Reason.tv: Guns, Laws, and Panics - How Fear, Not Fact, Informs the Gun Rights Debate

California has among the strictest gun laws in the country, and couple of local politicians are seizing the opportunity created by the Arizona shooting to make them even stricter.

While most states operate under a "shall-issue" concealed carry weapons (CCW) permitting regime, meaning that anyone who passes a basic background check can get a CCW, California uses the "may-issue" rule, which means the decision is left to the sole discretion of the county sheriff. The result? Approximately 0.1% of California citizens have CCWs, which is almost 20 times lower than in the average shall-issue state.

 This restrictive climate has led to the emergence of a burgeoning "Open Carry" movement, wherein citizens carry holstered, unloaded weapons in plain sight. California Assemblyman Anthony Portantino calls the open carry exemption in the law a "loophole," which he intends to close with Assembly Bill 144 (AB 144). 

Portantino's fellow Assembly member Lori Saldana tried to ban open carry in 2010, but the bill failed in the assembly. But this time, AB 144 has gained helpful momentum from an unexpected source: Jared Loughner. 

"Since the events in Arizona, gun issues have taken on a greater national debate and a greater significance," says Portantino. Earlier this year, AB 144 passed the Assembly and now will head to the state Senate in late August 2011 and then on to Governor Jerry Brown's desk.

Open Carry advocate Sam Wolanyk, who once successfully sued San Diego county when police arrested him for open carrying, says that the focus on lawful gun owners is misguided. 

"It doesn't matter if you stacked up 50,000 felonies," says Wolanyk of the Loughner situation. "You can't stop a crazy person from doing crazy things."

UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, creator of the popular law blog the Volokh Conspiracy, also says that crafting legislation in the face of rare tragedies is misguided.

"It doesn't make much sense to come up with comprehensive law focusing on those very rare incidents," says Volokh. 

Despite the fact that crime rates are down nation wide and that there has never been a reported incident of an Open Carrier hurting someone, Portantino stands firm that the practice is a public danger and a drain on police resources. He also says he has no plans on introducing legislation to loosen up concealed carry laws.   

"Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon," says Portantino, "doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable." 

Approximately 8:30.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Hawk Jensen.  

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon," says Portantino, "doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    The right to be comfortable?

  • Virginia||

    The right to not see an unloaded gun in public if they stare at your hip?

  • mr simple||

    Surely, then, he'll agree I have a right to not have to hear the stupid that comes out of his mouth and shut his trap.

  • ||

    Duh. It's Amendment 2B:

    "The Right of the People to be Comfortable at the Galleria food court, shall not be infringed."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Another nonexistent right made up by liberals, Elf. Goes well with "the right to healthcare" and Michael Moore's insipid "right to food" idea he floated on Larry King's show last year.

  • fish||

    Michael Moore's insipid "right to food" idea he floated on Larry King's show last year.

    You know making fun of Michael Moore is like shooting dairy cattle with a hunting rifle......there just is no sport in it!

  • Sean||

    I hope I don't get flamed for this, but I agree people have the right to food. The methods of getting it should be legal and moral, but legal can be forgotten in dire circumstances... moral shouldn't. Example, a starving person stealing a loaf of bread... illegal but moral. A starving person killing someone for a hotdog... illegal and immoral.

    Let's allow Portantino to have his right to be comfortable. Let him deal with all the attrocities that come with it... legal institutional racism, fat ugly people wandering about naked, people not having to work because their commute/job/coworkers make them uncomfortable.

  • ||

    If the starving person steels from another starving person is it still moral? What about if they steel from someone who is only hungry but not starving? Where is the cut off?

  • juris imprudent||

    What? You don't believe in the right to not be caused to wet your pants at the mere sight of a gun?

  • ||

    If you wet your pants at the sight of a gun, then you need help.....

    Criminals dont typically carry guns in plain sight until the moment of whatever it is they are trying to do. Open carry of an unloaded pistol....and you urinate yourself...come on really? If you ever come to Iowa please wear a diaper then because here we can open carry...loaded guns even.....ohhh the humanity....give me break....and a coupon for depends

  • rts||

    Do these other people wet their pants every time they see an armed cop?

    (Assuming they aren't regular Balko readers, that is.)

  • juris imprudent||

    No, they all trust the police - who have had special training that makes them better than ordinary folks.

  • ||

    smooches!

  • hmm||

    But they are experts in nothing. That way when they shoot your ass it is just Joe Schmo making a tragic and sad mistake...

  • ||

    YAWN. nice thing about cognitive dissonance, hmmm... it allows you to continue in your parade of dishonesty.

    you STILL can't admit that cops are not (as a whole) firearms experts.

    even yours truly, a firearms/use of force instructor is not

    smooches!

  • hmm||

    So you're saying that I hold both the belief that cops are experts and that they are not experts at the same time and this makes me uncomfortable? And that I would therefore remove one thought? Cause I'm rather comfortable at the moment.

    We know you aren't an expert. You're just another Joe protecting us from the world. You've stated this so often I think even you are beginning to believe it.

  • ||

    i am saying that you will employ whatever bullshit premise you want in order to support your metanarrative. and you won't admit you are wrong, thus you are here to argue, not to discuss.

    in the BART shooting, you claimed that cops are firearms experts, which is simply false.

    and you still won't admit that's a false claim.

    some cops are experts in some things. some are experts in more than one.

    i am saying that any salty patrol or detective is damn savvy about a lot of fucking stuff.

    i will say that i am an expert on some stuff, but not firearms, despite the fact i am more skilled and know far more than the average cop - it doesn't come close to expert knowledge.

  • juris imprudent||

    I wasn't slighting LE there chief, I was ridiculing the notion that magic govt pixie dust makes cops into infallible servants of the public good (and therefore worthy of carrying and using firearms).

    If you're still going to smooch me, you better have nice set of leathers.

  • ||

    and fwiw, i agree with this notion.

    one of things that does and should make us different from europe, canada, etc. is that we trust the average joe, not just cops,to carry weapons to defend themselves (or others)

    and we recognize a more expansive right to self defense as well

    cheers

  • yonemoto||

    whoa there. Shouldn't it *not* make us different from Europe? I mean, wouldn't the continent be a better place if average joes carried?

  • ||

    it;'s not a normative statement. it's a statement of how things are

  • ||

    Ask Rodney King about that "specialized training."

  • Tony||

    It's wet but it's not pee!

  • Hoplophobe||

    Just because one dude is comfortable snogging another dude in public doesn't give them the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable.

  • ||

    points for the cooper'esque use of hoplophobe...

  • ||

    I can find a right to carry a weapon in the Constitution...but I wonder if Portantino can direct me to where it contains an equally or greater protected right to be comfortable?

  • Tim||

    Liberals just can't leave it alone. It's in their nature.

