Outdoor Adventure USA

sdnative wrote:While I support OC, I do not see myself practicing it in an urban environment. What I am interested in however is the ability to carry a handgun on my person as protection in the "wilderness". Assuming I am not in a state park or other restricted area, what restrictions are there to OCing in this capacity? What about an unloaded shotgun strapped to my pack with shells in a hip pouch as an example? I have been hesistant to travel alone for lack of protection of pretators (whether animal or human), and have been very interested in carrying some type of protection while out of my vehicle.

I would be interested in hearing some thoughts on this, in addition to OCing in an urban environment. Very good discussion so far.

Loaded weapons cannot be carried in public in incorporated areas. It is also illegal to carry a loaded weapon in any unincorporated area where it is illegal to discharge a weapon. If shooting is permitted, then so is carrying a loaded weapon. Sometimes you'll come upon a sign that says "no shooting, except for the lawful pursuit of game." So I'd say the best thing to do if your not sure about an area is check with the local land management (BLM, National Forest, etc.) and or/ Sheriff to make sure that shooting is permitted.

BorregoWrangler wrote:Loaded weapons cannot be carried in public in incorporated areas. It is also illegal to carry a loaded weapon in any unincorporated area where it is illegal to discharge a weapon. If shooting is permitted, then so is carrying a loaded weapon. Sometimes you'll come upon a sign that says "no shooting, except for the lawful pursuit of game." So I'd say the best thing to do if your not sure about an area is check with the local land management (BLM, National Forest, etc.) and or/ Sheriff to make sure that shooting is permitted.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not interested in carrying a loaded weapon, but open carrying an unloaded handgun (with empty magazine inserted) and a loaded magazine within reach.

sdnative wrote:While I support OC, I do not see myself practicing it in an urban environment. What I am interested in however is the ability to carry a handgun on my person as protection in the "wilderness". Assuming I am not in a state park or other restricted area, what restrictions are there to OCing in this capacity? What about an unloaded shotgun strapped to my pack with shells in a hip pouch as an example? I have been hesistant to travel alone for lack of protection of pretators (whether animal or human), and have been very interested in carrying some type of protection while out of my vehicle.

I would be interested in hearing some thoughts on this, in addition to OCing in an urban environment. Very good discussion so far.

Eric:

The answer to your question is very difficult. California has created one of the most confusing, complicated and extensive set of laws in the nation, when it comes to firearms. The risks of violating any one of these laws can be serious and can last a lifetime. I personally think that we are in this mess by the intentional design of the very authors who created the laws we must live under. Judges and lawyers argue continuously over the meaning and application of this maze of gun laws and it is both unreasonable and unfair for us to expect that law enforcement can discern what they mean when the courts still can't.

The answer to your question is further complicated by the fact that open carry activities are a relatively new phenomenon and police departments are scrambling to figure out what to do. The excerpt that John posted above is a great example. From my experience in court, these "guidelines", while an honest attempt to educate their officers, are not an entirely correct interpretation of the law. When you realize that carrying an openly obvious firearm in CALIFORNIA is a great way to scare the bambiests, weenies and tofu eaters, you will understand why you have the recipe for problems. California is one of the worst places to make the point that the OC crowd wants to make, unless you are prepared to suffer the consequences. This is surely not a criticism of what they are doing, but an observation from a legal perspective.

The direct answer to your question is not going to be easy to accept but I'll give it a stab. Even though open carry is allowed under CA law, there are a number of jurisdictions and areas where it will not be allowed. SOME of these areas are state parks, airports, courts, and state and federal buildings. The best advice I can give you is, 1) call ahead to the place where you want to exercise your rights and make damn sure about their rules, 2) think seriously about getting a CCW, and 3) keep your attorney's card and a toothbrush handy at all times.

Remember, the cost to prove you are in the right can be significant and if you are not prepared to enrich the legal profession, think twice about open carry, ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA!!!

Dave,

I understand your points and concerns, and this is not something I take lightly. There is just so much talk about OCing in your local mall or starbucks, but little discussion about carrying out in the bush, where I imagine it would cause less of a stir. I am interested in doing some hiking in some fairly remote areas, and we live close to the border, so I am considering my options for protection. I am a normal, law-abiding, citizen and am trying to identify what rights I do and do not have.

I am planning on applying for a CCW, but from what I understand, it is very difficult to obtain one barring special circumstances (which do not apply to me AFAIK).

sdnative wrote:

BorregoWrangler wrote:Loaded weapons cannot be carried in public in incorporated areas. It is also illegal to carry a loaded weapon in any unincorporated area where it is illegal to discharge a weapon. If shooting is permitted, then so is carrying a loaded weapon. Sometimes you'll come upon a sign that says "no shooting, except for the lawful pursuit of game." So I'd say the best thing to do if your not sure about an area is check with the local land management (BLM, National Forest, etc.) and or/ Sheriff to make sure that shooting is permitted.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not interested in carrying a loaded weapon, but open carrying an unloaded handgun (with empty magazine inserted) and a loaded magazine within reach.

Oh, ok. I believe in the situations I described, if you're out in the bush it doesn't matter if the gun is loaded or not. But like Dave said, call ahead to the place where you want to exercise your rights and make sure. For all practical reasons, I don't think you'd have any problems packing the way you want if you're way out in the middle of no where in a very remote area. For example, I been hunting and hiking all around Jacumba with either a shotgun, rifle or revolver and have come upon Border Patrol, Fish & Game Wardens and Sheriff. They never had any problem that I was armed. Here's a link to hunting and shooting on BLM land.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recrea ... print.html

Now Anza Borrego, being a state park, allows no hunting or target shooting within its borders. I'm not sure about this but I think that while in the park, firearms must be unloaded, inoperative, in a case, and kept in your vehicle at all times. However, that being said, if I'm out there hiking in a very remote area I am not going to leave myself with no way to defend myself or my family.

DaveK wrote:On the other hand, there is a segment of the criminal element whose survival instinct is missing , and they will act regardless of the risks. For them, there is only one deterrent. For many people, the ability to carry represents an infinitely more acceptable alternative than the prospect of becoming an easy target for a deranged killer intent on inflicting harm.

This is the problem to me (and others)- it's only a "feeling" - you are not really safer. But, many who lack training are more dangerous to themselves and others around them even when no criminal element is involved. Let's look at the most obvious statistic - most people are not armed whether by law or by choice, and they are alive and not victims of violent crimes. So, using the logic presented in your arguments, if you "feel" safe whether armed or not, you are unlikely to be a victim. Can you become a random victim of violence ? Of course. Are you likely to protect yourself with a weapon ? Not likely, but until confronted you will "feel" much safer. That’s not good enough for me, as a bystander.

DaveK wrote:This is one of the most frustratingly misguided arguments that the anti-gun crowd uses. Let's take this by the numbers:
1. It is the height of naiveté to believe that the criminally inclined will magically alter their ways if we merely get rid of guns.

No one (at least not me) has ever said that eliminating guns will prevent crime. What I've said is the threat of being a victim of a violent crime (or government takeover, or any of many paranoid scenarios) is greatly exaggerated by the pro-gun lobby, and it is fear, not reality, that drives many people to bear arms.

DaveK wrote: 2. There is no evidence whatsoever that the incidents of crime that you mention, have been caused by a single member of the open carry movement while they were carrying. I am not aware of a single reported crime attributable to supporters of open carry. There is no connection between the two.

I never stated that the OC movement was responsible for any direct criminal action – only for inciting the fear and paranoia that lead other less stable folks to join up and arm themselves.

DaveK wrote:3. The argument, that you are less secure when carrying, is not only disturbingly illogical but factually wrong. If you believe this, it means that an unarmed person is as secure as an armed person when confronting a criminal. I guess that police should not carry guns.

Again, not what I said. I stated that you are not more secure. Big difference. However, an armed person is 100% more likely to be a victim, or cause someone else to be a victim, of a shooting mishap, than an unarmed person. What I said is that it is much more likely you’ll injure yourself or others than defend yourself from a criminal act. How did this become analogous to disarming law enforcement personnel ?? The discussion is about laypersons, not professionals – they can already open-carry…

DaveK wrote:4. What should really scare you is the non stop assault against your right to self defense. If you choose to not take advantage of this opportunity, that, of course, is your right.

Actually, I’m scared of the non-stop assault, period. The idea that I should be forced to walk the streets with openly armed people, added to the fact I’ll more likely be a victim of accidental violence at their hands than any criminal activity directed toward me, is frightening. It seems, based on the discussions and responses here, that most folks are already sufficiently armed to keep themselves and their families “safe” – why the need to accrue more weaponry, and spread it out in the open like the wild west, is insane to me.

If only this same fervor was put towards improving the education system, or any other socially positive programs, instead of appealing to the fears of less educated folks, we’d all be less likely to be victims, armed or not, IMHO.

So, what’s on your shopping list for the 10th ?

Hi Eric,
I tend to agree with John. It is my understanding that you can carry a weapon in plain sight in Wilderness areas, BLM and NF. Another item is to have a hunting license and claim you are hunting coyote--open year round. There are some restrictions on where you can discharge a weapon and no carry loaded weapon in certain areas.http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/recrea ... nting.html

Regards, Steve

ssc wrote:. It is my understanding that you can carry a weapon in plain sight in Wilderness areas, BLM and NF.

Although it doesn't make me feel "safe", I completely understand why a person would want to be armed in the wilderness...Unfortunately, I still observe a lot of folks (virtually every off-road trip through BLM areas) who use the wilderness areas as an excuse to discharge weapons and destroy stuff without regard to the safety of others nearby. While no law can control these folks any more than stop crime in general, my hope is that there will be as vocal a movement for gun safety by gun enthusiasts, as there is for gun ownership and open carry rights...

cruiserlarry wrote: Let's look at the most obvious statistic - most people are not armed whether by law or by choice, and they are alive and not victims of violent crimes. So, using the logic presented in your arguments, if you "feel" safe whether armed or not, you are unlikely to be a victim. Can you become a random victim of violence ? Of course. Are you likely to protect yourself with a weapon ? Not likely, but until confronted you will "feel" much safer. That’s not good enough for me, as a bystander.

I’m not really sure I understand the point here. Should I not defend myself because most people are not the victims of violent crime? Should I wait until most people are victims before I defend myself?

Incidentally, where is the proof that you are more likely to be injured as a bystander. As long as we are on the subject of feelings without merit, I would suggest that the fear of harm from an armed citizen, engaged in self defense, is, at best, exaggerated.

cruiserlarry wrote: However, an armed person is 100% more likely to be a victim, or cause someone else to be a victim, of a shooting mishap, than an unarmed person. What I said is that it is much more likely you’ll injure yourself or others than defend yourself from a criminal act.

This appears to really be the crux of your position and I challenge you to legitimately prove that you are 100% more likely to become a victim if you are armed. This is pure fiction. The truth of the mater is that there are literally millions of instances of armed citizens stopping criminal acts every year without getting hurt or hurting anyone else. If there is any victim here, it is the public for believing the bile that is reported in the lame stream media that "you are more likely to hurt yourself if you are armed". It is simply not true.

The saddest part of this thinking is what it really represents - an insult to the American people by implying we are not smart enough or skilled enough for self defense without endangering everyone nearby. For those willing to believe this, I guess the only salvation then would be the government.

cruiserlarry wrote: – why the need to accrue more weaponry, and spread it out in the open like the wild west.........

CRIME.

cruiserlarry wrote:If only this same fervor was put towards improving the education system, or any other socially positive programs, instead of appealing to the fears of less educated folks, we’d all be less likely to be victims, armed or not, IMHO.

That’s a wonderful thought. Unfortunately, no civilization has ever has been able to eliminate crime, no matter how much fervor it put towards education. Even if this were the answer, it would be unwise to let our guard down while we wait for utopia.

The less educated folks, eh? Hmmmmm............some may interpret that as just a wee bit elitist. I reckon us educated peoples ain't a-scared by such baseless fears!








My shopping list starts with food.

DaveK wrote:The saddest part of this thinking is what it really represents - an insult to the American people by implying we are not smart enough or skilled enough for self defense without endangering everyone nearby.

Most are not smart enough or skilled enough. If you equate an expression of truth as an insult, that's your interpretation. Most folks I've dealt with who are obsessed with accumulating an arsenal under the pretenses of self-defense, and feel the need to be armed at all times, are not, in my mind, acting under a rational concern - more like an instilled fear, or power / control issue. I've met exceptions as well - you, ssc, and some others on this forum, for example - but this is the exception and not the rule in my experience. Our experiences differ.

I do not believe the majority of people are above average in mental capacity - by definition - and fear is a powerful motivator. It has been this way for all societies, for all of recorded history. So, while I do understand the instinct to defend yourself and your family, I do not equate that to an armed task 24/7. But fear will make different people act in different ways. Some need to create an image of power to feel safe, others resist the need to intimidate others for a feeling of security. The reality is virtually none of us will experience violent crime first hand, so to me it's more about how I want to feel the rest of the time. Is this unrealistic thinking in today's world ? Maybe, but I'm OK with that.

As humankind progresses, there should be less and less need for armed debate, and more civil discourse. Is this an overly optimistic viewpoint ?? OF COURSE. But this change has to start somewhere, and I refuse to become a victim of fear-mongering. Does that mean I wouldn't defend myself ? NO. Does that mean I won't be the victim of a violent crime ? NO. It just means I can live with peace of mind, even in today's society, without the need to bear arms for my mental security. On this feeling we will continue to agree to disagree.

Again, I find myself peeing into the wind here, but at least it's entertaining the masses...