After not being allowed into a California Pizza Restaurant one morning earlier this month, about 100 members of the OpenCarry Movement went to another restaurant in Walnut Creek, CA to show their fire power in full force, except of course, there was no fire power. Just a bunch of folks with unloaded guns, exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and showing off the fact that if they had firepower, it would, well, be inside their guns and not sitting back at home or in some cop’s possession after having had it confiscated as contraband.
The original story by the Associated Press was kind of misleading in that they reported that “about 100 armed members of a group…” when in actuality, none of the members were really armed in the true sense of being armed. They had their guns with them alright, but none of the guns were loaded and each had to have the gun checked by police officers before entering the restaurant. So armed? Not so much.
You see, according to California law, you can openly display a weapon, but it can’t be loaded. Kinda like little Timmy can walk down the street with a toy squirt gun that looks exactly like a German Luger but with water instead of bullets. Now it all makes sense doesn’t it?
We later met up with a few of the protesters who were back out there testing their rights at the local Tastee Freeze, and they agreed to talk to us about what happened a few Saturdays ago at the other restaurant. Andrew Taylor, the group’s self-proclaimed leader told us, “Here’s what went down that day. It was just a trial run. We were just showing people how, if you were to have real bullets in your gun, you could walk into a public place and put everyone on notice that there’d be no trouble in there as long as the posse was in town. I know what you’re thinking, what’s the use of having a gun if you can’t shoot it at someone? But honestly, this is just the first step. Once we prove to everyone that we can control ourselves, the cops said they’d give us back our bullets.”
One member, Barry Fife, who was wearing a western-style holster with what appeared to be a cap gun in it, finally admitted that he was unable to unload the clip from his semi-automatic pistol and, instead of showing up without a gun at the Tastee Freeze–he’d missed the other protest because of the same problem–he decided to try and get away with the toy gun getup. “Had I just stuck the damned pistol into the back of my pants, instead of going all ‘Western,’ I might have pulled it off. Andy and the other guys had a pretty good laugh about it, and I’ll be sure and get that gun fixed before the next meet-up.”
Probably shouldn’t bother Barry, because just like your real gun that doesn’t work, carrying and showing off unloaded weapons may make you feel safe, but say, just for yuks, that there are a few criminals out there who read the newspapers and now know that the safest place to hold up thanks to you and your pals is a California Starbucks because it is loaded (no pun intended) with a bunch of guys sitting there drinking their lattes and chatting about their 2nd Amendment rights when none of them has two bullets to rub between them. But then again, you could always hone up on your pistol-whipping skills.
Awesome! I was stationed at McChord AFB with the 62nd Security Police Squadron in the early 70’s and after my stint with the Air Force and my inability to find a law enforcement job in California after the Air Force, I opted to join the Army and return to Washington where I served with the 296th Military Police Company. In the Air Force I opted to not get a concealed carry permit, however, while I was in the Army, one of the guys in my platoon was shot and grazed in the forehead. At that point I and others in my company chose to obtain our concealed carry permits. I carried a model 19 while off post and until I left Washington, to serve in Korea with Second Infantry Division.
In Washington, I became acquainted with neighbors in Puyallup who lived next door to members of my platoon and opted not to have a concealed permit. The important factor in that, is that they actually had that option and to this day, the permit process has pretty much gone unchanged since I applied for and received my Washington permit.
Unfortunately, California residents generally don’t have that option, so some opt to carry a firearm in the only legal way private citizens are allowed by law. In California, it’s a misdemeanor under 12031 of the penal code to carry a loaded firearm. However, 12025(f) makes carrying a firearm legal so long as the firearm is unloaded. What that means is that a round can’t be in a position that enables it to be fired. The law does permit a person to carry a magazine with rounds in it and on the person along with their firearm. The penal code also allows a person to load the firearm if the person is in danger of attack that could cause great bodily injury or death. Personally, I don’t blame those people from taking that option. When you consider the amount of violent crime that occurs in SoCal, I’m surprised more people don’t opt to do that. It’s estimated that at least 250,000 otherwise law abiding citizens choose to carry concealed. I don’t blame them either. Should I happen to run into one of them and they don’t have a criminal history, I would probably let it go and tell them to be more careful. I believe that every law abiding citizen should have the option, it’s too bad that California inhibits the good people here from having the choice. In California, I have my badge and I.D. that gives me the option to carry what I choose, and what I qualify with. Hopefully, one day our legislators will wake up and California residents, like my family, will have the same option you have in Washington state.