  • OO||

    so the california county sheriffs who slowly issue CCW's are liberals? citation please

  • ||

    no, they are statists, though,

    when it comes to anti-RKBA assmunchery, though, overwhelmingly it comes from the left not the right. that's a given.

    cop-o-crat statists (although at least sheriffs are elected not appointed which makes them generally better than police chiefs, who are political appointees and tend to do whatever the mayor/town council wants) are a unique animal, though

    granted, there ARE some liberal and./or democratic sheriffs.

  • OO||

    of course law enforcement are statists since they enforce state law. evidently tim feels (not knows) but feels "liberals" are slowly issuing CCW permits fm california sheriff offices?! bizarre interpretation of the letter to the editor.

  • ||

    that does not necessarily follow. by "statist" we mean here people who believe in what we see to be EXCESSIVE state power. nobody but a (god forbid) anarchist would argue for essentially NO state power.

    sure, the average cop is more of a statist than the average reasonoid, but so is the average person.

  • ||

    that does not necessarily follow. by "statist" we mean here people who believe in what we see to be EXCESSIVE state power. nobody but a (god forbid) anarchist would argue for essentially NO state power.

    sure, the average cop is more of a statist than the average reasonoid, but so is the average person.

  • seguin||

    Sheriff is an elected office, so you bet your ass it could be a bunch of libs.

    But frankly, it isn't necessary, plenty of repubs are assholes

  • ||

    I would bet everything I own that many California sheriffs (and others in may issue states) hand out concealed permits in a corrupt fashion. I would bet that if someone pulled the data they would see that sheriff's probably all have a huge number of "friends" that they have issued permits to. I would bet that even though they issue a tiny number of permits that all of their friends, wife's friends, political friends, etc, have concealed licenses.

    Isn't power and corruption lovely? Too bad the law makers in may issue states are so stupid.

  • Going Postal||

    Guns are bad.

  • ||

    Guns are not bad, some people are bad. Name one time that a gun hurt somebody all by it self?

  • Il Douchey||

    Megatron.

  • hmm||

    Voltron!

  • Your Elbow||

    That makes no sense at all. Voltron carried a sword.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Does that make governments bad for using guns?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • ||

    Then you should leave this country as our freedom from the crown was won because of guns...

  • ||

    Should be quite interesting to see hwo that all turns out.

    www.anon-web.it.tc

  • ||

    It certainly llwi.

  • Virginia||

    Why does the Silicon Valley crowd still operate in California? I imagine there are some gorgeous valleys in less authoritarian states.

  • Mainer||

    Come to New Hampshire...No Income Tax

  • ||

    Just insane property tax. Or come to Washington, with no income tax, just 9+% sales tax.

  • ||

    it's a good tradeoff imo. i'd rather have (some) consumption taxed, than have income taxed.

  • ||

    Yeah and it isn't 9% throughout most of the state either. I believe the state tax is 6.5% but after the county and city additions it comes out to 9.5 if you live in Seattle. Go to Spokane its 7.7%

  • ||

    i have friends with vancover (WA) pd and they have it great. live in WA where they are not taxed on their income and then go shopping across the river in portland where there is no sales tax

  • Tony||

    Can't we all agree that it's just better to be taxed?

  • ||

    Also known as tax evasion.

  • ||

    [Why does the Silicon Valley crowd still operate in California?]

    In larger numbers, they don't. I toured the Costa Rica rain forest last winter and the botanist guide indicated bananas were still the #1 export of the country. However, #2 is computer chips. He laughed and asked us to forward his thanks to the libs in Kalifornia.

  • Colin||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weaponsexuality," says PortantinoSantorum, "doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    And people still believe liberals and conservatives are somehow different.

  • hazeeran||

    This.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not a good comparison.

    Not recognizing something is not the same as prohibiting something.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Not a good comparison.

    Not recognizing something is not the same as prohibiting something.


    True.

    The Supreme Court recognized this distinction in Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S.464 at 475 (1977) (noting that "[t]here is a basic difference between direct state interference with
    a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative activity consonant with legislative policy.") Thus, a negative duty to refrain from prohibiting firearms or sodomy (or punishing sodomy by prohibiting possession of firearms) does not translate to a positive duty to provide firearms, nor to grant legal recognition and social and cultural meaning to a sodomous union, per the principle in Maher .

  • ||

    ...there has never been a reported incident of an Open Carrier hurting someone...

    In Minneapolis 2005, a bouncer was shot in the back by a drunk who had a permit:

    http://www.bridgelandnews.org/703

    Strangely, the anti-gun folk in town really didn't make a fuss over it either.

  • sarcasmic||

    Open Carry does not require a permit.

  • ||

    What kind of pistol "permit" was there in MN in 2005?

  • ||

    It was the new Conceal & Carry.

    Tying in to the article, it was passed after many furious citizens complained that nobody was issued permits by LE (I think the County has to issue), even if there were sound reasons for the request. If I remember correctly, LE was bragging that they didn't even look at many of the requests.

  • ||

    [If I remember correctly, LE was bragging that they didn't even look at many of the requests.]

    Nobodyy in Mn. ever heard of a Writ of Mandamus?

  • ||

    And if the police ignore a law or a court order, what are you going to do, call the police?

  • ||

    who cares if an open carrier hurt someone? the whole point of carry is first to deter crime w/o having to actually fire, but if necessary - to fire.

    justified shoots can result in somebody getting "hurt" but that's not a drawback to open or concealed carry.

  • hmm||

    I have to shower now, feel so dirty...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's a loophole in the law that allows Portantino to talk so annoyingly with his hands.

  • ||

    Is that what those were? I thought some old B-roll of a display of dried sausages had bled through.

  • Mainer||

    Anti-gunners used to be explicitly anti-gun. I recall Bill Clinton started the ploy of supporting gun rights, subject to "reasonable restrictions", of course. No guns in sensitive places like schools or courthouses. Or places children might be, like parks. Or densely populated urban areas. Or in the beauty of our national parks where families go to vacation. Or loaded and ready for use within your home. But other than that, they absolutely support your right to keep and bear arms.

  • MNG||

    ""It doesn't make much sense to come up with comprehensive law focusing on those very rare incidents"

    Er, these incidents are not all that rare in the United States, that is kind of the point gun control advocates are making...

  • ||

    Crazed nutters shooting up political events is pretty rare, MNG. Can't think of another one, offhand.

  • MNG||

    You're being amazingly restrictive, why not say that events where a man shoots his family at a skating rink are rare.

    Events where a person with a gun shoot people are unfortunately not, and that's what gun control advocates would like to see become more rare.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...and that's what gun control advocates would like to see become more rare.

    Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    (Be warned, I'm going to start using in my comments things I hear on TV courtroom dramas.)

  • MNG||

    So you want to argue that gun control advocates would like to see more gun homicides?

