A police perspective on 'open carry'

[DaveM55]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...EDS81DG7O4.DTL


Law enforcement officers are taught that guns are a dangerous and deadly threat to their safety and the safety of the public they serve. They understand that any encounter involving a gun is grave.

"Open carry," the practice of carrying an unloaded handgun exposed in a belt holster, unnecessarily subjects our officers and the public to tense encounters that have unforeseeable consequences. The police officer who approaches an "open carry" subject must rapidly assess the subject's behavior without knowing if the individual has a permit to carry a gun or a gun license. The officer knows only that he or she must detain the subject only long enough to determine whether the gun is unloaded.

An officer has more authority to check on whether a driver is legally driving a car than to stop an individual to verify if the individual has the right to carry a gun.

The officer doesn't know if the individual is a law-abiding citizen or an individual prohibited from owning or carrying a gun. The officer does know that an unloaded weapon can become a loaded weapon in less than 1.3 seconds.

Advocates argue that "open carry" subjects are law-abiding citizens exercising their legal right to carry an unloaded gun. They suggest that any potential danger could be reduced by simply educating the officers to recognize an "open carry" incident. They say this could be accomplished merely by having a dispatcher asking a few clarifying questions. A criminal, they say, would act suspiciously, whereas a law-abiding "open carry" subject would remain calm.

An officer is not going to drop his guard when handling a "man with a gun" incident based on the subjective observations of an unknown third party. These encounters will remain a danger to all involved.

Law enforcement officers encounter gun violence and its tragic aftermaths on a daily basis. Officers have seen guns used in conflicts where the subject, in the passion of the moment, has lost his temper and fired. Advocates argue that carrying unloaded guns openly will reduce the number of these incidents and make the public safer. I contend that additional guns only increase the chance of a violent encounter.

It is my view, shared by the California Police Chiefs Association, that "open carry" is an unnecessary threat to the safety of our officers and the public whom they serve.



Guns in Public Exploring "open carry"

WHO: Ken James, Emeryville police chief; Sam Paredes, executive director, Gun Owners of California; Franklin E. Zimring, UC Berkeley law professor; John Diaz, Chronicle editorial page editor, as moderator

WHAT: Commonwealth Club of California

WHEN: 5:30 p.m. reception, 6 p.m. program on May 26

WHERE: San Francisco Club Office, 595 Market St., San Francisco

PRICE: $12 for members; $20 for nonmembers; $7 for students

Ken James is the Emeryville chief of police.

[Broncitis]

The officer knows only that he or she must detain the subject only long enough to determine whether the gun is unloaded.

Why?

Should we then request to see that the Officer's gun is also unloaded?

It is a firearm and should be loaded when carried! Otherwise it is an expensive rock only good to throw or hit someone with.

[rikilii]

Police would be better off informing those complaining about OC that unless the person calling in has some specific reason to suspect the person is engaged in or about to engage in a crime, that person should be left alone.

Criminals don't carry weapons openly.

End.

Of.

Story.

[rikilii]

Why?

Should we then request to see that the Officer's gun is also unloaded?

It is a firearm and should be loaded when carried! Otherwise it is an expensive rock only good to throw or hit someone with.

This is out of California, where CC is pretty much impossible to do legally, and OCers are required to carry unloaded.

The problem with this whole mentality is that, even though it's legal to carry a firearm openly, police start with the basic presumption that anyone doing so is up to no good.

This is roughly equivalent to stopping all people driving trucks to make sure they are not packed with explosives.

Actually, it's worse, because more people have probably been murdered by truck bombs in the U.S. in the last 20 years than by OCers (if you exclude police officers, that is).

[ThomasJ]

the title should read, "A government perspective on 'open carry'"

[mrjam2jab]

the title should read, "A CA government perspective on 'open carry'"

Fixed it for ya.

[TXDMERC73]

carrying an "unloaded" handgun?!!!! i am confused for the moment.
it said OC means to carry unloaded? not chambered?

"Open carry," the practice of carrying an unloaded handgun exposed in a belt holster, unnecessarily subjects our officers and the public to tense encounters that have unforeseeable consequences

[ByAnyMeans]

carrying an "unloaded" handgun?!!!! i am confused for the moment.
it said OC means to carry unloaded? not chambered?

"Open carry," the practice of carrying an unloaded handgun exposed in a belt holster, unnecessarily subjects our officers and the public to tense encounters that have unforeseeable consequences

This is talking about California. It is very hard to get a concealed license in many parts of California and mnay have taken to Open Carrying. Unfortunately the laws of California state that in order to do so it must be unloaded with no round in the chamber.

[Azzy]

Yes, California states that you can only openly carry a firearm that is unloaded, after some Black Panther rallies where they carried loaded rifles for intimidation.

Funny, same people who caused the issue are the ones trying to ban carry all the way in the United States... radical marxists.

[Deanimator]

Given that it relates specifically to California, the relevance to places like PA, OH, MO and VA is highly limited.

It's like discussing fishing in the Nile River versus the Ohio. They're both rivers with fish in them, but crocodiles are far less of an issue in Indiana and Kentucky.