AdnanShahab.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