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