• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Riverside Walmart open carry

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,748
Location
Oregon

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
The Good- The Wal*Mart manager was a stand up fellow, relenting in making an issue of even long gun carry in his store after discovering that what was being done was completely legal. Someone should have gotten his name to write the corporate office in Bentonville, Arkansas in recognition of Wal*Mart's position on legal carry.
The Bad- Riverside Police had drawn their weapons and used the application of physical force to restrain at least one detainee. Further, the police detained the subjects after the 12031(e) check was complete, so the Sgt could arrive to announce e-checks are about to be conducted. It seems clear that Riversides proceedures on dealing with open carry has either been undertrained or remains unclear to some officers.
The Ugly- Open carry advocates are taking the path that people like Portantino, Ammiano, and Saldana want them to.

"Wha?" you say? Yes, these politicians want open carriers to continue to escalate the issue of carrying firearms in California so they will achieve another victory in the court of public opinion (and likely in reducing transport of long guns in a locked case anywhere in public). It seems that some open carry groups have not learned the lesson that AB144 has delivered and continue to follow a strategy that failed in our unique political geography.

I believe it is essential to go the opposite direction of where these politicians want...leaving the long guns at home and to show them, the police and the general public that the law the legislature passed and Jerry Brown signed is completely and utterly ineffective- that the legal open carry of handguns continues under one or more of the 27 exemptions there exists to 26350.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,539
Location
Quarryville, PA
Wow, I can't believe you guys put up with this stuff everyday. Keep up the fight!!! I did notice one officer said something like "does anyone else have a gun we need to check.?" I would of said that they don't NEED to check any of the guns nor are they required to do so by law.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
I've remained a bit afar as to the carry lately, but I'll relay my personal mindset.

I've not really a proponent of shopping, going to restaurants, or meetings at the pier with open-carried guns. Although I'm the strongest gun proponent as far as rights go, in the face of public opinion, I think it's best to out manuever the opposition. Although we are fast becoming a rather high crime state, and law enforcement is strapped for resources to deal with it; I don't think we have reached a point at which the majority would accept an openly armed society yet. It's probably coming though. So my manuever is to work the gun back into vogue cleverly inserting it in public where it has good other reason to be there. I'm sure many of you recall my long gun carry last year where I hiked to the range. 10 miles through the city for good cause. It's hard to argue that you shouldn't have a gun if you're going to the range. It's also hard to argue same when on your way to a hunt, or to the gun shop. The point being, that going shopping with a gun is a bit hard to justify under present conditions. In that respect, I agree with Condition Three. What I can't tell though, is whether he would condone it under the conditions I mentioned. I'm happy to see this group at least got out and acknowledged their rights. It's hard to find activists these days, and I hope they remain so. But I also hope they consider my strategy in place of the shopping trip...for now anyway
 

TaIk2Kevin

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
10
Location
California
Great Video! I really like that the manager allowed everyone to continue shopping. I've seen way to many videos where the police convince the manager to kick the UOC's out of the store.

I am more like Save Our State in that I usually only open carry when I'm heading to and from the range or other gun activity. About once a week I go trap shooting and ride my motorcycle straight through the middle of town with a shotgun slung on my back. I don't own a car so it's the only way for me to get there. I stopped at In-N-Out last night on the way home and had no problems, stoped at the bank to make a deposit the week prior. I have yet to have anyone say anything or even give me a stare.

I would probably open carry more but I don't know anyone in my area that supports it.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
I've remained a bit afar as to the carry lately, but I'll relay my personal mindset.

I've not really a proponent of shopping, going to restaurants, or meetings at the pier with open-carried guns. Although I'm the strongest gun proponent as far as rights go, in the face of public opinion, I think it's best to out manuever the opposition. Although we are fast becoming a rather high crime state, and law enforcement is strapped for resources to deal with it; I don't think we have reached a point at which the majority would accept an openly armed society yet. It's probably coming though. So my manuever is to work the gun back into vogue cleverly inserting it in public where it has good other reason to be there. I'm sure many of you recall my long gun carry last year where I hiked to the range. 10 miles through the city for good cause. It's hard to argue that you shouldn't have a gun if you're going to the range. It's also hard to argue same when on your way to a hunt, or to the gun shop. The point being, that going shopping with a gun is a bit hard to justify under present conditions. In that respect, I agree with Condition Three. What I can't tell though, is whether he would condone it under the conditions I mentioned. I'm happy to see this group at least got out and acknowledged their rights. It's hard to find activists these days, and I hope they remain so. But I also hope they consider my strategy in place of the shopping trip...for now anyway

I'm going to address your mention of justification here- and I'm almost certain you really mean 'appropriateness'. One expects to see firearms at the range and hunting and on the way to and from each of those- therefore you can justify their appearance through what reasonable people would believe might be appropriate. However your implication that justification evaporates because a percievable use is not apparent while shopping, dining out, fetching the crumb crunchers from day care... is predicated on either a false sense of security or a belief that one does not have an immediate use for a firearm in any of those circumstances.

