PDA

View Full Version : LOC vs. CCW....is there really much difference?


Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 10:47 AM
In pondering over all the laws, recent lawsuits and possible outcomes some thoughts came to mind that I'd like to hear some opinions on:


1) Let's say via 2A grounds CA gets forced to allow LOC. So all non-prohibited persons have a right to carry.....at that point what reasonable grounds would authorities have, even under "may-issue CCW", to deny someone a permit with only self-defense and good cause? Note...I said "reasonable grounds." I'm sure those in power can come up with plenty of stupid reasons not too. But if you're not a prohibited person and are legally allowed to carry....how is carrying concealed any more "dangerous" or a "menace to public safety" then open carry? Either why.....you're carrying a gun, so who cares if you can see it or not? Officer safety? Most officers are trained to basically treat all persons like they are armed till they know for sure they are not anyway.

2) Now let's reverse the arguement....Let's say the current CCW challenge goes thru and we essentially end up with "shall-issue". If they state MUST grant a permit to any and all non-prohibited persons essentially meaning after paying a little money and jumping thru a couple of hoops nearly anyone will be allowed to carry....again I ask.....what difference does it make it you can see it or not? What really is the difference?

Now speaking personally....for my own personal comfort I would much rather carry concealed for a variety of reasons....but allowance for open carry would be nice so as not to have to be overly concerned with an accidental reveal, or having to carry so deeply concealed to avoid and accidental reveal that one's weapon is not as readily accessible as it should be for best use, or having to "baggy up" my wardrobe and hide this hard won physique (LOL) by always having to wear oversized/baggy shirts or whatnot to hide my self-defense tool.

But I'm just trying to understand what, if any, real philosophical difference from a public safety stand point, there really is between LOC and CCW?

Turo
05-13-2009, 10:59 AM
I would say that the main difference would be the reactions of the average person on the street. I mean, carrying a fixed blade here in CA scares some people crapless. I saw a guy notice mine the other day and his eyes got as big as tennis balls, and all the blood went out of his face when he saw it (4" blade if you care). lol shame he didn't see the 6" folder I usually carry.

But your average person won't notice a CCW but LOC would scare most of them.

CCWFacts
05-13-2009, 11:01 AM
The difference is a bit arbitrary, and, in fact, many other countries don't make a distinction. What sucks is if one or the other is illegal, a person who is carrying is just one wardrobe malfunction away from illegality. Your shirt comes untucked and blows open? Your jacket drapes down and covers up the openly-carried gun? If we don't have some protection CCW and LOC, both of these "malfunctions" could be criminal.

I know that's one of the things that is pushing them for OC reform in Texas. OC is totally illegal there, and everyone there who is CCWing is just one wardrobe malfunction away from committing a crime.

petey
05-13-2009, 11:11 AM
The difference between LOC and CCW is in the perception of people around you. Ideally, the choice should belong to the gun owner, but it doesn't yet.
Let's take two scenarios where (assuming you had the option) you decided to carry a firearm.

Scenario # 1. You are going to a popular shopping mall.

Scenario # 2. You are going to a less than desirable neighborhood for lawful purposes, say to drop off or pick up something or someone.

At the mall CCW might be preferable, so that the clerks and patrons don't run for cover and call the cops because you happened to go to the cellphone kiosk or get one of those stupid hot dogs on a stick things.

On the other hand, LOC might be preferred in a bad neighborhood for the purpose of deterring criminal behavior towards you.

Philosophically, armed is armed. You are prepared to defend your life, regardless of your mode of carry. The only difference is in the type of reaction that you want from people whom come in contact with you, or observe you.

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 11:12 AM
I know that's one of the things that is pushing them for OC reform in Texas. OC is totally illegal there, and everyone there who is CCWing is just one wardrobe malfunction away from committing a crime.

That always struck me as odd....that Texas!!!....of all places is no LOC.

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 11:19 AM
Philosophically, armed is armed. You are prepared to defend your life, regardless of your mode of carry. The only difference is in the type of reaction that you want from people whom come in contact with you, or observe you.

I agree.....I was trying to think of what reasonable, and again I say reasonable, grounds/justification the law makers, once forced to allow at least one or the other, would then have to restrict either? Once people are constitutionally allowed to carry....what does it matter whether it is concealed or not? As you said...armed is armed...the supposed "menance to public safety" is now legally present in some form. I fail to see how the manner of carry really makes a difference at that point.

I agree....it is, at least at this point, a matter of public perception.

7x57
05-13-2009, 11:20 AM
That always struck me as odd....that Texas!!!....of all places is no LOC.

I have no information on the origin of this situation, but just going on the standard pattern that gun control laws begin as segregation law and later are applied via equal-protection to everyone else I bet this is a piece of the black codes that was "never intended to be applied to whites."

Anyone know if I'm right?

7x57

nicki
05-13-2009, 11:23 AM
Carrying concealed arms was considered a social no no in the 19th century in many parts of the country, so that is how bans on concealed carry happened.

Bans on open carry happened later.

We are dealing with 2 different issues, especially here in California.

I'm not a lawyer, but if we get shall issue on our current CCW system, the law still would be very restrictive on carrying.

