Northwest Airlines Flight 253
On Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria managed to board a Detroit-bound plane from Amsterdam with an explosive device. Luckily, this terrorist did not succeed in detonating the device. Instead of exploding, it turned into an incendiary device. With the help of courageous passengers on the plane, the fire was contained and Abdulmutallab was subdued.
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, many Americans realized that there is evil in this world and that there are people who are intent on destroying the American way of life. These people despise everything that makes America great. These people do not believe in freedom and will do whatever they can to disrupt the daily lives of Americans.
Unfortunately, after all of these years have passed, far too many Americans have forgotten the dangers that face us each and every day. Far too many people seem to have forgotten that, at this very moment, there are people plotting and scheming to hijack more planes, set off more bombs, and devise ever more sinister plots to hurt Americans. This recent failed terrorist plot should serve as a reminder that we much be on guard at all times. We cannot allow the passage of time to lull us into a state of false security. We cannot become complacent. We must remain vigilant and ensure that America remains a safe place for us, our family, and our friends.
In the next few days and weeks, there will be renewed talks about the tradeoff between personal civil liberties and the security of the nation. This is not a simple issue. Quite honestly, I do not believe any sort of blanket statement can be made to cover each and every possible scenario. Instead, each set of circumstances must be evaluated in order to reach the proper balance between civil liberties and security.
But when it comes to the safety of our nation’s air travel, I feel that a clear course of action should be taken. We should not focus on silly things such as preventing passengers from using the bathroom or putting any personal items on their laps during the last hour of a flight. Instead, the focus should be placed on thoroughly inspecting airline passengers before they even step foot onto a plane in the first place. Technology exists that can virtually ensure that no dangerous items make their way onto an airplane. Some argue that certain security screening measures, such as full body scans, are too invasive and are a violation of civil rights. That is ridiculous. In order to provide safety for the public, I believe it is completely proper to conduct body scans. If a person feels that the scans are too invasive, that is fine. That person can simply choose to drive or take a boat to whichever location hey want to go to instead of flying. Citizens have absolutely no right to airline travel. If they want to fly, they should be willing to go through the proper screening that will significantly reduce the chances of another terrorist attack occurring on American soil.
California’s Ongoing Budget Crisis
Back in early August, just a week after California’s 2009-2010 budget was signed into law, I went on record as saying that I believed it was woefully inadequate. With its accounting sleight of hand and refusal to make the necessary sustainable cuts in spending, it was merely a band-aid used to cover the festering wound that is the financial health of the State of California. Legislators and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “fixed” the $60 billion budget hole with $31 billion in spending cuts, $12.5 billion in temporary tax hikes, $8 billion in federal stimulus money, and $8.4 billion in accounting gimmicks, many of which could only be used once and cannot be repeated this year.
And now, almost five months later, my predictions have come true. Last month, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimated that the state now faces a $20.7 billion gap between what it can expect to collect in revenues and spend over the next 18 months. That figure includes the $6.3 billion deficit for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, and a $14.4 billion deficit for fiscal year 2010-2011, which begins July 1, 2010.
Adding to the problems that the Legislature and the Governor will have to deal with are some legal problems. Among them are lawsuits challenging the legality of $489 million in budget vetoes that Schwarzenegger made in July, lawsuits disputing his claimed right to furlough state workers, lawsuits disputing the borrowing of $1.7 billion from local redevelopment agencies, and lawsuits fighting a federal court order to reduce the prison population. The LAO’s $20.7 billion budget gap forecast assumes that the state will prevail in all of its still-active court cases. If the state does not prevail, the budget hole will get even deeper.
The California Constitution requires the Governor to produce a balanced-budget proposal by January 10, and Schwarzenegger plans to do it on January 8. I will be keeping a close eye on how the budget scenario plays out. It is my hope that the new budget will not include tax increases or “fee hikes”, which is just a creative (and dishonest) way for the government to raise revenue without actually calling it a tax. Instead, the new budget should include deep, meaningful, and sustainable spending cuts that will help secure the financial future of this state. This train needs to get put on the right track once again, and it needs to be done so immediately.
And even if legislators and the Governor do manage to fix the current $20.7 billion budget deficit, the LAO predicts that California will continue to run close to $20 billion-plus deficits through at least the 2014-2015 fiscal year. And that is already using the overly generous assumptions that the economy will recover without a deep or lasting relapse, that there will be lower state funding of K-12 schools and community colleges, that there will be no salary increases for state workers through 2015, and that there are no costly new federal mandates for health care. Realistically, we cannot count on all of those scenarios holding true.
