Stopped for Open Carrying in California

[BorregoWrangler]

This is just about how all LEO interactions should be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxP9yaEc ... annel_page

[sdnative]

The officer was probably very tired of the sheeple "man with a gun" calls.

The fact that someone was carrying probably didn't bother him at all.

[Nadir_E]

There are some fairly specific rules about how to do this legally, so if you're even remotely considering trying it, read up first!

I have a friend in the LA County Sheriff's department who had been briefed on this 'phenomenon' and explained to me what his department told him. The biggest issue surrounded semi-automatic pistols. Just as in the video, be sure there is a magazine in the weapon and that it is unloaded. They consider the magazine an integral part of the weapon, so if there's no magazine in the weapon and you have loaded magazines on your person, they will claim you have a loaded weapon. Speed loaders are NOT viewed the same way, so an unloaded revolver and a loaded speed loader (or speed strip) do NOT equal a loaded pistol.

Just as in the video, recognize that you are very likely going to get stopped and hassled for your efforts.

-N

[BorregoWrangler]

They consider the magazine an integral part of the weapon, so if there's no magazine in the weapon and you have loaded magazines on your person, they will claim you have a loaded weapon.

One can, in fact, have a loaded magazine (visible) on them while open carrying. The weapon is only "loaded" when it is actually loaded, as in ready to immediatley fire. Otherwise, a charge like that will never stick. I admire those who do choose to open carry but it's a bit too much hassle for me.

[cruiserlarry]

Some thoughts from the other side:

Wouldn't most law-abiding gun owners want open carrying citizens to be checked for legality ?

It seems many of the arguments for gun owners rights stem from the assumption that only criminals pose a problem when armed. Assuming that to be true (which I don't, however), I would want to make sure anyone packing in public was doing so legally - and by checking and confirming, strengthen the arguments towards less restrictive gun laws.

Otherwise, you are likely to end up with a wild west scenario, where those within the law, and those outside it, become indistinguishable - a definite threat to the public's safety, and part of the current problem, IMO.

While inconvenient, I don't feel threatened when pulled over in my vehicle to check my license, or other validation of my right to be on the road, if I present any questionable public appearance - that's the purpose of law enforcement; and, I am secure in knowing I'm acting with in the law. I would hope, if I should walk down the street with a sidearm exposed, that peace officers would take the same interest in making sure I'm acting within the law, and not a criminal acting out some gunslinger fantasy that could endanger the public welfare.

My point assumes that law enforcement action is always done in the public interest. This can be debated, of course, but is moot as it applies equally to either side of the gun rights argument. As using enforcement of the laws is an argument also presented for less restrictive gun laws, I think you have to allow (and expect) law enforcement officers to check for violations of those laws to be consistent.

[unwiredadventures]

Wouldn't most law-abiding gun owners want open carrying citizens to be checked for legality ?

I'll probably never open carry. However, I don't like the idea that anyone doing something completely legal, open-carry, driving a car, walking a dog in a legal manner, is presumed guilty. I don't want to live in a Police State where we are constantly checked for our "papers".

[Dennis David]

If CCW were more equitable I would assume most people would prefer to go that route ... I would.

[BorregoWrangler]

Oh, should have added this. Since a loaded magazine is considered an integral part of the weapon it must also be open carryed. Just having one stuffed in the pocket will get you charged with carrying a concealed weapon (if you don't have the permit).

Some thoughts from the other side:

Wow, you covered quite a few points, Larry.

I sure don't know everything about all the issues involved, but here's my take. Different people open carry for different reasons. California is not a Shall-Issue CCW state, and most residents cannot get a concealed carry permit. For those choosing to carry a firearm for self-defense, it is the only legal means available. Some open carry as a form of legal civil protest of unconstitutional firearms laws and CCW issuance policies. Still others carry as a form of firearms community diplomacy, to dispel the myth that only cops and criminals carry guns, and to help reintroduce the general public and the law enforcement community to the reality that ordinary peaceful law-abiding citizens possess, use, and carry firearms.

What allows an officer to check on someone who is open carrying a firearm is PC 12031 (e). Some are ok with it, others aren't.

12031 (e) states that peace officers may examine firearms openly carried in public, but only to determine if they are loaded. No further search of any kind is authorized without a warrent or legal probable cause. And legaly carring a firearm is not probable cause. Furthermore, citizens are not required to answer any police questions, for any reason, under any circumstances. No interrogation, no request for I.D., no request for Driver's License, no request for address, no request for date of birth, no request for a prostate exam. The standard answer to any request for personal information is, "I don't see how that is relavent to this interaction! Am I being detained? If not, I would like to be about my business. Have a nice day!"

Many people feel that these checks are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The reason these checks are allowed is because they have been deemed an "inspection". However the problem is when an overzealous or uninformed LEO takes it above and beyond that, either by trying to get I.D., serial numbers, approching them at gunpoint or false arrest. Besides, those on the outside of the law who want to carry firearms do exactly that; carry concealed firearms. They're not going to want to bring any unnecessary attention to themselves.

Anyway, you really got to know your stuff with this. If you are unwilling to accept this risk of false arrest, or are unable to bear the significant financial burden for your legal defense, then don't Open Carry in California.

[ssc]

I will do my best to avoid getting into this open carry debate. My only comment is in response to John. I know the law in 1985 specifically allowed the open carry of a handgun, or that a handgun could be carried or transported in plain sight, so long as it was unloaded and a loaded mag was not attached to the gun or touching it. I was just graduating from Law School and had researched this issue. Further, on the way back from a high-power shoot, we were pulled over by the CHP and I pointed out the unloaded pistol in plain sight. I had the mag in my shirt pocket, which was exposed by at least 2 inches. The officer asked to look at the gun and I handed it to him. He checked the chamber and gave it back to me; end of conversation. I do not think the law is as clear as it was. If memory serves, there have been a few cases that have been ruled on by our appeals court that may have changed this or restricted the law or interpreted it in a different fashion. I may be wrong, but that seems to be in the back of my mind. If I get some extra time, I may do a bit of research. I also had a friend who was prosecuted for having an unloaded gun in plain sight on his seat and a loaded mag next to it. DA's are a funny bunch and many have political agendas. Hence, you may be right, but it could cost someone mucho bucks to prove a point.

Moral of the story, be sure of your source and you may be correct, but to say it will never stick, could be a recipe for disaster. There are so many little ins and outs, don't get caught in a mess. As an example, I was hunting somewhere many years ago--don't remember the state--and it was legal to have rounds in the mag/clip, but not in the chamber, while in a vehicle. We came back from hunting and set our guns against the truck to take off our packs, get something to drink etc. A fish and game officer or ranger drove up. He cited everyone who had a shell in the chamber because the rifle was touching the truck. Go figure.

Regards, Steve

[Dennis David]

Once again I love living in California but sometimes this states just drives me nuts.