2nd Amendment, California Style

By Semperpapa

Here in the land of leftist perdition, California, the attacks upon the constitutional liberties of the people has been going on for years now, thanks to the stronghold Democrats/Liberal/Progressives have been maintaining of the state legislature.
None of the Constitutional Amendments has been as trampled over by the hippies running the show in Sacramento than the Second Amendment.

The US Supreme Court is in the process to hear the case related to the freedom of the states to adopt firearm legislation designed to limit or eliminate the constitutionally guaranteed right as expressed by the Constitution.

So while the 2nd Amendment is coming again under scrutiny by the highest court of the land, in California there are some people who are willing to take on the American people and the NRA.

A little background. Since the issue of the 2nd Amendment has been receiving new attention as the SCOTUS is getting ready to hear the cases of Chicago and Washington DC, some pro-gun groups have been trying to bring attention to the right we have to own and bear arms by taking up the so called “open carry” issue. Basically open carry is the wearing of an unloaded firearm in plain view. The proponents of this practice have staged demonstrations to bring the attention of the people to the issue of law abiding citizens having the right to own and carry firearms.

All the demonstrations held have been nothing but orderly and polite, consisting in few people gathering at coffee shops or restaurants. The organizers would contact local law enforcement about their intentions, so that the local cops would know the reason for all those civilians sporting side arms out in the open.
One of such demonstration was held on a San Diego, California beach, where about 60 people wearing open carry side arms went on the boardwalk. Local police received some calls from concerned citizens who stated to be “concerned” by all those armed people. Cops responded and after insuring that the open carries were all legal (no chambered rounds in the weapons) they just went on their way.
The peaceful, orderly and polite solution of the situation should have been enough, as the demonstrators were 100% within their constitutional rights to be there, but it was not.

It appears that a local politician got wind of what had happened and decided that it was her duty to come up with her own anti-Constitution battle.
The politician is a Democrat, of course, assemblywoman from San Diego named Lori Seldana. She took it upon herself to propose a ban on open carry for California.
Here are some exerts from Seldana’s press release she sent to the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News:

People should be free from the fear and the potential for violence firearms represent. A parent pushing a stroller shouldn’t have to determine whether the motives of a person carrying a handgun are dangerous or not or whether the gun is loaded or not.

And:

These displays of firearms can create potentially dangerous situations.If peace officers respond to a call about a person with a gun, and the armed person then behaves in a way that is perceived as threatening, the officers may be forced to respond in a way that proves deadly.

I believe that responsible gun ownership has a place in our communities, including hunting, sportsmanship and an individual’s right to protect their home. But guns are an intimidating and potentially dangerous presence in public. There is an imbalance
of power that can be frightening for people just spending time with their families.

Well, here are my thoughts on Ms. Seldana statement.

I agree that people should be free from the fear and the potential for violence, but personally it is not the presence of firearms that may prevent that, but more likely the person in possession of the firearm. A group of gang bangers walking around with semi-auto pistols in their falling waistbands and harassing people should create a sense of uneasiness in anyone unfortunate enough to be there.
On the other hand, a group of normal looking citizens with firearms properly and safely stored in holsters and just walking around not harassing anyone, should not be a source of concern.

In the case of the beach demonstration, law enforcement was aware of the situation, but responded to the complaint anyway, as they are supposed to. In any other instance, it becomes common sense that if a police officer would approach someone with a firearm in plain view, that person should be very aware of the situation and do nothing to instill reason for concern in the officer. Just common sense (uncommon for liberals).
If the person behaves in a threatening manner, he/she is responsible for the consequences, not the police officer or the gun.

The last part cited is the usual patronizing, so hallmark of politicians. Ms. Seldana feels that she has the knowledge, power and wisdom to tell the people of California what her opinion is on responsible gun ownership.
I have been a gun owner for the last 30 years. It would be interesting to find out how, before Ms. Seldana became the high and mighty lawmaker she is, she used to get around to do whatever she was doing. Assuming she drove her own car, I am sure that at some point she changed the radio station while driving, or talk on the phone or maybe even put some make-up on, which really means that she was more of a menace to society by doing those things while driving that I have ever been as a gun owner.

Guns are really intimidating in the hands of the wrong people: a rapist, a gang banger, a robber. Guns are equally intimidating in the hands of a law abiding citizen, but only for potential criminals.

Criminals prey on those they believe they can overpower easily. A robber will try to hit a convenience store, especially if it is staffed by women and in the dead of night. That is because the expected level of resistance is minimal, while the level of intimidation is at the highest. But if the robber walks in a convenience store and sees the clerk with a very visible sidearm, he/she may be convinced that that is not the right store to rob and just walk away.
I have said this before, but there is a reason why gun stores are rarely robbed.

The last sentence of Ms. Seldana press release is a little confusing and disturbing. What imbalance of power is she referring to? Between, for example, me with my holstered .45 taking a stroll with my wife and the woman with her child in the stroller? There is no imbalance of power, as I am not in a power struggle with the woman.
But if the woman had a .45 holstered on herself and her estranged husband would pull a gun on her to kidnap their child, than that .45 would eliminate the imbalance of power existing if she was unarmed. But I am sure Ms. Seldana would prefer that the mother and her child would be victims as long as the big, bad gun was not there. Easy to be the almighty politician when it is not you or your loved one being victimized.

I could not find any info on the number of complaints logged into the Police Dept. regarding the incident Ms. Seldana was inspired by, but I would be willing to wager that it was not from all the people on that beach, meaning that those being “frightened” were the minority of the people present.
So here is another instance where the minority is affecting the majority of the people. Once taking inventory of the situation, most people probably thought that the particular beach was probably the safest in the whole state.
“Minority rules” may work in political campaigns as we know all too painfully well, and it probably worked for Ms. Seldana election, but the US Constitution does not work exclusively for minorities. It defines the rights of all citizens, including the minorities.

It remains highly inconceivable to me why liberals are so set against the rights of the people to defend themselves. Some of the comments I read about this situation were really revolting. One woman expressed her “terror” in seeing “all those guns” in the open. But she is probably one of those people that just because they live in an upper scale area, do not believe that crime can happen in their part of town. It is these kind of people, those who live with their pampered heads in the sand, that elect these feel-good, flowers-in-your-hair, lets-make-love-not-war politicians with their anti-Constitutional ideologies. And the same ones who criminals love so much.

Just my thoughts!