A look at open carry in San Diego

[tombogan03884]

 TAB, to post the anti carry things that you do on a pro carry forum you must like being called a dumbass.

so you think its smart to walk down the street, with a unloaded gun on your hip?

If you hd actually READ the article (there's that "reading" thing again ) yuo would know that having a loaded MAGAZINE right with that "empty gun" is also perfectly legal, not optimum but better than anything YOU have come up with.
In another thread you posted You stick up for your rights, I say that's BS, you don't even know what your rights are.
Go backed to your Kool ade and leave the political discussion to the INFORMED readers.

[TAB]

TAB, to post the anti carry things that you do on a pro carry forum you must like being called a dumbass.

If you hd actually READ the article (there's that "reading" thing again ) yuo would know that having a loaded MAGAZINE right with that "empty gun" is also perfectly legal, not optimum but better than anything YOU have come up with.
In another thread you posted You stick up for your rights, I say that's BS, you don't even know what your rights are.
Go backed to your Kool ade and leave the political discussion to the INFORMED readers.

if you read my post, you have have seen that I said it was legal to have a loaded mag in your pocekt.

you did not answer my q...

[tombogan03884]

if you read my post, you have have seen that I said it was legal to have a loaded mag in your pocekt.

you did not answer my q...

TAB, to post the anti carry things that you do on a pro carry forum you must like being called a dumbass.

If you hd actually READ the article (there's that "reading" thing again ) yuo would know that having a loaded MAGAZINE right with that "empty gun" is also perfectly legal, not optimum but better than anything YOU have come up with.
In another thread you posted You stick up for your rights, I say that's BS, you don't even know what your rights are.
Go backed to your Kool ade and leave the political discussion to the INFORMED readers.

What part of that don't you get ?   Are you an idiot ?

[TAB]

yeah, lets see, drawing attention to yourself, vs blending in... sounds like a great idea,  we have lots of professional trainers on this site, why don't you ask them if its a good idea.

[tombogan03884]

Being armed in a less than optimal fashion or not being armed at all ? Yes, lets have the Professionals comment on this.

Certainly answers the idiot question though.

[Sponsor]

[twyacht]

Good to see the envelope within the law being utilized.

Carrying an unloaded firearm?,... I see the point, but missed the practicality in an SD situation.

After all it's Kalifornia,...

[TAB]

Good to see the envelope within the law being utilized.

Carrying an unloaded firearm?,... I see the point, but missed the practicality in an SD situation.

After all it's Kalifornia,...

its not a new law, its been around for a very long time.  what has changes in the CA SC finally ruled that a loaded mag no inserted in the gun = unloaded gun.  Before it was a huge gray area.

[ericire12]

So, here is what I think of all this.....

Like I said earlier, this is simply a form of protest and a way to make a political statement. God bless em, their heart is in the right place, but I completely disagree with their method because I dont see this as effective. I dont think that scaring the ignorant and uninformed is the best way to win friends and influence people. This just simply has too much shock value to be an effective way to educate the masses and to bring new converts to the cause.

I also dont feel that this is the best way to get members of law enforcement on our side of the fight either. It is one thing to do this in a large organized march at a scheduled time and place, but for one person (or a small group of people) to be doing this is only going to cause hysteria, and waste the time and resources of the local police. They are going to have to treat almost all of these encounters as a "Man with a gun" call and respond in numbers and treat it as if they might have a shooter to deal with. Luckily, it seems like the police are fully aware they are going to run into these types of demonstrations. It seems from the article that the local police are handling themselves in a VERY professional manor with these encounters, and thank God are not going in with guns-a-blazing.

Personally, I would not participate in this type of demonstration. It is not going to improve relations with anti-gunners, and it may also put gun folk in bad standings with law enforcement. The bottom line here is that there are many better ways to educate the ignorant and uninformed, and I just really think that this type of act is not going to be beneficial to our cause.






*BTW I also think that they are going overboard when it comes to letting cops inspect their guns to see if they are loaded or not. It in no way is a violation of their constitutional rights. If an officer sees a person with a gun on their hip it is certainly reasonable to think that it might be loaded..... and it definitely gives them probably cause to "search them" and determine if they are carrying a loaded gun.

[tombogan03884]

"BTW I also think that they are going overboard when it comes to letting cops inspect their guns to see if they are loaded or not. It in no way is a violation of their constitutional rights. If an officer sees a person with a gun on their hip it is certainly reasonable to think that it might be loaded..... and it definitely gives them probably cause to "search them" and determine if they are carrying a loaded gun."

You are wrong on this Eric

http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library/research/ready-reference/us-federal-law-and-documents/historical-documents-constitution-of-the-united-states/amendments-to-the-constitution.html

Amendment IV: Warrants and searches.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And this HAS been incorporated to the States

[ericire12]

"BTW I also think that they are going overboard when it comes to letting cops inspect their guns to see if they are loaded or not. It in no way is a violation of their constitutional rights. If an officer sees a person with a gun on their hip it is certainly reasonable to think that it might be loaded..... and it definitely gives them probably cause to "search them" and determine if they are carrying a loaded gun."

You are wrong on this Eric

http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library/research/ready-reference/us-federal-law-and-documents/historical-documents-constitution-of-the-united-states/amendments-to-the-constitution.html

Amendment IV: Warrants and searches.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is probable cause...... They are acting in a way that would make a reasonable person believe that they may have a loaded gun (which is a crime there).... thus the officer should take it upon himself to inspect the weapon and see if they are violating the law.

It is just like if a person is in a public place smoking a bong that is filled with tobacco - perfectly legal, but a reasonable person might believe that they were smoking pot in that bong. Thus a police officer would have probable cause to examine the bong and see if it is pot or legal tobacco.