Together we stand, divided we fall
I would like to take this opportunity to address some rumors and speculation with regards to the Responsible Citizens of California.
My name is Adnan Shahab. I am not rich; I am not famous. I am an average person who has to work for a living in order to pay my bills. Just like other average people, I am in a position where I am still fighting to be heard by my government. The fact that the government does not seem to care about the things that are important to me and is unresponsive to my concerns is one of the main reasons why I decided to run for State Assembly in California’s 20th District (Fremont, Newark, Union City, Milpitas).
Among the many things that concern me are gun rights. As a person who holds concealed weapons permits (CCW) from multiple states, the fact that the State of California (the place where I was born, raised, and live) will not issue a CCW to me for personal protection bothers me.
At the end of 2009, I became aware that unloaded open carry is legal in California. After learning that fact, I thoroughly researched the issue and began open carrying in my daily life. I would much prefer to carry concealed (as I am currently authorized to do so in 32 other states), but that is not an option available to most law abiding citizens in this state. Open carry is the only legal means that I have to be able to carry a firearm with which to protect myself if my life were to ever be put in jeopardy.
After many months of open carrying as an individual, I was approached by a group of individuals who were planning on creating a non-profit organization dedicated to carry rights. These individuals saw that the disjointed open carry community had already reached its full potential. It would be difficult for unorganized individuals to push for additional carry rights. Furthermore, AB 1934, legislation introduced by Assemblymember Lori Saldana to ban open carry in California, showed that attempts were already under way to curtail carry rights even further in this state.
The group of individuals that approached me created an organization that took on the name the Responsible Citizens of California (RCC). RCC is a privately funded organization. RCC’s mission is to protect the right of law abiding citizens to be able to carry firearms in California and to push to expand those rights. RCC is also dedicated to educating the public about what their rights are with regards to carrying firearms so that responsible individuals can make an informed decision as to whether they would like to carry in their private lives.
The goals of RCC and my personal goals with regards to carry laws in California are so in tune with one another that I could not turn down the opportunity to become a part of RCC from the beginning. I sit on the Board of Directors of RCC, and I currently hold the position of RCC’s Executive Vice President. In the next few months, I will be transitioning to the position of President of the Responsible Citizens of California.
I am in the process of stepping into the leadership position of the organization. The future of RCC will be largely determined by my beliefs, my dedication, and my actions. I have never undertaken such an endeavor before in my life. I am a human being; I am not perfect. I cannot guarantee that I will not make mistakes. But what I can guarantee is that I will try my very best to accomplish RCC’s goals and my personal goals with regards to carry laws.
On top of my personal commitment, I enjoy the counsel and advice of some of the most prominent members of the California open carry and gun rights communities. Most notably, the Chairman of the Board of Directors for RCC is Sam Wolanyk. Sam and his brother Nate Wolanyk, residents of Southern California, were amongst the first people to bring open carry to prominence in the State of California.
One of my first major goals (beyond defeating AB 1934 and its imminent threat to legal open carry) is to unite all of the open carry groups in California. There is a motto that goes “Together we stand, divided we fall.” I wholeheartedly believe in this motto. I feel that everyone who believes in the Second Amendment, in gun rights, and in the right to carry a firearm for personal protection needs to work with each other to ensure that our rights are respected by the government. Only by working together will we be able to make sure that our rights are not stripped away from us and trampled upon. No one single person can do everything on his or her own. But together, we can move mountains.
And once our rights are secured, we can then move forward to acquire the additional rights that law abiding citizens in other states, rightfully so, already enjoy. The Responsible Citizens of California will be the organization that will be at the tip of the spear fighting to secure those rights. I ask everyone to please rally with us.
http://responsiblecitizensofcalifornia.org/
Murder Trial of Former BART Officer Johannes Mehserle
The murder trial of former BART Police officer Johannes Mehserle appears to be close to wrapping up. Early in the morning on January 1, 2009, Mehserle shot and killed passenger Oscar Grant on a BART platform in Oakland. The event was caught on many different cell phone videos.
From the moment that I first heard of the shooting, it seemed clear to me that it was an accident on the part of Mehserle. I completely believe that Mehserle intended to be going for his Taser and mistakenly drew and fired his firearms. That was my belief on the morning of the shooting, and it is still my belief.
I am a law and order kind of guy. My natural tendency in a situation like this is to believe the officer’s account of the situation. However, I in no way whatsoever believe that officers are in the right 100% of the time. Officers are human, and humans make mistakes. Some humans are even bad people who deliberately do bad things. But there is absolutely nothing that I have seen in the videos or heard from anyone involved in the this shooting that would convince me that Mehserle decided to deliberately execute Grant on that BART platform.
I understand that Oscar Grant’s family is upset with what happened. Their sadness with the death of a loved one and anger with what transpired is fully justified. Oscar Grant did not deserve to die. And considering that the former officer in question is white and the victim was black, there is also a racial aspect to this case. There are many people in the community who see this as yet another example of police brutality against a person of color. I fully understand that there is a history of police brutality in certain communities against certain people. But that is not the situation in this case. Any beliefs or assertions that Mehserle wanted to kill Grant are completely unfounded.
I am not saying that Mehserle should not face any consequences for his actions. Quite the contrary. Mehserle messed up big time, and his mistake cost Grant his life. I am no legal expert, but it seems that, in such a situation, Mehserle cannot get off without paying some sort of penalty. I don’t know what that penalty is, but we have a system in place that, given the facts, can dole out the appropriate form of justice. If an officer makes an honest mistake, but that mistake costs a person his life, I don’t know if that amounts to a manslaughter charge or something else. But what happened was definitely not first degree murder. Whatever the legal definition is for what Mehserle did, mistaking his gun for his Taser and accidentally killing Grant, is what Mehserle should pay the price for.
Calls for peace in Oakland once the verdict is announced have already gone out to the public. It is my hope that justice is reached in the courtroom and that civil behavior is maintained on the streets.
Governor Schwarzenegger Bans Welfare Recipients from Using ATMs at California Casinos
Yesterday, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an executive order barring California welfare recipients from using state-issued debit cards at casino ATMs.
A recent Los Angeles Times report found that CalWORKS cards were used to withdraw cash in more than half the casinos in the state. Welfare recipients withdrew more that $1.8 million in taxpayer cash at casinos in the eight-month period from October 2009 through May 2010.
Schwarzenegger’s order requires welfare recipients to sign a pledge that they will use their benefits only to “meet the basic subsistence needs” of their families, and it requires the state Department of Social Services to come up with a plan to reduce other “waste, fraud and abuse” in the welfare system. Officials at the department failed to notice for years that welfare recipients could use the state-issued cards to withdraw taxpayer cash at tribal casinos and state-licensed poker rooms in California.
The state initiated the debit card program in 2002. The electronic benefit transfer cards allow welfare recipients to access two accounts: cash offered through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and an electronic version of food stamps, which comes with strict rules governing how the money can be spent. The cash benefits can be withdrawn and spent just about anywhere. The monthly cash grant for a family of three ranges up to $694, while families with more than 10 people can get as much as $1,469.
I will leave the discussion of whether the government should even be giving money to people in the first place for another time because that is a huge topic all on its own. The fact that people on welfare are using that money to gamble with does not surprise me at all. But the fact that our government simply hands cash over to people and expects those people to behave responsibly with that money shows exactly how out of touch our elected officials are. Do our elected officials honestly believe that we, as a society, can give so-called “needy” people money and completely trust in them to use that cash for necessities such as food? Intuitively, one knows that many people will use that money recklessly. We have all heard the stories about people misusing their welfare money. Why hasn’t the government done anything about it until now?
Furthermore, the fact that these “needy” people are using their welfare payments to gamble with is a clear indication that they aren’t really quite as needy as they claim to be. We need to start reevaluating exactly how much money we are handing out through welfare programs. I don’t care whether the amount inappropriately being used is large or not. It’s the principle that matters. If even one dollar is being used inappropriately, that is too much. Money should not be taken from hard-working individuals and redistributed to people who don’t absolutely need that money to survive.
Schwarzenegger’s executive order does not go nearly far enough to remedy the situation. Simply asking people to sign a pledge to not use their welfare money inappropriately will not do anything to curb the reckless behavior by some welfare recipients. And even if welfare debit cards are no longer allowed to be used at casino ATMs, there is nothing to prevent a welfare recipient from withdrawing that cash at another location and then going to a casino and gambling with it.
We need to completely overhaul our welfare system. If we are going to continue to hand out welfare payments to people, we must ensure that that money is spent on basic necessities only. Even if that means restricting the places where the money can be spent to a limited number of locations with heavy government oversight, so be it. Welfare recipients should be thankful for the money that they get from others. If that means them having to be severely inconvenienced in order to spend that welfare money, I am fine with that.
And if we can figure out which welfare recipients withdrew money at casino ATMs, we should demand that the money be paid back to the government. If that money cannot be collected, then further welfare payments should be cut off until the equivalent amount that was withdrawn is recuperated by the state.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
What happens next for conservatives in California?
The June 8 California primary election is now over. Over the last year or so, many conservatives throughout the state have been stirred to action. People who had never taken part in the election process before became active participants in the campaigns of certain candidates in whom they trusted. Unlike in previous years, when many conservatives felt that they did not have any real candidates who stood up for the issues that they believed in, this year was different. Countless hours of volunteer work were put in, and millions of dollars were contributed in the hopes of getting a true conservative elected in California.
And now that the primary is over, many of those candidates who were favored by true conservative are no longer standing. Whether it was because their opposition was simply too well funded (either by the opposing candidates’ own deep pockets or because of the influence of wealthy special interest groups) or because the grassroots efforts simply were not enough to overcome the established political structure, we are now left with very few true conservative choices remaining amongst the candidates who are running for public office.
So, what happens now? Where does all of the pent up energy of the people, the energy that up until now had been expended on the campaigns of the true conservative candidates, go? Do these people, the ones who are resolutely committed to principle, simply lose interest and fade away from the political landscape, having lost all hope that anything truly monumental can happen in California politics? Or do these people somehow manage to swallow their pride, hold their noses, and work to support the lesser of the two remaining poor choices in whatever race they had been working on previously?
There is a different choice available out there. I would hope that the energy of all of these principled people can somehow be harnessed into accomplishing something truly special. After the primary election, there are only a few true conservative candidates remaining. If we can take the energy and effort and fundraising abilities of people throughout the State of California who are interested in getting a true conservative elected into office and somehow focus all of that energy into a few key races where a true conservative candidate still remains, then we can pull off the unexpected.
I am running for State Assembly in California’s 20th District (Fremont, Newark, Union City, Milpitas). Going into the primary election, I managed to clear the field of all other conservative candidates. As a result, I ran opposed on June 8. At the same time, the two Democrats running for AD20 were busy raising hundreds of thousands of dollars in special interest contributions and slugging it out amongst each other to get the Democratic nomination.
You see, according to conventional wisdom, whoever wound up winning the Democratic nomination for AD20 was assumed to already have won the seat in November. Because of voter registration numbers, money, name recognition, and the strength of the Democratic political machine in the Bay Area, the belief is that a true conservative candidate could never win in AD20. Well, on June 8, Bob Wieckowski wound up securing the Democratic nomination. I guarantee you that, in his mind, he believes that he will be in Sacramento during the next session of the State Assembly convenes. If he hasn’t already done so, he is already hiring a staff and deciding the logistics of his transition to the Capitol. To him, the general election in November is already a forgone conclusion. He is all set to go to the statehouse and begin implementing big government legislation and a methodically strip citizens of their liberties and individual ability on how to choose to live their lives.
Doesn’t it make you angry that conservatives are already an afterthought in the mind of Bob Wieckowski? He couldn’t care less about us.
But imagine if all of the principled people throughout the state, those who no longer have a true conservative in any State Legislative race in their district remaining, or those who are unhappy with any of the candidates running for statewide office, decided to back me in my race for State Assembly. All of a sudden, we could take away the certainty that Bob Wieckowski has in that he will automatically be selected to go to Sacramento in the November election. If we all worked together, we could possibly pull off a huge upset.
Imagine if we could somehow elect a conservative to the statehouse from the liberal Bay Area. That would be an incredible testament to the power of the people to change the status quo. Do you see how powerful of a message that would be? It would be something that could shake up California politics for decades.
Something that bears keeping in mind is that, as an Assemblymember, I would be able to introduce legislation that could benefit citizens throughout the state. No matter where a person lives, if that person has an issue that is consistent with my beliefs, then I would not hesitate to push for that cause. And on the floor of the Assembly, I would be an outspoken advocate of conservative principles and would stand against legislation that would attempt to subvert what I and so many others believe in. In effect, I could be an Assemblymember who represented any person in the State of California who believed in a conservative point of view, regardless of what Assembly District they live in.
All we have to do is get a true conservative’s foot in the door. After that happens, I guarantee that I will be a force that the State of California has never seen the likes of before.
Adnan Shahab is a candidate for State Assembly in California’s 20th District. You can visit his official campaign website at http://www.shahab2010.com
California Assembly Approves Bill to Ban Plastic Bags
Yesterday, the California Assembly passed legislation that would prohibit grocery stores, pharmacies, liquor stores, and convenience stores from giving out plastic bags. The bill, AB 1998, still requires State Senate approval. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has already indicated that he would sign the bill into law if it came to his desk.
The bill would require stores to sell reusable bags beginning January 1, 2012. Stores would be forced to charge at least 5 cents per bag for recycled paper bags if customers do not have their own. If signed into law, California would be the first state to impose such a ban.
The goal is to get rid of plastic bags that sometimes wind up in urban rivers and the ocean, as well as to reduce the number of bags that make it to landfills. In 2007, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to require supermarkets and large drug stores to offer customers bags made only of recyclable paper, plastic that can be turned into compost, or sturdy cloth or plastic that can be reused.
AB 1998 is just a bad idea from the very beginning. Let’s start by looking at the costs involved. Requiring stores to charge customers for paper bags is a cost that Californians can't afford. The American Chemistry Council estimates the bill would amount to a $1 billion tax and threaten 500 jobs in the plastic bag manufacturing business. At a time when many are saving every penny in order to be able to pay their bills and stay above water, the Legislature should not be devising new methods to nickel and dime the people to death. Also, with the unemployment rate as high as it is in California, the Legislature should not be enacting laws that will put more people out of the job.
But on a broader level, I do not like this bill because it is an example of the government taking the ability to choose away from the people. As it is now, consumers can already purchase reusable bags and take them to the stores with them if they wish to do so. What I do not understand is why people would be willing to give away their right to choose. If a person does not want to use a reusable bag, that does not make that person a bad person. Why should we punish the person who does not have a reusable bag (or who does not want to look silly by using one) by charging them for a recycled paper bag? That isn’t fair. And there are many uses for plastic bags that a recycled paper bag simply cannot replicate. Personally, I like receiving plastic bags with some of my purchases simply because I know I can turn around and use those bags for other purposes. I want to be able to continue to receive plastic bags at the store. That is my personal preference, and it is currently my choice on whether to use the plastic bag or bring an alternative bag with me. I don’t like the government taking that choice away from me.
This is America. What ever happened to belief in the free market system? Right now, businesses decide what kinds of bags to make available to consumers based on a number of factors, including cost, utility of the bag, and customer preferences. Consumers can decide to bring their own reusable bags or use plastic bags. If a customer personally believes in not using plastic bags, that person can use their own reusable bag. But let’s look at a hypothetical situation that there were actually people in society who severely disliked the use of plastic bags. Unless these people were hypocrites, these people would choose to not shop at stores that used plastic bags. If a large number of such customers existed, they would hurt the bottom line of stores that used plastic bags. Realizing that they were losing customers because of the plastic bags, the stores that were originally using plastic bags, would stop using plastic bags. They would make this decision on their own, without the government forcing the decision upon them. The free market would cause the business to stop using plastic bags without the need for the government to step in.
But, of course, all of this revolves around a hypothetical belief that there are large enough numbers of customers who actually dislike plastic bags enough to not want to patronize a certain business if that business continued to use them. I don’t believe that this is the case in reality. In the real world, there are a few on the lunatic fringe who really care about trivial things such as plastic bags. It is insane for the government to enact such a sweeping law to ban plastic bags simply to cater to the wishes of the few environmental extremists.
I am tired of out-of-touch Legislators continuing to pass laws that take rights away from private businesses and individuals. That is not the type of thing that should be going on in an America that I want to live in. When I win my race for State Assembly, I vow to fight to stop any more of these ridiculous laws from being passed in California.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Open Carry, AB 1934, and Responsible Citizens of California
When I first became aware that Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (D-San Diego) was planning to create a new law to ban the open carry of unloaded forearms in the State of California, one of my first reactions was to attempt to personally reach out and speak with her. After all, I was not only one of the leading advocates of open carry in the San Francisco Bay Area, but I was also a candidate for the California State Assembly.
I called Saldana’s various offices numerous times and let her staff know that I was interested in speaking with her about the legislation she was crafting. I let her staff know that I was concerned that Saldana might not have all of the facts about open carry and that I wanted to make sure she fully understood the issue before introducing any legislation that could affect open carry. Over the course of a few weeks, it got to the point where almost every member of her staff knew exactly who I was when I called, and they all assured me that Saldana would speak with me as soon as she had a moment in her hectic schedule.
I never wound up getting a call from Saldana. Needless to say, I was a bit taken aback when I was contacted by a local television news reporter and informed that Saldana was planning on holding a press conference the next morning to talk about the legislation that she would be introducing to ban open carry in California. That piece of legislation is AB 1934.
After seeing media coverage of Saldana’s press conference, it was quite obvious that she had introduced her legislation without completely understanding open carry. Saldana appeared to be under the impression that open carriers were some sort of a fringe group that was simply interested in demonstrating their right to carry firearms. She seemed to believe it was more of a First Amendment issue rather than a Second Amendment issue.
Admittedly, there are some open carriers who seem to want to exercise their right to bear arms as a statement against an overreaching government and a display of a willingness to fight to keep one’s rights. But this characterizes the intention of a very small portion of those who open carry. Various media reports of gatherings or “meetups” of open carriers described the events as “protests” or “demonstration”. Terminology such as this mischaracterizes the true intentions of most of carriers.
Most of the people who open carry do so simply because they want to be equipped to be able to properly defend themselves if their life or the life of anyone in their immediate vicinity were to ever be put in danger. These are law-abiding citizens who go out of their way to remain in compliance with the law. One can never know when they are about to become a victim of a violent crime. Open carriers realize that if their life is put in danger, the odds are that a law enforcement officer will not be around. And especially considering the recent budget cuts and reduced staffing levels of law enforcement agencies throughout the state, it could take a very long time before any peace officer arrived at the scene of a crime. By then, the perpetrator will be long gone, and the victim could be dead or seriously wounded. Open carriers realize that there is a very real chance that they will have to fend for themselves if a criminal ever decided to put them in danger of grave harm.
