Open Carry Ban Leads To Concealed Carry Win in California?

California Shall Issue Permit ProcessBack to back Second Amendment victories emerged from an unlikely source – the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In two cases filled with irony, it turned out that California’s recent ban on open carry paved the way for the concealed carry victory. Huh?

Yes, an anti-gun decision in California enabled a pro-gun court ruling. (Tweet This)

Monkeys are now flying out of my… well, never mind.

While California bans open carry at the state level, concealed carry policies and restrictions are determined at the county level. Frustrated by permit refusals from San Diego County, five residents sued, challenging the county’s requirement for “proof of need” to obtain a concealed carry permit. Apparently, if you’ve been murdered more than once, you “might” be eligible to obtain a carry permit in some locales.

On February 13th, the appeals court ruled on the Peruta v. San Diego case in favor of the residents and ruled the “may issue” concealed permit policy unconstitutional.

“We are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Reagan appointee, wrote for the panel. “But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”

With no open carry option on the table, and concealed carry effectively banned in many California counties due to arbitrary permit issuance policies, the court agreed that citizens were effectively prevented from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

If you can’t carry visibly or concealed, that only leaves parallel universe carry, which is a difficult skill for most people to master. (Tweet This)

In a follow-up case, Richards vs. Sheriff Ed Prieto, Yolo County, California’s “may issue” concealed carry permit policy was also shot down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court rejected the county argument that the case circumstances were materially different than Peruta vs. San Diego.

“Today’s ruling reinforces the Second Amendment’s application  to state and local governments, and will help clear the way for more California citizens to exercise their right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “California officials have been put on notice that they can no longer treat the Second Amendment as a heavily regulated government privilege.”

According to the San Jose Mercury News, permits permit applications have been flooding in to a number of counties since the ruling, with many seeing double the annual average of applications in the past few weeks.

The bottom line? These two cases have solidified the position that Second Amendment rights apply outside the home – at least for California residents. At the national level, the Ninth Circuit decision is contrary to similar cases in the Second, Third and Fourth Circuit courts, so Supreme Court intervention is likely at some point.

Keep the pressure on folks!

Boiling Frogs, Gun Allergies and How To Influence Enemies

Starbucks gun debate

Having spent decades in the marketing field trying to convince people to buy things they don’t want, I get it.

I get that people become acclimated to ideas and new concepts as a result of continued exposure. So when open carry advocates claim that their aim is to desensitize the public to the presence of guns, I understand the logic. Look how well it’s working with the gutting of our Constitution.

Bend a fundamental rule of law here and there and before you know it, you can achieve some real progress! (Tweet This)

What I don’t understand is the rationale behind an “instant desensitization” strategy by staging “in your face” open carry gun parties in an attempt to influence the non-believing community.

Let’s consider a recent example.

Starbucks had a long-standing “gun policy” of… following local laws. If local law allowed open carry, fine. If local law allows concealed carry, fine. That’s a win for us folks. I don’t want businesses making individual decisions about my rights. I want them to worry about whatever their business is and to just follow the law of the land when it comes to constitutional issues. If they want to dis-invite me as a gun owner under their private property rights, that’s OK. It’s also my right to shop elsewhere.

But then idiocy reared it’s ugly head. The “other” side adopted a strategy of trying to force Starbucks to become anti-gun. Even though they were never pro-gun. They were, and are, pro-coffee. That’s it. And all it should be. Gun control proponents staged protests and media events to force Starbucks to take a political position that had absolutely nothing to do with their business. While I think that was a stupid move, I understand it. After all, they’re idiots. And desperate. Well, in fairness, they’re not all idiots. They’re just choosing to make decisions from a fear-based emotional perspective. Like NBC executives.

In response, some in the pro-gun community decided that the right defense was to be offensive. So they staged “Bring your arsenal to Starbucks” days and showed up with rifles on the backs, a pistol or twelve and perhaps a couple of MK-19 automatic grenade launchers. Because Starbucks would be thrilled to have the Internet Ninja Militia show up in their stores, fully armed, and spend five or six bucks on some coffee.  Boy did we show them!

The response from Starbucks was predictable. While reluctant to outright ban guns, they did issue a statement that they politely request gun owners don’t carry in their stores. What did we expect?

So why did this happen?

The short answer is that our side orchestrated and achieved a colossal failure of desensitization.

Think about it.

If you’re allergic to guinea pig dander and head to your allergist for treatment, they’re probably not going to lock you in a chamber with 12,000 of the squeaky little rodents and hope you get used to it.

That would be an epic failure of desensitization and would cost a fortune in guinea pig food. Instead, the doctor will give you a weekly injection of guinea pig pheromones, in gradually increasing doses, until your body learns to cope, or you start to become romantically attracted to guinea pigs. The process may take years. Eventually, you won’t break out in hives when sharing a bowl of timothy hay with a couple of abyssinian guinea pigs.

On a similar note, I’ve yet to see a frog jump into a pot of boiling water. All the boiled frogs I know chose to desensitize themselves by jumping into nice, lukewarm crock pots. Then they would hang out, have a glass of champagne and enjoy a gradual rise in water temperature. Another classic example of gradual desensitization.

The point is simple. If you want to acclimate someone to a new point of view, you need to do it gently over time.

No one decides they like liver and onions or Season 8 of The Bachelor after just one sitting. (Tweet This)

Our unworthy opponents in favor of gun control are masters at the desensitization strategy. It’s rare to find a public spokesperson calling for outright gun confiscation. But that’s what they all want. Instead, they propose bit-sized nibbles that are digestible by the uninformed. “Let’s implement just one common sense measure to increase public safety.” Or perhaps “We agree with the right to own guns, we’re just asking for more thorough background checks.” Unless you’re whacked out on Mighty Putty fumes, you know exactly what their long-term goal is. If you are whacked out on Mighty Putty fumes, please don’t drive. Or vote.

Heck, I’m in favor of legal open carry as much as anyone. If I see someone open carrying, I know they’re generally the least of my worries. But I’ve been properly de-sensitized. But someone like Piers Morgan? Or the average Starbucks customer? Not so much.

When a business is being extorted by the anti-gunners, just stop by, dressed in your normal fashion. Buy something. And tell them you appreciate them focusing on their business – not the yahoos boycotting for their cause du jour.

Remember folks, we can be right, and still lose. Just ask Sarah Palin. (Tweet This)

Are You An Innie Or An Outie? Concealed vs. Open Carry

An excellent way to start a good old-fashioned bar fight, or at least an internet happy-slap chat spat, is to gather two groups of gun people. One who believes in Open Carry and another who believes in Concealed Carry. Then ask them whether Cher is a true Diva or not. While we won’t attempt to solve that debate here, we will briefly define each in the context of holster selection.

Open Carry [oh-puh n] [kar-ee]

  1. Act of possessing, wearing and transporting one or more firearms in a publicly visible and immediately accessible manner on one’s person.
  2. Proponents believe that clear visibility of armed status will deter evil dudes from doing evil things.
  3. See also: Lone Ranger, The Terminator, Wyatt Earp
Galco Small of Back Holster

Here’s an example of “open butt carry” with a Galco Small of Back Holster. Technically you should use a cover garment as “open butt carry” is kind of ridiculous.

At the time of this writing, only 7 states had no provision at all for legally carrying a gun via open carry. On the other end of the spectrum, about 12 states allow open carry with little if any restriction — excepting of course areas where guns are not allowed by Federal law or other restriction. All of the others have some provision for open carry. Some require permits to do so. Others have country and city ordinances that impact open carry.

Many proponents of open carry insist that a right not exercised is a right lost, and therefore want to increase the incidence of open carry to make it mainstream. A related benefit to frequent open carry is that over time, the general public will become desensitized to seeing guns in public. After encountering law-abiding citizens throughout their daily travels, and seeing no adverse impact, folks will figure out that citizens exercising open carry are in fact normal too. You have to admit that desensitization works. When Paris Hilton hits the New York club scene with 3 ducks, Ryan Seacrest and an ill-tempered llama, who even notices?

Concealed Carry [kuh n-seel-duh] [kar-ee]

  1. Act of hiding, withdrawing, and removing a gun or other weapon from public observation while still keeping it accessible on one’s person.
  2. Proponents believe that it’s better to give (by surprise) than to receive. Proponents also believe in the tactical advantage of remaining anonymous until the time and place of their choosing.
  3. See also: Armed citizens, Domestic Terrorists (as seen by the media), Sneaky Bastards, Responsible Law Abiders

Concealed carry is far more prevalent legally speaking. Only one state in the union has no provision for concealed carry, and that is Illinois. At the time of this writing, lawsuits are in progress aiming to change that. Also, the District of Columbia has no concealed carry provision, unless you are a high-ranking politician and therefore not subject to laws for us little people.

Gun Words Explained!

Terminology Alert: Distrikt of Columbia

The District of Columbia is a foreign dictatorship conveniently located between Maryland and Virginia. Holsters are generally not used there as carrying a gun is outlawed for common people. One notable exception is “private parts holsters.” Politicians like to send photos of those with their cell phones.

Your personal carry decision, and therefore, your holster selection decision, could more likely to be a tactical issue than a legal one. Barring political objectives mentioned, many concealed carriers believe they hold a tactical self-defense advantage when no one else knows they are armed. Concealed carry theory suggests that the only time you want a potential threat to know about your gun is the instant when it is used. If your gun is visible, you may, in fact, deter crime. Or you may become the first target. We won’t get into that tactical debate in this book.

For our purposes, the outside the waistband holster section features holsters most appropriate for open carry. If you’re not worried about hiding your gun, you might as well choose the carry method that is both most accessible and most comfortable. For most folks, that would be via a belt holster with the gun mounted outside the pants or skirt.

Read more about hundreds of ways to carry a gun in The Insanely Practical Guide to Gun Holsters

Buy The Insanely Practical Guide to Gun Holsters at Amazon.com

Occupy something or other while open carrying…

An interesting and sure to be peaceful idea from the Weerd Beard himself!

Legal Disclosures about articles on My Gun Culture