A seperate legal challenge on "Open Carry" might still be viable even if we did get shall issue.

Nicki

pullnshoot25
05-13-2009, 11:25 AM
Open carry is the unabridged, unlicensed and fully Constitutional expression of the 2nd Amendment that is done without government permission.

Concealed carry is the taxed privilege. (In most states)

From a philosophical and logical standpoint, there should be no difference. I personally believe that bearing arms should be however the hell you feel like bearing arms. However, that darned logic sure gets in the way when it comes to people's feelings...

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 11:32 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but if we get shall issue on our current CCW system, the law still would be very restrictive on carrying.

A seperate legal challenge on "Open Carry" might still be viable even if we did get shall issue.

Nicki


That's my point.....once one or the other is won, what advantage is there from the perspective of the state to fight the other, since it will likely fall as well? Why not just cut the crap and since one is legal by court order, just change the law and make the other legal as well.

If one must get a permit to CCW, even if it's shall issue, just make it a license to carry period open or concealed. How's that?

Are we really going to start legislating manners now? If so I'm all for those "no lettin' your boxers hang out" bans myself! :thumbsup: Cuz walkin' around with you pants halfway down to your knees is just annoying to look at....I don't care what color you are. If you're green or purple....I don't care...pull up for friggin' pants and get a belt! :rolleyes:

Thong peeks for the ladies is ok though....but only if you're HOT! But if you're that hot I'd prefer you just go commando! :thumbsup:

DDT
05-13-2009, 11:49 AM
Assuming that California adopts a permit-based CCW system (as all other states save 2 have) there is still a decent argument for an LOC lawsuit. Perhaps Texas would be a good place to do this first. If the expression of a right is regulated, as in the paid permit system for CCW and there is an alternative that need not be regulated (as it isn't in almost all states that allow LOC) I can envision an argument for permitting the no cost solution as an equal access claim.

HunterJim
05-13-2009, 12:25 PM
I have asked my Assemblyperson and State Senator (both Ds) which they prefer. Still waiting for their replies.

jim

DDT
05-13-2009, 12:26 PM
I have asked my Assemblyperson and State Senator (both Ds) which they prefer. Still waiting for their replies.

jim

They probably have CCWs and their bodyguards probably carry both ways so I'm sure they support either at your discretion.

CCWFacts
05-13-2009, 12:58 PM
They probably have CCWs and their bodyguards probably carry both ways so I'm sure they support either at your discretion.

State reps (especially assemblymen) are normal people. They don't have bodyguards and they don't necessarily have access to CCWs.

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 1:33 PM
State reps (especially assemblymen) are normal people. They don't have bodyguards and they don't necessarily have access to CCWs.

They prolly have more access to them than any of us Avg. Joes do though.

artherd
05-13-2009, 1:45 PM
LOC gives rise to PC12031 stop and inspect.

CCW does not.

demnogis
05-13-2009, 1:53 PM
CA CCW permits generally permit LOC as well. When issued your CCW, there can be restrictions on there. LOC is one of them.

The problem here is permitted exercise of a right in a non-issuance-of-permits state. That's what Calguns is fighting right now.

IMHO OC/CC are two sides of the same coin -- two choices to the exercise of a right. Law abiding citizens should have the full freedom of choice.

Canute
05-13-2009, 1:54 PM
There's more social benefit to CCW. Crims won't know who's carrying. With LOC crims can look at you and size you up and plan an attack, although most would still move on.

demnogis
05-13-2009, 1:57 PM
There's more social benefit to CCW. Crims won't know who's carrying. With LOC crims can look at you and size you up and plan an attack, although most would still move on.

This common argument that is brought up, but still has no factual data to back it up :)

RR9RN_iSKtg

Skip to 2:30.

Turo
05-13-2009, 2:11 PM
This common argument that is brought up, but still has no factual data to back it up :)

[YOUTUBE]

Skip to 2:30.

I always liked John Stossel, he's a good guy.

And any anti I've ever talked to about CCW and/or OC can't find a fact to disprove the ideas expressed in the video. the whole more guns=less crime.

but back to the CCW vs LOC, if your average person was exposed to more responsible gun owners using guns responsibly, there would be less of a difference, but with the media everywhere shouting that guns are bad, and that they kill people, it just gets harder and harder to do that.

avdrummerboy
05-13-2009, 2:53 PM
With LOC, It is the insane idea that the gun will grow legs, jump out of the holster, and start shooting people that makes most liberals cringe in fear.

With CCW, it's the whole more guns means less crime argument, also an unsubstantiated one on their part.

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 2:55 PM
LOC gives rise to PC12031 stop and inspect.

CCW does not.

Yes...that's under current rules. I'm talking about after some successful challenges have been made.

If we got LOC in this state as part of 2A guarnteed rights I'm faily sure the "e"check would go away as being unconstitutional.

I know there are plenty of social and tactical reasons that can be cited for or against eithe or both. I was most just interested from a legislative stand point, once the state is forced to accept one form of carry....why not just permit both since there really doesn't seem to be a great deal of difference.

Again....we're talking about law abiding people just going about their daily business. If a COP passed Avg. Joe at Starbucks openly carrying, Avg. Joe is not doing anything suspicious, just ordering his coffee like everyone else how is the LEO or anyone else in danger? Now....Same situation except now the guy is CCW, what has changed? Is anyone really more or less safe because the gun is concealed? Or more or less safe because it is openly carried?

My contention is that the only person who perhaps GAINS a measure of safety is the carrier if it is concealed because he has not made himself a target, but there is also the argument for the deterent factor of open carry. Although my personal feeling is that were open carry to become more common you will eventually start seeing some people being targeted for the purpose of gun theft. Can't prove it....just a gut feeling. At least people in certain areas where crime/gang violence is already quite common.

When carried by a law abiding citizen with no intentions of illegal conduct I can't see that the manner of carry, as far as public safety is concerned, changes the situation one bit. Because someone intent on commiting crime is dangerous period whether they are armed with a gun or not. An armed law abiding citizen, regardless of manner of carry, is only "dangerous" to those who would attempt to do him harm.

demnogis
05-13-2009, 3:19 PM
Untamed, LCC and LOC are permitted, with the same permit.

...why not just permit both since there really doesn't seem to be a great deal of difference.

Untamed1972
05-13-2009, 4:18 PM
Untamed, LCC and LOC are permitted, with the same permit.

I honestly did not know that. I thought a CCW meant it HAD to be concealed or you risk losing your permit?

Python2
05-13-2009, 4:37 PM
I honestly did not know that. I thought a CCW meant it HAD to be concealed or you risk losing your permit?

You are correct, CCW is concealed carry only. It says at the top of the permit "License to Carry Concealed Pistol, Revolver or other Firearms within the State of California" specifically. Dont know where Demnogis got his information, he sure could lose his CCW if caught LOC'ng in an urban setting. He might get away in rural setting but I personally will not take a chance.

pullnshoot25
05-13-2009, 4:48 PM
Ok, I am actually going to typw out a response from my crackberry so if there are any spelling errors forgive me.

1. 12031 is unconstitutional and will eventually go away. You can't stop someone for exercising a constitutional right. I have case law to prove it too.

2. OC is common in many places and you are not made a target because of it. In fact, you are a deterrent. If I had a nickel for everytime some keyboard commando told me that "you're a target" bull****e I would be a millionaire.

3.if criminals were really into icing gun toting citizens, they would just have to get the ccw permit roster, a public record, and go to town. Fortunately, criminals are out for the easy prey, not the armed man.

Same goes for OC and OC is visible. Do you all follow my logic with this one?

Ok, that's all I can think of right now. I am sure there will be some more apt replies when I return.

hvengel
05-13-2009, 5:29 PM
These are actually two separate issues although they may be related politically (which I think was the OPs point) and from a legal tactics stand point. Based on Heller open carry can not be subjected to restrictions beyond carry prohibitions/regulations in "sensitive places" or by prohibited persons (felons...). As such the restrictions in PC 12031 will eventually fall regardless of the status of concealed carry.

The reason for this is that SCOTUS has said that concealed carry can be restricted which strongly implies that open carry can not be overly restricted since the 2A says we have a right to bear arms. Heller also says that an unloaded gun is NOT an arm. The unstated reason that they said this is that traditionally (from before the founding until at least the middle of the 20th century) open carry was a widely accepted practice. In fact at one time it was common for the law to require that everyone be armed at least under some conditions. On the other hand concealed carry was something that "only criminals did". Thus concealed carry was considered "dangerous and unusual" to use the language of Heller. Although Heller did not use those words in that context.

In the minds of the anti's, and our political class in California is dominated by anti's, none of this matters and they will fight every attempt to role back any of these laws tooth and nail. So it does not matter which one we role back first from their point of view as it will not change their view on the other and it will not reduce their determination.

But it may matter as it relates to how this best plays out in the courts. Of course this is something that "the right people" need to decide. It may actually be easier to get a ruling that forces shall issue from the courts if PC 12031 is in force since it prevents non-prohibited non-CCW holders from bearing arms. Which means that in order to bear arms we must get a CCW permit. Since bearing arms is a right it can not have arbitrary restrictions and the current system CCW permit is clearly arbitrary. If PC 21031 were no longer in force, either because it had been struck down by the courts or the legislature had repealed it, then the state could argue that since we can open carry (IE. bear arms) and Heller said that concealed carry could be restricted so the existing system was still OK and this argument could carry the day. But with PC 21031 in place this argument is not available to them and it was their own choice to make it this way. In other words the anti's actually hurt their case in court for continuing the current may issue CCW system by having PC 12031 in force.

CitaDeL
05-13-2009, 6:22 PM
....why not just permit both since there really doesn't seem to be a great deal of difference.

Untamed, LCC and LOC are permitted, with the same permit.

I honestly did not know that. I thought a CCW meant it HAD to be concealed or you risk losing your permit?

You are correct, CCW is concealed carry only. It says at the top of the permit "License to Carry Concealed Pistol, Revolver or other Firearms within the State of California" specifically. Dont know where Demnogis got his information, he sure could lose his CCW if caught LOC'ng in an urban setting. He might get away in rural setting but I personally will not take a chance.

Demnogis is getting his information from the California penal code, which is somewhat more constructive than perpetuating FUD.

"CCW" in California is only referenced in the penal code as an endorsement that retired peace officers may obtain to carry concealed weapons. While "CCW" is a generally accepted term describing a license to carry, citizens are not eligible for this endorsement available to retired PO's.

Concealed carry 'permits' are likewise not available as they are not issued. 12050 provides for the issuance of licenses to carry and come in two forms. One authorized concealed carry, and the other authorized loaded and exposed carry.

Now I want to point out that while these licenses can regulate the carry of weapons, they authorize individuals to carry firearms in ways that would be otherwise illegal. This authorization does not preclude other legal conduct such as unloaded open carry inside incorporated city limits or loaded open carry in unincorporated territory where discharge is not prohibited by local statute. UNLESS the license is imprinted with a reasonable restriction regulating the time, place and manner the firearm can be carried- it can be construed to be a unrestricted license and all such legal transportation and carry is permissable. Regardless of what is printed on the top of the license, there is no statutory duty to conceal (outside of a regulation established by an issuing authority under 12050 (b)) for those who are licensed to carry a concealed firearm. This does not mean that your license will not be revoked by an issuing agency- but such a revocation would be an abuse of their power and open the agency to liability in depriving a licensee of their property without due process.

I hope this clarifies the topic- I have a great deal of personal interest in the topic and have put a great deal of research justifying my position however preposterous some pro-gunners may believe it to be. Flame if need be.

HondaMasterTech
05-13-2009, 6:32 PM
The difference is the ability of a criminal to determine who is armed and who isnt. CCW is better in that it puts an element of impredictability into the mix which makes some criminals hesitate. This is of course if a large number carry and ccw is a must-issue.

M. Sage
05-13-2009, 6:49 PM
The difference is a bit arbitrary, and, in fact, many other countries don't make a distinction. What sucks is if one or the other is illegal, a person who is carrying is just one wardrobe malfunction away from illegality. Your shirt comes untucked and blows open? Your jacket drapes down and covers up the openly-carried gun? If we don't have some protection CCW and LOC, both of these "malfunctions" could be criminal.

I know that's one of the things that is pushing them for OC reform in Texas. OC is totally illegal there, and everyone there who is CCWing is just one wardrobe malfunction away from committing a crime.

Malfunctions could be, but it depends on the wording of the law. Hopefully if you guys get one or the other legalized, you'll make sure that intent has to be shown in the case of a wardrobe malfunction.

CitaDeL
05-13-2009, 7:17 PM
The difference is the ability of a criminal to determine who is armed and who isnt. CCW is better in that it puts an element of impredictability into the mix which makes some criminals hesitate. This is of course if a large number carry and ccw is a must-issue.

Most criminals are opportunists. When presented with an opportunity, they assess the risks and weigh out the likelihood they may be caught or their victim may resist. There is no difference between an unarmed victim and a victim who is carrying a concealed handgun up to the point a criminal makes his motives known. And you are correct, there is no crime deterent when few people can lawfully carry. This element of surprise that concealed carriers rely on however, only escalates the probability that the concealed handgun will need to be displayed and discharged to be effective against an assailant. The possibility of a negligent discharge or inabilty to maintain control over the weapon also rises considerably when drawing from concealment.

pullnshoot25
05-13-2009, 7:58 PM
Have any of you guys seen that really good open carry article that got posted a little while ago? It does a pretty good job giving the "surprise" element a fairly good spanking.Check the blog, it is a few posts down.

7x57
05-13-2009, 8:13 PM
I don't know why people love to argue about whether the surprise theory is better or worse than the deterrent theory. It depends on the exact criminal, crime, situation, etc. Would OC have helped you in Mumbai? Better than nothing maybe, get your ticket punched first maybe, but in any case not as good as CC. Would it help you if you were at Virginia Tech? Possibly, since these active killers appear to fold when resistance is shown, but if not then you're dead. Which is it? Depends on the mind of the active killer. Would it help you if you have to gas up in a station on the bad side of town? Very probably, if you're hassled it's likely to be a crime of opportunity and you've shown yourself to be a hard target. OTOH, which of those is most likely? Surely the simple crime of opportunity. I could go on and on. Too many variables.

Because of that dependence on circumstance and individual, I have little confidence in people's theorizing. The only thing that matters is statistics. Anecdotally, I am not hearing much in the way of actual incidents where OC appears to have been a problem, so I suspect it cannot be greatly more hazardous than CC, and beyond that I would not care to say until and unless someone does a decently designed study.

I say that as someone who wishes UOC *in California* (in a state where it's useful, strap 'em on!) would quietly vanish until after the Sykes case comes to some sort of resolution, so I'm not defending my pet carry custom.

Actually, my pet carry custom is that the government isn't permitted opinions on what I'm doing or how I'm doing it (or even what I own) as long as I don't threaten anyone, but I'm not likely to get that.

7x57

MudCamper
05-13-2009, 9:53 PM
The difference is the ability of a criminal to determine who is armed and who isnt. CCW is better in that it puts an element of impredictability into the mix which makes some criminals hesitate.