    By all means, I'd love to see this...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Badgering the witness!

    "Control" is the boner-inducing word in the phrase. They know that gun control won't lead to a reduction in gun violence. The gangbangers and hicks shooting each other aren't doing it because shooting each other is currently legal.

  • sarcasmic||

    People keen on committing murder will be deterred because of laws prohibiting them from carrying a gun?

    That's just dumb.

  • MNG||

    People keen on committing murder/assault/extortion will be deterred because of laws prohibiting them from asking a worker to sing a card?

    That's just dumb.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's also a straw man.

  • MNG||

    you keep using this term. i think it does not mean what you think it does.

  • MNG||

    But more to the point sarcy, gun control advocates aim to make guns so hard to get that even if you are keen on committing murder one is likely not handy.

    Do you want to argue people in Japan or Europe are THAT much less keen than we are to commit murder? But their homicide rates are very low. It's likely because guns are not handy.

  • juris imprudent||

    Wrong. The non-gun homicide rates between countries are what you should be looking at - and those are as different as with gun.

  • MNG||

    Are they?

  • sarcasmic||

    Are they?
    Yes.
    The hat just blew off your straw man. Why don't you go chase it.

  • MNG||

    Is the ration of US non-gun homicide rates/European non-gun homicide rates=US gun homicide rate/European gun homicide rate?

    Or better put, the non-gun homicide rate in the US is not THAT much higher than the same for Europe.

    So we're not that much more murderous. Yet our total murder rate is THAT much higher.

    It's gotta be the guns dude.

  • juris imprudent||

    Well, don't I feel like a trout right about now.

  • MNG||

    Our total homicide rate is like five+ times what most European nations is. Our non-gun rate is higher, but not nearly that high, so you simply cannot argue we are just more murderous in general.

    The simple fact is that we kill a lot more people WITH GUNS than other nations do.

  • juris imprudent||

    Funny, but not so with Mexico, Brazil or South Africa - who all manage to kill more without guns then we do with. Nor that the Swiss or Israelis have as many if not more guns than we do (per capita) and lower murder rates than France, Germany or Britain.

    Yeah, it's all 'bout the guns.

  • MNG||

    I would think third and second world nations are not comparable to first world nations. As to the Swiss and Israel these nations have lots of guns but pretty tight laws about them, so I'm not sure you can say they are as "available" as here.

    How do you explain the much higher murder rate here than in nations with otherwise comparable living conditions? We've already shown it can't be due to some general murderousness...

  • juris imprudent||

    Are you suggesting that 2nd and 3rd world citizens are less disinclined to murder their fellowman than 1st worlders? White-mans burden much?

    Doesn't that make my point - it ain't about gun availability? Could it possibly be due to other factors?

  • Fyi||

    There are plenty of criminals with guns in the EU, it is just the citizens who are not armed, and risk prosecution for defending them self in there home.
    People have been held liable for the simple fact that the burgler got hurt, and been forced to pay up for pain and suffering.

  • ||

    Most of those killings occur in locations where carrying guns is illegal. (DC, Chicago, NY City etc...)

  • ||

    Switzerland is awash in guns. The AK47 is practically required in a 1 to household ratio. And last time I checked, Switzerland is part of Europe. As are Finland and Denmark, both of which also have very high rates of gun ownership.

    Yet there is no blood flowing in the streets in any of those countries. Clearly it's not the guns..."dude."

  • ||

    It couldn't be demographic differences?
    Nah, couldn't be.

  • ||

    Since when are you anti-gun? Your bullshit trolling has really become unfortunate. You didn't use to be like this. It's one thing to disagree; it's another to troll.

  • Warty||

    Is the MNG brand being taken over by spoofers like Tony was? It's getting hard to tell when it's the real MNG making real arguments, the real MNG trolling, or spoof MNGs spoofing.

  • MNG||

    Someone has been spoofing me, I figured it was our resident adolscents like you Warty, or SF or gobby.

    But look, if you think that only a spoofer can make the argument that our high gun homicide (or total homicide) rate has something to do with the availibility of guns in our nation then I dunno what to say to, or for, you.

  • Warty||

    I don't spoof, idiot, and I don't give a fuck about arguing with your nonsense.

  • MNG||

    "I don't give a fuck about arguing with your nonsense"

    Whew, boy did I dodge a close one there!

  • ||

    If someone is spoofing you, then that sucks. But I can assure you it is neither me nor Warty.

  • MNG||

    It's likely gobby in one of his variations, but really, it's no big deal either way.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If someone is spoofing you, then that sucks. But I can assure you it is neither me nor Warty.

    I am very curious as to how you can speak so definitively for warty. Very curious, indeed.

  • Warty||

    We spend more nights spooning than not, and he helps me tweeze those hard-to-reach taint hairs. Talk inevitably turns to Hit and Run.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Suddenly I'm less curious.

  • Tony||

    Taken over by spoofers? From behind I hope!

  • MNG||

    I'm not anti-gun, but I don't pretend gun control advocates don't have a point when they argue that gun availibility is a huge factor in many terrible events.

    Gun rights have to be supported on other grounds than they are not harmful.

  • ||

    false. please show me how (for example)the states that have liberalized carry etc. saw a boost in crime

    the EVIDENCE refutes your claim, or at least does not support it

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    I'm not anti-gun, but I don't pretend gun control advocates don't have a point when they argue that gun availibility is a huge factor in many terrible events.


    They DON'T have a point, it's irrelevant. It's like arguing that the avaialbility of air causes people to hyperventilate.

    Gun rights have to be supported on other grounds than they are not harmful.


    Gun rights are FIRMLY SETTLED in property rights, MNG.

  • ||

    How about "we have an inalienable right to carry them, regardless of what the murder rate is or what law enforcement thinks about it?"

    Is that a good enough reason?

  • sarcasmic||

    Homicide rates in this country are skewed due to gang related activity. It's not like gangs give a shit what the law says.
    Take that out and the differences in statistics can be easily written off to cultural differences.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But more to the point sarcy, gun control advocates aim to make guns so hard to get that even if you are keen on committing murder one is likely not handy.


    How does that work with heroin?

    Was River Phoenix's death a hoax?

    Do you want to argue people in Japan or Europe are THAT much less keen than we are to commit murder?


    Mexico, Russia, Jamaica.

  • hmm||

    So what's your argument for Sweden? Cause they all gots evil guns and government funded entitlement ammo and their rates are low? Hmm maybe its more culture and less law?

  • ||

    pretty much everybody wants them to become rare. however, there is no evidence that banning/severely restricting gunz (let alone "assault weapons") does anything to contribute to that goal.

    and to the contrary, in states that "liberalized" to shall issue, crime rates did NOT go up. they went down. correlation = / = causation but it the opposite happened, they WOULD consider that proof that shall issue = more crime

  • Mensan||

    Assault weapons, hahahahahaha ...

