PDA

View Full Version : Open Carry: DON'T DO IT! (yet)


Matt C
07-22-2008, 11:16 AM
First off, as most of you know, I have strongly defended open carry in the past, and I will be the first to say that it IS your right and that by current STATE law it is probably legal if done correctly. At this junction however, I am asking everyone NOT to open carry. The reason is the Right People and the Calguns Foundation are not in a good position to take on any additional OC cases. Furthermore, additional OC action NOW, before we get incorporation is simply counter productive and will likely make the job of the NRA and Right People more difficult.

Not only will you not be helping the Cause, but there is a very good chance if you open carry that you will be arrested. If this happens you are looking at spending a MINIMUM of $10k out of YOUR pocket to avoid a conviction. Even then you won't really be proving anything. Realistically, unless you have about $50k to spare then you are not in a position to OC at this point. There are also city ordinances that may not be preempted by state law which could result in a lawful conviction for open carry that would otherwise be legal by state law.

Even if you are arrested and charged for legal open carry, and all charges are later dismissed against you, it is highly unlikely that you will ever be able to get any significant damages from the government agency responsible.

Once we get Heller incorporated we can work on getting shall issue CCW or loaded open carry, but now is not the time. So just don't do it. Yet.


ETA: The following post by Gene for clarificationBecause of property rights, the California legislature had much less manuever room to hurt all of us in response to OLLs. In fact the whole "hope they list" was part of those property rights issues.

With one edit, all open carry will end and life will become much harder for ANYONE trying to go to the range or conceal carry by having their firearm in a locked container.

I ask you not to run that risk over the next 6 months for this reason. If the definition of loaded gets changed before an Incorporation case is final so that no open carry is allowed at all, how do you plan to force CCW reform? I'll paint you the downside picture. People keep widely OCing. The Legislature bans all open carry loaded or not really loaded or not loaded at all before incorporation. We now only really get to challenge the ban on open carry instead of using open carry as a wedge to force CCW reform.

Having no patience for 6 months in California is NOT SMART.

-Gene

KDOFisch
07-22-2008, 11:35 AM
Thanks Matt.

I was thinking of making a post like this last night, but I lost my nerve. It's true that since Heller, OC has really caught on everywhere (especially in this state), but it doesn't mean it helps the situation at this time.

I agree that we need incorporation first. This OC pheonomenon won't necessarily help CCW reform for the state- yet. All it seems to do is empty the pocketbooks of hardworking, honest gunowners and their families.

This is not a blanket statement aimed at the state- but Calgunners should always read the situation before they open carry, and really understand not only what they're doing but also where they're doing it.

Remember, downtown Santa Monica's a long way from Kern County.

Theseus
07-22-2008, 11:50 AM
I am sorry. I understand your concern, but I will not stop OC'ing any time soon. Not that I am saying my actions are anywhere near as noble as someone like MLK Jr., but it is my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms so I will be exercising that right.

There are a few reasons I do such, and not simply because I can. The major reason I am doing so is that I believe the legislature and LE is out of touch with the populous. They use intimidation to try and prevent us from exercising our rights, something that is in its own action illegal to prevent me from doing something that is legal. I as a citizen will not allow this. It is my responsibility to stand up for my rights as a citizen and I will continue to do so.

Those of you whom wish to use an alternative means are free to do so. I don't come here and tell you to stop "negotiating" or "stop working on incorporation" so please quit coming to me and asking ME to stop.

We are in similar movements, you are just using different tactics to win the fight.

CA_Libertarian
07-22-2008, 11:50 AM
Same goes for OLLs. OLL litigation can do more harm than good at this point.

Please stop building OLLs, stop buying/selling/trading them. Don't even take it out of the safe to shoot it.

...that is, unless you have $10-50k saved up for your own defense.

ETA: I realize I come off as extremely sarcastic, but I want to make it clear I mean no disrespect. I appreciate the work the Calguns Foundation and the donors here are doing. However, I want to drive home the point that open carry seems to be getting singled out, when OLLs are in the same boat.

GenLee
07-22-2008, 11:53 AM
Now this here is gonna be good.

:lurk5:

exon111
07-22-2008, 11:55 AM
Same goes for OLLs. OLL litigation can do more harm than good at this point.

Please stop building OLLs, stop buying/selling/trading them. Don't even take it out of the safe to shoot it.

...that is, unless you have $10-50k saved up for your own defense.

ETA: I realize I come off as extremely sarcastic, but I want to make it clear I mean no disrespect. I appreciate the work the Calguns Foundation and the donors here are doing. However, I want to drive home the point that open carry seems to be getting singled out, when OLLs are in the same boat.

You must be kidding.

Ironchef
07-22-2008, 11:56 AM
Without any disrespect Matt, I have a countering opinion...

Ok first, I need to know what "the right people" are/is/means? Also, is it somehow thought by OCers that if caught, they'll run for help from Calguns Foundation? I don't think I've once seen that.

Further, I've only seen evidence to the contrary, constantly since I"ve heard of OCing, that there aren't arrests but rather positive encounters for the most part.

I'm not trying to discredit your post Matt, or your overly cautious tone, but I don't think you're aware of the reduced risk OCing has become.

For what it's worth, I may/will OC on occaision and if I'm snagged, I'm already aware of the potential consequences of the potentially undeducated beat cop detaining or arresting me. And there's NO WAY calguns or cg foundation will suffer in the least for it. Or am I missing something?

In the end, OCing is a survival issue...self defense. TO me, that trumps the cause mentioned here as I don't see a correlation.

Guntech
07-22-2008, 11:59 AM
:79: Dont argue with each other save it for the fight against the gun grabbing liberals!

bwiese
07-22-2008, 12:05 PM
Well,m OLLs were different, in that there was enough law they could only "go back" to some extent. There was no other way they could get out of Harrott + SB23 regulatory definitions. They really couldn't make things worse.

Instead of Garands & Mini14s getting banned, we stopped The List from having further growth thru AB2728!

From a political viewpoint it was technical "inside baseball", even the Capitol Weeklyguy couldn't understand it when he wrote about DOJ BoF and AB2728 etc. That's why our Lockyer's Guns website didn't get much traction: the "all guns are bad" crowed wanted to ban everything anyway so they couldn't be inflamed any worse than they were, and other folks reaction was probably, "Que?"

With OC folks and cops can see and react weirdly, and there's no real benefit for the OCer since he's essentially unarmed.

Remember how cops are trained and their dog-like behavior when fresh meat is dangled in front of 'em.

Those who continue to OC further should not expect a wealth of resources or efforts to be expended on their behalf especially as there's not "any legal gain" in defense of such.

What may well be the issue for OC (as it stands, w/o any post-Heller developments) is that it can make things worse for further CCW development, and further restrict where CCWers carry now.

oaklander
07-22-2008, 12:14 PM
Let me just say that I support the concept of open carry. I think all rights should be exercised!

However -- open carry, at this juncture, is simply premature.

Due to the activities of certain people (on both sides of the gun control debate), there is a real danger of both state and local ordinances getting passed that will completely BAN open carry.

This assessment is based on numerous conversations I have had with people who are familiar with the political landscape in California.

At this point, OC does nothing to educate anyone, but rather simply gives local and state politicians a new, convenient, and politically-expedient "gun control" target.

OLL's are a different story. They are not "in your face" with respect to the general public. They are below the radar of most politicians. Not only that, but the DOJ has essentially given up the right to name new listed AW's. We can make a lot of progress with respect to OLL's right now.

We have to pick our battles, and OC is not something that is wise to pursue at this juncture. It will be in the future, after Heller incorporation.

Liberty1
07-22-2008, 12:17 PM
Discussion also here:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/13704.html

GuyW
07-22-2008, 12:27 PM
OLL's are a different story. They are not "in your face" with respect to the general public.

Well, not so different if a body OCs an OLL!

Saigon1965
07-22-2008, 12:32 PM
What do you all think about event such as the San Diego luncheon?

sorensen440
07-22-2008, 12:34 PM
I agree just stop for now let some things play out
it wont be long

Ironchef
07-22-2008, 12:47 PM
What exactly won't be long? And as for the argument that OC may backfire and restrict CCW access and possibly ban open carrying...the same applies to many aspects of 2A rights. I think someone here rightly asked why OCing was being targeted? If we are afraid to do our various forms of activism, then what good is it? If we are to follow the leads of just the CGF, which I thought was seperate from these forums, then simply yank the OC threads and tell us to go to the OC forums.

And the sacramento pd memo that bweise displayed is probably the biggest form of education that any 2A rights movement can expect.

Forgive my shortcomings, but what exactly is priority and who's to say one thing is less of a priority than another? I understand CGF will not take any OC cases, and that's fine..I don't think OCers are expecting CGF representation/help/resources. Maybe I'm missing the big picture here. What's "premature?" I am guessing your "right people" are counseling you to tone down the OC talk..well ask them to give a reason because I don't think OCers are seeing it.

megavolt121
07-22-2008, 12:48 PM
In the end, OCing is a survival issue...self defense.


With all due respect to anyone who open carries, I think the self defense reason is foolish, you're better off ducking and running. Yes its the "cowards" way out, but lets think of this logically.

Tactically speaking, are you proficient enough in a situation where you can un-holster, load a mag, cock it, and be ready to shoot at the target within a matter of a few seconds, all while keeping your eye on the target? If you have to take your eyes off the target for a second for any reason, you've just put yourself in more danger than if you had ducked and covered as you are now exposed and you lost sight of the target.

Legally speaking, what are your rights if you went from LEGAL unloaded OC to a situation where you have a loaded gun in public post shootout? Assuming its a justified shooting and everything is kosher, you DID just break the law and you've got yourself a loaded weapon. Lets say you didn't have to discharge your gun, you still have a loaded gun in public.

With that said, if you want to excercise your right, make a statement, etc., I can understand that. Personally, I think we should keep under the radar right now. The last thing we need are politicians creating some crazy gun laws because people are freaked out that you are OCing. Look at the OLL situation, we slid by and had AB 2728 passed because we stayed under the radar. Had the general public known what we were doing, I'd put money on it that 2728 would not have passed and we'd still be screaming 2 weeks or seeing some new ridiculous law that would have made things worse. We need to slowly chip away at the ridiculous gun laws in a discreet manner so that the politicans don't take notice and try to "fix the problem".

KDOFisch
07-22-2008, 12:49 PM
I agree just stop for now let some things play out
it wont be long
:D It'll be...TWO WEEKS!

guns_and_labs
07-22-2008, 12:59 PM
:lurk5:

Mmmm, getting better and better. OC vs OLL, duelling agendas, references to secret societies ("right people"), unauthorized civil disobedience -- or maybe it's authorized civil obedience -- I'm so confused ...

sorensen440
07-22-2008, 12:59 PM
:D It'll be...TWO WEEKS!

thats correct ;)

oaklander
07-22-2008, 1:04 PM
There's nothing secret about The Right People. That's simply how some people on CGN refer to Trutanich Michel. (EDIT: and certain other pro gun groups/people).

:)

:lurk5:

Mmmm, getting better and better. OC vs OLL, duelling agendas, references to secret societies ("right people"), unauthorized civil disobedience -- or maybe it's authorized civil obedience -- I'm so confused ...

guns_and_labs
07-22-2008, 1:05 PM
There's nothing secret about The Right People. That's simply how some people on CGN refer to Trutanich Michel.

:)

Thanks. I knew I should have bought a program.

Ironchef
07-22-2008, 1:08 PM
There's nothing secret about The Right People. That's simply how some people on CGN refer to Trutanich Michel.

:)

I got ya. Thanks for clearing that up. Still some acronyms and other jargon here and there I haven't picked up on.

oaklander
07-22-2008, 1:14 PM
No problem!

:D

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 1:14 PM
The right people = A mix of SAF, NRA, Alan Gura, TMLLP (Chuck, Jason, and Joe), Don Kilmer, Bruce Colodny.

Not much longer = 6ish months. Nordyke needs to be heard and decided before OCing can be used to create leverage.

If OC incidents keep happening Scott will gut and amend SB 1171 to define loaded in California as having a firearm and rounds available to the same person. Is that really what you want to have happen in the short run?

