Front Page  »  

SLO Chief behind open carrying legislation

October 11, 2011

San Luis Obispo Police Chief Deborah Linden

San Luis Obispo Police Chief Deborah Linden launched the successful effort to criminalize the open carrying of unloaded handguns in public, wrote Dave Maggard, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, in an email.

On Monday, Gov. Jerry Brown announced he had signed legislation that prohibits the openly carrying of handguns in public amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

The open-carry ban, by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, was sponsored by the California Police Chiefs Association.

“We spoke extensively with the Governor yesterday about the importance of this bill and are extremely pleased that he signed it,” Maggard said in his Tuesday email. “I would be remiss if I did not call attention to the work of Chief Deb Linden of San Luis Obispo (who first brought this issue before Cal Chiefs for action) and Chief Ken James of Emeryville (who did some major heavy lifting to get this bill through the Legislature in the face of well organized opposition from the NRA and its allied organizations).”

The measure exempts peace officers, military gatherings, gun shows and hunting. It also requires the state to keep records of rifle sales starting in January 2014.


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


95 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I see there are many here who misunderstand the second amendment. It does not give the average citizen the right to possess firearms. This ban is a small step in the right direction to a total ban on gun ownership.


0

I find it surprising that a member of law enforcement could be 180 degrees off.


I quote from the 2008 Supreme Court decision in Heller v. Washington DC, Justice Scalia writing for the majority:


“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”


While I value your opinion, your statement is 100% incorrect.


0

“Whoa. Talk about being absolutely and completely wrong.”


No I’m 100% right.


0

I cited the controlling United States Supreme Court’s language making the Second Amendment a fundamental individual right. This is the law of the land as their McDonald decision incorporated the Second Amendment against the individual states.


I value your opinion Mark T. Please provide a law or court decision since Heller/McDonald that substantiates your assertion.


.


0

“On Monday, Gov. Jerry Brown announced he had signed legislation that prohibits the openly carrying of handguns in public ”

how about we talk about this law that Jerry Brown just signed .


0

Outstanding suggestion!


Let’s talk about Gov Jerry Brown signing a law that prohibits the exercise of a civil right.


Should we talk about how fundamentally unconstitutional such a measure is?


How would a discussion look if he had signed a law banning online journalism on the theory that since the internet wasn’t around at the time, that the founders never intended for the 1st Amendment to cover it?


Perhaps we should talk about why the founders chose exactly one of the Amendments within the Bill of Rights to say “…shall not be infringed.” Why do you suppose the founders included that language?


Or, we could even talk about Gov Brown’s oath of office to uphold the constitution, and then signing a law that clearly violates the constitution.


I am all in favor in engaging in a dialog about all of this. :–))


0

U.S.: Less protection for gun rights.

seems to be a trend

you can have a gun in your home

Open carry is illegal in California.

read it and weep


0

From your link, 1st paragraph: “… the Obama Administration has tentatively suggested a standard that would mean that more restrictions on that right…”


Just because the Obama administration says so, doesn’t necessarily make it fact.


See Ezell v. Chicago. 2A court cases are to use 1A framework for determining scrutiny. Using 1A framework, there is no way that this UOC ban could ever be constitutional.


0

You are an idiot. The Supreme Court recently affirmed that it IS an individual right. Deborah linden is an anti-freedom communist for supporting this. What a fool she is.


0

Great, just great.


Now that we are assured that there will be plenty of guns for everyone, can we get on with the whole food and jobs for everyone next?


Or does someone want to keep explaining the same material over and over, because talking down at people is so productive?


idée fixe


0

Ok, for clarity, let’s get the whole civil rights thing explained:


1. We are born with a full set of civil rights, pure and complete


2. The Bill of Rights was put in place to limit government’s intrusion into our civil rights (for some odd reason a lot of people think that it’s either the government or the constitution that gives them civil rights???)