    I think it's hilarious that the whole classification of an assault weapon was invented just to give the crybabies a name for the weally scarwy wooking guns.

  • ||

    yup.

    assault weapons are the perfect example of both arbitrariness (a serious problem with "may issue" states) and the idea that controlling the language helps control the debate

  • hmm||

    Stop making me agree with you, I'm raw from showering.

  • ||

    Events where individuals defend themselves with a firearm are far more common than events where someone wrongfully uses a firearm to commit violence. This is statistical fact. The hopes that banning firearms will somehow dimishes violent assault is nothing more than a pipe dream.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Er, these incidents are not all that rare in the United States, that is kind of the point gun control advocates are making...


    Yes, they ARE rare, or do you really want to argue that these incidents are ROUTINE and UBIQUITOUS?

    If they weren't RARE, it would mean we are in the middle of a civil war or a wave of criminality only seen during sieges. What I believe is that you change concepts whenever expediency dictates, the hallmark of a utilitarian.

  • Il Douchey||

    Chicks trying to murder themselves and their kids by drowning them in a tub or driving them into a lake isn't all that rare here either. Ophelia gene aside, should society restrict women's access to water?

  • In Time of War||

    I've always been a huge proponent of gun control for other people. If everyone else would kindly disarm, I promise to only shoot folks who really, really need it.

  • MNG||

    It's funny to see libertarians argue that the occasional, though fairly regular, terrible act by gun owners should not be the basis of gun policy when in every union thread they take stories of violence by union members as the rightful basis of union policy.

    Consistency, how does it work?

  • sarcasmic||

    Do the overalls come with the straw man, or are they extra?

  • MNG||

    I'm curious as to what is the strawman?

    Let's have some fun and have you place your integrity where your mouth is today. If I produce a H&R comment making this union argument you address me as MNG the Wise in all of your future exchanges with me?

    Willing to take the bet, or stfu?

  • ||

    every & they /=/ one

  • MNG||

    Good catch Capn' Pedant. OK, here's a wager for you then: I produce several comments from several posters on several threads will you address me the same, or do you want to stfu now?

    C'mon, take the bet!

  • ||

    Yes, and find the posts where the commenters self-identify as libertarians.

    Oh, and several /=/ every, Capn' Mathtard.

  • MNG||

    Did I say every?

    I mean, since we are being pedantic and all.

    I said libertarians. So if I produce several then that plural feature is satisfied.

  • ||

    Produce them.

  • MNG||

    Make the wager then. MNG the Wise.

  • juris imprudent||

    when in every union thread

    I don't know, what do you think MNG? Did you say "every" or not?

  • ||

    I was going to point that out, being Capn' Pedant and all, but decided to let minge waste his time searching for examples to support his tangential rant.

    His kid will grow up lonely because daddy couldn't just let those libertards think he was some strawman using commenter.

  • MNG||

    Every union thread, but not every libertarian, nice try Pedant, but cap l was talking about the latter (see "find the posts where the commenters self-identify as libertarians")

  • juris imprudent||

    That is Sir Pedant to you.

  • MNG||

    Sir Pedant sounds like someone who would have been on stage with Parliament.

  • juris imprudent||

    You'll have to pay real money if you want to see/hear me boogie down.

    [with apologies to Future Man - who really does rock]

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm curious as to what is the strawman?

    That violence by union members is the rightful basis of union policy.

    It may be one of many rightful bases, but to argue that it is the basis is a straw man.

  • MNG||

    Oh my lord you are the King of Pedants.

  • sarcasmic||

    Thank you oh King of the Straw Men.

  • MNG||

    Look, the argument that union policy should be based on the idea that union members sometimes do violent acts is a commonly made one here. Do you dispute that, or do you not know what a strawman is?

  • MNG||

    There's the bet. Several posts, several comments, several commentators. Unless you're the worst of pedants that backs up what I said.

    Take it anyone?

  • sarcasmic||

    You're asking people to take a bet as to whether or not you can demolish a straw man.

    Then you claim victory when nobody disputes your ability to destroy an argument of your own creation?

    Holy shit you're an idiot.

  • juris imprudent||

    I think Tony is spoofing MNG.

  • Tony||

    I'm spoofing myself.....oooh it feels good. You should all try it! Nothing to be ashamed of it's perfectly natural.

  • MNG||

    OK, since you clearly don't know what a straw man is let me inform you.

    When someone makes a straw man argument they make an argument that noone actually makes and ascribe it to a side.

    But you KNOW that many (happy pedants?) libertarians often (again pedants) argue here that union policy should be designed on the basis of unions 'propensity' to violence.

    So if people actually make the argument then it is not a straw man dude.

    It's like you wandered onto political blogs and saw people use that term and thought it would be cute to use it yourself, but never knowing how to.

  • sarcasmic||

    So if people actually make the argument then it is not a straw man dude.

    If the person or persons you are arguing with are not making that argument then it is a straw man.

  • MNG||

    It depends, if the person claims that "libertarians" and some or many do, then no, you're wrong.

  • sarcasmic||

    I see. So if you can come up with evidence of someone claiming to represent me making such an argument, then it is not a straw man when you tear down that argument and claim victory over me.

    You're even dumber than I thought you were.

  • ||

    Careful, by the time tags it looks like MNG needs his juice and nap.

  • juris imprudent||

    But you KNOW that many (happy pedants?) libertarians often (again pedants) argue here that union policy should be designed on the basis of unions 'propensity' to violence.

    In every thread.

  • MNG||

    When did you become such a silly pedant?

    If I change my comment to this:

    the argument that union policy should be based on the idea that union members sometimes do violent acts is a commonly made one here

    Do you have a problem with it?

    And if you are OK with it, then why are you on your third post over the word every versus commonly?

    Is that anything other than silly pedantism?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    the argument that union policy should be based on the idea that union members sometimes do violent acts is a commonly made one here


    When has that comment been made?

  • ||

    Anyoen want to wager on how many times MNG has abused the word pendant, hint when someone uses a slight numerous times it usually means they are getting frustrated.

    I'm guessing he has hit around 2 dozen. I am wagering 50 obama rupees on this.

  • Mainer||

    Deja vu all over again.

  • ||

    It's funny to see libertarians argue that the occasional, though fairly regular, terrible act by gun owners should not be the basis of gun policy when in every union organized crime thread they take stories of violence by union members gangbangers as the rightful basis of union organized crime policy.

    Pretty much, yeah.

  • MNG||

    Ah, thanks RC, you save me from having to even go to another thread, paying attention sarcy and cap l?.

    You guys are reliable to say the least.

  • MNG||

    All libertarians argue that unions are bad and all gun owners are good. All.

  • MNG||

    Ah, the spoof, the first refuge of the angry but stupid lil' scoundrel.

