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

AZ Family

KTAR

12 News

BREAKING NEWS: Two people were shot at the Westgate Mall in Glendale, Arizona, Wednesday evening. While information is in the early stages, it appears only two victims were wounded and the suspect is in custody. The suspect also appears to be armed with an AR-15.

In video posted to Twitter, purportedly from the shooter's social media, he made a general complain about society being dysfunctional. It appears the shooter was disaffected about something and chose to vent his rage by shooting people. 

Once again, we urge people to carry firearms and train with them so that if they are in this situation, they might be able to intervene, or at least fight back if they are on the other end of the bad guy's muzzle. Even more importantly, having an individual first aid kit including tourniquet on one's person, or even in their vehicle, is a prudent measure to treat traumatic gunshot wounds. 

Watching the video, one can't help but think that if more people were armed, if this degenerate loser would have attempted his killing spree or if an armed citizen would have been able to stop it. What is clear that streaming mass shootings is now a thing.

Be careful. Carrying firearms and open carry was legal in California too. Until the Black Panthers did it in 1967. Then we got the Mulford Act and they tacked on a weapons ban in the capitol too.

Scared, vindictive Democrats will take your rights away. They did it in Virginia when gun owners organized for Lobby Day.

Be careful where you can do that. Know what you're in for. But as I said earlier, if the Constitution doesn't apply in the Legislature, where does it apply?

Many Colorado municipalities ban open carry to the fullest extent of the law. While areas such as public streets and sidewalks generally cannot be designated 'no open carry' zones, "specific area" is broadly interpreted to include parks, trails, and public plazas. ​Local governments are prohibited from regulating concealed carry only.

'No guns' signs do not have the force of law on private property. If you openly carry past a 'no guns' sign on private property, you may be asked to leave or disarm. Failure to comply would only be trespassing. Signs on private property may cite 18-4-504, which is simply trespassing.

Menacing (18-3-206) is if, by any threat or physical action, a person knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by the use of a deadly weapon (felony). Case law indicates this section is meant to be applied when someone uses a firearm to essentially threaten death in aggravated circumstances (assault, robbery, road-rage, etc.). 

It appears that under very specific, narrow circumstances that one could be charged with a crime for open carry, but no reports suggest that this is a problem in Colorado and furthermore, case law indicates that exacerbating circumstances would likely be required to elevate open carry to a different crime. An intentional act, such as making threats or drawing a firearm not in justifiable self-defense, would be required on behalf of the carrier, not simply a fearful reaction from a hoplophobia third party.

Denver has banned open carry since 1973, under the premise that Denver is a 'special'  home-rule city and somehow different than the rest of the state. Arguments seemed to be based on the fallacy that an openly carried handgun equates target shooting and that allowing open carry in the city would lead to people getting shot. The Supreme Court found that Denver has the right to regulate open carry because it is urbanized. In other words, Denver residents are less entitled to full Second Amendment rights than other Colorado residents.

​The Supreme Court's opinion allowing Denver's strict gun control regime is based on the fact it is organized differently than most cities. Under home rule, it is not subject to certain limitations that other cities are subject to. While that issue is one unique to Colorado, the arguments to support the validity of the anti-gun ordinances are specious and are a stunning abuse of logic. 
​