Gc70, it's not so much "that trials and tribulations of open carry are 'unknown to the rest of us'" as it is the CA specific things.
In most of the nation, when someone openly carries, the handgun is loaded. As a defensive tool, it has to be loaded. That's the "common" thinking. In CA, that handgun must be unloaded to be lawful.
In the most of the nation, we have several federal cases that establish that LEO's have no ARS to stop a person, simply because they are carrying openly.
Yes, in some few States (like CT & WI), LEO's don't like it and use whatever the courts have agreed upon, to harass the open carrier. But that's not the norm.
Regardless, in CA, it is not only the norm for an officer to stop and check your firearm, it's written into the law. You want to carry a handgun openly? Then it must be unloaded and any officer can approach you, stop you, and check to make sure you are complying with the law. This is known as an "E" check (CA P.C. 12031(E) - IIRC).
Since this is a relatively new phenomenon in CA, many officers aren't aware of the legalities and will arrest you on sight for felony carry.
Now add to the mix, the CA GFSZ law. Unless you are absolutely sure of where all those K-12 schools are, you are committing a felony to carry openly within a 1000 feet of the school. They prosecute that law with vigor in CA.
Carrying openly in CA is fraught with peril, more so than in any other State, where open carry is lawful.
The Judge in this case, just ruled that as long as you could carry a handgun (unloaded), your right to bear arms is not implicated. As I said, the Judge has just established that Unloaded Open Carry and Loaded Open Carry are equivalent for purposes of self-defense.
I stand by my prior statement. Most of us don't have a clue as to what gun owners in CA have to do, to be lawful. Most particularly, those of us that OC. Terms like LOC and UOC are unknown, except in CA.