Open carry at Newport Beach-Update

[Ronin2]

LOL!! RONIN threads...

So did you come down from Moreno Valley and Open Carry in Newport as planned?

Do you open carry in Moreno Valley where you live?

[jpigeon]

So did you come down from Moreno Valley and Open Carry in Newport as planned?

Do you open carry in Moreno Valley where you live?

No NB UOC, the school zone was too close for comfort. I have not UOCed anywhere except gun shows in CA. When I visit fam in AZ or NV I'll LOC. CA LEO's still need a lot of training regarding people carring for protection. It is a right I particularly fervently support. No law abiding citizen should have to depend on a government-stranger-union-worker for protection(PERIOD). And thats my dos pesos...

[soopafly]

I support your right to open carry, but doing so in an inappropriate time or place causes me to also support the Law Enforcement community protecting EVERYONE by stopping you, checking your background and confirming you are not someone who does not have that right; felon, violent misdemeanor offender, subject to restraining order, adjudicated mentally defective, aggravated individual with evil on your mind etc..

So....you are in favor of violating the people's 4th Amendment rights, huh? Interesting...

I genuinely wonder if you realize that what you are advocating is a violation of 4th Amendment rights.

[Will Goes Boing]

I'm with Ronin2 here.....

IMO what he said was VERY logical, although some of you who are close minded will misconstrue it as violation of rights. It's pretty much the same as those 1st amendment rights freaks who go to soldier's funerals and start protesting. We all have the right to free speech and peaceful assembly to express our opinions, but a good example of an "INAPPROPRIATE TIME AND PLACE" would be to do it at a funeral.

[CitaDeL]

I'm with Ronin2 here.....

IMO what he said was VERY logical, although some of you who are close minded will misconstrue it as violation of rights. It's pretty much the same as those 1st amendment rights freaks who go to soldier's funerals and start protesting. We all have the right to free speech and peaceful assembly to express our opinions, but a good example of an "INAPPROPRIATE TIME AND PLACE" would be to do it at a funeral.

Oh, so you believe that there are places where is it inappropriate to be armed for the purposes self-defense or protest. You must also then agree that laws like 12025, 12031, and 626.9 are necessary to codify these areas where it is 'inappropriate' to be armed.

You must further believe that it is not a violation of one's rights when police, having no reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause that is only 'authorized' by a questionable California Statute are completely justified in investigating a non-crime, subjecting people to inspections and searches targeting people on the basis that they are visably armed or having been reported as being visably armed.

Do I paint an accurate picture of your beliefs?

If I have, and I believe I have, it appears that you have mistaken my strict adherance to the limitations cannonized in the Bill of rights as 'closed mindedness'. These limitations are necessary to preserve liberty, elsewise, the police, the legislature, the judiciary, and executive powers would not feel encumbered in stripping the people of the power to govern themselves. They also would not feel compelled to respect the property, papers and effects of anyone who happened to attract their attention.

Do you also support DUI or other checkpoints? How about random checks of people using a drug sniffing K9? Would you also support random stops of people with children to ensure they are the actual parents or guardians of the children in their presence? How about targeting all 'performance' cars for safety inspections for compliance with the vehicle code?

Drunks, drug addicts, child molesters, and tuner cars (or hot rods) can all be construed as inappropriate- but that doesnt give the police the right to check for legality with everyone they encounter and it certainly doesnt give them the right to target open carriers who are complying with the law.

[jpigeon]

Oh, so you believe that there are places where is it inappropriate to be armed for the purposes self-defense or protest. You must also then agree that laws like 12025, 12031, and 626.9 are necessary to codify these areas where it is 'inappropriate' to be armed.

You must further believe that it is not a violation of one's rights when police, having no reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause that is only 'authorized' by a questionable California Statute are completely justified in investigating a non-crime, subjecting people to inspections and searches targeting people on the basis that they are visably armed or having been reported as being visably armed.

Do I paint an accurate picture of your beliefs?

If I have, and I believe I have, it appears that you have mistaken my strict adherance to the limitations cannonized in the Bill of rights as 'closed mindedness'. These limitations are necessary to preserve liberty, elsewise, the police, the legislature, the judiciary, and executive powers would not feel encumbered in stripping the people of the power to govern themselves. They also would not feel compelled to respect the property, papers and effects of anyone who happened to attract their attention.

Do you also support DUI or other checkpoints? How about random checks of people using a drug sniffing K9? Would you also support random stops of people with children to ensure they are the actual parents or guardians of the children in their presence? How about targeting all 'performance' cars for safety inspections for compliance with the vehicle code?

Drunks, drug addicts, child molesters, and tuner cars (or hot rods) can all be construed as inappropriate- but that doesnt give the police the right to check for legality with everyone they encounter and it certainly doesnt give them the right to target open carriers who are complying with the law.

get em boy!!!

[Will Goes Boing]

Oh, so you believe that there are places where is it inappropriate to be armed for the purposes self-defense or protest. You must also then agree that laws like 12025, 12031, and 626.9 are necessary to codify these areas where it is 'inappropriate' to be armed.

