California Police Chief Misunderstands Second Amendment Rights

A new push to ban open carry in public areas, in the state have passed the appropriations committee and will be open for debate at a public forum on the 26th of May.

What's more interesting is Ken James' interpretation of the 2nd Amendment..

caivn.org

Emeryville's Chief of Police, Ken James – outspoken proponent of a measure that would criminalize the open carrying of firearms in all public areas of the state – will be attending a public forum debate on May 26th entitled, “Exploring California's Open Carry Policy.”

James has argued that AB 1934, which the California Assembly Appropriations Committee recently passed, would eliminate the imminent risk to police officers that he feels open carrying promotes. However, the police chief isn't for criminalizing open carry for all private citizens, as he seems to favor protection for specific groups such as the Northern California Militia.

In an audio interview with KALW News, James said these illuminating words in response to a question about the rise in militia groups throughout the nation:

“In my opinion the Second Ammendment was written to provide the ability of normal citizens to band together and form an army just like these militias are doing. So I believe the militias are totally supported by the Second Ammendment.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Alright, I read through the article and I am finding something sinister behind this move.

Take into account the move in Oklahoma for the state to join or legitimize militias. Have the state join in with the militia, authorize them so to speak.

Now on the other side of the country we have the idea being spouted that militias are allowed to have guns but not everyday citizens.

This is where I like to say how things happen. Movers and shakers do not go for the whole things. They take little nibbles on opposite ends of the fence. One side says that militias have to be regulated and authorized by the government. The other side says that militias are allowed to carry guns but not everyday citizens.

Well, to this whole argument. I am a militia of one, so their argument is irrelevant. As for being regulated or authorized. My authorization will be deprived of when my cold dead fingers are removed from it.

From what I've heard, getting a concealed carry permit in California can be (near) impossible depending on the region.

I've heard there have only been about 10 concealed carry permits issued in San Francisco since the 70s, and those were all to retired law enforcement (no source, and probably inaccurate, but the average citizen will not be afforded a CCW in SF)

I find this anti-gun stance for safety a ridiculous notion for one very obvious (to me) reason. Criminals would not bother getting a permit or carrying openly in the first place! They don't want anyone to know they are armed until they are using the gun in a crime!

People with CCWs are by and large law abiding citizens, in fact, they must be in order to be awarded a CCW.

I'm not a fan of open carry in cities, as it freaks out the squares, but when you can't get a CCW it is the only legal option. Apparently not for long however...

news.yahoo.com...,ca bastards passed it this is nonsense and ha;f the reason i left ca to begin with just figured id add some new news to this one