We live in communities where available law enforcement is dwindling and criminal activity is on the rise- We cannot possibly predict when or where a genuine need for firearms will arise, and I can tell you that this need does arise while shopping at Wal*mart (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=8436224), while dining out (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/940041-196/city-man-21-arrested-in-sunday-night.html) and fetching crumb crunchers from day care (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/111111-daycare-moms-target-of-break-ins). I personally believe any one of these stories is justification to carry a firearm in preparation for personal defense anywhere and anytime. What I question more than anything else are the motives for doing so immediately after we have been handed a legislative defeat, in a manner that is nearly certain to instigate another similar response, and without any other thought to deviating from the strategy that led to this failure in the first place.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
I'm going to address your mention of justification here- and I'm almost certain you really mean 'appropriateness'. One expects to see firearms at the range and hunting and on the way to and from each of those- therefore you can justify their appearance through what reasonable people would believe might be appropriate. However your implication that justification evaporates because a percievable use is not apparent while shopping, dining out, fetching the crumb crunchers from day care... is predicated on either a false sense of security or a belief that one does not have an immediate use for a firearm in any of those circumstances.

We live in communities where available law enforcement is dwindling and criminal activity is on the rise- We cannot possibly predict when or where a genuine need for firearms will arise, and I can tell you that this need does arise while shopping at Wal*mart (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=8436224), while dining out (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/940041-196/city-man-21-arrested-in-sunday-night.html) and fetching crumb crunchers from day care (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/111111-daycare-moms-target-of-break-ins). I personally believe any one of these stories is justification to carry a firearm in preparation for personal defense anywhere and anytime. What I question more than anything else are the motives for doing so immediately after we have been handed a legislative defeat, in a manner that is nearly certain to instigate another similar response, and without any other thought to deviating from the strategy that led to this failure in the first place.

Sir, you may have missed the main thrust of my intent. While I agree for the need for being armed as mentioned during day to day procedures, I believe that the public at large is not convinced of that yet, and therefore will react to the legislative restrictions accordingly. Seeing the firearms being carried "just because" is not sufficient reason for them to accept it. But give them a solid reason to defend it, or at least one not to reject it, and then you'll have started the pathway to re-insertion. the Portino's and the Saldana's will never be satisfied of course, but you begin to pare their support as you take away their reason. In other words, they will have a harder time pointing out the necessity of their laws when each carrier is engaging in a legitimate specified use that differs from the "just because I can" one.
As for the timing you mentioned; I tend to think firearms restriction march on regardless. It might just end up getting turned around on them for going the bridge too far themselves. if for example they press for enclosed long guns, we get a whole new demographic involved...the hunter, who may not have felt like defending the OC issue prior. That's speculation of course, but the point being we have been handed many legislative losses, and the 144 should not be held forever in boogeyman status.
 

Firemark

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
445
Location
San Diego
The Ugly- Open carry advocates are taking the path that people like Portantino, Ammiano, and Saldana want them to.

"Wha?" you say? Yes, these politicians want open carriers to continue to escalate the issue of carrying firearms in California so they will achieve another victory in the court of public opinion (and likely in reducing transport of long guns in a locked case anywhere in public). It seems that some open carry groups have not learned the lesson that AB144 has delivered and continue to follow a strategy that failed in our unique political geography.

I believe it is essential to go the opposite direction of where these politicians want...leaving the long guns at home and to show them, the police and the general public that the law the legislature passed and Jerry Brown signed is completely and utterly ineffective- that the legal open carry of handguns continues under one or more of the 27 exemptions there exists to 26350.

Im not to sure C3 that working an exemption is a smart idea, because now it becomes my interpretation of an exemption vs a patrol officers interpretation or a sergeants, which means you now have it cost you a day in court. And from the LE perspective and media its a legitimate arrest for weapons possession in violation of the law, and im sure the local anti gun courts will agree. No one knows for sure what elevating the open carry to long guns will do. Public opininon is finicky, subject to group think mentatlity. If legislature trys to make another law that further treads on our rights, by going after rifles/shotguns, then maybe enough people and groups (NRA) will get mad enough to do something and have backing from "the people". The danger for antigunners making emotional gun restrcitive laws is they back themselves into a corner and make it much easier to lose lawsuits working there way up the appeals ladder. I point to Peruta and Richards both of which I think there arguments are now stronger due to AB 144 being made law.
 

donny

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
115
Location
, ,
Once again we have children with guns "helping" California gun owners in the worst way. When will the stupidity end?
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Im not to sure C3 that working an exemption is a smart idea, because now it becomes my interpretation of an exemption vs a patrol officers interpretation or a sergeants, which means you now have it cost you a day in court. And from the LE perspective and media its a legitimate arrest for weapons possession in violation of the law, and im sure the local anti gun courts will agree. No one knows for sure what elevating the open carry to long guns will do. Public opininon is finicky, subject to group think mentatlity. If legislature trys to make another law that further treads on our rights, by going after rifles/shotguns, then maybe enough people and groups (NRA) will get mad enough to do something and have backing from "the people". The danger for antigunners making emotional gun restrcitive laws is they back themselves into a corner and make it much easier to lose lawsuits working there way up the appeals ladder. I point to Peruta and Richards both of which I think there arguments are now stronger due to AB 144 being made law.