To be clear, I don’t have a beef with SoCalCop. I haven’t done the research myself and I appreciate hearing both sides of the story. What I disagree with is the insults from the other pro open carry posters who have attacked the writer, editor and entire publication without even taking the time to figure out who we are or what we do.
If you want to persuade the staff and everyone else that reads this story, do it with facts, not attacks. You’ll notice we’ve approved every comment that’s come through.
In college I worked for Shoreline Security, an armed security service. I was one of only two officers without a gun, and that was definitely how I wanted to keep it.
I’ve never looked back on a time when I was the victim of a crime or when I was in a scary position, and wished I’d had my gun. Everything worked out and nobody had to die over something that ultimately was NOT life a matter of life or death. What happens if they get the jump on me and I end up dead, or my firearm is taken from me and used to commit harm.
My mother, on the other hand, is 5’0″ and 110lbs soaking wet. She carries her snub .357 and I don’t blame her. It would be very easy for her to fall victim in a dangerous situation.
But I cannot connect that understandable, reasonable right with the purported benefits of open carry. Trying to rationalize the emotional decisions made by drug addicts willing to take tremendous risks to secure the next $5 fix is not sound reasoning. Anyone who has ever seen an episode of COPS knows that what we’re really dealing with are the dumbest pack of jackasses in the history of mankind (the criminals, not the citizens.)
If you really want to make a change, buy one of those pen cameras to keep in your shirt pocket. It can record many hours of 640×480 video with audio. Keep $20 in your pocket to give them, then turn the tape over to the cops and a picture of the perp on the evening news will have them locked up within days, and nobody has to die.
To answer SoCalCop, I’m in Washington State. 21 was the minimum age when I got it (still is?), and I got it because I come from a gun family. Took safety classes when I was maybe 16-17. I choose not to carry because I think it’s too dangerous an item to just keep around for possibilities I’ve never had come up, especially with small kids around (of which I have three.) I’ve found avoiding trouble is fairly easy in terms of behavior and where I go. If opencarry becomes legal in Washington, I will not take part.
I also agree with you that making a choice shows more thought than just taking the default position; not carrying.
And for fun, my two firearms are a S&W 915 (with the 15-round clips from before the Clinton ban, my mom bought them for me,) and a Tek-9 I bought as an investment assuming the ban would be renewed. It’s junk, but it’s a fun novelty and I think I only paid $175 for it.
Well Brian, here’s my final word on this subject. Those law enforcement officers that I know outside of California, which include Arizona, Kansas, Washington, Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, and Louisiana, have not experienced any occurrences where law abiding and mentally balanced citizens have gone berserk and attacked others around them to get revenge. On the other hand, I have, and I know they have arrested individuals with a criminal history and an illegally obtained and illegally possessed firearm who attack people with these firearms out of revenge and for that matter, a myriad of other crimes. They are criminals and they need to go to jail for a very long time.
You didn’t mention where you obtained your carry permit. Would you be interested in telling us why you have a permit, and why you choose not to carry a firearm? I believe that part of exercising a right is opting to not utilize your right if you choose not to. However, I believe that choosing not to carry a firearm is as important as choosing to carry.
SoCalCop got a big one right, “Generally speaking, concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than the average citizen.” I’d take it a bit further, the background check precludes those with a criminal history.
I think you’re mistaking us for anti-gun people. Speaking for myself, I own guns and have had a carry permit since I was 21. I don’t carry guns though, though I believe in the right, under controlled circumstances of course.
The two points I want to make here:
1 – More people having guns doesn’t equal less crime, it just means those with guns are more likely to exact street justice. That’s not real justice, that’s revenge.
2 – There is no point in arguing with fact-indifferent zealots and if I keep seeing idiotic arguments and ignorant insults, I’m going to stop approving the comments.
BC Bass:
I’ve heard your arguments from the antigun crowd, so everything you’re saying is not new information to me. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that your claims are at least remotely correct. Reality seems to contradict your “facts”. The FBI estimates, on the average, that 2.5 million people defend themselves yearly with a firearm which says that those people at least, avoided being victims of crime.
Now, lets take a look at states that have highly restrictive laws versus states where the laws are relaxed. I won’t argue that criminals will slip through the cracks, nothing is completely full proof. It does bother me that good people are denied their rights, unfortunately that will happen also. But, when you consider that California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have urban cities with high amounts of violent crime and the most restrictive gun laws, I take issue with your stats. When I consider that not one state has repealed their right to carry laws and in fact law enforcement agencies in those right to carry states actually support the carrying of arms by their citizens, I take issue with your facts. When I hear criminals admit in interviews that gun laws do not deter them from getting a gun, and that armed citizens scare them more than I do, I take issue with your facts. When I see examples of citizens defending the defenseless from violent attacks, I take issue with your facts. When I see no violent crime happening at places where large concentrations of guns are present, like gun shows, I take issue with your facts. When I see criminals attacking people and places where the likelihood of firearms is low or nonexistent, I take issue with your facts.
