Top Nav

The Right to Bear Arms – Openly

The Right to Bear Arms - Openly

The Right to Bear Arms - Openly

In California, a bill that will ban the open-carry of an unloaded firearm awaits the Governor’s signature.

Assembly Bill 144 (AB 144) had previously been defeated but came back around after the shooting in Arizona, where congressional representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head by Jared Lee Loughner. Notice that I did not use the word “alleged”, which is namby-pamby and politically correct. I do not think that there is doubts in anyone’s mind that he was the shooter so please do not tell me that I need to use the “alleged” word.

“Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon,” says Anthony Portantino (the California Assemblyman behind the bill), “doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren’t comfortable.”

Conversely, I say “Just because one person is not comfortable with weapons, doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who are comfortable, and who are legally eligible, to carry weapons openly or concealed – loaded or not.”

Despite the fact that crime rates are down nation wide and that there has never been a reported incident of an Open Carrier hurting someone, the California Assemblyman is firm in the belief that the practice of open carry is a public danger and a drain on police resources.

The Right to Bear Arms - Openly

The Right to Bear Arms - Openly

The California Assemblyman also stated something to the effect of “We are not in the Old West.” You are exactly right, Mr. Portantino. The fact is that the “New West” is a far more dangerous place to be even though today’s crime rate for violent crimes has decreased. However, I do not feel that a bad person’s propensity to have and bear arms for nefarious purposes has declined.

Let’s return to the Gifford’s shooting for just a moment. The following was the statement found in a report by NPR:

“At least six people died and at least a dozen were injured in the Saturday morning shooting at aTucson,Ariz., grocery store parking lot, in which the gunman specifically targeted Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords,Pima County,Ariz.Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said. Giffords was shot in the head, and the shooting continued until citizens tackled the suspected gunman.”

Note the, “…until citizens tackled” portion of the statement. In fact, one of the citizens who responded had a permit to carry a firearm, had the weapon drawn, but did not use it.

Also from NPR:

“…Joe Zamudio, a hero in theTucsonincident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer.”

“I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’”

Zamundo also stated, “I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.”

When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he’d had, he answered: “My father raised me around guns … so I’m really comfortable with them. But I’ve never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted.”

Of course, the attention was given to the shooter rather than those who intervened and probably saved a couple of lives.

MSNBC had this twist to say, “We’re enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can’t count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don’t bring them.” (Italics are mine for emphasis).

Perhaps, if more citizens were armed (and I will add ‘and trained’ in the use of those arms) we could count on them the next time some nut job starts shooting. Would having an armed citizen in the crowd have prevented the tragedy? Probably not, but having an armed citizen present may have prevented further and unnecessary slaughter of innocent people.

So how did the police presence help that day? Oh, wait! There was no police presence! Remember, police are under no obligation to protect the individual; they are to protect and serve the public. Congressional representative Gabrielle Giffords status did not warrant police protection and police presence was not requested. Would having an armed and trained police officer present prevented the shooting? Probably not, as these things happen too quickly (remember the Reagan shooting?).

Legislators will react to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting by giving themselves added police protection — that is, covering their own butts while leaving everyone else’s exposed. This point is obvious by Assembly Bill 144 (AB 144). By the way, congressional representative Gabrielle Giffords did have a gun; it was in her purse. Though Giffords supported a ban on semi-automatic weapons in November 2000 and has received a low grades in the “D” range from both the National Rifle Association and lobbying group Gun Owners of America, the three-term congresswoman has been vocal about her support for gun owners’ rights.

The right to defend your self is a “natural” right. The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment guarantees that it will not be infringed upon. Laws do not protect. Laws serve as a means for prosecution of those who break the law. People protect and a firearm is simply a tool that helps them protect more efficiently. As with police, my sidearm is not to protect the public; its purpose is to protect myself. To outlaw that right, in any manner, is criminal in itself. What say you?

