PDA

View Full Version : LA DA: Unloaded Open Carry Legal


hoffmang
12-27-2008, 9:25 PM
This little gem just popped into my inbox:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/Los_Angeles_DA-2008-22_Carrying_Guns.pdf

The LA DA is distributing this memo to LEOs and LEAs. It is a touch overbearing in spots (Flores is already being quoted against us vis-a-vis Heller) but is accurate and shows the clear and correct definition of loaded.

Hat tip to the person who sent it to me who wants to remain nameless I think.

-Gene

Theseus
12-27-2008, 9:57 PM
:clap::jump::party:

We seem to be making some good progress...Now, I don't agree with the fact of being able to check our ID and keep us around to find any other violation. . .

If we are following the letter to the law enough to have holsters and ammo separate...it is likely a good bet that we are not a bunch of gang banging criminals!

Librarian
12-27-2008, 9:58 PM
Odd. I seem to have seen part of that written someplace around here, too. :)

CaliforniaCarry
12-27-2008, 9:59 PM
Interesting how he doesn't mention magazines at all, only ammunition.

N6ATF
12-27-2008, 10:02 PM
How about...

If the serial number of the weapon comes into plain view during inspection, it may be noted and run against data bases. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) 480 US 321, 324

How many serial numbers aren't stamped or engraved in plain view? Can we put electrical tape over them to avoid anything more than Prompt incidental checks?

pullnshoot25
12-27-2008, 10:02 PM
This is so freaking sweet. I agree with hoffmang about the overbearing part and I agree with the license check stuff being too much for overall, this is fairly good news.

Suck on that, LA! HAHAHAH!

Now, time to OC in LA with that memo in my pocket, my Livescribe pen recording and a grin on my face :) :) :) :) :) :)

Theseus
12-27-2008, 10:06 PM
This does make me wonder however....

If the item is not in plain view until it is requested, can they still argue in plain view? I mean, it wasn't in plain view until they demanded it, and it would not have been in plain view unless they demanded it.

And is there anything that prevents me "covering" the serial so that, even during an inspection such as this it would not be in "plain view"? (Note I am not asking to remove it, just take it out of plain view, perhaps with some electrical tape or something?)

Peace officers are authorized to inspect any firearm carried in prohibited public areas to determine whether or not it is loaded; refusal to permit inspection is probable cause for arrest for violation of § 12031. (PC § 12031(e)) If the serial number of the weapon comes into plain view during inspection, it may be noted and run against data bases. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) 480 US 321, 324. The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and a data-base check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004) 542 US 177, 187.

sholling
12-27-2008, 10:11 PM
Basically what he is saying is that unloaded open carry is perfectly legal but an officer may (should?) harass the living crap out of anyone that takes advantage of their rights.

Window_Seat
12-27-2008, 10:13 PM
UOC does not impress me much... I'll be happy with either LOC or (preferably and) CCW. I can recall a certain radio talk show host who was talking with John Longenecker (http://www.goodforthecountry.com). The host asked the question: "What good is a gun if it's not loaded, and what good is it if not chambered?"

Erik; waiting.

pullnshoot25
12-27-2008, 10:16 PM
UOC does not impress me much... I'll be happy with either LOC or (preferably and) CCW. I can recall a certain radio talk show host who was talking with John Longenecker (http://www.goodforthecountry.com). The host asked the question: "What good is a gun if it's not loaded, and what good is it if not chambered?"

Erik; waiting.

We are working with what we have and trying to do it peaceably.

It is better for a gun be on your hip than in your safe.

Annie Oakley
12-27-2008, 10:27 PM
This is very interesting. Has anyone checked to see what San Bernardino is saying about this ? If I'm not driving my truck, should I just carry my passport and leave my drivers license in the truck with my registration and insurance ?

I really don't think I'm going to do this yet because it has been very cold here and I don't really want to be in the "gun free zone" of a school.

Please, please, please be very careful guys. I would so hate to see you "Corwined". :eek:

Splinter
12-27-2008, 10:32 PM
We are working with what we have and trying to do it peaceably.

It is better for a gun be on your hip than in your safe.

I dont agree with it being better to have a displayed gun unloaded than in your safe. Concealed, loaded carry is the only good way to have a gun IMO. I do aplaud the efforts of UOC in getting ccw straightened out though. Which I assume is the point of these acts. Its all BS and something needs to be done, even if I feel it is a big risk having an open carried unloaded gun. The only use I see for it is helping someone else out?

ZirconJohn
12-27-2008, 10:34 PM
What's the big deal about open carry a gun that is NOT loaded?

I would not want to [even] conceal-carry a handgun that is NOT loaded for that matter, if I cannot carry loaded then I do not want to carry at all... I see no purpose in an unloaded gun. Just asking for unwanted and un-necessary attention.

pullnshoot25
12-27-2008, 10:36 PM
UOC does not impress me much... I'll be happy with either LOC or (preferably and) CCW. I can recall a certain radio talk show host who was talking with John Longenecker (http://www.goodforthecountry.com). The host asked the question: "What good is a gun if it's not loaded, and what good is it if not chambered?"

Erik; waiting.

What's the big deal about open carry a gun that is NOT loaded?

I would not want to [even] conceal-carry a handgun that is NOT loaded for that matter, if I cannot carry loaded then I do not want to carry at all... I see no purpose in an unloaded gun. Just asking for unwanted and un-necessary attention.

That is what everyone keeps saying but it hasnt happened. Check my sigline for my blog. I have open carried multiple times and have had one police interaction overall.

Window_Seat
12-27-2008, 10:40 PM
We are working with what we have and trying to do it peaceably.

Agreed, and I'll participate in that effort in the same way (including attending the Nordyke Oral Arguments (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=137800), and then attending the Dinner afterwards (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=137797)).

Erik; Cautiously optimistic

capo
12-27-2008, 10:41 PM
a firearm is "loaded" if there is matching ammunition in or attached to the weapon in such a way that it can be fired.

Is this somewhat saying that a magazine can be inserted into a semi-auto, but a round cannot be chambered? A full magazine inserted into a semi-auto cannot be fired until a round is chambered...??? Food for thought, or am I just really hungry?

11Z50
12-27-2008, 10:42 PM
Sounds like a big win for the oc boys!

NiteQwill
12-27-2008, 10:43 PM
Is this somewhat saying that a magazine can be inserted into a semi-auto, but a round cannot be chambered? A full magazine inserted into a semi-auto cannot be fired until a round is chambered...??? Food for thought, or am I just really hungry?

If you have a loaded magazine inside the weapon, it is considered loaded and illegal.

ZirconJohn
12-27-2008, 10:46 PM
That is what everyone keeps saying but it hasnt happened. Check my sigline for my blog. I have open carried multiple times and have had one police interaction overall.

Well, that may be true and not to egg anything on... I still do not see the purpose of a firearm either on your body, or in a box, either open carry or conceal carry that is NOT loaded.

Why carry an unloaded firearm?

capo
12-27-2008, 10:47 PM
If you have a loaded magazine inside the weapon, it is considered loaded and illegal.

That is my understanding. But let me play devil's advocate a bit ... even with a full magazine in the weapon, without chambering a round, it cannot be fired, and they specify, even emphasize, "a firearm is "loaded" if there is matching ammunition in or attached to the weapon in such a way that it can be fired."

NiteQwill
12-27-2008, 10:54 PM
That is my understanding. But let me play devil's advocate a bit ... even with a full magazine in the weapon, without chambering a round, it cannot be fired, and they specify, even emphasize, "a firearm is "loaded" if there is matching ammunition in or attached to the weapon in such a way that it can be fired."

Read the entire People v. Clark. The ammo is in a position ready to fired and attached to the gun, it is illegal.

jlh95811
12-27-2008, 10:55 PM
That is my understanding. But let me play devil's advocate a bit ... even with a full magazine in the weapon, without chambering a round, it cannot be fired, and they specify, even emphasize, "a firearm is "loaded" if there is matching ammunition in or attached to the weapon in such a way that it can be fired."

I'm with you on this one.

Give it a try and then hire a lawyer. Bet you win.:o The way the law reads it seems you are right. But I don't know if it will stand up in court.

Another Idea:
What if you have a dummy round with the little orange rubber bullet or a snap cap as the first round in the mag?

That should make it ok right?

Army
12-27-2008, 10:57 PM
Well, that may be true and not to egg anything on... I still do not see the purpose of a firearm either on your body, or in a box, either open carry or conceal carry that is NOT loaded.

Why carry an unloaded firearm?
Because with minimal practice, one can make it loaded in less than 2 seconds, competition shooters do it all the time.

I UOC as often as possible, with 2 fully charged magazines on the left side of my belt. Draw, insert magazine, rack slide. It almost takes longer to read that, than it takes to do it.

At no point do I feel unprepared.

lioneaglegriffin
12-27-2008, 10:59 PM
That is my understanding. But let me play devil's advocate a bit ... even with a full magazine in the weapon, without chambering a round, it cannot be fired, and they specify, even emphasize, "a firearm is "loaded" if there is matching ammunition in or attached to the weapon in such a way that it can be fired."

i see what your saying. its a no brainer for a revolver but it is a better safe than sorry with a semi-auto. (you never know when you'll get LEO who is a full time cop & part-time A-Hole.).

capo
12-27-2008, 10:59 PM
Read the entire People v. Clark. The ammo is in a position ready to fired and attached to the gun, it is illegal.

Ok, just for the sake of argument, from People v. Clark:


Thus, to the extent an ambiguity exists between whether the Legislature intended the term "loaded" to be used in its ordinary sense (i.e., a shell placed in a position ready to be fired)

A "shell" is not ready to be fired if it is not chambered. If a loaded magazine is inserted, but a round is NOT chambered, then an additional step is required to take place in order to make the round ready to be fired. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I think it makes sense.

capo
12-27-2008, 11:02 PM
PS: I'm not going to guinea pig this by the way, but it seems like the whole Calguns family has collectively exposed these rights that we have by exploring out of the box solutions, and I think what I am saying makes sense, until someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject can smash the argument.

hoffmang
12-27-2008, 11:02 PM
Gent's,

Pushing the interpretation in Clark to put a loaded magazine in a semiauto is going to be a loss until we file some sons of Heller and Nordyke.

There are lots of cases where people have had their loaded charges upheld based on rounds in a magazine.

-Gene

ZirconJohn
12-27-2008, 11:08 PM
Because with minimal practice, one can make it loaded in less than 2 seconds, competition shooters do it all the time.

I UOC as often as possible, with 2 fully charged magazines on the left side of my belt. Draw, insert magazine, rack slide. It almost takes longer to read that, than it takes to do it.

At no point do I feel unprepared.

How very sooooo grasshopper, how very so!

I still prefer fully loaded conceal carry.

nick
12-27-2008, 11:16 PM
What's the big deal about open carry a gun that is NOT loaded?

I would not want to [even] conceal-carry a handgun that is NOT loaded for that matter, if I cannot carry loaded then I do not want to carry at all... I see no purpose in an unloaded gun. Just asking for unwanted and un-necessary attention.

You have a loaded mag or two to go with it, they just aren't in the gun. So basically you have a gun that can be loaded in a matter of seconds, which is good enough for most situations.

Theseus
12-27-2008, 11:16 PM
I understand the argument that capo is making, and it has been made before. . . For those of us whom served or have any real training understand and know "loaded" to mean that if I pull the trigger gun goes boom...or in technical...a live round of ammunition is in the firing chamber of the weapon.

Your argument would seem sound, except that:

(g) – For PC12031, Loaded firearm is defined as when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof ATTACHED TO THE FIREARM.

I take from this that if the magazine is loaded and attached to the firearm...then it is loaded.

nick
12-27-2008, 11:19 PM
How very sooooo grasshopper, how very so!

I still prefer fully loaded conceal carry.

Sure, when you can have it. Can you? I can't, I live in Los Angeles County.

ZirconJohn
12-27-2008, 11:28 PM
Sure, when you can have it. Can you? I can't, I live in Los Angeles County.

I hear ya Bro!

I'm not spinning this too much, just a bit of devils advocate.

I am in Mendocino County, Northern CA and have CCW good for CA, and the Utah CCW... however, I am still in California, FFL Dealer and suffer from the same POS gun laws in all of Cali... man they SUCK!

This open carry thing for real? It's only rhetorical...

What about all other CA Area? Open carry same as this OC, it's Orange County... is that right?

Qustion... this open carry good for all California?

Librarian
12-27-2008, 11:44 PM
What about all other CA Area? Open carry same as this OC, it's Orange County... is that right?

Qustion... this open carry good for all California?

Legal in the whole state, except where all guns are prohibited or where CCW is the only noted exception -- e.g. as PC 171 (c)
the State Capitol, any legislative office, any office of the Governor or other constitutional officer, or any hearing room in which any committee of the Senate or Assembly is conducting a hearing, or upon the grounds of the State Capitol, which is bounded by 10th, L, 15th, and N Streets in the City of Sacramento

FreedomIsNotFree
12-28-2008, 12:02 AM
What's also interesting is what's not mentioned in this memo. They say nothing about People v. Hale. For those that don't recall Hale is the case where the Judge ruled that a magazine is an integral part of the gun and concealed mag = concealed gun.

Of course this does not mean Hale can't be relied upon for a like conviction, but could this omission point to the possibility that the LA DA does not believe Hale properly settled the question? Considering how well researched the memo is, I find it hard to believe Hale never came up during the research.

Theseus
12-28-2008, 12:03 AM
Do we ave anyone checking into their "plain view" and "while we have you" search and W&W check.....

It would seem to me that the PC only really allows them to inspect the weapon and not to run the serial or my ID....

Theseus
12-28-2008, 12:06 AM
What's also interesting is what's not mentioned in this memo. They say nothing about People v. Hale. For those that don't recall Hale is the case where the Judge ruled that a magazine is an integral part of the gun and concealed mag = concealed gun.

Of course this does not mean Hale can't be relied upon for a like conviction, but could this omission point to the possibility that the LA DA does not believe Hale properly settled the question? Considering how well researched the memo is, I find it hard to believe Hale never came up during the research.

I think the DA was trying to keep it simple. There were other areas, like not specifying K-12 in 626.9...

The basic tone seemed to me that, although we aren't doing anything illegal, they can and should put us through extreme scrutiny to find something on us.

ZirconJohn
12-28-2008, 12:08 AM
Legal in the whole state, except where all guns are prohibited or where CCW is the only noted exception -- e.g. as PC 171 (c)

Thanks LB,

Is there a detailed PC reference to this attached .pdf indicating open carry?

The .pdf refers to other laws that define 'not subject to' or refer to 'as in' etc... is there specific PC written law that applies to legality of open carry, and specifically indicates State of California?

I have a friend in San Jose will be very interested in this news, additional reference would be appreciated.

bwiese
12-28-2008, 12:17 AM
Thanks LB,

Is there a detailed PC reference to this attached .pdf indicating open carry?

The .pdf refers to other laws that define 'not subject to' or refer to 'as in' etc... is there specific PC written law that applies to legality of open carry, and specifically indicates State of California?

I have a friend in San Jose will be very interested in this news, additional reference would be appreciated.

John,

In general laws tell you what you cannot do, not what you can do. A fundamental legal tenet is, "That which is not prohibited is legal."

UOC is legal if and only if it's (1) unloaded, (2) unquestionably open (i.e., dangling shirttail doesn't partially conceal) (3) not in prohibited place,
(4) over 1000 ft from schools etc.

In metro areas it may well be difficult to legally UOC given proximity of schools. I myself have not delved into what constitutes schools (day care? etc.)

ZirconJohn
12-28-2008, 12:24 AM
John,

In general laws tell you what you cannot do, not what you can do. A fundamental legal tenet is, "That which is not prohibited is legal."

UOC is legal if and only if it's (1) unloaded, (2) unquestionably open (i.e., dangling shirttail doesn't partially conceal) (3) not in prohibited place,
(4) over 1000 ft from schools etc.

In metro areas it may well be difficult to legally UOC given proximity of schools. I myself have not delved into what constitutes schools (day care? etc.)

Geeze, no kidding!

I'll forget about UOC, and keep the CCW.

My friend in San Jose just going to have to not hear about this... from me anyway.

Thanks,

FreedomIsNotFree
12-28-2008, 12:37 AM
Peace officers are authorized to inspect any firearm carried in prohibited public areas to determine whether or not it is loaded; refusal to permit inspection is probable cause for arrest for violation of § 12031. (PC § 12031(e)) If the serial number of the weapon comes into plain view during inspection, it may be noted and run against data bases. Arizona v. Hicks (1987) 480 US 321, 324. The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and a data-base check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004) 542 US 177, 187.