Moving forward, we need to elect legislators into office who are willing to do, not only what is necessary, but also what is right. We need people who are, instead of being likely to cave to special interests, willing to focus on the task at hand and permanently fix the State of California.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Unloaded Open Carry – December 16, 2009
On Monday, December 14, a “zoning technician” at the Fremont Planning Commission told me to check with the Fremont Unified School District to find a list of school zones. On Tuesday, December 15, I received an e-mail response from Nicole Steward, the communications officer at the Fremont Unified School District. All she did was simply direct me to was a map showing the attendance boundaries of each of Fremont’s high schools, which is completely useless for determining “school zones” as defined in Penal Code sections 626.9. She cited “safety reasons” as a reason why the district does not post individual school site maps. Apparently, according to 626.9, it is dangerous to have a firearm near a school, but the Fremont Unified School District does not want me to know where all the schools are, thus increasing the chances of me accidentally going within 1,000 feet of a school. Does anybody else appreciate the idiocy at play here?
Last week, I contacted the National Rifle Association and asked whether they could connect me with any lawyers who specialize in firearms laws. Unfortunately, the law firm that they told me to contact is located in Southern California. I did get a chance to speak with one of the Associates at the law firm on Tuesday, December 15. He basically confirmed everything that I had already figured out on my own. The statutes are on the books, but law enforcement officers and district attorneys have been known to interpret those statutes in their own ways, even if those ways do not conform with comprehension of the English language. The government tries to avoid giving guidance on issues because it does not want to be held to those standards and wants to be able to change its position if necessary. It won’t be until cases make their way through the court system that we will get more definitive interpretations of statutes that relate to firearms. Also, the government seems to have no obligation to clarify their position on the law when asked for specifics by a citizen, but they will not hesitate to bust a citizen if they feel like there might be a violation of the law.
With the obvious disclaimer that his and his law firm’s interpretations of the statutes might be different than those of the government, the lawyer then attempted to answer some of my questions regarding how to UOC in as safe of a manner as possible. He noted that there have been situations where people have had charges pressed against them for concealing a loaded magazine, so he suggested, to be safe, that a person open carries a magazine on his or her belt. He said that there appears to be nothing in the books preventing drop-leg thigh holsters, but he said he could see an overzealous law enforcement officer and district attorney saying that a shoulder holster under one’s arm could be viewed as being concealed. He also suggested that it would be safe to avoid driving while open carrying. This isn’t to say that he believes that any of these things are illegal. He was just responding to my attempt to glean an almost-completely safe protocol for UOC. Quite honestly, he reads the statutes the same way that I read them. He also told me that, in his experience, people usually do not get charged with UOC within 1,000 feet of a school unless they are on school grounds or pretty much directly across the street from a school. This isn’t to say that you can’t be arrested for going slightly within 1,000 feet of a school with a firearm. I’m sure many people have probably had charges pressed against them for exactly that. He was simply saying, based on his experience, it is the blatant violations of school zones that are most likely to get a person into trouble.
Needless to say, my conversation with this lawyer did absolutely nothing to ease my concern at accidentally violating the law or having an LEO who understands the law differently than the way I do from arresting me and ultimately being prosecuted by a district attorney with an axe to grind. He also mentioned that, while our conversation was free, if I actually were to get in trouble with the law, his firm’s retainer is $5,000. Unloaded open carry could potentially get expensive really quick. I am definitely going to have to get some more advice on this issue. And it would be wonderful to find an attorney who would be willing to defend me pro bono if I were to be prosecuted for political reasons.
Now, let’s get to my frustration with this entire situation. Is this really what America has come to? Or, more specifically, is this really what California has devolved into? Has California reached a point where honest, law-abiding citizens are at the mercy of tyrannical government? It isn’t fair that our freedom and financial security can be completely upended by a law enforcement agent or district attorney who chooses to interpret a statute through politically-motivated glasses. It also isn’t right that the very government that I am turning to in an attempt to fully comprehend and comply with the law is not bound to tell me what the law is, and yet that very same government might not hesitate to prosecute me if it feels that I might have violated the very laws which I am asking for clarification on. Isn’t the government supposed to work for the people? If so, why does it feel like the government is fighting against the people?
All of this is absolutely ridiculous. I’m not asking the government to give me anything here. We have people who are on welfare who are suckling off the government’s teat, and we have groups and organizations who are asking for bailouts and begging the government to give them money. I’m not doing anything of the sort. I am not asking the government to give me a single dime. I purchased my own handguns and ammunition with money that I worked hard to earn. I am simply asking the government to allow me to exercise my natural given right to self-protection. I am asking the government to allow me exercise my right to bear arms that is clearly spelled out in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. And I am asking the government to allow me to exercise my right to openly carry a firearm that is stated in the California Penal Code. I don’t understand why there is such a concerted effort on the part of the government to deny the citizens of the State of California their rights. A lot of people should be ashamed of themselves.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Unloaded Open Carry – December 13, 2009 (Part 2)
Friday, December 11 was mostly used to do more research on the Internet with regards to unloaded open carry (UOC). I also sent out a number of inquiries with regards to finding a lawyer in my area who is an expert in California’s firearms laws.
Approaching midnight, I also decided to join Calguns.net. This was a notable step for me because, even thought I have looked at many discussion boards on a wide array of issues in the past (I spent years looking at the Jordan Brand forum at NikeTalk), I had never felt like actually joining and posting on any board. I asked the members for help in locating a local lawyer.
I also became interested in another aspect of the law regarding firearms: California Penal Code Section 626.9. One of the aspects of this section is that it basically sets up a 1,000 foot perimeter around school grounds in which it becomes illegal (in most cases) to carry a firearm. Remember, I am by no means a lawyer (hence my current search for a lawyer), so this is just my amateur comprehension of the statute. But the portion that interests me reads, “(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone…” (emphasis added). It seems clear that it is virtually impossible to know of every school zone, much less exactly where the 1,000 foot perimeter around school grounds falls. I am wondering what kind of standard a district attorney would need in order to prove that a person “reasonably should know” that an area is a school zone. I mean, I clearly know where my elementary, junior high, and high schools are, but I don’t know exactly where the 1,000 foot demarcation is from those school grounds. Also, there are probably lots of schools around that I have absolutely no idea about. How can I be expected to “reasonably” know where every single school is located? This is further complicated by the clause which states, “(k) This section does not require that notice be posted regarding the proscribed conduct.” Basically, the government does not have to indicate where the school zones are with signs or anything else, and no signs must be posted that it is illegal to carry a firearm within those areas.
After looking around and posting on Calguns.net for a while, it was now approaching 2:20AM on Saturday, December 12. I decided to e-mail one of my friends who is an officer in the Fremont Police Department, as well as Fremont Chief of Police Craig Steckler, regarding obtaining a list or map of every school zone in the Fremont area. At 7:43AM, I received an e-mail from Chief Steckler stating the Fremont Police Department does not have any documents listing where all school zones are. He suggested that I should check with the Fremont Planning Commission or the Fremont Unified School District. At 12:47PM, my friend in the FPD e-mailed me back and said that he would do some digging to see if a school zone map exists. Naturally, I then forwarded Chief Steckler’s e-mail to the Fremont Planning Commission and the Fremont Unified School District. I also contacted the New Haven Unified School District via their online form, and I sent an e-mail to both the Superintendent of the Newark Unified School District and the Fremont branch of the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. I am making an effort to find out where all school zones are in my area.
One lawyer who I contacted basically told me that the gun rights movement does not want any test cases at the moment. Believe me when I say that I have no intention of being a test case. That is why I am trying to figure out what is safe and not safe to do. And so the search goes on for a lawyer who is sympathetic to my current process of gathering information in order to avoid doing anything that could possibly be construed as being illegal.
I am starting to get conflicting advice from people regarding my efforts to fully understand the laws regarding UOC. Some people are telling me to go for it and start open carrying immediately. Others are asking me to lay low and allow other court cases to get settled first. And there is another group of people who want me to drop the issue completely because they feel it will hurt my chances of getting elected in 2010. (Obviously, these people do not understand how severely the deck is stacked against me in my State Assembly race. There is no way that a conservative candidate who isn’t willing to stick his or her neck out and take a stand for what it right has any chance to get elected in gerrymandered AD20. The status quo favors the Democrats, who have a stranglehold on the area and feel no need to listen to any of the people.) Quite honestly, I see absolutely no reason to stop asking questions. Whenever I am interested in something, I have never hesitated to ask questions. As far as I’m concerned, there is no harm in asking the questions. But for those people who have never had a chance to meet me in person, don’t worry. I’m not going to go off and do something stupid. I am all about gathering as much information as possible before making an informed decision. I am definitely still in the information gathering stage, and I won’t even think about making a huge decision until I am completely comfortable that I have a firm grasp on the entire situation.
I am also predicting that my progress on educating myself about UOC is going to slow down significantly from this point forward. I have already talked with the people who are relatively easy to speak with. I have a feeling that I am now going to be speaking with people who will be deliberately evasive in giving me the answers that I am seeking. Certain people have a fear of taking any real responsibility in life. They simply like to sit on their butts, do nothing, get paid a lot of money, and have a fancy title that makes them feel important. I understand that. I don’t respect it, but I understand it. At the same time, I know how to multi-task. I can work on other issues while this one continues to develop.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Unloaded Open Carry – December 13, 2009
I just wanted to take an opportunity to summarize the responses that I have gotten so far from law enforcement agencies about a few different aspects of unloaded open carry (UOC). For the sake of disclosure, I would first like to recap who I spoke with at each agency. (More detailed summaries of my conversations with each agency can be found in earlier posts.)