3. The government has chosen to ignore parts or all of #1 & #2 above and oppress civil rights


4. Law abiding citizens are using the courts in an attempt to make the government realize that we do not approve of their intrusion into our fundamental civil rights. The cities of Washington DC and Chicago fought us all the way to the Supreme Court, but they lost miserably. Alan Gura won both of those cases and is kicking butt in Dearth v. Holder having filed for MSJ yesterday in US District Court.


5. Within 5 years, the 2A will be approached and litigated in a manner that is similar in scrutiny as the 1A.


Very few people realize just how far the 2A civil rights movement has progressed in just the last 5 years. Things are moving at light speed (well, light speed where the federal courts are concened) with the USSC actaully requesting that 2 more potential landmark 2A cases be submitted for consideration in the upcoming session. They have witnessed how their deicisons in Heller & McDonald have been twisted by the circuit courts and now they are going to kick some tail.


The old anti gun clichés of the past are no longer going to work. Arguing for gun control is the same as arguing against civil rights. Things would have probably been ok in CA up until about 2000 if Sacramento had stopped there. However, they chose to cross the line, and now law abiding gun owners are sending their $$ to litigators to restore their fundamental civil rights. Sacramento, at this point, can pass all of the laws that it wants too and it will do no good. The Supreme Court is putting the smack down on the entire nation and removing Sacramento from the equation.


Guess what? This means that the window for implementing policies and procedures that will pass constitutional muster is closing rapidly. If Sacramento does not fix it quickly, the USSC will fix it for them. I personally prefer the way the USSC will do this, but I doubt that many on this forum will like it.


The only question left is level of scrutiny. It can be found in the recent 7th Circuit decision Ezell v. Chicago. The key rules from Ezell:


1. use originalism from both 1791 and 1868 to determine if an activity is within the scope of the Second Amendment right.


2. If it is, apply First Amendment doctrine


3. make the standard of review more stringent when the activity is closer to the core of the right


4. make the standard of review more stringent when the government is prohibiting rather than regulating.


5. Generally speaking, when looking for guidance, look to Eugene Volokh.


Alan Gura won big time with this decision (he has a habit of winning 2A decisions). Granted, the 7th isn’t controlling in CA, but the line of reasoning in this decision closely matches the reasoning used by SCOTUS in Heller & McDonald. As such, expect 1 or 2 more pro 2A decisions to be handed down by the USSC by the end of June 2012.


And here is where all of this ties back to the UOC ban: When SCOTUS hands down their decisions in June, Loaded Open Carry (LOC), Unloaded Open Carry (UOC), Loaded Concealed Carry (typically CCW), and vehicle transport of weapons by law abiding citizens are ALL going to be given protected status by the USSC.


Once this happens, CA and certainly Deb Linden are not going to have ANY input on how this law abiding citizen choses to exercise his civil rights to Keep and Bear Arms for the purpose of Self Defense. You can all jump and scream all you want, but at the end of the day it was the over exuberant gun control wackos that pushed us into a corner and made us push back via the courts. We will have our civil rights to freely exercise as we see fit and you will have ZERO say about it.


Our 2A rights are being oppressed by this law.


0

We will have our civil rights to freely exercise as we see fit and you will have ZERO say about it.

there is something about civil rights that you fail to grasp this is not a us vs them this is how we use the legislature to go on with each other , your belligerent tone suggests a frightened and isolated shadow I am sad for you.

further more the founders included the second amendment for the immediate practicality of a citizens milita instead of the debts and foreign entanglements of a standing army sort of dilutes the whole point of the now archaic 2nd amendment argument because we are a global military empire now and have obligations to other people around the world that the US is a safe and relatively sane country, the recent Seal Beach incident, the attempted assassination of a congress woman in Arizona highlights the civil rights issues in stark relief we need less crazy gun nuts please, time to tighten up the tolerances of who gets guns and where they are allowed.