I believe the LA DA is making a rather large jump in to Hicks considering Hicks shot a hole through his floor into a neighbors apartment. Hicks did something illegal that brought the police into his home. Citizens that legally UOC are not breaking any law.

Theseus
12-28-2008, 12:41 AM
John,

In general laws tell you what you cannot do, not what you can do. A fundamental legal tenet is, "That which is not prohibited is legal."

UOC is legal if and only if it's (1) unloaded, (2) unquestionably open (i.e., dangling shirttail doesn't partially conceal) (3) not in prohibited place,
(4) over 1000 ft from schools etc.

In metro areas it may well be difficult to legally UOC given proximity of schools. I myself have not delved into what constitutes schools (day care? etc.)

The 1000 ft restriction is ONLY for K-12 schools.

PC626.9(e)(1) "School zone" means an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.

There is a definition of what a school is and is not...

FreedomIsNotFree
12-28-2008, 12:41 AM
I think the DA was trying to keep it simple. There were other areas, like not specifying K-12 in 626.9...

The basic tone seemed to me that, although we aren't doing anything illegal, they can and should put us through extreme scrutiny to find something on us.

Perhaps, but a portion of the memo dealt with defining what is/isn't loaded...its a rather integral part of the memo.

As to the legality of running serial numbers and ID for background, I don't believe the DA is correct with their analysis of Hicks and Hiibel as they relate to a loaded check performed by a LEO.

Theseus
12-28-2008, 12:58 AM
Perhaps, but a portion of the memo dealt with defining what is/isn't loaded...its a rather integral part of the memo.

As to the legality of running serial numbers and ID for background, I don't believe the DA is correct with their analysis of Hicks and Hiibel as they relate to a loaded check performed by a LEO.

So the question is...

Here is the real problem. . . . Without actually being in the wrong and charged with something, can I do anything about it if they do run the serial and when they do a W&W check on me?

Since the guys e-mail is on the form, should we maybe contact him and try to work with him on this?

FreedomIsNotFree
12-28-2008, 2:33 AM
So the question is...

Here is the real problem. . . . Without actually being in the wrong and charged with something, can I do anything about it if they do run the serial and when they do a W&W check on me?

Since the guys e-mail is on the form, should we maybe contact him and try to work with him on this?

You can sue in civil court, but its going to cost you quite a bit. The smarter move at his point is to wait on Nordyke. If loaded open carry is legal, surely loaded mags become less of an issue.

nicki
12-28-2008, 3:23 AM
While I don't reccomend open unloaded carry in a belt, perhaps carrying in the following way and having the following items may be handy.

1. Most of us would carry autos, if possible, carry with the slide locked back and with a magazine not in firearm. In many cases it would be blatantly obvious the gun was unloaded.

2. Carry a copy of the memo with you.

3. Contact DOJ and have them send you a written verification that your handgun is registered to you and carry that with you.

For me, the only reason I would consider open unloaded carrying is to make a "political statement", but that is me.

I'm glad Gene is sharing this with us.

As far as the court ruling against us, we will have to get to the appeal level on all cases to see changes.

Nicki

Ballistic043
12-28-2008, 3:55 AM
holy crap. i would call this a 'win'

Splinter
12-28-2008, 9:02 AM
Because with minimal practice, one can make it loaded in less than 2 seconds, competition shooters do it all the time.

I UOC as often as possible, with 2 fully charged magazines on the left side of my belt. Draw, insert magazine, rack slide. It almost takes longer to read that, than it takes to do it.

At no point do I feel unprepared.

OK, so your saying you can think of instances where lethal force is justified, that give you enough time to run away. IE time to draw gun, draw mag, insert mag, rack, point, trigger, boom? In that time, a guy with a loaded gun will shoot you dead, or a guy with a knife will be ontop of you stabbed dead. Now add to the fact that they can SEE the gun. They dont know if its loaded or not, so if they want said gun, or to do you harm, its gonna be game over. I wouldnt want to walk around a bad neighborhood UOC. People dont stand 10 feet away and say "im gonna rob you." They attack before you know whats going on. UOC sucks, but its the only option, and hopefully the point of it is to give some leverage into fixing the CCW BS we have to deal with. Im hoping it shines the light, and they realize they wont have to deal with "public scaring" UOC guns anymore if they just isssue good standing citizens CCWs like every other free state.

NiteQwill
12-28-2008, 9:04 AM
OK, so your saying you can think of instances where lethal force is justified, that give you enough time to run away. IE time to draw gun, draw mag, insert mag, rack, point, trigger, boom? In that time, a guy with a loaded gun will shoot you dead, or a guy with a knife will be ontop of you stabbed dead. Now add to the fact that they can SEE the gun. They dont know if its loaded or not, so if they want said gun, or to do you harm, its gonna be game over. I wouldnt want to walk around a bad neighborhood UOC. People dont stand 10 feet away and say "im gonna rob you." They attack before you know whats going on. UOC sucks, but its the only option, and hopefully the point of it is to give some leverage into fixing the CCW BS we have to deal with. Im hoping it shines the light, and they realize they wont have to deal with "public scaring" UOC guns anymore if they just isssue good standing citizens CCWs like every other free state.

AFAIK, you do not have a duty to retreat when the possibility of harm is there.

Liberty1
12-28-2008, 9:08 AM
I think we can thank LAPD Pacific Division Officer Flemmings and his supervisors approval of the false "no crime" arrest and jailing of brother Vigilance of Freedom for two days on felony 12031a PC for this memo: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/19660.html

No charges have been filed (I suspect none will be).

eta34
12-28-2008, 9:13 AM
Just got this memo through my department e-mail. Good stuff.

Splinter
12-28-2008, 9:15 AM
AFAIK, you do not have a duty to retreat when the possibility of harm is there.

The point I made was not about the legallity or ethics of a crime and retreating vs defending yourself. It was about emphasizing the time period over which a crime would occur. When splits seconds or less count, an unloaded gun is not going to help you. It may even get you shot/stabbed when a CCW or no gun wouldnt. I can think of more bad scenarios, than good.

Liberty1
12-28-2008, 9:29 AM
Don't discount the deterrent factor of mere possession. The vast majority of times this will work generally. Granted none of us find this ideal.

more info for those new to the subject is available at californiaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org)

NiteQwill
12-28-2008, 9:31 AM
The point I made was not about the legallity or ethics of a crime and retreating vs defending yourself. It was about emphasizing the time period over which a crime would occur. When splits seconds or less count, an unloaded gun is not going to help you. It may even get you shot/stabbed when a CCW or no gun wouldnt. I can think of more bad scenarios, than good.

So in your scenario, it's better to be unarmed than the likelihood of being armed? I'd rather get stabbed/shot knowing I had a fighting chance than cowering on my knees.

1919_4_ME
12-28-2008, 9:46 AM
Lets see so you open carry your sidearm and your girlfriend or wife carries all your loaded mags in her purse, lol.:D

Liberty1
12-28-2008, 9:53 AM
Lets see so you open carry your sidearm and your girlfriend or wife carries all your loaded mags in her purse, lol.:D

Keep em in a mag pouch and have her carry a video recorder. Seriously, if you UOC, a recorder and friendly witnesses are a must. It will not be long before officers will know how to make one of these reports stick. The DA memo hints as much.

I don't wish to cast aspersions on my bros in tan and blue, but if you are one you know what I'm talking about, every dept has one (or more).

ivsamhell
12-28-2008, 10:02 AM
OK, so your saying you can think of instances where lethal force is justified, that give you enough time to run away. IE time to draw gun, draw mag, insert mag, rack, point, trigger, boom? In that time, a guy with a loaded gun will shoot you dead, or a guy with a knife will be ontop of you stabbed dead. Now add to the fact that they can SEE the gun. They dont know if its loaded or not, so if they want said gun, or to do you harm, its gonna be game over. I wouldnt want to walk around a bad neighborhood UOC. People dont stand 10 feet away and say "im gonna rob you." They attack before you know whats going on. UOC sucks, but its the only option, and hopefully the point of it is to give some leverage into fixing the CCW BS we have to deal with. Im hoping it shines the light, and they realize they wont have to deal with "public scaring" UOC guns anymore if they just isssue good standing citizens CCWs like every other free state.

sure would of helped at virginia tech.

Splinter
12-28-2008, 10:13 AM
So in your scenario, it's better to be unarmed than the likelihood of being armed? I'd rather get stabbed/shot knowing I had a fighting chance than cowering on my knees.

NO, i never said that. I said the only point of UOC should be to stir the pot, and hopefully result in CCWs being issued to good standing citizens. At what point did I say any of what you are saying? I would rather have a knife and a chance to suprise the attacker, than an openly displayed gun that is unloaded. That is all I said. At no point did I say cower to your knees. You will not get a chance to load your gun to defend yourself. Maybe .001% of a chance of that scenario happening. Saving somebody else, maybe. If someone is going to rob you, and they see a gun, they are not going to give you a chance to draw/load/rack/aim. Yes, it will deter some people. But as this continues, criminals will start to learn that they are unloaded, and in bad areas they might start trying to take said weapons. Im just wondering how many people are UOC for the right reasons. As a step forward in getting CCWs vs being urban commandos. I grew up near a bad area, and have friends who have been shot and stabbed, and never once would any of these instances have been prevented by an unloaded gun. They 100% would have been escalated. A loaded concealed gun would have prevented every single one of them. Thats my point. UOC should be done to fight for rights, and a with the intent of a wake up call to the BS gun laws/views/issues in CA.
Thats what I am saying.

Splinter
12-28-2008, 10:15 AM
sure would of helped at virginia tech.

Virginia is a shall issue ccw state. So whats your point?

1911su16b870
12-28-2008, 10:18 AM
Appears that this memo is a +1 for the UOC pioneers to have the CA LEO establishment understand the law.

So if you UOC be prepared to be detained while the following is investigated:
a. LEO inspects the firearm's unloaded condition
b. runs the firearms s/n make sure its yours/not stolen
c. runs your id for non-allowed firearm status

Lastly I recall PC626.95 playgrounds, youth centers (day care H&SC1596.76) also fall within the prohibitive firearm catagory.

BadFish
12-28-2008, 10:56 AM
Virginia is a shall issue ccw state. So whats your point?

His point is that it would have been better to have had an UOC then nothing.

BadFish
12-28-2008, 10:58 AM
NO, i never said that. I said the only point of UOC should be to stir the pot, and hopefully result in CCWs being issued to good standing citizens. At what point did I say any of what you are saying? I would rather have a knife and a chance to suprise the attacker, than an openly displayed gun that is unloaded. That is all I said. At no point did I say cower to your knees. You will not get a chance to load your gun to defend yourself. Maybe .001% of a chance of that scenario happening. Saving somebody else, maybe. If someone is going to rob you, and they see a gun, they are not going to give you a chance to draw/load/rack/aim. Yes, it will deter some people. But as this continues, criminals will start to learn that they are unloaded, and in bad areas they might start trying to take said weapons. Im just wondering how many people are UOC for the right reasons. As a step forward in getting CCWs vs being urban commandos. I grew up near a bad area, and have friends who have been shot and stabbed, and never once would any of these instances have been prevented by an unloaded gun. They 100% would have been escalated. A loaded concealed gun would have prevented every single one of them. Thats my point. UOC should be done to fight for rights, and a with the intent of a wake up call to the BS gun laws/views/issues in CA.
Thats what I am saying.

So in this scenario you are the aggressor? Why would I be trying to surprise the attacker, and If I am surprising him, is he in fact the attacker or the attackie? :rolleyes:

Also, how do you know you will not get a chance to load your firearm? Do you have any experience in this area?
It may not be the perfect fix but it damn better then doing nothing.

Decoligny
12-28-2008, 11:01 AM
Legal in the whole state, except where all guns are prohibited or where CCW is the only noted exception -- e.g. as PC 171 (c)

I don't know anyone who has tried it yet, but the 171 definition of loaded is gun and ammo FOR THAT GUN in possession of the same person.

If two people were to carry two different caliber guns, say a .45 and a 9mm, and they exchanged magazines, so that neither was carrying a gun and ammo for that gun, they would be legally open carrying in the Capitol zone.

Decoligny
12-28-2008, 11:09 AM
NO, i never said that. I said the only point of UOC should be to stir the pot, and hopefully result in CCWs being issued to good standing citizens. At what point did I say any of what you are saying? I would rather have a knife and a chance to suprise the attacker, than an openly displayed gun that is unloaded. That is all I said. At no point did I say cower to your knees. You will not get a chance to load your gun to defend yourself. Maybe .001% of a chance of that scenario happening. Saving somebody else, maybe. If someone is going to rob you, and they see a gun, they are not going to give you a chance to draw/load/rack/aim. Yes, it will deter some people. But as this continues, criminals will start to learn that they are unloaded, and in bad areas they might start trying to take said weapons. Im just wondering how many people are UOC for the right reasons. As a step forward in getting CCWs vs being urban commandos. I grew up near a bad area, and have friends who have been shot and stabbed, and never once would any of these instances have been prevented by an unloaded gun. They 100% would have been escalated. A loaded concealed gun would have prevented every single one of them. Thats my point. UOC should be done to fight for rights, and a with the intent of a wake up call to the BS gun laws/views/issues in CA.
Thats what I am saying.

If you have the time and ability to suprise the attacker, then you have the time and ability to go from Unloaded to Loaded, and then you can suprise the attacker from a distance.

Mike Stollenwerk
12-28-2008, 11:20 AM
The DA's memo is plainly WRONG in two respects re open carry.

First, the DA cites to Hiibel to say that people lawfully stopped in area where openly carried guns cannot be loaded for inspection of guns to see if they are loaded can be required to produce ID and other personal information to determine if they are of age to possess the gun and not prohibited. WRONG - Hiibel only applies if a state statute requires a person to ID themselves in a legitimate Terry stop - a mere stop of a man with a gun to inspect the gun is not a Terry stop, nor does California even have a stop and ID law at all. Additionally, the fact that the state inspection statute is silent as to providing personal information strongly militates against the DA’s interpretation anyway. Finally, consider in Hiibel the S. Ct. said the ID can be satisfied by stating your name, and Kolender v. Lawson still bans state from requiring people to carry ID generally.

Second, the DA states that all public roads are public areas where shooting is prohibited so no gun can be loaded. WRONG. The DA needs to familiarize himself with People v. Knight at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf where the California appeals court (citing to a previous AG opinion) said that, in an unincorporated area, and absent an explicit County ordinance against shooting in the land area where the road is situated, folks may openly carry loaded guns, including holstered handguns, and the police may not stop these open carriers to inspect their firearms and further that any evidence obtained as a result of such an unlawful stop shall be seized as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Librarian
12-28-2008, 11:20 AM
Geeze, no kidding!

I'll forget about UOC, and keep the CCW.

My friend in San Jose just going to have to not hear about this... from me anyway.

Thanks,

This is one of those cases where it looks like a "loophole".

(Ignoring CCW and all the exceptions for now...)
PC 12025 says no concealed carry in public.

PC 12031 says no loaded carry in public.

But if it's not concealed, and it's not loaded, it isn't covered by those sections.

Therefore, in general, unloaded open carry is legal.

NiteQwill
12-28-2008, 12:30 PM
NO, i never said that. I said the only point of UOC should be to stir the pot, and hopefully result in CCWs being issued to good standing citizens. At what point did I say any of what you are saying? I would rather have a knife and a chance to suprise the attacker, than an openly displayed gun that is unloaded. That is all I said. At no point did I say cower to your knees. You will not get a chance to load your gun to defend yourself. Maybe .001% of a chance of that scenario happening. Saving somebody else, maybe. If someone is going to rob you, and they see a gun, they are not going to give you a chance to draw/load/rack/aim. Yes, it will deter some people. But as this continues, criminals will start to learn that they are unloaded, and in bad areas they might start trying to take said weapons. Im just wondering how many people are UOC for the right reasons. As a step forward in getting CCWs vs being urban commandos. I grew up near a bad area, and have friends who have been shot and stabbed, and never once would any of these instances have been prevented by an unloaded gun. They 100% would have been escalated. A loaded concealed gun would have prevented every single one of them. Thats my point. UOC should be done to fight for rights, and a with the intent of a wake up call to the BS gun laws/views/issues in CA.
Thats what I am saying.

It seems like you have a lot of experience. Please share more with us.

1919_4_ME
12-28-2008, 1:23 PM
They'll just get you guys for "brandishing" instead,lol.

sac550
12-28-2008, 1:28 PM
First, the DA cites to Hiibel to say that people lawfully stopped in area where openly carried guns cannot be loaded for inspection of guns to see if they are loaded can be required to produce ID and other personal information to determine if they are of age to possess the gun and not prohibited. WRONG - Hiibel only applies if a state statute requires a person to ID themselves in a legitimate Terry stop - a mere stop of a man with a gun to inspect the gun is not a Terry stop, nor does California even have a stop and ID law at all.