Fremont Police Department (FPD): Officer Bruner (Badge #1986); Officer MacDonald (Badge #12553)
Newark Police Department (NPD): Commander Milner (Badge #C-1)
Union City Police Department (UCPD): Sgt. Souza (Badge #2601)
Milpitas Police Department (MPD): Sgt. Tran (Badge #200)
Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO): Sgt. Gemmell (Badge #1365)
California Highway Patrol (CHP): Officer Simmons (Did not get Badge #, but located in Hayward office)
California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms (DOJBF): Did not get his name, but located in Sacramento office
Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Fremont Branch (ACDAO): Male within the district attorney’s Fremont office who asked that I do not use his name
Now here are the questions that I asked:
Does a loaded magazine have to be carried openly, or can it be concealed in a pocket?
FPD: Bruner says it is legal to carry in pocket, but recommends that you open carry. MacDonald says it is illegal to carry ammunition on your person or have it in your vicinity if you UOC.
NPD: Up to the district attorney to interpret, but recommends open carry.
UCPD: Loaded magazine can be carried in pocket.
MPD: Loaded magazine is a firearm, so it must be open carried.
ACSO: Loaded magazine can be carried in pocket.
CHP: Did not have the opportunity to ask the question.
DOJBF: Told me to talk to a local district attorney or get legal advice.
ACDAO: Refused to give me legal advice, but said I “should be safe” if I complied with ACSO policies.
Is it legal to UOC in a shoulder holster and/or drop-leg thigh holster?
FPD: Did not have an opportunity to ask the question.
NPD: Shoulder holsters and drop-leg thigh holsters are not legal.
UCPD: Drop-leg thigh holster is legal, but shoulder holster could be construed as concealed.
MPD: Any form of UOC is fine as long as not concealed by clothing.
ACSO: Shoulder holster and drop-leg thigh holsters are legal.
CHP: Did not have an opportunity to ask the question.
DOJBF: Told me to talk to a local district attorney or get legal advice.
ACDAO: Refused to give me legal advice, but said I “should be safe” if I complied with ACSO policies.
Is it legal to UOC while driving a car?
FPD: Did not have an opportunity to ask the question.
NPD: Not legal to UOC while driving a car because firearm must be in a locked container.
UCPD: UOC while driving a car is legal, but emphasized that firearm must not be concealed.
MPD: Legal to UOC while driving.
ACSO: UOC is fine while driving as long as firearm is on your person.
CHP: Not legal to UOC while driving.
DOJBF: Told me to talk to a local district attorney or get legal advice.
ACDAO: Refused to give me legal advice, but said I “should be safe” if I complied with ACSO policies.
There you have it. I have received a wide range of differing answers from the agencies that I have spoken with so far. As you can imagine, I am pretty frustrated with the lack of a definitive answer one way or the other on these basic issues. It makes it very difficult for a citizen to be certain that he or she is not breaking the law.
If I get an opportunity to speak with additional agencies (or additional representatives from these same agencies), I will post an updated summary of their positions.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
You Know What You Are Getting
It has finally happened. My campaign has finally reached a point where I am starting to hear random people complaining to me about their individual pet peeves. I understand that different people have different issues that are important to them. I respect that. But at the same time, people need to understand that, just because an issue is important to you, that does not necessarily mean that that issue is important to anybody else.
I am more than willing to listen to issues that important to people. But after listening to each issue, I have to go through an evaluation process. I have to figure out where I stand on that issue, and I have to evaluate how much weight to give to that particular issue. If an issue seems so esoteric or meaningless that I don’t feel it is worth dedicating huge amounts of time to, then I simply will not dedicate much time to it. Plain and simple.
I know how other politicians do it. They will nod in agreement and tell potential voters how much they feel their pain and do whatever it takes to get the voter to eventually cast their ballot for them. They will do this despite the fact that they do not support what they say they are supporting and will talk trash about a person behind that person’s back. Well, that’s not how I do things. I don’t lie to a person’s face just to get them to like me. I have never lived my life that way in the past, and I do not plan on starting now.
I am who I am. I believe in what I believe in. Unless substantial new information develops or a misunderstanding of the issue is clarified, my beliefs are unlikely to change. I am proud of what I believe in, and I will not hesitate to communicate that belief to the people. That is part of the reasons why I have this blog. Do you know of any other politicians who are as willing to take a stand on the issues and have those positions available on record for scrutiny by the people in the same way that I am?
