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.

Kahr Arms has partnered with LAN World to introduce Auto Ordnance’s Thompson style rifles to California.

via The Firearm Blog .

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.

The Armed Citizen:

A liquor store clerk shot and killed one of two armed, masked men who tried to rob the shop on Tully Road late Friday night, Modesto police said today.

Police arrived at the Super Liquors store in the 1600 block of Tully Road to find one of the robbery suspects with gunshot wounds. He was taken to a hospital and died later in the night. This evening, police identified him as Kyle Johnson, 20, of Modesto.

A second suspected robber fled the scene after struggling with a second clerk, police said. They said this evening that the suspect, a 17-year-old boy, had been arrested and will be booked into Juvenile Hall on charges of homicide and attempted robbery.

Pentagon gunman sought ‘truth’ about 9/11

Wacko. From California. With guns.

Heh:

Now, I’ve been to innumerable “Truther” rallies over the last 8 years, and can say with some confidence that about 98% of folks who think 9/11 was a hoax are left-wingers, or at the very least fit in very comfortably in the left-wing milieu, since the impetus behind Truthism is to undermine the basis for Bush’s “War on Terror,” an impetus which is also a cornerstone of modern Leftist thought as well.

So far, however, I’ve noticed a deafening quietude on the left-leaning blogs about this guy’s affiliations and belief systems. Those brave enough to troll leftist comments sections have noted mumblings therein that the guy was probably a secret “teabagger,” despite all evidence to the contrary.

At first glance this Willows, California, story seems reasonable: Student expelled for having unloaded shotguns in truck

The board voted 4-0 Thursday to expel junior Gary Tudesko after the weapons were discovered via scent-sniffing dogs on Oct. 26.

Zero tolerance means zero tolerance. You bring guns to school, you’re out of here, mister.

But let’s look at that first sentence again:

The Willows Unified School District board of trustees has expelled a 16-year-old for having unloaded shotguns in his pickup parked just off the Willows High School campus.

Not on school property. Busted anyway.

The school’s principal says that since the area is used mostly by students, he considers it part of the school’s jurisdiction. He also says the school is responsible for students while they travel to and from school.

Does school insurance cover students who get into a traffic accident while on their way to school?

Well, probably not that responsible. That would be crazy.

Now, I’m not really defending this kid for leaving a couple of hunting guns in his car on the street while he went to school. That’s not something I probably would have done. But this school is using dogs to search student cars parked off of school property and enforcing school rules based on what they find.

One thing the principal brings up is the 1995 Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 which bars possession of firearms withing 1,000 feet of a school. But non-concealable weapons on private property are perfectly legal. The students truck, I believe, qualifies.

For the sake of argument, let’s say we agree with the 1,000 foot limit. What if students commonly park on a street 1,010 feet from the school? Does that vehicle suddenly pop into the school’s jurisdiction, too? There are limits to jurisdictions for a reason. You can’t just decide to expand your coverage.

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?