We'll defend the Oceanside Marine. Open Carry will be very important to force a similar situation as happened in Ohio. Short run though -all you're doing is running a large risk of being caught.

Yesterday another person popped up here open carrying and he can't afford to defend himself. CGF hasn't yet received enough money from those who so supposedly support open carry to offset the retainer for the Oceanside Marine. I would challenge those who think that open carrying is a good idea to place money where mouth is.

What exactly do you think you're proving before the Second Amendment is incorporated?

-Gene

Kestryll
07-22-2008, 1:15 PM
:lurk5:

Mmmm, getting better and better. OC vs OLL, duelling agendas, references to secret societies ("right people"), unauthorized civil disobedience -- or maybe it's authorized civil obedience -- I'm so confused ...

OC, OLLs, CCW,the AWB and such are not contestants in a game but different facets of the same fight.

Some seem to want to turn this in to a 'Us vs. Them' thing and it's not. It's more about being prudent and choosing your battles wisely.

It's simple really, in a war do you blindly charge about in all directions? No.
You carefully choose where you will engage the enemy, picking a location that will maximize your strengths and equipment while minimizing the enemy's strength and equipment. You decide to engage where he is weak and focus on that point.

Do you use your entire army to attack a single point to capture a single bunker? No.
Instead you carefully pick points that will gain you the most ground for the least amount of damage. You don't just look at this battle but at the overall war.

We didn't get here overnight and we WON'T get back that way either.
There is good news, we are no longer fighting a holding action but are on the offensive and moving forward. However the enemy is laying mines as they retreat and we have to go carefully so as not to derail our advance.

Matt C
07-22-2008, 1:16 PM
I'm not trying to discredit your post Matt, or your overly cautious tone, but I don't think you're aware of the reduced risk OCing has become.

I think it's the opposite, I generally hear about every OC arrest and there have been more than a couple this month.Without exception these were upstanding patriotic people that now face real charges, and in some cases have no ability to pay for a proper legal defense. I just don't want to see more people in that situation right now, when it can't possibly do any good

OC is, right now, FAR more dangerous than OLLs which we have already fought the hard battles on, one case at a time. That said, if you want to do it and you can afford the legal defense, then go for it. I'm not here to tell you what to do, I'm just giving my opinion, and the opinion of the main people fighting for the RKBA in California.

Also, if it's a defense issue, carry a locked brief case with unloaded gun and a loaded mag easily accessible inside. The fact that it's hidden partially makes up for it being more difficult to get to, and you are not be as likely to be arrested or shot by the police.

I think everything else has been answered already so I won't repeat it. If anyone is still unclear let me know, there is nothing wrong with dissenting opinions or constructive discussions.

MudCamper
07-22-2008, 1:16 PM
Do what you feel comfortable with. Don't do what you don't feel comfortable with. Be prepared for the consequences. Don't rely on anyone but yourself. What's the problem? Stop telling other people what they should or shouldn't do. Don't tread on me.

KDOFisch
07-22-2008, 1:17 PM
Mmmm, getting better and better. OC vs OLL, duelling agendas, references to secret societies ("right people"), unauthorized civil disobedience -- or maybe it's authorized civil obedience -- I'm so confused ...

I'm not confused at all-

We've got several different priorities in the gun world. Some gunowners love love love their pistols, so they want litigation against unloaded OC, CCW and the safelist. Other gunowners are riflemen and want litigation focused on OLLs, the AWB, and SB-23.

Maybe I'm thinking too broadly- but it's how I see it. Doesn't mean we can't all be friends.:rolleyes:

Ironchef
07-22-2008, 1:22 PM
I have a request (for gene/matt/bill/ et al):
Explain what "incorporation" is? At first I thought it was for CGF to get their tax status or something, now I'm beginning to think it's referring to the "incorporation" of the heller SCOTUS opinion in CA legal decisions?

I work in a law office and get plenty of exposure to things here and I know a bit of latin too...but I'm foggy on some of the legal language I hear from you guys. So please..."incorporation?" Thanks! :)

CCWFacts
07-22-2008, 1:26 PM
I agree with BWO on this. Be sane, look at the larger goals. I know the open carry crowd often has a hard time seeing past, "I'm going to exercise my rights", but let's keep our eyes on the strategy here please.

Kestryll
07-22-2008, 1:26 PM
If OC incidents keep happening Scott will gut and amend SB 1171 to define loaded in California as having a firearm and rounds available to the same person. Is that really what you want to have happen in the short run?

I think this really needs to be reiterated, not as a threat but as an indicator of the real world consequences of the actions we take.

We need to think beyond today's battle and look at the war.

Matt C
07-22-2008, 1:27 PM
I have a request (for gene/matt/bill/ et al):
Explain what "incorporation" is? At first I thought it was for CGF to get their tax status or something, now I'm beginning to think it's referring to the "incorporation" of the heller SCOTUS opinion in CA legal decisions?

I work in a law office and get plenty of exposure to things here and I know a bit of latin too...but I'm foggy on some of the legal language I hear from you guys. So please..."incorporation?" Thanks! :)

The 14th amendment, specifically this part:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. has generally been interpreted to mean that States cannot violate our rights as defined in the bill of rights, but each right traditionally must be "incorporated", that is the SCOTUS (or in a more limited way lower courts) must say specifically that it applies, which means a case much reach them which deals with it.

Kestryll
07-22-2008, 1:30 PM
I have a request (for gene/matt/bill/ et al):
Explain what "incorporation" is? At first I thought it was for CGF to get their tax status or something, now I'm beginning to think it's referring to the "incorporation" of the heller SCOTUS opinion in CA legal decisions?

I work in a law office and get plenty of exposure to things here and I know a bit of latin too...but I'm foggy on some of the legal language I hear from you guys. So please..."incorporation?" Thanks! :)

Incorporation Doctrine

A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are held to the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendment freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms from unwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement of indictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have not been applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

USN CHIEF
07-22-2008, 1:30 PM
So OC in large groups like we did in San Diego is a bad idea for now? Yes/No?

tgriffin
07-22-2008, 1:31 PM
People, people.... calm down.

No one is telling anyone what they can and cant do. We are all on the same side here. I'd say 90% of the people are here on Calguns because of the actions of a very few people back in the early days of the OLL movement (Bill and Gene among others).

Listen to what these guys have to say. Have some respect and at least consider what they are saying about the NEGATIVE impact OC could have right now on ALL of us. We'll have ALOT less trouble, come incorporation, if we dont have additional laws in place to be challenged. Seriously: how long have we all waited for Heller to happen? YEARS. What is another 6 months of carrying your pocket knife, a flashlight, or some OC??? Lets keep this off the political radar for the time being. Remember how politicians work: they want votes! They get votes by pandering to & greasing the squeaky wheel. All it will take is a few "incidents", the press will catch on, and it will be all over the news for weeks. Some brave politico will step in to save all the children and we will have a new law we have to fight. Bravo.

Delay your gratification, and you might find it a whole lot more gratifying.

Edit: Chief, I'd label that 50/50. You probably did some good community relations with the local LEO's, but it COULD have had a negative impact. Thats what everyone is concerned about: the coulds, the what if's, in short the unexpected & unpredictable. I wholeheartedly believe it could only take ONE major incident to capture the media's attention and for some politician to feel compelled to 'take action'

USN CHIEF
07-22-2008, 1:32 PM
People, people.... calm down.

No one is telling anyone what they can and cant do. We are all on the same side here. I'd say 90% of the people are here on Calguns because of the actions of a very few people back in the early days of the OLL movement (Bill and Gene among others).

Listen to what these guys have to say. Have some respect and at least consider what they are saying about the NEGATIVE impact OC could have right now on ALL of us. We'll have ALOT less trouble, come incorporation, if we dont have additional laws in place to be challenged. Seriously: how long have we all waited for Heller to happen? YEARS. What is another 6 months of carrying your pocket knife, a flashlight, or some OC??? Lets keep this off the political radar for the time being. Remember how politicians work: they want votes! They get votes by pandering to & greasing the squeaky wheel. All it will take is a few "incidents", the press will catch on, and it will be all over the news for weeks. Some brave politico will step in to save all the children and we will have a new law we have to fight. Bravo.

Delay your gratification, and you might find it a whole lot more gratifying.

This totally makes sense.

Matt C
07-22-2008, 1:34 PM
Do what you feel comfortable with. Don't do what you don't feel comfortable with. Be prepared for the consequences. Don't rely on anyone but yourself. What's the problem? Stop telling other people what they should or shouldn't do. Don't tread on me.

I'm not telling you what to do, but keep in mind that open carry could result in legislation making having an unloaded rifle and a loaded magazine in the back seat, or an unloaded shotgun in a soft case in the back seat and a shell in your gear that you forgot about, a crime. While they are at it they might even make loaded carry a Felony. And until we get incorporation THERE IS NOTHING WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO ABOUT IT.

With OLLs, if you remember, we would have been quite happy with a ban as well, since it would have forced registration and allowed us features. In the end, wee got something arguable better, but we had them between a rock and a hard place. That IS NOT the case now, and that is the difference between OLLs and OC. The OLL battle has already been won, first with Harrott and then by educating each major DA, often the hard way.

FreshTapCoke
07-22-2008, 1:39 PM
Tactically speaking, are you proficient enough in a situation where you can un-holster, load a mag, cock it, and be ready to shoot at the target within a matter of a few seconds, all while keeping your eye on the target?
Yes, I've been timed at an average of 2 seconds by my friends but with only slight duress, using a revolver and a speed loader.

Usually the next anti-OC counter-punch would be that you don't have those 2 seconds, you'll be singled out first. Considering I've walked around Los Angeles without any incident I ask myself would it be better to be caught in a situation unarmed or risk the chance that someone is robbing some place and happens to see me first, or I'm targeted specifically by a criminal for open-carrying.

Legally speaking, what are your rights if you went from LEGAL unloaded OC to a situation where you have a loaded gun in public post shootout? Assuming its a justified shooting and everything is kosher, you DID just break the law and you've got yourself a loaded weapon.

Are you sure you've checked the exemptions for loaded firearms?



As for my own open-carry involvement, I agree completely with BlackWaterOPS. I stopped open-carrying in Los Angeles as the Heller decision grew near with the belief that it would be best if we maintained as much control as possible over what types of firearms-related prosecutions come up in court.

If you still desire to open-carry to protect yourself in your home (or any other lawful purpose), I stand wholeheartedly behind you. For myself though, I feel I've chosen the path that will lead to a richer harvest in the end.

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 1:41 PM
I posted this in another thread but let me explain it this way.

The ability to Open Carry Unloaded in California could be a huge strategic asset or a major liability.

Once the Second Amendment is Incorporated through the 14th Amendment to apply to California (either through Nordyke in 6 months or Doe v. SFHA) then we can use unloaded open carry to effectively force CCW reform.

If we hand an anti-gun DA who would really like to overturn People v. Clark the perfect case or we let Jack Scott change the definition of loaded in California, we could end up both losing our ability to use open carry to force CCW reform and probably make every single gun owner's life in California much more annoying. No more trunk guns for a while. Everyone cool with that thought?

-Gene

Ironchef
07-22-2008, 1:45 PM
I posted this in another thread but let me explain it this way.

The ability to Open Carry Unloaded in California could be a huge strategic asset or a major liability.

Once the Second Amendment is Incorporated through the 14th Amendment to apply to California (either through Nordyke in 6 months or Doe v. SFHA) then we can use unloaded open carry to effectively force CCW reform.

If we hand an anti-gun DA who would really like to overturn People v. Clark the perfect case or we let Jack Scott change the definition of loaded in California, we could end up both losing our ability to use open carry to force CCW reform and probably make every single gun owner's life in California much more annoying. No more trunk guns for a while. Everyone cool with that thought?

-Gene

Cool. Crystal clear. FOr my part, it seemed like we were being told to not do something that would jeapardize the bigger picture, but we don't know the big picture. Now I see it. It appears that 6-9 month judgment/incorporation at the 9th circuit seems very likely? Is that the current efforts of "the right people?" I think I'm catching the lingo now. Now if I could only get passed the bad language filter and say that the day that happens will truly be b i t c h e n!

megavolt121
07-22-2008, 1:53 PM
Yes, I've been timed at an average of 2 seconds by my friends but with only slight duress, using a revolver and a speed loader.