1) I believe it is essential that the exemptions are exploited- even if it means that someone is falsely arrested and faces charges.
2) The escalation of carrying long guns in an urban area IS a known outcome- this is what Portantino wants- or else he would have banned the open carrying of all firearms, not just handguns. The politicians are playing this so that gun owners appear to be the least reasonable people in the room and use this as justification to incrementally eliminate options, with the support of their constituents. The only way to make these people look foolish and irrational is to exploit the law that they wrote and nullify the effect that they desired.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
1) I believe it is essential that the exemptions are exploited- even if it means that someone is falsely arrested and faces charges.
2) The escalation of carrying long guns in an urban area IS a known outcome- this is what Portantino wants- or else he would have banned the open carrying of all firearms, not just handguns. The politicians are playing this so that gun owners appear to be the least reasonable people in the room and use this as justification to incrementally eliminate options, with the support of their constituents. The only way to make these people look foolish and irrational is to exploit the law that they wrote and nullify the effect that they desired.

C'mon ConditionThree; They will tweak their exemptions just as you predict their response to long gun carry. I don't see how it would be different.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
C'mon ConditionThree; They will tweak their exemptions just as you predict their response to long gun carry. I don't see how it would be different.

How would it look for the legislature to reneg on an exemption that they carved out for their protected classes? I think that is a bit different than taking another of our options off the table. In banning long gun open carry there is no political capital to be lost- the 27 exemptions however, exist to satisfy some 'special people' who would be put off by more arbitrary restrictions on transporting handguns. In order to frustrate those who passed this piece of sh*t law, we need to step into the shoes of those who they were trying to protect.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
How would it look for the legislature to reneg on an exemption that they carved out for their protected classes? I think that is a bit different than taking another of our options off the table. In banning long gun open carry there is no political capital to be lost- the 27 exemptions however, exist to satisfy some 'special people' who would be put off by more arbitrary restrictions on transporting handguns. In order to frustrate those who passed this piece of sh*t law, we need to step into the shoes of those who they were trying to protect.

They've already succeeded in marginalizing those 27 different special people. That's the step taken before picking them off one or more at a time. They didn't just carve out 27 exemptions; they designed the 27 next amendments to the code. Remember the seat belt law? they said they would not stop people just for that, and they exempted busses, vehicles over 6000 lbs GVW, etc. Those exemptions are gone now. One at a time, and gone
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
They've already succeeded in marginalizing those 27 different special people. That's the step taken before picking them off one or more at a time. They didn't just carve out 27 exemptions; they designed the 27 next amendments to the code. Remember the seat belt law? they said they would not stop people just for that, and they exempted busses, vehicles over 6000 lbs GVW, etc. Those exemptions are gone now. One at a time, and gone

Seriously? You think that they will tell Hollywood..."Yeah, you're going to have to keep all the pistols cased... Sorry about the inconvenience. Have fun filming in Arizona."
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Seriously? You think that they will tell Hollywood..."Yeah, you're going to have to keep all the pistols cased... Sorry about the inconvenience. Have fun filming in Arizona."

they may not do them first, but consider the mindset of these lawmakers. they would like to see hollywood step away from guns. That's a side issue, but should be considered in the overall. the lawmakers have pared down the number of people who will complain about their next amendment to the law. It's divide and conquer.
 

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
hollywood

I work in the entertainment industry sometimes. It is very normal to have uniformed LEO's that are either retired or working paid overtime staffing a movie set for security and traffic control when filming on city streets along with regular security guards. I can tell you NOBODY IS GOING TO GET ARRESTED on the crew filming a legitimate film production with any show guns, no matter what kind of guns they have. These productions have a "armorer" who is responsible for the the prop guns; and collects, loads them with blanks if needed for a scene. The armors have every kind of gun imaginable form old tommy guns to the last auto weapons, depending on what is called for. All bullet hits you see is the responsibility of special effects guys. If a bullet hit is in water, they normally use paint ball guns to simulate the hits, on cars or dirt they use small explosive electronic charges. As far as the normal crime dramas the actors just walk around the sets (including outside location settings) with both concealed and open carried weapons. The LEO's could care less about the weapons and the actors just do their acting thing. Ever heard of a crew member getting arrested for anything illegal while on a movie set? It never happens. Nothing is going to change with the new law and the LEO's know who are paying their paychecks.
 
Last edited:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
they may not do them first, but consider the mindset of these lawmakers. they would like to see hollywood step away from guns. That's a side issue, but should be considered in the overall. the lawmakers have pared down the number of people who will complain about their next amendment to the law. It's divide and conquer.

The 'Entertainment' exemption is the chink in 26350's armor that I believe is the strongest to exploit because Hollywood money does to some extent control our legislature- I don't think even our legislature would alienate California's leading moneymaker to silence gunowners... though they may enact other laws to exclude us from claiming that we are having an entertainment event.
 
Top