Quote of the Day: Close the Open Carry Loophole Edition

“If you see somebody walking around a mall or main street with a shotgun, it’s pretty intimidating. It’s unnecessary, and it is just going to lead to trouble . . . Sooner or later, somebody’s going to get hurt.” - Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, California Assembly OKs measure to ban carrying unloaded rifles in public, sacbee.com

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

49 Responses to Quote of the Day: Close the Open Carry Loophole Edition

  1. Only a lunatic would even want to carry an unloaded rifle in public. Are you defending the right to be an lunatic?

    • avataroutdoorrat says:

      Although not very wise, It’s the slippery slope of law making that people like yourself would like to see lawfull gun owners on… :)

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      That’s the beauty of The Bill of Rights. It supports everyone’s rights, everywhere. Even yours. It doesn’t make subjective judgements based on emotion and irrationality. You think it lunacy to want to carry an unloaded rifle in public, and therefore think it should be disallowed. I think it lunacy to continue to allow you to spout your prattle, especially since you don’t even live here and don’t have a horse in this race, and I think it should be disallowed.

      The Bill of Rights, luckily, holds that we’re both wrong, and protects us from each others subjective, emotion-based ideas.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        The Bill of Rights, luckily, holds that we’re both wrong, and protects us from each others subjective, emotion-based ideas.

        Actually it doesn’t protect Mikey because A) he’s not a US citizen and B) he is not currently in the country.

    • avatarMilsurp collector says:

      “Only a lunatic would even want to carry an unloaded rifle in public. Are you defending the right to be an lunatic?”

      You understand that that’s just your opinion, right? Sheesh, why do anti-gun people always feel as if their opinions carry some kind of weight, as if their emotionally driven diatribes are justifiable facts? Oh wait, they aren’t. None of them are.
      more law-abiding citizens of all ages, race, and gender who’ve never touched a gun in their life in this country are buying them now. It doesn’t take a genius to call a local gun shop and ask the manager how sales are doing.

      • My opinion must carry some weight otherwise why would you feel the need to disparage it? Open carry is detrimental to your cause. You should be the first one to criticize it.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “Open carry is detrimental to your cause.” —– Not really. Your side seeks to get people used to the idea of not everyone having weapons. Our side seeks to get people used to the idea of normal folks having weapons. Same coin; different sides.

        • No, your side is the one trying to habituate people to that most
          unnatural state of affairs. People are already used to not seeing
          guns.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      Only a lunatic would want to live in California.

      Sane Californians would love to carry loaded handguns, but the crazy ones banned the option to openly do so and have made the option to do so concealed nigh well impossible in many parts of the state. The last remaining option is open carry of long guns. If the crazies don’t want to see guns, then pass shall issue.

    • avatarJay says:

      Anthony Portantino had put up a bill to ban (because of a so called “loophole,” he stated) open carrying of unloaded concealable firearms, even though there was already a law infringing the right to carry a loaded one. So people (few) started to carry long guns in protest and some did for protection. Is it even possible to protect yourself with an unloaded long gun considering the time it takes to load and the conspicuous size!? So these people are not “lunatics” because they have been forced to carry long guns by the government. On top of that there is a law that bans removable magazines from long guns.

      So let’s make it clear:

      California’s government doesn’t like black people having guns in public (or at all). So they make a law banning open carrying loaded guns in public without government permission. As there is already a law banning conceal carrying of arms.

      California then realizes more people (non black) are taking responsibility for their protection by carrying unloaded handguns (after practicing loading under stress). They realize they don’t like anyone having guns at all and write a bill (Anthony Portantino’s bill) to close a “loophole”. Thereby infringing the right to carry a gun in public even further. Specifically an unloaded or loaded concealable one, because they can’t overtly ban the right to bear arms.

      California then realizes that people have the audacity to carry long guns (again they are unloaded), since they had their right to carry a handgun “removed”. So they decide they will remove the right to bear fire(arms) in public completely. California puts up a bill (Anthony Portantino’s new bill) to remove the right to bear firearms by non government residents because of a “loophole”.

      When this bill passes the only way you can bear a firearm is if you ask, the very government that took it away, for permission and after giving them money. By they way, they do not give out permission to non rich people, non friends or non family members.

      So it has been an incremental removal of the right to self defense and the right to arms in the Republic of California. This is why you never let ONE law pass that infringes ANY right because there will be more following.

    • avatar"Dr."Dave says:

      I will defend peoples rights to do what ever they please until my last dying breath and until my last drop of blood, thank you very much.