Usually the next anti-OC counter-punch would be that you don't have those 2 seconds, you'll be singled out first. Considering I've walked around Los Angeles without any incident I ask myself would it be better to be caught in a situation unarmed or risk the chance that someone is robbing some place and happens to see me first, or I'm targeted specifically by a criminal for open-carrying.


That's good for you, and I'm not being sarcastic. I just wonder how many people have spent half as much time on tactics of drawing and loading as they have researching the laws.

My point was don't OC for self defense unless you are prepared, otherwise its just going to hurt your chances of survival. (Just like in the movies, the person who doesn' tknow a gun thinks picking one up will save their lives to discover the gun is empty, safety on etc... they should have ran)


Are you sure you've checked the exemptions for loaded firearms?

I'll admit I'm not up to speed on them, but are you sure a DA knows the exemptions? You'll need serious money and the right attorney's on your side. Like BWO's stated, unless you have $10-50k ready for defense, don't carry "because you can"


As for my own open-carry involvement, I agree completely with BlackWaterOPS. I stopped open-carrying in Los Angeles as the Heller decision grew near with the belief that it would be best if we maintained as much control as possible over what types of firearms-related prosecutions come up in court.

If you still desire to open-carry to protect yourself in your home (or any other lawful purpose), I stand wholeheartedly behind you. For myself though, I feel I've chosen the path that will lead to a richer harvest in the end.

I couldn't agree more. The benefit of OC do not outweigh the risk of politicians taking notice and passing more crap.

bbguns44
07-22-2008, 2:08 PM
Why does it take 6 months to get incorporated ?
My lawyer does it in under a month.

sorensen440
07-22-2008, 2:09 PM
Why does it take 6 months to get incorporated ?
My lawyer does it in under a month.
Joking?

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 2:11 PM
If you want/need self defense there is a better legal solution that will keep you from having run ins with Law Enforcement.

Buy a bag with a three wheel combo lock. Something like this:
http://www.baggageforless.com/prodimages/large/8423.jpg

You can keep a handgun and a magazine in it and as long as you have to turn one dial one click, it's a locked container. You can keep the loaded magazine right next to the firearm in the bag. I'd argue you can probably get that out and in action even faster.

The other option is to get a combo lock like this and use it with a fanny pack or a backpack:
http://akamai.globalsources.com.edgesuite.net/f/593/3445/5d/pdt.static.globalsources.com/IMAGES/PDT/BIG/486/B1003085486.jpg

That takes care of self defense for the next couple of months while we get the courts in the right place to start making large headway in forcing CCW reform.

If you are otherwise open carrying, then you're just protesting or being civilly disobedient. Right now we're winning in court. We don't yet need to be civilly disobedient and we aren't at the right stage in the courts to have their protection if something doesn't go correctly out on the street.

-Gene

wizzbane
07-22-2008, 2:15 PM
well anti gun nazis will pass antigun laws no matter how you behave.since I didn't see 50 cal guys martching and there guns got banned... and I don't even oc.

sorensen440
07-22-2008, 2:17 PM
If you want/need self defense there is a better legal solution that will keep you from having run ins with Law Enforcement.

Buy a bag with a three wheel combo lock. Something like this:
http://www.baggageforless.com/prodimages/large/8423.jpg

You can keep a handgun and a magazine in it and as long as you have to turn one dial one click, it's a locked container. You can keep the loaded magazine right next to the firearm in the bag. I'd argue you can probably get that out and in action even faster.

The other option is to get a combo lock like this and use it with a fanny pack or a backpack:
http://akamai.globalsources.com.edgesuite.net/f/593/3445/5d/pdt.static.globalsources.com/IMAGES/PDT/BIG/486/B1003085486.jpg

That takes care of self defense for the next couple of months while we get the courts in the right place to start making large headway in forcing CCW reform.

If you are otherwise open carrying, then you're just protesting or being civilly disobedient. Right now we're winning in court. We don't yet need to be civilly disobedient and we aren't at the right stage in the courts to have their protection if something doesn't go correctly out on the street.

