UPDATE: Now it looks like the version that passed in the Senate FAILED 39-29 to get a chance when it had to go back to the Assembly (which the original version had already passed) because of changes in the Senate-approved version.

Looks like they just plain ran out of time and shelved the bill to get to other things.

Monday the California Senate rejected a ban (AB1934)on open carrying (of unloaded guns) in the Golden State.

Late last night they tried again and passed it.

Many law enforcement officials joined forces with Saldaña to create Assembly Bill 1934 amid increasing concern about the growing number of sidearms in public places.

They said people often don’t know whether the guns are loaded or not and have called police, requiring a response that ties up law enforcement resources. Further, responding officers are put into potentially dangerous situations because they also do not know if the weapons are loaded, police say.

This is ridiculous. You can’t tell if someone driving a car just robbed bank, either, but you don’t worry that they did. You can’t tell if someone walking out of a convenience store just robbed it, either, but you don’t worry that they did. This is a simple case of people being irrationally scared of guns.

“Guns are an intimidating presence,” Saldaña said. “The average citizen can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys.”

I’ll repost this from yesterday:

If people called police because they saw black people driving fast in a car and couldn’t tell whether or not they had just robbed a convenience store, they’d be bigots. If people called police because they saw some Hispanics gathered on a street corner and couldn’t tell whether or not they were in the country legally, they’d be bigots. If people saw some Muslims talking to each other quietly and called the police because they couldn’t tell whether or not they were terrorists, they’d be bigots.

So why is it when someone sees a gun owner and calls police because they can’t tell whether or not the gun is loaded that they have a right to be concerned?

People just calling 911 out of the blue just because they saw some black people driving fast in a car, just because they saw some Mexican-looking people gathered on a street, or just because they saw some Muslim-looking folks conversing in whispers do not deserve to be taken seriously and should be held accountable. The same goes for people who call in the cops just because they saw someone with a gun on their hip.

Now the bill goes to the Governator. The claims are that he’ll sign it.

I’m not sure if they tried again with the long gun registration (AN1810). Does anyone know?

UPDATE: It occurs to me that the “open carry but unloaded” compromise, which has never been a good one, is out of the way and proponents for real open carry can at least now fight for a real legal allowance for open carrying. But I fear it’s a long uphill battle.

The fact that a loaded gun would be illegal, I guess, makes people worry that a law is being broken when they see a gun an can’t tell. The way to fix that is to make it legal to carry a loaded gun.

UPDATE: They tried again and the bill passed. Terrible news.

Great news: California Senate rejects open-carry gun ban

The California Senate rejected a bill Monday that would have made it illegal to carry unloaded guns in public, but lawmakers will give the vote one more try.

Monday’s 20-16 vote fell one short of the majority needed, but the Senate will reconsider the measure Tuesday.

The bill, AB1934, was introduced after a series of demonstrations by gun-rights organizations during which they encouraged participants to openly carry unloaded weapons. California law lets gun owners carry a rifle or handgun in a holster if it is not loaded.

Via Instapundit, who writes

Okay, it’s a small thing. But it’s California.

I actually don’t think it’s a “small thing” at all. Though I’m not what you’d call an “open carry advocate” I do believe that the right to carry guns legally is a crucial one. The problem with open carry in California is not that it’s allowed, it’s that the gun must be unloaded. Defeating this bill maintains a bad staus quo, but it makes the fight for the legal allowance to carry loaded guns a possibility in the future. That would have been far more difficult had the legal allowance to carry even unloaded guns been revoked.

The stated reasoning behind the bill was that too many people call the police whenever they see a gun in public, and since they cannot tell whether a gun is loaded or unloaded they somehow have a right to be concerned.

This is my issue with that: If people called police because they saw black people driving fast in a car and couldn’t tell whether or not they had just robbed a convenience store, they’d be bigots. If people called police because they saw some Hispanics gathered on a street corner and couldn’t tell whether or not they were in the country legally, they’d be bigots. If people saw some Muslims talking to each other quietly and called the police because they couldn’t tell whether or not they were terrorists, they’d be bigots.

So why is it when someone sees a gun owner and calls police because they can’t tell whether or not the gun is loaded that they have a right to be concerned?

People just calling 911 out of the blue just because they saw some black people driving fast in a car, just because they saw some Mexican-looking people gathered on a street, or just because they saw some Muslim-looking folks conversing in whispers do not deserve to be taken seriously and should be held accountable. The same goes for people who call in the cops just because they saw someone with a gun on their hip.

Bill A1810, which would have required registration of long guns, was also rejected.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association have a release out about two anti-gun bills advancing through the legislature: AB1810 (Rifle and Shotgun Registration) and AB 1934 (Open Carry Ban). I was familiar with the attempt to outlaw open carry (even though the gun must be unloaded when OCing in California) and noted it in June:

So what’s the so-called reasoning behind this attempt to end California open carry?

[Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego] said her measure would help police, who are now called by citizens who get intimidated by groups carrying guns in full view. The police, she said, respond not knowing whether a weapon is loaded, increasing the danger. These responses also take time away from regular patrols, she argued.

Hmmm. Looks like the restriction needs to be on people who call in the cops for no reason, not on those engaged in legal activities.

Ban on ‘open carry’ of guns passes Assembly

Assembly Democrats on Tuesday pushed through a fiercely-contested gun control measure that would ban Californians from carrying unloaded weapons in public.

The so-called “open carry” measure, which passed without a vote to spare, 41-25, now goes to the Senate where its fate is uncertain. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has yet to take a position.

Plus I like this bit:

“With rights come responsibilities,” said Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego, who is the author of Assembly Bill 1934. “Carrying a gun simply because you can is not responsible ownership.”

First, it’s always entertaining to watch people who try to explain that our rights aren’t, well, our rights. It’s always “Yes, you’ve got a right, and yes, it’s guaranteed by law, but why should anyone NEED to exercise it? What are your compensating for?”
So what’s the so-called reasoning behind this attempt to end California open carry?

Saldana said her measure would help police, who are now called by citizens who get intimidated by groups carrying guns in full view. The police, she said, respond not knowing whether a weapon is loaded, increasing the danger. These responses also take time away from regular patrols, she argued.

Hmmm. Looks like the restriction needs to be on people who call in the cops for no reason, not on those engaged in legal activities.

The proposed ban applies to handguns only and would have exceptions for “such as those who need guns for work.” Looking at how well California’s “may issue” concealed weapons system works, I wouldn’t count on any regular people ever getting any exceptions.

A reader-written opinion piece in the Santa Barbary Independent:

One cool moist morning at Montecito Starbucks, about a year ago, I’d ordered my usual “grande”-size coffee of the day (“in a venti cup, please”) and, turning with my cup to get milk, I suddenly noticed three fit-looking youngish men in neat clothes, each displaying a conspicuously large handgun on his right hip. They seemed like police or FBI or military, but their dark blue/black apparel had no insignias of any sort that I could detect, and I looked hard at these guys.

I asked to see the manager — whose name I never learned just as I don’t recall the exact date when this happened last year — and she was incredulous at my complaints.

“These are government guys who train near here, you should be glad they’re here,” she said (or words to that effect). “We’ve had robberies lately in this shopping center. You’re kidding, right?”

“No,” I said (as nearly as I can recall at this point in time). “I live in a civilian society, and having these fellows — likely good guys, so what? — practicing ‘open carry’ of their guns in Santa Barbara County is wrong. Ask them to leave, or to go lock up their weapons in their car. Are these weapons loaded? Do you really know who they are?”

Irate now, this manager said, “Hey—you know what? You go ask them to get out!” and turned back to her work.

Our country needs more gun control enforced by the government. My minor incident at Montecito Starbucks last year connects to a national gun rights debate which has recently popped up at various Starbucks around the country.

I’m assuming that by “my minor incident” the writer is referring to his scary run-in with the guys legally carrying, though I don’t see any “incident” at all. Other than maybe a customer getting out of line with the manager. “Ask them to leave, or to go lock up their weapons in their car.”? Really?

Also funny is this bit:

And these weren’t little .22 caliber pistols sported by the out-of-uniform Montecito Starbucks warriors, but much larger and more menacing handguns in the Glock or Sig Sauer range – they appeared huge and menacing on the hip.

I didn’t know that “Glock” and “Sig Sauer” were “ranges” of guns. I thought they were brands. As usual, gun-fearing opinionators don’t seem to know a whole lot about the thing they’re so afraid of.

He closes with:

And readers should find out where their favorite coffee houses stand on openly carried weapons. Otherwise, we risk returning to the Wild West with each man armed for himself, a libertarian’s heaven but a civilized citizen’s anarchy.

Ah, yes. The old Wild West argument. Funny that Dan had been going to this very Starbucks for years without any shootouts at the OK Corral but suddenly he sees a gun and it’s the end of civilization as we know it. Never mind that the civilization that he knows permits the carrying of guns into Starbucks.

More of the usual irrational projection.

This gem from the comments section, though, is priceless:

When people use their “rights” in a way that makes most others intimidated, they are stepping on the “rights” of those people.

