Carrying a shotgun into a library is not going to win hearts and minds

Say Uncle:

It’s going to turn people away. This bill is going to draw more attention to the incident that led this politician to propose the bill. And not your rights.

I don’t understand why it seems like so many open carry advocates think it’s a good idea to piss everyone else off.

Yes, more people need to know more about the legality of open carry.

Here is something I wrote a while back about those who want to shove open carry into everyone’s face with an all-open-carry-all-the-time strategy designed to shock people:

Sure, points will have been made. Those points will be remembered for about three minutes, unless it’s a point good for the anti-gun crowd, in which case the point will be remembered forever and ever as a basic truth about guns. Like the basic truth about how guns are twice as likely to kill a family member as an intruder in a home defense situation and the basic truth about how no one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon for anything except killing people.

The media will decide how the story is told. [emphasis added]

You do not dilute opposition and win allies by irritating and intimidating and scaring people. You’ve got to be smarter than that.

Banning Not Smoking

King County wants to ban public e-cigarette smoking

Five years after Washington residents voted to ban smoking cigarettes, cigars and pipes in public places, King County wants to add one more thing to the list: Electronic cigarettes…

“The idea is that even though they’re not exactly identical to cigarettes, people see folks using e-cigarettes, and they think somebody else is smoking,” said Bud Nicola, a King County Board of Health member and affiliate professor with the University of Washington School of Public Health.

“It makes it very difficult for inspectors.”

So the answer, of course, is to ban not smoking.

Reminds me of the open carry debate in California: It’s legal to openly carry an unloaded gun, but it’s too hard to know whether or not the gun is unloaded, so unloaded guns are a threat to the ban on loaded guns.

What should be done with these incremental increases to bans is to rescind the original ban and then vote on a new ban with the original and the additional restrictions in place.

Want to ban e-cigs based on the cigarette ban? Cancel the cigarette ban and start over with a new ban on both. If you can get that passed, you’ve got what you want. If you can’t, I guess you’re reaching too far.

(For the record, Murdoc likes eating in restaurants without any smoke in the air. He also thinks a government ban on smoking in those restaurants is out of line.)

Very Bad News for California Open Carry

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.

So now it appears that the proposed ban failed…I think.

Hat tip to Say Uncle.

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.

Good News for California Open Carry

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.

California Headed the Wrong Way

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.

California Open Carry Threatened

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.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even when they’re wrong

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.