There are at least four common denominators that seem to be inherent in people who choose to carry a firearm:
1. They hope they never have to use it.
2. If they do end up in that unfortunate situation, they are usually very remorseful even though they did everything right.
3. In all cases, the person who defended themselves gave the attacker plenty of opportunity to discontinue the attack.
4. Generally speaking, concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than the average citizen.
You can spin the numbers any way you want, but reality speaks louder that numbers on paper.
One last sad reality, good law abiding citizens are dead because that were unable to defend themselves. I have seen my share of dead victims, and it’s time that California got in the game and give law abiding citizens the opportunity to defend themselves.
For everyone out there, I can’t be everywhere to defend you. It’s usually only after the crime has been completed that I arrive to do the paperwork. In other words, the police are more reactive than proactive and everyone has to understand that.
BC Bass, I hope you are never the victim of a violent crime. However, in the unfortunate event that you are, I have a feeling that will be a defining day for you.
Ms. Beckert,
You accuse we who carry weapons in daily life of “one-sded thinking.” Obviously you represent the other side. However, the great part about “our side” is that we have cold, hard facts to back us up. You know, actual statistics from around the world which show that in places where gun laws favor people’s legal rights to carry guns, there is actually – say it with me now, LESS CRIME!
You can call us names, and and slanderis in your bullshit satire pieces, but the fact remains that we still believe in the US Constitution the way it was written.
So, go ahead and keep writing your drivel. The Constitution protects you. However, if you’re ever out in public and are getting mugged, assulted, or raped, could you do me a favor and please ID yourself before I intervene? I wouldn’t want my gun to get in the way of your staire.
Ms. Beckert is obviously not qualified to comment on the subject.
Yellow journalism is alive and well in California regarding guns.
Dear Honorable Calif. Peace Officer,
I wouldn’t normally jump in on this discussion, but since it involves factual data about Right to Carry (RTC) laws, I feel I should help Ms. Beckert in her defense. First, Ms. Beckert makes the most appropriate argument of all in this debate: this is satire. Your concerns would be better directed at conventional media outlets with reach to a larger audience. Second, because you suggested doing some research, I have such research to provide.
I would like to preface this with the fact that for over a decade I served as a security policy analyst for agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Government Accountability Office, and publicly funded policy institutes. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement and, being a California resident, have devoted much of my adult life to promoting the welfare of your vocation in the state. I have worked closely with many California public officials. That said, I was heavily involved in commissioned RTC studies. I’m afraid your statistics simply don’t support the findings.
The statistical analysis of the effects of these laws was initiated by John Lott. Most of the data that you are citing, if not all of it, originated from Lott’s work. I agree that it’s unwise to ubiquitously create fear, but honestly, fear is the “adoption” tactic most commonly employed by advocates of RTC laws to see their passage. Following are the findings from research we conducted on this issue between 1999 and 2009. The results do not support your claims and, in many ways, contradict them.
In every study we conducted, the time pattern of coefficients from the violent crime model fluctuate wildly. For years preceding adoption, violent crime increases in ultimately adopting states (relative to the national time pattern). Following adoption, the increase relative to trend continues, reverses, but then reverses again, leading to a continued escalation, or leveling off, of violent crime. At best, all verified data asserts that Right to Carry states, in their best situations, merely maintain the status quo of violent crime after adoption. But it does not decrease by any quantifiable measurement, given the cyclical series of “reverses” in crime trends during reporting periods.
The obvious striking feature of these figures is that the big reductions in crime occur roughly 9 years after adoption. Otherwise, the post-adoption estimates are generally small and sometimes positive and are, in general, both statistically insignificant and statistically indistinguishable from the preadoption estimates.
Another reason for the importance of the extended data is that aggregate crime trends differ greatly between the periods. During the initial reporting periods, states that did not choose to adopt RTC policies were already experiencing rising crime, especially in urban areas. Conversely, states that did adopt RTC laws were simultaneously experiencing decreases in crime. This data constitutes evidence of model misspecification (e.g., because the model cannot account for the change in the aggregate crime trend) and raise the possibility (although do not prove) that the estimated effects of right-to-carry laws are artifacts of specification errors.
Lott’s figure shows estimated trends in crime levels before and after adoption of right-to-carry laws, and they claim that these trends support the conclusion that adoption of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The committee disagrees. According to Lott and Whitley (2002), the murder rate peaks and begins to decrease at an accelerating rate approximately 5 years before the adoption of right-to-carry laws. Aggravated assault decreases prior to adoption and then increases for approximately 3 years following adoption before starting to decrease again. Adoption has no effect on rape. The rate of violent crimes as a whole decreases up to the time of adoption and then remains unchanged until approximately 3 years after adoption before beginning a steeper decline. Among violent crimes, only robbery displays a decrease immediately following adoption.
However, this followed a period during which the robbery rate first increased and then remained constant for approximately 5 years. In summary, the committee concludes that it is at least possible that errors in the UCR data may account for Lott’s results.
A final point that has been argued in the literature is that conventional standard errors reported by Lott and others are not appropriate. The statistical analyses of dummy variable and trend models are conducted using a county-year pair as the unit of analysis. Right-to-carry laws, however, almost always vary only at the state level. Consequently, some investigators believe that treating the county-level observations as if they are statistically independent may lead to estimates of the standard errors that underestimate their true magnitude. These investigators make adjustments for state-level clustering that inflate their standard errors. Ergo, where Florida experienced a significant decrease in the murder rate post-adoption, Virginia experienced a significant increase.
When estimated on all county-year observations with nonmissing crime data, this reduced the magnitude of the estimated reduction in the rates of murder and aggravated assault, and it reversed the signs of the estimated effects of right-to-carry laws on rape, robbery, and all violent crime. That is, according to estimates, adoption of right-to-carry laws increases the frequencies of rape, robbery, and violent crime as a whole.
The estimated changes in the murder rates of other states that adopted right-to-carry laws demonstrate that for every three states that experienced substantial decreases in violent crime post-adoption, five states experienced noteworthy increases.
The GAO investigation included additional issues with the potential to impact RTC policies.
The report on NICS shows that the system has failed to provide “instant” checks 28% of the time, has denied law-abiding citizens the ability to purchase a firearm while prohibited individuals were able to do so, and that federal agencies have failed to investigate a large number of sales to prohibited individuals. “The report paints a sobering picture of a failure by federal agencies to enforce existing gun laws as Congress intended,” Thomas said. “The result is that the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens are being infringed upon while too often criminals seep through without consequence,”
The literature on right-to-carry laws has obtained conflicting estimates of their effects on crime. Estimation results have proven to be very sensitive to the precise specification used and time period examined. The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and a decrease in crime rates.
However, a causal link does appear exist to support a slight increase in crime after passage of right-to-carry laws, or no relevant change at all, nullifying any perceived benefits to moving forward with RTC laws at this time, which involve additional bureaucratic efforts and potential impacts to tax payers to institute RTC passage, without any measurable advantages.
Truthfully, I’ve seen so many people frightened by antigun disinformation and propaganda that I don’t find it very funny when someone suggests that people who merely exercise their rights are “playing cops and robbers”. It suggests that they are juvenile and lack sound judgment. If you want to write satire about guns, do some research on the antigunners who are freaking out about people with guns. Just a suggestion.
You know, most satirists won’t touch this issue because they are afraid of people such as the ones commenting here. Your guns and your one-sided thinking make you scary and people will back off from you because of that. It was satire. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop trying to convince me to change my mind when you don’t even know what I believe. I don’t go for indoctrination. And indoctrination coupled with firearms just scares the bejeezus out of me.
Attack me if you want, I can take it, but don’t drag the site down. It’s a damn good satire site. Notice I said satire site. This ain’t real news. And just for the record, I do a bit of background searching before I write my articles although with satire it is completely up to the writer if they choose to do so or not. Search the web on this particular subject and you will see many articles that mention that the guns must be unloaded and in many cases, must be checked by law enforcement officers before entering an establishment, but do not go on to say that the ammo can be carried separately. Maybe you should educate those who write the real news as well on this subject. I’m sure they’re waiting for your comments.
And for the record, the particular restaurant that allowed the 100 members in that day has now changed their policy and has decided not to allow guns in their establishment. To the majority of people in California, it would seem that your movement is quite unpopular. So why do I only get the angry responses? Please see “California chain bans guns in its restaurants.” SF Gate, 2/13/10.