Someone doesn’t quite get it.

Sebastian notes a new media fund raising campaign by the Bradys which looks like it’s an attempt to cash in on some peoples’ fear of visible guns.

The discussion in the comments is worth reading.

Starbucks, via the NSSF:

Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws
SEATTLE, March 03, 2010 – We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.

While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.

At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement.

We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers.

Starbucks Corporation
Stacey Krum, 206-318-7100
press@starbucks.com

As has been mentioned numerous times, this isn’t some big pro-gun policy on the part of Starbucks like some critics are claiming. It is simply a decision not to place further restrictions on open carry than already exist. Good on Starbucks.

Here’s a curious argument against private weapon ownership in the comments section of a news item about open carry in Michigan:

bewise wrote:
I think only police, FBI, CIA, and whoever has to deal with secret documents or big amount of money, should be armed, and no body else. The reason I say that is based on a personal experience in Europe. I could have killed someone who kept half of the money from my job that he liked a lot, but saying that he was very short in money. We had not made a written contract, so he was taking advantage of that. He owned me 8,500 Euros. Over the hot debate I could have sent him to meet with Saint Peter, and I would have spent the rest of my life in jail. I know that you will bring me thousands of counter arguments, but still, I will not be convinced.

Very clearly, if this guy thinks that he would have killed a man over a money dispute (in a situation where he apparently didn’t take responsibility to bother with a written contract) he should not carry a gun.

But just because you think you’d exercise very bad judgment and commit murder doesn’t mean anything about anyone else. You think you are incapable of carrying a gun? If you really think so, I agree with you. You ARE probably incapable of carrying a gun.

That doesn’t say anything about me or anyone else, though.

It would be interesting to know if this individual grew up in Europe or in the US.

Gun Owners Wear Weapons, Politics In Plain View

Story on OC in KTVU in California. The news report is, predictably, not quite balanced.

Advocates of “open carry” meet in public places such as this Cupertino Starbucks. When KTVU was there with a group, no one seemed to notice or care.

Even a police officer driving by failed to see the group drinking coffee outside with their weapons in plain sight.

They don’t seem to grasp that because the cops didn’t do anything doesn’t mean that they didn’t notice.

In California, police can check an OC gun to see if it’s loaded. OC must be unloaded in the state.

Here’s another bit from the story:

At an appearance by President Obama in Phoenix this past summer, open carry advocates showed up with automatic weapons.

Whoops! As far as I know, it was one weapon. And it wasn’t automatic.

What’s a little bit of a lie in a news story if it helps, though?

A good news story about open carry in Michigan: Group aims to spread word on gun rights

Melvindale resident Andrew Szerdi V, who had a .45-caliber handgun holstered on his right thigh, had finished shopping for socks at Fairlane Mall in Dearborn when a police officer stopped him and two friends from leaving the parking lot.

“It was the first time an officer had drawn a weapon on me, but not the first time I’d been harassed by police,” said Szerdi, who has a concealed pistol license and has openly carried it for about a year. “He ordered the passenger, me, to open the door, step out and keep my hands in view. … He told me to walk backward to him. He had me get on my knees, place my hands behind my back, and he handcuffed me.”

Szerdi said the officer then removed his gun and searched his pockets, finding his pamphlet explaining the open-carry right. He said for the next 40 minutes or so, he and his friends, who were not carrying weapons, were berated and lectured while officers ran the serial number on his gun, his driver’s license and his concealed pistol’s license.

Szerdi was eventually released, he said, after the officers could not find a reason to arrest him.

They drew a gun on him and detained him, but all their attempts to “find a reason to arrest him” came up empty. It’s unclear from this story whether the cops stopped him because of a call from someone or on their own.

Though not what you’d call a “big fan” of open carry, I do believe that it’s important for people to know the rights of citizens and I certainly don’t mind seeing people exercise those rights. Though I will always caution open carriers to “use good judgment,” that’s the also case with concealed carriers and anyone else handling firearms. Duh.

Here’s something interesting from the article:

[Livingston County Undersheriff Michael] Murphy said as an officer he has no problem with individuals exercising their right to openly carry a gun. However, he believes doing so should be a concern for everyone in the community.

Wait. He’s got no problem with people exercising their right and the community should be “concerned” when they do? What does that even mean?

People should be “concerned” about the open carrying of a gun the same way they should be “concerned” when encountering someone carrying a baseball bat.

See also: http://www.miopencarry.org

Of course, noting a story like this isn’t complete without pointing out a couple of nutjob remarks by commenters:
(more…)