Orange County Sheriff Open Carry Training Bulletin

[hoffmang]

First of all, hat tip to OpenCarry.org on this bulletin.

OCSD has issued an Unloaded Open Carry briefing (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/OCSD%20Training%20Bulletin.pdf).

-Gene

[nick]

No way, they're willing to learn :D

EDIT: Scratch that, they still give that "intent to have an officer arrest them" nonsense.

[technique]

interesting.. The way UOC is portrayed by LE.

[nick]

My favorite: "Prompt incidental checks on the person and the weapon may provide probable cause for arrest". And generally, the tone of the memo seems to be we can't nab them easily, so let's see how we can nab them still".

[nick]

interesting.. The way UOC is portrayed by LE.

I'd say, it's not so much by LE, but to LE.

Anyway, the memo is potentially good news, but it's as disgusting as the rest of the memos we've seen to date.

[Liberty1]

Some typos

In "Conflicts with local ordinance" should have a "not" after the "are".**

and the 626.9 info is misleading when they leave out the "knowing" element of the crime or the exemptions. She claims that they don't want false arrests then they better start including analysis of all the codes with exemptions.

still reading...

I'll give her props on page 2 for saying "...these law abiding 2nd Amendment advocates are exercising their right to Open Carry firearms..."



**http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/car...t-12042008.pdf


...Furthermore, we doubt that a local ordinance could be enacted to close this gap by, for instance, making it a violation of a city’s municipal code to carry an unloaded and unconcealed firearm in public. In this regard, please note Article XI, §7 of the California Constitution, which provides that:

A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.

The California Supreme Court has identified three types of conflict that cause preemption of local legislation: A conflict exists if the local legislation duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication. Local legislation is contradictory to general law when it is inimical thereto. A local ordinance is preempted by a state statute only to the extent that the two conflict. Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 1232. For a local ordinance to proscribe that which is allowed under State law would perforce be to contradict state law. Furthermore, given the extent of State regulation of dangerous weapons, it would seem apparent that the State has “fully occupied” this area by its general laws.

[rorschach]

Methinks it has little to do with LE allowing citizens to excercise their rights, and most everything to do with avoiding a lawsuit.

Whatever works. Think I'll save this one and print it out if I decide to OC.

[Diabolus]

"Presentation of an individual walking down the street carrying a pistol in a holster raises obvious tactical issues, as well as safety concerns for both officers and the public"

How about they call up a Police Department in our neighboring State of Arizona and ask them how they deal with it.

[CSACANNONEER]

"Presentation of an individual walking down the street carrying a pistol in a holster raises obvious tactical issues, as well as safety concerns for both officers and the public"

How about they call up a Police Department in our neighboring State of Arizona and ask them how they deal with it.

With the pending budget crisis, they can't afford the long distance call.

[nick]

With the pending budget crisis, they can't afford the long distance call.

I'm willing to donate an $5 calling card.

[rulas41]

hurray now i need a hand gun:43:

[pullnshoot25]

YAY for another memo! However, BOO on the fact that these clowns treat us as second-rate citizens and look for further ways to criminalize our activities. When will they ever get a memo totally right and unbiased?

[yellowfin]

Compare that memo and this one: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=146080

[hoffmang]

When will they ever get a memo totally right and unbiased?

Only when a Federal Court writes it for them.

-Gene

[nick]

Compare that memo and this one: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=146080

The comments after the article are just as interesting.

[MudCamper]

Although it makes the same mistake as all the other LEA memos regarding our intent, I find that the general tone of this one is a bit better. Like this,

If you read the www.opencarry.org and www.californiaopencarry.org sites, the postings and blogs make it seem apparent that these law abiding 2nd Amendment advocates are exercising their rights legally to Open Carry firearms. From reading these sites, which include postings recording contacts with law enforcement while Open Carrying, the carriers have been well informed of applicable state laws allowing their right to Open Carry and they appear to have been cooperative with law enforcement.

But it does make new mistakes, like omitting the "knowing" language from 626.9 as Liberty1 pointed out. It also doesn't clarify that you can transport in a school zone in a locked case.

[Annie Oakley]

These memos are kind of scary to me. It just seems that these police departments are inordinately hysterical about law abiding citizens carrying a gun. And they seem to view "Open Carry" organizations as some how subversive. And then there are the laws like 626.9 that makes it illegal to carry a firearm 1000 feet away. That's like over three football fields away. What is up with that ? I have to agree with some here that view this as a we can't do anything to them memo, and quickly turns into a here's how we can get them memo, and it really scares me that police departments are being so divisive on this matter.

[tombinghamthegreat]

Looks like the open carry crowd is spreading its movement county by county. Wonder if Ventura County will release something similar?

[7x57]

These memos are kind of scary to me. It just seems that these police departments are inordinately hysterical about law abiding citizens carrying a gun.

This is a law of human nature that the founders understood extremely well, and that we tend to forget due to a pervasive environment of dependence on authority. We might call it the Law Of Selfish Perspective.

There is a joke among computer administrators: there would be no problems with computers if it were not for the users. In fact, the computers are only there for the users, and are valueless without them (I am speaking of desktops and the like--the joke is not about every computer there is). They only exist to increase the user's productivity. But from the point of view of the person hired to take care of them, the situation is reversed: the priority is the computers. His local perspective is attuned to his own interests. That is not his fault: we reward him when the computers run well regardless of how they are used, not when they increase productivity overall. We do not reward what we actually desire, and reap the consequences of mismatching reward and goal.

The same is true of the police and the politicians who hire and oversee them. They do not get paid more when people feel they have more liberty. They do not receive awards and promotions when citizens encounter courteous officers. But they do receive great pressure about crime. There is every chance that they will receive more pressure about high-profile *perception* of crime than actual crime figures--a few murders in an upscale part of town are going to provoke a far different response than a few murders on the other side of the tracks. So illegal or oppressive crimefighting measures are just as much in their interest as lawful ones, so long as they work. Measures that *appear* to work are more in their interest than effective ones that do not get much notice.

And finally, their safety is always in conflict with ours. The safest course is to treat every citizen as an armed felon. There is an *actual* conflict between a citizen's rights and the safety of an officer. A citizen with a gun has the power to resist, and that is less safe.

Does that mean it is not wrong? No. Part of the job description is to accept certain risks for the sake of the community, and one of those risks is to avoid putting every single person against the wall and cuffing them for safety before asking them why they were jaywalking. But it's worth understanding that the risks *are* there.

