The Ban On Openly Carrying Handguns In California - Reactions And A Poll

by Jim Caroompas and Bay City News

The First Amendment is certainly a popular, and controversial, amendment. But of all the amendments, it’s probably the second one that divides Americans the most. The one that gives us the right to bear arms.

I’m personally not a fan. But I have close friends who have managed, over the years, to collect nothing short of small arsenals. I have enjoyed, on several occasions, taking out enemy cans and bottles from various distances. And once, when I was a teenager, I kept shooting my bb gun at a bird; I actually hit the bird, it died, and I never picked up that gun again.

But the question of gun possession is almost a third rail in politics. Gun owners are adamant that they have a right to own their weapons, and that without them, they are powerless over criminals both in and out of the government. So it was no surprise with the election of Barack Obama that many of those gun owners decided to ramp up their rights by holding open carry meetings, where they would show up with unloaded weapons in public places.

The idea, these groups said, was to “desensitize” people to the notion of openly carried weapons. There were even a couple of these open carry meetings here in Martinez. They were not roundly applauded.

So when Gov. Brown signed AB 144 on Monday, which prohibits carrying handguns in public places or in vehicles, it was met with some praise by law enforcement, and a warning by gun advocates.

In Martinez, the police department response was fairly neutral.

“With regard to banning open carry, I can only comment on what we have seen in Martinez,” said Lt. Aaron Roth. “There have been a couple occurrences of open carry groups meeting in Martinez.  During those times, the groups notified the department and were cooperative with officers during safety inspections.  However, we also received calls from citizens concerned about the safety of such groups meeting in public and openly displaying firearms.  Banning open carry would obviously prevent citizens from being concerned about such occurrences, as anyone other than a peace officer or an individual licensed to carry a firearm would not be openly displaying a firearm if they are following the law.”

“We view the open carrying of unloaded handguns as a threat to the safety of the communities we police and the safety of our officers," said David L. Maggard, Jr., president of the California Police Chiefs Association. "The governor's leadership in signing this legislation will help assure that felons and gang members cannot openly carry an unloaded gun with impunity, all the while carrying the ammunitions for the weapon on their person."

Yih-Chau Chang, press secretary for Responsible Citizens of California, an organization that advocates the right to open carry, said the group was disappointed with the passage of AB 144, but added that "this certainly is not going to stop the open carry of handguns."

He said open carry proponents statewide are already planning to challenge the law in court.

Chang added that many such advocates, including himself, carry exposed, unloaded handguns on a daily basis and will likely choose to openly carry unloaded long guns in lieu of handguns once the law takes effect in January.

I personally support this bill. The notion that we live in a society where it is necessary to carry a handgun for protection from other people carrying around handguns seems way over the top to me. 

What are your thoughts?