None whatsoever. The 9th is the most liberal appeals court in the nation and will not touch this with a 10 foot pole. If he loses in District Court he is done.
Want cold sweats as you hear glass breaking in the downstairs backdoor at 2:30 A.M.
Our forefathers: KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY!!!!”
Remeber: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
In response to “Rex the Wonder Dog’s” comment about losing before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals he should trade in his crystal ball. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already decided the question of whether or not the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to keep a loaded firearm in one’s home. The 9th has decided that the US Supreme Court meant what it said in the Heller decision, the Second Amendment as defined by the High Court applies outside of one’s home as well.
Judges can’t issue injunctions against unconstitutional laws. Someone has to ask and one asks by filing a Federal lawsuit, which has been done.
Keep an eye on this case. The defendants are going to pull every procedural trick in the book to get this case dismissed before the judge can even decide on the question. They know the District Court judge has no choice but to issue the injunction or be overturned on appeal.
Either way, California’s ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public, particularly a handgun, is headed for the trash-bin.
Personally I am a big fan of the 2nd amendment and I think every household should own a firearm. And I believe that anyone who has a clean criminal history, no history of violence, no history of mental illness and has successfully completed a certified firearms safety course – should automatically qualify for a CCW and not require the blessings of the local sheriff.
However, I don’t quite understand the value of people walking around in public with unloaded metal hogs strapped to their hips. It just makes people nervous. Oh, I know the message about how it supports our constitution and makes society safer. But guns freak the average citizen out. And we are not going to return to the wild west in 2011. So why try to revisit the 1800′s again?
It has been proven in certain jurisdictions that the crime rate goes down when CCW rules are relaxed and people are allowed to carry concealed weapons. A bank robber will think long and hard about knocking off a bank in a community that allows qualified citizens to pack heat. That’s what we need to focus on. The ‘open carry’ controversy is a worthless battle in my opinion.
I am open to changing my mind with a good counterargument.
Beelezebub, If you ever go to Arizona, you’ll see that open carry is pretty commonplace. No one greaks out because they are used to seeing it, even in Phoenix and Tucson. I think the same thing would happen here. Initially, you may have some concerned citizens but, eventually, it would become the norm. I am all for open carry and CCW permits issued as shall-issue. Face it, a criminal won’t carry openly and he isn’t going to bother getting a CCW (even if he could)
I understand your point, keep da peace. But ‘open carry’ is intimidating to the average CA citizen – and I just don’t think that the average citizen should be forced to acclimate to it. I think it would intimidate certain people to give priority treatment to those with a show of guns – and it would alter the balance in society. Guns = Power in America. And many would use it to their advantage.
Like I said – a more relaxed CCW policy is all we need. When criminals know that others around them are carrying concealed they would be much less apt to commit robberies or acts of violence against others. That’s all I’m looking for.
“Open carry” proves nothing. For some it’s just a power rush. And it shows the crook who is carrying and who isn’t carrying. The element of surprise is much more effective in maintaining a crime free society. As soon as a couple armed robbers were gunned down by CCW’ers the crime rate would fall significantly. That’s all I want.
Charles Nichols says:
December 14, 2011 at 1:58 pm
In response to “Rex the Wonder Dog’s” comment about losing before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals he should trade in his crystal ball. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already decided the question of whether or not the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to keep a loaded firearm in one’s home. The 9th has decided that the US Supreme Court meant what it said in the Heller decision, the Second Amendment as defined by the High Court applies outside of one’s home as well.
Charles, you’re entitled to your opinion. But the 9th is not going to ovverturn the trial court, so if you lose at the trial court you’re done IMO.
For the record, I am very pro 2nd Am and pro gun. I think everyone should have the right to carry a weapon anywhere they want for self defense-fully loaded weapon.
BTW, keep da peace, I’ve spent a decent amount of time in the Phoenix/Scottsdale/Glendale area and I don’t recall seeing citizens with holstered open weapons. Maybe that happens in the rural areas of Arizona – but not in the urban areas in my experience.
I just want to know why the ‘open carry’ option is so important to some people. Wouldn’t it be better to fight for laws that allow CCW permits for a larger segment of the population? The local sheriff certainly shouldn’t control who gets one. As long as the applicant has a history clean of felonies, crimes of violence, serious mental illness and completes an approved gun safety course – I think it should be automatic. Would there be gun accidents as a result? Sure. But that would be offset by the reduction in armed robberies and violent crimes against the public. I bet the miscreant who shot up all those people in Seal Beach would have thought twice before committing his heinous acts if we had more relaxed CCW regs. The advantages would heavily outweigh the disadvantages. But those in authority refuse to give up control. They love the thrill of being able to tell others what to do – even if it makes no sense.
From Scalia’s own hand in Heller:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou- tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Heller won’t have any effect at all on our California prohibition against carrying loaded or unloaded guns, concealed or openly, in public. This will never even make it to an En Banc hearing at the 9th Circuit.
Rex the Wonder Dog doesn’t seem to understand how the Federal Courts work. I filed this lawsuit planning for the scenario that I would lose at the District Court level. Lawsuits of this type are won or lost on appeal and this one is no exception.
I wish folks who don’t know orbiter dicta from their own dicta would refrain from predicting what a court will or will not do.
SkippingDog says: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou- tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
So under these laws how is person supposed to transport his weapon in public?
Beelzebub says: “Personally I am a big fan of the 2nd amendment and I think every household should own a firearm. And I believe that anyone who has a clean criminal history, no history of violence, no history of mental illness….”
and doesn’t believe in the Bible? Our second amendment right came from the fact the particular protestant sects were not allowed to have weapons.
David H said:
“and doesn’t believe in the Bible? Our second amendment right came from the fact the particular protestant sects were not allowed to have weapons”
Who said that I don’t believe in the bible? Please show us a proof source. Otherwise just stick to the topic of discussion and stop making things up as you go along about what other posters believe or disbelieve.
This will never even make it to an En Banc hearing at the 9th Circuit.
Considering less than 1% make it back to an en banc review that is the expected result. But who cares about en banc review??? Even if you have it the outcome is not likely to change.
Rex the Wonder Dog doesn’t seem to understand how the Federal Courts work. I filed this lawsuit planning for the scenario that I would lose at the District Court level. Lawsuits of this type are won or lost on appeal and this one is no exception.
The one who doesn’t know how the courts work is you Charles, your complaint proves it.
And like I said, you’re not going to have the 9th overturn the trial court-so you better hope you win at the trial court. And YES, cases are 90% won and lost at the trial court level. Less than 20% of all cases are even reviewed on appeal and maybe 10% of those are overturned -do the math Charles. You better hpe and pray you have a good case in the trial court.
In fact you better hope and pray you can survive a 12(b)(6) motion.
The 2nd Amendment ensures everyone’s right to DEFEND ourselves. The criminals will always have all the guns they need. Also, it is our police who are blowing people’s head’s off at the drop of a hat.
Let’s call this what is is: Our government is setting things up so that, whatever we do, we are breaking the law.
RESIST!
History of gun control in the United Kingdom
The Bill of Rights restated the ancient rights of the people to have arms by reinstating the right of Protestants to have arms after they had been illegally disarmed by James II. The bill follows closely the Declaration of Rights made in Parliament in February 1689.[14]
“Whereas the late King James the Second, by the Assistance of divers evil Counsellors, Judges, and Ministers, employed by Him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion, and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom..(b)y assuming and exercising a Power of dispensing with and suspending of Laws, and the Execution of Laws, without Consent of Parliament….(b)y causing several good Subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same Time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to Law…(a)ll which are utterly and directly contrary to the known Laws and Statutes and Freedom of this Realm…..”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
Beelzebub says:
“However, I don’t quite understand the value of people walking around in
public with unloaded metal hogs strapped to their hips. It just makes
people nervous. Oh, I know the message about how it supports our
constitution and makes society safer. But guns freak the average citizen
out. And we are not going to return to the wild west in 2011. So why try
to revisit the 1800′s again?
I am open to changing my mind with a good counterargument.”
If someone just wishes to conform or prefers to exercise their rights at the convenience of others… well, that’s their right too. No offense meant, just saying, if you don’t exercise and defend your rights were they worth having in the first place? Were they never worth the lives of our fellow citizens who sacrificed for us? If we don’t act to defend what rights we have and reclaim what we’ve lost, what are we left with? Certainly less than what was intended taken from us through legislation, remnants of what we previously had. Where does it end? Does it set precedence to remove or alter other rights once someone feels certain aspects of a right no longer apply?
Some may believe the 2nd is antiquated in whole or in part and irrelevant in our “civilized” society. Without arguing the civility of our society in its current state, I don’t see it that way. The 2nd as well as all of our rights are just as relevant today as when they were laid out. The Constitution is meant to be timeless, protecting the rights of the citizens into the future from tyranny and injustice. I think we can agree that tyranny and injustice haven’t faded or become obsolete with the passage of time, so why should our rights or ability to protect ourselves? Once a government has become tyrannical and no longer operates according to the will of the people what recourse is there for citizens? Our founding fathers and countrymen of that age certainly knew.
The point of open carry in my view is this: citizens who exist in a subservient manner give no pause to anyone including a government. Those citizens who exercise the second by open carrying not only validate their rights, but a weapon displayed is a deterrent to anyone… once again for emphasis, anyone, who would infringe upon a citizen.
The argument that CC is a better solution or option doesn’t make sense to me when I consider that once a concealed carrier has reason to reveal his weapon, an engagement is eminent or already occurring, whereas a displayed weapon may have given an aggressor pause. In the case of CC there is no visible deterrent. But the most persuasive argument for open carry would be: because the constitution recognizes the right of citizens to bare arms.
Hope this helps
@Joseph, Beautifully said. The right to bear arms wasn’t just to protect ourselves from criminals, but from the government as well. Too many have forgotten this, too many have become complacent and accepted the stripping away of our freedoms in exchange for the conveniences of our society.
@Beelzebub, I am from Phoenix, and everytime I go home, I open carry. In rural and urban environments. And there is no gawking or discomfort from others, in fact, most ask what I’m carrying. Some do ask why and I tell them, “I have a wife and three children that have put their trust in me to protect and care for them.”
The supreme law of the land is not Titles 1 – 49. It is the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States was elevated above politics, mankind, and supreme leaders by declaring that the rights enumerated in the Constitution were given by God. In a Christian nation of the 1700’s this was looked at as the best way of keeping the rights from being taken away.
Unfortunately this has led to an attack on the Constitution in the 1900’s by people that do not believe in God. These people have done everything in their power to separate God from the country. They have done this well. With God separated from the Constitution it is now just a piece of paper. All rights now come from politicos; they can remove the rights at will without fear of retribution from God. We used to “hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights … – That to secure these Rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent oft the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, …” quoted from the Declaration of Independence.
What would the Holy Bible be if we separated God from it? It is the only other document that we hold as secrete as the Constitution. If we did so what would it mean to swear on the bible? Especially without fear of retribution, it would then be no different than swearing to tell the truth on “Tom Sawyer” or the Readers Digest.
The Democrat party realized this at the very last minute of their convention and against the will of their members snuck it back in. It now comes down to trusting God to protect your second amendment right or the Democrats.
We have faced a similar question in our history. It came down to trusting the King of England to protect out rights or trusting in God. When you are pondering this question ask yourself; why would any government want to take away a weapon from a non criminal, law abiding, peaceful and God fearing Christian and at the same time allow a felon, criminal, gangster to roam the streets at will. This is happening today in Chicago, where any and all guns are forbidden to law abiding citizens. Yet 300 law abiding citizens have been executed by criminals who are the only group outside the police allowed to carry in the city.
The entire resources of the Government were brought to bear on one non US citizen criminal in a foreign country. Yet this same Government will not spend one dime to hunt down the criminals in Chicago that are killing at will. They spend millions to confiscate law abiding citizen’s guns including the murder of hundreds just to gain statistical support for their dirty deed.
My recommendation, read the Declaration of Independence, compare what we have and where we are going and then on November 11th, cast your vote. On January 1st you will live or die with a clear conscious.