You are dead on. The Hibel case is a Nevada case not a CA. In Nevada they have a law that requires a "detained" person to ID themself. CA doesn't have such a law. You are only required to ID yourself in CA if your identity to related to the stop.

Glock22Fan
12-28-2008, 4:27 PM
Well, that may be true and not to egg anything on... I still do not see the purpose of a firearm either on your body, or in a box, either open carry or conceal carry that is NOT loaded.

Why carry an unloaded firearm?

It takes me a second or two to load an unloaded firearm. How long does it take you to go home and fetch yours?

JDay
12-28-2008, 6:52 PM
I think the DA was trying to keep it simple. There were other areas, like not specifying K-12 in 626.9...

The basic tone seemed to me that, although we aren't doing anything illegal, they can and should put us through extreme scrutiny to find something on us.

I haven't seen the "concealed magazine = concealed firearm" bit come up in any of the OC memos. Perhaps it wouldn't hold up in court, don't know why you would want the magazine in your pocket and not in a holster though.

JDay
12-28-2008, 7:22 PM
Virginia is a shall issue ccw state. So whats your point?

AFAIK, at least when this incident happened you could not CCW on campus.

MudCamper
12-28-2008, 7:22 PM
Thanks again Gene, for yet another great find. And please thank your source for us.

As for carrying this memo with you while Open Carrying, I'd also recommend carrying the CPOA OC memo (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/CPOA-Client-Alert-12042008.pdf) as well.

http://www.californiaopencarry.org/

Carry on! I sure hope we can eventually win a defeat of 12031.

Kid Stanislaus
12-28-2008, 7:52 PM
That is what everyone keeps saying but it hasnt happened. Check my sigline for my blog. I have open carried multiple times and have had one police interaction overall.

In Oakdale I would expect to see cops with drawn guns ordering me to the ground. I'd expect to be handcuffed. I'd expect to spend the greater part of the day interacting with the local PD. However, I just might do it anyway!!

Kid Stanislaus
12-28-2008, 7:57 PM
i see what your saying. its a no brainer for a revolver but it is a better safe than sorry with a semi-auto. (you never know when you'll get LEO who is a full time cop & part-time A-Hole.).

Maybe you'd come across one who is full time in BOTH regards!!

FreedomIsNotFree
12-28-2008, 7:58 PM
Second, the DA states that all public roads are public areas where shooting is prohibited so no gun can be loaded. WRONG. The DA needs to familiarize himself with People v. Knight at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c045858.pdf where the California appeals court (citing to a previous AG opinion) said that, in an unincorporated area, and absent an explicit County ordinance against shooting in the land area where the road is situated, folks may openly carry loaded guns, including holstered handguns, and the police may not stop these open carriers to inspect their firearms and further that any evidence obtained as a result of such an unlawful stop shall be seized as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.


Knight does not allow loaded open carry on public roads. The fact that Knight was not convicted of loaded weapon had everything to do with a poor prosecution than anything else. The DA never even argued 374c.

As to the portion in bold, Knight did not speak to specific county ordinaces being required...only existing law which could be county or state code. The fact that no county ordinance was present does not remove 374c from the equation.

As we all know, CA PC 374c addresses the illegality of shooting from the road, regardless if its an incorporated or unincorporated area of the county.
374c. Every person who shoots any firearm from or upon a public
road or highway is guilty of a misdemeanor.


As I said before, the prosecution was horrible in this case. The DA didn't even know the area in question was unincorporated nor did they present any evidence that shooting from a public road is illegal state wide.

“Absolutely no evidence was presented at the suppression hearing that the place or street where defendant possessed the loaded firearm was in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory as required to violate section 12031, subdivision (a)(1). Nor was there any evidence that the officers were under a reasonable mistake of fact that the place or street was in an incorporated city or a prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.”

Liberty1
12-28-2008, 8:04 PM
AFAIK, at least when this incident happened you could not CCW on campus.


VA state law doesn't prohibit open or lawful concealed carry on campus. It is public Colleges (and private) which administratively prohibit it's employes and students from carrying upon penalty of expulsion.

Kid Stanislaus
12-28-2008, 8:40 PM
They'll just get you guys for "brandishing" instead,lol.


They can actually charge you with brandishing if YOU PUT YOUR HAND ON YOUR GUN!! I wish I could recall the details of the case but I do know that a California armed security guard was convicted of brandishing when surrounded by a group of kids he rested the heal of his hand on the handle of his gun. Its insane but we live in an insane asylum.

Liberty1
12-28-2008, 8:48 PM
Knight does not allow loaded open carry on public roads. The fact that Knight was not convicted of loaded weapon had everything to do with a poor prosecution than anything else. The DA never even argued 374c.

Wasn't Knight's car parked off to the side and not on the "road"? And I agree with your take on this. Mike has county ord. stuck on his brain rather then any law... But he is right, I believe, on the effect of the Appeals Court holding albeit very weak IM (IANAL) O and would easily be overturned by a stronger prosecution in another appealed case.

Splinter
12-28-2008, 10:39 PM
So in this scenario you are the aggressor? Why would I be trying to surprise the attacker, and If I am surprising him, is he in fact the attacker or the attackie? :rolleyes:

Also, how do you know you will not get a chance to load your firearm? Do you have any experience in this area?
It may not be the perfect fix but it damn better then doing nothing.

Why are you guys searching for errors in my statements. Surprise, as in, not let them know you are armed before they decide their method or robbery, or use of force. As in, they are on you to attack, you pull out your knife they didnt know you had. If somebody is armed with a gun, wants to rob you, and sees a gun on you, things are more likely to escalate. That is my only statement I am making. That vs ccw. How in any way does defending yourself from an attacker make you the agressor? I feel like I am just repeating myself to people who dont want me to be right. Clearly nobody here has been robbed/mugged. People dont stand 10 feet away and ask nicely for your money/car and wait for you to respond. You are smelling their breath with a knife to your body. Try and draw/load/rack/trigger when that happens. Your dead, and now your guns gone. VS ccw, where they pull knife, you create space, rock and fire. Once again, that is the only thing I am saying. UOC will not help in any instance other than scaring away unknowing criminals thinking its loaded, your a cop, or whatever. I would rather have my flashlight than a UOC in a bad area. UOC sucks, but I feel most people are doing it to stir the pot in a positive way towards ccw issuance.

Splinter
12-28-2008, 10:49 PM
It takes me a second or two to load an unloaded firearm. How long does it take you to go home and fetch yours?

OK, lets look at things differently. Tell me a few realistic scenarios where you would first justify a guns use for self protection, and be able to draw/load/rack/fire before harm would be done to yourself. Give me just a couple realistic situations where you would have that kind of time to address an immediate and lethal threat. It sounds like everyone is trying to think of these great heroic situations, instead of the real world. If I get a few that are more than just a crazy on a rampage and you happen to be nearby to save some old lady type situations I will continue. At this point, I am just repeating.

Gray Peterson
12-28-2008, 10:59 PM
OK, lets look at things differently. Tell me a few realistic scenarios where you would first justify a guns use for self protection, and be able to draw/load/rack/fire before harm would be done to yourself. Give me just a couple realistic situations where you would have that kind of time to address an immediate and lethal threat. It sounds like everyone is trying to think of these great heroic situations, instead of the real world. If I get a few that are more than just a crazy on a rampage and you happen to be nearby to save some old lady type situations I will continue. At this point, I am just repeating.

So what would you rather folks do in counties that don't issue licenses to honest LAC's?

Theseus
12-28-2008, 11:36 PM
I am only trying to think of these heroic situations so that I can be prepared for them when and if they happen. I am also thinking about the other situations, ones where I might not have time to act and am forced to take other actions such as seeking cover, using the unloaded firearm as a weapon, or maybe even maybe just drawing hoping the threat doesn't call my bluff!

The real point is as has been said before, to be prepared. A gun tucked nicely in the safe at home might be great when you are home, but out there you don't have the luxury.

Yes, we would all prefer loaded OC...but until we can get the law changed we deal with what we got. Think about all the heroic situations you want because unless you are prepared for it you will not likely actualize it when necessary.

OK, lets look at things differently. Tell me a few realistic scenarios where you would first justify a guns use for self protection, and be able to draw/load/rack/fire before harm would be done to yourself. Give me just a couple realistic situations where you would have that kind of time to address an immediate and lethal threat. It sounds like everyone is trying to think of these great heroic situations, instead of the real world. If I get a few that are more than just a crazy on a rampage and you happen to be nearby to save some old lady type situations I will continue. At this point, I am just repeating.

Splinter
12-29-2008, 12:16 AM
I am only trying to think of these heroic situations so that I can be prepared for them when and if they happen. I am also thinking about the other situations, ones where I might not have time to act and am forced to take other actions such as seeking cover, using the unloaded firearm as a weapon, or maybe even maybe just drawing hoping the threat doesn't call my bluff!

The real point is as has been said before, to be prepared. A gun tucked nicely in the safe at home might be great when you are home, but out there you don't have the luxury.

Yes, we would all prefer loaded OC...but until we can get the law changed we deal with what we got. Think about all the heroic situations you want because unless you are prepared for it you will not likely actualize it when necessary.

We can all agree that the goal should be to stir the pot, and maybe even "annoy" the PD and raise awareness that CCW issuance is all messed up. If they dont want to deal with "man with gun" reports, than issue good standing citizens CCW's. I aplaud all who UOC. But, nobody has given any real situation in which a UOC is better than even a pocket knife, in my view an unloaded gun is much worse than a pocket knife or even empty hands. The bad situations I have been in, and my friends who have been stabbed or shot give me a more realistic view on how worthless a UOC is. You wont even know what happened. Thats how quick it is. Think you can get your gun out and usuable before you are dead? NO. Think your gonna have the ability to bluff with an unloaded pointed gun? That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. You will barely have time to draw a loaded gun, and even then being stabbed or shot is almost a guarantee. UOC is a great step in the right direction. Raise awareness, get the ball rolling, but horrible in a real defense situation. The heroic situations I refer to are so far fetched that only a urban commando would think they are a real possibility. Is it cowardly to run away if possible? Hell no it isnt.
Try this if you people still dont get what im saying. Have a friend use a fake knife/stick/gun and play out one simulation where they attack you. Just try going through the motions not with a real gun of draw/load/rack/aim/trigger before they stab the carp out of you. You will make it to DRAW than dead. What happens when you end up on the ground? I bet not a single person here trying to debate the effectiveness of UOC has even tried this once. That is my point. EDIT- do not use a real gun at any time during this drill.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-29-2008, 12:23 AM
Wasn't Knight's car parked off to the side and not on the "road"? And I agree with your take on this. Mike has county ord. stuck on his brain rather then any law... But he is right, I believe, on the effect of the Appeals Court holding albeit very weak IM (IANAL) O and would easily be overturned by a stronger prosecution in another appealed case.

Knight's car was on the shoulder of a public road, clearly within the scope of 374c.

Not sure what you mean by "he is right..on the effect of the Appeals Court holding". Any first year ADA can read Knight and see the glaring holes.

Considering Mike's stature on the open carry site, I sure hope he is not advocating loaded open carry on public roads in unincorporated areas.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-29-2008, 12:32 AM
We can all agree that the goal should be to stir the pot, and maybe even "annoy" the PD and raise awareness that CCW issuance is all messed up. If they dont want to deal with "man with gun" reports, than issue good standing citizens CCW's. I aplaud all who UOC. But, nobody has given any real situation in which a UOC is better than even a pocket knife, in my view an unloaded gun is much worse than a pocket knife or even empty hands. The bad situations I have been in, and my friends who have been stabbed or shot give me a more realistic view on how worthless a UOC is. You wont even know what happened. Thats how quick it is. Think you can get your gun out and usuable before you are dead? NO. Think your gonna have the ability to bluff with an unloaded pointed gun? That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. You will barely have time to draw a loaded gun, and even then being stabbed or shot is almost a guarantee. UOC is a great step in the right direction. Raise awareness, get the ball rolling, but horrible in a real defense situation. The heroic situations I refer to are so far fetched that only a urban commando would think they are a real possibility. Is it cowardly to run away if possible? Hell no it isnt.
Try this if you people still dont get what im saying. Have a friend use a fake knife/stick/gun and play out one simulation where they attack you. Just try going through the motions not with a real gun of draw/load/rack/aim/trigger before they stab the carp out of you. You will make it to DRAW than dead. What happens when you end up on the ground? I bet not a single person here trying to debate the effectiveness of UOC has even tried this once. That is my point. EDIT- do not use a real gun at any time during this drill.

Splinter, what you are failing to realize/recognize is there are a multitude of situations where an UOC'ed gun could serve a defensive purpose. If you can't use your imagination to think of at least a couple, you aren't trying hard enough.

Ever hear of the Kileen Massacre? Take a look at the video below and tell me Suzanna Hupp wouldn't have been able to defend the lives of herself and her parents if she had been UOC. Its actually a perfect example for you.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eiz__JEcpzA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eiz__JEcpzA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Splinter
12-29-2008, 12:34 AM
Splinter, what you are failing to realize/recognize is there are a multitude of situations where an UOC'ed gun could serve a defensive purpose. If you can't use your imagination to think of at least a couple, you aren't trying hard enough.

Ever hear of the Kileen Massacre? Take a look at the video below and tell me Suzanna Hupp wouldn't have been able to defend the lives of herself and her parents if she had been UOC. Its actually a perfect example for you.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M1u0Byq5Qis&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M1u0Byq5Qis&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

OK, so your telling me, they would have lived that long when the killers saw they had a weapon? They would have been the first to die. If she had a gun on her hip, she would be dead too.

Theseus
12-29-2008, 12:38 AM
Actually, I have been stabbed, and I have had to react to situations.

Your argument would make sense if you ignore the idea of situational awareness.

If you are carrying, concealed or open, loaded or not if you don't have situational awareness you will quite possibly find yourself in one of these indefensible situations you are suggesting, but with proper awareness, proper preparation and training you will be prepared to deal with a number of situations that you otherwise would not.

Since I am unloaded OC I need to pay EXTRA attention to possible threats to give myself as much time to react as possible.

And your reaction to the bluff....I don't know many people that would take the chance of attacking a man pointing a gun at them. You do not know, nor will any likely attacker, that my gun is empty. Most people are idiots true, but most are not stupid enough to provoke or attack a man with a gun pointed at them and will not risk the possibility that it might not be loaded.

Oh, and I don't OC to be annoying, I OC for protection. Being annoying is only a perk. And as I have mentioned before, I have no intention to apply for a CCW. It is open all the way for me. I fight for loaded OC.

We can all agree that the goal should be to stir the pot, and maybe even "annoy" the PD and raise awareness that CCW issuance is all messed up. If they dont want to deal with "man with gun" reports, than issue good standing citizens CCW's. I aplaud all who UOC. But, nobody has given any real situation in which a UOC is better than even a pocket knife, in my view an unloaded gun is much worse than a pocket knife or even empty hands. The bad situations I have been in, and my friends who have been stabbed or shot give me a more realistic view on how worthless a UOC is. You wont even know what happened. Thats how quick it is. Think you can get your gun out and usuable before you are dead? NO. Think your gonna have the ability to bluff with an unloaded pointed gun? That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. You will barely have time to draw a loaded gun, and even then being stabbed or shot is almost a guarantee. UOC is a great step in the right direction. Raise awareness, get the ball rolling, but horrible in a real defense situation. The heroic situations I refer to are so far fetched that only a urban commando would think they are a real possibility. Is it cowardly to run away if possible? Hell no it isnt.
Try this if you people still dont get what im saying. Have a friend use a fake knife/stick/gun and play out one simulation where they attack you. Just try going through the motions not with a real gun of draw/load/rack/aim/trigger before they stab the carp out of you. You will make it to DRAW than dead. What happens when you end up on the ground? I bet not a single person here trying to debate the effectiveness of UOC has even tried this once. That is my point. EDIT- do not use a real gun at any time during this drill.

ZirconJohn
12-29-2008, 12:45 AM
It takes me a second or two to load an unloaded firearm. How long does it take you to go home and fetch yours?

Personally, I carry every day, everywhere I go... well, except the unlawful conceal carry at Schools, Courthouse etc.

My Mendocino County CCW, good for State of California. Also have the Utah CCW, good for 29 Western Srates, but I very rarely leave CA.

Just questioning the purpose of carry unloaded... even if you have ammo in pocket, just wasn't making sense. I do now understand, thank you.

Was checking this out for friend who may be interested in this info, lives in San Jose.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-29-2008, 12:47 AM
OK, so your telling me, they would have lived that long when the killers saw they had a weapon? They would have been the first to die. If she had a gun on her hip, she would be dead too.

It was "killer", singular, as in one person. The mad man was walking around shooting people. He couldn't watch all people at all times as he is looking, aiming and shooting random people in the restaurant.

Most people are oblivious to what others around them are doing. Ask those that do open carry and they will tell you that most people have no idea, they completely miss it. Your assertion that they would easily be singled out in a crowded restaurant is specious at best.

If you can't recognize the value of a gun in any fashion when it that type of situation I start to question your logic.

Meplat
12-29-2008, 5:05 AM
Why is it a no brainer for a revolver?

i see what your saying. its a no brainer for a revolver but it is a better safe than sorry with a semi-auto. (you never know when you'll get LEO who is a full time cop & part-time A-Hole.).

geeknow
12-29-2008, 5:49 AM
This little gem just popped into my inbox:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/Los_Angeles_DA-2008-22_Carrying_Guns.pdf

The LA DA is distributing this memo to LEOs and LEAs. It is a touch overbearing in spots (Flores is already being quoted against us vis-a-vis Heller) but is accurate and shows the clear and correct definition of loaded.

Hat tip to the person who sent it to me who wants to remain nameless I think.

-Gene

Gene,
Thanks for this.
g

geeknow
12-29-2008, 5:51 AM
Please, please, please be very careful guys. I would so hate to see you "Corwined". :eek:

BWOps - you hearing this? you're famous!:D

tango-52
12-29-2008, 6:27 AM
Personally, I carry every day, everywhere I go... well, except the unlawful conceal carry at Schools, Courthouse etc.

My Mendocino County CCW, good for State of California. Also have the Utah CCW, good for 29 Western Srates, but I very rarely leave CA.


With a CA CCW, you can carry on all school grounds legally. If you are a student or school employee, the school administration may have policies against doing so, but it is not illegal.

tango-52
12-29-2008, 6:29 AM
This is very interesting. Has anyone checked to see what San Bernardino is saying about this ? If I'm not driving my truck, should I just carry my passport and leave my drivers license in the truck with my registration and insurance ?

I really don't think I'm going to do this yet because it has been very cold here and I don't really want to be in the "gun free zone" of a school.

Please, please, please be very careful guys. I would so hate to see you "Corwined". :eek:

San Bernardino accepts Personal Protection as sufficient Good Cause for a CCW. If you live in that county, get the paperwork going! :D

thegratenate
12-29-2008, 6:44 AM
San Bernardino accepts Personal Protection as sufficient Good Cause for a CCW. If you live in that county, get the paperwork going! :D

Ditto,

Plus, the paperwork takes ages, so get on it quickly, you will have plenty of time to think about after you pick up your app, and make an appointment.

tetris
12-29-2008, 7:30 AM
How about...



How many serial numbers aren't stamped or engraved in plain view? Can we put electrical tape over them to avoid anything more than ?

I wouldn't do that. If you obscure the serial number, they are going to argue that you are carrying a concealed weapon!

yellowfin
12-29-2008, 7:38 AM
I wouldn't do that. If you obscure the serial number, they are going to argue that you are carrying a concealed weapon! It's also a federal crime to deface it, if someone were to go that far.

pfl101
12-29-2008, 8:12 AM
Good new!

Decoligny
12-29-2008, 8:16 AM
I wouldn't do that. If you obscure the serial number, they are going to argue that you are carrying a concealed weapon!

Want to back that up with either a logical argument, a legal citation, or case law? Just how does a 1" x 1/2" piece of electrical tape conceal the weapon. To the best of my knowledge there is no Penal Code making concealed serial number = concealed weapon.

It makes as much sense as saying that because I paint my firearm with a camo pattern they can argue that I am carrying a concealed weapon.

I think I may just have two small holes drilled and tapped on opposite sides of my serial number. I can then have a small opaque cover screwed on over the serial number. I would require the use of a small screwdriver to remove it. Serial number is not defaced, serial number is not removed, serial number is not altered, it is only covered for protection from damage, rust, grease, dirt, scratches, etc.

MudCamper
12-29-2008, 8:30 AM
Knight's car was on the shoulder of a public road, clearly within the scope of 374c.

Not sure what you mean by "he is right..on the effect of the Appeals Court holding". Any first year ADA can read Knight and see the glaring holes.

Considering Mike's stature on the open carry site, I sure hope he is not advocating loaded open carry on public roads in unincorporated areas.

He is. I've debated it with him over there to no avail. Yes, the court in Knight ruled the way we'd like, but it still made a mistake - they were simply unaware of 374c. Just because one court didn't know of a PC section does not mean you cannot be charged with it in another by a more knowledgeable DA.


Was checking this out for friend who may be interested in this info, lives in San Jose.

Have him read here: http://www.californiaopencarry.org/

Ironchef
12-29-2008, 9:24 AM
OK, so your saying you can think of instances where lethal force is justified, that give you enough time to run away. IE time to draw gun, draw mag, insert mag, rack, point, trigger, boom? In that time, a guy with a loaded gun will shoot you dead, or a guy with a knife will be ontop of you stabbed dead. Now add to the fact that they can SEE the gun. They dont know if its loaded or not, so if they want said gun, or to do you harm, its gonna be game over. I wouldnt want to walk around a bad neighborhood UOC. People dont stand 10 feet away and say "im gonna rob you." They attack before you know whats going on. UOC sucks, but its the only option, and hopefully the point of it is to give some leverage into fixing the CCW BS we have to deal with. Im hoping it shines the light, and they realize they wont have to deal with "public scaring" UOC guns anymore if they just isssue good standing citizens CCWs like every other free state.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, and would remedy the above scenario considerably less likely is that UOC is a deterrant. Further, as with anyone who carries in any condition, one would tend to be more vigilant and not going slummin' with their unloaded and openly carried gun. So give some credit here and as pullnshoot said, it's better carrying unloaded than leaving it in the safe and being completely vulnerable. There's no cases of people being robbed of their openly carried unloaded guns so that supports the deterrant argument I made above.

If someone was going to rob you and rape your girlfriend as you walk through a park at night, is it reasonable in criminal world to pursue the robbery even AFTER the openly carried gun is viewed, or is the path of least resistence more likely? If you are ultimately confronted and that unique opportunity to use lethal force presents itself, being aware of the 21 foot cushion and the potential for an assailant to actually close that gap before you could even pull a loaded mag from your belt and load it..then yes, you have "a point" that it might then not be a good idea..but neither is loaded concealed or open carry because if the assailant is already jumping you, you're dead and they have a new gun to shoot you with. But as it is, for ALL the benefits of UOCing with a minimal amount of vigilance...it is a superb idea to do so IMHO and I think it's been discovered in like manner for the hundreds or thousands of other UOCers around the country.

Splinter
12-29-2008, 9:34 AM
Actually, I have been stabbed, and I have had to react to situations.

Your argument would make sense if you ignore the idea of situational awareness.

If you are carrying, concealed or open, loaded or not if you don't have situational awareness you will quite possibly find yourself in one of these indefensible situations you are suggesting, but with proper awareness, proper preparation and training you will be prepared to deal with a number of situations that you otherwise would not.

Since I am unloaded OC I need to pay EXTRA attention to possible threats to give myself as much time to react as possible.

And your reaction to the bluff....I don't know many people that would take the chance of attacking a man pointing a gun at them. You do not know, nor will any likely attacker, that my gun is empty. Most people are idiots true, but most are not stupid enough to provoke or attack a man with a gun pointed at them and will not risk the possibility that it might not be loaded.

Oh, and I don't OC to be annoying, I OC for protection. Being annoying is only a perk. And as I have mentioned before, I have no intention to apply for a CCW. It is open all the way for me. I fight for loaded OC.

I aplaud your efforts to do what you are comfortable with. I just wanted to drive home the point that MOST, if not ALL situations will not be helped by UOC. Thats why I said .001% of the time it could be beneficial. In the great state we live in, said restaurant would have asked most to put their gun in the car, or leave, or called the police on a UOC (man with gun report) like the many stories we have all read on here. Thats why I emphasize fighting for ccw, or in your case even loaded open carry which would be great too. As far as people calling your bluff on an unloaded gun. I would hope your not just pulling guns out at people that may or may not be a threat, that stand and watch you pull out your gun. Do that and you will go to jail the first time you feel uncomfortable, and possibly not own a gun for the rest of your life. Maybe for a girl being alone in an empty parking lot leading up to being assaulted it could prevent something to have an unloaded gun waving around. That is the only instance I can see a long range possibility. Violent crimes do not occur/initiate outside of 2-5 feet max. How close was the guy who stabbed you? Did he give you warning? Do you honestly feel you could have loaded racked and fired in that situation? Do you feel that if stabber saw you reaching for a gun he would have stabbed you more/more agressively? My friends situations speak otherwise. If they would have had a gun in plain view, they would be dead, and would have given their gun to the worst criminals out there. I am in complete support of UOC as a method to try to get things going in a better direction. As far as a defense method, it is pretty much garbage.

pullnshoot25
12-29-2008, 9:35 AM
Why is it a no brainer for a revolver?

Revolvers do not require the display of moonclips or speedloaders to avoid overzealous/assholish cops.

How many people on here pack a revolver for OC? Seriously, I feel like I am the only one...

Ironchef
12-29-2008, 9:36 AM
I aplaud your efforts to do what you are comfortable with. I just wanted to drive home the point that MOST, if not ALL situations will not be helped by UOC. Thats why I said .001% of the time it could be beneficial. In the great state we live in, said restaurant would have asked most to put their gun in the car, or leave, or called the police on a UOC (man with gun report) like the many stories we have all read on here. Thats why I emphasize fighting for ccw, or in your case even loaded open carry which would be great too. As far as people calling your bluff on an unloaded gun. I would hope your not just pulling guns out at people that may or may not be a threat, that stand and watch you pull out your gun. Do that and you will go to jail the first time you feel uncomfortable, and possibly not own a gun for the rest of your life. Maybe for a girl being alone in an empty parking lot leading up to being assaulted it could prevent something to have an unloaded gun waving around. That is the only instance I can see a long range possibility. Violent crimes do not occur/initiate outside of 2-5 feet max. How close was the guy who stabbed you? Did he give you warning? Do you honestly feel you could have loaded racked and fired in that situation? Do you feel that if stabber saw you reaching for a gun he would have stabbed you more/more agressively? My friends situations speak otherwise. If they would have had a gun in plain view, they would be dead, and would have given their gun to the worst criminals out there. I am in complete support of UOC as a method to try to get things going in a better direction. As far as a defense method, it is pretty much garbage.

You clearly don't read the opencarry.org forums. My post also addresses some of the misconceptions you have.

pullnshoot25
12-29-2008, 9:36 AM
OK, lets look at things differently. Tell me a few realistic scenarios where you would first justify a guns use for self protection, and be able to draw/load/rack/fire before harm would be done to yourself. Give me just a couple realistic situations where you would have that kind of time to address an immediate and lethal threat. It sounds like everyone is trying to think of these great heroic situations, instead of the real world. If I get a few that are more than just a crazy on a rampage and you happen to be nearby to save some old lady type situations I will continue. At this point, I am just repeating.

It takes me a second or two to load an unloaded firearm. How long does it take you to go home and fetch yours?

OWNED!

pullnshoot25
12-29-2008, 9:39 AM
I aplaud your efforts to do what you are comfortable with. I just wanted to drive home the point that MOST, if not ALL situations will not be helped by UOC. Thats why I said .001% of the time it could be beneficial. In the great state we live in, said restaurant would have asked most to put their gun in the car, or leave, or called the police on a UOC (man with gun report) like the many stories we have all read on here. Thats why I emphasize fighting for ccw, or in your case even loaded open carry which would be great too. As far as people calling your bluff on an unloaded gun. I would hope your not just pulling guns out at people that may or may not be a threat, that stand and watch you pull out your gun. Do that and you will go to jail the first time you feel uncomfortable, and possibly not own a gun for the rest of your life. Maybe for a girl being alone in an empty parking lot leading up to being assaulted it could prevent something to have an unloaded gun waving around. That is the only instance I can see a long range possibility. Violent crimes do not occur/initiate outside of 2-5 feet max. How close was the guy who stabbed you? Did he give you warning? Do you honestly feel you could have loaded racked and fired in that situation? Do you feel that if stabber saw you reaching for a gun he would have stabbed you more/more agressively? My friends situations speak otherwise. If they would have had a gun in plain view, they would be dead, and would have given their gun to the worst criminals out there. I am in complete support of UOC as a method to try to get things going in a better direction. As far as a defense method, it is pretty much garbage.

Splinter, Splinter, thorn in my side
Be prepared and wary, your guns don't hide!
What good it does to have them at home?
What good will it do when you're alone?

Also, read my sig line. The Vikings knew what was up!

nick
12-29-2008, 9:39 AM
but neither is loaded concealed or open carry because if the assailant is already jumping you, you're dead and they have a new gun to shoot you with.

And here's one for practicing martial arts. It'll give you a better reaction speed, and may buy you some time to draw the gun and load it, if you beat off the surprise attacker's first attack.

Happened to me 8-9 years back. I was walking on the parking lot (supposedly a secure one. It did have security guards, you see, and it was well-lit :)), and just as I was opening the door of my car, a guy jumped out from behind it, and before I knew it, I had a knife right next to my face. I didn't even have the time to think about it, but half a minute later (I think) the guy's knife was on the ground and he sported a broken forearm. Mind you, I've been practicing Shotokan since I was a few years old. But even with less training, even if one can't overpower the assaillant, one can fight off the first advance, or elude it, and at the very least react to it and buy himself enough time to draw and load.

Oh, and the *(%^%*& sued me for his broken arm, since apparently he temporarily lost employability. I bet he did, his knife arm was broken, poor thing. Luckily, the judge at the preliminary hearing wasn't the usual bleeding heart kind and tossed the lawsuit (and called the bastard the proper name, which I liked :D). Still, it cost money to retain the lawyer, which is another thing one has to be ready for when defending himself in this state, although this has been covered multiple times on this forum.

Speaking of which, here's a question. The lawyer I hired back then told me that since my reaction was the result of training and was pretty much involuntary, even if broke the guy's neck, it wouldn't've been considered an excessive force. On the other hand, I keep reading about the levels of force which are appropriate and inappropriate depending on the situation, and a person actually having some sort of relevant training may count against him when it comes to determining what the appropriate level of force would be for the situation. Something like, "well, if you had no training, then you had to take any chance to overpower the attacker in any way possible, and the fact that it resulted in his broken neck is ok" vs. "you were trained in martial arts, and so why couldn't you just put him on the ground and tie him up? no, you had to break his neck, and so you're a malicious criminal". Can anyone tell me which one, if any, is right?

Ironchef
12-29-2008, 9:45 AM
And here's one for practicing martial arts. It'll give you a better reaction speed, and may buy you some time to draw the gun and load it, if you beat off the surprise attacker's first attack.

Yep, a nasty edged weapon or pepper spray you can deploy in that short half a second might do wonders for the UOC/LOC/CCW carrier who would not be able to respond...or as you said, martial arts.

My point to Splinter is that for that likelihood of the close surprise assault you experience, the difference betweeen UOC/LOC/CCW doesn't matter so that's a moot point. What does matter is that OC in general (loaded or unloaded) is a deterrant and IMO is ideal...granted UOC's extra 2 seconds of bluff time is dangerous for that rare occurence..it's value is still superior than to even a CCW...at least until it's known in criminal land that most people they'll mug is carrying concealed..which for CA might take some time.

p7m8jg
12-29-2008, 9:49 AM
Thanks for sharing this - its very helpful for some of us in our daily jobs......

Splinter
12-29-2008, 10:00 AM
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, and would remedy the above scenario considerably less likely is that UOC is a deterrant. Further, as with anyone who carries in any condition, one would tend to be more vigilant and not going slummin' with their unloaded and openly carried gun. So give some credit here and as pullnshoot said, it's better carrying unloaded than leaving it in the safe and being completely vulnerable. There's no cases of people being robbed of their openly carried unloaded guns so that supports the deterrant argument I made above.

If someone was going to rob you and rape your girlfriend as you walk through a park at night, is it reasonable in criminal world to pursue the robbery even AFTER the openly carried gun is viewed, or is the path of least resistence more likely? If you are ultimately confronted and that unique opportunity to use lethal force presents itself, being aware of the 21 foot cushion and the potential for an assailant to actually close that gap before you could even pull a loaded mag from your belt and load it..then yes, you have "a point" that it might then not be a good idea..but neither is loaded concealed or open carry because if the assailant is already jumping you, you're dead and they have a new gun to shoot you with. But as it is, for ALL the benefits of UOCing with a minimal amount of vigilance...it is a superb idea to do so IMHO and I think it's been discovered in like manner for the hundreds or thousands of other UOCers around the country.

Or you can bring a quality flashlight, a pocket knife, and be aware of things. Let me give you the situation that I have experianced. In a park late at night, I see two figures sneakily aproaching. I shine a light at them and it turns out to be two undercover PD's who now have guns drawn at myself and a friend. Now, put a gun in my hand instead of the flashlight.
Is there the possibility of plain view preventing crime? Yes, in a nice area of town no doubt about it. Im not denying that. In a bad area im not so sure. I have police friends who have been jumped and almost stabbed or were stabbed. They were able to draw their concealed weapon and eliminate the threat while on the ground. I have seen plenty of videos of this as well. Check youtube, im sure their are some there. A loaded gun can be drawn left right, unpside down, and backwards and its ready to go. Thats my point. Its actually usefull. Fighting for CCW should be the goal.
Im not telling people not to do it. But be prepared, and actually run through practice instead of just thinking about these unrealistic ideal situations. If your serious about it. Dont debate on the internet. Get a friend and go through the most realistic conflicts, down to even what you will say. What do you do after you point a gun at someone? When should you shoot? Dont just be an urban commando. Understand the limitations. Dont just be a guy who carries around a gun. Try to think up several different range conflicts, and actually drill them. Also, think up situations where the "attacker/s" turn out to be innocent, LE, bums looking for a handout, drunk people who pose no threat other than annoyance, or an actual threat. At what point does the gun come out? This is whats real. Not looking at one specific situation. We can debate these types of things for days on end.

pullnshoot25
12-29-2008, 10:02 AM
Yep, a nasty edged weapon or pepper spray you can deploy in that short half a second might do wonders for the UOC/LOC/CCW carrier who would not be able to respond...or as you said, martial arts.

My point to Splinter is that for that likelihood of the close surprise assault you experience, the difference betweeen UOC/LOC/CCW doesn't matter so that's a moot point. What does matter is that OC in general (loaded or unloaded) is a deterrant and IMO is ideal...granted UOC's extra 2 seconds of bluff time is dangerous for that rare occurence..it's value is still superior than to even a CCW...at least until it's known in criminal land that most people they'll mug is carrying concealed..which for CA might take some time.

Just bought a Spyderco Endura Wave 4 and I will be getting an On/Scene Tactical Dialer for it so I can carry weak side. Would have gotten the Hissatsu but the Spyderco has a more utilitarian edge.

Ironchef
12-29-2008, 10:04 AM
Just bought a Spyderco Endura Wave 4 and I will be getting an On/Scene Tactical Dialer for it so I can carry weak side. Would have gotten the Hissatsu but the Spyderco has a more utilitarian edge.

Yeah, I sometimes want to carry a more utility type knife instead of my wicked hissatsu..but then I figure the multi-tool i carry in my laptop bag everywhere I"m sitting is plenty for utility..my hissatsu is my assault knife...i still get goose bumps just opening it! Bam! pow! "I'ma cut you sucka!!" jk

1911su16b870
12-29-2008, 10:05 AM
FWIW PC12090 to PC12094 deal with firearm identification marks (serial numbers etc).

The operative wording is "person with knowledge of any change, alteration, removal or obliteration..."

The "temporary" arguement of the electrical tape or drilled/taped cover over a serial number will result in a your vs. leo interpretation of the "knowledge of change", and you'll end up having to sort it out with the DA or in court.

It can be argued that the leo does not have the legal authority to remove the tape or cover in order to investigate that firearm under AFS to verify it is not stolen etc., thus the serial number has been obliterated and hence arrest you for violation of PC12090 and confiscate the firearm under PC12091.

IMO do not mess with a firearm serial numbers in any way.

Splinter
12-29-2008, 10:08 AM
You clearly don't read the opencarry.org forums. My post also addresses some of the misconceptions you have.

I dont read it because I dont open carry. I have, but feel a knife and flashlight is a much better weapon than an unloaded gun. Please post up some info if you have something good to add that I may have missed. I said my reality more than once. Im just giving my real world experiance. It seems I wont change anyones mind, and people wont change mine. A loaded gun, or no gun.

Ironchef
12-29-2008, 10:10 AM
FWIW PC12090 to PC12094 deal with firearm identification marks (serial numbers etc).

The operative wording is "person with knowledge of any change, alteration, removal or obliteration..."

The "temporary" arguement of the electrical tape or drilled/taped cover over a serial number will result in a your vs. leo interpretation of the "knowledge of change", and you'll end up having to sort it out with the DA or in court.

It can be argued that the leo does not have the legal authority to remove the tape or cover in order to investigate that firearm under AFS to verify it is not stolen etc., thus the serial number has been obliterated and hence arrest you for violation of PC12090 and confiscate the firearm under PC12091.

IMO do not mess with a firearm serial numbers in any way.


How bout coloring them in with a sharpie so their as impossible to read as possible?

I don't know, taping them doesn't seem like obliterating them because they're completely intact still, not filed out..which is what I believe that code is describing. Concealment of serial numbers can just be a security measure one takes to keep their identity or other false accusations reduced...tis why people blur them on message boards. One could say you were taping the serials for some pictures you took of the rifle and left it on. Or you're protecting the serial from dust/dirt/damage so that it doesn't get obliterated. Good wiggle room there.

Ironchef
12-29-2008, 10:13 AM
I dont read it because I dont open carry. I have, but feel a knife and flashlight is a much better weapon than an unloaded gun. Please post up some info if you have something good to add that I may have missed. I said my reality more than once. Im just giving my real world experiance. It seems I wont change anyones mind, and people wont change mine. A loaded gun, or no gun.

I posted my argument abundantly.

Have you posted your real world experience of having an assault come upon you where it made a difference having a loaded gun vs. an unloaded gun and having survived by using lethal force to defend yourself? Have you ever open carried and read the minds of bad guys who would have mugged you had you not been carrying?

Experience from the Open Carry community seriously disputes your real world findings as does their experiences here. When open carriers suddenly get targetted and jumped and killed or robbed of their unloaded guns, then you might have something..but their evidence is to the contrary so far. That's good enough for me to know it's more beneficial to carry an empty gun openly than leave it at home.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-29-2008, 10:19 AM
Splinter....just let it go man. You obviously don't see the value in UOC. That's fine. Nobody is telling you to do it.

pullnshoot25
12-29-2008, 10:21 AM
Yeah, I sometimes want to carry a more utility type knife instead of my wicked hissatsu..but then I figure the multi-tool i carry in my laptop bag everywhere I"m sitting is plenty for utility..my hissatsu is my assault knife...i still get goose bumps just opening it! Bam! pow! "I'ma cut you sucka!!" jk

I got that knife for Amanda (the ex) for Xmas '07. Unfortunately, it is her purse knife and she doesn't practice with it AFAIK. LAME!

nick
12-29-2008, 10:26 AM
Yep, a nasty edged weapon or pepper spray you can deploy in that short half a second might do wonders for the UOC/LOC/CCW carrier who would not be able to respond...or as you said, martial arts.

My point to Splinter is that for that likelihood of the close surprise assault you experience, the difference betweeen UOC/LOC/CCW doesn't matter so that's a moot point. What does matter is that OC in general (loaded or unloaded) is a deterrant and IMO is ideal...granted UOC's extra 2 seconds of bluff time is dangerous for that rare occurence..it's value is still superior than to even a CCW...at least until it's known in criminal land that most people they'll mug is carrying concealed..which for CA might take some time.

Oh, I agree with your point.

I was merely commenting on what one can do to mitigate the element of surprise to some degree.

Ironchef
12-29-2008, 10:42 AM
Oh, I agree with your point.

I was merely commenting on what one can do to mitigate the element of surprise to some degree.

I didn't mean to counter or argue against your point. Sorry about that. I was commenting on me..someone distantly inclined to be a real threat with hand to hadn combat..because of arthritis in most of my hands and feet, I can't even make a convincing fist and have a somewhat diminished grip so I'm not able to use martial arts.

I think someone trained in hand to hand combat who carries a gun in any fashion is your utlimate worst target to attack. A nearby second addition to the above combo would be to have a lightning fast 100m sprint ability to get out of dodge when backup comes along! The most I could do is kick your knee out or get off a nice cross over back kick to the gut and run like a little girl trying to load my magazine into my gun hoping I don't die! lol

Splinter
12-29-2008, 10:45 AM
I posted my argument abundantly.

Have you posted your real world experience of having an assault come upon you where it made a difference having a loaded gun vs. an unloaded gun and having survived by using lethal force to defend yourself? Have you ever open carried and read the minds of bad guys who would have mugged you had you not been carrying?

Experience from the Open Carry community seriously disputes your real world findings as does their experiences here. When open carriers suddenly get targetted and jumped and killed or robbed of their unloaded guns, then you might have something..but their evidence is to the contrary so far. That's good enough for me to know it's more beneficial to carry an empty gun openly than leave it at home.

Yes I did, several times, and having a CCW was the only instance in which a life was saved with a gun. If you could please link the situations your talking about, like I asked, I would love to read them. Im not denying that they exist. Im sure things have happened. But thousands more have probably gone better for CCW. Thats THE POINT IM TRYING TO MAKE. At no point did I say every UOC was being targeted, would be targeted, or otherwise. I said the damage to the OCer could be magnified by open carry. Again, I have my views and real world experiance, I have practiced these situations for years. I trained in philipino knife fighting, as well as a number of martial arts, and have drilled every situation we could think of. I have been in seminars on self defense, was an assitant instructor on self defense, and have talked to dozens of violent crime survivors, and heard stories of non survivors. I have friends who were in gangs, and they know the real world of criminals, and the minds of criminals. Want to know a scary reality? They were all more scared of DOGS than GUNS. I have not heard of many, if any situations in which these criminals gave any warning of their intentions. I checked out the open carry forum and cant find anything other than people asking about laws for page after page? I am always interested in reading real world stuff, and learning to be more prepared, so please step forward and post or link if you have something to add.

Theseus
12-29-2008, 11:30 AM
I still would not consider the covering of the serial as a violation of any of the requirements as they have been mentioned.

Covering is not obliterating or altering. Covering the serial is not concealment of the gun as a serial alone is not a gun. I will find something that makes the serial no longer in "plain view".

nick
12-29-2008, 2:09 PM
I didn't mean to counter or argue against your point. Sorry about that. I was commenting on me..someone distantly inclined to be a real threat with hand to hadn combat..because of arthritis in most of my hands and feet, I can't even make a convincing fist and have a somewhat diminished grip so I'm not able to use martial arts.

I think someone trained in hand to hand combat who carries a gun in any fashion is your utlimate worst target to attack. A nearby second addition to the above combo would be to have a lightning fast 100m sprint ability to get out of dodge when backup comes along! The most I could do is kick your knee out or get off a nice cross over back kick to the gut and run like a little girl trying to load my magazine into my gun hoping I don't die! lol

Well, that's precisely the case for being able/alowed to use guns for self-defense, isn't it?

Liberty1
12-29-2008, 6:14 PM
My revolver's serial # is not visible as it is beneath the grip. No crime to "cover" your serial number. I love the screwed on metal plate serial number "protector"! The ingenuity of CGN!!

Yes LOADED CCW even illegal LOADED CCW is a superior defensive platform over unloaded carry (open or in a case) in a deadly assault situation. UOC is however what is available to most, WILL deter most (99.9% IMO) assaults, AND has the additional benefit of bringing our carry issues to the forefront politically and judicially.

Open Carry IS the protected 2nd A. "Bear" right the Courts will eventually protect. I wish CCW was included but I don't see that happening. OC has worked to bring shall issue to Ohio and has potential here to assist in reclaiming the 2A.

sunborder
12-29-2008, 6:16 PM
Splinter: Try and be a little more imaginative: Real life isn't as cut and dried, with neat little scenarios. There are lots of different types of threats, and for many of them UOC is a perfectly good solution. Remember: NOT ALL THREATS ARE DIRECTLY TARGETED AT INDIVIDUALS. In mall shootings, school shootings, and other random attacks in public places, you will have PLENTY of time to load your weapon unless you are one of the first few victims.

One of the teachers at the school I work at was at the Santana High School shooting in El Cajon about ten years back. I was working at a different school that (the following week) had shots fired across the street, then had the shooters flee through campus. I ended up coming up behind a plainclothes cop with a loaded gun on his hip (back was to me when I opened a door). I remember it vividly. I had time to recognize the HK USP compact he was carrying before he turned and I saw the badge. I owned one myself at the time. He was facing a room full of kids (there for career day). Had it been a BG, and even had he had the gun in his hand, I would have had time to step back out of the doorway and draw, load and rack before he could have gotten to the doorway and brought anything to bear on me. The length of the hallway was such that running wouldn't have been an option if he'd moved towards the door, and all the doors were locked (school doctrine at the time was for teachers on their prep to check that all doors were locked during a lockdown...hence my being the unlucky guy that got to eventually tell the teacher in the room with the cop to lock the damn door. I vocally protested this doctrine immediately after this incident). I have no illusions about duking it out with a guy in a classroom full of kids, or even being armed on campus. I have basically zero desire to do either (though I do like the idea of an armed janitor, school cop, principal, ROTC instructor, etc during all school hours). I do, however, have an appreciation for the time frame involved, and the placement of the people. An unloaded, openly carried firearm could have been employed in this situation, if one of the shooters had been in the cops place and come out of the room instead of holding hostages. How likely is that? I don't know, but I guess it's about as likely as stumbling upon a guy with a loaded gun in a room full of students during a lockdown with shots fired and gunmen fleeing through campus and the guy turning out to NOT be one of the bad guys (pretty damn unlikely, but it happened to me!...so, once in a lifetime).

A lot of what you are saying makes sense in the world of being attacked as a single target by one or more determined attackers. Not all defensive situations start out this way. In fact, a LOT of them don't.

In addition to that, being shot or stabbed does not mean that the fight is over. I'd rather be stabbed once, while loading my firearm, then have a loaded gun to bring into play, than have no firearm and get stabbed once with only my bare hands to fight back. A knife is an excellent defensive weapon if you have the physique and training to properly make use of it. Over 90% of the population do not. Many of that 90% CAN effectively load and bring to bear a firearm within a few seconds.

Surprise is probably the single most important factor in any violent encounter, but it isn't the ONLY one. Also, how surprise is achieved is not uniform. Sure some people will jump suddenly out of an alley or burst into a convenience store gun drawn. However, there is a whole class of street criminals (some of them are my students...I teach public high school in a rough neighborhood) who will "interview" you before making their move. They ask you two or three quick questions, sometimes asking for change or directions, sometimes just asking if you've heard the latest score to the game. Their objective is twofold: To size you up as a target, and to engage your brain on the questions and slow down your reaction time/dull your "spider sense" about the weird stranger walking straight up to you and invading your personal space. Then there is the drunken bravado of stupid people drinking themselves stupider in public places, who randomly target passerby for "fun", or get offended by nonexistent slights by random passersby. Either of these types of encounters are likely to give you a few seconds to position yourself and draw if need be (though drawing on an interviewer can be legally sticky...but a willingness to draw and that body language coupled with a belt holster now obvious because of your partial drawstroke may be enough to deter). Remember, the purpose of most attacks isn't to kill immediately. They want your stuff or work themselves up to a rage.

I don't think anyone here disagrees that CC is much better than OC. However, OC is not equally useless or worse than being unarmed. OC doesn't work for ME, but it sure as heck could work for lots of folks who don't live in an urban center.

Let me give you a slightly less "unlikely" scenario for you: Two ladies walking home after their car breaks down at night (not smart to begin with, but we'll let that go, since people do dumb things all the time, and it's not a crime). One of them is carrying on her hip. Man or two comes out of a nearby alley and moves towards them in an aggressive/menacing way (knife, club, bottlr or whatever in hand). In that kind of situation, things don't always go from leaping out of an alley to knife at your throat in a half second. Especially with a lot of the "gangsters" around here, they try to chat the target ladies (or mugging victim) up for a second or two to gauge reactions. A quick draw and load may very well work wonders if they don't back off when told.

In low light, approaching the victim from the front, they may very well never see the OC firearm until it is being drawn and loaded. Most perps don't expect that kind of response, so it will take a second or two to register most of the time (they may expect pepper spray or a cell phone, but usually they aren't out to eliminate people, just take their stuff or drag them away without a fuss/witnesses).

With the right carry rig and a modicum of training, this kind of scenario can be dealt with using OC. We could sit here and come up with dozens of similar scenarios where OC would be less than optimum, but MUCH better than being unarmed. It is less useful against a direct, premeditated surprise attack on your life by a determined attacker, but I'm willing to bet that greater than 90%, probably 99% of urban violence on the street is not of this sort.

We aren't cops attempting to bring in fugitives who "refuse to go back to prison". Our goal is survival, and we probably aren't heading directly for confrontation the way a knife fighter usually does. I work with gang members five days a week at the same school I graduated from, and most of them aren't out to get anybody (when they are, watch out! a girl I knew my junior year of HS got whacked by this same gang when she was going to testify against one of them. When they found her across town, they dumped two full mags into her at point blank. Same school I work at now).

Sorry that this turned into a kind of disjointed essay, but I can't let the idea stand that UOC is somehow just a political pot-stirring tool. If it became common, we'd have less attacks through deterrence, and the mass mall-shootings or possibly even school shootings would be mostly a thing of the past. CCW is better, but, UOC is a useful option too, once we get it commonly acknowledged by DAs and beat cops.

Gray Peterson
12-30-2008, 5:19 AM
Just to add one more point to this:

Why are people insisting "you should conceal" when you live in a state where it's may-issue? Did Los Angeles recently liberalize their CCW policy to be more like San Bernadino or Kern County? I don't seem to remember that happening. zirconjohn, that's nice that you live in Mendocino County, probably the best county in the state for getting a CCW, not all Californians are that lucky, nor can they just drop and move.

I seem to remember someone once making a comment that UOC is the "peasant" way of doing things, whereas pushing a Board of Supervisors which appointed a Sheriff to get her to stop revoking licenses was the "business way" of doing things. UOCer's were told to stop UOC'ing in Orange County to not inflame the situation. The "business way" of doing things did not work, as Sheriff Hutchens basically told the Supervisors that she would stick to her guns, as it where, and that the voters would judge her in 2010.

Folks, in my communications with the Board of Supervisors, I got this statement from Mario Mainero, Supervisor Moorlach's Chief of Staff:

Rather than threatening the Sheriff with "open carry marches," it may be
more beneficial for current CCW holders to assist our new Sheriff, in a
respectful and professional manner, in developing an Orange
County-specific definition of good cause that is consistent with the
Attorney General opinion and is satisfactory to all parties.

My response:

I refuse to be respectful to officials who play god with people's lives. "Satisfactory to all parties" won't include people me obviously because one cannot truly bear arms without a License to Carry from the Sheriff.

Seems the only thing in the whole Orange County CCW that they were tacitly afraid of was UOC'ers. Hutchens wasn't afraid of the professional groups, she wasn't afraid of voters being pissed off, but the fact that the Chief of Staff of her only supporter at the BoS (who turned tail and changed position after 11/18) were literally demanding that UOC not be used, well then, I guess that's an invitation to start doing it.

GuyW
12-30-2008, 11:37 AM
....I got this statement from Mario Mainero, Supervisor Moorlach's Chief of Staff:

Rather than threatening the Sheriff with "open carry marches," it may be more beneficial for current CCW holders to assist our new Sheriff, in a respectful and professional manner, in developing an Orange County-specific definition of good cause that is consistent with the Attorney General opinion and is satisfactory to all parties.

....Seems the only thing in the whole Orange County CCW that they were tacitly afraid of was UOC'ers. ...I guess that's an invitation to start doing it.

I agree.

You stuck the pig and it squealed, but didn't move.

It needs to be stuck again and again until it moves (ie, politicians are sentient animals - they respond to pleasure and pain.)

UOC is a pressure point....

Gray Peterson
12-30-2008, 2:24 PM
I agree.

You stuck the pig and it squealed, but didn't move.

It needs to be stuck again and again until it moves (ie, politicians are sentient animals - they respond to pleasure and pain.)

UOC is a pressure point....


Mainero and Hutchens I guess were squeeling like stuck pigs. What's funny is that the email I sent to the Sheriff with the UOC thing.

CalCop
12-30-2008, 2:45 PM
The brief says UOC is illegal in "public buildings." That's FUD. The intent of the statute was to keep firearms out of government buildings, whether in state or local jurisdiction. But, I'm sure they meant for it to be ambiguous. There's always a little FUD in govt. publications.

7x57
12-30-2008, 2:53 PM
\
Open Carry IS the protected 2nd A. "Bear" right the Courts will eventually protect. I wish CCW was included but I don't see that happening.

I'm curious why you are sure of that. Is there case law I don't know about? Yes OC was normal and CC suspicious in the early republic, but it doesn't necessarily follow that OC is always protected. It seems the text offers quite a good case that states could regulate one or the other so long as you can bear arms one way or the other. I don't see why the ruling could not be that the states are free to regulate whichever is less culturally accepted--CC in the ninteenth century for them, but perhaps OC for us now. I will grant you that if only one is absolutely protected, though, it has to be OC.

I'm not advocating that position, mind you, but it seems possible. My bigger worry is that the courts will let states get away with allowing CC only but retaining their existing licencing systems. To me at least one needs to be unlicensed in order to not infringe on the right (as some people point out, we wouldn't accept a licensing system for speech, but that doesn't mean the courts will agree. That and the problem of allowing CC only with harsh penalties for accidental exposure. I think that clearly infringes too, because it creates a fear of exercising the right safely and responsibly, but again the courts may not agree.

But by all means convince me that I'm wrong on any or all points, I won't be sad.

Supposing you are right, however, if we get to the point where OC is not only technically legal but also safe from official harassment, I doubt that CC will be a problem. The gun banners operate on irrational fear, and if we actually rammed OC down their throats then they'd be only too happy to allow us to hide the evil, hideous, baby-killing kitten-strangling things from their sensitive sight.

7x57

gravedigger
12-30-2008, 3:17 PM
John,

In general laws tell you what you cannot do, not what you can do. A fundamental legal tenet is, "That which is not prohibited is legal."

UOC is legal if and only if it's (1) unloaded, (2) unquestionably open (i.e., dangling shirttail doesn't partially conceal) (3) not in prohibited place,
(4) over 1000 ft from schools etc.

In metro areas it may well be difficult to legally UOC given proximity of schools. I myself have not delved into what constitutes schools (day care? etc.)

Yeah, that is the dirty little liberal secret. They establish a "School" every 800 feet around the entire city, and viola! NO legal carry! They call a liberal's house that "home schools" its larva a "school." They call a day care center a "school." The little storefronts that teach "traffic school" are "Schools." Even the "schools" that house the brain-dead gang-bangers that have been kicked OUT of "school" are in "school" at the centers where they are given that last chance to achieve human status befiore they are tossed into a jail cell.

We really have to put the kabosh on that "1000 foot 'school zone'" law, and ASAP! Who knows when there is a "school" within 1,000 feet of wherever they are standing at the moment!? You walk into a Walgreen's. Oh gosh, 700 feet BEHIND the store where you cannot possibly get to it without driving 1/2 mile around a walled community to the gated entrance on the other side is a "school" 700 feet as the crow flies from the Wallgreen's back wall that teaches retarded kids how to wind sewing thread onto wooden spools. Its a "School" so you're BUSTED!

I am so sick of CommieFornia I cannot wait to move out! Someone PLEASE buy my business so I can leave this god-forsaken socialist cesspool.

grammaton76
12-30-2008, 3:58 PM
Yeah, that is the dirty little liberal secret. They establish a "School" every 800 feet around the entire city, and viola! NO legal carry! They call a liberal's house that "home schools" its larva a "school."

Having personally graduated from a home-school (i.e. throughout high school), I call absolute wrong here. If you look at home schooling overall, there's a few wild-haired hippies, but there are more conservatives who home school than liberals.

Liberals tend to think the kid is missing "precious human socialization" (i.e. brainwashing), whereas conservatives are more likely to think the kid's missing a bunch of liberal brainwashing, drugs, and other things we don't have any interest in. A LOT of liberals think home schooling should be illegal because products of home-schooling like ME scare the hell out of them! Try talking to some liberal TEACHERS some time about it - they consider it a problem that needs to be addressed, because it thwarts the "progressive" plan to ensure that every generation of students is more liberal than their parents. My education renders me a throwback to a previous era, and I prefer it that way.

You may keep your liberal-school-system force-fed views on home schooling, but I encourage you to discard them in light of a better thought out position.

You'll get no arguments from me that this school zone thing is a load of crap, but don't DARE consider home schooling to be some kind of liberal thing. There are HS'ers from all over the spectrum, but in my experience I have met very few liberals.

GuyW
12-30-2008, 4:07 PM
Having personally graduated from a home-school (i.e. throughout high school), I call absolute wrong here. If you look at home schooling overall, there's a few wild-haired hippies, but there are more conservatives who home school than liberals.

Liberals tend to think the kid is missing "precious human socialization" (i.e. brainwashing), whereas conservatives are more likely to think the kid's missing a bunch of liberal brainwashing, drugs, and other things we don't have any interest in. A LOT of liberals think home schooling should be illegal because because products of home-schooling like ME scare the hell out of them! Try talking to some liberal TEACHERS some time about it - they consider it a problem that needs to be addressed, because it thwarts the "progressive" plan to ensure that every generation of students is more liberal than their parents. My education renders me a throwback to a previous era, and I prefer it that way.

You may keep your liberal-school-system force-fed views on home schooling, but I encourage you to discard them in light of a better thought out position.

You'll get no arguments from me that this school zone thing is a load of crap, but don't DARE consider home schooling to be some kind of liberal thing. There are HS'ers from all over the spectrum, but in my experience I have met very few liberals.

+1000 (homeschool Dad)
.

adamsreeftank
12-30-2008, 5:37 PM
There should be a requirement to post signs throughout school zones

yellowfin
12-30-2008, 5:45 PM
CC as a right over OC definitely should exist because that's the most practicable way of exercising one's rights among today's society. As mentioned in a previous thread, the journalists who want CCW'ers outed on the basis that they could then be discriminated against. Is there some kind of magical guarantee that they'd extend full courtesy and tolerance in daily life to people OC'ing instead? Hell no they wouldn't! They'd treat every one of us just like they treated that lady in PA who the sheriff yanked her permit. They don't want CCW because it's practical every day--hence we need it protected first and foremost because that's how the everyday citizen can most ably enjoy it.

CA_Libertarian
12-30-2008, 10:18 PM
There should be a requirement to post signs throughout school zones

This would be bad for open carry advocates. 626.9 requires that the violator knowingly is in a school zone. Having signs posted would make it easier for the prosecution to prove 'reasonable knowledge.'

CA_Libertarian
12-30-2008, 10:24 PM
CC as a right over OC definitely should exist because that's the most practicable way of exercising one's rights among today's society.

I disagree. While some in society make a lot of noise when they see a gun, they are few and far between. Also, if we're going to consider aspects of 'practicability,' we should also consider our climate. Here in California's Central Valley, it is warm 10 months out of the year. Carrying concealed here in the summer is a burden. I would argue that open carry is more practiceable in much of the state on the basis that most of us wear too little clothing to effectively conceal most of the time.

Of course, I simply think the government has no right to restrict or prohibit any form of carry. You can duct tape your gun to your forehead for all I care.

BitterVoter
12-30-2008, 11:30 PM
I have to admit though...I don't know if I would be fighting so hard for the right is they didn't keep trying to limit it and if I felt that anyone in power were really trying to do something about crime.

N6ATF
12-31-2008, 12:00 AM
Having personally graduated from a home-school (i.e. throughout high school), I call absolute wrong here. If you look at home schooling overall, there's a few wild-haired hippies, but there are more conservatives who home school than liberals.

Funny this should come up. I spent 8th grade through graduation (a year early) in independent study (supported by 1x a week or more if necessary visits with a public school district teacher at the alternative education school), and did PE, extracurriculars on my own time and with cooperation of mostly music teachers at regular schools. I call myself a conservative. Not sure what I was when I left in-classroom ed.

There should be a requirement to post signs throughout school zones

As long as the sign is along these lines, so everybody living there or thinking about moving there knows that leaving their homes prepared is illegal:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_q1vD7Ho72aI/SCXPBOikfhI/AAAAAAAAAF4/oULpQUTtuPk/S220/victim+disarmament+zone.bmp

Also, if we're going to consider aspects of 'practicability,' we should also consider our climate. Here in California's Central Valley, it is warm 10 months out of the year. Carrying concealed here in the summer is a burden. I would argue that open carry is more practiceable in much of the state on the basis that most of us wear too little clothing to effectively conceal most of the time.

+1000, in SoCal.

kermit315
01-13-2009, 11:22 AM
re: covering the serial number:

dont glocks have the serno under the dust cover? if so, a mounted weapon light or laser setup would legally obscure the serno, and take it out of plainview.

there might be a similar method for other handguns.

just a thought.

Ironchef
01-13-2009, 11:36 AM
I'm wondering if the cop will somehow imagine PC to search for the serial number if it was covered by tape or something. For example, if he sees the SN is purposefully covered with a protective plate, or electrical tape, then maybe he will suspect it's an altered or non-serialized gun and have PC to then look at it..and while looking, run it?

Mike Stollenwerk
03-16-2009, 1:07 PM
Wasn't Knight's car parked off to the side and not on the "road"? And I agree with your take on this. Mike has county ord. stuck on his brain rather then any law... But he is right, I believe, on the effect of the Appeals Court holding albeit very weak IM (IANAL) O and would easily be overturned by a stronger prosecution in another appealed case.
Folks - Knight is the law - has been cited by subsequent appeals court decisions. Only County no shooting ordiances can trigger load bans in unincorporated areas.

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 2:28 PM
"The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and a data-base check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms."

I thought the "e" check specified that they could not demand ID or detain to run records check? Sorry if I'm repeating something......didn't rear all 11 pages yet?

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 2:41 PM
You have a loaded mag or two to go with it, they just aren't in the gun. So basically you have a gun that can be loaded in a matter of seconds, which is good enough for most situations.

Considering the very close quarters that most gunfights actually happen in I'd tend to disagree. Do some research. Stats show most police involved shooting happen within a distance of 3 feet or less. A person with a knife/edged weapon can cover 21ft of ground in the time it takes to draw a racked and ready to fire gun from an openly accessible belt holster and get a shot off. Given those stats, it's far more likely that you'd use your UOC in defense of someone else then yourself. Not a bad thing, but just trying to be realistic.

Decoligny
03-16-2009, 3:00 PM
Considering the very close quarters that most gunfights actually happen in I'd tend to disagree. Do some research. Stats show most police involved shooting happen within a distance of 3 feet or less. A person with a knife/edged weapon can cover 21ft of ground in the time it takes to draw a racked and ready to fire gun from an openly accessible belt holster and get a shot off. Given those stats, it's far more likely that you'd use your UOC in defense of someone else then yourself. Not a bad thing, but just trying to be realistic.

The Police are in a different set of situations that the ordinary citizen usually finds themselves. The Police are actively looking for the criminal element and are actually putting themselves deeper into the interaction with the criminal, whereas the average Open Carrying citizen is actively trying to avoid interaction with criminals and is looking to get away from the interaction.

This difference gives an advantage to the citizen as even the criminal is less likely to take as aggressive a posture as they would with the police who pose a greater percieved threat to the criminal.

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 3:28 PM
This difference gives an advantage to the citizen as even the criminal is less likely to take as aggressive a posture as they would with the police who pose a greater percieved threat to the criminal.


I think I would tend to disagree with you on that statement. Criminals view the average citzen as LESS of a threat because the assumption is they are not trained in self-defense, have less experience in dealing with criminal element, will likely react out of fear when confronted and so on. Hence the reason criminals prey on average citizens and do not seek out COPs to mug or rob.

Also factor in that a criminal knows you're alone most likely with no means of immediate backup. And in reality most confrontations out in public in which one would need to use lethal force are not going to happen at any considerable distance.......it's gonna be close quarters, right up in your face, unless you're coming to the aid of another.

I think you would readily find that stats are going to show that most self-defense shooting outside the home happen at "conversational distances" or less.

MudCamper
03-16-2009, 4:12 PM
Hence the reason criminals prey on average citizens and do not seek out COPs to mug or rob.

And they would seek out someone who is openly armed? Didn't you just prove that there is already some value in OC?

Further, what you say about not having the time to load is true, for some criminal encounters, but certainly not all. There are many instance where you will have time to load. Wouldn't it be better to have that option than none?

1859sharps
03-16-2009, 4:39 PM
Considering the very close quarters that most gunfights actually happen in I'd tend to disagree. Do some research. Stats show most police involved shooting happen within a distance of 3 feet or less. A person with a knife/edged weapon can cover 21ft of ground in the time it takes to draw a racked and ready to fire gun from an openly accessible belt holster and get a shot off. Given those stats, it's far more likely that you'd use your UOC in defense of someone else then yourself. Not a bad thing, but just trying to be realistic.

I think its VERY important new UOC'ers understand this. UOC is primarily a political/activism tool. it has next to zero self defense value. do not kid your self into thinking you can, draw, load and aim quick enough to deal with a real life threat...it ain't going to happen for most people. when your life is really and truly on the line, elements come into play you can't incorporate into your practice. An unloaded, unready gun is 100% useless as a self defense tool.

But despite the odds the UOC'ers scored a win and that is what is important. congratulations to all. :thumbsup:

For those who might be considering taking the plunge and starting to UOC because of this letter....be warned, this issue is still a legal mine field. Study up, then study up again. know the laws forwards, backwards and upside down before trying this.

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 5:15 PM
And they would seek out someone who is openly armed? Didn't you just prove that there is already some value in OC?

Further, what you say about not having the time to load is true, for some criminal encounters, but certainly not all. There are many instance where you will have time to load. Wouldn't it be better to have that option than none?

LOADED open carry COULD have some deterent value. Don't forget that criminals can know the law too, and could easily assume that a person in CA who is openly displaying a holstered pistol (especially if you're alone) and absent anything other identification as a LEO then it entirely likely you could just find yourself shot in the back nd your gun now in the possession of a criminal. If you're gonna do it, you might consider investing in a vest too.

I've conceded there maybe some, likely very few, situations in which there would be time to load most of which would be in defense of others, not yourself. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a reputable defensive pistol instructor who will agree that UOC will be any significant defensive value in personal defense. The A-scoial violent criminal you will likely never see coming. He's going to flash you a smile right before he sticks a knife in your chest/back and takes your gun and walks away. Think of guys who have no issue with trying to take on 2 or 3 armed LEOs w/o blinking and eye. Do you REALLY think they're going to be scared off by you? A-social criminals are skilled in the use of violence and have no issue using it.

I mean no offense by this, I just want people to seriously think about what they're doing. This kind of mentality is what concerns me with the UOCers. The gun is a just a tool, it is no gurantee, and don't let if give you a false sense of security. Check the stats on the number of LEOs who get shot with their own gun. In addition to practicing draw and load do you practice weapons retention techniques?

Although I uunderstand the push for the purpose of political statement and to get laws changed.....tactically speaking, at least in fairly urban areas, I just think it's a really bad idea. I'm not speaking from a constitutional rights perspective here......I'm speaking from a personal safety perspective. I dont want to read about anyone getting shot in the back and his gun stolen.

Think of it this way. Some criminals might be detered at the site of your gun. The ones who are not detered are the ones you need to worry about and are likely going to just kill you before you ever see it coming. Make sense?

And don't forget about multiple attacker scenarios too. One guy confronts you head on, and while you're trying to decide if you can pull off that slick draw, load, rack and fire, you get clubbed by 1 or more others from behind.

KWA-S
03-16-2009, 5:15 PM
For those who might be considering taking the plunge and starting to UOC because of this letter....be warned, this issue is still a legal mine field. Study up, then study up again. know the laws forwards, backwards and upside down before trying this.

And only do so carrying brochures and material that demonstrate its legal, a recorder, an OC buddy, friendly witnesses,a map of the local school zones, and 10k retainer....

Meplat
03-16-2009, 5:31 PM
The Police are in a different set of situations that the ordinary citizen usually finds themselves. The Police are actively looking for the criminal element and are actually putting themselves deeper into the interaction with the criminal, whereas the average Open Carrying citizen is actively trying to avoid interaction with criminals and is looking to get away from the interaction.

This difference gives an advantage to the citizen as even the criminal is less likely to take as aggressive a posture as they would with the police who pose a greater percieved threat to the criminal.

Exactly, that is why I give the cops a tiny bit (not much) of sympathy regards their abysmal record of bad shoots as compared to citizens. We have options they do not.:thumbsup:

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 5:35 PM
.....for example.


In that scenario take the responding LE units out of the equation. Insert a couple of hardcore gangbangers, skinheads or whatever. They drive by and see a couple of guys sportin' some nice lookin' pistols and decide they're gonna show these guys who are the real badasses in town, (perhaps they've even killed people before). They pull their own fully loaded and ready to fire, ILLEGAL pistols and circle around the block, roll up in front of the guys and just as the 2 nice UOCers glance at the car the just pulled up all they see is pistols pointed at them right before the go down, if they even get the chance to look. Badguys get out, take the guns and speed off done and over in 15-20 seconds.

Would these badguys have even given those UOC guys a second glance if not for the openly displayed guns? Prolly not.

Yes...it's hypothetical but totally possible. But what I described is the A-social violent criminal who will NOT be detered by your gun whether he thinks its loaded or not. So before you decide to strap on and attract alot of attention to yourself......give some serious thought to the kind of attention your display could actually draw. Just REALLY think about it tactically speaking. That's all I'm saying, no challenge to your rights, or your manhood, or your skill with a firearm.

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 5:43 PM
Exactly, that is why I give the cops a tiny bit (not much) of sympathy regards their abysmal record of bad shoots as compared to citizens. We have options they do not.:thumbsup:

What exactly are these options you have that the LEOs don't?

They've got pistols, shotguns, prolly a backup pistol, batons, pepper spray, other officers possible, radios, body armor etc, etc, etc. And you're got your one unloaded firearm. And you wanna think you've got options they don't?

I'm a little concerned with the "bravado" being displayed by some here honestly. It's exactly that kinda thing that will get you killed and give the movement a bad name.

I would be curious so see some demonstrations of UOC in one of those simulators and see how many actually could draw, load, rack and fire before they got shot. Remember....in the stress of the moment you're only gonna be about half as good as when you're practicing. And even a good competition shooter still has the added factor of being attacked to deal with which competition does not prepare you for.

pullnshoot25
03-16-2009, 5:54 PM
Exactly, that is why I give the cops a tiny bit (not much) of sympathy regards their abysmal record of bad shoots as compared to citizens. We have options they do not.:thumbsup:

You guys realize that cops don't even make the top 10 most dangerous jobs, right?

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 6:06 PM
You guys realize that cops don't even make the top 10 most dangerous jobs, right?

No......but most of the people who get killed in those top 10 dangerous jobs aren't getting killed by other people, they're like miners and construction workers getting killed by accident. And what does the list consider dangerous? Is it just possibility of getting killed or does serious injury count too?

Check out http://www.odmp.org/year.php?year=2008&Submit=Go if you'd like to stats. 3 LEOs have been shot on duty already this year nationwide, 38 last year (doesn't including stabbing and other assaults). No...not alot....but still good to think about. Try and think about the mentality of a person who is willing to shoot a LEO. You think he's even gonna give you a second thought?

Meplat
03-16-2009, 6:15 PM
I fully expect that if I ever have to use my pistol (I have a CCW) it will probably be in the defense of others. When you carry, if you have any smarts, you are very situationally aware. That alone reduces your chances of getting into trouble. The confidence that being armed engenders helps to keep from putting out "victim vibes". I also believe that being openly armed is in fact a deterrent to most aggression. Why take a chance when there are plenty of unarmed pidgins out there? However if you run into a really determined or desperate individual, you will be the first to die. I carry concealed legally, criminals carry concealed unlawfully. There is no practical tactical difference. I will tell you straight, if you are carrying openly, loaded or not, and I decide to kill you, you will be dead. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. All I have to do is wait till you are distracted for half a second and you are dead. UOC may make you feel good but it's like wearing a "Shoot Me First" T shirt.

I misdemeanor CCWed for many years before I got my permit. If you really need to carry for defense of self and others, consider it. It is safer all around. :43:

I think I would tend to disagree with you on that statement. Criminals view the average citzen as LESS of a threat because the assumption is they are not trained in self-defense, have less experience in dealing with criminal element, will likely react out of fear when confronted and so on. Hence the reason criminals prey on average citizens and do not seek out COPs to mug or rob.

Also factor in that a criminal knows you're alone most likely with no means of immediate backup. And in reality most confrontations out in public in which one would need to use lethal force are not going to happen at any considerable distance.......it's gonna be close quarters, right up in your face, unless you're coming to the aid of another.

I think you would readily find that stats are going to show that most self-defense shooting outside the home happen at "conversational distances" or less.

Meplat
03-16-2009, 6:35 PM
But, with open carry you are at times putting yourself in a lose-lose position. If faced with a determined assailant you have the option of being shot while you are doing nothing or being shot while trying To get loaded. Pray for Saturday night specials, because you can probably absorb several .25 autos from a raven while you are loading your .40 S&W and blowing the perp away.

UOC is a "Shoot Me First Sign". :eek:




And they would seek out someone who is openly armed? Didn't you just prove that there is already some value in OC?

Further, what you say about not having the time to load is true, for some criminal encounters, but certainly not all. There are many instance where you will have time to load. Wouldn't it be better to have that option than none?

Meplat
03-16-2009, 6:50 PM
You misunderstand. I do not, nor do I advocate, UOC.

LE even if it is only in their own minds, has a responsibility to confront active criminals. As private citizens, we do not. We, if not in our own homes actually have a duty to retreat. This I will not do if the lives of others are at stake, but otherwise, I'm outa there.

I carry concealed.

That is the most effective deterrent to crime and that is the first thing we should be fighting for.:43:


What exactly are these options you have that the LEOs don't?

They've got pistols, shotguns, prolly a backup pistol, batons, pepper spray, other officers possible, radios, body armor etc, etc, etc. And you're got your one unloaded firearm. And you wanna think you've got options they don't?

I'm a little concerned with the "bravado" being displayed by some here honestly. It's exactly that kinda thing that will get you killed and give the movement a bad name.

I would be curious so see some demonstrations of UOC in one of those simulators and see how many actually could draw, load, rack and fire before they got shot. Remember....in the stress of the moment you're only gonna be about half as good as when you're practicing. And even a good competition shooter still has the added factor of being attacked to deal with which competition does not prepare you for.

GuyW
03-16-2009, 6:52 PM
We, if not in our own homes actually have a duty to retreat. This I will not do if the lives of others are at stake, but otherwise, I'm outa there.


Got a cite for that?

Meplat
03-16-2009, 6:58 PM
Yep. I have been in more dangerous jobs than police work all my life. Construction, farming, and firefighting are perennially in the top four. I have been in one or the outer of these all my life. But, cops get to kill people by mistake and get away with it because their job is so dangerous! Ya, I'm just a little disgruntled.:43:


You guys realize that cops don't even make the top 10 most dangerous jobs, right?

Meplat
03-16-2009, 7:03 PM
Got a cite for that?

No. :o

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 7:09 PM
Yep. I have been in more dangerous jobs than police work all my life. Construction, farming, and firefighting are perennially in the top four. I have been in one or the outer of these all my life. But, cops get to kill people by mistake and get away with it because their job is so dangerous! Ya, I'm just a little disgruntled.:43:

Actually did some stat comparisons once on LEOs vs. firefighters. Got bad news for you......you're twice as likely to die on duty as a LEO then you are as firefighter. Now if you include injury in the danger factor then FFs move up cause they're always injuring their backs and stuff. Deathwise LEOs beat out the FFs though on the job.

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 7:17 PM
"We, if not in our own homes actually have a duty to retreat. This I will not do if the lives of others are at stake, but otherwise, I'm outa there."

Well if you have a reasonable means of escape from a situation (excluding at your home) then that does mitigate your ability to claim fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. And this is usually judged by the "reasonable person" standard. If there is a viabe "less than lethal force" option available to save your life and escape the situation you'd likely be expected to use it.

But it's always easy to say that when monday morning QBin' a stressful situation.

I think some folks around here had better get some training on the legal issue of use of lethal force before they go sportin' around town with their UOC. So you know the law about why you can carry......what do you know about how/when you can actually use it and the possible consequences if you make a bad call?

Meplat
03-16-2009, 7:22 PM
Actually did some stat comparisons once on LEOs vs. firefighters. Got bad news for you......you're twice as likely to die on duty as a LEO then you are as firefighter. Now if you include injury in the danger factor then FFs move up cause they're always injuring their backs and stuff. Deathwise LEOs beat out the FFs though on the job.

I'll bet if we just decided to let the druggies kill themselves with their drug of choice, rather than trying to SAVE them by police intervention the police casualties would go way down. Why should good men die to save idiots from themselves?

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 7:28 PM
I'll bet if we just decided to let the druggies kill themselves with their drug of choice, rather than trying to SAVE them by police intervention the police casualties would go way down. Why should good men die to save idiots from themselves?


I remember hearing a stat once and I dont remember te exact figure but it something like "75-80% of a LE agencies time is spent dealing with 2% of the population." Just another example of why the society has nothing to fear with shall issue. The law-abiding majority are not the ones causing the problems.

Meplat
03-16-2009, 7:36 PM
The consequences of a bad call are ugly. I long ago reconciled all the BS and technicalities of the use of deadly force, as anyone, weather they carry or not should do. If I am in actual fear of my life, or the lives of others, then, and only then, I will use deadly force. Doc Holiday said it over a hundred years ago: "If theres one to be buried and one to be tried, I'll see you in court."


"We, if not in our own homes actually have a duty to retreat. This I will not do if the lives of others are at stake, but otherwise, I'm outa there."

Well if you have a reasonable means of escape from a situation (excluding at your home) then that does mitigate your ability to claim fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. And this is usually judged by the "reasonable person" standard. If there is a viabe "less than lethal force" option available to save your life and escape the situation you'd likely be expected to use it.

But it's always easy to say that when monday morning QBin' a stressful situation.

I think some folks around here had better get some training on the legal issue of use of lethal force before they go sportin' around town with their UOC. So you know the law about why you can carry......what do you know about how/when you can actually use it and the possible consequences if you make a bad call?

GuyW
03-16-2009, 7:36 PM
I don't read a duty to retreat here:

Penal Code:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,

3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,

4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of such fears alone.

hoffmang
03-16-2009, 7:40 PM
Let's pull in some data. Here is the LEO v. Firefighter study (http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/archive/summer1999art1.pdf).

Occupation - Death's per 100K
Logging - 128.7
Fishermen - 123.4
Taxi Drivers - 40.3
Roofers - 27.5
Firefighters - 18.3
Police and detectives - 14.0

That's an excerpt and the data is from 1999, but it is interesting.

-Gene

CCWFacts
03-16-2009, 7:49 PM
That's an excerpt and the data is from 1999, but it is interesting.

Police work just isn't that dangerous compared to other professions. I saw the list of figures from 2005 and law enforcement isn't in the top ten most dangerous jobs. They are farmer, commercial pilot, logger, drivers, that kind of thing. Police are more at risk of shooting themselves with their own guns, voluntarily (suicide) than at risk of being murdered.

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 7:49 PM
Escaping a sitution w/o use of lethal force would also be considered resisting in a manner of speaking. You can't just look at the law but also how case law interprets it. You use force to stop the threat. If your attacker goes down with one shot and you could run away after that but you decide to stand over him and unload the rest of the mag on him.....you could likely be dinged for excessive force. You are not required to retreat, BUT you are ONLY allowed to use as much as is necessary to stop the threat. If you could easily escape the situation w/o any use of force.....you'd prolly better take that option if you see it....that would be the minimum force required to stop the threat.

Untamed1972
03-16-2009, 7:53 PM
Let's pull in some data. Here is the LEO v. Firefighter study (http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/archive/summer1999art1.pdf).

Occupation - Death's per 100K
Logging - 128.7
Fishermen - 123.4
Taxi Drivers - 40.3
Roofers - 27.5
Firefighters - 18.3
Police and detectives - 14.0

That's an excerpt and the data is from 1999, but it is interesting.

-Gene

I think I had looked at data for a more recent year, 2004 maybe. It was 160 LEOs and like 83 FFs for the same year, and there were way more FFs if you included volunteers FFs there there were LEOs. But hey.....stats can often be spun anyway smeone wants depending on what you include/exclude.

Of if there happened to be a particually bad incident one year....like 2001 (ie9/11) stats for that year are way off because of that one incident to what the normal pattern is. For the last decade or more the number of LEOs killed on duty consistently runs between about 140-170 per year. Also seem to remember that most years the leading cause of FF death on the job is heart attack....guess they like donuts too huh? LOL

Meplat
03-16-2009, 8:05 PM
I'v been in high risk occupations all my life. If you are LEO, don't cry to me about how dangerous it is. Just suck it up and quite killing by mistake.

Let's pull in some data. Here is the LEO v. Firefighter study (http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/archive/summer1999art1.pdf).

Occupation - Death's per 100K
Logging - 128.7
Fishermen - 123.4
Taxi Drivers - 40.3
Roofers - 27.5
Firefighters - 18.3
Police and detectives - 14.0

That's an excerpt and the data is from 1999, but it is interesting.

-Gene

Librarian
03-16-2009, 8:34 PM
Just to add to the fun - 2006 data from cnn/money (http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/07/pf/2006_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm)
Top 10 dangerous jobs
The occupations with the highest fatality rates in 2006.
Occupation Deaths per 100,000 workers
Fishermen 141.7
Pilots 87.8
Loggers 82.3
Structural iron and steel workers 61.0
Refuse collectors 41.8
Farmers and ranchers 37.1
Power linemen 34.9
Roofers 33.9
Drivers 27.1
Agricultural workers 21.7

CCWFacts
03-16-2009, 9:04 PM
Just to add to the fun - 2006 data from cnn/money (http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/07/pf/2006_most_dangerous_jobs/index.htm)

Exactly. None of them are law enforcement. None of them are government jobs at all. The main factors in the top 10 danger list is use of heavy equipment in dangerous environments (iron workers, farmers, etc), and vehicle dangers (drivers, pilots) and, top of the list, a combination of the two (fishermen). There's also a theme that these are lower-class jobs; if some fishermen freeze to death in the water, it doesn't cause an outcry. And fishermen have to go out when the season opens. Conversely, cops can usually choose whether to go into a dangerous situation, or wait for backup, or wait for the guy to surrender.

The safety of law enforcement work makes sense when you think about it. They have overwhelming firepower, backup, and equipment, and the training to go with it. Even more important, they can choose to stay out of situations that are dangerous.

I'm sick of hearing police unions talk about how they deserve such high pay due to the extreme danger they face. It's BS. Farmers should get the big bucks if we pay for danger. I'm not saying that LEOs shouldn't be well-compensated for other reasons, but it's not justified by any kind of exceptional danger, because they don't face exceptional danger. Even SWAT teams rarely have fatalities.

hoffmang
03-16-2009, 9:10 PM
It was 160 LEOs and like 83 FFs for the same year, and there were way more FFs if you included volunteers FFs there there were LEOs.

I think you might be confusing absolute numbers of deaths with deaths per 100,000. Absolute numbers aren't useful because there are a lot more LEOs than firefighters. Sample population size matters.

-Gene

bluestaterebel
03-16-2009, 9:29 PM
I'v been in high risk occupations all my life. If you are LEO, don't cry to me about how dangerous it is. Just suck it up and quite killing by mistake.

who's crying? you are comparing apples and oranges. law enforcement officers jobs are not as dangerous as some of the jobs listed above. fisherman, loggers, construction, etc.. to them the risk of injury or death is high, but the key word here is murder. not that many 300 pound parolees promising themselves that they will kill the first fisherman or logger they see. you see leo's are at high risk of murder. if it wasnt for the tools, training and tactics that leo's have the murder rate would be even higher.

and you seem to believe that officers are just out killing people by mistake just for fun. have you ever been in a shooting? no body wants to kill somebody accidentally. dont make it worst by those childish comments.

bluestaterebel
03-16-2009, 9:38 PM
I'm sick of hearing police unions talk about how they deserve such high pay due to the extreme danger they face. It's BS. Farmers should get the big bucks if we pay for danger. I'm not saying that LEOs shouldn't be well-compensated for other reasons, but it's not justified by any kind of exceptional danger, because they don't face exceptional danger. Even SWAT teams rarely have fatalities.

Hey farmer John go into the field on your tractor, be careul!

Hey SWAT lead entry guy, be the first to go into this building that contains an armed and barricaded suspect that has tactical advantage and wants to kill you, be careful!

yeah youre right its the same.

TheBundo
03-16-2009, 10:12 PM
I have decided UOC isn't a good idea. I was going to do it the other night walking the dog, but a post by Gene made me think twice. So I guess the last time I UOC'ed in town will remain back in the 1960's, when I carried a rifle to school, with no container, about a mile to school (and back) for Show and Tell. Probably 4th grade. I guess the school zone rule didn't apply in the 60's, nor in South Dakota. I can tell you this, I doubt it raised an eyebrow among the scores or hundreds of people that saw me carrying it. However, the teacher had me leave it in the corner behind her until, and after, Show and Tell, until the school day was over. What a Nazi :D

hoffmang
03-16-2009, 10:12 PM
Gents,

We're wildly off topic. Can we go back?

-Gene

pullnshoot25
03-16-2009, 10:27 PM
I have decided UOC isn't a good idea. I was going to do it the other night walking the dog, but a post by Gene made me think twice. So I guess the last time I UOC'ed in town will remain back in the 1960's, when I carried a rifle to school, with no container, about a mile to school (and back) for Show and Tell. Probably 4th grade. I guess the school zone rule didn't apply in the 60's, nor in South Dakota. I can tell you this, I doubt it raised an eyebrow among the scores or hundreds of people that saw me carrying it. However, the teacher had me leave it in the corner behind her until, and after, Show and Tell, until the school day was over. What a Nazi :D

OK TedBundo, et, TheBundo, we get that you're against UOC. :)

DDT
03-17-2009, 2:17 AM
Not against open carry, just pro-whatever-is-most-effective-at-returning-the-civil-rights-guaranteed-to-me-and-others-in-the-Second-Amendment-to-the-U.S.-Constitution. If UOC is what it takes, if careful discretion of personal action is what it takes, if popping a few bucks to NRA, CRPA, CGF is what it takes....

CCWFacts
03-17-2009, 5:24 AM
Hey farmer John go into the field on your tractor, be careul!

Hey SWAT lead entry guy, be the first to go into this building that contains an armed and barricaded suspect that has tactical advantage and wants to kill you, be careful!

yeah youre right its the same.

No it isn't the same. Farmer John is far more likely to end up dead from an on-the-job injury than the SWAT guy. That's statistical fact, even if it may seem counter-intuitive to you. You can believe and claim whatever you like but workplace death statistics are reliable and published every year, and farmers always come near the top of high-risk occupations, and law enforcement is not in the top ten.

Maybe Mr. SWAT team guy's job is more exciting and involves bullets flying, but he has less chance of dying on the job. Oh and it's also far more likely for Farmer John to get non-fatally injured than SWAT team guy, but guess which one is likely to have health insurance and which one does not?

I know the reason why Farmer John's risks are higher than SWAT guy's. Farmer John's job keeps him in a moderate risk situation all day long, every day, whereas SWAT team guy's job puts him at a high risk for a few minutes total in his entire career. Yes, the risk for those few seconds of bursting down the door is fairly high, but a few minutes of risk over a lifetime is less risky than every-day exposure to moderate risk. And even the SWAT team busting-down-the-door situation isn't that risky. The SWAT team decides when to do it, they can wait as long as they want to, they have lots of armor when they do it, they may have launched in teargas or flashbangs before they go in, etc. SWAT team deaths are rare and to claim otherwise is dishonest. Everyone in law enforcement knows all this.

fairfaxjim
03-17-2009, 9:09 AM
No it isn't the same. Farmer John is far more likely to end up dead from an on-the-job injury than the SWAT guy. That's statistical fact, even if it may seem counter-intuitive to you. You can believe and claim whatever you like but workplace death statistics are reliable and published every year, and farmers always come near the top of high-risk occupations, and law enforcement is not in the top ten.

Maybe Mr. SWAT team guy's job is more exciting and involves bullets flying, but he has less chance of dying on the job. Oh and it's also far more likely for Farmer John to get non-fatally injured than SWAT team guy, but guess which one is likely to have health insurance and which one does not?

I know the reason why Farmer John's risks are higher than SWAT guy's. Farmer John's job keeps him in a moderate risk situation all day long, every day, whereas SWAT team guy's job puts him at a high risk for a few minutes total in his entire career. Yes, the risk for those few seconds of bursting down the door is fairly high, but a few minutes of risk over a lifetime is less risky than every-day exposure to moderate risk. And even the SWAT team busting-down-the-door situation isn't that risky. The SWAT team decides when to do it, they can wait as long as they want to, they have lots of armor when they do it, they may have launched in teargas or flashbangs before they go in, etc. SWAT team deaths are rare and to claim otherwise is dishonest. Everyone in law enforcement knows all this.

Farmer John doesn't have the taxpayers buying him all sorts of tactical farm implements, protective gear and paying him while doing non-stop training. If Farmer John actually produced at the same level as SWAT, an onion would be like $200. Not really related, but the SWAT guys don't risk everything they have each year to be able to risk their life doing their job.

The truth of the matter is the thing that makes LE so damn dangerous is that they DRIVE around a LOT! That is one of the riskiest things you can do. Otherwise, I can't buy into this "aura" of danger that is put around LE, mostly in an effort to make John Q Public believe they are some sort of god like creature that should be granted all powers, particularly life and death over others. Just ain't so.

Untamed1972
03-17-2009, 9:45 AM
I think you might be confusing absolute numbers of deaths with deaths per 100,000. Absolute numbers aren't useful because there are a lot more LEOs than firefighters. Sample population size matters.

-Gene

Yes...In my comparison I did total deaths as a percentage of total LEOs/FFs. And I specficially remember that if you include volunteer FFs since many rural areas only have volunteer FF service there are significantly more FFs then LEOs. And I think the volunteers should be included in the count because their deaths are counted in the total, and volunteers actually made up a significant portion of the FF deaths on duty.


But like I said......statistically speaking 50% of all stats made up 70% of the time. LOL It's all spin! :D

And I do agree with the other poster that since most of the top 10 dangerous job deaths are caused by accidents, not murder that does change the tune a little in the LEOs defense. But for like 2005 stats I looked at, 164 total deaths about a 1/3 would fall under "murdered" So less than 60 LEOs murdered out of about 673,000 LEOs nationwide. A pretty small number considering there were nearly 17,000 murders nationwide that same year. As I stated in my other thread.....that comes out the average citizen being twice as likely to get murdered. So where is my hazard pay for being an avg. joe?

GuyW
03-17-2009, 9:49 AM
Farmer John not only has a more dangerous job, he must work in bad weather and when not necessarily feeling top-notch, and work odd hours and long hours to get things fixed. Farmer John is constantly under government attack - cutting off his water, regulating his use of his land, told how to run his business. Farmer John's yearly paycheck is highly variable, but usually on the low side of salary ranges. He has to invest significant money to be in business, and pay all the usual costs of being in business, including all of the government extortions and exactions. Farmer John is solely responsible for production - if he's lazy, he starves. He typically has minimal dental/health/vision insurance. His retirement is whatever he can save and invest in the free market, but usually is his land and farm/ranch operations. Mr. Farmer is similar to many CA taxpayers.

Mr/Ms LEO has a constant, guaranteed paycheck, plus overtime pay, at much higher than average pay. They have full dental/health/vision insurance. They then (in CA) retire with a government-guaranteed pension of 3% x years (often 90-100+% of salary). They get special privileges such as relaxed gun laws.

In most of these ways, Mr/Ms LEO are very similar to other CA government workers.

Mr. Farmer and the balance of the CA taxpayers can't afford the much higher-than-free market salaries and retirements for which government workers and their unions milk the system.
.

Untamed1972
03-17-2009, 9:53 AM
"If Farmer John actually produced at the same level as SWAT, an onion would be like $200."

:rofl2:

"The truth of the matter is the thing that makes LE so damn dangerous is that they DRIVE around a LOT! That is one of the riskiest things you can do."

Roger that......the largest portion of LEO deaths every year are vehicle related.

SirGlockALott
03-29-2009, 11:13 AM
This is great.

stuckinhippytown
06-26-2009, 12:47 PM
The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and a data-base check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004) 542 US 177, 187.

Isnt there a case that spanks this one?? Im under the impression that we do not have to show ID i dont even carry my bank card because it has my name on it.... Clarification needed please

Untamed1972
06-26-2009, 1:14 PM
The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and a data-base check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004) 542 US 177, 187.

Isnt there a case that spanks this one?? Im under the impression that we do not have to show ID i dont even carry my bank card because it has my name on it.... Clarification needed please

But to detain someone the LEOs must have RAS that crime has/is/is about to be committed. Since the law in CA says you can carry an unloaded firearm, if you are not doing anything else that would cause RAS then they have no right to detain. They can do the "e" check, but once the "e"check shows the gun to be unloaded they have no further cause to detain you because you are not committing a crime.

No if you appeared to be very young, such that you would be underage to posess a gun then that might give them enough RAS to ask for ID, just like a COP might stop someone driving a car because they appear to be underage. If that person shows ID showing they are of age, then again RAS is gone and detention must end.

pullnshoot25
06-26-2009, 4:47 PM
The incidental detention of the armed individual justifies a demand for ID, allowing age verification and a data-base check for information about any disqualification to possess firearms. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District (2004) 542 US 177, 187.

Isnt there a case that spanks this one?? Im under the impression that we do not have to show ID i dont even carry my bank card because it has my name on it.... Clarification needed please

Kolender v. Lawson.

It is all covered in the videos.

Opus109
06-26-2009, 4:55 PM
Here's my question: Is it OK to carry an unloaded pistol in plain view (OWB holster, for example), with AN EMPTY MAGAZINE IN THE GUN, and with a loaded magazine in a pants pocket? Ammunition is NOT in or attached to the gun, but is accessible. The magazine in the gun has no ammunition attached to it.

Thoughts?

pnkssbtz
06-26-2009, 5:06 PM
Just got this memo through my department e-mail. Good stuff.What is the general response by your fellow officers about the memo?

Neil McCauley
06-26-2009, 5:09 PM
Awesome!!! But I still don't have the nuts to do this.

capo689
06-26-2009, 5:21 PM
Walking around with an unloaded gun on my hip seems like a great way to get my gun stolen by a guy with a loaded gun in his pocket.

Opus109
06-26-2009, 5:25 PM
Walking around with an unloaded gun on my hip seems like a great way to get my gun stolen by a guy with a loaded gun in his pocket.

Then don't do it.:p

N6ATF
06-26-2009, 7:36 PM
Then don't do it.:p

Or don't believe the FUD. You're more likely to have your gun stolen, whoops I'm sorry, confiscated, whoops, held for safe keeping (and the criminals breathe a sigh of relief that another law-abiding citizen is disarmed), there we go, by the government.

DedEye
06-26-2009, 8:17 PM
Here's my question: Is it OK to carry an unloaded pistol in plain view (OWB holster, for example), with AN EMPTY MAGAZINE IN THE GUN, and with a loaded magazine in a pants pocket? Ammunition is NOT in or attached to the gun, but is accessible. The magazine in the gun has no ammunition attached to it.

Thoughts?

The thoughts are that this is not legal, as there is case law suggesting that carrying the magazine concealed (even, probably, if you have an empty mag in the pistol) would be considered a concealed firearm. As such, the recommendation for those who insist on OCing is that they carry the magazine in a holster that doesn't conceal the magazine, or dodge the issue entirely and carry a revolver like Pullnshoot25.

bodger
06-26-2009, 9:54 PM
I'm new to being informed on the issue of UOC. I've read a lot here and on the links in some threads.

I just don't see it. It really seems like a lousy way to carry a handgun intended for SD, and a good way to insure that some lame-brain anti is going to call the cops on me.
Or, the cops are going to see me doing it themselves and I may or may not come out of it with my clean record and my firearm (and my health) intact.

I get it from the standpoint of demonstrating our 2A rights. Beyond that, it just seems like looking for trouble. Especially after seeing those school zone maps.

I live in LA too, which isn't exactly the gun friendly capitol of the PRK.

swaits
06-27-2009, 8:09 AM
Don't do it then. Pretty easy.

bodger
06-27-2009, 8:40 AM
Don't do it then. Pretty easy.

Don't do it.....easy, yes.

But hard to stomach the fact that I have a constitutional right to UOC, but the odds are that if I exercise the right, I could suffer consequeneces that are unfair and unjustified.

Exactly what the antis would love to know is going on I'm sure.

N6ATF
06-27-2009, 9:27 AM
You have a constitutional right to LOC and CCW. You have an infringed right to UOC.

sreiter
06-27-2009, 9:52 AM
But, nobody has given any real situation in which a UOC is better than even a pocket knife, in my view an unloaded gun is much worse than a pocket knife or even empty hands. Just try going through the motions not with a real gun of draw/load/rack/aim/trigger before they stab the carp out of you. You will make it to DRAW than dead. What happens when you end up on the ground? I bet not a single person here trying to debate the effectiveness of UOC has even tried this once. That is my point. EDIT- do not use a real gun at any time during this drill.

to your point 1:

scenario - when you aren't directly involved, but rather witness a crime such as a rape, robbery in progress, etc.

point 2: knife vs gun

I'm a certified knife instructor. You are talking about the 21 feet rule. there are a TON of variable.

however that scenario of a knife beating a gun is the knife is in your hand and the gun is holstered.

The physics behind your is you are able to run about 10 yards in a 1.5-2.0 seconds which is ample time to stab someone before they draw (it also assumes the guy you stab dies immediately without being able to return fire once stabbed)

A mugger holding a gun at you already has his weapon pointed at you and YOU have to draw. He can pull the trigger 5-10 times before you clear you pocket, let alone open your blade.

As shown on the "surviving edged weapons" tape (standard leo training) the main factor for losing to a knife is stress.

I shoot with gunsite instructors who can draw and put 2 down range in .95.

lehn20
06-27-2009, 10:11 AM
in perfect conditions under no real stress, expecting it coming!.