Gun Control That Won't (LA Times Op-Ed on AB 144 - Adam Winkler)

[petronius]

What if we passed a gun control law but it led to more people carrying guns on our streets? That may be exactly what happens if a bill passed last week by the California Assembly becomes law.

AB 144 would prohibit the carrying of visible firearms in California cities. It was inspired by the spectacle of gun-rights advocates showing up last year at Starbucks shops with their handguns prominently displayed. That's legal, as long as those guns are unloaded.

If, however, California bans what is called "open carry," the state will probably have to loosen the standards for people to have permits to carry concealed weapons. In California, gun owners can only legally carry a concealed firearm, loaded or unloaded, if they have a permit. And in cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, "concealed carry" permits are very difficult to obtain — arguably too difficult, if AB 144 becomes law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-winkler-guns-20110524,0,1560358.story

The author seems to think eased-up CCW would be a bad outcome, but I like his logic...

[HopeHoops]

1. PA has open carry even if they ARE loaded. Remember Melanie Haines?

In a fitting ironic twist, her husband shot and killed her a few months after the incident where she was photographed on a kids' ball field with her own kid hugging her with a hand on her loaded handgun.

[petronius]

2. I'm not sure I'd use the word "fitting" in a mention of a domestic murder

Perhaps something more like "macabre." :shrug: (Although I'm not sure it's all that ironic either, since wasn't she murdered at home? The connection to her open-carry is pretty tenuous.)

I'd say that shall-issue CCW would solve most complaints - those who wish to carry would have the right to do so, and those who don't wish to see firearms on the ball field wouldn't have to...

[PavePusher]

5. "fitting ironic twist"?! You are one sick fuck. Freeperville is that way...==> Go home. n/t

[PavePusher]

6. By the way, in what way does your asinine comment relate to the California issue? n/t

[MicaelS]

7. You are a disgusting human being....

So gun owners deserve to be murdered? Is that what you're saying?

[spin]

3. The op ed asks whcih is worse, seeing an unloaded firearm carried openly ...

once in a great while or being surrounded by concealed "possibly loaded" firearms?

Well, first I should point out that it would be rare to encounter a person who legally carries a concealed unloaded weapon unless you count people who carry a pistol with an empty chamber and a full magazine.

But to answer the question, neither situation is a big deal. "Shall issue" concealed carry is common in our nation and has caused no significant problems. Not one state that passed "shall issue" concealed carry has ever repealed this highly successful law.

It's long past time for California to loosen the standards for concealed weapon permits.



edited for typo

[ileus]

4. Both are for the benefit of the people.

[Hoyt]

8. Show facts and statistics to prove that.

Sarcasm doojigger here.

Can't, because you -- just like anti-gunners -- are predicting what will happen down the road.

[petronius]

9. Prove what, exactly?

:shrug:

The author of the Op-Ed (something of an anti-gunner himself, as far as I can tell) made an argument, and I think his logic is sound. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating...