[/B]
Why????? Calling the police on someone when you have no legitimate reason to believe he's committing or about to commit a crime is just plain pathetic and stupid. It's what the anti's do here in CA when people open carry anunloaded gun....merely for carrying the gun, they don't have any reason to believe a crime is being committed. Who are you to decide what he should and shouldn't be able to carry for self defense? Why bring the law into a situation where you're imposing your standards on what constitutes legit self defense tools when there's no reason to?
As for "an over-the-top Mall Ninja"......*** does he need a "serious talking-to" about, doing something that you don't approve of?
In my case (and I speaking strictly for myself), the mere carrying of the magazines wouldn't make me whip out the cell phone. And I am not talking about a person who is going about his business openly carrying a holstered pistol and a couple of magazines, high capacity or not, in a carrier. If we had open carry, that would be me. As I mentioned earlier, I have 20-round magazines for my Beretta PX4, so I could easily be carrying 61 rounds of 9 mm.
Heck, if someone wants to walk down the street with a fancy, tooled-leather two-gun rig, I might ask him to stop for a moment so I could admire it but that would be it.
Outside of that, a call would depend on the carrier's demeanor and actions. Lurking? Nervous? In the case of the Mall Ninja, acting like a total jerk? Believe it or not, there is a difference between open carrying for self-defense and dripping with ordnance.
And, yeah, I don't approve of total jerks who give all of us a bad name by going over the top. They're more ammo for the anti-gun crowd who already see all of us that way. Leave the fully stocked Molle vest at home.
But I wouldn't call the police if I didn't have some reason beyond the mere presence of a firearm and spare ammunition. Beyond not wanting to disturb the peace of a fellow traveler, it would be a waste of the cop's time and mine.
In California, some district attorneys and law enforcement agencies have adopted a policy of harassing lawful open carriers with repeated stops and over-aggressive approaches. I certainly haven't forgotten that one cop who "would prone them out" while covering the law-abiding open-carrier with an M16. BTW: He was later "disciplined" but he should have been relieved of his badge, job and pension as an example to others. It must give an anti a
frisson of delight to be able to bring about the public humiliation of a person with whom they disagree.
But Californians are masters of their own fate. A look at the political leanings of California counties shows relatively small pockets of ultra-liberalism in a sea of moderate-to-conservative with significant areas of ultra-conservative. This indicates to me Californians are perfectly capable of electing representatives that will not only curtail the harassment but repeal the 1967 act that stripped Californians of their right to open carry loaded handguns. That law, signed by Ronald Reagan, was the direct result of an "invasion" of the state capitol by radicals exercising their right (at the time) to open carry loaded weapons into the capitol. In other words, the legislators felt threatened and, instead of making the capitol a no-carry zone, passed a law prohibiting the carrying of a loaded weapon.
I have been somewhat surprised, and rather disappointed, that lawsuits haven't been filed against either the state of California or the more hostile agencies for official oppression.
Nevertheless, the abuse of police power in one state does not mean one should not be watchful in another. I believe we call it "situational awareness."
:banghead: