An animation of when each state first banned concealed carry, open carry, or both.

After having first banned unlicensed concealed carry in 1909, Utah finally restores the right to carry concealed or openly (loaded) without a permit. 

Zerohedge (excellent coverage and video from the night)

Apparently, the victim was involved in an altercation just before his death and the victim deployed pepper spray. One video appears to show someone yelling "We got a Trumper over here," before a shot is fired. A convoy of Trump supporters was seen in downtown Portland in the early evening and an afternoon rally was held in the Clackamas area.

Was this retaliation for Kenosha? We don't know, but at this point further violence is inevitable. Isolated incidents will increase in frequency and be replaced by planned attacks. Soon, group on group violence will occur. It will only be a matter of time before crowds are bombed or shot up.

The Civil War is here.

Uintah County was the first 2A Sanctuary in Utah, followed by Utah County, then Wayne County. Now Wasatch County is exploring an interest. 

Fox 13

Twitter video

One driver was shot during a protest in Provo, Utah, after a mob swarmed stopped cars. The driver was injured and the masked shooter got away. 

Another SUV fled the scene, pushing its way through the crowd. Note how the SUV goes slowly, kind of snow plowing the people out of the way rather than hitting them like a freight train. Not mushing people down indiscriminately is a good idea. Also the SUV driver has a good self-defense justification as a shooting did occur.

Even small crowds in mostly white, conservative towns can be dangerous. Avoid protests, avoid crowds. Keep space in front of your vehicle to turn out. Stay armed and stay frosty. It's only gonna get worse.

California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. It is practically impossible to carry a firearm for self-defense without a license to carry (LTC) and those are very difficult for most Californians to receive. Open carry is banned all but the most remote parts of the state. It is illegal in  to have a handgun in a vehicle for self-defense. Non-resident carry permits not recognized. Many firearms commonly for sale in other states are arbitrarily prohibited in California. While no purchase permits are required to buy a firearm, a safety certificate is required and a 10-day waiting period is imposed. Ammunition cannot be bought out of state or online and shipped directly to the consumer; in store background checks are required.

California does not honor any non-resident concealed firearm permits and they do not issue non-resident permits. Open and concealed carry is exempted in your home or your business, including camp sites or hotel room (temporary residence). As a non-resident just visiting the state, you do not have to register your gun and your handguns are not restricted to what is on the Safe Handgun Roster. If you own it (and it is not an "assault weapon") you can bring it. That means your Gen 5 Glock that is not for sale in California is legal for you to bring, with 10 round magazines. There are no restrictions on hollow-points.
 
Open carry is only legal in unincorporated areas where target shooting or hunting is allowed (discharge of firearms). Unloaded open carry in urban areas is illegal. You cannot openly carry in a vehicle or on a motorcycle. Check county ordinances to see the areas where shooting is prohibited. For instance, the entirety of San Mateo County is practically prohibited for target shooting, while Mariposa County has very few restrictions.

Visit www.californiacarry.org.

California has banned loaded open carry since 1968 when the Black Panthers stormed the state capitol while armed. Unloaded open carry died in the last decade when people began to exercise that right. There are very limited exceptions to open carry in California which may apply. 

The narrative against open carry in the Golden State isn't falling apart, but it is showing some serious cracks. We covered this earlier.

Now we have reports of open carriers guarding their store in Santa Monica, a photo of a man guarding a hardware store, and retired officers guarding a shopping center in Hemet. It appears that Californians are starting to not give two s--ts about their strict gun control in the face of utter lawlessness. 

​Hopefully the current events will change minds. Should police/prosecutors get involved, it will be hard to find a jury willing to convict and the situation will be ripe for case law in a Ninth Circuit that has shifted to the right over Trump's term.

This is a discussion about moral and social aspects, not legal ones.

You can't blow a looter away for stealing simply because society feels that killing someone over property theft is distasteful and unjustified. We've evolved to that opinion somewhat. 

Once upon a time, humans were intolerant of a lot of crime and would kill you as punishment. Islam promotes chopping off hands and Saudi Arabia still does it. By the end of the 18th Century, England had over 200 crimes punishable by death. Burglary? Death. Smuggling? Death. Stealing? Death. Well, overtime it was decided that the penalties were too harsh and the death penalty was slowly rolled back from a parody of the third world. 

Until 1985, it was legal to shoot fleeing felons (any felony, depending on statute). However, the SCOTUS felt that deprived felons of due process. In the 19th Century, in the South and West it was not uncommon for murders to go unpunished because the "other guy needed killing." As far as passionate homicide is concerned, the public became intolerant of all the killing and began to take a tough stances against it. 

Killing someone over theft seems like overkill, pardon the pun. Things can be replaced or repaired. Lives can't. The thief can pay restitution and perhaps change his way after going to jail. Taking human life is a serious thing and some academics have postulated that only 2.5% of people can kill (for a justified reason; not murder) with a clear conscience. 

Sure, shooting that looter might feel good and get the rest to stop, but how will you feel about it in the morning? How will your neighbors feel? If that doctrine is extended to killing people over property crimes, where exactly do you draw the line in how much damage/property is worth killing over?

A "shoot looters" law might look something like this (altered TX law):

A person unlawfully dispossessed of tangible, movable property by another is justified in using deadly force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the theft of, or to recover, the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

It becomes a social and political question if, and how, we want to use deadly force to protect property. The changes can't be made in the heat of the moment when authorities haven't even tried the tactics of breaking up the mele and arresting people. Perhaps after a long season of continual violence and theft with inept government and impotent policing, society will change its mind. 

Killing people who are stealing stuff isn't an impulsive decision to be made. It is a social question of how much we value each other's lives and property.

Woman on Twitter expresses confusion and consternation regarding citizens guarding their neighborhood with openly carried weapons. She noted this was two blocks away from a "peaceful" protest. 

From @takeiteasyj on Twitter