Ms. Beckert:
Do you know that 80% of the United States law abiding citizens can carry a loaded firearm openly or concealed? Do you know that Alaska and Vermont don’t require law abiding citizens to have permits, to carry openly or concealed, a firearm? Do you know that Arizona and possibly Wyoming are going to follow Alaska and Vermont’s example? I have been keeping a close eye on the right to carry movement since I first discovered it years ago when states like Indiana and Washington issued permits to anyone who wanted them. As more and more states surrounding California have become right to carry states, and have only seen a decline in violent crime, I have asked, why is it that California doesn’t do this?
Since 1987, when Florida began the next wave of states that permitted their citizens to carry concealed firearms, various so called violence prevention groups have yelled like Chicken Little about “blood running in the streets” if states allowed everyone to carry a gun. The funny thing is, all of the states that already had right to carry written into their state constitutions didn’t experience this river of blood, so why would Florida or any of the states that followed them? I have heard the nay sayers yell and scream the same rhetoric everytime a state considers right to carry legislation. When it’s enacted and citizens obtain their permits, the first year, the violent crime stats either remain unchanged or violent crime begins a significant trend downward. In no case that I ever observed, did violent crime ever increase after right to carry laws were enacted. And to date, no state has repealed their right to carry laws.
When right to carry laws were first enacted, police departments kept a close eye on violent crimes committed by concealed carry holders in the hopes that they could prove that issuing permits to anyone that wanted them was irresponsible and should be repealed. The record keeping was abandoned when these stats proved that concealed carry permitees were more law abiding than the average citizen.
The reason I point this out is because I’m tired of the scare tactics that frighten good people like you into believing that you can’t take care of yourself. I grow tired of people being given a false sense of security by being told to call 9-1-1 and I will show up in the nick of time to save you. I’m tired of seeing the aftermath of a violent crime and the remains of a victim who didn’t have the means to defend themselves. Do you realize that 2 1/2 million law abiding citizens use a firearm every year to defend themselves against a violent attack? Do you realize that most of those law abiding citizens simply display the firearm to their attacker which is enough to make the attack stop attacking?
Ms Beckert, in the event this information doesn’t convince you, and you want to avoid states that don’t have these right to carry laws, if I were you I’d stick to California on the west coast and take a plane to New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island, and whatever other states on the east coast that still prevent their citizens from carrying a firearm for self defense. Avoid Las Vegas, Reno, in fact just avoid going to Nevada if you are afraid of people walking around with loaded firearms. There are plenty of websites with maps that can guide you on what states to avoid.
Always nominated, never awarded…???
Based on P.Beckert’s response, That she doesn’t bother to fact check her work, no wonder GlossyNews is never awarded.
What a joke.
I’m smart enough to realize I shouldn’t fight with a guy who has the potential of loading his gun and shooting me if he feels like it. Ok, so you’re allowed to have your bullets with you. Man that sure makes me feel safer now. Thanks for clearing that up, Walter. Just to clear things up from my end, if I wanted to write an op-ed piece and fact check everything I say, I’d do it elsewhere, not on a satire site.
Mr. Berkert,
Do you actually conduct any research on the articles that you author? I can only imagine the carbon-footprint that comes along with all of your hot air! This article is a total misrepresentation of the facts concerning open carry in California.
Open carriers do, I repeat DO, carry ammunition with them. In the unfortunate event that the firearm is needed for protection (or any other lawful purpose) an open carrier can load the ammunition into the firearm. According to the law in the State of California, legal residents’ can carry an unloaded firearm openly on their belt holster. Unloaded, in legal terms means that the ammunition can not be attached to the firearm in any way. Most people openly carry ammunition inserted into magazines on their belt holsters. The people who open carry are not, I repeat ARE NOT, walking around with guns and no bullets! Maybe for your 115 post you should report back to your viewers with some actual subject matter for thought. Here’s an idea… Penal Code section 12031, which makes it unlawful to openly carry a loaded firearm in public was actually a racist law sponsored by Republican State Assemblyman Don Mulford [AD-16 Oakland] and signed into law by Republican Governor Ronald Reagen. This racist law was aimed at the Black Panthers who were, at the time, listening to police scanners and responding to calls on the street where minorities were being detained and/or arrested by police. The Blck Panthers would show up with loaded firearms and attempt to inform the person in question about their rights. The cops did not like it at all.
Your post profile reads, [Beckert] uses humor as a tool to fight against an onslaught of stupidity and ignorance that seems to permeate the airwaves and pollute the sensitivities of a once brilliant nation.”
Are you “fighting” against the stupidity and ignorance, or simply contributing to it Ms. Beckert? This article makes me believe that you have fallen vitim to the same conditioning that has polluted the sensitivities of a select few within this brilliant nation.