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
California Legislative Committee Approves Bill to Ban Aluminum Bats
Yesterday, a California legislative committee advanced a bill that would place a two-year moratorium on the use of metal bats in high school baseball. The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) in response to safety concerns that were raised when a Marin County teenager was severely injured earlier this year.
The moratorium would allow for the bodies that govern baseball at the high school and collegiate level to review the safety of aluminum bats, which some say are more dangerous than their wooden counterparts.
The Senate Education Committee approved the bill on a 5-1 vote. It now moves to the full Senate for consideration.
From the moment that I saw the news story about pitcher Gunnar Sandberg of Marin Catholic High School going into a coma after being hit by a line drive off an aluminum bat, I knew that something like this was going to happen. Legislators have a tendency to react to current events, even if their reactions are completely misguided. (For a clear example, just look at Assemblymember Lori Saldana’s AB 1934, which would ban open carry. AB 1934 is a misguided reaction to the recent actions of the open carry movement, even though open carry has been legal in California for decades.) Assemblymember Huffman made a knee jerk reaction to introduce the new legislation to ban aluminum bats immediately following Sandberg’s injury.
What needs to be mentioned is that aluminum bats have been used in high school and college baseball games for decades. Aluminum bats provide a far more cost effective way to play baseball, as they do not routinely break in the same way that wooden bats do. Sure, injuries will occasionally happen as a result of line drives off aluminum bats. But similar injuries periodically happen at all levels of pro baseball, including in the Major Leagues, where wooden bats are used. Any time baseballs are traveling at speeds approaching or exceeding 100 miles per hour, injuries will inevitably occur. It’s part of the game.
Quite honestly, I’m surprised that some lawmaker hasn’t overreacted and decided to outlaw baseball outright. After all, if the government outlawed baseball, then nobody would ever suffer any baseball injuries, right?
Obviously, it would be ridiculous to outlaw baseball, but that is the path we are heading down. We have far too many lawmakers who seem more interested in getting their names in the headlines and enacting new laws to limit our rights as citizens. As far as I’m concerned, the state government has no business regulating what kinds of baseball bats are used. That decision is best left to the governing bodies of the high school leagues.
We need the government to stop wasting their time on issues that are best left to others to figure out. Right now, the State of California is facing a budget deficit of $18.6 billion, and we have an unemployment rate of 12.6 percent. Instead of wasting their time on misguided legislation that will restrict the rights of the citizens, the state Legislature should instead focus on getting a budget passed and helping to revitalize the California economy.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com