You must further believe that it is not a violation of one's rights when police, having no reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause that is only 'authorized' by a questionable California Statute are completely justified in investigating a non-crime, subjecting people to inspections and searches targeting people on the basis that they are visably armed or having been reported as being visably armed.

Do I paint an accurate picture of your beliefs?

If I have, and I believe I have, it appears that you have mistaken my strict adherance to the limitations cannonized in the Bill of rights as 'closed mindedness'. These limitations are necessary to preserve liberty, elsewise, the police, the legislature, the judiciary, and executive powers would not feel encumbered in stripping the people of the power to govern themselves. They also would not feel compelled to respect the property, papers and effects of anyone who happened to attract their attention.

Do you also support DUI or other checkpoints? How about random checks of people using a drug sniffing K9? Would you also support random stops of people with children to ensure they are the actual parents or guardians of the children in their presence? How about targeting all 'performance' cars for safety inspections for compliance with the vehicle code?

Drunks, drug addicts, child molesters, and tuner cars (or hot rods) can all be construed as inappropriate- but that doesnt give the police the right to check for legality with everyone they encounter and it certainly doesnt give them the right to target open carriers who are complying with the law.

Yes.... to pretty much everything. You're like a mind reader

The way I see it is, if you're doing nothing wrong.... why would you care if the police do DUI checkpoints, random drug sniff checks, open carry checks etc etc.

Nobody wants to be treated like a criminal, but those brief moments of inconvenience/indignity ensures everybody's safety and ensures criminals are put behind bars.

You know yourself you're not drunk, you know yourself the kids with you are in fact yours, you know you don't have a loaded mag in your gun when you're UOCing. But unfortunately the police are not as gifted as you are, being a mind reader and everything. They don't know you nor your true intentions.

[CitaDeL]

You know yourself you're not drunk, you know yourself the kids with you are in fact yours, you know you don't have a loaded mag in your gun when you're UOCing. But unfortunately the police are not as gifted as you are, being a mind reader and everything. They don't know you nor your true intentions.

Yeah, but police exist to enforce the law, not prevent crime. If you have done nothing wrong and no crime has been commited, what then, is their justification for contacting you? What useful deterence does it provide to intimidate people who have no intent to commit a crime and have done nothing wrong?

[Will Goes Boing]

Yeah, but police exist to enforce the law, not prevent crime. If you have done nothing wrong and no crime has been commited, what then, is their justification for contacting you? What useful deterence does it provide to intimidate people who have no intent to commit a crime and have done nothing wrong?

Crime prevention IS one of the jobs of law enforcement. DUI checkpoints is a good example....

They usually do it Friday and Saturday nights because that is when you get most of the drunk drivers. If I pull up to one it would be a slight inconvenience for me because it's time consuming for me to sit in the line. But it ensures my safety and other people that my chances of getting sideswiped by a drunk driver running a red light has drastically decreased.

I have my driver's license, I don't have any contrabands or weapons in my vehicle, I am clean as they can be, and I did not have any drinks.... why should I be offended or worried.... or intimidated?

Unless you have something to hide, there is no reason to fear LE.

[soopafly]

IMO what he said was VERY logical, although some of you who are close minded will misconstrue it as violation of rights. It's pretty much the same as those 1st amendment rights freaks who go to soldier's funerals and start protesting. We all have the right to free speech and peaceful assembly to express our opinions, but a good example of an "INAPPROPRIATE TIME AND PLACE" would be to do it at a funeral.

So...wanting to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures is "misconstru[ing] it as a violation of rights"? I think you are mixing up 2nd and 4th amendment issues here. Although I think UOC is a right(2nd amdnedment), I do agree that there is an appropriate time and place for it. The violation of rights I and others are talking about here is that NO ONE should be subject to interrogation by the police unless he/she is suspected of a crime(4th amendment). I don't want to live in a society where the police can stop anybody at random for no reason...my parents came to this country so I didn't have to grow up with that.

The way I see it is, if you're doing nothing wrong.... why would you care if the police do DUI checkpoints, random drug sniff checks, open carry checks etc etc.

I care because me doing nothing wrong is exactly the reason the police have no reason to stop and question me.

Nobody wants to be treated like a criminal

That's right, I don't want to be treated like a criminal because I AM NOT ONE.

but those brief moments of inconvenience/indignity ensures everybody's safety and ensures criminals are put behind bars.

Do you seriously believe this?

They don't know you nor your true intentions.

So we should disregard the Constitution just to perceive ourselves to be safe? I'll have to disagree here.

Crime prevention IS one of the jobs of law enforcement. DUI checkpoints is a good example....

They usually do it Friday and Saturday nights because that is when you get most of the drunk drivers. If I pull up to one it would be a slight inconvenience for me because it's time consuming for me to sit in the line. But it ensures my safety and other people that my chances of getting sideswiped by a drunk driver running a red light has drastically decreased.

I have my driver's license, I don't have any contrabands or weapons in my vehicle, I am clean as they can be, and I did not have any drinks.... why should I be offended or worried.... or intimidated?

Unless you have something to hide, there is no reason to fear LE.