Print Friendly

  • Bob M

    This is why I got out of California a couple months ago.  As long as the liberal Progressives are in charge (and I can’t see that changing anytime soon), this kind of oppression will continue and grow.

    By the way, I love these two paragraphs.
    “Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon,” says Anthony Portantino (the California Assemblyman behind the bill), “doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren’t comfortable.”
    Conversely, I say “Just because one person is not comfortable with weapons, doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who are comfortable, and who are legally eligible, to carry weapons openly or concealed – loaded or not.”

    Obviously the people of California have forgotten (or never learned) that the U.S. Constitution exists to prevent the majority from taking away the rights of the minority (which is every individual).

    • Mack Greer

      California’s restrictions are wrong no doubt. Blaming it on liberals may
      not answer the question why the law exists.  I hope you did not move to:Texas,Oklahoma,Arkansas, or South Carolina as open carry is not legal there as well. Hoplophobes need to be fought where ever they are found

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OZZH3TDFJJXOTJOS6PGRXEA5H4 Allen

        Mack, your statement that open carry is illegal in the state of Arizona is as far from the truth as it can be,  I know this because i was a deputy sheriff in Arizona.  When I was on the job, there was no provision for a citizen to carry concealed.  Anyone who could legally own a gun could wear it openly, but only police or military could carry concealed, and that was only in connection with their duties.  They eventually passed the concealed weapons law, and citizens could carry concealed as well as in the open.  Now, Arizona has gone one step further, and they have what is called constitutional carry, which means you can carry concealed with no permit needed, unless you plan to visit a state that honors Arizona’s CCW permit.  I hope in the future you will check your facts before making statements about the law.

    • Jim

      Not all the people, but more than enough. Can’t leave until I retire, darnit .

  • Anonymous

    whats the point 2 open carry with it unloaed?

    • Rick

      You’re right, but at least for now, until Governor Moonbeam signs it, they can have a loaded mag on their person and with proper training and practice the firearm can be loaded fairly quickly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zach-Gennaro/100002603071792 Zach Gennaro

    Yep. As long as the weapon is secured in a holster, every person has the right to carry a loaded weapon openly, without a license. If you can’t be trusted with a firearm, then you should already be incarcerated. I hate that my state of Florida does not have open carry. It’s outrageous!

    • Rick

      Don’t feel your state is alone.  In Texas OC is also illegal, go figure!

  • Poncho

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:Those against 2A rights believe that ARMED, we are all potential MURDERERS.
    Those in favor of 2A rights believe that UNARMED, we are all potential VICTIMS.

    I for one refuse to be a victim.

    • christian

      i for one refuse to be a murder

      • http://www.facebook.com/lorin.c.partain Lorin Chane Partain

        I refuse to be either a victim or a murderer. Hence I carry.

    • Minerran

      You are incorrectly making assumptions about what people “believe” based on their stance on an issue…that kind of arrogant attitude is what makes it impossible for all of us to come together on these issues.   As a gun owner and CCW holder, I recognize that there are people against gun ownership who have legitimate concerns.   Instead of making these kinds of hateful and ignorant statements as you’ve done, we will be better served to rationally explain why its a good idea to protect gun rights and why outlawing guns will not result in the elimination of violence hoped for.   Instead of being belligerent, try another approach.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H5J6U2OIXVCRGKMY4DLVE45KPQ AriKona

    God help them if they pass it.  Once a law is on the books, it takes an act of God to get it back off.  As much as they berate this state, I am still glad that I live in that wild west territory with all the nasty open and concealed carry citizens wandering around (i.e. Arizona). 

    One things was left out of the Zamundo statement: He originally stated that he heard Mr. Loughner’s gun go out of battery.  Would an “uneducated” citizen be able to make this distinction?  I doubt it unless they were in Hollywood where everyone seems to say, “I’m out of ammo.”

