There seems to be a truckload of misinformation in this post from the Daily Democrat,
The California Assembly approved a bill Monday to prohibit openly carrying unloaded handguns in public after a debate that pitted gun rights proponents against chiefs of police.
The bill, AB144, would make it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in a public place, street or vehicle except in some unincorporated areas. It was approved 45-29 largely along party lines and moves to the Senate.
The bill’s author, Democratic Assemblyman Anthony Portantino of La Canada Flintridge, said it will improve public safety. It is supported by the California Police Chiefs Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Families shouldn’t have to fear for their safety if they’re out for a walk and see someone packing a pistol, Portantino said, and police shouldn’t have to answer calls to respond to those fears.
“You don’t need a handgun to order a cheeseburger,” he said.
Backers insisted the bill wasn’t aimed at hunters or others who responsibly exercise their rights, and insisted it would make police and the public safer by reducing armed confrontations.
“This is a public safety issue,” said Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles.
For anyone concerned about the issue of unloaded open carry in CA, I strongly advise that you educate yourself about gun control statistics, justified advocacy of open carry groups, and the laws concerning open carry in CA. The fact is, statistics show that open carry prevents crime- and the U.S. Constitution grants Americans the right to do so. For the California Police Chiefs Association to support the prohibition of unloaded open carry is clearly self-interested. No Oath Keeper would support such a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Some argue that carrying concealed is better because it protects your incognito status. I would agree, but counter that open carry is far safer. Openly carrying a firearm ensures the weapon is visible, accessible, and safe. There are no concealment garments or obstacles inhibiting you from presenting your firearm. The gun is carried with the muzzle in a safe direction (down). There are no violations of the four rules of firearm safety. Regarding concealed carry, some holsters position guns in a way as to have them directed at others. I think carrying a loaded weapon in a concealed holster that disrespects muzzle discipline is unacceptable. Additionally, unloaded open carry is a step in the right direction towards the legalization of loaded open carry.
It is true that, “You don’t need a handgun to order a cheeseburger.” However, this argument has nothing to do with the constitutionality of unloaded open carry. Furthermore, disarming law-abiding citizens will increase crime and create victims- period. Legislating victims will have long-lasting effects on Californians as an aggregate population. Guns empower those that are most commonly targeted as potential victims: the weak, disabled, injured, elderly, LGBT community, minorities, women, etc. Though California only allows unloaded open carry, it is legal to carry a fully loaded magazine in a quickly accessible pocket. When used by law-abiding citizens, they protect those most likely to become a victim of crime. Tyrannizing law-abiding gun owners does not help foster an atmosphere of personal responsibility and individual liberty.
The most unfortunate part about the entire article is the promise of backers that, “the bill wasn’t aimed at hunters or others who responsibly exercise their rights, and insisted it would make police and the public safer by reducing armed confrontations.” This implies that somehow unloaded open carriers are not, “hunters or others who responsibly exercise their rights.” The cold hard fact of the Second Amendment is that it was not designed to protect hunters. It was written to protect citizens from tyranny. This includes both tyranny of criminals (that, by definition, do not follow gun laws), and tyranny of government.
If this is such a pressing public safety issue, where are the bodies of innocent victims of unloaded open carriers? Where are the families that have to avoid the streets and fear for their lives? I truly wonder how the California Police Chiefs Association is able to reconcile their advocacy of AB144 with their stated code of ethics. I think this article directly relates to my post on public employee unions and gun control. When unions adopt political agendas, they abuse their collective bargaining power.