CBS Sacramento: A federal court has rejected a challenge to California’s gun safety law, possibly paving the way for a requirement that new guns mark the bullets they fire so they can be traced. The ruling on Wednesday was a defeat for two gun rights groups that argued the Unsafe Handgun Act violated the constitutional right to bear arms. The law prohibits the manufacture or sale in California of any gun that doesn’t meet certain safety requirements. It was aimed at outlawing cheap [read more]
The title is a little bit of a misnomer (since the article focuses on one chief) but follows the title at KXAN.com:
CEDAR PARK, Texas (KXAN) — At McBride’s Guns in Central Austin, gun sales are up in advance of an open carry law potentially being passed at the state Capitol. But Cedar Park Police Chief Sean Mannix says there are several unanswered questions attached to the law.
“What are the requirements of open carry, what about proof of eligibility?” he said. “Will people have to carry it with them?”
All 84 of his officers attend training on a daily basis for a variety of reasons, and even more training will be required if the bill passes.
“I will say that’s just a reality,” said Mannix. “It is going to be difficult for the beat cop to know who should have a gun, who shouldn’t have a gun, and frankly there are people out there who shouldn’t own guns.”
Mannix also serves as the chair of the Texas Association of Police Chiefs. He worries open carry could make situations, like ones involving an active shooter, more dangerous.
“The last thing you want to see is somebody with a gun who’s not a police officer at an active shooter situation not immediately responding to commands to drop their weapon and get on the ground,” the chief said.
The Chief has raised two different issues in the same breath. The first issue has to do with proof of eligibility, and I told you this would be a problem.
… licensed open carry in a state with no stop and identify statute for enforcement is a shooting-by-cop waiting to happen. And I certainly don’t support empowering the police state any more by giving them a stop and identify statute. That would be making something bad even worse.
Gun rights advocates are better off to hold out for constitutional carry rather than begging for scraps that fall from the master’s table.
I didn’t say give Texas LEOs a stop and identify statute. I said give the citizens of Texas recognition of their constitutional rights with un-permitted open carry.
The second issue the Chief raises has to do with situations of responses. He said, “The last thing you want to see is somebody with a gun who’s not a police officer at an active shooter situation not immediately responding to commands to drop their weapon and get on the ground.”
Why does he think this is going to be a problem? First of all, the situation is likely to be mitigated by the time LEOs get there if there are carriers in the area, and whether they are open carriers or concealed carriers isn’t relevant to the question (there are concealed carriers all over Texas and always have been). So what problems has the Chief seen that he thinks will get worse because of some unstated characteristic of open carriers? My suspicion is that there are no problems the Chief can cite because he is using boogey-man arguments. Boo! Boo! Be askeerd!
In the end we all know the truth, and it is that constitutional carry, concealed or open, is the best option because it comports with the rights God has granted to men and women. The politicians and LEOs in Texas have apparently yet to learn (or acknowledge) that.