    As for “alleged”, I hate the word when we all know who did it, but the rule is “unless the person has been convicted of a crime” they are still alleged.  With his ‘keep me out of court’ routine and the Casey Anthony stupiidy of our court system itself, I doubt we will ever see justice with this ——-.

  • FireFighterChen

    “Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon,” says Anthony Portantino (the California Assemblyman behind the bill), “doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren’t comfortable.”Conversely, I say “Just because one person is not comfortable with weapons, doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who are comfortable, and who are legally eligible, to carry weapons openly or concealed – loaded or not.”Exactly which right is Portantino referring to when he says “infringe on the rights of other people who aren’t comfortable?  I don’t remember reading anything saying we have a right to not be uncomfortable?I do see, however, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

    • Jim

      You forget, this is California. PC to the extreme. We all want to be warm and comfy.

      • pastor t

        “Uncomfortable”…really Portantino? I’m uncomfortable with muslims in the airport…gays making out in public…and criminals walking around with illegal guns while moron politicians attack the law abiding citizens carrying legal weapons for self defense!

        I’m uncomfortable with a government that gives it’s self raises and expands it’s size while the rest of us are forced to cut back and take less…I’m uncomfortable with politicians that vote no protection for the public but plenty for themselves.  I’m uncomfortable with Rep. Giffords voting against guns for “we the people” and carrying one in her purse…I’m uncomfortable with people that we put in office and pay taxes to support putting their safety and well being above the every day citizen…I’m uncomfortable with some out of touch left wing drunk with power politician telling me what rights I am welcome to in spite of what the constitution of America has to say!    

        mr. Portantino, you don’t even know the meaning of uncomfortable!

        • DON MAY

          amen amen amen amen my brother

    • Minerran

      The assemblyman should be reminded that our rights are not based on “comfort level” of those around us.  Unless what we are doing as an individual can be shown to clearly infringe on the rights of others, then no limits should be legislated.  Just because someone is scared of what might happen, is not reason enough.  I am afraid of women talking on cell phones while driving ford explorers, but that is not reason enough to outlaw phones or SUV’s. 

      This is the kind of response we in the gun community should be giving.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AIC7KOYU2NSCELIWJYOONBIWHQ Mack Greer

    Arizona has allowed open carry for at least 50 years and despite the claims made by both anti-gun hoplophobes and the uber-tactical  concealed carry types I can not recall a single case of a gun snatching or shoot me first crime aimed at a legal gun carrier. Before we pick on California  though it amazing to me the number of states that restrict open carry. Including in this list are allegedly blue 2nd amendment  friendly states. Texas,Florida, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and South Carolina are listed as prohibiting open carry.

  • FireFighterChen

    Not sure why the spacing got all jacked up when I posted…one last try…if it doesn’t work o well.

    “Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon,” says Anthony Portantino (the California Assemblyman behind the bill), “doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren’t comfortable.”Conversely, I say “Just because one person is not comfortable with weapons, doesn’t mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who are comfortable, and who are legally eligible, to carry weapons openly or concealed – loaded or not.”Exactly which right is Portantino referring to when he says “infringe on the rights of other people who aren’t comfortable?  I don’t remember reading anything saying we have a right to not be uncomfortable?I do see, however, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

  • Ed

    Im not carrying an unloaded firearm… what the hell am I going to do… throw it at them?!

    • Rick

      Nor am I, that’s one of the many reasons I moved out of the state, but as I said, with proper training and lots of dry practice you can load the gun and be ready to defend yourself faster than the the LEOs can get there.

    • christian

      its obviously not loaded at the time but you load it when its an emergency. You actually get to carry ammunition incase you didnt know.

      • dasraa

        You have no idea of the split-second timing needed to deploy a sidearm to stop a shooting from taking place. there are people who can teach you about things like that !!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OZZH3TDFJJXOTJOS6PGRXEA5H4 Allen

    I am sorry, but to me, the California law allowing the open carry of unloaded guns has to be the stupidest idea I have ever heard of.  Come with me now back a number of years ago to a restaurant in Killeen, TX where an active shooter slaughtered a number of citizens.  Supposed this had been in California.  Who do you think the shooter would target right off the bat?  Of course, the idiot with the UNLOADED gun on his hip.  What were the legislators in Califony thinking?  Hold on, bad guy, while I get some ammo in my highly visible gun.  The idea of a sidearm is to protect oneself from someone who would do them harm.  What do you do with an unloaded weapon?  Beat them to death with it before they blow you out of your socks?  I hope they do repeal this insane law and let the people carry without a permit or license, as they do in Arizona.  It’s called ‘CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.,’ and I gurantee you that you can do more to defend yourself than to have an inefficient club.

  • Maybejim

    I kind a hope Gov. Moonbean signs the bill.  Given the way Kalifornia operates Concealed Carry, that should open up the state to a suit for not allowing law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

  • Anonymous

    First, open carry has a place and should be allowed.  However, in most populated situations concealed carry makes more sense to me than open carry.

    I once read of a woman in Alaska who survived a bear attack on a residential street near her home.  Following that experience she doesn’t leave the house without a .44 magnum on her hip.  That makes sense.  On the other hand, I doubt that the same woman would be compelled to carry her .44 openly while getting on a bus or walking into a restaurant in downtown Seattle.  Instead, that would be the place for concealed carry.

    I carry concealed wherever I can and I’d rather that my potential adversary doesn’t know that I’m armed until he hears the first round report and sees the muzzle flash.  Open carry brings with it a number of potentially unexpected possibilities.  Carrying openly you might become the quasi-cop in absence of law enforcement.  Consider that the very person that you protect will be a witness.  How that witness testifies is going to slant according to his values and beliefs.  If he’s an anti-gun nut then, guess what?  Consider also that your open carry might make you a target for somebody who wants only the gun. 

    I carry whenever I can and hope that I never need my weapon.  I hope that I never my weapon when I can’t carry.

    • Firefighterchen

      First, open and concealed carry has their place and should be allowed. However, in most populated situations open carry makes more sense to me than concealed carry.

      I carry openly wherever I can and I’d rather that my potential adversary choose not to pick me at all. Concealed carry brings with it a number of potentially unexpected possibilities. Carrying concealed you might become the quasi-judge, jury, executioner in absence of law enforcement. Consider that the very person that you protect will be a witness. How that witness testifies is going to slant according to his values and beliefs. If he’s an anti-gun nut then, guess what? Consider also that your concealed carry might make you a target for somebody who thinks you are an unarmed victim. Also know, there have been no reported cases of open carriers being targeted for their guns.

      I carry whenever I can and hope that I never need my weapon. I hope that I never need my weapon when I can’t carry.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Donald-Dodson/1058030227 Donald Dodson

        I can imagine the open carriers of California being targted for their guns because it is a well known fact that California allows open carry of “UNLOADED GUNS”

    • Minerran

      open carry is stupid and I would not do it even if legal here in florida.   First, you scare people needlessly and feed fuel into the fire of those of want guns outlawed because the are scared to death of guns.    Second, you give up the tactical advantage if a gang banger wants to assault you because he knows you are armed and he knows WHERE your gun is.  He will grab it.   I prefer to keep the element of surprise.   Open carry is for show-offs and macho men who obviously have not read Massad Ayoobs book “in  the gravest extreme”.

      • Emerald_Myst

        I totally agree.  I live in Washington state which allows “open carry” but I prefer to carry concealed (I have a permit) as carrying openly would only serve to alarm the general, non-gun-totin’ public.  I’m also not a John Wayne wannabe.

