I have no professional training in the security field and no law enforcement or military experience, but my decades of experience as a practitioner and instructor of concealed carry tells me that security at a recent local political event was probably lacking in a few respects. For the safety of both dignitaries and others attending, i hope security can be strengthened with an eye toward ever-changing current local laws affecting both threat and defense matrices.
This particular event was a fundraising dinner for an influential local lobbying group, featuring a nationally-known, high-level dignitary i was eager to meet. Prior to the event, i called the organizers to see what restrictions there might be on concealed carry at the event. I was told there would likely be no screening of attendees with metal detectors and such, and i confirmed that the meet and greet was to take place at a so-called “bar” located on the private ranch hosting the event. I was told the “bar” was not a commercial bar with liquor license for the sale of liquor, but from the description it seemed clearly to be a place with the primary purpose of dispensing alcohol. It turned out to be a very nicely-appointed bar operated by catering staff who poured drinks but took no money. Heaven, for bar-goers.
Based on the information i had, i decided to leave my gun in the Jeep during the meet and greet, and then retrieve it before the dinner/speech segment which was to be held in a giant outdoor pavilion (i never actually retrived it as i was running short on time before dinner). The reason i disarmed is PC §26200(a)(2), enacted recently as part of SB2’s overhaul of concealed carry rules:
(a) While carrying a firearm as authorized by a license issued pursuant to this chapter, a licensee shall not do any of the following:
….
(2) Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption.
This particular section applies to this “bar” even though it is not licensed to sell liquor commercially. A separate prohibition applies to carry at bars and restaurants selling liquor under another section PC §26230 featuring a long list of “sensitive places” where our hallucinatory, marijuana-toking legislature dreams it has authority to restrict carry. A federal judge issued an injunction against almost all of these restrictions, but later a Ninth Circuit panel decision lifted the injunction as to about half of those places, effectively disarming Californians in much of California (relying partially, in traditional Democrat character, on an 1865 Black Code to do so).
Security was lacking in my opinion, first of all, because there was no screening of attendees. Maybe they decided against that because it was a fundraiser and some people might not have liked that. I wouldn’t have minded that so much for this event for a dignitary, as i was told there would be several sheriff’s deputies present, though i think there is an unjustified overreliance on law enforcement for security. Remember how that went for Trump in July of 2024? That whole SNAFU might well have been handled more effectively with armed private citizens carrying openly, together with appropriate plexiglass barriers. Dozens of people saw what was happening but the cops they informed were wacky toon versions of the Keystone Cops. Nothing worked in law enforcement that day. Even after being spotted by a local cop, the shooter was able to get multiple rounds off, hitting Trump and several others.
Secondly, if you are NOT going to screen, then at least hold the event at a location where concealed carry is not prohibited. That way licensed concealed carriers may be able to help, if they are “lucky” enough to be in a position to do so. If the cops think they can handle it themselves then fine, if they screen. Absent screening, why stack the deck in favor of the suicidal criminal who doesn’t care about following the rules proscribing carry? Such attackers actually seek out “gun-free zones” for their attacks.
This event was only about a week after the assassination of anti-Ukraine bigot Charlie Kirk, and the short conversation i had with the dignitary at this event indicated high concern over death threats. I considered immediately bringing up these security concerns but decided it was probably not the best time and place to do that, especially since he was quite rattled (and i was quite embarrassed) after i accidentally dropped my glass of soda water and it loudly shattered next to him. (Might have sounded like a gunshot.)
All such events, without screening, should be held in places where concealed carry is allowed. California is not the only state where laws are in flux due to aggressive gun grabbers taking advantage of uncertainty over the scope of permissible “sensitive places” exclusions on carry.
Conservative events without dignitaries should also try to locate where concealed carry is allowed, for obvious reasons. Too many of these events are located in places where carry is banned.
