California Unloaded Open Carry – February 13, 2010
I was fortunate enough to meet up with some fellow law abiding citizens who are interested in unloaded open carry (UOC) earlier today. We met up at a coffee shop in San Leandro. Despite the assertions by some people that UOCing in “bad” neighborhoods would result in us being robbed of our firearms by criminals, nothing of the sort happened. There were approximately 20 people openly carrying firearms, and there were probably around 35 people total who showed up (including family and friends). The encouraging part revolved around a handful of people who showed up without firearms because they weren’t quite sold on the legality or details of UOCing. But after talking with some of the more experienced UOCers for a couple hours, many of them were confident enough to say that they will definitely be openly carrying the next time we have a meetup.
Two interesting things occurred while we were at the coffee shop. First of all, a man who was there open carrying informed me that he actually has a concealed weapons permit (CCW) issued to him by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. He said he’s had it for over 10 years. I was stunned to actually meet a real-life citizen who had been issued a CCW in a Bay Area County. The guy (I don’t want to name him because I don’t want anybody to pressure the Sheriff to rescind his CCW) told me that the only reason he was issued a CCW was because he is friends with someone who is pretty high up in the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office. He admits that the system is flawed and corrupt and that, if he were not friends with someone in the Sheriff’s Office, there would be no way that he would have been issued a CCW. He told me that he was UOCing because he supported the cause. But he said that when he gets back in his car, he is going to put away his thigh holster and carry concealed.
I had always heard stories about how one must essentially be rich, famous, and/or well-connected in order to receive a CCW from a Bay Area Sheriff. It’s a shame to see that someone who has actually been issued such a CCW readily admits that connections are are the only reason why he was issued a CCW. That is not the way the government is supposed to deal with things. It is corrupt, plain and simple. It is also a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We must expose these unfair practices to the light of day.
The second thing that I noticed is that I am starting to be recognized by members of the general public for my efforts to educate society about California’s unloaded open carry laws. I mean, I can understand being recognized by people who specifically show up for the unloaded open carry meetup. It is not a stretch to understand that these “new” open carriers may have seen some of my postings on online discussion boards or seen one of my recent interviews with local media. These people are predisposed to UOC, so it’s natural for them to have seen me or heard about me somewhere. But there were two different customers (one Asian male, one African-American female) at the coffee shop who had absolutely no idea that we were meeting there today and just happened to be there while we were there. Separately, they came up to me and said they recognized me from some of the television interviews that I have done in recent weeks. They both seemed to be very supportive of what I was doing to educate people about what their rights are.
But then I started to think about the people in the general public who have started associating me with unloaded open carry. I want to clearly state that I am in no way whatsoever any sort of official “leader” in the open carry movement. I am just like anyone else who is interested in exercising their right to open carry. The open carry movement is not any sort of official organization with a power structure or anything like that. Nobody has to clear anything with anybody else in order to open carry. As long as you don’t violate the law (stay clear of gun free school zones, do not go into any public buildings, etc.), you should feel free to open carry whenever you want. This is a movement of law abiding citizens being able to exercise their rights. You don’t need any “leaders” in order to do that.
It also occurred to me that, if members of the general public are starting to recognize me, it is a natural assumption that members of law enforcement will start recognizing me as well. I seriously hope that no law enforcement officers get any sort of notions of trying to teach me a lesson by singling me out for extra scrutiny (i.e. illegal violations of my civil rights) because of my stance on gun rights. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that various law enforcement agencies around the Bay Area have taken note of some of my online posts and media interviews. Through a Public Records Act request made by another UOCer, I already know that some of my fellow open carriers are being closely watched by law enforcement. It would be insane for me to believe that I am in a different position. That’s fine. As long as they stay within the law, I have no problem with law enforcement monitoring my actions. But if any LEO begins specifically targeting me for any statements that I have made with regards to the unfair issuance of CCWs in California, my view on the thinly veiled threats to the lives of UOCers made by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, my respone to the comments made by the East Palo Alto Police detective who threatened to harass and shoot UOCers, or for any other political reason, I will not simply lay down and take it.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
UOC Meetup in Livermore
I had been looking forward to today for over a week. A couple of people who I had met briefly at various points over the last few months had decided to organize an unloaded open carry (UOC) meetup in Livermore. It was to be an informal UOC meetup at the Panama Red Coffee Co. from 11AM to 1PM. As I have taken a keen interest in UOC over the last month or so, I made it a point to attend the meetup. This would be my very first UOC.
A few days before the meetup, I was informed that the organizers had been in contact with the Livermore Police Department (LPD). In order to ensure that everything went smoothly, it was suggested that people who were UOCing could meet with officers from the LPD (prior to the actual Panama Red meetup) at a nearby parking lot in order for officers to conduct a 12031(e) check (to make sure that there was no ammunition actually in the firearm, only in magazines outside of the firearm). This was a voluntary meeting, not a mandatory one. It was scheduled to take place between 10:30AM and 10:45AM. I was informed that it was agreed that no serial numbers would be run by the officers and that they would not check the ID’s of those who showed up. Of course, those who did not show up for this inspection by the LPD would still be subject to a 12031(e) check by any officer who happened to see them approaching, entering, or exiting Panama Red.
I understand that there are those out there who would be incensed to willingly meet with the Police at a separate location in order to submit to a 12031(e) check. While I understand their concerns (UOC is not illegal, the 12031(e) checks are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the checks should be done in front of as many people as possible so that society will see that the Police have no reason to prevent us from UOCing, etc.), I personally had no problem with the agreed upon terms. While I firmly believe that my right to carry a firearm is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, I also understand that many people in California, including law enforcement officers (LEO), are not accustomed to citizens openly carrying firearms. As long LEOs do not go too far in violating my rights, I am willing to make an effort to meet them halfway for the sake of making the whole process go smoothly during these early encounters. I believe that this ambassador-type behavior on my part will help to show law enforcement officers that people who UOC are not dangerous criminals and are, instead, law-abiding citizens who are simply trying to exercise their right to carry a firearm.
Amongst my many options, I decided to UOC my Walther PPK/S for this meetup. I felt that some of my other firearms were much too bulky to carry for this meetup (e.g. my Desert Eagles). My matching black Walther PPKs are my favorite handguns, and I was tempted to carry one of them. But, in the end, I decided to go with my PPK/S because it is stainless steel. (All of my other handguns are matte black or “blue”.) I felt that, especially at a meetup with the express intention of displaying one’s rights and educating people, the fact that the PPK/S would be most visible to LEOs and everyday citizens made it the best choice. And if people wanted to ask me questions about UOC, I was more than willing to tell them what I know about the issue.
I arrived at the parking lot in Livermore a little after 10:30AM. Four LPD officers and four cruisers were already waiting in the parking lot. I met up with three other guys who were carrying, as well as some of their family/loved ones. A little before 10:45AM, we all walked over to the officers, introduced ourselves, and went through the 12031(e) checks. We brought a ton of cameras and video recorders with us, so the whole process was well-documented. As soon as the first guy started getting (e)checked, I noticed that the officer decided to read the serial number off the guy’s gun out loud into some sort of recording device. While they weren’t actually running the serial number of the firearm at that moment, they were recording it and could easily run the serial number at a later time. It seemed a little shady on their part, but I knew that none of us had anything to hide. I was the third person to get checked, and I made sure that lots of pictures were taken of my very first (e)check. What a special moment that I will always remember. LOL. After all four of us were checked, the officers thanked us for meeting with them and wished us well for the rest of the day.