      • http://www.facebook.com/lorin.c.partain Lorin Chane Partain

        I prefer concealed as well, but open carry is not stupid. It is only because we live in a culture of girly men that we need to hide. The old ethic still is the correct one. A criminal does not openly carry a gun. In the old days it would have been disgraceful to hide or conceal your gun. An honest man carries openly to show that he has no ill intent. That ethic has been lost on people, along with many others, however it still makes total sense. So out of convenience to not freak out the milk toast crowd I conceal carry.

        • Sig_Sauer

          I do open carried (Ohio is an open carry state) and have never had a problem. When I do open carried I have used the opportunity to speak with people and answer their questions. It really doesn’t matter if you OC or CC, just carry and exercise your Second Amendment Rights.

  • Ldgrey1963

    I am glad I do not live in California. I believe in the right to defend oneself from attacks. Lets be honest, just because I carry a gun does not mean I will be able to deter all threats, it just means I have a fighting chance against any individual (conviceted felon or just a nut job) who wishes to harm me. I believe the citizens of America should receive training for the use and carrying Firearms and these indivduals should take it upon themselves to seek out PROPER training if they wish to carry. I hope that I never have to use any of my firearms to stop a threat, but I hope if the need arises I will have sufficient skill to do so. 

  • Sirwilliambolton

    It is clear that most people that carry weapons are responsible and careful. The reason that so many acts of violence happen these days is there is no immediate danger for criminal shooters! The reason there was not continuous shooting in the old days was that most people were armed and opening fire was a good way to get yourself shot. I would personally feel better knowing most people were openly armed and I am absolutely sure that if most of the people at the shootings mentioned were armed that the criminal would have been unlikely to fire a second shot. I am for open carry of loaded firearms and no prosecution for anyone stopping a felony by using a firearm! Too long have the criminals carried loaded firearms and they have no concern for any persons safety! Law abiding citizens have the right and the duty to provide for public safety by removing from office those that do not agree with the Constitution and work to pass laws that are a violation of the Oath of Office they take upon entering office. If passing a law worked the criminal would obey it. THEY DON”T!!!! No one shooting a person committing a felony should be arrested or prosecuted! THEY SHOULD GET A PUBLIC SERVICE AWARD! I am a compassionate person but not where violent criminals are concerned. The more violent criminals are taken down the less violence law abiding citizens have to face. I also think that violent criminals should be marked with blue tattooed ears so everyone knows them in public. Some people say I’m extreme, but I think shooting into crowds of people and murdering children is extreme and I’m sick of it being protected like it is legal.

    • Minerran

      “I am for open carry of loaded firearms and no prosecution for anyone
      stopping a felony by using a firearm!”

      Read the Massad Ayoob book “in the gravest extreme” before you consider playing at LEO and thinking of pulling out your pistol to stop a felony.   Only in the very narrowest of circumstances should you consider doing this even if its legal.

    • DON MAY

      i like that about mark the criminals with blue tattooed ears

  • Blazermanracing

    To use something that happened in Arizona is stupid to say the least. This law maker is more worried about someone feeling uncomfortable around guns and that it infringes on there rights.So what!! What Do you call this Mr assemblyman Anthony Portantion .this is a gross infringment assault by you and your fellow assemblymen.  The more people that carry weapons(firearms) open or concealed would help reduce crime,making the criminal think twice. So some of you don’t like firearm in open display, Too bad! These individuals might one day with there evil guns may save your life!To many politics that is shrouded in  socialism and liberalism for which California is known for.What is the real question is about people control and restricting your freedom. These Representatives don’t known or don’t care about personal constitutional rights.So they talk about infringement on someones rights,it’s not the gun owners who are. It’s these evil law makers who doing the infringing of rights.  

  • rrc1679

    The Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms.  It does not discriminate on when and where you can keep and bear arms.  Therefore Open Carry is part of that guarantee.  Secondly, I need to comment on the California law.  An empty gun is no good to anyone.  Open carry of an unloaded gun can get you killed and doesn’t do anyone any good in a situation like the shootings in Airizona or any of the school shootings. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YZLA45HWSWTJUMIOJF27GJEQIU Lui Pestana

    I totaly disagree with open carry. Like it or not, the majority of the american public are not familiar with firearms with TV as their only exposure to it. The only thing in their minds is guns kill people. The sight of one on a law enforcement stranger whom they dont know aint the same as one on a civilian stanger they dont know. It conjures up at best apprehension, if not fear in most of them. You whine about your right open carry and seem to ignore the other persons right to go about his or her life without undue trauma being brought to them.  Like it or not, thats what open carry will cause in a lot of people.  It’s just plain rude, sanctimonious and self centered to say screw them I wanna carry openly anyway. Not to mention tacticly you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Now the guy who was gonna mug you is just gonna come up behind you and cap one in the back of our head and take your openly carried firearm from your dead body. You do know that, that glock on your hip is worth more to the scum bag then your wallet dont you?  Balls to the wall I support concealed carry, open cary is not necassary and just plain dumb. 

    • Maybejim

      “Like it or not, the majority of the american public are not familiar with firearms with TV as their only exposure to it. The only thing in their minds is guns kill people”

      It seems it’s time they learned differently.  They will always be ignorant cowardly fools if they are never exposed to law abiding citizens carrying..

      “Now the guy who was gonna mug you is just gonna come up behind you and cap one in the back of our head and take your openly carried firearm from your dead body”

      Do we know this because it has happened so often in the states with open carry?  Or is this one of the many myths that those who know it all except the facts..

    • pastor t

      Lui,   I was on a police site the other day and was informed that it is a proven fact that open carry by citizens has deterred criminals from committing a crime in the presence of the armed citizens.   Yes, some people have that reaction to guns but it’s because liberals have been drumming the fear and hate for guns into  Americans heads from the school house to t.v.  Re-education is necessary, and it can’t be done in concealment.  I carry concealed everywhere I legally can.  I have only open carried a few times.  Every time I have carried open people assumed I was a police officer.  On one occasion I had been fishing and about 10 pm I walked into a Casey’s gas station.  I Got my drink and headed to the counter to pay.  There were two individuals with a pack of beer in each of their hands.  They started to walk by me and both of them locked their eyes on the “glock” 22 i had on my hip.  They turned around put the beer back and drove off.  The girl behind the counter smiled really big and said, “I am so glad you came in when you did OFFICER!”  Those guys were going to try and run out the door with that beer.  She said they had been waiting for the chance to make their move and she said she was afraid.  I didn’t say anything about not being an officer I just said, “glad I was here.”   As I said, I don’t carry open as a rule because I like to CC.  but I don’t think it’s harmful to do so, I believe it does more good than harm.  People need to see guns on good people instead of seeing and hearing the continuous criminalization of guns by liberals and cowards.

      • pastor t

        Not to mention, How many criminals in society or on t.v. for that matter properly carry a weapon in a holster on their side?  It just doesn’t happen.  So I don’t buy the “open carriers are making people uncomfortable” argument.  I firmly believe the opposite is true, it makes them feel secure because they assume you are some for of law enforcement.

    • FireFighterChen

      Prime example of media formed education and opinion, and outright unsubstantiated lies.

    • 1911A1 OC

      “Screw them, I am going to carry openly anyway”. You bet i’m going to open carry! There are so many more things in this world to cause trauma than OC or have you been living under a rock for almost 13 yrs.

    • dasraa

      Comfort is not mentioned in any Constitutional Amendment , can you say the same about firearms?

  • Errrv

    When I was in high school, I worked at a Quick Stop in Okemah Oklahoma. We kept a loaded .44 Ruger revolver in plain sight out of customer’s reach beside the register. We were never robbed and in fact, everyone was very polite to me while I worked there. That was 1983-85. All the farmers & hunters openly carried then as well.

