Why does Mr. Nickols feel he has to carry a gun in public? Is that the only way he feels like a man? I'm with Mr Portantino, I see no need for people to carry firearms around unless they are the police, sheriff and military. The thought of just anyone carrying a firearm scares me.

More bad legislation by Anthony Portantino, (D) La Canada-Flintridge.

The thought of people not being able to carry them (concealed) scares me!

This is no longer the Ole' Wild West. People carrying guns around will ultimately make the streets LESS, not MORE safe. Thank goodness California hasn't followed in Arizona's footsteps, where it's legal to carry a concealed weapon in a bar. (Because EVERYONE knows drunks and concealed weapons mix well.) Bottom line is, if we create a healthy society, where people have well-paying jobs, adequate housing and broad access to mental health care, violence will plummet. Allowing people to carry guns in public will not reduce the state's crime rate or make anyone any safer.

Restricting the amount of legal, law-abiding, licensed citizens carrying concealed weapons is dangerous. Criminals will never stop carrying their stolen, unlicensed, and illegal guns, so the argument that this makes the streets more safe is a moot point.

Criminals steal the guns from the law-abiding citizens. Fewer guns around = fewer guns in the hands of criminals. In England, where firearms are largely banned, there was only 0.15 gun-related homicides per 100,000 population. In the U.S., there was 3.98.

... and, the states that do allow the carry of concealed weapons have the lowest crime rate because the criminals are interested in attacking people who are vulnerable and they never know who is, or who isn't.... except for travelers who rent cars. They are vulnerable.

it boils down to more rights legal citizens lose . in meantime change laws / rules for the illegals in this country to get more rights ...

ps how many of you have ever seen ANYONE walking down road carrying a rifle or a shotgun . be for real .

Question: Should Starbucks be allowed to sell liquor--specifically at the Starbucks in the Wells Fargo Bank in South Pasadena? Well, duuh! YES.

Question: Should South Pasadena allow open-carry? Well, duuh! YES.

Benefit: Well, duuh! An uninhibited patron will not hesitate to blow-away any would be (real or imagined) Wells Fargo Bank robber. What greater god-fearing, all-american, flag-waving, anti-socialisr benefit could there possibly be?

Scotty! Warp speed to the 19th century!!!

Poor poor frightened politicians. Cowering before unloaded guns, devices less dangerous than a broom....
I have owned a .22 long rifle since a friend of my Father's gave me one as a birthday present when I was seven years old. I learned how to safely carry, load, aim and accurately fire it under adult supervision by the time I was eight years old. I was amde to undersatnd that a gun is literally a killing machine and to treat the object with the utmost of respect and care, and to never ever endanger another person through careless use or display of a firearm. As a free people, our Constitution notes and upholds our God given right to arm ourselves to protect against criminals, dangerous wildlife and tyrannical politicians and governments they may form.
Assemblyman Portantino has it all wrong. we should teach every American child the proper use and care of firearms in High School as a part of their Government class and issue every citizen a fully automatic side arm and military assault rifle. If he is frightened of an empty rifle, perhaps he has reasons we are unaware of to be frightened?

I think you all are missing the point. In Arizona crime might be low because of a perception that "everyone carries (open or concealed is not being questioned)".

In California, yes that is the state we are in, as some of you have said "criminals" steal or buy stolen or illegally gotten guns and commit crimes.

So my question to you, to the casual observer, if you see someone walking down the street with a gun (long or hand) openly displayed will you assume that person is a criminal? In California, I would! because in CA criminals carry guns, you just said so. You can't have it both ways. If our culture began many years ago like Arizona this wouldn't even be up for discussion. But it didn't!

And another point, you want to openly carry UNLOADED weapons yet almost every example you use is defending yourself or someone else in public. HOW? Usually with a gun bullets make it work. So how does carrying an unloaded gun protect anyone? Ultimately are you saying that you have bullets on you too. So you are openly carrying an unloaded weapon with quick access to the thing that makes it deadly. Wonderful, I feel safer already...

Carrying an unloaded long rifle? Thats crazy!
Like drinking from an empty beer bottle..
Talk about insecurity. Find something else to carry around.
Something worthwhile.

Just from the comments you can tell who grew up privileged and who grew up in an "average" American household.

"Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?_r=1

"Gun sales at record levels, according to FBI background checks"
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-27/us/us_record-gun-sales_1_gun-sales-gun-dealers-gun-sports?_s=PM:US
 
Only the "experts" are baffled that criminals commit less crime when their victims are armed.

Well....I've seen people open carry weapons that are loaded all over California and funny thing, open carry never frightens me. Now when I see a shoulder holster buldge, a waistband carry, a weapon concealed in a coat you know the way crooks,corporate operatives and CIA types carry then I get scared as heck.

And yes those of us who live where the police dont tend to respond to help know exactly why WE NEED guns.

A minor correction. My lawsuit seeks to overturn the 1967 ban on openly carrying a LOADED firearm in public. AB 144 is not at issue in this lawsuit. Also, California Right To Carry isn't the plaintiff in the lawsuit, I am. http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness...
Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Continue reading -> http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

An Armed Society is a Polite Society.

The 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded guns is itself a racist law. From 1849 until 1967 open carry was legal in California. Then some African-American men with a leftist political disposition began to open carry to defend their community. This panicked the legislature "Oh my God Black men with guns!" and so in order to not see Black men exercising their rights as free men, the State legislature took away the rights of ALL free men. This legislation by Portantino is the same. He fears people with any political bent walking around with unloaded basically useless weapons, so because he fears one group who have never committed a violent act, he takes the rights of all other men. We need to stop electing frightened little men to office.

Charles- THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEFENSE OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Can I send a donation to your legal committee?

We've deleted the comment that violated our Terms of Use from the anonymous poster who made a personal attack. As long as we keep our conversation civil, please keep up this interesting thread that should be of interest to everyone in our community!

Wow I cannot believe how many people here are miss guided, lacking education, or down right ignorant.

First, the Bill of rights gives good citizens the RIGHT to have and use firearms to protect themselves from criminals AND a suppressive goverment, like this one is becoming, especially like spineless congressmen like Portantino. No I don't like calling people names but when I see such ignorance from people that should know our AMERICAN history and why the law makers before them wrote the bills they did.

I can't believe people like Mrs. Dottie Burns doesn't understand the most simple right an American has. The freedom to carry a firearm to protest the restrictive rules today's congress forces on its people. Moreover they pass laws that keep honest good people

Donny- I'd like to make one minor but important correction. The Bill of Rights does not grant anyone any rights. The Bill of Rights enumerates certain of the vital fundamental rights God grants to all freeborn people. The Bill of Rights is not the grant itself. This is why for instance, the theory of Justice Marshall that the Supreme Court had the power to interpret those rights is completely incorrect. These rights can not be abridged, regulated, or lessened. The right to keep and bear arms is in fact the right to have the means needed to overthrow the government should it become a tyranny. Mr. Portantino, in expressing his discomfort with seeing citizens with a political agenda carrying unloaded weapons in public and then attemting to restrict them from doing so with a regulation that is clearly contrary to the Bill of Rights, is in fact a demonstration of tyranny and an assault on the rights of all fre people. It's a good thing his Congressional aspirations have ended because he has demonstrated he is not fit for public office by offering this odious law..

Portantino is doing /trying to do what hitler .[germany ] did in 1938 .

Lonnie: You know what they say: First person in an argument to invoke Hitler/Nazis loses.

hi lol prob true . im just sick and tired of repeatedly losing more rights .

Susan R: How does the government tell us where to live? They do say where we CAN'T live (you can't build a house along many parts of the California coast, for example, to protect it for future generations, or in certain fire or flood prone areas because of the cost to the general public of bailing you out) but I've never heard of any law that says you have to live in X. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not making anything up. If you saw my previous comment, England, which largely banned firearms) has a much lower rate of gun-related violence than the US. And it would stand to reason that a convicted felon, who cannot get a gun legally and wants one, would 1) steal a gun or 2) buy a (presumably stolen) gun off the black market. My point it, the fewer guns in circulation, the better. And we haven't even gotten into teens committing suicide with their parents guns or children accidentally shooting siblings/friends/themselves. Keep the gun unloaded and locked up in a safe if you have kids, you say? Well, great. BUT, if someone breaks into your house, what are you going to do? Say, "Excuse me, Mr. Robber/Rapist/Murderer, please, make yourself comfy on the couch while I go unlock and load my gun. By the way, would you like a glass of water while you wait?" Odds are, by the time you're aware of someone having broken into your house, if you keep you gun locked up, unloaded and the bullets in a separate place (which is the responsible thing to do with children or teens in the house) you wouldn't have enough time to grab the gun. Better to just keep a baseball bat underneath the bed.

