Skip to comments.Man tests right by carrying gun in public(CA)
Posted on 01/12/2010 4:15:07 AM PST by marktwain
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- A Kern County man is testing his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Rafael Esqueda said he has been visiting different public places over the past week with his gun on his belt.
"We can openly carry in California," he said. "The firearm has to be unloaded in plain view, and the magazine, which is an integral part of the firearm, have to be exposed, also."
In an effort to promote his platform, he, and about four of his friends, all showed up at River Walk Park on Sunday afternoon with their guns exposed. Eyewitness News was there to capture reactions from parkgoers and the event that was to follow.
One family who was at the park fishing with children and grandchildren said they didn't feel comfortable with the guns out. Sandra Cantu is a grandmother and thought what Esqueda was doing was not right.
"I have a lot of grandkids, and I wouldn't want them to do that," she said. "It's showing a mixed message that they could carry them."
About 20 minutes after Esqueda arrived, Bakersfield police arrived and informed him that it was against city code to carry guns in a city park. Esqueda complied and told Eyewitness News that he "learned something new."
He went onto say, "No problems, no arrest, nobody got shot or murdered."
(Excerpt) Read more at bakersfieldnow.com ...
In America that should be OK, but Kalyfornia?
What good is it if it’s not loaded? Might as well carry a hammer.
Look, the average citizen is scared enough. I’m not arguing with anyone’s right. If you’re within the law, fine. But I think a concealed carry law would be far more effective. When perps don’t know that you can defend yourself they usually learn a lesson the hard way. All we need are muslims running around CA carrying weapons in open sight. Not going to relax anyone’s nerves there!
It’s either a constitutionally protected right, or it’s not. I didn’t know city ordinances overrode constitutional rights. I guess I learned something new, too.
As for anyone who doesn’t like guns, don’t carry ‘em if you don’t want. Of course that doesn’t mean you have the right to restrict another person’s right to carry them.
He can probably load the magazine faster than he can load a nail, but your point is a good one.
I wonder what the Local, State, and Federal Government (i.e., Holder’s Justice Department) response would be if this were 4 members of the Black Panthers stationed out in front of a polling area dressed in military fatigues and carrying unloaded pistols?
Oh ... wait ... we already know that there wouldn’t be any response. How silly of me!
>> As for anyone who doesnt like guns, dont carry em if you dont want. Of course that doesnt mean you have the right to restrict another persons right to carry them.
That’s what the libs say about abortion. “If you are against abortion, don’t have one.”
Just so long as it's not an "assault hammer"......
I am I confused, when is carrying an unloaded handgun anything but an invitation to get shot by Barney Fife. Have no problem with open carry, but the unloaded issue is a problem.
I'm sorry, but that's not “open carry”. If you applied those same restrictions to any other inanimate object, for example a cell phone, it would immediately become obvious how ridiculous and Unconstitutional those laws are.
Oh, in Kalyfornia we can openly carry our cell phones, but you have to it in plain sight, and the battery must be plainly removed so as to not cause a panic.
Right to an abortion compared to the right to bear arms? That’s about as opposite as you can get. One is the destruction of innocent life. The other is designed to protect innocent life.
What is your logic chain for this post? You equate a basic right to self defense with an effective rewrite of the Constitution, looking for the penumbra and vapor of the ‘right’ to kill your child?
I think his response, if you don’t like it, change the laws, could have been worded a little differently - rather sounds a bit like a challenge, dunno.
Not quite. Semi-auto and clip can be loaded in a couple of seconds. Admittedly, loaded carry is preferred, but "the law is the law", and this is a step in the direction of changing said law. I say "three cheers" for those who assert their rights, whether by concealed OR open carry.
While he is exercising his rights, he should do so more sensibly. That is, on the assumption that while what he is doing is right, he needs to take into account what might happen if what others are doing is wrong.
And, short of dragging a gun rights attorney around with you, this is not easy to do, as people can be very unpredictable. And this not only can result in misunderstanding, but in personal harm.
Say, for example, a police officer who understands gun rights and is respectful of them, gets a call on his radio that “there is a man with a gun at the park!!!”
He is *not* going to assume that the man with the gun at the park has it holstered, and is peacefully eating an ice cream cone, while some hysteric with a cellphone has called him in, convinced that there is about to be a shooting spree.
Instead, he is going to be as nervous as a tick on a hot plate, and will take a lot of convincing to relax. I have considerable sympathy for his point of view as well.
Ironically, the best friend of open carry is “familiarity breeds contempt”. So the best bet is to pick a place that has a lot of regular visitors, and be seen there a lot with your weapon. This stops a lot of mistaken “group think” dead in its tracks.
“Hey! Do you see that guy over there? He has a...*gun*!”
“Yeah, that’s Bob. He always carries a gun.”
The next best bet is to be personally known by the area’s police officers. If they don’t know you, they can’t possibly assume that you are just exercising your open carry right—it’s not their job to assume that what people are doing is right. They are to stop people from doing wrong, especially with guns.
But that mood totally changes if they recognize you by sight. Just seeing you a few times *not* doing anything wrong, and they will remember you in the good column.
I wonder how he is carrying it unloaded in plain view AND with the magazine exposed?
Nobody is saying that open carry is better than concealed for strictly self-defense purposes, but the purpose here is POLITICAL and to show the nervous Nellies that there is no reason to be scared. And if Muslim citizens want to walk around openly carrying guns, I'm fine with that.
I can load, rack, aim and get rounds on paper with my .45 in just a couple of seconds. Not as good as loaded of course, but way better than a hammer.
Agreed. Concealment is the way to go. Gives the bad guys something to think about when you consider the possibility that even Granny might be prepared to defend herself.
Dude has balls doing that in Kahleeforhnee-ah.
You can only do that in America but here....
He is going to get slapped down, Hard.
It may cause havoc among the sheeple, and an innocent person may end up getting killed by an inept policeman, but overall I approve. It's good for society.
>> Thats about as opposite as you can get.
Yes, I know, Citizen.
RoadGumby, you are very defensive this morning.
The idea was to take the typical lib rationale and turn it back on them. It seems to be ok for their causes, to say, “you don’t like it, don’t do it.” In their cases, this reasoning extends even to murder.
What is the point of carrying an unloaded weapon?
Ask the California politicians who created the asinine California gun laws in the first place.
My point is that California is wrong and concealed carry is preferrable and more effective than open.
I actually find open carry to be weird. It’s got to be extremely unnerving for many, many people and creates an odd dynamic, in my opinion. Concealed carry is preferable because ignorance on the part of those who would be unnerved is bliss. Why make them crazy and even more anti-gun than they might already be?
I don’t know what the stats indicate but intuitively, it makes perfect sense that criminals will be on their heels when the possibility exists that would be victims may, in fact, have the ability to defend themselves. In California or any other open carry state, no sidearm = easy target.
The whole point of the open carry movement is to inoculate the "nervous Nellies" so as to have them NOT see someone openly carrying a gun as "scary".
Criminals carry concealed.
An odd dynamic? No doubt. But liberals will get used to it. We must not let them set the agenda for our lives any longer, as they view the world as a child would.
Ok, that is what I have too, but did not know if that met the definition of “exposed” magazine. Most of it is coverend.
A hammer only becomes an assault hammer in the hands of an assault carpenter. Never mess with a carpenter who has his tools with him.
Ah! the mexifornian Barney Fife Gun Law...
The Senor Fife law..
-OR- Aunt Bea Protection Act..
This woman is an idiot! The message isn't mixed at all. It's very plainly that there is nothing wrong with carrying. Her grandkids probably already realize this. She's the one who needs her thinking adjusted. If she's trying to suggest that open carry is somehow encouraging her grandkids to become gang bangers she's entirely off base.
You can carry a loaded mag on you, so you could be ready to go in 4-5 seconds. Not ideal, I grant you, but it's a start. Plus if enough people do this, and the public stops associating legal guns with blood in the streets, maybe the laws can be revised to restore sanity.
If that's the point its doomed to failure, in my opinion. Nervous Nellies are nervous Nellies and they won't change. That's just the way it is.
Salt only becomes Assault Salt in the hands of a salt shaker.
Lot's of data that says you're wrong. Even deeply seated psychological phobias can be removed. But this is just a question of reversing brainwashing by education.
When I'm working out in the woods with wild pigs, mountain lions, and coyotes around, open carry is the way to go. Unfortunately, when I get to the county road to walk home, it does tend to spook the urban transplants.
the magazine was not in the gun but could easily be injected... if needed.
that’s how i read the article.
>>>The whole point of the open carry movement is to inoculate the “nervous Nellies” so as to have them NOT see someone openly carrying a gun as “scary”.
Yes, but nervous Nellies often react by passing more laws. For example, here in Charlotte, a couple of reports of young African American males walking around downtown openly carrying a handgun (which is not against the law), caused the police chief to push for a new city ordinance that would make open display of a firearm illegal. It didn’t get past that city council, but there was the potential that it might.
If they can stir up enough hoopla to get the law passed at the first incident, yes. But longer term, education and exposure can lead to BETTER laws and not worse ones. As evidence, we can see the ongoing growth of CCW rights as one state after another passes CCW, with zero negative consequences. Even the diehard blowhard liberal states are finally "getting the picture" that it is not GUNS that is the problem, it is CRIMINALS.
I believe it was in the late 60's when Ronald Reagan signed the bill which banned the carrying of loaded weapons in California. (I don't recall the act's name). But, it was Reagan.
The law was passed in the 60’s or 70’s (forget which) after the black panthers staged an armed march on the capital in Sacramento. Scared the pee out of all those whities in the legislature so they hurried up and passed this stupid law. Really no point of carrying in California anyway (concealed or open) since you have a duty to retreat here and the use of deadly force is frowned upon.
As an interesting aside, I used to live in downtown Long Beach in a transitional neighborhood (i.e., just blocks from the hood). My roommate used to go jogging after work at night and would always carry concealed a Sig in a fanny pack. He got jumped by three black guys, pulled out his gun and shot one of them. Surprisingly the cops did not even arrest him and he got his gun back a few days later (this was about 20 years ago though so attitudes have changed). He did not have a license to carry but figured better judged by 12 than carried by 6.