Brady Campaign's New Push to Ban Open Carry in California Restaurants

[Recursion]

​The Jan. 8 shooting massacre at a Tucson mall is giving new impetus to a drive to make California eateries gun-free zones. State chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence yesterday announced a new initiative to make the Golden State's restaurants and coffee shops places where so-called open carry of firearms is prohibited.
First stop on the Brady Campaign's agenda: Picketing on Jan. 20 at Brooklyn Brick Oven Pizza in Manhattan Beach, where advocates of open carry are planning to congregate. It's part of the CA Brady Campaign's "Demand Gun-Free Dining in California!" They've lobbied the California Restaurant Association to urge its members to ban guns, and they're asking concerned citizens to download a gun-free pledge, available with anti-open carry signage at the organization's website, and demand that owners of their neighborhood eateries (along with other retail establishments) sign it.

Open carry ― i.e., toting a firearm in public spaces ― is legal in California, as long as the gun is unloaded and holstered (unless you're a uniformed police officer). The issue made news a year ago, when at least one member of the group Bay Area Open Carry ― meeting at a Peet's in Livermore ― was frisked by a police officer. That spurred Peet's to prohibit open carry at its coffee shops, followed by the California Pizza Kitchen in Walnut Creek, where open carry advocates were planning to rally. But Seattle-based Starbucks has refused to ban firearms in its cafes, which have become places where open carry advocates gather, firearms strapped to thighs, waists, and shoulders.

"They looked like a gang with those guns," says Shikha Hamilton, vice president of the statewide Brady Campaign and head of its San Mateo and Santa Clara county chapters. Hamilton has protested at open carry gatherings in the East Bay.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/foodie/2011/01/open_carry_brady_campaign_guns_restaurants.php

[shadowrider]

1. Doesn't California require all carried guns be unloaded? n/t

[Recursion]

2. That's my understanding (nt)

[shadowrider]

3. So effectively they're pushing to outlaw clubs

Wow, just wait till MLB teams in California find out their bats are illegal.

[petronius]

5. Yes, but ammunition can be carried in a readily-accessible way

'Loaded' means a round is carried in a ready-to-fire position only...

[shadowrider]

6. Well, once magazines are outlawed

And micro-stamping puts the cost of ammo out of reach, they're clubs.

At least that's what the anti's want.

[PavePusher]

10. Unless you have a Concealed Carry Permit.

Very hard to get in most areas.

But a firearm can be drawn and loaded in less than 2 seconds with a little training and/or practice.

[jody]

4. Perfect solution, passing laws prevents sin & crime as God found with Her Ten Commandments. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

7. Open carry, California Statehouse

Don't hear much from Brady bunch about this.

[Recursion]

8. Nobody in CA cared much about gun control until then

But once black people start arming, suburban whites get very very nervous.

[villager]

9. Nor, actually, from the NRA...

n/t

[Recursion]

11. The NRA was involved with the black armed resistance movement of the 1950s and 1960s

I don't know particularly about the CA BPP, but the NRA helped Rob Williams organize the Black Armed Guard which more or less stopped KKK attacks in that part of North Carolina.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Few anti will admit the issue they so strongly support is both racist and classist

[cleanhippie]

27. [phone]

[SteveM]

38. Probably because they look too much "like a gang." nt

[pipoman]

12. So predictable

that the Brady's would advocate laws based on a tragedy which has not a single thing to do with said tragedy. Until this incident Brady was on the verge of financial ruin, they are no doubt jumping for joy over this thinking it will fill their empty coffers.

[Tejas]

13. Just more hating on the 2nd by those silly Republicans.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. The Brady Repukes are at it again. Those who support them here should be questioning it

[Euromutt]

15. The usual Brady shite: a "no guns" sign will ostensibly deter a guy when a law against murder won't

Unless you think, against all available evidence, that Loughner just happened to be carrying three extended magazines and just happened to run into Rep. Giffords and open fire on her and the people in her immediate vicinity on the spur of the moment, without premeditation, this campaign can in no way be connected to the shooting in Tucson. The Brady types are "dancing in the blood," to borrow a phrase from my fellow posters, and that is nothing short of vile in my book.

[Hoyt]

16. Under Arizona's lax laws, Loughner could carry a gun with a magazine sticking out 5 feet.

And, a policeman could not do a thing. That's stupid. Almost tantamount to letting people walk around with a bomb and fuse in their hand.

I don't think we need a bunch of folks walking around in public with a gun, or two, or 4. We don't let them on an airplane, why allow them in a restaurant or nursery school?

And, yes, some lax laws make it far too easy on the Loughners of the world. And we haven't even started talking about those who think they are so well trained from shooting paper targets and cleaning their gun on a regular basis that they could stop a shooting like in Tucson. Ha.

If Loughner had used a 2 foot long magazine, 90% of the toters would be lusting after one just like his.

[YllwFvr]

17. millions carry a gun every day

and at the end of every day have shot no one. Chances are good you are around them all the time and dont even know it. Are you saying they are all like bombs walking around with lit fuses ready to go off?

Why should a cop do anything? Whats the difference if a cop sees a man walking around with a very small pistol? You make it sound like there is a difference. If there is one, its that the man with the small one is more likely to commit a crime. By that I mean that most crimes are commited using small, low capacity, easy to conceal pistols.

Ive open carried every day for years. Ive had several cops notice. The only thing thats ever been said is, "Nice choice, have a good day". If they arent waving it around, or threatening anyone with it (breaking the law) then what would you have them do? Arrest someone who hasnt done anything? Like it or not we have the right to own guns, and being arrested for that is wrong.

Those mags are usually trash and while some gun owners have them its more for the novelty than anything else since they tend to be unreliable.

I cant say why we ban them on planes. Thats like saying "the feds say no guns in pizza joints". Its private property, Im not sure how they got around to banning guns on someone elses property. I also dont get why they dont allow them. They are allowed in almost any crowd but not a plane. The whole bullet hole causing explosive decompression is a myth. But thats the way it is and unlikely to change. Im of mixed feelings about that anyway. I dont fly, and wouldnt carry probably if I was allowed. But I dont see why anyone else shouldnt if they wanted to. Looking at police officers miss rating when shooting (its high) I wouldnt want to be in front of an air marshall if they ever needed to shoot in a plane.

[Recursion]

20. And, in fact...

they tend to be unreliable.

The bystanders could finally tackle him when the magazine failed.

[YllwFvr]

24. the kind he used is notorious

for being unreliable. One of the reasons you dont see more people with a huge magazine in the pistol they carry. If they ever need it they want it to work, and those craps mags dont always feed reliably.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. I wouldn't say "notorious"

I have a few of those extended mags and have never had one fail.
In fact... after several thousand rounds my glock has only had 1 failure. Stovepipe failure when using a 10 round mag.

[Flyboy_451]

34. I think saying they tend to be unreliable is over reaching a bit...

I own several 33 round Glock Mags and have yet to see a magazine failure with any of them. Add to this that mine are used exclusively in two Glock 18s. This is asking far more of the magazine than using them in a typical Glock semi auto would. I think it is more likely that the magazine failures you may have heard about are caused by either limp wristing or using cheaply made aftermarket mags that are not of the same quality as those made by Glock.

JW

[Euromutt]

18. So show me the testimony of the cop who considered stopping Loughner...

...but decided against it because Arizona state law permitted whatever Loughner was doing.

And, yes, some lax laws make it far too easy on the Loughners of the world.

Bullshit. The District of Columbia's de facto ban on handguns didn't stop John Hinckley from carrying a handgun to within mere feet from Ronald Reagan. Nor did the Dutch ban on private citizens carrying handguns in public prevent Volkert van der Graaf or Mohammed Bouteri from carrying the handguns with which they murdered, respectively, Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. The fact that Virginia Tech was ostensibly a "gun free zone" didn't delay Seung-Hui Cho for an instant, nor did the fact that the entire state of Illinois is a "no carry" zone to everyone except the politically connected stop Steven Kazmierczak.

Try to wrap your head around this, Hoyt, because it's really not hard to understand: people who are intent upon mass murder don't give a flying fuck about the local law on carrying weapons, other than to evade detection and arrest until they're within range of the target. The fact that Gavrilo Princip and his buddies were carrying handguns and grenades illegally didn't save Arch-Duke Franz-Ferdinand, to name the example with the most extreme consequences.

[shadowrider]

19. Ah yes, the old slippery slope

We don't let them on an airplane, why allow them in a restaurant or nursery school?

We don't allow them in restaurants or nursery schools, why should we allow them in homes?

We don't allow them in restaurants, nursery schools or homes, so just ban them altogether.

See how that works?

[Hoyt]

21. Trite "slippery slope" runs both ways -- your way and where every whacko is packing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. *Seeing* guns in public is not dangerous. "Offends my sensibilities" is no reason to ban anything.

"

[cleanhippie]

28. Sounds like we need a way to determine who the "whackos" are instead of punishing everyone.

Wouldn't you agree?

Or are you saying ALL gun owners are "whackos"?

[Hoyt]

32. Feeling persecuted/punished because you can't carry into public is evidence of an issue, IMO.

But, I'd be fine with a long waiting period, complete mental and maturity assessment. I would prefer a needs assessment as well, but don't want gun toters feeling persecuted, crying, or shooting someone if they aren't granted a permit for lack of a real need to carry other than their own irrational fears.

[SteveM]

40. Your issues are confused...

"long waiting periods" have not been found to affect crime rates or other social concerns gun-controller/banners purport to address (see the CDC executive summary of gun-intervention strategies). "...Complete mental and maturity assessment" does not flow from waiting periods, unless you desire to put EVERYONE through the ringer. Further, "mental assessments" must be done in accordance with law and due process. Further still, "maturity assessment" is about as hazy as you can make it and seems to have little to do with one's "mental" health. And yet further, you wish to impose a "needs assessment." Whose needs? Yours or mine? Where such schemes still exist (New York, California), the wealthy, sports figures, movie stars, politicians (like Sen. DiFi) always seem to have the "need," but few other average citizens meet the "need."

As for the rest of your contrived "persecution" complex, you have "become your own enemy in the instant that you preach," for we have seen your slippery slope: authoritarian and corruptly administrated controls/bans once you get that snow to break loose.

[SteveM]

39. Are you really talking about a "five-foot reefer?"

"...a policeman could not do a thing."

Uh, if anyone had a 5-foot magazine, he/she would have a difficult time wielding the weapon; easy target, I'd say.

"I don't think we need a bunch of folks walking around in public with a gun, or two, or 4. We don't let them on an airplane, why allow them in a restaurant or nursery school?"

Seen many folks walking around with 4 guns? BTW, persons can (and do) take any number of guns onto planes, but they must be stowed in an FAA-approved case, and checked-in. Further, any business can forbid the carrying of any number of weapons on their premises. Whether or not a posting banning such will be obeyed if clearly open to question (need examples?).

"tax laws:"

What do you mean?

"And we haven't even started talking about those who think they are so well trained from shooting paper targets and cleaning their gun on a regular basis that they could stop a shooting like in Tucson. Ha."

There are examples where school/church shootings have been prevented or stopped short (need examples?).

"If Loughner had used a 2 foot long magazine, 90% of the toters would be lusting after one just like his."

Is there some kind of magical length you subscribe to? Maybe you have mistaken all this length discussion with that old jazz song where the singer dreams about a "reefer, five-feet long." Perhaps you have smoked one.

[lawodevolution]

23. identify the tactic being used by the brady campaign

Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” KKK and Neo-NAZIs own guns and would support a ban on guns in the inner city so that minorities couldn’t own guns. The Brady’s themselves own guns, yet are willing to ban others from owning guns. This is another deceptive method to get you to support their Agenda. They want you to feel they are on your side, so you can either back off or aid them.

Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the even so soon after X" which would require that such event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place.

Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a person’s view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.

Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about “assault weapons ban” while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They can’t seem to figure out the difference between a “magazine” and a “clip”.

Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.

Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.

Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.

[ileus]

26. why are they scared of armed people eating?

[shadowrider]

29. Maybe they're afraid the carrier

won't be satisfied with their meal and feel the need to blast the place to bits rather than simply issue a complaint with their server.

:shrug:

[PavePusher]

31. Now, now, you must not steal their hyperbole...

it's the only tactic they have.

[Jenoch]

33. The 'shall issue' laws

that allow all law abiding citizens the ability to a acquire a permit to carry a concealed weapon started because of a mass shooting in a restaurant. The Luby's shooting in Texas is what spurred the Texas legislature to make it easier for it's citizens to carry firearms. One of the people in the restaurant left her gun in her car because it would have been illegal to carry it into the restaurant. The shooter actually took the time to reload his magazines. If someone would have had a gun they could gave stopped him, thus the shall issue law was passed.

[slackmaster]

35. I often dine at a restaurant that is frequented by officers of the San Diego Police Department

Both in uniform and undercover. I'm not intimidated by people openly carrying firearms.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Brady Campaign seems to have a little blood on their dancing shoes there...

Hope that'll wash off.

[Euromutt]

37. Are you kidding?

It's the only thing that keeps the leather supple.