TexasCHLforum.com

TinEye.com says the image it from Time magazine online.

http://www.tineye.com/search/55b0fa1d7a ... e396d1662/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Might as well be carrying a water pistol.

AEA wrote:Might as well be carrying a water pistol.

Agreed.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Excaliber wrote:She's also carrying what looks like a Kimber 1911 with the hammer down - uncocked and unlocked.

Yep, I read on a different forum that she was a California open carrier back when it was legal and the original picture was on a CA forum. Since CA required unloaded open carry, hence the hammer down on an empty chamber and no magazine in the gun.

Of course it COULD be carried unloaded, but cocked... At least it'd look cooler!

Excaliber wrote:She's also carrying what looks like a Kimber 1911 with the hammer down - uncocked and unlocked.

Being a Kimber product, odds are it wouldn't cycle correctly anyway...



[ducks and runs]

gigag04 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:She's also carrying what looks like a Kimber 1911 with the hammer down - uncocked and unlocked.

Being a Kimber product, odds are it wouldn't cycle correctly anyway...



[ducks and runs]

Be careful! G.A. Heath is going to come and get ya!

Maybe it's not a Kimber she's carrying. It might be a Para LDA, which has no external hammer.

waynev wrote:Maybe it's not a Kimber she's carrying. It might be a Para LDA, which has no external hammer.

It not a Para LDA. If you go here and zoom the browser you can definitely see the hammer. http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0 ... 78,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of the photos in the set mention California, so I am betting they were taken back before they banned open carry and she is carrying with no mag, uncocked as was required.

gigag04 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:She's also carrying what looks like a Kimber 1911 with the hammer down - uncocked and unlocked.

Being a Kimber product, odds are it wouldn't cycle correctly anyway...



[ducks and runs]

Good call - on the ducking and running.....

Every other picture in the line up is from California so I'm assuming that the shopping picture is from California.

So, I scanned the article that the picture came from and...

SNIP

If one of the court's conservatives leaves and is replaced by a liberal, the Second Amendment could revert to what it was for more than two centuries: a right that belongs to states, not to individuals.

But, yeah, those stupid elections...doesn't matter who wins, they're all the same anyway...

BTW, the lady in the picture sure didn't look too scary, at least to me. But, then again, I don't work for that magazine, either.

The photo in question came from a Time Magazine article about the practice of open carry in California.

It is currently legal and supported by a recent court decision.

The open carry of an unloaded pistol is illegal in California since 1 January 2012.

http://gunenthusiastspeaks.com/2011/10/ ... -into-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

flb_78 wrote:The open carry of an unloaded pistol is illegal in California since 1 January 2012.

http://gunenthusiastspeaks.com/2011/10/ ... -into-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I stand corrected.

The article I had read was earlier than the new law.

Hopefully the courts will overturn the prohibition, but on the left coast, that's far from a sure thing.