At her press conference, Saldana cited the fact that there have been open carry meetups throughout the state, at which large numbers of open carriers gathered in public locations, such as beaches, coffee shops, and restaurants. She seemed to insiunuate that open carriers did so in order to intimidate people. This left me wondering a couple of things. Who exactly did Saldana think the open carriers were trying to intimidate? And what was the supposed reason for trying to intimidate people? Of course, the entire notion of open carriers trying to intimidate people is ridiculous. The true purpose of the open carry meetups is quite simple. Any time people develop a common interest in something, it is only natural for those people to want to get together to meet with each other and discuss their experiences. The meetups also gave people who were new to the idea of open carry an opportunity to meet face-to-face with the more experienced open carriers and get firsthand advice on what to expect from both the general public and law enforcement while open carrying. And there is also an education aspect to the meetups. Open carriers meeting in groups often carry informational pamphlets detailing various aspects of the law with them. Members of the general public, seeing people open carrying, naturally have a lot of questions, and open carriers are eager to share their knowledge.
Before going any further, an important point must be emphasized. The open carry movement does not revolve around group meetups. The ideal situation is to one day have the general public and law enforcement educated enough about open carry where individual open carriers can go about their daily lives without fearing that “man with a gun” calls will be placed to local law enforcement and that the open carrier will not be confronted by law enforcement at gunpoint, proned out on the ground, and detained for doing absolutely nothing against the law. But it is the fear that such situations can occur that makes it easier for new open carriers to do so at meetups, in the company of knowledgeable friends, at first.
Saldana’s press conference also seemed to indicate that open carriers somehow pose a risk to public safety. She showed a supposedly informative video in which an actor placed a loaded magazine into an unloaded firearm in a matter of seconds, making the gun ready to fire. Again, this emphasis on her part clearly showed that Saldana did not understand the goal of open carriers. A citizen who is open carrying for self-protection wants to be able to load the firearm and have it ready to use for self-defense in a short period of time. After all, an unloaded firearm is not very useful. Interestingly, California is one of 43 states that currently allows for the open carry of firearms, but it is the only state in which the openly carried firearm must be unloaded. That load condition leaves the citizens of California in a more vulnerable position than open carriers in other states. So, the very thing that Saldana tried to cite as a danger to public safety, being able to load one’s firearm quickly in order to defend oneself, is something that is necessary for self-protection. She was completely clueless as to what she was talking about.
Various pro-gun and anti-gun groups can start make a person’s head spin by citing countless studies and anecdotal evidence suggesting that carrying a firearm makes either an individual or society as a whole more or less safe. But the fact remains that open carry is not a new right. Open carry has been legal for decades, and there is not a single example of an open carrier in California being involved in any sort of gun-related accident where upon society was put in danger.
The California Constitution states “the United States Constitution if the supreme law of the land.” The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution state that the natural “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution also states that all people have certain inalienable rights, and among these are “enjoying and defending life and liberty”, as well as “pursuing and obtaining safety”. That is exactly why open carriers believe wholeheartedly in their right to carry firearms for self-protection.
If AB 1934 becomes law, the right of most people to carry a firearm for self-protection in California will disappear. For those who argue that concealed carry is a viable alternative to open carry, it must be clearly stated that California’s system of issuing concealed weapons permits makes it almost impossible for an average citizens to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm. In most of the heavily populated counties of California, unless one is rich, famous, and/or well-connected politically, one will be found to not have “good cause” to warrant being issued a concealed weapons permit. Thus, if open carry becomes illegal in California, then the right to carry a firearm will, in effect, be taken away from all but the most elite of California’s citizens. That is not equal treatment under the law.
Laws are already on the books restricting who is allowed to open carry. Convicted felons, those with restraining orders against them, known gang members, and those intending to commit a crime are not allowed to open carry. The current penal code authorizes peace officers the authority to examine a firearm to verify that it is unloaded. Anybody who is not authorized to open carry would be foolish to attempt to do so as the additional scrutiny by law enforcement caused by openly carrying, as well as the authorized interaction with open carriers written into the penal code, would leave unauthorized open carriers susceptible to being found in violation of the law. A criminal who intends to maintain the element of surprise when confronting a potential victim will most likely illegally carry a concealed firearm instead of open carrying.
It is the illegally concealed firearms that are carried by criminals that should continue to worry law enforcement and the general public at all times, not the firearms that are openly carried for personal protection by law-abiding citizens who go out of their way to remain in compliance with the law. No matter what laws are passed, the criminals will continue to carry illegally. Laws restricting law-abiding citizens from being able to carry firearms will only serve to make the common man an easier target for violent criminals.
It is also important to note that Saldana has claimed that open carriers cause a drain on limited law enforcement resources. Penal code section 12031(e) authorizes peace officers to inspect the load condition of an openly carried firearm, but it does not mandate the inspection. As more and more people in society become educated about California’s open carry laws, there will be fewer calls to law enforcement about open carriers. As police dispatchers are trained to ask pertinent questions when “man with a gun” calls come in, law enforcement resources will not be misallocated to deal with situations that do not warrant any action. For example, if a person is brandishing a firearm or acting in a threatening manner (which are both already against the law), then law enforcement should clearly be dispatched to the scene. But if an open carrier is simply sipping on a cup of coffee while reading a newspaper, then there is absolutely no need to dispatch law enforcement to deal with the person. Law enforcement in 43 other states is perfectly capable of responding (or not responding) to open carriers based on the totality of the situation. Why would anyone assume that officers in California are any less capable than the officers in the other states to do the same?
Some will argue that the mere presence of gun is a threat to officer safety. This is more of an emotional reaction than a rational one. There is nothing inherent about law-abiding citizens openly carrying firearms that poses an additional threat to officer safety. A properly trained officer should approach any situation with caution, as they never know who the criminal with an illegally concealed weapon might be. In fact, I have personally heard from numerous officers in other states who say that they do not see open carry much of an issue at all. They are accustomed to it. It is simply a matter of training. In California, many officers are trained to immediately recognize a gun as a threat and go into crisis mode, no matter how the individual is behaving. This leaves the officer with little ability to use common sense to evaluate the situation. Officers in other states are trained quite differently. There is no reason why law enforcement officers in California cannot be trained in the same way as the officers in the other 43 states where open carry is legal.
Eventually, the question of open carry comes down to whether the government should be in the habit of taking away inalienable rights from the people. As stated before, open carry is an old right, not a new one. Should the government be allowed to take that right away from the people? I would argue that the answer is a resounding “no”. Allow each law abiding citizen to continue to have the choice to decide whether he or she wishes to carry a firearm for personal protection. The people should be trusted by the government to behave in a responsible manner and do the right thing. But of course, with rights come responsibility. Any person who behaves irresponsibly with a firearm should be willing to face the consequences of doing so.
A few weeks ago, after open carrying for months, I was approached by a group of concerned citizens who felt that it was time for the open carry movement to become more organized. Galvanized by Lori Saldana’s anti-open carry AB 1934, this brand new non-profit group, the Responsible Citizens of California (http://www.responsiblecitizensofcalifornia.org), asked me to become a major part of their organization. This organization is dedicated to defending open carry rights and pushing for shall-issue concealed carry permits in California. Already pressed for time due to my campaign for State Assembly and my full-time regular job, I was at first reluctant to take on the additional duties and commitments of this non-profit organization. But after thinking about it and realizing that my personal beliefs line up perfectly with those of the Responsible Citizens of California, I agreed to become a member of their Board of Directors. Additionally, I have been named the Executive Vice President of the Responsible Citizens of California. I look forward to continuing to push for carry rights in California with the Responsible Citizens of California.
And, so, here we are. AB 1934 is slowly but surely making its way through the California Legislature. It has passed in both the Assembly Public Safety Committee and the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a party-line vote, with the Democrats supporting it and the Republicans voting against it. AB 1934 could come up before a vote on the Assembly floor any day now. I have no idea what will happen. But I intend to fight against AB 1934 and defend the right of law abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection in the State of California.
Now, as an open carry advocate and State Assembly candidate, I have been asked by the Commonwealth Club to take part in a debate on open carry. The debate will take place on June 17 in Lafayette, California (http://tickets.commonwealthclub.org/auto_choose_ga.asp?area=171&shcode=1850). After agreeing to participate in the debate, I was informed that Assemblywoman Lori Saldana will also be taking part in the debate. After months of trying to sit down with her to discuss the issue of open carry, I will finally have my chance to prove that she is on the wrong side of this issue. I am definitely looking forward to it.
Adnan Shahab is a candidate for State Assembly is California’s 20th District. You can visit his official campaign website at http://www.shahab2010.com
California Unloaded Open Carry – May 16, 2010
Back on March 26, I ran into Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley at a political function that I was attending as a candidate for State Assembly. I introduced myself to her and told her that I was an advocate for unloaded open carry. I also told her that I was interested in sitting down with her and talking about some issues that are relevant to open carriers. O’Malley told me that she had just had a meeting with some law enforcement agencies about the issue and would be happy to set up a meeting with me to discuss my concerns.
After weeks of trying to hash out a meeting date and time (both O’Malley and I have very busy schedules), we were finally able to settle on May 17 at 10AM at her office in Oakland. My whole goal was to discuss the current laws with regards to open carry, ignoring the very existence of AB 1934 (which would ban open carry in public in California).
As luck would have it, both O’Malley and I were asked to speak at a candidates forum in Union City this afternoon. (O’Malley is running unopposed for District Attorney, and I am running unopposed for the Republican nomination for State Assembly in the 20th District). Before the event began, I went over to O’Malley to remind her of our meeting tomorrow and deliver some questions that I wanted to get answers to. Before I said anything, she reminded me about the meeting. Clearly, she remembered. As luck would have it, she told me that she was in no rush whatsoever this afternoon, and she said we could probably just have our meeting after the candidates forum. That would save both of us time and effort in the morning. Awesome. That way I could sleep in a little later tomorrow morning.
After O’Malley and I both addressed the crowd, the debate between candidates for Alameda County Superior Court Judge began. It was a complete joke, with all three candidates showing the audience exactly why none of them deserved to be elected judge. I went outside to the lobby and O’Malley and I started our conversation about open carry. O’Malley unabashedly informed me that she was completely anti-gun. I informed her that the law is the law, and she had to abide by the law, regardless of her personal opinions. She acknowledged that, and we continued.
The first issue that I brought up was with regards to what was considered to be a “concealed” firearm. Specifically, I was asking about the provision of California Penal Code 12025 that states, “Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.” I explained that I read this provision to be an example of how a firearm can be openly carried, not the exclusive way that a firearm must be openly carried. In other words, I believe that one may legally openly carry a firearm in a holster that is not on one’s belt. For example, I believe that one can legally open carry in California in a shoulder holster or a thigh holster. O’Malley told me that she understands it the same way that I do and that shoulder holsters and thigh holsters are a legal means to unloaded open carry. It was great to get confirmation about this from the person who is in charge of the office that would be responsible for deciding whether a person gets charged for illegally carrying a concealed weapon in Alameda County.
The next issue that I brought up was with regards to the court decision of People v. Hale, which considered a loaded magazine to be an “essential component” of the firearm. It is my contention that this is bad case law. Furthermore, I would argue that, since I open carry with an unloaded magazine inserted in my firearm, that unloaded magazine completes the firearm. Thus, any spare magazines that I carry on my person, whether loaded or unloaded, are not an essential components of the already complete firearm. O’Malley told me that she interpreted the law the same way that I did. She specifically told me that she saw no illegality in carrying a loaded magazine in one’s pocket or in a magazine pouch that is closed on top. At this point, I was pretty happy with how O’Malley was positioning the District Attorney’s Office on the issue of unloaded open carry.
But then things went downhill very fast. I asked how she saw the difference between “carrying” vs. “transporting” a firearm. I asked whether, assuming that one does not drive through a restricted area, such as a gun free school zone, it is legal to drive while open carrying. O’Malley had no answer for me on this. She said she hasn’t looked at the relevant penal codes and that she would have to look at all the facts of any particular case that came up. It’s pretty frustrating when the person whose office is in charge of prosecuting people is unwilling to let a citizen know how they interpret the legality of something.
And then we got to the most frustrating issue. With regards to Penal Code 626.9, I asked how the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office would interpret the “reasonably should know” provision pertaining to guns not being allowed within 1,000 feet of the grounds of any K-12 school. I asked whether a reasonable person could be expected to know whether they were 950 feet away versus 1,000 feet away from a school. O’Malley didn’t hesitate to say that she feels citizens are responsible for knowing exactly where the 1,000 foot demarcation is. I expressed that I felt it was completely unreasonable to expect such a thing from citizens. When I brought up the issue that I contacted the City of Fremont and was told that they didn’t have any maps indicating gun free school zones, she didn’t seem to care. And then when I told her that the Fremont Police Department finally decided to create such a map, but that map was incomplete, O’Malley still didn’t seem to care. O’Malley believes that it is the duty of the citizen to know where each and every K-12 school is located and where the 1,000 foot boundary from their grounds lies. She doesn’t seem to think the verbage “reasonably should know” means anything. Apparently, Alameda County’s District Attorney had a difficult time parsing words.
O’Malley and I then conversed about the whole overarching issue of open carry and responsiveness of the government to questions raised by open carriers. I told her how frustrating it is for an open carrier such as myself, who goes to extreme lengths to try to remain within the boundaries of the law, to not receive answers from government officials as to exactly what is and is not legal. I told her that I don’t want to have to be a test case that goes to trial in order to get clarification on something. O’Malley told me that that’s how the system works, and she sees absolutely nothing wrong with it. Unless a test case goes to trial, open carriers will not get definitive black and white answers on some of the issues. She said that her office generally tries to look at all the facts and the totality of the situation when deciding whether to charge a person in a case. Another interesting thing is that O’Malley mentioned that whether charges are pressed depends on who a person is. She cited an example of where a person might be trying to push or test the boundaries of the law. It’s disturbing to hear that the Alameda County District Attorney admitted that, even under the exact same set of circumstances, exactly who a person is will influence whether that person gets charged with a crime or not. I thought justice was supposed to be blind. Silly me.
After our conversation was over, I returned to the auditorium to find that the candidates for Alameda County Supervisor in District 2 had started their debate. All four of them were a complete joke. I have decided to simply not vote for any of the candidates for Superior Court Judge or Alameda County Supervisor. None of the seven candidates are any good. Too bad nobody decided to run against Nancy O’Malley for Alameda County District Attorney.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Senate Approves Bill That Could Jail Parents if Kids are Chronically Truant
Yesterday, the California Senate approved a bill that would hold parents responsible if their children are chronically truant. The bill would let prosecutors charge parents with misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in jail and $2,000 fine if their kids miss too much school. Chronic truancy would be defined in a separate pending bill as missing 10 percent or more of the school year without a valid excuse.
