Federal gun law is no doubt on our minds: This year’s controversial Supreme Court rulings have authorized individual handguns and signify landmark legislation in constitutional law — not only undermining bans in Chicago and D.C., but also upsetting the legal world’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment. But while all this is happening, California is waging its own battle on gun control. It’s called the Open Carry Movement, and yesterday afternoon, both sides engaged on State Street
On Tuesday, 50 or 60 people collected in front of the Starbucks at State and De la Guerra Streets largely in support of the pending AB 1934, Loris Saldana’s (D-San Diego) legislation that would prohibit the open carrying of guns in public places.
Then there is the question of Starbucks. California Pizza Kitchen and Peet’s Coffee had earlier released statements prohibiting open carry of guns, and Starbucks, when approached, said it would allow customers packing heat.
Open Carry protests have cropped up at Peet’s, Starbucks, and CPKs across the state: notably in San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento, according to the cities’ respective local papers.
Are corporations expected to take a stance for or against state law? Expecting concurrence with state law is requisite, expecting opposition isn’t. Mayor Helene Schneider said, “We have no problem saying ‘no shoes, no service,’ why can’t we say ‘no guns, no service?’”
Current California law prohibits the open carrying of loaded guns — although ammunition, as long as it’s unattached from the weapon, is allowed. It also prohibits concealed guns without a permit. If one does decide to carry a gun, a vigorous understanding of the law is necessary: For example, you can walk into a Starbucks, but you can’t walk into a post office. Moreover, in Santa Barbara County, concealed gun permits are “impossible” to get, according to Open Carry advocate, Alin Terieur.
Like many protests, the goals were local but the conversations were global: The protest’s purview was to criticize Starbucks for its compliance and push AB 1934. However, the conversations that ignited across sides were grander: crossfire about the Bill of Rights, the Framers, and what it means to be an American citizen.
The Coalition Against Gun Violence hosted the event, with support from Mayor Schneider and former mayor Marty Blum. They were joined by three or four Open Carry advocates, who saw the event in passing and came back with flyers and guns, evoking the First Amendment in defense of the Second.
You’ll know an Open Carry advocate when you meet one; they wear their heart on their sleeves and their politics at their waist. Two were particularly recognizable. Alin passed out photocopies of Open Carry literature. James brought a rifle. “The Bill of Rights was meant to make the government fear us, not the other way around,” an anonymous third supporter said.
James explained how the rifle belonged to his grandfather in the Civil War. (He opted to leave the bayonet part at home.) “You’re on the right side,” he said to me. I told him I was only reporting the news, that I was neutral. James replied, “That’s the most dangerous thing to be.”


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Wow, just like the old west! What's next? Shootouts at the De La Guerra corral or Plaza rather? Personally I don't have a problem with the good guys carrying guns. Shoot! Let's try it out for awhile and see what happens. I bet you'd be surprised how the criminals would leave town. But it would be weird!
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Already happened a few years back, when 3 (or was it 4) black thugs from LA walked into a jewelry store on State Street, intent on robbing it, and all were shot back to heaven (or hell) by the owner and two employees with weapons loaded and ready for any and all such events. No one wants to do this. But they have not been "held up" since. While Bryant and Sons is a private business, it still must comply with the "counter rule" [Civil Rights movement], and allow any and all who wish to enter to do so, however unsavory or oddly attired. The irony is that business OWNERS are free to pack heat in their place of business, but many/most prohibit their employees from doing so; and, the rest of us (non-felons) can do so behind our locked and bolted doors at home [where we are usually perfectly safe because of those bolts], but we are supposed to become easy prey to muggers and other scum because of gun-fearing Leftists and other useful idiots who want gumballs-all and utopia, but are unwilling to actually FIGHT to preserve it, and in the process seek to disarm the rest of us and thus make us victims. All so they can then have their politician of choice come in with even MORE control over our lives, when the first set didn't work. Enough of this idiocy! Citizens should have the same right to defend themselves "in public places" as business owners already enjoy -- even the liberal ones -- openly armed, loaded, even concealed WITHOUT permission if they wish! To those among you who choose NOT to exercise your rights: you are free so to do. Leave the rest of the citizenry alone! - Jim Greaves [formerly of Santa Barbara, now Montana - we left because of California's crazy quilt of laws, and its utter failure to enforce laws against invasion, all of which infringe on every aspect of life in that silly city by the sea] BTW - It's Marty BLUM, not "Bloom"
JimInMT (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2010 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court might respond to a challenge to current California law banning the carrying of loaded firearms in public as well as AB 1934.
Both would appear to stand directly opposite the Court's recent decisions in Chicago and Washington, DC. Hard to imagine a right to defend oneself with a firearm, yet banning possession in public.
dslproductions (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2010 at 1:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
--Mayor Helene Schneider said, “We have no problem saying ‘no shoes, no service,’ why can’t we say ‘no guns, no service?’”--
Uhh... so you cannot get service WITHOUT a gun?
Brilliant.
cartoonz (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)