Reading this article and a bit about the individual only reminded me that there is a 'time and place' for everything. The 'right to bear arms' or 'open carry' is a valid point, but there is an appropriate time and place for doing so. I got the impression this individual pused the point more than he needed to. He seems like the kind of person who does consider what his actions may bring on to himself or others. Again.'open carry' of firearms is a right, but there is a time and place.

I think every American not a felon should have the right to carry their weapon openly, and not just that, but that it should be loaded, although charging the weapon could be open to debate.

What if we replaced firearm with car with regards to this e-check?

How would people feel if police now had the ability to check the insides of your car to make sure nothing "illegal" was present at any time they wanted? Yet driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right, like carrying a firearm for self-defense.

The for-profit corporation A.K.A the Livermore PD wants to have a monopoly on the ability to exercise a fundamental right.

The Po Po need to be more lax on this issue or be prepared with proper training in requesting our cooperation with the law. They really make themselves look stupid.

Last year, in US v PETER VONGXAY, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the paragraph of the Heller decision which cites State v. Chandler and Nunn v. State IS NOT meaningless dicta as the defendant contended.

In the words of the US Supreme Court "In State v. Chandler, (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”

Justice Scalia went on to say in the opinion of the Court "In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly."

California is the only state which requires that firearms carried for the purpose of self-defense be unloaded. That law did not exist before July of 1967. Anyone who thinks the current US Supreme Court will uphold the California law has been partaking of way too much medicinal marijuana.

"We don't know what people's intentions are and we can't make generalizations that people with guns are safe," Boberg said.

We don't know the intentions of police officers so we should be able to detain them and check to make sure their firearms are unloaded. Before you say that police officers should be treated differently you should found out how many officers are charged with crimes everyday. There are roughly 800,000 law enforcement officers in the country. I see about an average of 3 officers being charged a day. This is all anecdotal and I don't have hard facts but I would guess that as a group, police officers commit more crime per capita than the general public.

In Wisconsin we have Open Carry, and I have been practicing Open Carry for the last year and a half. The difference is my side arm is loaded and condition 1 (full magazine and 1 round in the chamber and safety on). I am much safer and the local police are getting use to it. The bad guys are carrying concealed (Illegally) and the cops know it. When CCW passes in Wisconsin (it will get done this year) I will still open carry when convenient. Carry On! :o)

The laws against LAW ABIDING citizens from carrying are essentially laws against law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Only the law abiding follow these laws, criminals don't. They are still carrying and they use these weapons ...against the law abiding.

Why would the person in this story be more comfortable knowing it is unloaded, carried by someone who is not going to use it for nefarious purposes? Is that person ok with the criminal carrying it concealed, someone who WILL use it to do harm?

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." --Sigmund Freud

As with all else, carrying a weapon is a personal choice. The armed condition of the weapon is of no consequence. What is of consequence is what happens, intentional or unintentional, and the attending legal and social consequences.

What bothers me is the continual harrassment. In the above article, the police are familiar with Mr. Stanley via Sgt. Boberg. Without regard to Sgt. Boberg's personal opinion of Mr. Stanley, Mr. Stanley had in the past and was then in compliance with the law. Sgt. Boberg knew this, yet insisted that the weapon be inspected. In all respects that matter, this continual inspection and consequential detaining of Mr. Stanley on a continual and ongoing basis is essentially harrassment.

At what point will someone who chooses to carry have his/her own 'personal' policeman following them around to check for compliance of the law every so many minutes????

When the tyrants came for the people,
I stood up.
They killed me.

This is why I'm glad I don't live in the People's Republic of Kalifornia.

Those who need to prove themselves by open carry, which is only done to intimidate those around them, do not have my support in anyway. They seem to be in a state of eternal adolescence. They are not confident enough so they need an outward sign of strength. If that is what you need go for it. I fear these people way more that I fear any criminal because adolescents act on impulse not good sense. Who knows when these ubercitizens will consider me a threat and shoot me dead for any reason that they deem threatening. I feel sorry for any one that lives in a world that they see threats around every corner. Where is their Christian faith this country likes to spout out about?

i agree that if you are not a felon, you have the right to open carry. i just got my open carry permit & guard card. it was'nt easy. it appears certain misdeamnors can disqualify you. i kept on the state through telephone calls and letters. i wonder does that affect my ability to open carry ?

to Matt from the great state of wisconsin..........other localities are looking better to live all the time........to rebecca, i would think that god not only helps those that will help themselves, but will also protect those who protect themselves. i go to chicago a lot. the south side to be exact. take if from me, with out me sharing anything anecdotal, that not all situations when one has to protect themselves in the streets against those that "will" do you harm, have to end up in an orgy of gun fire or dramatic brandishing of a weapon, if you have invested the time & money in combat pistol defense training and posses a skill @ arms. one becomes confident and humble @ the same time.

The tobacco companies also found scientists and other experts to explain to the public that their product was no causing harm Anyone can set themselves up as an expert. I have spent a long life in cities and rural areas and not once have I ever felt the need to kill anyone. What I do feel sad about is we have returned to a society that seems that the only solution is to threaten someone with a weapon. A grew up in a home with firearms. I am not anti-gun. But they were never used to threaten. They were used to hunt and we were all taught to treat them with respect because no matter how justified , we never wanted to take another human life. We were never allowed to be the judge and jury of any one. To those who say firearms are never discharged by mistake have been not reading all the news. It happens all the time. Training does help. But all who receive these permits are not trained. Do you really want to live in a society that the only way to get along with those around you is the force of weapon? If that makes me the subject of some psycho babble so be it.

I don't know when Livermore became such a dangerous place that folks like Mr. Stanley believe they now need to make a public show of protecting themselves by displaying their weapon. The consequences of Mr. Stanley's demonstration of fear or, perhaps, just exuberant display of rights, is that many ordinary citizens walking around feel less safe because of it. Is that what we want in Livernmore? Or Tucson?, or anywhere else?

George Anich

How long would it take to load a gun? I would imagine in a life threatening emergency, you'd be dead before you could. So the purpose of carrying this unloaded weapon is what? Bravado?
Fear? Exercising the right to do so? As a non carrying weapon person, I would feel quite threatened by anyone openly carrying. How do I know their intent? And do I have the right to
ask them to show me their weapon is not loaded? I feel my right to feel secure is theatened.
Another debate here is IF this young man looked lug a thug, and not clean cut and high tech savy, would our profiling fear kick in? How would we react if he were wearing a colored bandana on his head and pants down around his knees- wouldn't you run for cover?
Personally, I would leave an establishment if anyone other than true law enforcement
were openly showing a weapon, because there is no way of knowing if the weapon is loaded
and if the person is unhinged. Just having the need to open carry shows me how he thinks.

dear barbara.....you have bought up several important points, and i understand how you feel. since you brought up to our attention about people who look like gang bangers decided to open carry, how that would make you insecure, afraid even. you are or not as afraid of a clean cut white guy with a nice lap top in the same establishment as you, but you are still afraid or better said, "his actions tells you a lot on how he thinks." as a black man, i'm more afraid of the police when i get stopped (it still happens to me @62, even on my bicycle, but not as frequent). it would appear to me that your view point is all fear based. triggered by seeing a weapon openly carried by a citizen not in a uniform. to address your other concern on how effective it is to carry openly a unloaded side arm, i again understand your point. how useful or useless is it if you really needed to defend yourself ? a reasonable question by some one who has had "NO" firearms training @ all ! it also depends a lot on the scenerio that you "did not" offer. personally i would prefer to have our state be like other states & allow us to carry openly & loaded, but this ain't our reality here. in my training i suggest carrying without a mag in your self defense weapon, so when needed you can load, chamber in a matter of a second or 2 without handling an empty mag. i can, because i have trained and timed myself. whether if that would save my life or others, again depends on the scenerio ?

I support open-carry but have two concerns:
1 - How long will it take to remove an empty magazine and replace it with one with live ammo?
2 - Why carry with an empty magazine and force LE to remove your weapon for inspection when they could do it without the empty magazine in the pistol?

dave i responded to your post, but had problems logging in and lost the damm thing. i used all the alotted characters except 3. sorry i don't feel like trying to rack my tired brain to recover it. however i will send a post to THE SOUTH BAY OPEN CARRY group about the empty mag v. not having a mag in the weapon & being in violation of the open carry law. i have the open carry down loaded on my hard drive & will referance it again @ some point in time.

hi charles;
man that is real scarey ! just when you think that this crap can't get any more stupid, it does. i'm glad i am getting involved in this debate while still living in california. i'll also ask about this in a post on the SOUTH BAY OPEN CARRY groups board. thanks charles, i'm sure they probably know, but will see if they respond with anything tangible.

attn; charles nichols again;
man i just re-read your post about the black panthers from 1967 & it being legal to carry openly a loaded fire arm anywhere in the state. from what i'm hearing on the news, you can still do that in arizona, even can conceal it ! :-) i wonder how the recent events will affect that liberty ?

i had just graduated from high school on the south side of chicago and remember that photo of these young afro wearing guys in leather jackets walking around with shot guns, etc; they were basically protesting how the police behavior/brutality was @ that time in the black community. i was a little behind the curve politcally & really did'nt understand what they were about. even with the killing of fred hampton on the west side of chicago. thanks for jolting my memory and connecting the dots in terms of california & its gun laws. almost as bad as chicago's were. now @ least you can own a side arm/hand gun as they like to call them now. for almost 30 yrs. it was illegal ! but you won't believe what you have to do to register the damm thing, fee's involved, being finger printed, even with a F.I.O.D. card, that you must possess 1st. !

i

Personally, If I saw a person with a visible firearm on them, I would feel much more comfortable knowing the police is monitoring them. One may have the right to bear arms, but I as a citizen also have the right to know that one bearing arms isn't suffering from mental illness and will use that gun against innocent bystanders.

I have to question why one has to prove such a point and I'm happy that LPD is monitoring to protect me and Livermore's citizens.

well tony, it would appear maureen is another person with an irratonal fear of side arms. surely she has other issues in her personality & this is one of the ways they are manifested. however you have to admit even though we feel her fears in this her scenerial are unwarranted, you have to admit that the existing laws and inter connected agencies that could keep firearms out of the hands of people who are deemed mentally ill or have criminal records should not have a firearm of any kind. these agencies/law enforcement depts. have no way or have not invested the capital in making sure that when a person has multiple encounters with the law & school or work officals like the AZ. shooter, the information is there so he or she can not buy a firearm ! interesteing how the public discussion is turned away from this to less unrelated issuses like the size of the magizine, & cop killer bullets on the more progessive news networks. but this comes down to 'HEALTH CARE" especially for the mentally ill. thanks to reagan, they are all were given bus tickets to california and points S.W. ! we also have to change are attitude about mnetal health and those affected by mental illness. like Malcom X said after the Kennedy assination, "the chickens are comming home to roost".

attn tony H;
i found you point intereting. i would like to know where did you get your statsitical data about the 12% od police shootings & civilian envolved shootings. i personally don't think having more police is the cure all as every one thinks. they are necessary, and i do support law enforcement, but when i have been confronted by people, and i use that noun very loosely (thugs, drug users, gang bangers, or just your general sociopath) there was'nt a cop around ! i know that's a cliche', but i am "living" proof without going into details. also i think i am very progressive in my political views.

Livermore has quite a vigorous open carry contingency. And yes there are some serious nasty parts of Livermore down around Livermore ave and chestnut come to mind. Gang killing there recntly. and that LPD knows this guy. great. just leave him alone this repeated harassment is worrisome to me as a Livermore resident. And to the posters above that question why carry ?
becuase its their right . thats all you nee dto know. And at this time in California unless you live in a rural county, and your not Sean Penn or a leftist anti gun politician, your chances of getting a CCW is effectively zero. and toteh posters who think that the cops are protcing you ? think again. Police have no legal obligation to protect you. They are however obligated to protect the government. Of course if i was carrying concealed you or the cops would never be the wiser and i may even save a life in an emergency. when seconds count the cops are only minutes away. i have refrained from as yet carrying openly any one of my guns becuase i dont want to be hassled. i will just take my chances.

oops, mistyped the date. Still recent in my opinion. I work a a somewhat sister city, Los Alamos, NM and we rarely have a murder.

not mistyped, misread. Time for a nap.

attn patrick G;
dusting off the constitution & holding it up to a strong light appears to be very popular by all sides of our political spectrum these days. especially when a shooting like this occurs. so is the constitution a living document, that changes as we develope as a society/country or are we to live by it literally as these old & younger white dudes with land, property, and oh yeah i forgot some of them owned other people too wanted ! when the new republican congress wanted to give themeselves a civics intensive for all the world to see. they forgot the 3/5th clause ? YEAH, THOSE WERE THE GOOD OLE DAYS ! when black was black, & white was shite ! after all we do have some embarrassing stuff in our history and our binding documents. i don't know Pat, i'm not totally against what you said, it just appears a government for the people and by the people just ain't so anymore. welcome to corporate america. thanks to justice roberts & the supreme court, it's the law of the land now. but i digress.

Gentlemen,

I can assure you that I do not have irrational fears nor am I an irrational person. You are correct that I have no right to know if one is mentally ill. There are good and bad people everywhere, in every race, culture, career & religion. One doesn't always know who we should fear or trust. We just trust our instincts.

I absolutely respect your right to bear arms & open carry. I am a previous gun owner myself & I love to shoot.

These aren't the old western days and one isn't subjected to seeing one open carry in our community. I stated that I feel much better knowing that the police are monitoring people who open carry. I also felt much more safe when LPD had a gang task force before cuts were made.

I will respectfully refer to George Anich's reply;

"I don't know when Livermore became such a dangerous place that folks like Mr. Stanley believe they now need to make a public show of protecting themselves by displaying their weapon. The consequences of Mr. Stanley's demonstration of fear or, perhaps, just exuberant display of rights, is that many ordinary citizens walking around feel less safe because of it. Is that what we want in Livernmore? Or Tucson?, or anywhere else?"

I don't know if Mr. Stanley is being harassed by LPD or if LPD is protecting the citizen's who see Mr. Stanley open carry. I'm just stating that I have never seen one open carry in public and if I did, I would feel better knowing they are abiding by the law.

attn maureen;
interesting reply maureen. it appears you have tempered your view just a little. i have to agree with you on one thing that people who are mentally ill should not posses a fire arm. that is about as far as i go in terms of gun restrictions. also perhaps @ gun shows that licensed vendors should be able to do back ground checks instantly in people wanting to purchase firearms. the loop hole needs to be looked at again rationally.

attn Tony H;
the damm police just got through shooting a young black man in playa vista early this morning. he was necked, did'nt pay his cab fair, the police several fought with him, but decided to put 2 rounds in him instead of using a non leathal rememedy. i hope these cops go to jail. i have had dinner and cocktails in that area, and i'm very disturbed by this. i hope all you that read this feel as horrified as you felt as the tucson shooting. this happens by the police way too much, and i'm getting really feed up with these cowards in uniforms not doing their jobs responsibly.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m68lUe40nXI

to tony & pat;
thanks pat for not giving up on me like my man tony did, & not fully "explaining" to me what the 3/5ths clause ment in terms of a rememdy for slavery. congressman jackson (jesse jackson's son) asked if the were going to read the part about the 3/5ths. clause pat. i thought @ the time when he presented that question that it seemed appropriate, and still do dispite it being amended.

i sincerely appreciate you taking the time and presenting a well thought out response to my posting. this should show that most of the people that participate in this group, even though we might disagree and have some different views on issues, can still discuss them in a manner that is instructive, & informing. thanks for the civics up date !

I'm sorry, but while I agree with the right to bear arms, but the jerk in this video should've been arrested on the grounds that he's shooting his mouth off. This guy was part of a live tv news report awhile back. The fact that this loser is coping an attitude with LPD should have been probable cause to cuff and stuff him!

I love seeing all these unfounded opinions of how “dangerous” open carry is because of all the things that someone “might” do. All these accusations of possible actions by others are unfounded and simply not true. I’ve been open carrying for quite some time now, and still have yet to have someone become “scared” or “irrational” due to them seeing the handgun on my side. Only a few times have I been asked about my sidearm, but have never caused any kind of unrest or “frightening” situation. Most of the time, my gun goes unnoticed. But when it’s seen, people rarely give it a second look. When people see me with a gun, I’m usually greeted with a normal “hello” and a smile. This may also be due to my kind and no offensive demeanor. I’ve have walked through my nice, clean rural town as well as the scary areas of Oakland, Fremont and Union City with my handgun, never a question, no “man with a gun” calls to the police or people running for their lives. AB144 supporters and those few people that just don’t like guns will always find creative ways to foster fear in those ill informed people of the public to simply push their agenda.

No profanity/name calling on Patch Robert. We'll delete this comment.

I don't understand the issue Mr. Stanley has with the officer checking his gun. It took 5 seconds for the officer to verify it! If the law states he can open carry it, then let them check it for 5 seconds and move on. The officer wasn't profiling him, just verifying the gun wasn't loaded. I am all for the right to open carry, those people are not the threat! At least I know you have a gun and can choose my actions. Unfortunately, this issue will never be agreed on 100%. Stay saf in Livermore my friends and support Relay For Life of Livermore!

First off we should all carry a side arms to protect our selves in this state, just Look at the car jackings and other things going on. I feel that the law for a CCW should be left up to the local Mayor and not the county sheriff. In Dublin we do not let the our mayor make this call, only we have the county sheriff control the permits to be issued. Yet all police officers can carry off duty. Now what makes them any better at being safe than someone who shoots every week end at the local range? Lets talk about this little problem about firearms, back when we had a boob for a sheriff in the county by the name of plummer he had all them carry Glock 22 40's. He "Plumer" replaced them with sig's because of accidental discharges that hit them in the legs. So he " Plummer" spent some $200,000 or so of tax dollars replaceing the handguns for the entire department. This all came down to poor training, RULE #1 when your done shooting your finger comes off the trigger and goes along the slide, they the sheriff officers would reholster and BANG the gun would go off because the holster would contact the finger and in turn the trigger would be depressed. So why would we think that anyone who drives a patrol car would be qualified to shoot or carry a handgun and not the public? Only in California.
1650 KINGs had weapons and the peasants’ had none!