Unfortunately, we are currently living in a society where far too many people are coddled. If a parent has a child who has poor grades or messes up in any sort of way, far too many parents have an inclination to blame the teachers or anyone else. In their minds, everyone, except for their own child, is responsible for the failure of their kid. And if someone screws up at work and gets fired, instead of blaming themselves, far too many people are willing to put the blame on their boss or on the “system”. That’s not right. Someone needs to take a stand and be willing to tell things like they are. And that is exactly what I am going to continue to do.
Along the same lines, if I run into someone on the political trail who I feel is being unreasonable, I am going to call them out on it. Depending on the person’s demeanor and the extent of their absurdity, I may call them out politely, or I might openly ridicule them. Either way, they are going to know how I feel about them. With me, you know what you are getting. If you like what I believe in, then I welcome your vote. If you do not believe in what I believe in, then vote for someone else. Just understand that if what you want is an honest politician who is in it because he genuinely cares about improving society, then I am pretty much one of your only options. There are not many people in this world who are like me with regards to that who are willing to run for public office. If you choose to reject me, then you are choosing to maintain the status quo.
My goal here is to focus on core values that are sorely lacking in society today: striving to improve oneself, putting in hard work, doing what you are supposed to do, and taking responsibility for one’s own actions. These are core values that everyone should be able to rally around. If we can agree on these basic principles and get the majority of the people to actually start behaving like fully contributing members of society, then we can get this country back on the right track. (Another essential component will be to get our government to start behaving honestly, responsibly, and in good faith. I am currently working on that issue, and when I win my election, I will continue to push for a fairer government.) But if we continue to get distracted by every little peripheral issue, then we, as a society, are going to continue to slip into the abyss of futility. The America that I love so very much will cease to exist.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Unloaded Open Carry – December 11, 2009
At around 10:30AM on Thursday, December 10, I received a call back from Sgt. Souza (Badge #2601) at the Union City Police Department. Sgt. Souza seemed to be a very nice person. He explained to me that the day before had been very busy at the UCPD, and he was calling me back to make sure someone had responded to my earlier inquiry. I told him that I had not received a call back and that the UCPD was the last local law enforcement agency that I was waiting to hear back from. I explained to him that I was simply trying to get some clarification about how his agency interpreted California’s unloaded open carry laws. Fortunately, Sgt. Souza informed me that the UCPD is doing some training on that specific issue. He explained that safety of the officer is the main concern for him. He said he advises his officers to draw a gun on any person who is open carrying who they do not recognize as being a law enforcement agent. He also told me that he would expect that the officers would prone the person out and handcuff the person until the firearm could be inspected to ensure that it was unloaded and a background check could be done on the person. He also told me that he would expect his officers to treat everyone the same. When I asked him whether he would expect his officers to draw their weapons, prone out, and handcuff the Mayor of Union City if he were open carrying, Sgt. Souza said that he would. He said that even the Mayor can have stress and have a bad day and that he would not be willing to risk the life of his officers by not taking every precaution in dealing with such a situation.
It was a lengthy conversation (almost as long as my conversation with Commander Milner at the Newark Police Department last Monday). I eventually got through my three questions. Sgt. Souza told me that, as long as a loaded magazine is not attached to the firearm, it can be concealed. He said that a drop-leg thigh holster would definitely be legal, and it might even be a safer way to open carry than a belt holster because it is less likely to get covered by an arm or clothing. He did, however, express reservations about the legality of a shoulder holster. Surprised, I expressed that I would think that a shoulder holster would be the least likely to be construed as being concealed in any way or in violation of open carry. Sgt. Souza explained that carrying in a shoulder holster could be interpreted as concealed carry if a person’s arms were crossed or if the holster were under the arm pit, thus obstructing open view of the firearm. He said that there is no issue open carrying while driving as a car, but he emphasized that the firearm cannot be concealed. I asked him whether that would necessitate orienting the firearm so that it is visible to an officer who is approaching the car window. He advised me that a person should keep their hands as far away from the firearm as possible and to notify the officer that you are open carrying as soon as he or she approached the car. He also advised to try to get in a position where the officer is able to view the firearm.
Another interesting issue came to light as I spoke with Sgt. Souza. At one point, he asked me what organization I was affiliated with. At that point, I realized that a couple of the other officers who I had spoken with had asked me a similar question. I asked Sgt. Souza why he was interested in that. He explained that one of the reasons why it might be so difficult for me to get outright answers one way or the other from law enforcement officers when I ask a question is because many of them feel like members of the public ask them questions to pump them for information and try to put them on the spot. That would also explain why, when I told Sgt. Souza about how I believed open carry in a shoulder holster did not seem to concealed in any way, Sgt. Souza said something to the effect of, “Well, I expect to see some people carrying in shoulder holsters in the near future.” He had assumed that I was probing for areas that I could test the limits of the law on. He thought I would go out and tell some sort of organization that I was working with to have multiple people open carry in shoulder holsters in Union City to see what happens. I explained to Sgt. Souza that I am not representing any sort of organization. I am representing me, myself, and I. I speak for Adnan Shahab. I am representing my right to defend myself and expressing an interest to exercise my right to openly carry an unloaded firearm that is guaranteed to me under California law.