  • Laurence

    What about the open carry of LOADED firearms in national forests and rural areas?   So far as I know, the ban on open carry in California applies only to cities towns and other incorporated areas, not to farms and national forests.  Last year I contacted the ranger at Plumas Natinal Forest in California and was told that open carry was legal in the forest, but not in the towns.  How will the new law affect the national forest regulations?   Can anyone clarify this issue?

  • Jokarus

    You are all paranoid!
    No need to have a gun in life to have the feeling to be safe.
    In what world are you living in?
    Did you even think about being disarmed by the bad guy? No?
    No gun, no risk!
    Last point, if you play the victim role, you will be attacked for sure.
    Your paranoia is fed by your fear.
    And when you are scared, you become a prey!

    • Anonymous

      Not even going to comment on this statement!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Miller/743275334 Matt Miller

      Coming from someone who open carries in california, and has been the victim of an armed car jacking, I can easily say my gun has saved my life thus making your argument invalid. You’re a moron, you definitely need to re-read what you typed and find your own mistakes. If you live in the United States and don’t support the constitution, you’re living in the wrong country, case closed. People like you are whats wrong with California, and I whole heartedly wish you’d either educate yourself with TRUE statistics and facts or shut your mouth when in the presence of people who have been in traumatic experiences, and have had to save their own lives with the use of guns against violent offenders with ILLEGAL firearms.

      • Jokarus

        I can feel your hate. First of all, stay polite, and I will eventually continue reading you.

        • 1911A1 OC

          I think most would rather you go away rather than read their post. If you insist on staying, keep you opinions to yourself.

      • dasraa

        I realize the sentiments, but I have thought about retaliating against stupid posts, and have sat back and thought about what I need to say for as long as the emotion needs to subside , then formulate my thoughts..

    • pastor t

      Proverbs 15:2 – the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness.

      We don’t carry because we are weak and fearful, we carry because we are not weak and fearful!  We are deliberate and aware of our surroundings and world around us and with deliberation we protect ourselves, our families, and others. 

      “Did you even think about being disarmed by the bad guy?” We refuse to live in fear of the “bad guy”  as far as him disarming us, that’s why we preach “training!” 
      And by the way, fear doesn’t cause you to be attacked.  Fear prevents you from doing anything about it!
      So you would be foolish to assume that walking around unarmed, unprepared and like a harmless nonthreatening sheep will save you…it won’t!  It just makes it easier for the wolf to do his job!

      “No gun, no risk”   now that’s real fear talking!

    • 1911A1 OC

      You’ve never been car jacked before have you? I have and it will not happen again.

    • dasraa

      People who are licensed and trained to carry(concealed or open) are not paranoid, they are observant and ready to protect themselves and their loved ones, and maybe a stranger if the situation presents it self.

  • CW

    Good article, although you start on a strange point for someone who, “believes in the Constitution of the United States,” and is an, “Oath Keeper,” when you equate the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence to, “namby-pamby,” political correctness. The presumption of innocence is a right guaranteed by the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. That legal truth was made clear by U.S. Supreme Court when in commentary during Coffin v. United States the Court stated, “The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the
    accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its
    enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal
    law.” Why, in an article about constitutional rights, do you dismiss one simply because it is a pet peeve? Do you actually have any background in, or formal comprehension of the Constitution of the United States, or do you simply use that precious document and a reflex when someone threatens something you like only to dispense with it when your preference is to infringe on the rights of another? You and I may not like Jared Lee Loughner, and the facts may be clear in his case, but as a citizen he is entitled to the same rights we enjoy. Now understand this. When a journalist conditions a statement with the word “alleged” that is because they are legally required to. Omitting that prior to conviction is libel. Before a person is convicted of crime they are not yet guilty of a crime. As you are being widely published you should be more mindful of your legal responsibilities for if you continue to act the judge in future articles, eventually you will be wrong and will be liable and could be prosecuted. Finally, as a citizen of this country you should be more aware of the entirety of the U.S. Constitution, not just your favorite parts.

