L.A. Times Opinion on Open Carry

[voiceofreason]

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...-+Opinion+Blog)

L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, and N.Y. Times... their anti-gun leanings border on lunacy. (yes, I am aware this is the OPINION of the L.A. Times - it affects how they "report" the news)

[Glock22Fan]

But the exercise of this misguided right to terrorize the public had a predictable result: Angry parents and others complained to lawmakers, who passed a bill outlawing open carry that was signed Monday morning by Gov. Jerry Brown. Proponents of open carry now have to face the fact that, if they had left well enough alone and kept their guns at home, open carry would still be legal in California and few people would have noticed. Seldom has a protest movement (or was it a solidarity movement?) backfired so spectacularly.

Never thought I would agree with the L.A. Times (except for the exact wording in the first sentence) on anything to do with guns.

[Mesa Tactical]

Never thought I would agree with the L.A. Times (except for the exact wording in the first sentence) on anything to do with guns.

Well, except for this part too:

Seldom has a protest movement (or was it a solidarity movement?) backfired so spectacularly.

They are forgetting the last time this happened, when the Black Panthers' exercising of their rights led to the Mulford Act.

[bruss01]

Originally Posted by LA Times
But the exercise of this misguided right to terrorize the public had a predictable result: Angry parents and others complained to lawmakers, who passed a bill outlawing open carry that was signed Monday morning by Gov. Jerry Brown. Proponents of open carry now have to face the fact that, if they had left well enough alone and kept their guns at home, open carry would still be legal in California and few people would have noticed. Seldom has a protest movement (or was it a solidarity movement?) backfired so spectacularly.

I'm not saying I support the OC movement, but I do have to ask what good it does for OC to be legal if no one dares do it without fear of being proned out at gunpoint. I really don't see a benefit in it being legal if it is impractical to actually do. I do see a benefit in it being illegal, because that practically guarantees shall-issue for CCW. Just another point of view, I suppose.

[Army]

...they had left well enough alone and kept their guns at home, open carry would still be legal...

And what, exactly, would have been the point?

"Yeah, this poor law abiding citizen is dead. He had the right to carry a gun, but thank God he left it at home or this could have been tragic."

It's a wonder some of you even bother to own firearms.

[Glock22Fan]

And what, exactly, would have been the point?

"Yeah, this poor law abiding citizen is dead. He had the right to carry a gun, but thank God he left it at home or this could have been tragic."

It's a wonder some of you even bother to own firearms.

Some people still don't get it. It wasn't the occasional citizen carrying a gun for his or her own defense that caused AB144, it was large groups of citizens carrying guns as a protest that caused AB144. Blame them for any individual who might still be alive by carrying a gun legally but individually.

They are forgetting the last time this happened, when the Black Panthers' exercising of their rights led to the Mulford Act.

Seldom does not mean never.

[vantec08]

I'm not saying I support the OC movement, but I do have to ask what good it does for OC to be legal if no one dares do it without fear of being proned out at gunpoint. I really don't see a benefit in it being legal if it is impractical to actually do. I do see a benefit in it being illegal, because that practically guarantees shall-issue for CCW. Just another point of view, I suppose.

Yea, it seems to be going the way of "give up this portion to get that portion" of the second. Oh well, we were just an experiment.

[viet4lifeOC]

I don't UOC. I would gladly dump UOC for LTC. I don't buy the argument that UOC was banned because people were exercising a legal act. I expect this type of logic from the LA Times and understand why they are losing paying subscriptions.

"Proponents of open carry now have to face the fact that, if they had left well enough alone and kept their guns at home, open carry would still be legal in California."

Guns at home..UOC would be still legal, BUT POINTLSS. I can't imagine this logic would pass the muster.

[Untamed1972]

"Proponents of open carry now have to face the fact that, if they had left well enough alone and kept their guns at home, open carry would still be legal in California and few people would have noticed. Seldom has a protest movement (or was it a solidarity movement?) backfired so spectacularly."

What a stupid statement. So what he is saying is it would have remained legal as long as no one actually engaged in the legal activity.

What is the point is having an activity be legal if engaging in said legal activity will immediately result in said activity being banned?

Isn't that like saying "You're free to choose your own religion.....until you choose one we dont like....at which time your right to choose will be removed."

[glbtrottr]

Typical liberal propaganda. Idiots.

[21SF]

Yea put that reporter in a situation where him/her and their family are in danger and see if they would want to have a gun.

[Kid Stanislaus]

And what, exactly, would have been the point?
"Yeah, this poor law abiding citizen is dead. He had the right to carry a gun, but thank God he left it at home or this could have been tragic."
It's a wonder some of you even bother to own firearms.

Most likely he'd've been dead anyway. In the time it takes to unholster the gun, slide the magazine in and then rack the slide, the perp has shoved his 8" hunting knife in all the way to the hilt at least once and maybe a couple of times.

[mdimeo]

I really don't see a benefit in it being legal if it is impractical to actually do..

Used to be someone could clean a pistol in their partially-fenced back yard.

Used to be someone with a security threat could carry from their front door to the mailbox on the corner.

Used to be someone could unload when leaving an area where LOC was ok and get themselves home, if they lived nearby.

People carrying as a political statement made lives worse for people who didn't. Entirely predictably. That might have been worth it if there was a reasonable goal in mind, but I sure haven't seen any.

[CitaDeL]

Gunownership is the new 'Black'.

"Proponents of open carry now have to face the fact that, if they had left well enough alone and kept their guns at home, open carry would still be legal in California."

This is pure bigotry. If you agree with the above, it's entirely possible you might find the following a reasonable position.

"African Americans now have to face the fact that, if they had left well enough alone and kept their civil rights at home, interacial marriage would still be legal in California."

[stix213]

I'm not saying I support the OC movement, but I do have to ask what good it does for OC to be legal if no one dares do it without fear of being proned out at gunpoint. I really don't see a benefit in it being legal if it is impractical to actually do. I do see a benefit in it being illegal, because that practically guarantees shall-issue for CCW. Just another point of view, I suppose.

This argument is so ridiculous and tired..... There is a difference between the lone use of OC for legitimate self defense or transport, and 25 guys all showing up to Starbucks with guns scaring the crap out of everyone, over and over and over and over.

I don't understand why the UOCers seem to be so willingly blind to this.