I am not trying to play any sort of “gotcha politics” here. For that to be the case, that would necessitate me knowing the correct black and white answer and then questioning law enforcement officers in an effort to catch them making a mistake. What I am doing is quite the opposite. From talking to many people, it appears that there is no black and white answer. Instead, there seems to be a whole lot of gray area when it comes to California’s unloaded open carry laws. Well, quite honestly, gray area scares me. I most definitely do not want to break the law, and I don’t want to go to jail. That is exactly why I am asking so many questions. I am trying to ask experts in the field to clarify the issue for me. Honestly, I think that it’s a shame that the California Attorney General cannot simply send an advisory message out to all law enforcement agencies and district attorneys within the state on how to interpret the statutes on the books. Until that happens, we will not get a black and white answer on unloaded open carry until a test case goes through the courts. And like I said, I do not want to risk going to jail by being that test case.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture
This will be brief. I would like to say a few words about Barack Obama’s Nobel lecture. It was probably one of the best speeches that I have ever heard Obama give. There were only a few minor points that I disagreed with, such as his insinuation that the United States intentionally condoned torture. I do not believe that the government authorized anybody to torture anyone else. I do believe that aggressive interrogation techniques were used, but that is not the same as torture. And I do believe that a few rogue individuals may have gone too far in some circumstances. But those isolated incidents were due to deficiency in those few individuals, not due to any sort of officially sanctioned policy condoning torture on the part of the United States government.
Obama started off his Nobel lecture by admitting that he had hardly done anything to deserve being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. After all, he was nominated for the award after being President for only 10 days. Clearly, he had done absolutely nothing by that time to deserve receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. By the time it was announced last October that Obama had won the award, he still had not done a single meaningful thing to deserve it. And even still to this day in December when he was actually given the Nobel Peace Prize, he has done nothing substantive to deserve the award.
I would now like to address the most meaningful part of Obama’s Nobel lecture. Barack Obama was correct when he stated that there is such a thing as a just war. He was also correct in saying that evil does exist in this world. He noted that “a non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies” and that “negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms”. He also said, “To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.” These are not new notions by any stretch of the imagination. These are basic concepts that I have articulated many times in the past. But I cannot claim credit for creating these ideas. Many clear-thinking individuals before me have understood these basic truths. To deny them as facts is to do a disservice to reality.
Following Obama’s lecture, I am now left asking a very important question: How do Barack Obama’s statements on the existence of just war differ from the words and actions of former President George W. Bush? Obama said, “We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.” George W. Bush did not want to go to war. He used force because it was necessary and because it was morally justified.
If Barack Obama is correct in his assertion that there is such a thing as a just war, which I believe to be true, then George W. Bush was just as correct in doing what he did while President of the United States.
California Unloaded Open Carry – December 9, 2009 (Part 2)
Today was an interesting day in my quest to get some answers about California’s unloaded open carry laws. This is a record of what transpired.
At around 1:45PM on Wednesday, December 9, I attempted to contact the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. Being as I live in Fremont, I called their branch at the Fremont Hall of Justice. The man with whom I spoke gave me his name with no hesitation. But at the end of the call, after he had already told me everything that he was going to tell me, he said that he did not want to be quoted and that he did not want his name to be used anywhere. I did record his name for my records, but, for now, I will abide by his wishes to not be named. He did say, however, that it was okay for me to refer to him as a male within the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. He told me that he could not give me any sort of legal advice with regards to California’s unloaded open carry laws. He pointed me at 12025 of the Penal Code and told me to interpret the statute for myself. During the course of our conversation and my attempts to get him to give me some sort of guidance with regards to how the District Attorney’s Office would react to unloaded open carry, he seemed intrigued to hear how some of the law enforcement agencies that I spoke with reacted to my questions. I informed him that many agencies do not seem to have specific policies to deal with unloaded open carry and that it is left up to the interpretation of individual officers to understand the statutes. I also told him that I got conflicting responses from many different law enforcement officers. But the man seemed intrigued when I told him that I was informed that the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office does indeed have a policy specifically dealing with unloaded open carry. After I explained to him the positions of the Sheriff’s Office, he told me that I “should be safe” if I followed their policies. That is hardly a definitive position that I can take solace in, especially coming from somebody who is unwilling to go on record with his response.