    • Maybejim

      “Omitting that prior to conviction is libel. Before a person is convicted of crime they are not yet guilty of a crime”.

      That simply is not true.  It’s not libel if it’s true.  Libel is not a criminal law, it’s civil.  Anyone can sue but the truth is the perfect defense.  A person is guilty of a crime if they committed it.  They are simply convicted once they are…convicted.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1443371258 Tbark Knives

    I cant understand why anyone would want to live where their rights are so blatently violated by the minority ,if you dont stand up for your rights you wont get to keep them , Majority rules everywhere but california , if you dont believe that just look a prop 8 out there where are the people with Guts ? I prefer to Not carry openly what ever the Law may be but I do carry concealed but I also want the right to do both no matter what ,t

  • http://twitter.com/IntegrativeNews IntegrativeNewsNet

    I agree, and do open carry, only because i am confident in my abilities to not only use a gun properly, but use it in a way that is not a hazard to others. It is my opinion that not everyone has the discipline and the skill required  to use it for the sole purpose of keeping the peace.

  • http://twitter.com/Moji1 John Brittingham

    The definition of diplomacy is saying ‘Nice doggie, nice doggie’, until you can find a stick. Will Rodgers

  • Vaquero

    That is why I move,not,I run very fast from  Сакраменто Калифорния,(Sacramento California),and now I live in Boise,Idaho,a place I can O.C. my 44 magnum,most any place in te State,.

  • http://profiles.google.com/snatale42 Stephen J Natale

    CA- The only state were people have to fight for the right to carry UNLOADED guns! If that’s not sad I don’t know what is.

  • AL

    move out cai 

  • The Other Brother Daryl

    It is all a moot point now. The ban against open-carry was signed into law by the Governor.

    Notice that Brown said that he listened to law enforcement agencies. No mention of the people, however.

    Note also that in signing this bill, the Governor also trampled on the
    1st amendment in disallowing the right to peaceably assemble, since the
    bill is to “address the “open carry” movement, marked by gatherings of
    people displaying their firearms in public places to protest gun-control
    laws.” – according to Assemblyman Anthony Portantino.

    No Republicans voted for the bill. Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale,
    criticized the proposal for “further narrowing peoples’ Second Amendment
    rights.”

    “The Second Amendment is not a loophole,” LaMalfa said, adding that open
    carry is “isn’t a problem for anybody except for the gun grabbers that
    continually chip away and narrow our basic rights.”

    The bill was approved 21-18, with three Democrats joining Republicans in
    opposing the measure. The bill now returns to the Assembly for
    consideration of amendments added in the upper house.

  • Factotum

    I hope citizens will react to someone openly carrying a firearm the same way that they would to a person with a huge turd on their belt – ugly and distasteful. If you need braggadocio to make you feel safe, you need counseling not pandering. A society is built upon people trusting and respecting one another, your expression in public of fear of other people is the end of the social compact. Life is dangerous. It is made more so by spreading fear. The armed people near Giffords did nothing with their weapons. The Secret Service when Reagan was shot did nothing with their weapons. The firearms manufacturer’s agent, the NRA is the only benefactor.

    • newshound4life

      You are completely missing the point. I come from a communist country where ONLY criminals have guns. It is unlikely that you have the faintest idea of what it is to feel completely helpless and defenseless. Look to our neighboring country to the south of the border and you’d understand why 20 millions of its citizens have opted to abandon the country –never to return. It has been taken over by criminals.
      Beyond that, you may not like the 2nd Amendment. I don’t believe that entitles you to curb my rights according to your ideological bent. I despise the 16th but here we are.

    • dasraa

      Please reread the reports on those two incidents speed and timing, no one is perfect in both areas !

      • dasraa

        Also the NRA does not benefit from any gun manufactures gun sales !

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Donald-Dodson/1058030227 Donald Dodson

    Any criminal can rob an open carrier of his or her gun knowing that the guns are unloaded