It is pointless trying to reason with opponents of self-defense. They have a mental illness.

Raging Against Self Defense - A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Raging-Against-Self-Defense

Ignoring the arguments for an against the Constitutional right to bear arms or any philosophical discussion of whether guns are good or bad, I thought these particular statistical studies were interesting (from Wikipedia): "In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do not, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s. While the debate remains hotly disputed, it is therefore not surprising that a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information."

In other words, who knows?

Dear Jerry: Hate to cloud your opinion with facts, but Freud didn't say what you attribute to him.

Patrick,
Government is building condos and apartments along train lines so people can take trains and buses to work and not drive. Councilmember Jan Perry headed the vote in city council so there would be no new fast food restaurants opened on restaurant row on South Figueroa in her district. That means less jobs. And, the people that eat there are from USC and not her district.

The government pushes which light bulbs to use, which cars to drive (hybrid), which toilets to use (low flush) and a lot of other stuff.

I agree that right now we can still choose but with all this stuff being forced down our throats one day we may not be given a choice. Just look at new gun law. It comes down to rights and freedoms being taken away.

Susan R: Just because a government takes action to promote a particular industry, restrict where something can or cannot be built and encourage environmental practices doesn't mean it's forcing you to do anything. You can still live where you want, eat what you want and drive what you want. Last I looked, there was no law requiring you to live along train tracks, ride a subway, eat only vegetables and drive a hybrid. Encouraging new industries doesn't force anything down anyone's throat; the marketplace determines whether people will buy hybrids, move into housing along train tracks or even buy guns. Also, last I looked, it was pretty easy to buy a gun, even in California.

About those light bulbs - The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 pretty much received bipartisan support. It passed the House with a 264-163 vote (with 36 Republicans voting in favor). And in the Senate, the vote was 65-27 (with 20 votes in favor from Republicans). And it was signed by Republican President George W. Bush. It seems to be one of those first I was in favor of it but now I can blame it on the other party so I'm against it.

Jerry A: I bet if you wanted to go into any Walmart in California, lay down $300 bucks, you could take ownership of a gun within a week.

Jerry A: The point is, it's easy to by a gun in California. As for your other point--taking personal responsibility for protecting your family--that's admirable. But you question dialing 911 for help. In a civil society, the community delegates enforcement of laws to the police. If you feel the need to arm yourself to enforce the law and not to depend on duly delegated authorities, there's a word for that: Vigilantism.

Patrick said <" In a civil society, the community delegates enforcement of laws to the police. If you feel the need to arm yourself to enforce the law and not to depend on duly delegated authorities, there's a word for that: Vigilantism "> But Patrick, we don't live in a civil society. We have OWS defecating in public, having sex with 14 year old girls and destroying public and private property. Remember the riots during 1992 ? Those who took personal responsibility and armed themselves and protected their business were not looted and burned down to the ground. You call them vigilantes. Those who dialed 911 waited while no one showed up and they had their business looted and burned. I rather be called a vigilante by some pantywaist who packs a cell phone. Just like the wind storms we experienced. There were those who took personal responsibility and were prepared and those who didn't take personal responsibility and weren't prepared and when SCE and local government failed we saw all of the whining that took place.

BTY: Protecting yourself, family and property is not vigilantism. When many law enforcement agencies become reactive instead of proactive you better take some responsibility.

Jerry A: The term "civil society" refers to a civilization that has agreed to be governed by laws. We live in a society where the citizenry have mutually agreed that we will be governed by laws, as set forth in a constitution, and as drawn up by duly elected representatives. The opposite of a civil society is anarchy, and that sounds like what you're proposing: Let the individual decide for himself or herself what laws he or she chooses to abide by, and which ones he or she decides can be dispensed with. Take up arms and the hell with everyone else. Call it what you will: I don't choose to live in a society like that.

It was citizens who apprehended Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, not the police.You might call them vigilantes, I call them citizens taking on the responsibilities of being a citizen.

Prior to WW II, most criminal prosecutions were made by private citizens and most arrests were made by private citizens and private police. Municipal police departments as we know them today are an invention of the 20th Century. 100 years ago, the few police officers employed by municipalities were often unarmed.

Up until 1903, the Federal Militia Act required every able bodied adult male between the ages of 17 and 45 to own and regularly drill with a military grade rifle.

http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Prior to WWII, blacks and whites couldn't marry, my relatives couldn't buy property in certain neighborhoods, lead was put in paint and children were allowed to work in factories. I don't want to see any of those things brought back, and I certainly don't want to see armed groups of citizens patrolling the streets as in the old days either. I prefer professional police departments, professional courts and professional law enforcement. I'm sure you, Jerry A, and you, Charles E. Nichols, are perfectly nice fellows, but I don't like the idea of perfect strangers such as yourselves arming yourselves and telling me whether I'm breaking the law or not.

Wow, Charles, citing an advocacy group as authority. Well, you are wrong about private public prosecutions. "The tension between private and public prosecution has long flourished in English history, but it was not as much of an issue in the American colonies. Private prosecution ran counter to the democratic process. By 1704, Connecticut adopted a system of public prosecution, and other colonies soon followed." (Prosecution in America A Historical and Comparative Account JOHN L. WORRALL 2008 SUNY-Albany; he is currently a criminology professor at U. Texas at Dallas.) The mention of the Federal Militia Act (of 1792 - which you didn't mention) is laughable. All free white men were conscripted and had to arm with a musket. I'm not sure what relevance that has to anything. You are correct that states did not begin to create their own "professional" police departments until around 1900. Again, so what? Your recitation of purported facts without context means nothing other than to provide a not-so-accurate walk down memory lane.

Okay Chuck, I'll bite. What was the name of that 1991 California Supreme Court case with the citation?
What's your authority for the statement that courts didn't whittle them down until the 1950s?
What's your authority for your statement that the public prosecutions were for crimes like treason? Professor Worrell's article does not contain that limitation and in fact refers to public prosecutors prosecuting all criminals.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but you aren't entitled to your own made up facts to support it.

You are also entitled to your opinion about the ultimate outcome of your lawsuits. I've read Heller. It doesn't stand for anything goes when it comes to guns.

I await the decision of the district court. Whenever that will be.

Ooh an insult! Several actually. Perhaps you are right. I just am not up to snuff when it comes to legal research especially when compared to you.

But you still didn't provide any of the citations to authority I asked for.
Which leads me to believe you are just making it up.
Come on, Chuck. Enlighten me and everybody else.
I'll take your insult and failure to do so as a concession that you don't have any authority.
Go ahead, change my mind. Prove me wrong!

Patrick, Nimby Pimp. you two and a few other who don't know your rights are. The only ones bringing up armed citizens patrolling the streets are you. I'm referring to when a citizen sees a crime being committed intervene if your physically capable if it means that someone will be harmed if you don't or the criminal will be able to flee if you don't intervene. About fifteen years ago in Pasadena I saw a felony being committed next door to my business. If I just dropped a dime they would have gotten away and someone else would become a victim down the road in the future. I dropped a dime, armed myself and prevented the three felons from fleeing until P.P.D. showed up 10 minutes later. I never had to point my weapon, just showed them I was armed.
Over the years the liberal State Legislature has passed many pantywaist laws. If someone physically attacks you, your suppose to run away. Only if you can't run away are you allowed to defend yourself. The police go further, they tell you if someone ask for your wallet or purse to give it to them ! Who are the police working for, the criminals ? We have problems here in California. A failing state that is completely out of step with the other 49 states in the Union.

Nah, Chuck. You just won't answer.
You can't answer because you don't have an answer.
You pontificate and insult.
All I have done is ask you to provide a source for your claims.
One that can be checked. You didn't.
Says a lot.

Charles you have given a good education here. Something that is above a lot of people. But people need do their own research because no matter what you say they will never agree unless they do their own research. There is a lot of ignorance. And, some people want to stay ignorant.

Nimby claims <"Los Angeles has enjoyed the lowest violent crime rate in more that four decades."> Lower crime per-capita but not less crime. But why is that ? The Three Strikes Laws !!! Most of the criminals are all ready behind bars. There are more criminals incarcerated than any time in history. Four decades ago there were less than a dozen state prisons in California. Today there are over thirty state prisons and they are overflowing. Also many crimes in the Latino immigrant communities go unreported. Four decades ago there was no such thing as a "home invasion" crime. It just didn't happen. Four decades ago the word "drive bye" didn't exist. Do you want to compare how many gangs and gang members there were four decades ago compared to today ? I didn't think so.

Jerry A - Let me try to understand what you are laying down here. a) The crime statistics are wrong; b) There is more crime, much of which is committed by Latinos who have invented new and heinous ways of making you feel afraid; c) There are a lot of criminals and the prisons are overflowing, ready to burst; d) We need Jerry and his six-shooter to protect us! Listen Jer, I know guns are fun. But Cialis works pretty darned well.

I bet that poor girl that was killed from Lincoln Heights wish she would have been carrying a loaded gun to protect herself. She may have lived.

Wow pretty crazy to see people so against scary guns that they are willing to give up their own constitutional rights to protect their own homes and families. It's so strange to me that there are actually men that are this passive in our society. I can just imagine these guys sitting there crying like women as their wives are raped in front of them. Sorry, I'm not going to stand idly by like a sissy while my family is assaulted. You guys can be victims all you want. I choose to arm myself. Have fun dialing 911 and waiting 10 minutes while the rapist finishes and kills you both. I'd rather be Yosemite Sam any day than Prissy the Punk.

A gun don't make you a man, John. Didn't your daddy teach you that?

No self reliability does Nimby Pimp. I'm sure you're happy relying on the world to save you and take care of you but a real man takes his families safety and welfare into his own hands. A real man has an S on his chest to his kids. When your kids and wife look at you all they see is a weakling who will hide and call 911 when they are being assaulted. Sad that there are men in the world such as yourself that rely on others to take care of them. I'm sure you're on some kind of government assistance as well no doubt. You need daddy Sam to take care of you.

Nimby Pimp: "hello 911...There's a scary man in my house and he's pistol whipped me and he's now hurting my kids."

911 Operator: "don't worry sir, a real man is on the way. Just keep hiding and comply with whatever he wants. I'm sure you're used to that."

John, It must be awful to be so darned afraid.

It must be awful to be so ignorant.

Hey Barney Fife. Boo!

o' my gwad, u all jest got 'anomy anonymously hacked'! .. my turn

When you have some protection there is no need to be afraid.

To those of you 'sheep' that don't like guns etc. Please Come spend a day here in STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA. Any day of the week doesn't matter, even Sunday afternoons. I promise it will be a mind changing event for you!

Rob, can you provide more info about that?

For those of you who call those of us who choose a firearm as the most reasonable means of self-defense crazy, here's a little wake up call for you. Don't mean to "burst your bubble", but bad guys are everywhere; including South Pasadena.
http://slowfacts.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/popping-the-bubble/

All of you anti-gun advocates who think taking guns away from responsible gun owners will keep us safer, to protect us from ourselves, you are to blame for the banning of frisbees and footballs on LA county beaches. Every time you mocked gun owners when they made the slippery slope argument, I blame you that my child can no longer dig a hole in the sand that exceeds 18 inches. No paddleball, no soccer, no throwing or rolling of any objects other than a volleyball or beachball. People used to look up to California, but this state is becoming a national joke. Thank You Liberals!

I'm not against gun ownership since hunting seems to be a popular sport and defending your home is such a key part of some citizens lives. But keep it at home. Do you really need to bring your AR15 to Ralph's? Are we really still in danger of being invaded by the English King again?

Personally, our Police force do a tough job, but they are trained to handle violent situations. I'd rely on them any day over mine or any neighbors experience with a weapon.

Btw: Does the pro-gun lobby want to expand guns in public in California? Everywhere? In bars? In churches? In schools? Colleges? Political rallies? The courts? In banks? Airports?

....On a plane?

Keep it in the home. Not in public thanks. I fear more for the crazy road rage driver on the freeway than someone robbing me just outside of Sworks.