Wow...I am in awe of how easily some people are willing to give up their personal liberty.

[Ronin2]

For the record:

1) I totally believe in the right of self defense. I personally think every state should follow the lead of Vermont, Arizona and Alaska and permit concealed carry without permit.

2) I believe that absent that permission, if I am going to a dangerous area/situation, I will arm myself non the less.

3) I question the security value of open carry. If someone does want to do you harm, how quickly can you respond if the perp knows you have an unloaded gun and responds accordingly with the element of total surprise? Secondly, I think that open carry could make you a more attractive target of a criminal who knows you are carrying the gun unloaded and sees your gun as a welcome addition to his criminals tool kit.

4) the 4th amendment , like all the others is not "absolute" and subject to the "reasonable" phrase in the amendment. I think a majority of people would agree that someone practicing Open Carry on a warm summer day at a crowded beach front recreation area should at least be contacted by the PD to quickly determine that he

a) Is not a member of a class of people forbidden to own a handgun
b) does not appear to have any other agenda than Open Carry.

If that was not to occur and someone openly carrying a weapon began shooting people randomly and the police had seen and simply ignored him 'thinking he was an open carry advocate" everyone in here would be screaming that the police didnt do their jobs and incidents like the example given are reasons we all need to carry. I guess the police cant prevent crime if you dont allow them to, reasonably.

Being stopped by the PD while open carring to be confirmed that you are an honest citizen legally able to open carry and then allowed to continue on your way is responsible policing and I suspect "reasonable" in the eyes of an over whelming majority of this country's citizens. I certainly find it reasonable, so long as the check is quick, polite and once verified, you are allowed to continue on your way.

Or do you believe that the ability to open carry should be extended to criminals and metally deficient people? If you dont,then how do you propose we ensure that open carry is practiced ONLY by law abiding honest citizens and protect ourselves from illegal open carry by those prohibited from owning guns?

If you think open carry in Kalifornia at places like a crowded beach will win over the non gun population to our arguements you are sorely mistaken. All you will do is come off like another gun nut, possibly waiting to go postal, to the non gun owning population and ensure the election of more anti gun politicians by the people you NEEDLESSLY scare at the beach.

Consealed carry that does not alarm others... NO PROBLEM!

[Ronin2]

Yeah, but police exist to enforce the law, not prevent crime.

ROFL....wow!

[soopafly]

Thank you for your clarification Ronin.

[CitaDeL]

Crime prevention IS one of the jobs of law enforcement...

...Unless you have something to hide, there is no reason to fear LE.

What kind of superhuman abilities do you believe police possess?

There are two things required for one person to inhibit or curtail the actions of another. Threat of force and force itself. This is called deterence. Police are pretty good at that.

For one person to prevent the future actions of another, foreknowledge of that action and the threat of force or force itself are required. The police are not all knowing, all seeing, or omnipotent.

The police being bound by 4th amendment limitations and their lack of omnicience requires them to uncover evidence confirming reasonable suspicions that a crime is being commited without using an undue amount of force or invasion of a person's property and privacy.

Police cannot prevent crime- they can only apprehend criminals during the commission of, or after a crime has been commited. There is no "Minority Report" pre-crime division where police rappel out of the sky to stop murder, theft, and rape the instant before it happens.

I know you have access to a computer with internet access. I also know that since you post on Calguns, that you might be a firearms enthusiast. If I don't have anything to hide from police while conducting an (e) check when I am walking in a public area openly carrying a firearm then it is no different than police reading your email, sifting through your internet browsing history and downloaded files to see what you have been up to. Having and using a computer is not illegal, and you have given no one any justification to inspect your property, but would you be so forthcoming to allow any of us, let alone the police, scrutinize your computer without cause? Is it any of our business? Or do you have something to hide? I know it's not convenient, but this will go a lot faster if you just let us take a look. Okay?

[Ronin2]

I know you have access to a computer with internet access. I also know that since you post on Calguns, that you might be a firearms enthusiast. If I don't have anything to hide from police while conducting an (e) check when I am walking in a public area openly carrying a firearm then it is no different than police reading your email, sifting through your internet browsing history and downloaded files to see what you have been up to. Having and using a computer is not illegal, and you have given no one any justification to inspect your property, but would you be so forthcoming to allow any of us, let alone the police, scrutinize your computer without cause? Is it any of our business? Or do you have something to hide? I know it's not convenient, but this will go a lot faster if you just let us take a look. Okay?

Your thinking is clearly obtuse and illogical. Your analogy is not relevant to your arguement at all. This will be my last comment to any of your postings sir. I believe your lack of logical thinking speaks for itself but this last time;

The constitution, the courts and everyday common sense differentiate between walking through a public area openly carrying a deadly weapon and any passive activity one does from the safety and privacy of ones home or place of business.

If you paid any attention to the Constitution you so recklessly and ignorantly quote, you would know that the expectation of ones right to privacy in the home an business does not apply to 'walking in public" with or without a gun.

A comparison of the two is ludicrous on its face. Your simplistic view of the constitution and gun rights no longer worth my comment.

Good day Sir!