I believe this logic is backwards. I recommend reading The Open Carry Argument (http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html).


Have any of you guys seen that really good open carry article that got posted a little while ago? It does a pretty good job giving the "surprise" element a fairly good spanking.Check the blog, it is a few posts down.

Article posted above.

pullnshoot25
05-13-2009, 11:07 PM
Thanks mudcamper, posting from a phone is a pain. I forgot that you linked it on your site as well, hehe.

Theseus
05-13-2009, 11:27 PM
I have to remain silent on this. I think that for now I will have to assume that CA is anti-OC, many on Calguns included.

Not that I am normally one to complain, but the OC movement has helped me, but not to the extent that I apparently let myself belive when I began OC'ing.

Until we can get better support we will continue to be a large group of individuals and suffer the consequences as such and it won't really matter much if OC is better than CC.

These arguments are getting old, but maybe I am just jaded.

KWA-S
05-13-2009, 11:29 PM
Keyboard commando here...but I think the thing bout CCW being a deterrent because criminals don't know who's armed is a moot point. Criminals on the street aren't the type to go to CalGuns and read CCW issuance threads as well as state laws, they're going to get their news on the street or on TV. In order for criminals to know that there is an armed populace, you'd need a significant frequency of CCWs defeating their assailants publicized. There are several problems with this. Firstly, the media hates guns, as we all know, and you would be lucky to see a mainstream source (other than Lou Dobbs, maybe) run such a pro-gun story. Additionally, you'd have to see CCW carriers get into such a situation, and because CCW issuance is very low (<5%) even in shall issue states and because people who carry are usually more alert and less likely to put themselves in a compromising situation (Anyone here wanna go for a stroll in a bad neighbourhood past midnight listening to their mp3 player and looking at the sidewalk 6 feet ahead?) it is unlikely that such an event occurs.

M. Sage
05-14-2009, 5:50 AM
That always struck me as odd....that Texas!!!....of all places is no LOC.

It literally dates back to the wild west and the days of huge cattle drives. These guys would come into town and get wasted, then fight, so it was considered a good idea to ban open carry.

I'm not judging either way, I'm just saying that it's an old tradition in TX. One I wish would change.

I don't know why people love to argue about whether the surprise theory is better or worse than the deterrent theory. It depends on the exact criminal, crime, situation, etc. Would OC have helped you in Mumbai? Better than nothing maybe, get your ticket punched first maybe, but in any case not as good as CC. Would it help you if you were at Virginia Tech? Possibly, since these active killers appear to fold when resistance is shown, but if not then you're dead. Which is it? Depends on the mind of the active killer. Would it help you if you have to gas up in a station on the bad side of town? Very probably, if you're hassled it's likely to be a crime of opportunity and you've shown yourself to be a hard target. OTOH, which of those is most likely? Surely the simple crime of opportunity. I could go on and on. Too many variables.

Because of that dependence on circumstance and individual, I have little confidence in people's theorizing. The only thing that matters is statistics. Anecdotally, I am not hearing much in the way of actual incidents where OC appears to have been a problem, so I suspect it cannot be greatly more hazardous than CC, and beyond that I would not care to say until and unless someone does a decently designed study.

I say that as someone who wishes UOC *in California* (in a state where it's useful, strap 'em on!) would quietly vanish until after the Sykes case comes to some sort of resolution, so I'm not defending my pet carry custom.

Actually, my pet carry custom is that the government isn't permitted opinions on what I'm doing or how I'm doing it (or even what I own) as long as I don't threaten anyone, but I'm not likely to get that.

7x57

Can't argue with any of that... as usual.

Aegis
05-14-2009, 7:47 AM
I don't care which one we get, just as long we can defend ourselves and family outside of the home.

M. D. Van Norman
05-14-2009, 7:48 AM
I have to remain silent on this. I think that for now I will have to assume that CA is anti-OC, many on Calguns included.

Hereís my opinion. I donít want to be cold in the winter or hot in the summer. :cool:

Mulay El Raisuli
05-14-2009, 7:56 AM
But I'm just trying to understand what, if any, real philosophical difference from a public safety stand point, there really is between LOC and CCW?



Philosophically, I'm opposed to having to asking permission to exercise any Constitutional Right.

The Raisuli

Untamed1972
05-14-2009, 8:29 AM
Have any of you guys seen that really good open carry article that got posted a little while ago? It does a pretty good job giving the "surprise" element a fairly good spanking.Check the blog, it is a few posts down.

Yes I did read that and I think it made some very compelling arguements for OC that are difficult to argue with. But if go back and read that thread you'll see that I stated I felt there was a flaw in his logic about saying there is no evidence to support OC'ers being targets. That flaw being that because it something that is very uncommonly practiced the opportunity for such events to occur is very minute. Then factor in the people who do open carry probably do there best to stay out of bad neighborhoods and the like that would have more likelihood of putting them in close proximity with people who would be willing to shoot them in the back in a drive by to either take their gun, or in my mind I think of a gangbanger type who would take your display of a weapon in his "hood" as a challenge. That is the kind of situation where see someone making themselves a target.