0

While you are certainly entitled to your opinions, they are in direct contradiction with the United States Supreme Court. In June, 2008, they opined in their syllabus:


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53


If you wish to read the 200 years of legal analysis that they used to reach their decision in Heller, read here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html


0

The United Nations world gun ban is going to be a reality within 10 years and I fully support it. Then only Law Enforcement Officers and the Military will be armed. The result will be the elimination of gun violence. Why you people insist on supporting gun violence I will never understand.


0

Such treaties require a 2/3 vote in the US Senate. Currently, 55 senators have signed a letter opposing becoming a signatory to that treaty. This includes 10 Democrats signing. With 100 senators total and requiring 67 to vote in favor, having 55 opposed makes passage impossible.


Source: http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/07/26/opposition-mounts-to-un-gun-control-treaty-opposition-mounts-to-un-gun-control-treaty


0

you most be joking ……… right?


0

Thank you Chief for supporting the ban on open carry. As a 29 year Law Enforcement Officer I have dealt with several hostile subjects who were openly carrying handguns and looking for a confrontation with the police. Next we will need a ban on the open carry of long guns. Thanks again.


0

2nd Amendment as contained within the Bill of RIGHTS:


“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”


Law Enforcement Oath Of Honor:

….

“I will always uphold the constitution”

….


Typical police officer oath:

” I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitutions of the United States…”


Mark T:

“Thank you Chief for supporting the ban on open carry.”


California Civil Code 52.3:

“(a) No governmental authority, or agent of a governmental

authority, or person acting on behalf of a governmental authority,

shall engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement

officers that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the

United States or by the Constitution or laws of California.”


Mark T looks very GUILTY of a “…pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives any person of rights…” by his own self admission.


Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights.


0

In your 29 years as a L.E.O. you have had SEVERAL, meaning less than 10 ? Thats one a year. Thank you for your service but leave your opinion at home.


0

So you go on about the UN and a21 over and over, choprzrul is lobbying for a pro gun organisation.


But Mark T can’t share a opinion?

Even on the internet with a fake name like most of us?


0

I am a civil rights activist.


In no way do I represent, or are in the employ of, any pro gun organization.


You are either PRO civil rights or you are ANTI civil rights.


Which are you?


Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights.


0

I never said you “represent, or are in the employ of, any pro gun organization.”


You are a pro gun activist pushing the the pro gun lobby party line of the pro gun organisation that you are a member of, close enough.


If you were about all civil rights, your tune would be different, not this us or them or the yellow or blue car argument (for us or against everything ploy).


And the both of you are john birchers? Makes more sense by the minute.


0

The Right of the People to keep and bare arms shall NOT be infringed.

This but one right recognized by the Bill of Rights.

Self protection IS a Natural Right.

If you don’t want to own a gun DON’T.

We the law-abiding gun owners will protect you.

Hitler and the Emporer of Japan did not invade the U.S. mainland WHY ?

GUN OWNERS

2200 times a day gun owners presents a firearm to protect themselves WHY?

BECAUSE THEY CAN


0

Not far from the mark Kettle, the court cases he is going on about are funded via Cato which was funded by Fred Koch who co founded the JBS .


0

Wake up everyone…


Please don’t take away my right to bear arms?


http://www.republicofjones.com/comic/the-right-to-bear-arms/


0

Nice mockery of an individual’s fundamental civil rights.


Your username indicates that we shouldn’t expect you to be around for long.


0

I don’t mock civil rights, have a sense of humor. That was pretty easy to get you all excited over a cartoon. Where does it say that bear arms means that we should be allowed to carry a weapon in the open public? What you want to keep in the privacy of your own home is certainly your right. Once you take your beloved firearm to the grocery store or the park then it affects me.


I have lived in many places as a civilian and in the Marine Corps (0341). The only time I felt that it was necessary to carry a firearm was when people were shooting at me. I guess I don’t understand the obsession with carrying a gun. I figure that if I live in a place that requires me to carry a gun, then I don’t want to live there.


