Open Carry on Late News SFBay Area: CBS 5 news..

[bwiese]

Open Carry on Late News SFBay Area: CBS 5 news.. @ 1:35AM early morning

RUNNING NOW.

May be a re-hash of one a few weeks ago.... poss. a re-run

Mentioned "strongly worded memo from San Mateo County Sherriff's Dept"

[wildhawker]

Courtesy of Hoffmang. Note the Jamba Juice employee.

[gotgunz]

Just because you are capable of strapping a holster and handgun on your hip and find your way to Jamba Juice.....

DOES NOT MEAN FOR A SECOND THAT YOU HAVE ANY TRAINING!

That may have been the most idiotic comment I have heard yet from an OC'er.

[bwiese]

An Open Carry warning memo has been issued by SMSO Sheriff Greg Munks - who apparently has more time on his hands now that he's not driving police vehicles on dept budget to Vegas to pick up hookers (along with Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos (Ask LVMPD.)

Open carry memo:
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachm..._opencarry.pdf

Poor lonely Sheriff Munks finding a date in Vegas:
http://www.examiner.com/a-693448~Sheriff_involved_in_Vegas_brothel_sting.htm l


Here's the memo text extracted from the .PDF above:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"UNLOADED OPEN CARRY"

ISSUE

Several questions and concerns have risen due to recent incidents where citizens have called the police to report people openly carrying revolvers or semi-automatic hand guns on their persons. This potentially dangerous practice is ostensibly an “exercise of constitutional rights” and an apparent effort to “test” those rights with authorities. Our intent here is to provide you with an understanding of the laws that pertain to these situations.


BACKGROUND

Penal Code Section 12025 makes it unlawful to carry a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following: Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section. Penal Code Section 12031 makes it unlawful to carry a loaded firearm on his or her person while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated
territory. A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell, consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm; except that a muzzleloader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

Penal Code Section 626.9 makes it unlawful to possess a firearm, loaded or unloaded, concealed or not concealed, within 1,000 feet of any public or private school, subject to exceptions when the firearm is being transported. The suspect must know, or reasonably should have known that they are within 1,000 feet of the school.

While individuals have the right to carry unloaded firearms that are in plain view and not concealed, it is within a law enforcement officer’s right to inspect any weapon that is carried openly in public.


CAUTION

Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation. When police are called to a “man with a gun” call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers may have no idea that these people are simply “exercising their rights.”

Consequently, the law enforcement response is one of “hypervigilant urgency” in order to protect the public from an armed threat. Should the gun carrying person fail to comply with a law enforcement instruction or move in a way that could be construed as threatening, the police are forced to respond in kind for their own protection. It’s well and good in hindsight to say the gun carrier was simply “exercising their rights” but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms.

San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
Lt. Ray Lunny, Public Information Officer
650-363-4049
Release Date: January 14, 2010
# # # #

[Merle]

Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation. When police are called to a “man with a gun” call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers may have no idea that these people are simply “exercising their rights.”

Caller: There's a man with a gun at Jamba juice!
911: What is he doing?
Caller: Ordering a smoothie, no wait, he's ordering TWO!
911: Anything else?
Caller: He's getting an energy boost for both, and now he's buying a pretzel!
911: Mustard?

[wildhawker]

OT, but do you think he pronounces his last name as "looney"?

Just askin.

Originally Posted by bwiese

[/FONT]

San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
Lt. Ray Lunny, Public Information Officer
650-363-4049
Release Date: January 14, 2010
# # # #

[/INDENT]

[ldivinag]

cant believe that story opened the news....

[BadIndianSwamp]

Originally Posted by Merle

Caller: There's a man with a gun at Jamba juice!
911: What is he doing?
Caller: Ordering a smoothie, no wait, he's ordering TWO!
911: Anything else?
Caller: He's getting an energy boost for both, and now he's buying a pretzel!
911: Mustard?

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Originally Posted by gotgunz

Just because you are capable of strapping a holster and handgun on your hip and find your way to Jamba Juice.....

DOES NOT MEAN FOR A SECOND THAT YOU HAVE ANY TRAINING!

That may have been the most idiotic comment I have heard yet from an OC'er.

Yeah, that was pretty bad.

[putput]

Is the San Mateo Warning Memo a threat? Don't follow the law or we may over react and shoot you? Ok, maybe not a direct threat but, certainly intimidation.

[Roadrunner]

Originally Posted by bwiese

An Open Carry warning memo has been issued by SMSO Sheriff Greg Munks - who apparently has more time on his hands now that he's not driving police vehicles on dept budget to Vegas to pick up hookers (along with Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos (Ask LVMPD.)

Open carry memo:
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachm..._opencarry.pdf

Poor lonely Sheriff Munks finding a date in Vegas:
http://www.examiner.com/a-693448~Sheriff_involved_in_Vegas_brothel_sting.htm l


Here's the memo text extracted from the .PDF above:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"UNLOADED OPEN CARRY"

ISSUE

Several questions and concerns have risen due to recent incidents where citizens have called the police to report people openly carrying revolvers or semi-automatic hand guns on their persons. This potentially dangerous practice is ostensibly an “exercise of constitutional rights” and an apparent effort to “test” those rights with authorities. Our intent here is to provide you with an understanding of the laws that pertain to these situations.


BACKGROUND

Penal Code Section 12025 makes it unlawful to carry a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following: Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section. Penal Code Section 12031 makes it unlawful to carry a loaded firearm on his or her person while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated
territory. A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell, consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm; except that a muzzleloader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

Penal Code Section 626.9 makes it unlawful to possess a firearm, loaded or unloaded, concealed or not concealed, within 1,000 feet of any public or private school, subject to exceptions when the firearm is being transported. The suspect must know, or reasonably should have known that they are within 1,000 feet of the school.

While individuals have the right to carry unloaded firearms that are in plain view and not concealed, it is within a law enforcement officer’s right to inspect any weapon that is carried openly in public.


CAUTION

Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation. When police are called to a “man with a gun” call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers may have no idea that these people are simply “exercising their rights.”

Consequently, the law enforcement response is one of “hypervigilant urgency” in order to protect the public from an armed threat. Should the gun carrying person fail to comply with a law enforcement instruction or move in a way that could be construed as threatening, the police are forced to respond in kind for their own protection. It’s well and good in hindsight to say the gun carrier was simply “exercising their rights” but the result could be deadly. Simply put, it is not recommended to openly carry firearms.

San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
Lt. Ray Lunny, Public Information Officer
650-363-4049
Release Date: January 14, 2010
# # # #

This has so much fail in it, I'm not sure where to begin.

1. It's fear mongering at its finest.

2. It suggests that it's only safe for police to openly carry, but anyone else is unsafe.

3. It leaves a persons "movements" open to interpretation as to what is a threat.

4. It places blame on the person open carrying, but not on the police for their lack of information gathering.

5. The term "hypervigilant urgency", is my new euphemism for freaking out.

On the positive side, the Jamba Juice employee got it right. It would be nice if everyone was as insightful.

[MudCamper]

Yes the memo is bad for many reasons.

It cites 12025 but does not mention the (f) exemption.

It cites 12031 but does not mention Clark.

It openly encourages officers to violate UOCers rights and appears to encourage violent action, while openly threatening UOCers.

I think this sheriff is trying to help create "an incident", perhaps violent. The question is, why? Maybe he thinks it will help push the legislature to ban UOC somehow.

Meanwhile, the news story that resulted from it is pretty calm and reasonable.

[rtlltj]

What a pos. I guess it's going to be ok for police to just shoot anyone open carrying as it's up to them to define threatening.

[radioman]

bottom line, IF you open carry in San Mateo County we will find a reason to shoot you!!!

[paul0660]

And, once again, no mention that the reason OC is necessary is because CCW is impossible to get........at least that SHOULD be the message, the very first thing out of every OCer when being asked or interviewed.

The way is quite clear for LE to clamp down on this. There is no limit on (e) checks. That old saying, "I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop" won't be true anymore, because Barney Fife will be walking alongside, making sure that you haven't chambered one since the last time he looked.

[PEBKAC]

That was some surprisingly balanced journalism right there. I'm amazed, quite frankly...

Also very very good thing they mentioned the "1000 feet from schools", frankly not mentioning that is dangerous after all...

[wildhawker]

Maybe we need to, respectfully, point out to the Sheriff and the media outlets the deficiencies... and that they are full of crap.

They should probably clarify their policy as relates to “hypervigilant urgency”. It looks to me as if it's a not-to-subtle policy of "we'll shoot first if you sneeze, and we'd be 'sorry' if you were just 'exercising one of your little rights'".

That said, I have no doubts we see the LEAs looking for a ban on UOC this year.

[sfpcservice]

When asked by the public what the Sheriff intends to do about this he can reply:

We've written a very strongly worded letter expressing our displeasure. If this persists, we will then issue a second very strongly worded letter, and a third and so on until this problem is resolved.

UN tactics at work.

[radioman]

I fear that this could be the nail in the coffin for oc, of any kind here in CA. for most people a man with a gun = bud guy, it took two months to put 12031 into law, how long would it take to make a law to make uoc a crime? It seems the oc'ers don't get it, we are in a fight for our rights and I for one want to win, but with stuff like this in the news we can lose it all, after all this is California.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

They should probably clarify their policy as relates to “hypervigilant urgency”. It looks to me as if it's a not-to-subtle policy of "we'll shoot first if you sneeze, and we'd be 'sorry' if you were just 'exercising one of your little rights'".

Giving the Sheriff the maximum benefit of the doubt, it at least sounds like they intend to routinely trample our 4A rights by going beyond a basic 12031e check and detaining us unreasonably for running serial numbers, checking for warrants, etc. Even if they don't intend to shoot us in the process.

[N6ATF]

Apparently they want to be prosecuted for Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
and
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

at the very least.

Even worse if a law-abiding gun owner is murdered, especially after incorporation. Then it's federal death penalty time.

[putput]

The more I think about this, the more it burns me. Maybe instead of shooting law abiding citizens, the San Mateo County Sheriff's Dept. should leave them alone? There's no PC or RAS that a law has been broken so, the 4A thing. There's also the fact that their protection is supposed to be second to protecting the people. And then maybe if they can't be trusted to not shoot lawful citizens then maybe THEY are the ones who shouldn't carry?

[MudCamper]

Just posted over on OCDO: http://www.broowaha.com/articles/138...ages-the-truth

San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks got caught in the police raid of an illegal bordello in Las Vegas over the weekend.

ETA: My mistake, it was in 2007.

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by GrizzlyGuy

Giving the Sheriff the maximum benefit of the doubt, it at least sounds like they intend to routinely trample our 4A rights by going beyond a basic 12031e check and detaining us unreasonably for running serial numbers, checking for warrants, etc. Even if they don't intend to shoot us in the process.

You're probably right. I can live with gross violations of the Constitution, just don't shoot me.

On second thought, no I can't.

He's not busy enough - sounds like he needs something to do. To begin, I think I'll shoot him a copy of that little document he might want to brush up on.

[Steyr_223]

I wonder if any of the UOC folks are planning to test the Sheriff's warning and try to do UOC in his county. Maybe he is baiting the UOC folks to try it?

[an actual gun]

Originally Posted by Dr. Peter Venkman

Yeah, that was pretty bad.

Please, dudes...that comment certainly sounded like he was being a blow hard, but just before that some guy said carrying a gun implies that you're going to hurt someone and it's "inappropriate" to carry one.

[Lifeofahero]

Originally Posted by radioman

I fear that this could be the nail in the coffin for oc, of any kind here in CA. for most people a man with a gun = bud guy, it took two months to put 12031 into law, how long would it take to make a law to make uoc a crime? It seems the oc'ers don't get it, we are in a fight for our rights and I for one want to win, but with stuff like this in the news we can lose it all, after all this is California.

So it's okay to have rights just not okay to exercise them?

A man with a gun is a bad guy? If you're speaking about men committing crimes with guns then yeah, those ARE bad guys but if the man with a gun is buying a latte or a frozen yogurt then no.. he's not a bad guy and "most people" need to be told that when they call in to report the law abiding man with a gun, buying a jamba juice.

We ARE in a fight for our rights, especially here in California. I found the news clip quite calm and fair and yes, "here in the left leaning bay area it's going to take some getting used to."

[Maxwell663]

Hey I'm all for the open carry thing but couldn't the person that is exercising their right still be cited for disturbing the peace? I had this discussion the a Sargent from Irvine PD and that is what he told me.

[GuyW]

Originally Posted by Maxwell663

Hey I'm all for the open carry thing but couldn't the person that is exercising their right still be cited for disturbing the peace? I had this discussion the a Sargent from Irvine PD and that is what he told me.

Yes - that IS standard practice in the Soviet Union....
.

[thedrickel]

I can only assume that they want to encourage people to obtain a CCW from the sheriff, since lawfully open carrying is so obviously dangerous.

[obeygiant]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Poor lonely Sheriff Munks finding a date in Vegas:
http://www.examiner.com/a-693448~Sheriff_involved_in_Vegas_brothel_sting.htm l

Originally Posted by MudCamper

Just posted over on OCDO: http://www.broowaha.com/articles/138...ages-the-truth

San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks got caught in the police raid of an illegal bordello in Las Vegas over the weekend.

ETA: My mistake, it was in 2007.

Sheriff involved in Vegas brothel sting

Munks had been participating in a law enforcement relay run from Baker to Las Vegas over the weekend and was looking for a massage because he was sore from running, Bolanos told a CBS television reporter in Las Vegas after the bust.

This guy seems legit. I mean, who wouldn't want a massage after a run like that?

[smarter]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Courtesy of Hoffmang. Note the Jamba Juice employee.

The gentlemen buying the jamba juice looks like he was in a store that is directly across the street from De Anza College. I wonder how close it was to violating the 1k feet law.

[Lomic]

Originally Posted by smarter

The gentlemen buying the jamba juice looks like he was in a store that is directly across the street from De Anza College. I wonder how close it was to violating the 1k feet law.

626.9 specifies the 1000ft restriction applies only to public and private schools which provide K-12 instruction. In later sections, it details that you may not carry a firearm directly on "marked property" of a public or private university or college.

So, he can be within 1000ft. of DeAnza - of course, I wouldn't count on the police to realize this.

[7x57]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Poor lonely Sheriff Munks finding a date in Vegas:
http://www.examiner.com/a-693448~Sheriff_involved_in_Vegas_brothel_sting.htm l

Munks had been participating in a law enforcement relay run from Baker to Las Vegas over the weekend and was looking for a massage because he was sore from running, Bolanos told a CBS television reporter in Las Vegas after the bust.

Hmm. D'ya suppose my wife would buy that?

7x57

[7x57]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

He's not busy enough - sounds like he needs something to do.

Sure you want to go there, 'hawker? The last time he had free time on his hands it didn't go well.

7x57

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by 7x57

Sure you want to go there, 'hawker? The last time he had free time on his hands it didn't go well.

7x57

Good point.

An "Open Banana Carry March" (might that land us on some sort of a list?) may be right up Sheriff Happy Ending's ally.

[Hunt]

Originally Posted by ldivinag

cant believe that story opened the news....

I am surprised people still watch the TV news

[Hunt]

Originally Posted by N6ATF

Apparently they want to be prosecuted for Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
and
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

at the very least.

Even worse if a law-abiding gun owner is murdered, especially after incorporation. Then it's federal death penalty time.

statutes put into notes for future reference, thanks

[Whiskey84]

Originally Posted by Merle

Caller: There's a man with a gun at Jamba juice!
911: What is he doing?
Caller: Ordering a smoothie, no wait, he's ordering TWO!
911: Anything else?
Caller: He's getting an energy boost for both, and now he's buying a pretzel!
911: Mustard?

hahahahahaha classic

[Jamsie567]

Made my morning thanks for the laugh...

Originally Posted by Merle

Caller: There's a man with a gun at Jamba juice!
911: What is he doing?
Caller: Ordering a smoothie, no wait, he's ordering TWO!
911: Anything else?
Caller: He's getting an energy boost for both, and now he's buying a pretzel!
911: Mustard?