Now in my area for example for many years it was primarily biker/white supremicist gangs that we needed to worry about. And I do see those kinds of guys, some skinhead or aryan brothehood hardcore felon straight out of prison deciding to "teach someone a lesson/respect" because he would see a lone guy with a gun as a challenge and depending on the situation an easy target. Hell....these guys train IN PRISON how to disarm COPs. So to them the mere presence of a gun is not that much of a deterent. And in my area....those kind of guys are everywhere....not just "in the bad neighborhood".

But in more recent times black and hispanic gangs and MM types are being found in my area. Outside of being alone on the street late at night, most of those types are not gonna mess with you or hasle you when you're in the mall or other public places. But strap on a gun and some might decide to follow you out to the parking lot or something like that. Remember...these are guys that shoot at eachother on the street all the time, know/asusming the other guy is armed too. So guns are not as much of a deterent to them as you might think.

So I would caution people to not be overly confident in the pure deterent value of an openly displayed gun. To a lone attacker perhaps, to a car load of bangers.....it might be more of a challenge ten you realize.

DDT
05-14-2009, 9:05 AM
OC and CC should be legal. You can't really say which is "better" because, as 7X57 stated it's situation dependent.

In general, I suspect that OC probably stops more incidents from escalating and prevents more criminals from acting out their intentions, at that moment, than CC does. But, if someone is bound and determined to commit a crime regardless of the opposition then all OC does is assist in determining which target to take down first.

But, there are also situations where your best tool would be a rifle with the ability to take down a bad guy at 200 yards.

the primary difference is that OC is obvious and visible to all and sundry while CC is discrete.

My hope is that CA law will eventually turn such that your choice will be just that, a choice, rather than scraps tossed your way by the legislature.

Out on the town? Out to dinner with the wife and kids? Going to the office? Good CC opportunities.

At the Range? Doing Highway garbage clean-up? Neighborhood watch? San Diego beach get together? Excellent opportunities to carry openly.

1JimMarch
05-14-2009, 9:38 AM
1) Let's say via 2A grounds CA gets forced to allow LOC. So all non-prohibited persons have a right to carry.....at that point what reasonable grounds would authorities have, even under "may-issue CCW", to deny someone a permit with only self-defense and good cause? Note...I said "reasonable grounds." I'm sure those in power can come up with plenty of stupid reasons not too. But if you're not a prohibited person and are legally allowed to carry....how is carrying concealed any more "dangerous" or a "menace to public safety" then open carry? Either why.....you're carrying a gun, so who cares if you can see it or not? Officer safety? Most officers are trained to basically treat all persons like they are armed till they know for sure they are not anyway.

Or let's put it another way: if we get LOC and we apply to a top cop of some sort for a CCW permit, we get to say something we've never been able to say before: "OK, screw you, I'll carry regardless."

The choice for the sheriff or chief isn't "will there be another gun on the street or not", it will instead be "do I want my cops dealing with "eww, an icky GUN!!!" calls from the sheeple public every five minutes?"

This is one area that would be different from Ohio suddenly getting obviously legal LOC as happened in 2003. In Ohio there were no discretionary permits except for a few "crony special deputies" here and there - not a practice that could get rapidly expanded. So a legislative change was necessary.

But give *California* LOC all of a sudden and yeah, it could very well change the game bigtime in a lot of areas as sheriffs/chiefs individually cave in.

A few of the most hardcore might try (for a while) doing "disturbing the peace" busts but that effort would collapse in a pile of lawsuits in fairly short order, as is happening now in Michigan.

Hmmmm. Interesting.

DDT
05-14-2009, 9:44 AM
Or let's put it another way: if we get LOC and we apply to a top cop of some sort for a CCW permit, we get to say something we've never been able to say before: "OK, screw you, I'll carry regardless."


The other big difference is that in CA you can't open carry within 1000' of a school yard but you can Carry Concealed right up to the edge of the school grounds. If we get OC but not shall-issue there will be some (LA/SF etc.) sheriffs who will spend a lot of deputy time on gun free school zone enforcement just to be vindictive.

Untamed1972
05-14-2009, 10:31 AM
The other big difference is that in CA you can't open carry within 1000' of a school yard but you can Carry Concealed right up to the edge of the school grounds. If we get OC but not shall-issue there will be some (LA/SF etc.) sheriffs who will spend a lot of deputy time on gun free school zone enforcement just to be vindictive.

I think the 1000' boundaries of school zones should have to plainly and visibly marked then so that all passer's by know EXACTLY where the limit line is. That way that cant say "Oh....guess what....you're only 999ft from the school. You're goin' to jail buddy!" Like the streets and sidewalks and everying within the 1000' boundary (excluding pvt. property) should hafta be painted yellow or something so there is never any doubt if you're in the zone or not.

I also wonder if the school zone law could be challenged. What other fundamental rights are restricted in school zones? Heck....some schools are AT churches. If you restrict one right near a school must you not restrict them all?

pullnshoot25
05-14-2009, 10:52 AM
Yes I did read that and I think it made some very compelling arguements for OC that are difficult to argue with. But if go back and read that thread you'll see that I stated I felt there was a flaw in his logic about saying there is no evidence to support OC'ers being targets. That flaw being that because it something that is very uncommonly practiced the opportunity for such events to occur is very minute. Then factor in the people who do open carry probably do there best to stay out of bad neighborhoods and the like that would have more likelihood of putting them in close proximity with people who would be willing to shoot them in the back in a drive by to either take their gun, or in my mind I think of a gangbanger type who would take your display of a weapon in his "hood" as a challenge. That is the kind of situation where see someone making themselves a target.

Now in my area for example for many years it was primarily biker/white supremicist gangs that we needed to worry about. And I do see those kinds of guys, some skinhead or aryan brothehood hardcore felon straight out of prison deciding to "teach someone a lesson/respect" because he would see a lone guy with a gun as a challenge and depending on the situation an easy target. Hell....these guys train IN PRISON how to disarm COPs. So to them the mere presence of a gun is not that much of a deterent. And in my area....those kind of guys are everywhere....not just "in the bad neighborhood".

But in more recent times black and hispanic gangs and MM types are being found in my area. Outside of being alone on the street late at night, most of those types are not gonna mess with you or hasle you when you're in the mall or other public places. But strap on a gun and some might decide to follow you out to the parking lot or something like that. Remember...these are guys that shoot at eachother on the street all the time, know/asusming the other guy is armed too. So guns are not as much of a deterent to them as you might think.

So I would caution people to not be overly confident in the pure deterent value of an openly displayed gun. To a lone attacker perhaps, to a car load of bangers.....it might be more of a challenge ten you realize.

So I guess that OCers should do what CCers should do, which is stay out of bad places.

No one should be overly confident in the deterrent value, which is why the gun is there to be ready to use (well, hopefully that will happen in the future.)

A lot of the statements you are putting forth seem to be conjecture and, quite scarily, a lot of it sounds like what Bruce Ruff (http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/04/ruff-time.html) told me at the SDCGRC meeting. I like to work with numbers and studies. Anyone got any for me?

pullnshoot25
05-14-2009, 10:54 AM
I think the 1000' boundaries of school zones should have to plainly and visibly marked then so that all passer's by know EXACTLY where the limit line is. That way that cant say "Oh....guess what....you're only 999ft from the school. You're goin' to jail buddy!" Like the streets and sidewalks and everying within the 1000' boundary (excluding pvt. property) should hafta be painted yellow or something so there is never any doubt if you're in the zone or not.

I also wonder if the school zone law could be challenged. What other fundamental rights are restricted in school zones? Heck....some schools are AT churches. If you restrict one right near a school must you not restrict them all?

Now, that would just be too nice for the gub'mint to do for us. Besides, talk about marking out the gun free zones for criminals.

Funny story: I have found the best way to figure out school zones... CHILD MOLESTER MAPS! YAY! :(

demnogis
05-14-2009, 11:51 AM
Python,

In an earlier post I detailed there can be different restrictions placed on your CCW permit. There are other amendments which can be added to the CCW license per PC 12050:

(f) (1) A person issued a license pursuant to this section may
apply to the licensing authority for an amendment to the license to
do one or more of the following:
(A) Add or delete authority to carry a particular pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.
(B) Authorize the licensee to carry concealed a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(C) If the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons
according to the most recent federal decennial census, authorize the
licensee to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.

Of course, like many of the laws in CA, it depends on population size. You could also apply for that amendment to your CC permit. Assuming you were somehow able to get one to begin with.

You are correct, CCW is concealed carry only. It says at the top of the permit "License to Carry Concealed Pistol, Revolver or other Firearms within the State of California" specifically. Dont know where Demnogis got his information, he sure could lose his CCW if caught LOC'ng in an urban setting. He might get away in rural setting but I personally will not take a chance.

demnogis
05-14-2009, 12:16 PM
Since the Nordyke ruling, 626.9/626.95 SHOULD be challenged. A "school zone" cannot be a sensitive area because there are no regulated entry ways. There are no metal detectors, armed entrances, etc for school zones.

However, school grounds, courthouses, police departments, etc should still maintain their "sensitive area" title (imho) if they meet the requirement. I am all fine and dandy with a "no guns on K-12 grounds". Although, that opinion may change if/when I have kids... I'm not certain. Colleges are a different story. They are adult institutions and as such adults should maintain all their respective rights whilst attending.

Now, if only there were a legal organization with enough money and time to file an injunction against 626.9/626.95...

... I also wonder if the school zone law could be challenged. What other fundamental rights are restricted in school zones? Heck....some schools are AT churches. If you restrict one right near a school must you not restrict them all?

GuyW
05-14-2009, 12:25 PM
but allowance for open carry would be nice so as not to have to be overly concerned with an accidental reveal, or having to carry so deeply concealed to avoid and accidental reveal that one's weapon is not as readily accessible as it should be for best use, or having to "baggy up" my wardrobe and hide this hard won physique...

This raises one concept I haven't seen in the LOC/CCW discussions....

Many CCWers will own and carry a .22, .25, .32 cal gun sometimes solely because of its minimum size accomodating minimal clothing....when they would rather be carrying something bigger and more potent.

LOC allows carrying something more potent....
.

GuyW
05-14-2009, 12:32 PM
CA CCW permits generally permit LOC as well.

Got a cite on that concept?

.

pullnshoot25
05-14-2009, 12:47 PM
Got a cite on that concept?

.

It is in the relative PC (too lazy right now) but Sheriffs don't like citizens exercising their LOC rights.

GuyW
05-14-2009, 1:41 PM
It is in the relative PC (too lazy right now) but Sheriffs don't like citizens exercising their LOC rights.

Sorry, the arguments I've seen that invoke the Penal Code are totally non-pursuasive.

In order to legally LOC AND CCW (excepting private guards, PIs, and "discharge OK" areas), a person IN A COUNTY OF <200k pop would need:

1. a license to conceal (CCW); and

2. a license to open carry (loaded);

That open carry license is only good within the county of residence.

There is NO authorization to legally LOC IN A COUNTY OF >200k pop (excepting private guards, PIs, and "discharge OK" areas).....

.

demnogis
05-14-2009, 1:43 PM
I posted my cite on page 4. I did include notation about the pop. size part and being an amendment.

(f) (1) A person issued a license pursuant to this section may
apply to the licensing authority for an amendment to the license to
do one or more of the following:
(A) Add or delete authority to carry a particular pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.
(B) Authorize the licensee to carry concealed a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(C) If the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons
according to the most recent federal decennial census, authorize the
licensee to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.

pullnshoot25
05-14-2009, 3:30 PM
I posted my cite on page 4. I did include notation about the pop. size part and being an amendment.

AND WE HAVE A WINNER!

pullnshoot25
05-14-2009, 3:32 PM
Also, I found another LOC exemption.. BOUNTY HUNTERS! They have a 24/7 exemption since they are always in pursuit of making an arrest... OH YEAH!

Now, all I need to know is if I will be exempt at school...

Mulay El Raisuli
05-15-2009, 6:17 AM
So I would caution people to not be overly confident in the pure deterent value of an openly displayed gun. To a lone attacker perhaps, to a car load of bangers.....it might be more of a challenge ten you realize.



This sounds good. But, my experience with felons is that they won't go after someone all that readily in such a situation. Also, there are gang-bangers everywhere now. I'm not seeing examples of LOCers being targeted this way in the free states.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
05-15-2009, 6:20 AM
Or let's put it another way: if we get LOC and we apply to a top cop of some sort for a CCW permit, we get to say something we've never been able to say before: "OK, screw you, I'll carry regardless."



All of this is excellently phrased (better than I managed to), & one of the major reasons that I thought that going after shall issue first was not the correct strategy.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
05-15-2009, 6:24 AM
Since the Nordyke ruling, 626.9/626.95 SHOULD be challenged. A "school zone" cannot be a sensitive area because there are no regulated entry ways. There are no metal detectors, armed entrances, etc for school zones.

However, school grounds, courthouses, police departments, etc should still maintain their "sensitive area" title (imho) if they meet the requirement. I am all fine and dandy with a "no guns on K-12 grounds". Although, that opinion may change if/when I have kids... I'm not certain. Colleges are a different story. They are adult institutions and as such adults should maintain all their respective rights whilst attending.

Now, if only there were a legal organization with enough money and time to file an injunction against 626.9/626.95...



We already have an opportunity to do this. A case that already involves the Right People: Theseus' case. I don't know that the Right People are working on that aspect of the matter or not, though.

The Raisuli

Theseus
05-15-2009, 9:04 AM
Calguns is still running a defense fund, but to my understanding are still not providing any further support and that support by Calguns members has been helpful but far short of the actual cost.

demnogis
05-15-2009, 1:59 PM
Wouldn't a new lawsuit or them pressing new charges as to a 626.9 violation have to be filed for the Nordyke ruling to come into consideration as well? Or can current events have an impact on charges filed in the past?

Mulay El Raisuli
05-18-2009, 6:08 AM
Wouldn't a new lawsuit or them pressing new charges as to a 626.9 violation have to be filed for the Nordyke ruling to come into consideration as well? Or can current events have an impact on charges filed in the past?


There's no reason the Nordyke ruling can't be applied to Theseus' case right now. The example here would be the ruling that outlawed the death penalty. Everybody on Death Row was reprieved because once it was determined that the death penalty was unconstitutional, ALL death sentences were affected. Even the ones that came down prior to the ruling.

The Raisuli

MudCamper
05-18-2009, 9:04 AM
Also, I found another LOC exemption.. BOUNTY HUNTERS! They have a 24/7 exemption since they are always in pursuit of making an arrest... OH YEAH!

It's not a 24/7 exemption:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/266316/Opinion-of-the-California-Attorney-General-98108

It's only in "limited circumstances".

Now, all I need to know is if I will be exempt at school...

The 12031 exemption to itself only applies to itself, not other code sections like 626.9, so no.

pullnshoot25
05-18-2009, 10:10 AM
It's not a 24/7 exemption:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/266316/Opinion-of-the-California-Attorney-General-98108

It's only in "limited circumstances".



The 12031 exemption to itself only applies to itself, not other code sections like 626.9, so no.

Crap. I guess these rat bastards have thought of everything, eh?

CRAP!