During the second weekend of October 2011 democratic Governor of California, Jerry Brown, signed into law (AB144) the ban on “Open Carry,” the right of law abiding citizens to carry an “exposed” hand gun (provided the gun is not loaded). As of Jan 1st, 2012 it will be a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in public. The consequences of doing so could mean spending up to a year in prison or potentially being fined $1,000. The reasoning for the ban: the police chiefs throughout the state were not comfortable with “Open Carry.” Quoting the president of the California Police Chiefs Association, David Maggard Jr. (above, right), “the bill will help assure that felons and gang members cannot openly carry an unloaded gun with impunity.” Really, Mr. Maggard?
Has logic and reason completely flew the coop? I don’t believe I have ever heard of gang members “openly carrying,” let alone felons targeting themselves by carrying an exposed weapon. Shouldn’t the law specifically target the gang members and felons….and aren’t there already laws that prohibit felons from owning guns? Come now, Mr. Maggard, since when have “Open Carry” gang members and “Open Carry” felons ever been a problem for California? It’s completely backward logic like this that has been eroding the rights (and threatening the safety) of the average law-abiding citizen.
With explanations of wasted resources to investigate a few anti-gun and overly frantic people’s calls to their departments over law-abiding citizens legally carrying handguns, the police chiefs convinced Gov. Brown to make life easier for them, at the expense of the masses.
Today, law enforcement has virtually made it impossible for law-abiding citizens to legally acquire a concealed carry permit (CCW) for protection in the state of California because they (the police) can’t “see” the weapon and thereby wanted to eliminate that concern. Now, they’re not comfortable seeing “anyone” with a side weapon at all because they’re unsure if the weapon is loaded or not. So, soon another right of self-protection will be stripped from the American people.
It’s incomprehensible (and not logical) to suggest that the illegitimate concern of 9, 10,000 or 100,000 policemen should impose on the rights, safety and concern of virtually 34 MILLION citizens of the State of California. Considering the fact that statistics show police do not normally prevent crime but basically serve to pick up the pieces after a crime has concluded. Moreover, statistics also show that the states which have less gun control also have less crime.
Statements such as “the streets will be safer for law enforcement and families,” made by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, who authored the bill, has no merit when you factor in the logic: criminals are criminals because they do not follow the law. So, logically how is this ban going to make it any safer for the community?
The irony is this law will make the streets less safe since the only ones who will abide by the law are the law-abiding citizens, not the gang-bangers. Further, the criminals will now be given a free hand in knowing whoever they choose to victimize will most likely not be carrying any protection, concealed or otherwise.
Assemblyman Portantino continued, stating “Main Street California is not the Old West, and you don’t need a gun to buy a cheeseburger.” That’s right, Mr. Portantino, it’s not the Old West, it’s worse. Just today, in sunny Southern California, a lone deranged gunman shot-up a hair salon, killing eight people and critically wounding one. Where were the police today? And you want to strip the people of their right to self defense?
Logic and reason is simply not being displayed when you have people like Brian Malte, local director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, stating “California families will now be able to take their families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante.”
I don’t believe anyone has ever had a problem taking their families to a local park with concerns that a self-appointed “Open Carry” fellow citizen-turned-vigilante might start blazing away. In fact, a first responder citizen armed with a handgun has saved lives and property numerous times. The internet is full of examples.
Even the attempt to assassinate Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords may have possibly been foiled if an armed citizen was by her side. Unfortunately, the only armed citizen at the time, Joe Zamudio, was in a nearby store and arrived too late. But he was still able to assist in subduing the shooter.
Mr. Malte, I submit to you that it is illogical thinking by people such as yourself that contribute to the insanity of all this. Instead of making a case to protect the public from themselves by trampling on their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you should be focusing your energy on the political system that tries to free Jim Brady’s shooter, John Hinckley Jr. Clean up the political idiocy and I assure you there will be less crime. Infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding citizen will not help your case.
When we have people like Gov. Jerry Brown, Brian Malte, David Maggard Jr., and Assemblyman Anthony Portantino dictating gun regulations to the masses, incidents like the one that took place in Killeen, Texas in 1991 are more likely. I’m referring to the “Luby Massacre,” where two dozen innocent people died in a restaurant and another two dozen were wounded, by a lone gunman. All-the-while, a customer obeying local gun laws, had her gun locked (outside) in her car.
For Gov. Brown to deduce that by imposing more self-defense burdens on the average citizen will result in greater safety for them is not logical. In fact, it appears the Governor’s only safety concern was for his police chiefs’, and not for the people.
Logically, I would deduce on average more crime occurs toward the common citizen than does to an armed police officer, yet the officer has priority over their own self-defense, well above the average law-abiding American citizen. Does that make sense?
Despite the officer’s job-risk factor, honestly, how many crimes have been committed by citizen’s practicing their right to “Open Carry?”
In no way am I trying to belittle our law enforcement, but simply presenting my case logically. History and case study indicate that the police cannot prevent crimes from happening nor can they fully protect the people but in actuality, as I stated before, serve to pick up the pieces of any given crime.
Again, I ask has logic flown out the window? Did Gov. Brown at least take into account that 45 of the 50 states (57 if you believe President Obama) allow for some form of “Open Carry” or concealment. How difficult was it to examine what works and doesn’t work in other states and apply the logic.
I guess equality and the rights granted to us by our forefathers in the Second Amendment need only apply to law enforcement who seem to make up the rules as they please in California. Once again the bureaucratic system made up of so few overrides the logic and will of so many.
Sent from my iPad