The new law would apply only to parents or guardians of children age 6 or older in kindergarten through eighth grade. Prosecutors would have to prove the parents failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the student to attend school. Judges could delay the punishment to parents as an incentive to get their children to class.
State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), said his bill, SB 317, is a public safety measure because children who do poorly in school or drop out are more likely to commit crimes. “Three-quarters of our state inmate populations are high school dropouts,” Leno said. San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Attorney General, sought the truancy legislation.
I strongly support parents being involved in the education of their children. I believe that it is the duty of a parent to try to instill good study habits in their kids and emphasize the importance of a good education. But I also understand reality. If a child does not want to learn, then no matter how hard the parents might try to get them to attend class and pay attention, it simply won’t work. An unmotivated child will not learn. And especially at the junior high level, a parent who is miles away at work while their child is at school will have a difficult time preventing their child from cutting class.
Putting a parent in jail for their child’s truancy will do nothing to fix the situation. If anything, it would only make things worse. With the parent in jail, who is going to watch the child? The kid will simply wind up sliding even further into the depths of society.
And for Senator Leno to equate poor school attendance with higher crime is misguided. Correlation is not the same as causation. Leno is insinuating that a lack of school attendance leads to crime. Well, I would argue that it is the poor moral character of the child that comes first. It is exactly that character defect in the child that causes them to both skip out on class and commit crimes.
Education is a privilege. The means to get an education are available and provided by the government. In order to get a proper education, it requires a willingness on the part of the student to want to learn. No matter how hard a parent tries, if the kid doesn’t want to be there, the kid will not learn anything. At that point, one has to wonder whether keeping such a student in class is even worth is. Why not allow the unmotivated student to remain separate from those who actually take their education seriously? That would mean one less distraction in the classroom for the other students and one fewer troublemaker for the teachers to have to deal with. If the parent wants to fight hard to motivate the student to turn their life around and get an education, that’s great. If not, then that’s something for that family to deal with.
The government needs to realize that not every child is cut out to be an excellent student. We need to stop wasting our energy on those who are unwilling to put forth the necessary effort to succeed in life. Instead of punishing parents for the bad decisions on the parts of their kids, we should focus on giving those who are trying their best every possible avenue to succeed.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Assembly Votes to Give Food Stamps to Convicted Drug Felons
The California Assembly has approved a bill that would allow convicted drug felons to collect food stamps. Under the federally funded food stamps program, people convicted of drug felonies are banned from receiving food stamps after they leave prison. The California bill would not even require the convicted drug felons to prove that they are in treatment for their drug addiction. About 900 California felons could become eligible for the food stamps, costing the federal government up to $1 million.
Only in California would our elected state Legislators be willing to give food stamps to convicted drug felons. Why are the taxpayers being forced to pay to feed these horrible people? The government is already hurting for money, and we our wasting what little resources we have on the scum of society? It simply isn’t right.
Let’s vote everyone out of the State Assembly and replace them with people with some common sense.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Fremont City Council Bans Plastic-Foam Food Containers
On May 11, the Fremont City Council approved a measure prohibiting food vendors from using plastic-foam takeout containers. The ban, which was passed the council by a unanimous 5-0 vote, will take effect on January 1, 2011. Councilmember Bob Wieckowski (who is a Democrat running for State Assembly in District 20, the same seat that I am currently running for) was the law’s main sponsor.
The Fremont law applies to all establishments that provide prepared food, including supermarkets, caterers, and cafeterias, as well as to large groups renting city facilities. They will now be forced to use containers that can be composted or recycled. Inspectors from the Union Sanitary District, who already make yearly inspections of food vendors, will be in charge of ensuring compliance. Fines will escalate from $100 to up to $500 a day. Fremont will become the fifth city in Alameda County to implement a plastic-foam ban, joining Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland.
This is yet another example of the government getting involved with issues that are best left up to the free market to decide. Let’s think through this issue. Currently, a business owner can decide to either use plastic-foam containers or not use plastic-foam containers. A lot of factors go into the decision-making process, including the cost of the containers, the effectiveness of the containers, and public opinion of the containers. If the business owner decides to use the plastic-foam container, and it turns out that customers believe the containers are bad for the environment, then the customers will be less likely to frequent that particular restaurant. Sales will decline, and the business owner, in order to increase business, will have a natural tendency to want to get rid of the offending containers. But if the public didn’t care about the use of the plastic-foam containers, then the business owner will stick with the container that made the best business sense from the very beginning. The free market will lead to the best conclusion. There is no need for the government to step in in this situation.
It is time for us to start seeing what our elected officials are doing. They are slowly expanding the influence of government into every aspect of our lives. I, for one, believe in freedom and liberty. We need to start electing officials who do not believe that it is their duty to command and control every little nuance in the daily lives of citizens and businesses.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com