    • avatarJWhite says:

      You should try not projecting your own intentions unto others. I can happily, safely, and more than gladly carry my long gun in public. I think the only aspect of which is lunatic is the unloaded part. I dont plan on robbing a place. I dont plan on hurting someone. I hope for the best. Sure it’s going to cause to trouble with the sheep, but I would be well within my LEGAL right to do so. How many open carriers have committed a violent crime against the innocent and unarmed? None that I know of.

      Has anyone asked if MikeB is hired TTAG troll?
      This guy seems to chime in with text book arguments, factually bankrupt statements, and various logical fallacies. So much so that it’s perfect for a blog like this. Honestly, I think the best policy with this Mike guy is to just ignore him. No one gives a shit what he says, and we all 100% disagree with him. He’s to obvious about being a troll to not be cause for participation around here.

    • avatarSilver says:

      The 1st Amendment protects your right to be a lunatic. Your point?

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      They open carry rifles (full-auto’s at that) in Switzerland everyday. They are civilized, well-behaved, and so the rifles threaten no one. But let’s get this right, Michael Bonomo: They are lunatics and you are not? Laugh. Sure, the Swiss are lunatics and you, hiding out in Italy, are just a normal fellow, not, I say not… a former burglar, addict, or absquatulated American tool…. I’d love to hear the Swiss view on that one. And, of course we defend the right to be a lunatic, so long as you agree to treatment. No one asks to be a lunatic. You didn’t ask to be one, did you?

      • avatarmikeb says:

        “Every day” in Switzerland? Hahaha

        You may call me Mr. Mikeb.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          What is funny about the carrying of rifles openly to military training in Switzerland? Why “Mr.” Mikeb?

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Mikeb: You’ll find that everyday, without a space between “every” and “day,” means “as a commonplace. Get a dictionary.

    • avatarBryan says:

      Disregarding your absolutely unjustified and unsupported assertion that the person is a “lunatic”, I’m absolutely for the defense of a person’s rights.

  2. avatarRalph says:

    The scariest thing in California is its government.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      That’s the second scariest thing. The scariest thing is that they’ve assembled enough morons in one place to keep voting for the established California government.

  3. avatarMike S says:

    Ahh California. Where freedom is only available through “loopholes”, and the state works tirelessly to close them all.

  4. avatarRobert says:

    Unfortunately for Mr. Portantino, one Cali supreme court case ruled that there always has to be some form of legal carry open to the general population in California. Making long arm OC illegal might pave the way for shall-issue concealed carry.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      California Supreme Court case? No, I don’t think so. But there have been multiple federal trial court decisions that have concluded that as long as there is a way to carry weapons (even unloaded ones) in some fashion, the CCW laws pass intermediate scrutiny. But you are right in this sense–Portantino’s ban of unloaded open carry (loaded open carry banned decades ago) closed the “loophole” the federal decisions relied upon for affirming “may issue” (or no issue) discretion decisions by California sheriffs. Now, unless you are in a rural county and/or hunting (or one of the 11 other exemptions like being in a parade), the only way to bear handguns in this state is with a CCW. I am still trying to figure out the threat posed by an unloaded rifle; I have yet to hear of anyone being killed by an empty firearm. But that is a good thing in the sense that Portantino and his buddies are trying very hard to ban the carrying of handguns, which puts him in direct conflict with the inferences of Heller and McDonald of the existence of a right to bear arms outside the home and not within “sensitive areas.” We anticipate that when Nordyke is finally decided (if ever)(it hs been sent to mediation), the cases that are on hold in trial courts and in the Ninth Circuit will generate a great deal of change in the CCW law.

      • avatarJay says:

        You are delusional. I say that in the nicest way.

        The Supreme Court of the US has no jurisdiction unless it is unconstitutional. In this case it is. However, the federal government hates the constitution and wants it done away with. We see that every year, in every presidency. The ruling that was given in Heller and McDonald was further proof of this. It “strengthened” the federal governments power over the states and introduces “reasonable regulations” arguments / laws. In other words, it allows California to do what it does with the blessing from the federal government.

        So the only way Californians can restore their rights is to do it locally by electing (or running for office) different people and then suing every damn person in the room (so to speak).

        Waiting years or decades to get a favorable decision on a case is stupid. You have scrutiny, interpretation and precedence on top of that. In plain English, you will have BS on top of BS after every court case. That is how the court system works. They don’t take a case for what it is, they have to pile up prior negative decisions, they also prolong the ruling for as long as they can.

        As I said, go ahead sue everyone, but you should focus on changing the public servants by either electing or running for office. It is easier and faster than battling court cases with biased judges who don’t stay within their purview and the federal government’s tentacles.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          The Second Amendment is a constitutional issue, so of course the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction–Heller and McDonald demonstrates that in no uncertain terms. On top of that, these cases recognize that it is a personalright that isenforceable against the states; the latter being a good thing because state courts had almost unanimously agreed that it did not. Yes, the federal courts of appeal are trying to limit that right to the home, prinicipally on the basis that the Supreme Court did not “unambiguously” extend the right to “bear” outside the home. But there is a developing line of cases recognizing the fallacy of that line of reasoning. And isn’t your suggestion that we “sue everyone in the room” to protect gun rights exactly the opposite of your contention that the court system cannot be depended upon in the foreseeable future? What good is suing if you know you are going to lose. Trial courts here do not change the law–it takes an appellate court, more preferably the Ninth Circuit or the USCOTUS, to eliminate restrictive legislation.
          Change the law in the voting booth? I think not. The democrats who are pushing restrictions have nearly a supermajority in both houses of the state legislature, leaving the republicans just enough votes in many cases to keep anything constructive being accomplished in the last decade. With democratic majorities in all of the major urban areas, and hence a majority on a state-wide basis, the republican majorities in the southern and central valley districts don’t have a chance.

      • avatarJay says:

        @Mark N.

        If you read my comment again you would see I didn’t contradict myself.

        I said if you live in California you should run for public office. Whatever position you can get elected. If not, then make a real attempt to get someone who isn’t corrupt elected. Then sue the government. There is no reason you can’t do that at the same time.

        Californians have wasted decades trying to go through the courts first. Rationalizing to themselves that they will eventually get a favorable decision. Years later, most likely decades, you may get shall issue CCW permission slips only. But that would be a failure in the end for many reasons.

        Elections happen faster than court cases. You may poo poo the idea of trying through the most logical way, but it is they only way to stop bills from being introduced and voted on before they become law. Otherwise you are stuck trying to overturn infringements in court. We know the courts’ strategy is to prolong cases so they do not have to address it. Which in turn gives more time for elected servants to stay in office.

        If you looked at the time it takes to get a decision in court on human rights, it is likely the same amount of time those who wrote the bill are in office. The longer they are in office the more opportunity they have to pass more bills.

        Have you seen how many people went to hear Ron Paul speak in California at his various campaign stops? Something like over 22,000! So there are a lot of people who favor human rights in California and would like to restore them. Yes they are young but that is a good thing.

        So why fight in court all your life when you should be changing the culture of California? None of these things are easy but one is definitely more beneficial and will help with the other.

    • avatarJWhite says:

      That is exactly what we want. Let em ban UOC pistols/long guns. It’s just one step closer to Shall Issue.

  5. avatarDavid W. says:

    “If you see somebody walking around a mall or main street with a shotgun, it’s pretty intimidating. It’s unnecessary, and it is just going to lead to trouble . . . Sooner or later, somebody’s going to get hurt” . . . even if, especially if, that person is a cop.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      They could use that some bogus argument to ban guys who work out a lot. “It’s pretty intimidating to see a person with such large muscles. It’s unnecessary, and it is just going to lead to trouble…Sooner or later, somebody’s going to get hurt”.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Smart people are scary, too. Which is why they’re not allowed in the California Assembly.

        • avatarJay says:

          Let’s be real. There are many smart people in California’s government. They know they can’t remove rights outright. So they do it through arguments of public safety, general welfare and closing so called loopholes.

          It takes a more intelligent person to fool the majority. Especially when you are taking their rights away. Fooling people into giving you money is one thing, but to fool them into giving up their rights in a country that was created with human rights as the forefront is harder.

          Even the not so smart know they have rights. They may not know exactly but they have a general concept. They are just to lazy and to kind to defend them effectively if they choose to at all.

          We should remember that a smart person takes the wheel rather than attempting to drive from the backseat.

        • avatarCommenter says:

          Why does Ralph never have his flames deleted? I don’t think I’ve seen a more pompous, tedious troll on this board and yet he has some kind of immunity.

          The terrible, ignorant, scary state of CA gives out far more money to the feds every year than they take in – if you’re going to bash CA at least make sure you tell us which state you reside in so we know if you have a shred of credibility or not. For people who live in CA and pay for a lot of flyoverville gun nuts to have food and welfare it gets rather boring to hear about what an awful place this is, especially when they have zero actual insight as to the realities of living here.

          Just because CA doesn’t allow you to live out your dreams of being Rambo on the street with open carry of SAM’s and howitzers doesn’t make it bad. Perhaps the people here actually WANT it like that? I know you only support choice if the choice is the same as yours, but at least think about that possibility.

          The ultimate reality is that the USA is a VERY large and VERY diverse place. What works in flyoverville, eg full gun rights, is a recipe for disaster in South Central. Sorry if that reality offends you, but it’s the truth. I really don’t think the founding fathers had the ghettos of LA in mind when they wrote the constitution, do you? The fact that there have been many amendments to the constitution since it was written tells us all we need to know about its infallibility. It is not a perfect document. At various times in history it has not reflected the current state, and desires, of society. According to most people in CA now is one of those times. You may (do) disagree, but it doesn’t make us fruits and nuts because we want to take a different path.

          If you really don’t like CA as much as you say then begin lobbying to remove us from the US – I’ll vote for taking back our ports, our farms, our dairies, our intellectuals, our weather, our industry, our military and all the rest. I don’t think middle America is ready to live like the Amish though, are they? So sadly that will never happen.

        • avatarJay says:

          @Commenter

          How old are you? Do you still live in (fantasy ) the California of decades ago? Do you live in gang neighborhoods or the suburbs?

          I know a lot about California and I tell you that it is very dangerous as a whole. The police can’t even protect people that are in eyesights range. Plus it isn’t even their job! It is their job to respond to calls for help, but until they arrive it isn’t their responsibility for what happens to you.

          Why should only the government workers have rights? Why do the innocent people of bad neighborhoods not have their rights?

          Do you remember not to long ago the man who was standing on the street shooting at passing cars in LA. What about that serial killer (who was a Marine, I think) who stabbed to death the homeless? What about those Chinese exchange students that were murdered in their car near USC? What about the kid who killed people at his church school? None of the those people or people around the situation could do anything to stop them. The police couldn’t make it time to save everyone.

          You and I should be able to carry the most effective tool of modern age to defend ourselves and the innocent – if we happen to be near. It is the most humane thing to do. Don’t disallow the weak and elderly from being capable of defending themselves when they are out in the “wild”.

          I haven’t seen anything change for the better in California since they passed laws banning the right to arms.

          The founders had to defend themselves from a corrupt empire’s military. They had to defend their homes, families and neighbors against the legalized criminals of Britain. So they know full well about the right to arms and why they should make it apparent to following generations by literally writing it down for them.

          Your arguments remind me of those from openly socialist professors of public schools. Those people are obviously anti human rights, anti liberty, anti individualism, anti America.

  6. avatarST says:

    “Only a lunatic would pass a law against display of an inanimate object.”

  7. avatarMatt Gregg says:

    Only a lunatic would happily erode our freedoms.

  8. avatarRalph says:

    Jay, I do not believe that “smart” is a synonym for “clever, sneaky and vicious.” So no, I do not agree that there are a lot of smart people in the Cal Assembly. There are a lot of manipulative scumbags who are able to take advantage of an electorate with a collective IQ just below room temperature, but that’s not the same as being smart.

    • disagree with Ralph = nasty scumbag

      • avatarCommenter says:

        Ain’t that the truth. Giving somebody with an ego that large immunity from having his many flames deleted is the worst thing about this site.

      • avatarRalph says:

        mikey, I don’t think you’re nasty.

    • avatarCommenter says:

      I live in CA Ralph, so along with my sub room temperature IQ can you tell me if that makes me a fruit, with all the homophobia that implies, or just a nut?

      I thank you in advance for your tireless service as the world’s arbiter.

      • avatarRalph says:

        California being the home of fruits and nuts is a direct quote from your former governor, Pat Brown, father of your current governor, Moonbeam Brown.

        Thank you for being everything I’ve come to expect from the California education system.

  9. avatarTom says:

    Only a lunatic would even want to carry an unloaded rifle in public. Shotguns?
    Gee…a lot of shooting ranges are public places.
    So now how are we defining what is a “public place”to have or not have a gun?
    Farm?
    My driveway?
    Sidewalk in front of my house?
    Government land used for hunting about a lake?
    Kids used to bring rifles to my school, notably the rifle team.

  10. avatarSilver says:

    I couldn’t give two shits what makes quivering little sheep uncomfortable. They don’t like it, they can move to the UK where their self-imposed chains are more widely shared.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.