In all seriousness, I do support the right to arm bears…


http://www.zazzle.com/bear_arms_grizzly_bear_bumper_sticker-128659597809709633


0

“Where does it say that bear arms means that we should be allowed to carry a weapon in the open public?”


Glad you asked. Justice Ginsberg, as cited and referenced in the Heller decision:


In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”


Pretty plain language.


Taking my 2A rights into the grocery store has no more effect on you than taking my 1A rights into a movie theater. The same thing that keeps me from yelling ‘FIRE’ in the theater, keeps my sidearm holstered in the grocery store. You wouldn’t expect everyone to get their mouth taped shut before entering a theater, so why would you expect me to leave my 2A rights behind?


“I figure that if I live in a place that requires me to carry a gun, then I don’t want to live there.”


So does this mean that you live in a mud hut so that your house doesn’t burn down? After all, a regular house has the potential to burn down at any time as there is certainly combustible material and oxygen present in great quantities. However, you recognize that the material and oxygen represent only the POTENTIAL to create fire, so you keep a fire extinguisher readily available. Likewise, you recognise that society has the POTENTIAL to cause you great bodily injury or death, so you keep your sidearm readily available.


Now, if you are expecting a fire, you would have something else in hand like a garden hose or a fire hose. Likewise, if you know an attack is imminent, you are going to have your main battle rifle or shotgun in hand; not some little sidearm. You are a Marine, you know these things.


Everyone wants a utopian society viewed through rose colored glasses where violence is closely controlled and weapons are held by law enforcement or locked up. It all sounds real good and ideal. The trouble is, that is not how the world works. Just ask those that lived through the Fort Hood massacre. Wearing rose colored glasses can get you killed.


0

choprzrul says:

“Your username indicates that we shouldn’t expect you to be around for long.”


Your overuse of the cut and paste tool made me think the same thing about you choprzrul.


0

Funny how the rest of the country is going one way and the city of San Luis Obispo has gone in the opposite direction.


Hold on to your ‘hope’, but if things get worse, I hope you have a better plan than asking for others to protect YOU?


0

The kicker is, the USSC has ruled several times that the police have ZERO obligation to respond to your calls or to protect you.


YOUR safety and security is YOUR responsibility.


Sad commentary when our government and its agents actively pursue a course of action to oppress our civil rights.


Oh well, guess we will fix it in the courts. Alan Gura will get rich while taxpayers pay the burden of defending these wacko laws. Here I was thinking that the state and counties were broke??? Apparently not when they are begging for a lawsuit from crap legislation like this…


Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights,.


0

If guns kill people then spoons made Rosie O’Donald fat. Its just more control and removal of rights from law abiding citizens.


0

Out of all the times that a private citizen (not law enforcement) has shot a gun at someone in this county, how many times was it a legal shooting of a criminal, and how many times was it an accidental discharge, criminal act, or suicide attempt? I cannot think of one case of the former, but there are many examples of the latter.


It would be interesting to hear how Parkinson and the rest of the chiefs in this county feel about this issue.


0

So, you hear about every single instance of a burglar coming into a dark house and, upon hearing the shotgun chhcck-chhcck, flees knowing that an armed citizen is ready to defend themselves, their family, and their home???


Really?


It really does NOT matter what law enforcement thinks. They are charged with enforcing the law. The law, as enumerated in the 2A and affirmed in Heller & McDonald, says that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the purpose of Self Defense SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


Get it now?


Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights


0

Ah, so I guess having a device that makes the “shotgun chhck-chhcck” noise would go a long way in making one’s home a safer place! ;) Perhaps it could be rigged to motion sensors so it could make the noise automatically and you wouldn’t even have to wake up. I think I see a business opportunity!


0

Quite possibly! Most criminals are not smart, and likely would fall for it. Give it a go!


…I’ll keep my “back-up” just in case, though!


0

Coming to San Luis Obispo City and County in the near future-

Harrisburg asks bankruptcy for ‘overwhelming debt’

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20111012&id=14379220


0

Yes, no article is complete without you bringing up something unrelated.


0
1 2