'Open carry' activists to wear unload...

'Open carry' activists to wear unloaded firearms at Hermosa Beach c...

There are 330 comments on the Daily Breeze story from Jun 21, 2010, titled 'Open carry' activists to wear unloaded firearms at Hermosa Beach c.... In it, Daily Breeze reports that:

Gun rights activists will holster unloaded weapons on their belts while they clean up trash in Hermosa Beach next month to educate the public that firearms can be openly carried in California.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Breeze.

First Prev
of 17
Next Last
Justice For All

Torrance, CA

#346 Jun 26, 2010
At least South Bay Open Carry are generating the attention they need for their cause...which I fully support!

Since: Apr 10

United States

#347 Jun 27, 2010
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
How often are people mugged, threatening the person's life? Furthermore, how often do those turn into an end of life (for either victim are assailant)? I'd gladly give over my cash to someone in exchange of me not being killed (as they are most likely not going to murder the person) or me having to 'murder' or 'shoot' them (because I do not want to deal with the psychological repercussions, especially if I blew his brains out and his guts splattered all over me).
So sorry to see that your immagination has completely run away with you. Hope that you find yourself soon.

Since: Apr 10

United States

#348 Jun 27, 2010
R_Smart wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I take it back. I didn't bother to read what I was quoting because I am a total moron. Section 12001 refers to section 12023, which states "(a) Every person who carries a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony is guilty of armed criminal action." Clearly this does not involve open carry. I am ashamed for having said something so stupid without bothering to do basic research.
You are totally confused my son. Disobey PC Sect. 12001(j) and then try to defend yourself using PC Sect. 12023 and you will run into a serious road-block. The key word here is "INTENT".
CNReporter

Walnut, CA

#349 Jun 28, 2010
Something for the anti-gun rights crowd to choke on now that it is California law:

"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876),“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed." - Majority opinion, United States Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER.
CA citizen

Glendora, CA

#350 Jun 28, 2010
CNReporter wrote:
Something for the anti-gun rights crowd to choke on now that it is California law:
"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876),“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed." - Majority opinion, United States Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER.
You seem to be very well versed on this issue. I am all for being able to carry concealed as I did in Idaho (had the permit). Can you clarify what exactly today's ruling by the Supreme Court means? Does that mean I can now carry concealed, or open, in California, excluding schools, courthouses and such? Or does this ruling remove even those restrictions?
CNReporter

Walnut, CA

#351 Jun 29, 2010
CA citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be very well versed on this issue. I am all for being able to carry concealed as I did in Idaho (had the permit). Can you clarify what exactly today's ruling by the Supreme Court means? Does that mean I can now carry concealed, or open, in California, excluding schools, courthouses and such? Or does this ruling remove even those restrictions?
I've written a number of articles on the subject. I'll try to append a link at the bottom of my response but it will probably be filtered out.

You can not carry concealed because of today's Supreme Court ruling. The Court was quite clear on that point. They have not decided whether or not there is a Constitutional right to carry concealed and probably won't for a few years.

As to open carry, in the short term the County District Attorneys and City Attorneys will be deciding what if any effect the McDonald/Heller decision had. Since the Supreme Court has decided that the Heller decision applies to California, the hard part is done. If a county or city declines to comply with the decision it is a short trip to Federal Court to force their compliance. Since California has a great many gun control laws and anti-gun District Attorneys, you can expect to see many challenges in the weeks to come.

My advice is to wait and see what the Federal courts have to say in your jurisdiction. There are several significant cases already far enough along in the pipeline to have either an initial decision, or be ready for Supreme Court review, by the end of this year. For the entire 9th District there is the rehearing of the Nordyke case which has been waiting for today's Supreme Court decision before proceeding. In San Diego, there is a Federal case where the judge made an interim finding that the County must issue concealed carry licenses because California has no right to openly carry loaded firearms. Now that Californians do have that right, at least under the law, it will be interesting to see how that case turns.

Now for the link, if none appears you can find me on twitter under the name CNReporter

http://tinyurl.com/25bcrh2
CA citizen

Glendora, CA

#352 Jun 29, 2010
Thank you. You have been very helpful and informative. And the link worked.
CNReporter wrote:
<quoted text>
I've written a number of articles on the subject. I'll try to append a link at the bottom of my response but it will probably be filtered out.
You can not carry concealed because of today's Supreme Court ruling. The Court was quite clear on that point. They have not decided whether or not there is a Constitutional right to carry concealed and probably won't for a few years.
As to open carry, in the short term the County District Attorneys and City Attorneys will be deciding what if any effect the McDonald/Heller decision had. Since the Supreme Court has decided that the Heller decision applies to California, the hard part is done. If a county or city declines to comply with the decision it is a short trip to Federal Court to force their compliance. Since California has a great many gun control laws and anti-gun District Attorneys, you can expect to see many challenges in the weeks to come.
My advice is to wait and see what the Federal courts have to say in your jurisdiction. There are several significant cases already far enough along in the pipeline to have either an initial decision, or be ready for Supreme Court review, by the end of this year. For the entire 9th District there is the rehearing of the Nordyke case which has been waiting for today's Supreme Court decision before proceeding. In San Diego, there is a Federal case where the judge made an interim finding that the County must issue concealed carry licenses because California has no right to openly carry loaded firearms. Now that Californians do have that right, at least under the law, it will be interesting to see how that case turns.
Now for the link, if none appears you can find me on twitter under the name CNReporter
http://tinyurl.com/25bcrh2
westside steve

North Hollywood, CA

#353 Jun 29, 2010
VigilanceOfFreedom wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is firearm prohibition laws do not deter criminals willing to violate the laws prohibiting rape, murder, assault, and robbery but instead disarm the lawful population that are neither inclined nor likely to commit crimes. The result is a disarmed population placed at the mercy of armed criminals.
No state that has passed shall issue CCW (carry concealed weapon/firearm) permits has experienced an increase in crime. In fact states passing shall issue CCW permits has experienced a 10% decrease in violent crime on average. The Right to keep and bear arms is not only a Constitutionally protected right, it's a considerable contribution to public safety.
...yeah, but some governments want to keep in thier sheople in a state of fear. Fearful people are easier to manipulate. Trained and legally armed people are more confident and tend not to be spooked by the irrational fears they blow up our butts. Remember communism was a big fear, until those pulling the strings told us different? Now its "terror", next it will be ????.
Gun Fan

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#354 Apr 21, 2011
Yeh booze baby wrote:
<quoted text>
Welcome to the swamp cowboy! answer to your question, yeh there is, it's booze baby, booze. Can't wait for all the gun totin boozers to have a good old shootout down at the OK coral, AKA pier plaza ps-hole.
You're obviously uneducated and had the wrong type of introduction to firearm ownership. 99% of those willing to openly carry an unloaded firearm within their legal right as a legal gun owner do so to protect themselves and most of us are even willing to protect idiots like yourself in the event that your life was in danger. So buck up, and shut up until you know what YOUR 2nd Amendment is for.
Gun Fan

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

#355 Apr 21, 2011
Visiting Cowboy wrote:
Is it something in the water in Hermosa?
I really wish there were less people like you, who have ignorant fears about firearms, and more people who understand that a well armed society is a polite and happy society. Look it up, it's true.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 17
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Downtown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ex-Catholic bishop of Phoenix accused of sex ab... 13 hr techfan 179
News 'Not My President': Protesters Rail Against Don... (Nov '16) Thu USA 372
joan jett & her band SUCKS! OVERRATED! FACT (May '15) Aug 14 Jay 2
Gays Will Burn In Hell Forever Aug 6 USA 7
News Boeing wins contract for two 747s that will bec... Aug 5 Evilgelicalling 3
News Diversity highlighted at L.A. Asian Pacific Fil... (Apr '16) May '16 frofro 3
News Transit's Impact on Congestion (Jan '16) Jan '16 Ronald 1

Downtown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Downtown Mortgages