  • ||

    I know you are, but what am I?

  • MNG||

    A stupid pussy?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    It's funny to see libertarians argue that the occasional, though fairly regular, terrible act by gun owners should not be the basis of gun policy when in every union thread they take stories of violence by union members as the rightful basis [sic] of union policy.[What????]


    Conflating two separate issues, MNG? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    In the FIRST place, Libertarian objections against Unionism are firmly based on PROPERTY RIGHTS, not on the acts of a few union people. We're not LIKE YOU, Mr. Utilitarian.

    Second, rare instances of "gun owners" (as if owning a gun made one something else besides a thinking human being) acting horribly do not make a case for taking away guns from people that have NOT committed any crimes or anything near comparable.

    The quest to ban and take guns from people has always been rooted on the longing for power: to exert it and to wield it with NO resistance from a defenseless population. That's all.

    There's a GOOD reason why the Chinese invented those cool Kung Fu moves: The population was forbidden from possessing iron weapons, so they had to do with whatever was on hand. Tyrants adn opressors will always seek to maximize their power by minimizing people's ability to defend themselves.

  • MNG||

    Pffff. Like I'm gonna read all that. Alls I know is, libertarians are stupid and hypocritical. They just must be. MNG the Wise has spoken!

  • MNG||

    rare instances of "unions members" (as if being in a union made one something else besides a thinking human being) acting horribly do not make a case for taking away organizing rights from people that have NOT committed any crimes or anything near comparable.

  • juris imprudent||

    And nothing else happened. Honest to god, I can't start drinking this early in the day.

  • MNG||

    Libertarians are not usually one to base policy on the possibility of people bad, even a possibility based on past examples of like people doing bad things.

    But in the card check debates or the sharing of employee info debates it was quite common for people to say "we can't allow that because unions have intimidated people in the past and so they might do so in those situations if we allow the situations to occur."

    It's the same logic.

    Some union members have done bad things when organizing, therefore we have to have policy that not only bars the bad things, but works to prevent situations in which bad things MAY happen from coming to be.

    Replace union members with gun owners and you have the policy being discussed above.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    It's the same logic.


    No, you're merely throwing red herrings around. The point of the debate here is gun control. You simply shoehorned this card-check canard as a way to undermine the libertarian position on gun ownership, as if the two issues were comparable; they certainly are NOT.

    Objections on unionism stem from PROPERTY RIGHTS and government-granted exclusivism. Anybody can form a union - that's their right; and by the same token any employer can tell union members to take a hike. However, unions are granted special rights by government that nobody else has or could possibly have: That of controlling someone else's private property and hiring decisions.

    You simply can't make a cogent case against gun ownership. You will instead rely on obfuscation and red herrings; on shifting the focus and the sensationalizing of isolated cases.

  • Matt||

    congratulations on your wonderful tautology, MNG. By the way the price of straw has risen to $10 a barrel since you started commenting on this article.

    Libertarians aren't for banning unions. We're for removing laws that BAN business from hiring nonunion labor.

  • MNG||

    I'm talking about the many discussions of card check and organizing law here dude.

  • sarcasmic||

    You mean the argument that card check could encourage coercion?

    Yes I think card check could encourage coercion.

    Any open ballot creates an incentive to influence the outcome of the election. That influence could come in the form of union thugs intimidating employees, or special interests dangling carrots to Congressmen.

    The subject of the open ballot, in this case unions, is irrelevant.

    Just because you want it to be relevant doesn't make it so.

  • ||

    Let's takle business men, I know many in the city I live in, Seattle, who have felt the need to keep their political orientation completely under wraps. Now imagine if their voting records where somehow public information? For non-progressive/progressive businessmen in a progressive/non-progressive area it can have an unwanted fallout on your business. Despite the famous adage business is personal and political orientation does come into play for some people.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    I'm talking about the many discussions of card check and organizing law here dude.


    Liar.

    What you did was to conflate two totally different issues and to boot, totally MISREPRESENT the libertarian position on unions. Get this straight: Libertarians are NOT opposed to unions; they (as well as I) are opposed to their MONOPOLY STATUS granted by government through diverse pieces of legislation. That has NOTHING to do with union thuggery; Libertarians do not and should not rely on GUILT BY ASSOCIATION as argument.

  • ||

    as a corollary, i think the general consensus here otoh is against PUBLIC SECTOR unions

  • sarcasmic||

    I really don't know who is making that argument. I certainly am not.
    Has a Reason contributor made that argument? I don't know.
    Even if one has, what does it matter?
    Am I supposed to agree because it came from Reason?
    It is not uncommon to see a contributor ripped apart in the comments.

    You're asking us to agree with your argument to give it legitimacy so you can shred it and claim victory, and then when nobody takes the bait you claim victory.

    What a fucking idiot you are.

  • MNG||

    I think you know its a bad bet for you. It's commonly made and those who make it are hardly ripped apart-unless you count when I do the ripping ;) (eww, that was a bit too joe-ish even for me)

  • sarcasmic||

    The part you can't seem to get is that I am not making that argument.

    That is what makes it a straw man.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    rare instances of "unions members" (as if being in a union made one something else besides a thinking human being) acting horribly do not make a case for taking away organizing rights from people that have NOT committed any crimes or anything near comparable.


    Now you're indulging in intellectual dishonesty, despite the fact that I called you out on your strawman.

    It won't work, MNG.

  • Il Douchey||

    It's the difference between wanting to go after Al Qaeda for 9/11 and wanting to go after Muslims for 9/11, minge.

  • Old Mexican||

    UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, creator of the popular law blog the Volokh Conspiracy, also says that crafting legislation in the face of rare tragedies is miguided.

    "It doesn't make much sense to come up with comprehensive law focusing on those very rare incidents," says Volokh.


    Extraordinary incidents make bad laws.

  • Lowdog||

    What about the 16 yo kid that defended himself and his mother from armed robbers with a shotgun? I'll bet the robbers didn't care if it was legal or illegal to have a firearm. What was the kid supposed to do if he was not armed, himself?

  • Bleedin' heart liberal||

    Re: Lowdog,

    What was the kid supposed to do if he was not armed, himself?


    Have his body outlined with chalk, along with his mother's. That is what the State is there for, no need for guns!

  • MNG||

    What about all those 16 year old kids who got into daddy's guns and shot themselves even as I was typing this very message?

  • Matt||

    "What about all those 16 year old kids who got into daddy's guns and shot themselves even as I was typing this very message?"

    Really? Let'd have some names, MNG. Because you know it all, don't you?

  • MNG||

    That's the spoofer. Schools out for summer

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    What about all those 16 year old kids who got into daddy's guns and shot themselves even as I was typing this very message?