In this case, police are not used to armed citizens, and change is unknown and therefore bad. They will not like it. That is simply a fact. We need to insist on the change, but we should do so with sympathy (though without compromise).

It was easier when officers were familiar members of the community, because that gave a powerful reason to make the system work for citizens: they answered socially to the people they protected, and men will fight for their community. In the small town I partly grew up in, if the sheriff had hassled people, he'd have had trouble with his friends, neighbors, and so on. Now, in cities, that is much less the case.

It might be that there is an inherent scaling problem with law enforcement. It may be that really, really local LE is inherently better, and that we've constructed societies where that just can't happen. It's certain that we are not very good at rewarding LE based on our *true* interests, and that is our fault or no ones, not theirs.

Anyway, I think such memos should be *expected*. The attitude is inevitable, and if you or I had been in LE for twenty years where every armed man was overwhelmingly likely to be up to no good, we'd probably not like it either. Change is unknown, and the unknown is risky. Our attitudes would be affected by our experiences and our own personal interests.

But having sympathy, one must still never compromise on LE serving the community even when it is difficult, because everything else is a major step towards tyranny. Tyrants require LE depending more on the tyrant than on the community. Requiring, politely but firmly, that LE must have due deference to citizen's rights is one vital way of keeping a society free.

7x57

[yellowfin]

Anyway, I think such memos should be *expected*. The attitude is inevitable, and if you or I had been in LE for twenty years where every armed man was overwhelmingly likely to be up to no good, we'd probably not like it either. Change is unknown, and the unknown is risky. Our attitudes would be affected by our experiences and our own personal interests. This is a problem of myopia on their part if in fact this is a case of simple ignorance...I personally don't think it is but maybe in 10-15% of cases tops, but that's another matter. Doing a few minutes research would tell them that armed citizens are neither uncommon nor bad EVERYWHERE ELSE BUT HERE. Is it really asking a whole lot for them to maybe venture out of their apparent vacuum and realize over a million ordinary cititzens carry a sidearm every day and cause ZERO problems for police of any kind? Do they only eat food that comes from farms within 30 miles of them, or do they occasionally take the word of the guy at the grocery store that cereal from Michigan or beef from Texas isn't going to poison them? How about fly in a plane not made in California? (Are there even any that are?)

[7x57]

This is a problem of myopia on their part if in fact this is a case of simple ignorance...

Indeed. But congenital myopia is part of being human. Do you recall the saying "the world is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel?"

I am not recommending not pursuing our rights--I am simply recommending that we remember that those who might be uncomfortable with those rights are human like us, and perhaps I should also say that we are human like them. We could make the same mistakes, even deadly ones. I am sure that under the right circumstances, not so unlikely for an officer, I could make a split-second judgment that someone is a threat and shoot someone reaching for their wallet to show ID. I sure hope I never would, but I am sure it could happen.

Cops will never stop being human, and we have to make a society where citizens are free even though both the citizens and the cops are human and make human mistakes. If it were easy, there would probably be more free societies in history.

7x57

[nhanson]

Another small but, significant error.......She did not point out the exclusion for 1000ft school law on private or business owned property within the 1000ft "safe barrier" or CCW (although this memo is OC based).....

Over all, I think CA LE is starting to get a message. They may not like it but, they know they must comply. One small step to curtailing the elitists in LE. There may only be a few of them but, they give LE a really bad PR position.

The day SF city/county issues such a memo, I think I'll go into shock! Who knows, maybe @!#$ can freeze over!

Enjoy

[Annie Oakley]

It was easier when officers were familiar members of the community, because that gave a powerful reason to make the system work for citizens: they answered socially to the people they protected, and men will fight for their community. In the small town I partly grew up in, if the sheriff had hassled people, he'd have had trouble with his friends, neighbors, and so on. Now, in cities, that is much less the case.

It might be that there is an inherent scaling problem with law enforcement. It may be that really, really local LE is inherently better, and that we've constructed societies where that just can't happen. It's certain that we are not very good at rewarding LE based on our *true* interests, and that is our fault or no ones, not theirs.

Thank you for that. It does put it into a different perspective.

What you wrote in these two paragraphs is very interesting. I was born in a large city (Chicago) and I was raised in the LA county suburbs (West Covina), so the extent of my knowledge of small towns is limited to things like Mayberry. When I was a teen, I went on a ride along once, and until I met my husband, I never really personally knew any police officers. The only real contacts I had were police officers pulling my friends and I over and tearing through our car looking for something, and then leaving with the contents sitting on the curb or in the street. We just figured that's how it was.

In small towns, is it like Mayberry ? What I mean is, do the police officers and "town folk" talk to each other on a first name basis ? Even now, police officers in my city are just so impersonal. When I see a police car, it's like seeing a robot going down the road. I think it's sad to feel this way, but it's like there isn't a real person in there, just the police car.

I wish there was more positive interaction with the police. I think that those in the community should be more involved with the community. Isn't that what "community" means ? I think that if police officers were members of the community beyond just their job, maybe police harassment might be less because I can't see any sane person harassing their friends and neighbors. I may be naive, but I think if a police officers friends and neighbors saw that s/he needed help, they might be more apt to help. I think that it works both ways when I think about the relationship between a community and its police. I understand that the police have a difficult job, and I understand that it is their job to enforce the law, and to a certain extent, protect the community. But writing memos like this that almost seem to encourage police officers to find any excuse to arrest a person for exercising a constitutional right just seems like the police are trying to pick a fight.

I think I'll stop here, I don't want to get on my soap box and start ranting.

[yellowfin]

Indeed. But congenital myopia is part of being human. As a human it is excusable, but as a professional it is not. If I did as little research with my job, I'd not have it more than...oh, two days tops. If I took that kind of attitude with my clients I'd be out in 5 minutes.

[bdsmchs]

WHERE THE HELL does this crap about us trying to provoke the cops into an incident keep coming from??!

Why do they insist upon and spread this "us vs. them" crap?

Why can't they just suck it up and admit that their plebs want to do NOTHING MORE THAN EXERCISE A RIGHT.

[1BigPea]

It's great to see the memo and that they are educating or trying to educate LEO's on OC but I cannot get over the negative tone of the memo.

[7x57]

In small towns, is it like Mayberry ?


A little bit. Mayberry is for laughs, and we try not to hire Don Knotts as a deputy, but I suppose most people wouldn't see that for me part of the humor is that it is a caricature of reality, not simply made-up. That's why it hurts me a little bit to hear people use "Mayberry" in a derogatory way--some of what is being made fun of was/is a better and freer society than they experience. When I was a young boy I wandered around our end of town with a pellet gun, and it never would have occured to me that anyone would complain. Of course no one did. I probably could have hunted cottontails toward the edge of town with a .22, and as long as I was careful no one would have cared. I wouldn't do it downtown, but then ricochets are a problem where everthing is paved, so that wouldn't be careful. It's not that you had an *evil firearm,* there is no such thing, but it's worse: *you handled a gun carelessly*. Now *that's* breaking community standards. We also used to launch rockets and goose-guns (the tin cans and naptha type) from our yard across the street into the public empty-lot baseball field. No law against that, why would there be? :-)

This was a town with no stoplight, and the blacktop stopped a block from our house. (That was ideal, actually, because there were extra taxes to pay for the maintenance if your street was paved.) It was the largest town and the seat of a county of 1743 mi^2, but things have gone way downhill since the railroad closed the grain elevator, so you can see that there was a certain economic fragility that isn't true of larger economies.


What I mean is, do the police officers and "town folk" talk to each other on a first name basis?


Absolutely, because he knows all your family and you know all his. My dad's hometown was maybe 1200 people when I was spending part of my growing-up time there. People usually referred to the sheriff by name, not office. I didn't personally interact with him much at all, he was more my dad's age, but when I was much older I recall it was a bit of a shock to hear he'd died.

About cops stopping kids--it makes all the difference in the world when the officer stopping you knows your parents and just about everything else you've ever done. Not always in a good way, you understand, if you'd rather he *not* just right then. :-) But you can be pretty certain that he's going to treat you, at worst, like a kid that just did something really amazingly stupid and embarrassed your folks, him, and the whole community--not like cattle.

I should find a link to some of the Lawdog stories and post them. That's rural Texas, not rural Montana, but the important principles are the same everywhere. That's because rural communities are survival communities: they are all the same because they are the fittest social organization for rural survival.


I think that if police officers were members of the community beyond just their job, maybe police harassment might be less because I can't see any sane person harassing their friends and neighbors.


Not only that, but some of those friends and neighbors are the banker (really, really important in an agricultural community), and the mayor, the Justice O' the Peace, and so on. It isn't just that you wouldn't harass people you know--it's also that your boss also knows them. I bet you didn't think about *all* the authority figures being familiar in the community, did you? For that matter, sheriff elections in such a small community *matter*. If the sheriff is good, he has a lifetime job because people like him as their sheriff. Nobody has a voter's loyalty more than a really good small-town sheriff. If they don't, politics won't keep him in. There are no secrets in a small town, and that can increase freedom as well as reduce privacy. It isn't just that gun are common. It's also that if the sheriff sees you with a gun, he assumes you're doing something sensible unless he knows you have a history of doing senseless things. Same as if he saw you with a can of spray-paint.

It isn't perfect, because it doesn't work so well for people who aren't part of the community. But it is *designed* for the community and works within those boundaries. The failures usually are failures of the community and not simply law enforcement.


I may be naive, but I think if a police officers friends and neighbors saw that s/he needed help, they might be more apt to help.


The one big-city like situation I remember is a man got so upset over his estranged wife that he waved a gun around at someone or the other and eventually barricaded himself up somewhere, probably on his ranch but I forget the details. This was a community with more guns than people, but such things *never* happened so this was really big news. What the sheriff said in the paper was quite revealing: he warned people not to approach the man and said "this isn't the XXX we know." Notice that the man was at least an acquaintance to both the sheriff and the readers of the paper, and he had to ask people not to go out to his place and try to talk sense to him because they would simply assume that whatever was going on the man *they* knew would never shoot anyone.

You don't get Ruby Ridge when the people involved are acquaintances. The man may be wrong and may be on his way to jail, but you don't turn a non-shooting situation into a shooting situation. You have patience and wait it out.

Most of what I wrote was on my mind because of a story I was told at the dinner after Nordyke. As I remember, apparently the FBI wanted some guy in a little Arizona (I think it was) town for refusing to pay taxes to what he regarded as an illegal, oppressive government, and they were ready to beseige his home. The local sheriff told them that if they could nab the guy when he was out and by himself that was fine, but they weren't going to create a seige in *his* town and if they tried he and his deputies would arrest every one of them.

I like that story because that illustrates something that I say but few people believe. In a small town, the official's *real* job is often not to enforce the law per se but rather to mediate between the community and the larger world's pressures, no matter what their job description says. That sheriff knew his *real* job, which is to protect the community. Ordinarily, that does mean enforcing the law. But if the law threatens to become oppressive, his loyalty is to the community and he will defend it. The FBI was a greater threat to the community than one lone tax evader, and he acted against the greater threat even though presumably there is a cost to telling the FBI that you're ready to arrest their agents. I can tell you that he won't ever lose an election for it, however. Quite the contrary, if he didn't do something else that's a sheriff that could win the next election against Michael the Archangel.

Just about the only national candidate I will see in my lifetime that is equipped to understand that community dynamic is Sarah Palin, because Wasilla is just about that kind of community. Her voice, accent, and body language all express that before you even know what she is saying. And that is why she received the worst rape-by-media of any candidate I have ever seen. Everything else was cover--what they and the Democratic left truly and viscerally hate is someone who obeys the rules of a free community more than their propaganda. It is the most blatant and unapologetic bigotry and class hatred I have ever seen, and because it was aimed a a white Western rural woman it was not only acceptable but encouraged. I have gotten tired of trying to say all that, so now a days I just tell people "Sarah Palin is my sister" before they can get started on a rant. Usually, that stops them from saying things that in an earlier age I'd have had to meet them at dawn in a cold field for if I wanted to retain much respect in the community.

Fortunately, we don't duel anymore, but I do refer to her most rabid haters as the Janjaweed militia. I hope some of them know that I'm accusing them of rape as a terror weapon when I say it.

I will *never* forget that they did that. Not ever.

That's small-town loyalty.

ETA: that story was from a calgunner, if you see this post please chime in and correct what I misremembered.

7x57

[MudCamper]

WHERE THE HELL does this crap about us trying to provoke the cops into an incident keep coming from??!

It started with the SPD memo. All the rest of them just keep spreading it as true just like any other rumor. The reason it was in that first memo is because some LE were reading this forum and opencarry.org where posters would "recommend" that "I'd sue em!" and a lot of other speculative discussion but no actual reality.

However, it is important to note that without this perceived threat of civil litigation, the LE community wouldn't be publishing these memos, and they'd just go on stomping on our rights with the "arrest em and let the judge sort it out" attitude. Money talks.

It's great to see the memo and that they are educating or trying to educate LEO's on OC but I cannot get over the negative tone of the memo.

Actually, the tone of this one is much better than most of the memos. (all linked here: http://www.californiaopencarry.org/)

[Annie Oakley]

A little bit. Mayberry is for laughs, and we try not to hire Don Knotts as a deputy, but I suppose most people wouldn't see that for me part of the humor is that it is a caricature of reality, not simply made-up. That's why it hurts me a little bit to hear people use "Mayberry" in a derogatory way--some of what is being made fun of was/is a better and freer society than they experience. When I was a young boy I wandered around our end of town with a pellet gun, and it never would have occured to me that anyone would complain. Of course no one did. I probably could have hunted cottontails toward the edge of town with a .22, and as long as I was careful no one would have cared. I wouldn't do it downtown, but then ricochets are a problem where everthing is paved, so that wouldn't be careful. It's not that you had an *evil firearm,* there is no such thing, but it's worse: *you handled a gun carelessly*. Now *that's* breaking community standards. We also used to launch rockets and goose-guns (the tin cans and naptha type) from our yard across the street into the public empty-lot baseball field. No law against that, why would there be? :-)

This was a town with no stoplight, and the blacktop stopped a block from our house. (That was ideal, actually, because there were extra taxes to pay for the maintenance if your street was paved.) It was the largest town and the seat of a county of 1743 mi^2, but things have gone way downhill since the railroad closed the grain elevator, so you can see that there was a certain economic fragility that isn't true of larger economies.



Absolutely, because he knows all your family and you know all his. My dad's hometown was maybe 1200 people when I was spending part of my growing-up time there. People usually referred to the sheriff by name, not office. I didn't personally interact with him much at all, he was more my dad's age, but when I was much older I recall it was a bit of a shock to hear he'd died.

About cops stopping kids--it makes all the difference in the world when the officer stopping you knows your parents and just about everything else you've ever done. Not always in a good way, you understand, if you'd rather he *not* just right then. :-) But you can be pretty certain that he's going to treat you, at worst, like a kid that just did something really amazingly stupid and embarrassed your folks, him, and the whole community--not like cattle.

I should find a link to some of the Lawdog stories and post them. That's rural Texas, not rural Montana, but the important principles are the same everywhere. That's because rural communities are survival communities: they are all the same because they are the fittest social organization for rural survival.



Not only that, but some of those friends and neighbors are the banker (really, really important in an agricultural community), and the mayor, the Justice O' the Peace, and so on. It isn't just that you wouldn't harass people you know--it's also that your boss also knows them. I bet you didn't think about *all* the authority figures being familiar in the community, did you? For that matter, sheriff elections in such a small community *matter*. If the sheriff is good, he has a lifetime job because people like him as their sheriff. Nobody has a voter's loyalty more than a really good small-town sheriff. If they don't, politics won't keep him in. There are no secrets in a small town, and that can increase freedom as well as reduce privacy. It isn't just that gun are common. It's also that if the sheriff sees you with a gun, he assumes you're doing something sensible unless he knows you have a history of doing senseless things. Same as if he saw you with a can of spray-paint.

It isn't perfect, because it doesn't work so well for people who aren't part of the community. But it is *designed* for the community and works within those boundaries. The failures usually are failures of the community and not simply law enforcement.



The one big-city like situation I remember is a man got so upset over his estranged wife that he waved a gun around at someone or the other and eventually barricaded himself up somewhere, probably on his ranch but I forget the details. This was a community with more guns than people, but such things *never* happened so this was really big news. What the sheriff said in the paper was quite revealing: he warned people not to approach the man and said "this isn't the XXX we know." Notice that the man was at least an acquaintance to both the sheriff and the readers of the paper, and he had to ask people not to go out to his place and try to talk sense to him because they would simply assume that whatever was going on the man *they* knew would never shoot anyone.

You don't get Ruby Ridge when the people involved are acquaintances. The man may be wrong and may be on his way to jail, but you don't turn a non-shooting situation into a shooting situation. You have patience and wait it out.

Most of what I wrote was on my mind because of a story I was told at the dinner after Nordyke. As I remember, apparently the FBI wanted some guy in a little Arizona (I think it was) town for refusing to pay taxes to what he regarded as an illegal, oppressive government, and they were ready to beseige his home. The local sheriff told them that if they could nab the guy when he was out and by himself that was fine, but they weren't going to create a seige in *his* town and if they tried he and his deputies would arrest every one of them.

I like that story because that illustrates something that I say but few people believe. In a small town, the official's *real* job is often not to enforce the law per se but rather to mediate between the community and the larger world's pressures, no matter what their job description says. That sheriff knew his *real* job, which is to protect the community. Ordinarily, that does mean enforcing the law. But if the law threatens to become oppressive, his loyalty is to the community and he will defend it. The FBI was a greater threat to the community than one lone tax evader, and he acted against the greater threat even though presumably there is a cost to telling the FBI that you're ready to arrest their agents. I can tell you that he won't ever lose an election for it, however. Quite the contrary, if he didn't do something else that's a sheriff that could win the next election against Michael the Archangel.

Just about the only national candidate I will see in my lifetime that is equipped to understand that community dynamic is Sarah Palin, because Wasilla is just about that kind of community. Her voice, accent, and body language all express that before you even know what she is saying. And that is why she received the worst rape-by-media of any candidate I have ever seen. Everything else was cover--what they and the Democratic left truly and viscerally hate is someone who obeys the rules of a free community more than their propaganda. It is the most blatant and unapologetic bigotry and class hatred I have ever seen, and because it was aimed a a white Western rural woman it was not only acceptable but encouraged. I have gotten tired of trying to say all that, so now a days I just tell people "Sarah Palin is my sister" before they can get started on a rant. Usually, that stops them from saying things that in an earlier age I'd have had to meet them at dawn in a cold field for if I wanted to retain much respect in the community.

Fortunately, we don't duel anymore, but I do refer to her most rabid haters as the Janjaweed militia. I hope some of them know that I'm accusing them of rape as a terror weapon when I say it.

I will *never* forget that they did that. Not ever.

That's small-town loyalty.

7x57

Wow, your story almost seems like a fairy tale come true. Why would anyone want to leave that ?

[7x57]

Wow, your story almost seems like a fairy tale come true. Why would anyone want to leave that ?

That's a tiny chapter in a story that is over a hundred years old.

What do you do for a living? Are you interested in any of the jobs available in a town of 1200 (then) or 500 (now)? Are you interested in the standard of living?

It had been happening for decades--when my dad was a boy there were dealers for all three American car companies, but I don't think any were still functioning by the time I left. And then once the railroad decided to close the grain elevator for efficiency, essentially the town died and is just taking a while to crumble. Once the farmers and ranchers had to truck their grain to Glendive anyway (~35 mi away, ~5000 people), it was just as convenient to buy implements there because the big-tow[/QUOTE]n (I say that so you'll enjoy the idea of 5000 people making a big town) dealer did more volume and could afford to charge less. Then the local dealer not only wasn't selling new tractors, he was stuck doing the repair on machines bought elsewhere which apparently has no real profit in it (I know this because he's a friend of the family--in fact, he was also the gunsmith and made up the 7x57 mauser rifle that gave me my handle here). So that closed. When the last implement dealer in an agriculture community closes, there is essentially no hope. They could also buy food cheaper while they were in Glendive (rural folk will happily buy up a month's groceries and put them in the big chest freezers everyone has). There is one food store there now instead of two; one bought the other out because the town couldn't sustain two anymore.

The only elk we got in my two elk hunts was by the owner of one food store, BTW. One of the other hunters was that same gunsmith/implement dealer. Both went to our church. Small-town.

All that meant that there were no longer jobs that could sustain families or money to pay their wages, so people with children moved away. When I was a kid, there were *lots* of children in town, about as many as on the farms and ranches (a tad more, actually, after a snow they could re-open the high school because just over 50% of the students could get there, even though it would be a week before the farms and ranches were accessible--self sufficiency isn't an abstract ideal in the country). Unless school was in session, you couldn't drive down the street without seeing kids on a bike or playing ball. The last time I visited, there simply were no children visible anywhere, which is incredibly creepy. The school now is pretty much for the ranch kids, and the town is a retirement community for their parents.

The ranch kids move away so they can make a living, unless they inherit the family land and there is enough to make a go of it. Even then, the optimal size is getting bigger so it's less of a family-oriented thing. The place my dad grew up on is owned by a farmer who now owns probably dozens of old family places, and the workers are employees rather than families. Dad says one rancher we know is still doing it at like 80, and he has one boy who wants to take over the place. He told his boy the place wouldn't support two families, so his boy should keep his job for now and make everything he could until the dad retired. Given how much ranchers like having their boy and his family on their place to take over gradually, and to have the grandkids grow up with the grandparents, that's a sacrifice that means something.

I am reminded of Rome--the small farmer was the backbone of the army, and society changed until that patriotic farmer who was not only willing to die for his city but to raise his boy to feel that dying for his city was 'a sweet and seemly thing' disappeared. Then the army was mostly foreign mercenaries, all the way to the very end with Turkish cannon outside the walls of Byzantium. I seem to recall that Jefferson believed the analogy to be accurate and thought the American small farmer was the backbone of our Republic, probably because they'd supplied the soldiers for the Continental army just as they had for the Roman Republican army. All my dad's uncles went to WWII except the elder one that had to keep the food growing because their dad had died. One was a decorated gunner over Rabul, the other was in training for the invasion of the Japanese home islands when the war ended. Whether the end of that is a good or bad thing depends on what you think of America as she was designed to be, I guess.

The government likes the kind of boys who will go to fight and learned how to shoot straight when they were six years old, who built their own farmhouse and ran the place after the dad died, and who put in a basement generator for power until rural electrification got out that far--their sister (my grandmother) remembered walking alone with another sister ten miles one way to town, and nobody thought that was dangerous, so the girls were as self-sufficient as the boys. But it doesn't like the kind of boys that don't even know why you'd buy a hunting license if you're on your own property, law or not, because by God it's *your* property and not theirs, and nobody on God's earth is going to tell them what they can and can't do with their rifles. The problem is, they are precisely the same boy, and they shoot just as straight at tax collectors (just a small nod to Heinlein there :-) as they do at Krauts, and the government would rather not have riflemen than have ones that know too much about being free.

I was only tangentially in contact with all that; my wife's family was a generation closer. It's become important to me to remember it, though, so I can tell my boy just how free his people were.

Man, that's a lot of somewhat out-of-place reminiscing for a black-rifle forum. :-)

7x57

[jas000]

I noted the "Conflicts with Local Ordinances" part where the memo seems to be coaching / recommending local lawmakers to "close this gap" (something I think state lawmakers might easily do in reaction to UOC if enough CLEO's agitate). However, it does seem that CA law preempts this area - the area of law regarding carrying / transporting a firearm sure seems to be fully occupied by state law (arguable).

[Liberty1]

I noted the "Conflicts with Local Ordinances" part where the memo seems to be coaching / recommending local lawmakers to "close this gap" (something I think state lawmakers might easily do in reaction to UOC if enough CLEO's agitate). However, it does seem that CA law preempts this area - the area of law regarding carrying / transporting a firearm sure seems to be fully occupied by state law (arguable).

She got that from the California Police Officer's Association's attorny's memo of last month and forgot to include the NOT after the ARE :D.

see it here http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/CPOA-Client-Alert-12042008.pdf

I don't think she ment to argue that this attorney was wrong or to indicate that state preemption of general laws was a flawed judicial concept (the Supreme Court of CA might disagree but San Francisco wishes she was right) ;).

Furthermore, we doubt that a local ordinance could be enacted to close this gap by, for instance, making it a violation of a city’s municipal code to carry an unloaded and unconcealed firearm in public. In this regard, please note Article XI, §7 of the California Constitution, which provides that:

A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.

The California Supreme Court has identified three types of conflict that cause preemption of local legislation: A conflict exists if the local legislation duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication. Local legislation is contradictory to general law when it is inimical thereto. A local ordinance is preempted by a state statute only to the extent that the two conflict. Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 1232. For a local ordinance to proscribe that which is allowed under State law would perforce be to contradict state law. Furthermore, given the extent of State regulation of dangerous weapons, it would seem apparent that the State has “fully occupied” this area by its general laws.

[7x57]

WHERE THE HELL does this crap about us trying to provoke the cops into an incident keep coming from??!

Why do they insist upon and spread this "us vs. them" crap?

Why can't they just suck it up and admit that their plebs want to do NOTHING MORE THAN EXERCISE A RIGHT.

Well, to be fair, it is true that if the cops insist on harassing OC'ers, the people brave enough to do it now would probably like to get the resulting court case over with, and have it happen to someone who knows the law and is prepared to go to court. That is to say, while the optimal outcome is nothing, they'd rather provoke any incident that was going to happen anyway.

While that is *not* the same as hoping for an incident, I bet it feels that way to a certain mindset. That may not excuse it, but I think it adequately explains it.

7x57

[sandsnow]

Does the law specify belt holsters? Or was that just her interp?

Can you open carry in a shoulder rig or across the chest when you are not wearing a jacket.

[Liberty1]

Does the law specify belt holsters? Or was that just her interp?

Can you open carry in a shoulder rig or across the chest when you are not wearing a jacket.

If it is not "concealed", which generally means hidden from plain view (and a shoulder holster is visible from soooooo many directions), then 12025 is not offended.

"PC 12025 f" does state that "...firearms carried openly in belt holsters are NOT concealed...". This is a example and doesn't preclude other not concealed methods of carry. But that is certainly the legally "safest" method as it doesn't really allow for judicial activism.

and if you haven't seen it: californiaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org)

[bdsmchs]

Does the law specify belt holsters? Or was that just her interp?

Can you open carry in a shoulder rig or across the chest when you are not wearing a jacket.

Correct.

[sandsnow]

thanks guys

[Kid Stanislaus]

interesting.. The way UOC is portrayed by LE.


Everybody is a suspect.

[nick]

Fortunately, we don't duel anymore

I'm not as convinced it's fortunate. We don't consider the concept of honor as anything we should defend anymore, and that's not a good thing in my book.

[nick]

Wow, your story almost seems like a fairy tale come true. Why would anyone want to leave that ?

Jobs.

[7x57]

I'm not as convinced it's fortunate. We don't consider the concept of honor as anything we should defend anymore, and that's not a good thing in my book.

Fair enough. I'm not sure that allowing mutual personal combat the best way to restore the concept of personal honor, however. Though some circumstances are more compelling than others.

That said--I think it was almost never technically legal, even when entirely tolerated. The analog would probably be if modern police virtually never actually arrested anyone for dueling.

7x57

[nick]

Fair enough. I'm not sure that allowing mutual personal combat the best way to restore the concept of personal honor, however. Though some circumstances are more compelling than others.

That said--I think it was almost never technically legal, even when entirely tolerated. The analog would probably be if modern police virtually never actually arrested anyone for dueling.

7x57

It was perfectly legal, even encouraged, until the 1600's or so. That was when European nation states began to form, and banning duels was a part of removing the independence of the aristocracy, as well as curbing its power (it made things safer for government officials to conduct their business without the risk of being challenged to defend themselves for it). First the right to challenge kings was removed (in France it happened when Henri II got killed at a tournament, I believe) thus placing the kings as, well, kings, as opposed to them being "frst among equals" like before; the removal of the right to challenge anyone soon followed. However, it was mostly not enforced, except for when an example needed to be made or a person needed to be prosecuted for at least something. One of the main reasons why it wasn't enforced was that the aristocracy in question was also in charge of enforcing that code. As that role shifted more to independent law enforcement forces, be it militarized or local police or army, stricter enforcement followed.

In the US it was initially legal (that is, it wasn't banned), as banning it would infringe on the liberties the Founders tried to promote. It was frowned upon though, as it was viewed as an aristocratic anachronism and the various Protestant churches most of the colonists belonged to weren't keen on dueling either.As such, even a slight deviation from the Code Duello could easily bring murder charges upon the participant.

As the government got more established and moved on from trying to establish the principles of society to governing the society, duels were quickly outlawed, and eventually disappeared. The idea didn't disappear though, as new waves of immigrants brought with them the customs of the places they came from, and that often included some sort of codified challenge or revenge.

Believe it or not, dueling is still occasionally practiced in Europe (well, I can only speak for rural France), despite being highly illegal, and the post-duel cover-ups are generally successful enough, as the rural police views that as a way of getting rid of troublemakers. As long as it's covered up well enoughthat the local police can claim ignorance, they're likely to ignore it.

[chip3757]

Great,

Now how do we get all the LE agencies to post a training bulletin for AW's like Sacramento did. Do we need to start carrying our unloaded OLL's in public?

[7x57]

It was perfectly legal, even encouraged, until the 1600's or so.

...the various Protestant churches most of the colonists belonged to weren't keen on dueling either.
[/QUOTE]

Heh. Here's my chance to whip out something so obscure on two separate counts that no one will ever care. I can make an argument that the early Christian church taught that the Christian no longer had intrinsic personal honor, as having become a slave. On the other hand, a slave *can* have a great deal of honor derived from his master--consider a trusted personal servant of the Emperor. The Christian, so goes my argument, was to regard himself as possessing only the honor of a trusted servant, but as the master was God this was a great deal of honor indeed. He cared for it on behalf of another, however, and worried more about dishonoring his master to whom the honor belonged than dishonoring himself.

The relevance is that in regards to dueling, the Christian would not fight to restore his own honor, because it wasn't his, and he had been told to leave it up to God. The church may always have had some memory of this even when it no longer had the first-century context to reason precisely as I said.

Obscure, isn't it?


Believe it or not, dueling is still occasionally practiced in Europe (well, I can only speak for rural France),


I am aware that some student dueling survived in Germany at least into the second half of the last century. No idea of the situation now, and if it exists it probably isn't advertised for all the usual reasons. That said, the point of *that* type of duel is to get an honorable dueling scar, so in one sense it can't really be "covered up." (Well, not without some pretty thick makeup anyway. :-)

I never thought much about it elsewhere, but if I had to guess I'd have gone with Italy.

7x57

[nick]

Heh. Here's my chance to whip out something so obscure on two separate counts that no one will ever care. I can make an argument that the early Christian church taught that the Christian no longer had intrinsic personal honor, as having become a slave. On the other hand, a slave *can* have a great deal of honor derived from his master--consider a trusted personal servant of the Emperor. The Christian, so goes my argument, was to regard himself as possessing only the honor of a trusted servant, but as the master was God this was a great deal of honor indeed. He cared for it on behalf of another, however, and worried more about dishonoring his master to whom the honor belonged than dishonoring himself.

The relevance is that in regards to dueling, the Christian would not fight to restore his own honor, because it wasn't his, and he had been told to leave it up to God. The church may always have had some memory of this even when it no longer had the first-century context to reason precisely as I said.

Obscure, isn't it?

Very true. The honor was God's, and so was revenge, and one's honor was through God, not his person, at least, in theory. This logic was also practiced by the first Christians, and led to them being generally despised in the Ancient World. Constantine I saw the potential in it though.

I am aware that some student dueling survived in Germany at least into the second half of the last century. No idea of the situation now, and if it exists it probably isn't advertised for all the usual reasons. That said, the point of *that* type of duel is to get an honorable dueling scar, so in one sense it can't really be "covered up." (Well, not without some pretty thick makeup anyway. :-)

You meant the 19th century, right? Although it existed into 1920's as far as I know. One of my relatives was prosecuted for a duel in 1923 (he was a better shot :)). He got what amounted to a slap on the wrist.

I never thought much about it elsewhere, but if I had to guess I'd have gone with Italy.

7x57

That'd be more along the line of revenge killings in Southern Italy and Sicily, and elsewhere in places where clan system survived. It has less to do with an honor system (although it's been presented as one for a while now) than with survival of the clan. Basically, you don't mess with us, for you know if you do we won't stop until either your clan or our clan is gone, or we reconcile somehow.

[E Pluribus Unum]

I see how they basically entice city counsels to enact local ordinances forbidding the open carry of firearms... hopefully after Nordyke that ability will be rescinded.

[nick]

State pre-emption exists even now.

[eccvets]

its a fun idea to open carry but its just another excuse for a cop to shoot your *ss, espeically if someone calls and says they heard shots fired (could be made up or a car backfiring but an eager new cadet will more then likely pop a cap in your *ss when he sees you with a gun!). I say why even give them an excuse? The fact they need to issue a memo says that enough officers dont know the law to know your in the right and more importantly, I doubt any of them actually read it and gives a crap. They have the law on their side in the end and a jury will always side with them; when your either laying in a pine box or a hospital bed eventually, they will still be on the job... It's all fun and games until someone shoots your *ss! I hope it never happens but your very realistically raising the odds of that happening.

At the very best, I don't personnaly need the hassle of getting pulled over and detained and treated like a criminal when I'm not (and this is the very best outcome possible in every situation!).

[7x57]

You meant the 19th century, right? Although it existed into 1920's as far as I know. One of my relatives was prosecuted for a duel in 1923 (he was a better shot :)). He got what amounted to a slap on the wrist.


The mods somehow don't think this topic is relevant to OC's bulletin, so we're going to have to either take dueling elsewhere or drop it. :-( Say, what if we start talking about how precisely one would meet at dawn in OC with the least chance of getting arrested, based on this memo? Would that make it relevant? :D

No, I mean the 20th. Christoph Amberger's book reports on student schlager duels in great detail, I believe, and he belonged to a dueling fraternity in Germany so I think he's a credible source. He also hints that there were a few actual saber duels, but those were even more secretive since death is a real possibility with a real sword instead of a neutered one.


That'd be more along the line of revenge killings in Southern Italy and Sicily

Maybe now, but I'd have guessed that if formal duels of honor survived, that would be a likely place. The Italians taught Europe to do it the Italian way, long ago. They certainly taught the English back in the Renaissance.

PS: if one decided to settle an affair of honor in Orange County, based on this memo it would be safe to open-carry on the way to the arranged location, correct? ;) I ain't wearing pumpkin pants, though--I think I'd rather get shot. :eek:

7x57

ETA: if you won't meet me with NERF guns in a foggy field in OC you're a lying coward! :D

[Liberty1]

At the very best, I don't personnaly need the hassle of getting pulled over and detained and treated like a criminal when I'm not (and this is the very best outcome possible in every situation!).

There is always a risk in every police encounter for a negative result even just during a traffic stop. If your inclined please read the LEO encounters at californiaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org) and then read the other carry stories at OCDO. You may find some of your concerns mitigated.

I'm not saying you should do this but for those who have they have changed the landscape and improved the knowledge of thousands of LEOs and dozens of DA's Offices while improving greatly their personal choices when dealing with a deadly threat.

[bdsmchs]

its a fun idea to open carry but its just another excuse for a cop to shoot your *ss, espeically if someone calls and says they heard shots fired (could be made up or a car backfiring but an eager new cadet will more then likely pop a cap in your *ss when he sees you with a gun!). I say why even give them an excuse? The fact they need to issue a memo says that enough officers dont know the law to know your in the right and more importantly, I doubt any of them actually read it and gives a crap. They have the law on their side in the end and a jury will always side with them; when your either laying in a pine box or a hospital bed eventually, they will still be on the job... It's all fun and games until someone shoots your *ss! I hope it never happens but your very realistically raising the odds of that happening.


Clearly, you are new here and speaking from great ignorance.

[pullnshoot25]

its a fun idea to open carry but its just another excuse for a cop to shoot your *ss, espeically if someone calls and says they heard shots fired (could be made up or a car backfiring but an eager new cadet will more then likely pop a cap in your *ss when he sees you with a gun!). I say why even give them an excuse? The fact they need to issue a memo says that enough officers dont know the law to know your in the right and more importantly, I doubt any of them actually read it and gives a crap. They have the law on their side in the end and a jury will always side with them; when your either laying in a pine box or a hospital bed eventually, they will still be on the job... It's all fun and games until someone shoots your *ss! I hope it never happens but your very realistically raising the odds of that happening.

At the very best, I don't personnaly need the hassle of getting pulled over and detained and treated like a criminal when I'm not (and this is the very best outcome possible in every situation!).

Dude, where did you come from? Australia? Great Britain? India? New York City? Seriously, lets lay off the BradyBush and start acting like red-blooded Americans.

[Liberty1]

Dude, where did you come from? Australia? Great Britain? India? New York City? Seriously, lets lay off the BradyBush and start acting like red-blooded Americans.


Be nice, practice a little diplomacy ;) We want to ease our detractors over toward the light not push them over the cliff they don't see behind them:p. We need all the support we can get! :)

Ok I take it back that was a very obnoxious post.

[MudCamper]

its a fun idea to open carry but its just another excuse for a cop to shoot your *ss, espeically if someone calls and says they heard shots fired (could be made up or a car backfiring but an eager new cadet will more then likely pop a cap in your *ss when he sees you with a gun!). I say why even give them an excuse? The fact they need to issue a memo says that enough officers dont know the law to know your in the right and more importantly, I doubt any of them actually read it and gives a crap. They have the law on their side in the end and a jury will always side with them; when your either laying in a pine box or a hospital bed eventually, they will still be on the job... It's all fun and games until someone shoots your *ss! I hope it never happens but your very realistically raising the odds of that happening.

At the very best, I don't personnaly need the hassle of getting pulled over and detained and treated like a criminal when I'm not (and this is the very best outcome possible in every situation!).

It's not about "fun". It's about exercising our rights. It's about educating the public and the LE community. It's about regaining our rights. It's about personal responsibility and and self-reliance.

And the reason we've seen so many memos from LE agencies (http://www.californiaopencarry.org/) is because of the actions of patriots like pullnshoot25.

[eta34]

its a fun idea to open carry but its just another excuse for a cop to shoot your *ss, espeically if someone calls and says they heard shots fired (could be made up or a car backfiring but an eager new cadet will more then likely pop a cap in your *ss when he sees you with a gun!). I say why even give them an excuse? The fact they need to issue a memo says that enough officers dont know the law to know your in the right and more importantly, I doubt any of them actually read it and gives a crap. They have the law on their side in the end and a jury will always side with them; when your either laying in a pine box or a hospital bed eventually, they will still be on the job... It's all fun and games until someone shoots your *ss! I hope it never happens but your very realistically raising the odds of that happening.

At the very best, I don't personnaly need the hassle of getting pulled over and detained and treated like a criminal when I'm not (and this is the very best outcome possible in every situation!).


Thanks for your input. Cadets are not officers. In most PD's, cadets are non-sworn employees with no issued firearm.

Second, if you don't want to open carry, don't. Sit back and let someone else do the hard work to get gun rights restored in the state and country. Monday morning quarterback the decision that these men make.

I guess the proper solution would be for everyone to roll over and hope that someday the government will deem them suitable for gun ownership. Change usually comes from hand wringing and sitting idly. :rolleyes:

[fairfaxjim]

While this memo is a small step in the right direction (educating - or should I say re-educating or un-educating of LEO's on the few firearm rights we still have in CA), it clearly points out that the administrative and command level of LE in CA considers ANY civilian citizen with a firearm an armed and dangerous individual - to be disarmed and neutralized using ANY means at hand.
Employing customary officer safety practices, the person was disarmed at gunpoint and detained. The handgun was found to be unloaded and properly registered
There could be a potential problem in that law enforcement is rightfullly trained to perceive a firearm displayed in public as an "armed subject" and a possible deadly threat.
Presentation of an individual walking down the street carrying a pistol in a holster raises obvious tactical issues, as well as safety concerns for the officers and the public.

and in her BOTTOM LINE:
Prompt incidental checks on the person and the weapon may provide probable cause for arrest;...

While some of us are comfortable, or at least still motivated, in exercising our rights, given this anti-gun bent that has pervaded the LE institutions, I can understand the reluctance of many to do so. There is a very good chance that you will be stopped at gun point during an OC event, by a very very nervous LEO who has been (rightfully??) trained to treat you as a possible "deadly threat". S**t can and does happen (ask the BART police). Many of us are quite comfortable posessing firearms in most of the legal situations. That doesn't alter the fact that we still need to be aware that when it comes to LEO interaction while in posession of a firearm, it can be a dangerous situation - simply because of the officer's training. And certainly doesn't make those who choose to be more conservative with firearms cowardly or ignorant.

[biscuitninja]

good jerb! SOME of us have CCW's.... some of us don't.
(*elbow-elbow*)

good luck and keep fighting the good fight!
-bix

[outersquare]

I noted the "Conflicts with Local Ordinances" part where the memo seems to be coaching / recommending local lawmakers to "close this gap" (something I think state lawmakers might easily do in reaction to UOC if enough CLEO's agitate). However, it does seem that CA law preempts this area - the area of law regarding carrying / transporting a firearm sure seems to be fully occupied by state law (arguable).


seriously, i thought in CA state gun laws supercede municipals, isn't that the basis how the repeated handgun bans in SF are overturned?

[Librarian]

seriously, i thought in CA state gun laws supercede municipals, isn't that the basis how the repeated handgun bans in SF are overturned?

State preemption is only for a narrow range of things. Government Code: 53071. It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole
field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commercially
manufactured firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal
Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local
regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially
manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision as defined in
Section 1721 of the Labor Code.

Note the distinction for imitation firearms: 53071.5. By the enforcement of this section, the Legislature
occupies the whole field of regulation of the manufacture, sale, or
possession of imitation firearms, as defined in Section 12550 of the
Penal Code, and that section shall preempt and be exclusive of all
regulations relating to the manufacture, sale, or possession of
imitation firearms, including regulations governing the manufacture,
sale, or possession of BB devices and air rifles described in
subdivision (g) of Section 12001 of the Penal Code.

[Decoligny]

State preemption is only for a narrow range of things. Government Code:
Note the distinction for imitation firearms:

If a city were to prohibit open carry by passing a law against it, wouldn't that infringe upon the state in the area of licensing.

I ask this because it seems to me that the state says "you only need a license to conceal". The local law would completely prohibit most people from being able to carry a firearm completely as most areas are "may issue" = "not issue".

This in effect would equate to a complete ban on the carrying of firearms by the vast majority of people, and as such should fall under the same type of logic as the S.F. law and be thrown out.

It would have to be argued in court that since they won't "Shall Issue", that the only legal option is Open Carry, and any prohibition without an accompanying "Shall Issue" would be illegal.

[Liberty1]

OK what about this concept of preemption of general laws?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=135991

Furthermore, we doubt that a local ordinance could be enacted to close this gap by, for instance, making it a violation of a city’s municipal code to carry an unloaded and unconcealed firearm in public. In this regard, please note Article XI, §7 of the California Constitution, which provides that:

A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.

The California Supreme Court has identified three types of conflict that cause preemption of local legislation: A conflict exists if the local legislation duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication. Local legislation is contradictory to general law when it is inimical thereto. A local ordinance is preempted by a state statute only to the extent that the two conflict. Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 1232. For a local ordinance to proscribe that which is allowed under State law would perforce be to contradict state law. Furthermore, given the extent of State regulation of dangerous weapons, it would seem apparent that the State has “fully occupied” this area by its general laws.

[Librarian]

If a city were to prohibit open carry by passing a law against it, wouldn't that infringe upon the state in the area of licensing.

I ask this because it seems to me that the state says "you only need a license to conceal". The local law would completely prohibit most people from being able to carry a firearm completely as most areas are "may issue" = "not issue".

This in effect would equate to a complete ban on the carrying of firearms by the vast majority of people, and as such should fall under the same type of logic as the S.F. law and be thrown out.

It would have to be argued in court that since they won't "Shall Issue", that the only legal option is Open Carry, and any prohibition without an accompanying "Shall Issue" would be illegal.

I think that's right, but I further think it would have to be litigated - over and over and over and ....