At around 5:00PM on Wednesday, December 9, I once again called the Union City Police Department. At first I was told by a woman that the Watch Commander was in a meeting and that I would be transferred to his voicemail. I was transferred, wound up getting stuck in one of those “Press 1 to talk to so-and-so, Press 2 to look up officers by name” phone trees of death, and was then dumped off on another woman who I had to explain everything to once again. This second woman told me that Watch Commanders don’t have voicemail (why did the first lady try to send me to his voicemail if it doesn’t exist?) and that he was out on the streets at the moment (not in a meeting?). Apparently, UCPD is the most difficult local law enforcement agency to get a hold of an officer at. The second woman told me that she could take down my name and number and give it to the Watch Commander when he returned. I am still waiting to get a call back.
Starting around 5:30PM I started doing more research about California’s unloaded open carry laws online. I found some discussion threads at Calguns.net to be extremely relevant to the issues that I am researching. I also read the court decisions in the cases of People v. Knight and People v. Clark.
Unhappy with the response that I got from the man at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office earlier in the day, I decided to e-mail the Fremont branch a little after 10:00PM. I am hoping to get a more meaningful response from somebody at the DA’s Office this time. And hopefully that person will be willing to go on record with their response.
I am now trying to find a lawyer in my area who is an expert in California firearms laws. It would be nice to find someone who is an authority on the subject of unloaded open carry. And, just in case I do decide to eventually open carry, I want to know a lawyer who will be able to help me if I either accidentally break the law or am unfairly arrested and prosecuted because of misinterpretations of the statutes on the part of law enforcement. If anyone knows of any such lawyers (hopefully ones who are willing to work pro bono) in the Fremont area, please do not hesitate to send their information to me at AdnanShahab@aol.com
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Unloaded Open Carry – December 9, 2009
Over the last few days, I have taken a heightened interest in California’s unloaded open carry laws. Since my first blog entry a few days ago, I have decided to refer to it as “unloaded open carry” instead of simply “open carry” because I feel the unloaded aspect of the process is critical to people understanding what I am talking about.
In talking with a few more law enforcement agencies over the last two days, I have also decided that it is important to chronicle the learning process that I am currently going through. I want people to understand that I am not simply some crazy person who wants to walk around with a gun. (Hell, at this point, I’m not even sure whether I will ever get to a point where I actually do feel comfortable enough to open carry.) Instead, I am making every effort to fully understand California’s unloaded open carry laws. I am endeavoring to make sure that, if I do make the decision to open carry, I do not break any laws. Furthermore, in case I do accidentally break the law, I want it noted that I am trying not to break the law.
Another issue that I have run up against is that different law enforcement agencies read the statutes on unloaded open carry very differently. And even speaking with different officers within the same law enforcement agency, I have heard vastly differing interpretations of the statutes. That scares me. With so much left up to interpretation, a person who does decide to open carry in California runs the risk of a law enforcement agent arresting them for something that is completely legal. Taking the interpretation argument even further, there is always the risk that a district attorney may interpret the statute quite differently from the way a well-intentioned citizen might interpret it. And who knows what could happen if such a case eventually wound up in the hands of California jury. And so I will make an attempt to log as much of the process that I am going through for the sake of posterity.
When last I left this issue, there were three main issues that I wanted to gain clarity on:
- Is it legal to open carry an unloaded handgun in a shoulder holster or drop-leg thigh holster?
- Does the holster that is being used for open carry have to have a snap closure?
- Is it legal to open carry an unloaded handgun while driving a car?
I also wanted to revisit a question that I thought I had already gained clarity on. I continued to read differing opinions on the issue on the Internet, so I wanted to know:
- While open carrying an unloaded firearm, does a loaded magazine have to be open carried? (Or can a loaded magazine be concealed in a pocket?)
With these four questions in mind, I contacted the Union City Police Department, the Milpitas Police Department, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, the Fremont Police Department (for a second time), and the State of California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. The following a summary of my interaction with each agency.
I e-mailed Union City Police Department on Friday, December 4, but I never got any sort of response. I also called the UCPD at 11:50AM on Monday, December 7 and asked to speak to a desk officer. There was no desk officer available to speak with. A person at the Union City Police Department took down my name and number and told me that I would be called back. I never received a call back.
I called the Milpitas Police Department around 5:15PM on Monday, December 7. I spoke with Sgt. Tran (Badge #200) who was very helpful. In response to my questions, Sgt. Tran said that a loaded magazine is considered to be a firearm, so it must not be concealed and must be open carried. He said that any form of open carry in a holster is legal as long as the firearm is not concealed in any way by clothing or other things, so shoulder holsters and drop-leg thigh holsters are legal. Sgt. Tran had not heard anything about snap closures, and he believes snap closures are not necessary on the holster. He also said that is legal to open carry while driving a car. He cited the fact that it is legal to drive around with an unloaded shotgun in a rack in your car as evidence of the legality.
In response to an e-mail inquiry that I sent to the Newark Police Department on Friday, December 4, I got an e-mail message on Monday, December 7 stating that my original message was going to be passed along to a Watch Commander. Approximately 8:20AM on Tuesday, December 8, I received a call from Commander Tom Milner (Badge #C-1). Commander Milner was a very pleasant guy who was more than willing to talk with me for as long as I wanted to talk about the issue of unloaded open carry. He told me that Newark leaves it up to the discretion of the officer to look at the totality of the situation when called to the scene of a person who is open carrying. He said that it is up to the interpretation of the district attorney as to whether a loaded magazine must be open carried. He said that he, personally, would prefer that the magazine were carried openly. He said that it is not legal to open carry in a shoulder or drop-leg thigh holster and that the location of the firearm on the belt in the mid-section of the body probably harkens back to the days of the old west. He said there are no specific of any type of retention in the code, so a snap closure is not necessary. And after first saying that it was legal to open carry while driving a car, he then changed his mind. Citing 12026.1, he said that it is not legal to open carry while driving a car because the unloaded firearm must be locked in a container.
Around 9:30AM on December 8, I called the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office. I spoke with Sgt. Gemmell (Badge #1365). Sgt. Gemmell told me that the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office actually has a policy manual regarding open carry. I asked him whether there was a copy of that manual that I could take a look at, but he said it is not available to the public. Sgt. Gemmell told me that he was going to locate their policy manual on open carry and find the answers to my questions. He called me back around 10:00AM with the answers to my questions. Sgt. Gemmell told me that it is legal to carry a loaded magazine concealed in your pocket and that the key is that there cannot be any ammunition in the chamber of the firearm. He said that any open carry holster is fine, so shoulder and drop-leg thigh holsters are okay. He had not heard anything about snap closures on a holster, so snap closures are not necessary. He then told me that, as long as an unloaded firearm is being carried openly on your person, it is fine to open carry while driving. He cautioned that if the firearm is not on your person (e.g. on the passenger seat, under the driver’s seat, etc.), it is a violation of the law. He also reminded me to be cautious of school zones and government buildings.
I then decided to call the Fremont Police Department again. Around 10:50AM, I spoke with Officer MacDonald (Badge #12553). I was explaining to Officer MacDonald that I had called a few days earlier and spoke with Officer Bruner. I told her that I wanted to get clarification and ask some additional questions. I started off by saying something to the effect of, “I already know that it’s legal to carry a loaded magazine. I am trying to figure out if the loaded magazine must be open carried.” To this, Officer MacDonald told me that it is illegal to carry ammunition on your person or have it in your vicinity if you are unloaded open carrying. I retorted that she might be mistaken because I had already spoken with numerous law enforcement officers who said it was legal to carry a loaded magazine. Officer MacDonald seemed to get upset with me. She asked me something like, “Well, if you already asked the question, why are you calling again?” I was shocked at her tone. What kind of community relations is that on the part of a law enforcement officer? I responded by telling her that my question for her was whether the loaded magazine needed to open carried, not whether I could carry it in the first place. Officer MacDonald then told me that she had to go because she had to deal with a person at her desk. She took down my name and number and told me that she would call me back. At around 11:40AM, Officer MacDonald called me back. She told me to Google search “Department of Justice Firearms Division” and look at the case laws on that website. Basically, she punted the entire issue and told me to figure it out for myself. I might have to call the Fremont Police Department back and speak to someone (not Officer MacDonald) who is actually willing to talk with me about the issue of unloaded open carry.
Around 1:10PM on December 8, 2009, I called the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. The man who I spoke with referred to penal code sections 12025(f), 12026(b), and 12031(e). He told me that he cannot give me any sort of legal advice. He also told me to talk to the local district attorney or to seek legal advice from someone who is an expert in the field of open carry.
So, I am now left with a situation where I cannot get concrete answers to some basic questions about California’s unloaded open carry laws. About the only thing that I am confident in after the last two days is that a snap closure retention is not necessary on a holster used for open carry (sorry Officer Bruner), so I am going to drop that issue. It seems that there is a whole lot that is left up to the interpretation of law enforcement officers and district attorneys. This process is frustrating, but I am not going to get discouraged easily. This topic interests me, so I am going to do a little more digging. I want to get a response from somebody who is in a position to give me a definitive answer to my questions.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com