    Sure! How many, MNG? Oh, and don't give me simple statistics on 16 year olds being shot, because most 16 year olds that ARE shot are either gang members or were committing suicide.

    No, I want to see a statistic on corn-fed, straight A 16 year olds that actually TOOK their daddy's .357 and shot themselves by ACCIDENT.

    I will wait... sitting down, if you don't mind.

  • Lowdog||

    Citation?

    Also, you can kill yourself very easily by: driving a car, using power tools, climbing a latter, taking a shower, etc, etc, etc. I don't see calls for banning all these other, useful, but dangerous tools.

    Why don't you actually learn how to use the tool you're railing against instead of just being scared of it?

  • ||

    Because he's an illogical authoritarian.

  • ||

    which is EXCEEDINGLY rare.

    feel free to research causes of deaths for teens

    accidental (unintentional) shootings don't even come close to the top

    and the rates have been declining for years (despite the greater availability of gunz)

  • ||

    As if kids don't get into other things like, laundry detergent, medicine, sticking stuff in places it doesn't belong. The state has no business to do anything in those situations.

  • Matt||

    "on main street we have sworn officers of the law"

    Who are omniscient and omnipresent and omnipotent. In fact, you shouldn't even try to defend yourself with a stick or your fists or a beer bottle if you are attacked, because those sworn officers are waiting just around the corner and will be there any minute now.

  • juris imprudent||

    And have the full backing of their union no matter what dumbass atrocious behavior they act out. Oh noes, MNG the Wiseass will be all over this!

  • ||

    false. as i have stated, unions have and do come out against officers on any # of occasions.

    they GENERALLY support officers actions (they are not defense attorneys and thus not wedded to having to always support the accused), but not always

  • juris imprudent||

    Point to one incident of late where the union threw a bad cop under the bus. One point will suffice.

  • ||

    SURE. although technically, to refute your claim i'd just have to show the union NOT supporting an officer.

    here's a good one, one i frequently use (i called for schene's prosecution immediately upon release of the video, a refutation of the claim i always support cops, which is absurd)

    anyway, the union refused to support schene. w./o the union support, schene COULD NOT seek arbitration and try to get his job back (note : many officers get their jobs back through arbitration... don griffee comes to mind)...

    note also, this is both local (to me) as well as recent. my point is your broad brush claim is false:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ne02m.html
    After that, Schene set about trying to get his job back. To do that, he'd have to go to arbitration, a process in which he'd need the support of the King County Police Officers Guild, according to sheriff's spokesman Sgt. John Urquhart.

    The union's executive board recently voted not to back Schene, Urquhart said.

    "This is uncommon," he said. "It's been my impression that the police-officers guild takes more cases to arbitration than they turn down."

    Schene can't go to arbitration by hiring his own attorney. He still does have the option to file a civil suit alleging he was wrongfully terminated.

    "It's not up to the deputy," Urquhart said. "The guild decides whether to go forward or not."

  • juris imprudent||

    OK I guess that evens out the killers of Jose Guerena and their union slimeball mouthpiece.

  • ||

    ok, well as long as you admit your broad brush claim was false.

    as for jose guerana, the investigation (correctly) revealed the shooting to be justified.

    among other things, bullet damage to guerana's gun showed it was pointed towards the officers when they fired.

    it was tragic, and one could argue some of the TACTICS sucked (and i would agree) but that's tangential to the fact that the officers who fired did so based on reasonable justification.

    although, it's also a tangent and a strawman since nobody claimed it "evened out" anything...

  • juris imprudent||

    as for jose guerana, the investigation (correctly) revealed the shooting to be justified.

    Oh, sure, the agencies and political hacks involved say it was "justified".

    We'll have to see what the courts say.

    But would you trust any of those clowns backing you up? Especially the one who threw his weapon in between two others (in the doorway) and blindly emptied the magazine?

    Yes, I did ask for just one case, and you provided it. Were we to put this question to a quantitative analysis, you would be buried.

  • ||

    i wouldn't be "buried" because i agree - in MOST cases, the union will back the officers. that's their JOB. however, when and if officers are found to be clearly in the wrong, they very frequently will not

    there are tons of other examples. you didn't find the union backing the criminal thugs in the louima case either.

    they threw those motherfuckers under the bus lickety split, as they should have

    the quantitative analysis i would PASS since i never claimed anything contrary to data. you did

    hth

    but cheers for acknowledging the underlying case we both agree on -most of the time, in force i ncidents, the unions backs the officers

  • ||

    Of course, Old Mexican's posts are just a waste of time, since MNG has a unique talent for obfuscation. Good luck, OM -- I hope you get through to him.

    Portantino, the fat fuck that he is, can eat shit and die.

    How is it justifiable to demand that people ask their servants in government permission before owning and/or carrying weapons? When will all the statists wither and die off already?

  • juris imprudent||

    A dollar to a donut he, like the imperial Roman Senator Don Perata before him, has a CCW permit. Has to protect himself from the hoi polloi donchaknow.

  • ||

    I also bet that he, like the fucking morons in uniform he insists will serve and protect, can't shoot for shit.

  • ||

    smooches!

    (yer post was herd to rede since we are such fucking mor0ns! trie not to uze such bigg werds next time kthxbai)

  • ||

    I wasn't referring to you, or even cops in general -- I was referring to big-city California cops.

  • ||

    the only STUDY i have seen (old FBI LEJ study) was that cops *average* an IQ of about 110 (depending on which method was used to measure etc.).

    iow , they are smarter "g"-wise than the average person, and the mean, but not supah-geniuses ... which gets a hearty "duh" from me.

    as somebody who did many ride-alongs in california big cities e.g. LA, i didn't see any evidence the big city cal cops deviate from the norm

    granted, i think it's natural to assume lesser intelligence amongst those who may disagree on policy issues e.g. right to carry, but that's generally a mistake.

    also, i am not even sure what the majority of california cops think about concealed carry.

    don't confuse the viewpoints of cop-o-crats (who have little or no relation to actual cops) with actual cops.

    IACP etc. do not represent the viewpoints of COPS.

    from what i have seen, not just in my agency, but on policenet, etc. - most cops support RKBA

  • ||

    It really depends where the cop is from. Most cops from more rural areas, such as my uncle, completely support the right to carry. I have meet a few here in seattle who would prefer that it didn't exist.

  • ||

    LA and San Diego -- that's where I've been fucked with on several occasions. I guess I should steer clear.

  • ||

    i certainly think that is true. among other things, urban cops are culled from a more liberal and more urban environment, and since urban peeps in general tend to be more pro gun control, urban cops tend to be moreso as well

    fwiw, i was pro gun control before i became a cop. arguments from volokh etc. informed my constitutional reasons for supporting it, and street experience informed my change to supporting it as a policy decision.

  • ||

    I'm pro gun control too. A gun under control will project a bullet that hits the target.

  • ||

    So they can;t get around that pesky second amendment to completely outlaw guns from private citizens like they want to. Instead they intend to make the process so annoying and impossible to get through, that people would rather take a bullet in the head from a crack addict with a stolen weapon than actually try to get some protection.

  • Matt||

    I bet the liberal argument for the "may issue" language was "well if they can't get a conceal permit they can still get an open carry permit." Then they go after open carry and try to argue the opposite, knowing full well that the "may issue" conceal permit is completely arbitrary.

    It's one thing if there's objective standards that people could rely upon for getting a conceal permit. It's quite another to just leave it up to the local sheriff to make an arbitrary decision -- you're just asking for graft, corruption, and neoptism to occur. Or if you don't want to make a statewide test and prefer to allow local control (nothing wrong with that), at least mandate that the criteria for getting a conceal permit has to be objective and measurable, not something like "this guy's engaged to the sheriff's daughter." If a sheriff can't justify withholding a conceal permit objectively, the petitioner should be able to sue him.

    I hate arbitrary government power, it breeds so much corruption.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It's one thing if there's objective standards that people could rely upon for getting a conceal permit. It's quite another to just leave it up to the local sheriff to make an arbitrary decision -- you're just asking for graft, corruption, and neoptism to occur.


    Indeed, would not this arbitrariness fail even rational basis review under the equal protection or due process clauses of the 14th Amendment?

    How many of those anti-gunners would support a similar policy with respect to marriage licenses issued by county clerks?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Instead they intend to make the process so annoying and impossible to get through, that people would rather take a bullet in the head from a crack addict with a stolen weapon than actually try to get some protection.


    And how does this withstand judicial scrutiny, if similar policies regarding speech and marriage would not?

  • ||

    In some circles, this kind of jiggering Second Amendment rights would be called a "chilling effect."

  • Michael Ejercito||

    In some circles, this kind of jiggering Second Amendment rights would be called a "chilling effect."


    Great point.

    If only courts would recognize it.

  • rogue biologist||

    Sam's a good guy, but as I know him, I'm going to be clear about my opinion: the only reason why he made this video was because he wants to get in Michelle Fields' pants.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who wouldn't?

  • rogue biologist||

    She's not the prettiest on the Reason video roster (I prefer Alyona), but yeah squarely a "one".

  • Old Mexican||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon," says Portantino, "doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."


    So Portantino simply invented a new right - The right to feel comfortable.

  • Matt||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon," says Portantino, "doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    What if I wear a T-shirt with a gun on it and it makes other people feel uncomfortable?

    What if I'm carrying a toy gun around and it makes people feel uncomfortable?

    What if I'm carrying a baton around in public? What about a butcher knife? What about a TASER?

    What about cops who carry LOADED weapons around in public? What about the people who feel uncomfortable about THAT? Until you're prepared to restrict cops from doing the same thing, don't restrict the citizens!

  • ||

    correct, although this still sets aside the more important issue that there is no right not to feel uncomfortable

    i am sure gay men kissing in public makes many people uncomfortable. so what? doesn't justify banning the behavior

    fat people in spandex makes me uncomfortable, but again...

    there simply is no right not to feel uncomfortable.

    and statistically speaking, open carriers are LESS of a threat than non-open carriers (iow everybody else), so it is illogical to feel uncomfortable around them

    iow, the discomfortis statistically suspect (unlike the gay men kissing example which isn't based on any statistical danger - false or not)

  • Michael Ejercito||

    i am sure gay men kissing in public makes many people uncomfortable. so what? doesn't justify banning the behavior


    Matybe not with kissing, but public sex acts are often prohibited for this reason. The constitutionality of banning consensual public sex acts is still an open question. Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 558 at 578 (noting that the case does not "involve public conduct")

  • ||

    i'm not sure one way or the other if public sex acts are banned because they make people "uncomfortable". clearly, to an extent they DO, but i haven't seen what the justification is or by what basis the courts have upheld such laws

  • Matt||

    In my opinion there's a pretty big difference between carrying an unloaded gun in public and performing explicit sex in public. The latter is a lot more noticeable.

    I'd guess that public sex acts are banned more to protect minors than anything else. And for sanitation purposes as well.

    Although this does present an interesting, somewhat vexing libertarian issue -- it is technically a peaceful thing that people are doing. However, I would imagine that being a public place, some people don't want to see that but may not have a choice since it's a public location. Same with public exposure or urination. It's a little different and certainly more noticeable than carrying a gun, plus it has the sanitation concerns as well that carrying an unloaded gun doesn't have.

  • ||

    i don't have a problem with it, but then i accept that SOME morals legislation is ok.

    i agree it's probably in large part for the children, as odious as that justification tends to be

    public urination laws, and public indecency laws(sex in public etc.) have exceptions when the person(s) make at least reasonable effort to conceal themselves but just happen to be seen

    note also that many jurisdictions ban public nudity (but not oregon iiuc) which certainly requires more justification than banning sex acts in public.

    iow, the latter is more 'extreme'

    i don't think the sanitation thing is really the issue. it might be an excuse, but i don't think it's the reason.

  • Matt||

    If a man, ahem, "misfires" onto a subway seat or park bench, that's pretty unsanitary.

  • ||

    MNG

    Many European countries have firearms laws less restrictive than many US states and high firearms ownership rates to go along with them. Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Finland come to mind (Switzerland is up with the least restrictive states while the others with the most restrictive ones.

    If itr's all about the guns, how do you explain these countries, which not only have homicide rates below the USA (and we're far from NO 1 in this contest) but have the lowest murder rates in Europe.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable


    Rewritten.

    Just because black people are comfortable walking around does not given them the right to infringe on the rights of people like David Duke who are not comfortable around black people
  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    I'm not anti-gun, but I don't pretend gun control advocates don't have a point when they argue that gun availibility is a huge factor in many terrible events.


    They DON'T have a point, it's irrelevant. It's like arguing that the avaialbility of air causes people to hyperventilate.

    Gun rights have to be supported on other grounds than they are not harmful.


    Gun rights are FIRMLY SETTLED in property rights, MNG.

  • ||

    You know, the last thing in the world I want to do is shoot somebody. I've been shot at (war zone), but never have I had to point my 1911 at another human being with the intention of shooting him, and God willing, I never will.

    Does this asshole think that private citizens who carry weapons are all trigger happy nutjobs? How is a law prohibiting otherwise law-abiding people from carrying guns going to deter any determined criminal or mentally disturbed person who really wants to shoot somebody? Do those kinds of people really give a fuck about laws?

    Gun control laws and their proponents have never, ever made any sense to me. Not a bit.

    "Hey, that violent, mentally ill man shot somebody with a gun!"

    "We'd better take guns away from everybody who isn't a violent criminal, or mentally distubed, or both! That'll fix it!"

    ????????

    Profit!

  • juris imprudent||

    Does this asshole think that private citizens who carry weapons are all trigger happy nutjobs?

    Yes actually he does, most likely because he imagines that if he had a gun he would misuse it. Or, possibly he believes that carry should be limited to "important people" like himself.

  • Paul||

    Camera by Hawk Jensen.

    Really?

  • GSL||

    Excellent video. Linked to it on our site.

  • ||

    there has never been a reported incident of an Open Carrier hurting someone

    That's a pretty broad statement. Indeed, cops carry openly, so it contradicts Reason's other cause celebre.

  • juris imprudent||

    Cops also carry (openly when on duty in uniform, concealed at all other times) with qualified immunity. Wouldn't you like some of that?

  • MrGuy||

    I'm no law student, but if this law passed in CA, and someone was arrested for carrying an open firearm, couldn't they contest the state law under the second amendment? ...or does it not work like this?

  • ||

    That's what brought us Open Carry in Michigan. In fact, the 2nd Amendment allows open carry in ANY public building, including schools. In Michigan, the only places where it is not allowed are FEDERAL buildings (federal court houses & post offices). Private establishments may ban them as policy, but publics may not.
    The rub is, one can only OPEN carry in schools, hospitals, court houses, etc. if he is a CONCEALED PERMIT holders, oddly enough. Anywhere else in public, no permit required, so long as the carry is OPEN.

  • ||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon," says Portantino, "doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    Since when? The right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment and that right is an individual right under the authority of the Heller case.

  • ||

    This article has been flagged by Facebook. My wife and several friends tried sharing it on their Facebook pages and were blocked. A message pops up saying this may be abusive, offensive, or spammy.

    Never once have I found anything from Reason to be abusive or offensive, much less spammy.

  • fish||

    Never once have I found anything from Reason to be abusive or offensive...

    Don't drop by much then do you?!

  • ||

    I never said that I don't agree with everything. But, just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean that I find it offensive, I leave that sentiment to the uber-liberals.

  • ||

    Great another Elitist trying to tell us hoe we should live!

  • ||

    Or the fact that a developed nation like luxemburg has a murder rate much higher than the US. The simple fact is he can't. Not to long ago a study came out, of harvard of all places, that showed there is no statistcal correlation between firearm ownership and crime. Hell they also found that there was no statistical correlation between firearm ownership and the suicide rate.

  • ||

    consider japanese americans.

    japanese (in japan)- high suicide rate. only a tiny %age committed with guns (because it's almost impossible to get one)

    japanese americans - high suicide rate. substantial %age committed with guns. why? because guns are an available tool.

    guns don't cause suicide, but they are a useful tool when available. doesn't stop people w/o guns from committing suicide

  • J L||

    Ignorant Californians who believe only in the freedoms they want. Perhaps if they want government control we should just send them elsewhere?

  • rogue biologist||

    somalia?

  • Bobarian||

    California is bad enough.. If we ever put up a border fence, though, we should put CA on the other side (spoken as a former resident)

  • Bill||

    I bet that there are a lot of business owners in the UK who wish they had guns about now.

  • The South||

    The video made an error on the US map of may issue states. Alabama, for some bizzare reason, is may issue, and I have had to jump through hoops to get my permit.

  • شات بنات مصر||

    thanks

  • شات بنات مصر||

    thankkkes

  • ||

    It is the Second Amendment to the US constitution that gives the open carrier the right to make someone else uncomfortable by carrying a gun.

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u man

  • David M. Bennett||

    "A shoot-out is better than a massacre!"

  • ||

    "Gun Control = being able to hit what your aiming at." Uncle Ted Nugent. I am 28 yrs old been around guns my whole life, never been arrested so how does a law that only keeps me from protecting myself end crime? You commie liberals want my guns come pry them out of my cold dead hands. That's the only way I'm giving up my right to self defense.

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • ||

    I'm an Oregon resident. I have many friends in California and travel down there several times a year. I may have to stop doing this for purely ethical reasons.

    This move is both morally and legally wrong on the part of the CA state government and should not go unpunished if it is not successfully opposed form within the state of California. Subsequently, if this bill passes, I refuse to set foot in the state of California until its repeal. I also intend to forgo the purchase products produced within the state of California or contribute in any way to the tax base which funds the government of the state of CA. If it passes, I encourage other non-California residents to join me in boycotting and divesting from California. Would that we could enforce economic sanctions against a state so bent on harming its own citizens.

  • ||

    I love how Portantino said, "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon, doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    Where in the Constitution is someone guaranteed the right to be "comfortable?"

    Using Portantino's logic then I must say that I am uncomfortable visiting LA with all the gang activity there. Since Portantino is such a great believer in comfort then I must ask that he do his part to clean up the streets so that I will be comfortable when I visit his gang infested state.

  • carlos||

  • ||

    first they take away your right to DUE PROCESS, and then they take away your guns. CHECKMATE

    SBX211 Retro Active Immunity given to California judges for openly taking bribes. Judges are employees of the state they receive their pay and benefits from the state. The Los Angeles Superior court judges are currently receiving an additional $57.688,00 from the county of Los Angeles. there is no bigger user of the court than L.A. County.(A party to the case and has a financial interest in most cases in the courts) Those payments were found to be unconstitutional / illegal in Sturgeon vs L.A. County. after that decision the judges paid a lobbyist to pass SBX211 ( RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY )
    SBX211 does not restore due process
    SBX211 violates Article 1 section 9
    SBX211 violates the 14th amendment (no equal protections)
    SBX211 violate checks and balances between legislative and Judicial powers
    Judges do not disclose the county payments at the onset of any trial where the county is either a party to the case or has a financial interest. (Judges violate Judicial codes of ethics)
    Judges refuse to recuse themselves when requested under CCP170
    Judges find themselves unbiased and then file an order striking statement.

    In the year of 2010 alone $57,688.00 per year per judge X 460 judges = $26,709.544.00 paid to judges from L.A. County from tax payer money to only have the judges rule against the tax payer in favor of L.A. County or the County's interest. THE BRIBES WORK.

    HISTORY OF RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES
    1. given for unconstitutional use of torture
    2. given for illegal merger of banks (we can see the effects of that now)
    3. given to telecom company for illegal wire taps. (Fisa bill that led to the patriot act)
    4. SBX211 given to Judges for taking bribes.

    SBX211 is evidence of conspiracy of the California legislative branch of government to cover up the multiple felony's committed by the Judicial branch of government. By an act of Legislation, California's judicial branch has admitted to be corrupt.

    SECTION FROM SBX211
    This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of this bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law.

  • grotto213||

  • ||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon," says Portantino, "doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    A great basis to prevent people like him from using the 1st amendment to make other people uncomfortable. Hey, that what this country was founded on "the comfortable" principle!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement