Stopped for Open Carrying in California

[socal_rubi]

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

CRIME.

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.

People have been doing the same harm to other people since before Christ was born. There's nothing that was happening back then that isn't still going on today. The only difference is now it's considered socially unacceptable or illegal to carry a weapon for self defense. A reference was made to the Wild West. Nothing has changed since that time. People are still stealing, raping, murdering, committing armed robbery, you name it, and it’s still going on. People don't steal horses anymore but they do car jack little old ladies and soccer mom's. The only difference is then it was socially acceptable to carry a weapon, and now it's not. Crime hasn't changed, societies have changed. Our society moved away from the self defense approach towards the acceptance of armed police as protectors. Personally, I feel that police are impotent when it comes to actually protecting John Q Public. There are just too few of them, and they are hamstringed by a legal system that cares more for the rights of the criminal than for the victim. Societies want to believe that moving away from self defense towards protection by police and the legal system will eventually decrease the instance of violent crime. But history has shown this to be untrue.

If i were alive during the Wild West, I would have carried a loaded firearm.
If I lived in Texas, or any other state where it's legal, I would carry a loaded firearm.

Just my 2 cents.

[ssc]

I always have to laugh when the wild west is mentioned. There are two points in history that I like to study-the wild west and the civil war. The crime in the old wild west was substantially less than is thought. There were two main reasons for this. One, the majority of the towns people were armed. It was a rare occasion that someone or even a group could raze a town. In some of the cattle towns, there were some razing, but the merchants wanted the money from the Texans who drove up the cattle. None the less, order was preserved. Crooks knew they would be shot if they caused trouble and this is why the crime rate in many places in the west was low. Some criminals took the chance and paid some heavy prices--think Northfield, James and Youngers. Many others were shot or hung for there criminal activities.

The second issue was the town vigilante groups. The criminals feared these folks more than the law and it was the law that protected them from hangings in many cases. If a town was known for their vigilante activity, criminals gave those towns a wide pass.

Regards, Steve

[cruiserlarry]

If i were alive during the Wild West, I would have carried a loaded firearm.
If I lived in Texas, or any other state where it's legal, I would carry a loaded firearm.

Just my 2 cents.

I would do the same as you in both situations - back in the days of the wild west, because it was the norm of the period, and in Texas, well, because it's Texas...

But the wild west is history, and I live in California...


(Looks like I woke some people up... )

[BorregoWrangler]

Here's another interesting article on the subject:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-R ... rying-guns

Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns

On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."

The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states. Learn more here.

In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.

Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.

On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that

"t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."

Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that

"[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."

Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.

NOTE: Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com.

Update: $21,000 settlement orderd.

[DaveK]

Most [gun owners] are not smart enough or skilled enough [for self defense]

All you gun owners out there, take a good look at this because it is exactly how the left views you. This level of candor is rare and definitely worth a very close look. You are not smart enough or skilled enough to defend your self. AND, it is one small step from here to their next goal of insisting that the government take charge of protecting every one and removing your right to do so. Make no mistake about it.

And incidentally, this arrogance, that they are the only ones smart enough to handle things, isn't confined to just guns.

I do not believe the majority of people are above average in mental capacity

YIKES!!! DOUBLE YIKES!!!

I hope that everyone who is reading this again realizes that this is exactly how the left views you - not smart enough to do defend your self. Does this mean that only those who can demonstrate that their “mental capacity” is above “average” will be allowed to own and use guns for self defense?

It would appear that we have a deeply fundamental difference of opinion regarding the average American. I have great faith in the ability and intelligence of the average guy and my confidence in his ability to defend himself, with a gun, is strong. Since the government is not capable of being everywhere to defend it's citizens, I feel and am a whole lot safer when I am able to defend myself and we don't know who is packing.

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.

GROAN!! We've been down this road so many times. I have never used the vast majority of the contents of my first aid kit, but I still carry them. Unless you have some sort of a guarantee that you will never become the victim of a violent crime, you would do well to take your own advice and be prepared. But, as you point out, that is your choice.

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

And educating too!

[cruiserlarry]

Most [gun owners] are not smart enough or skilled enough [for self defense]

All you gun owners out there, take a good look at this because it is exactly how the left views you. This level of candor is rare and definitely worth a very close look. You are not smart enough or skilled enough to defend your self. AND, it is one small step from here to their next goal of insisting that the government take charge of protecting every one and removing your right to do so. Make no mistake about it.

And incidentally, this arrogance, that they are the only ones smart enough to handle things, isn't confined to just guns.

Please, I'm not the "left" - I'm one person, trying to express my views to a hostile arena; I'm not trying to represent an entire group of any sort. As I've stated many times before, I'm not anti-gun; I'm anti-fanatic.

Why do you insist on extrapolating one action from another ? That's not one small step - that's one huge paranooid leap...

Who is it with this mystical goal of removing the rights of 350 million people (besides Mr Cheney) ? According to you, I'm one of the "lefties" and I don't want that. Neither do any of the average or above average intelligence folks I've associated with from either side of the political spectrum. Must be some alien life form we need to fear... By the way, the government IS protecting you - unless you thought the military, police, public service, forest rangers, firemen, coast guard, and border patrol were all private citizens coincidentally working on your behalf...

I do not believe the majority of people are above average in mental capacity

I hope that everyone who is reading this again realizes that this is exactly how the left views you - not smart enough to do defend your self. Does this mean that only those who can demonstrate that their “mental capacity” is above “average” will be allowed to own and use guns for self defense?

It would appear that we have a deeply fundamental difference of opinion regarding the average American.

Again, you are having a difficult time grasping a factual concept - most people are of average or below average intellectual capacity, BY DEFINITION - there's no opinion in that statement.

The law allows virtually every American to own a gun without an intelligence test (or any test of his skill or mental ability at all) - I haven't stated anything about changing that right.

And, yes, we do have a deeply fundamental difference of opinion regarding the average American. I've traveled to virtually all 50 states, and met lots of people; and there are many I'd be scared to have making any decisions of consequence for me or my family. Much scarier to me than guns....

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.

I have never used the vast majority of the contents of my first aid kit, but I still carry them. Unless you have some sort of a guarantee that you will never become the victim of a violent crime, you would do well to take your own advice and be prepared. But, as you point out, that is your choice.

Well, you are partially correct. I, too, have a first aid kit. but I have one, and I don't stockpile emergency rooms, X-ray machines, and ambulances, although I might need one someday. As for owning a gun for myself - I would absolutely consider it for use in the wilderness, if I had time to be properly trained - but that's different than stockpiling ammo in your house to prevent the government from "getting" you, or keeping a collection of AR-15s to protect against a burglar...

[DaveK]

By the way, the government IS protecting you - unless you thought the military, police, public service, forest rangers, firemen, coast guard, and border patrol were all private citizens coincidentally working on your behalf...

And they do a fantastic job, but they cant' be everywhere. Crime still rages on. There are still murders, rapes, robberies, break-ins, and kidnappings.

And, yes, we do have a deeply fundamental difference of opinion regarding the average American. I've traveled to virtually all 50 states, and met lots of people; and there are many I'd be scared to have making any decisions of consequence for me or my family. Much scarier to me than guns....

Uh oh! Sounds like you think that these "scary" people represent the average American????

Well, you are partially correct. I, too, have a first aid kit. but I have one, and I don't stockpile emergency rooms, X-ray machines, and ambulances, although I might need one someday. As for owning a gun for myself - I would absolutely consider it for use in the wilderness, if I had time to be properly trained - but that's different than stockpiling ammo in your house to prevent the government from "getting" you, or keeping a collection of AR-15s to protect against a burglar...

Part of your problem here is an inability to stay on topic. While I would love to discuss stockpiling, you might remember the title of this thread is OPEN CARRY, not AR-15s or large quantities of ammo.....
I'm encouraged however, to learn that you would "absolutely consider" owning a gun for use in the wilderness. I call that progress.

[cruiserlarry]

Uh oh! Sounds like you think that these "scary" people represent the average American????

No - just that there are a lot of average Americans who give in easily to fear tactics used to support political ideas they are uneducated about.

Part of your problem here is an inability to stay on topic. While I would love to discuss stockpiling, you might remember the title of this thread is OPEN CARRY, not AR-15s or large quantities of ammo.....

That would be true if it weren't for the fact that most who support open carry also stockpile weapons and ammo, IMO. Show me an open carry participant with one pistol and a box of ammo...

I'm encouraged however, to learn that you would "absolutely consider" owning a gun for use in the wilderness. I call that progress.

That's why I'm a progressive, as opposed to a leftist. I am able to assimilate new information and use it to adjust my position on an issue. That's the difference between myself and those who fear their rights are going to be confiscated by some mystical government entity with an agenda - I can rethink my position based on rational thought instead of towing the line of others who "think" for me...

Your turn to progress....

[BorregoWrangler]

Part of your problem here is an inability to stay on topic. While I would love to discuss stockpiling, you might remember the title of this thread is OPEN CARRY, not AR-15s or large quantities of ammo.....

That would be true if it weren't for the fact that most who support open carry also stockpile weapons and ammo, IMO. Show me an open carry participant with one pistol and a box of ammo...

Whoa, how do you figure that? I sure know lot of people, myself included, who support open carry and don't stockpile weapons and ammo. Do you consider having more than one pistol and a box of ammo as stockpiling?

Good stuff, so far!

[ssc]

Would someone tell me how to use the quote feature, Please.

Larry--I love your last statement as quoted by John. I wish I could quote it. Lets see now.
"... if it weren't for the FACT" What fact, whos fact, where's this fact!!
"... and ammo, IMO." OK, I see; the fact is not a fact but your opinion, not supported by anything other than your imagination and or assumption.
I am not real big on the OC movement for my own reasons, but have spoke with a few OC people. They were young and students and didn't have much money and , at least the two I spoke to, only had one gun.

By the way, what do you consider stockpiling of weapons and ammo? I know a few people who stockpile off road goodies, including extra lighting, but they don't scare me, though they may have OCD.

We love ya Larry.

Regards, Steve