Our group of seven (six adults and one precious 9-month-old girl) then walked the half block or so to the coffee shop. When we got inside, we all ordered and sat down at a group of tables by the large picture windows at the front of the shop. A couple customers seemed to notice that we were carrying, but nobody seemed panicked at all. We sat down and started taking about UOC. People talked about the law as they understood it, our attempts (often in vain) to get clarification on the issue from law enforcement agencies, and people’s past experiences while UOCing.
As we sat there other people began trickling in for the UOC meetup. At our peak, there were ten of us there who were UOCing, and, including friends and family, there were probably close to 20 people total. I was extremely pleased with the turnout. We wound up occupying most of the front of the coffee shop. A photographer from the Bay Area Newspaper Group (who had been contacted by organizers of the meetup) even showed up and took some pictures of our meetup group. We made sure to explain to the photographer that I am a candidate for California State Assembly.
It was really interesting to talk with the more experienced UOCers. I was warned that if I continue to UOC, there is a very good chance that I might wind up on some sort of terrorist watch list. I find that to be both sad and amusing. If true, it’s sad that the government would look at a person who is engaging in legal conduct as being some sort of possible terrorist. A government that is functioning properly should be on the lookout for the bad guys, not the good guys. It’s amusing because I am probably one of the least likely people in the country to engage in terrorist activities. I love California, and I love America. It is that love which prompted me to run for California State Assembly. I would never engage in terrorist activities.
While we were there, more than a few customers of the coffee shop would stop by and ask us questions about UOC. Many of the people in the meetup group had brought information pamphlets about UOC, and we were all more than happy to answer people’s questions. It was also nice to be able to meet face-to-face with people from around the Bay Area who share my concerns about gun rights. It was eventually decided that we would try to meetup at a different location around the Bay Area each month, hopefully increasing the number of people who turn out for each meetup.
Around 1PM, everyone decided that they were going to go eat at a nearby restaurant. Even though I had to leave to take care of some other business, I walked over to the restaurant with them. It was really interesting to see the reactions of people as we walked down the street. A lot of people didn’t even realize that ten of us were carrying. And for those who did notice, it didn’t appear that anyone became panicked. People seemed more interested to figure out who we were more than anything else. The answer to that is simple: We are law-abiding citizens who are exercising our rights to carry firearms. I really am looking forward to the next UOC meetup.
I just wanted to end this blog entry with some random thoughts. While I was getting ready to leave my house, it occurred to me that a whole lot of people who see me with a gun on my hip would probably think that I am some sort of LEO. I mean, between the way I dress for work and the way I look while out on the campaign trail speaking to groups of people from the community, it really wouldn’t be a stretch for people to think that I am an FBI of Secret Service agent or something like that. It is not my intention to emulate the look of an LEO; that is simply the way that I dress. I just wish that I were allowed to wear a suit jacket while I UOC. Obviously, the jacket would cover the handgun, making it an illegal unloaded concealed carry. But I am most comfortable when I am fully suited up.
I also know that there are people out there who think that I am occupying law enforcement resources by UOCing. After all, the LPD had to dedicate four officers to meet with us prior to the meetup, and there were an inordinate number of police cruisers that drove by the coffee shop during the two hours that we were there. To these people I say this: I will not apologize for exercising my right to carry. A right that is not exercised is a right that is easily lost. If a law-abiding citizen peacefully carrying a firearm is a drain on police resources, then perhaps the police need to adjust their response. Honestly, I do not know what the LPD expected to happen at the coffee shop for them to feel the need to dedicate so many cruisers to the area. If anything, I felt safer there in that coffee shop with all of my UOC brethren than I would feel in my hometown of Fremont while not UOCing. And, ultimately, I maintain that, if the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (and, more broadly, the State of California) were to grant me a concealed weapons permit, I would be able to exercise my right to carry a firearm without most people in society ever even knowing it, thus reducing the chance that law enforcement resources would have to be wasted responding to a law-abiding citizen doing absolutely nothing wrong.
Lastly, I want to thank Panama Red Coffee Co. in Livermore for allowing us to UOC in their wonderful establishment.
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
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