Robbed Twice In Public, Woman Doesn't Want Her Life Risked A 3rd Time

[YihChauChang]

Open Carry advocate, Karen Nixon, wants nothing more than to be able to defend herself from being the victim of violent crime for the third time. Yet, Assemblyman Anthony Portantino wants to take that right to self-defense away from her. Is this your government at work?

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-oakland/robbed-twice-public-antioch-woman-doesn-t-want-her-life-risked-a-3rd-time

[Don H]

I believe that you posted this article you wrote for the Examiner in the wrong forum. You may wish to ask a moderator to move it to Law and Civil Rights.

Great article!

[Kodyo]

I fail to see how open carry would have prevented this where concealed carry wouldn't have been successful. I understand that she her local police chief won't issue a CHL license, but that is another issue.

On one hand, open carry could have been a deterrent and kept criminals away from her. But it's also possible they would target her for her gun or just shoot her immediately.

[Don H]

On one hand, open carry could have been a deterrent and kept criminals away from her. But it's also possible they would target her for her gun or just shoot her immediately.

Lots of things are possible. Is there any solid, credible evidence that those who OC are targeted for their guns or are shot first?

[Double Naught Spy]

Is there any solid, credible evidence that those who OC are targeted for their guns or are shot first?

It has happened. Of course, we don't know what deterrent effect has occurred if crimes didn't occur at other times to open carriers, so it is a skewed data set and provides a skewed perspective.

[Kodyo]

Exactly.

I can find several videos/news articles where people OC-ing were shot before they even pulled a gun or hinted at such. However, as mentioned, we don't know if they would have been shot regardless.

It's kind of beside the point though. Why is she pursuing to get OC but not concealed? I don't understand why they are trying to get OC when they don't even have reasonable CC laws.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

Why is she pursuing to get OC but not concealed? I don't understand why they are trying to get OC when they don't even have reasonable CC laws.

Perhaps you should read the article...
The way I read it, she has a concealed permit, and is trying to keep OC.


http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ked-a-3rd-time

[Kodyo]

Nope, you are wrong. She has CCW in another state:

As a resident of Antioch, and seeing friends in very similar situations being turned down with their own submitted concealed carry permit (CCW) applications, Nixon knows firsthand that obtaining a CCW through her local Police Chief would be virtually impossible and without Unloaded Open Carry as an option, Nixon feels justifiably threatened in public in regards to her own personal safety.

....
"I am already a licensed CCW (concealed carry permit) holder in another State. I’ve taken the 8 hour class, been fingerprinted, photographed and background-checked."

My point being, she is far more likely to get a less restrictive CC process passed than a full blown OC when highly restrictive CC already exists. Let's say it does get passed, what makes her think that it's going to be any less restrictive than the current CC process?

In my opinion, her time is better spent trying to get the "virtually impossible" CHL (which from the way it was worded, she has not even tried).

[GoOfY-FoOt]

She isn't bringing legislation. But, simply trying to defeat another round of anti-gun bills that keep rearing their ugly, and apparently becoming less appealing, little heads.

I'm not sure that the pro-gun source of the article, is completely unbiased in their reporting, but it seems that the pro-gun and pro 1st and 2nd amendment folks are just about fed up with big government, and the article is just one more step, towards a better future.

As for the why's, if you have an issue with her political issues or tactics, perhaps you should inquire of her, or become an activist yourself.
No one can do it more to your liking, than you can.

[pullnshoot25]

I would love to see these videos of OCers getting shot before being able to draw. Uniformed cops don't count.

[Kodyo]

I would love to see these videos of OCers getting shot before being able to draw. Uniformed cops don't count.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...=452218&page=3

Start at the beginning of the thread, but post 71 has the video.

He was open carrying and was shot before he drew his gun. Whether he would have still been shot if he was concealed carry is unknowable. The man who shot him could have easily seen the gun and decided to be the first to shoot because of it (again, only speculation).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm confused. How is unloaded open carry a deterrent?

That says to me - oh, here's a gun for you, BG!

Am I not getting this. I recall that folks started to OC unloaded given a CA loophole, hoping to make a point and then folks wanted to ban it.

But the utility of unloaded OC escapes me. Better to fight for CCW - granted that might be a lost cause in CA.

[Gbro]

At first I thought YihChauChang was mistakenly writing about unloaded OC, then I agonizingly read through AB 144 :barf:
The goal being to re-define the penalty of unloaded OC to a misdemeanor??
What a bunch of Garbage!

Here in MN, when a CC permitted person carries a Gun into a school "Unintentionally" the penalty is a petty misdemeanor and the gun cannot be confiscated.
Or we are required by law to have our permit and a form of government pictured ID in our possession at all times WHILE carrying, and if caught without, it is again a petty misd. and max fine is $25.00 and that must be refunded upon showing the proper credentials.

Maybe Kali doesn't have Petty Misd'ers???

I'm confused. How is unloaded open carry a deterrent?

In the AB 144 bill there is a couple of references to OC being a deterrent.
The only way that could work is by mistake, IMHO

The definition of public place in Kali stinks too.
From what i get is your private property would have to have 8' chain link w/razor wire on top before one could carry their empty gun on it. :barf:

[Kodyo]

Not to revive a slightly old thread, but here is another instance I just read about someone being targeted because they open carry:

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local...CLIP_ID_249430

[Brian Pfleuger]

Neither of your examples actually indicate that someone was targeted SPECIFICALLY because they were open carrying.

Both are simply links to situations wherein an open carrier was attacked. There is no way to know if it was or was not a result of open carrying.

I could post a video of a concealed carrier being attacked and claim that he was attacked BECAUSE he was carrying concealed and the BG was not aware of the gun. But, just like your claims, it would be pure, baseless speculation.

The article in your second link even seems to negate your argument:

"The president of Wisconsin Carry, Nik Clark, says 100's of thousands of people open carry and he's never heard of anything like this."

[m.p.driver]

I don't think open carry is the answer. L.E.O.'s everyday are assaulted and disarmed.If you walk into a liquor store to rob it, who are you going to be worried about? The guy with the business suit,or the individual with the .45 on his hip?In an urban environment there's a lot to be said for the element of surprise.

[Kodyo]

@peetzakilla
Direct quote from article:

The victim didn't want to go on camera but said he carried the gun because he had been jumped and held up at knife point in the past. He believes, in his case, open carry made him a target and he will no longer do it.

Hence the reason why I made the assertion that he was targeted because he was OCing. Fact is, neither of us will ever know if either of these men were targeted specifically because they were OCing, so I'll agree to drop it.