search
top

More Clamoring for Relevancy

It’s looking like the Brady folks are angry that Starbucks isn’t reacting the way they expected, and are upping the ante by taking it over to the HuffPo.

Such a policy is disturbing to law enforcement officials as well as Starbucks patrons. As a San Mateo County Sheriff’s Lieutenant put it, “Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation,” because when police respond to a “man with a gun” call, they have no idea what the intentions of the gun carrier are and “the result could be deadly.”

Don’t exercise your constitutional rights, or we’ll shoot you! What a rousing message of freedom coming from California. Heller endorsed a right-to-carry, even if the state will have the power to regulate how firearm may be worn (openly vs. concealed, etc). Pick one or the other. We can make this issue fizzle in California really quick if the politicians want to issue concealed carry licenses on a non-discretionary basis. The Bradys might not want to accept it, but that’s the current state of affairs. Open or concealed — pick one — you may not prohibit both.

12 Responses to “More Clamoring for Relevancy”

  1. Tam says:

    What about “man with a knife” calls? Do they get those from Outback a lot?

  2. Kahr40 says:

    The intentions should pretty much be indicated by whether the gun is in holster or hand, and most “civilians” who choose to carry and defend themselves or others understand some police officers might not take the time to determine who the good guy is as opposed to the bad. It’s one of the risks.

  3. Open or concealed — pick one — you may not prohibit both.

    I strongly suspect that’s how it’ll go down in Jersey. The state will prosecute and fight like hell with taxpayer money to resist any kind of carry, but once it becomes clear that with the current discriminatory system they can’t stop open carry, they’ll probably grudgingly switch to a more-or-less shall-issue system with as many arbitrary and burdensome restrictions as they can possibly get away with.

    If the carry issue plays out quickly, while we still have a gun-agnostic Republican governor, it’ll probably be a lot less painful.

  4. Ian Argent says:

    They better start soon; or they’ll be caught with their pants down and have to “shall-issue” on the current permit regime (which is pretty wide-open if you could get a permit).

  5. I fully expect we’ll end up with a raft of silly restrictions. No guns in churches. No guns in public parks. No guns in restaurants that serve alcohol. Criminal offense to ignore a merchant’s no-gun sign. They’ll make it as difficult as possible–that’s the Jersey way–but that won’t mean “impossible” anymore.

  6. Ian Argent says:

    We will see. They have roughly a 2-year window of opportunity, the way I see it. If they don’t address it before SAF’s “shall-issue” lawsuit in CA goes through, they’ll have to patch the existing law from a position of weakness. Which, given the OMAG law that just went through, won’t preclude the fight – but with the current Governor, the chance exists that he will not fight the lawsuits on the grounds of cost; the way that Chicago’s neighbors knuckled under in the face of McDonald.

  7. Harry Schell says:

    Urban CA cops generally are opposed to anyone carrying except themselves or criminals. Everybody else is just too crazy and dangerous.

    Sad to say, there is some truth in that, but if experience proves anything, it is that almost all of that segment of crazies will never seek a permit in a shall issue state.

    It’s the people who might get uppity with LEO’s if they could carry that really scare them. Such people might not be so “manageable” and obidient when a LEO wants to run you around. Some LEO’s need that monopoly on force to feel comfortable ordering people around.

  8. Jujube says:

    This is one of the funniest posts I have ever read. Heller didn’t endorse a right to carry outside of your home. Los Angeles and San Francisco are closer to NYC when it comes to street carry.

  9. Sebastian says:

    Sure it did. Go read it.

  10. Ian Argent says:

    The decision didn’t come out and say it because that wasn’t the question at hand. But the way they answered the question of “keep” precludes a “no” answer for “bear”.

  11. Jujube says:

    Maybe they didn’t come out and say “bear,” but they did say something about “reasonable restrictions” and a reasonable restriction in high-population areas is restriction to street carry.

    In those parts of the USA where police cannot use their weapons to shoot (unless they have already been shot at), I’d expect the same restrictions on the public.

  12. …they did say something about “reasonable restrictions” and a reasonable restriction in high-population areas is restriction to street carry.

    Sorry you feel that way, but you’re simply wrong. The fundamental right to bear arms is like the fundamental right to free speech: a local or state government can restrict _how_ you do it, but not _whether_ you do it. They can say you may not carry concealed (or _must_ carry concealed_). They can require you to take a safety course. They can require you to get a permit (this is the usual tradeoff between public interest and the right to demonstrate, for example).

    A ban isn’t a “restriction”, reasonable or not. It’sa ban.

    In any case, your implicit fear of legally carried guns in “high-population areas” is completely baseless. There are plenty of big cities in the US that have large numbers of shall-issue permit holders who regularly carry in public (usually because their desire to ban carry is smacked down at the state level through preemption laws, like in Philadelphia), and crimes and accidents involving permit holders are vanishingly rare. “Guns in public are dangerous” is one of those assumptions that’s perfectly reasonable in your head, but you’re supposed to reexamine assumptions when they predict things that aren’t happening.

top