-Gene


Not a bad idea at all

Kestryll
07-22-2008, 2:21 PM
Why does it take 6 months to get incorporated ?
My lawyer does it in under a month.

I'm going to assume you are not kidding and this is a valid question.

There are at least two forms of 'Incorporation'.
One is what businesses do to become 'Acme Inc.', this is filing articles of Incorporation. This is affects only the business involved and can take as little as a month.

The other is a legal doctrine which causes parts of the Federal laws and Amendment to the Constitution to apply to the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(See this link for a further definition LINK (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1378650&postcount=33))
This version of 'Incorporation' requires a Court decision and can take however long is necessary to bring a case that get the needed decision.

Same name, totally different animals

MudCamper
07-22-2008, 2:26 PM
A lot of people keep asking something to the effect of, "What good can come of OC?"

Well, the SPD memo, being distributed to multiple LE agencies is an example of some good. Many LEOs are now more aware of the laws and where the lines are then were before. Education is a large part of what the OC movement is about, and that appears to be working.

Gray Peterson
07-22-2008, 2:27 PM
You know, I had a really extensive post and it got deleted by the back space of the keyboard.

My own personal opinion is the following:

1) Calguns Foundation will not support further OC arrest situations in State Court. This is fine and their choice. In fact, I've suggested repeatedly that the UOC'ers here in California and other open carriers elsewhere supported the current cases that they have taken on: The Barker case and the Lin case. We (in the open carry movement) must make sure that we don't take resources away from Calguns while going after the Nordyke case, the AWB licensing cases, and others. I urge and plead everyone in the UOC movement in California that if they can afford to is to donate specific to those cases. Open carriers should not look like the leeches of the gun rights movement, and we should step up and donate since it is "us" that's doing the open carrying.

2) If you are aware of the following fact pattern: Calguns will not defend, you are aware of PC12031, PC 626.9, PC171b and ALL other state, federal, and local laws, then you must then make the choice of whether or not to do so. Even If I myself tell the California UOC'ers to stop open carrying, there would be some who will follow my direction, and there will be some who won't. I myself am not a master of puppets. It would be extraordinarily hypocritical for myself, being that I led the turnaround of Washington State on police agency treatment of open carry of firearms in the last three years, to say "Don't open carry". I do agree with the sentiment of Gene, but there are some thoughts I have to counterpoint, which I will discuss next.

3) The fear of a complete ban on open carry. I'm not sure what "trunk guns" means, but there's also the other side of that particular ban coin. Let's say for a moment that the 2009 Legislature does ban open carry entirely or otherwise ban it off of private property.

Right this moment, the State of California has a single defense against a lawsuit against PC12031 and PC626.9, that is that some form of self defense carry is allowed in the form of open carry, but the state has determined that loaded open carry is unacceptable within city limits, and tells the federal court this (regardless of the statements in holdings and the dictum of the Heller. A US District judge *might* buy this argument, but then questions will arise about CCW and licensing thereof. The California Legislature passing a flat out open carry ban would completely destroy this argument and they'd have absolutely no defense but the "Souter" style defenses which rely completely on statistics on "gun violence" in cities and around schools to justify the regulation of a fundamental right. Do we think that Gould, O'Scannlain, and Alarcon (the 9th circuit's "gun case" panel) will do so? I think it's unlikely, but I don't have a crystal ball, and neither does anyone else.

Add from interdependent thread:

That being said, and given the point that I make in #2, I can only control myself. Though this pledge only effects me, I myself pledge to not UOC in California until such time as is determined to have maximum effect to get CCW reform via sheriff capitulation. This pledge only effects myself.

EDIT/UPDATE: Noticed Gene's PC12031 and PC626.9 legal way of carrying. Interesting to say the least.

edwardm
07-22-2008, 2:27 PM
This raises a question in my mind. There are a number of attorneys who frequent CG and are active therein. CGF aside (since it's actually funded, at least in part, by donations), where's the pro bono effort stand?

This is not an accusatory, rhetorical question, but actually something that has come to mind several times. Depending on the nature and complexity of criminal charges, a case can be disposed of in anywhere from 2 hours to 2000 hours, with the vast majority falling somewhere on the lower end of that range.

While at least some of the attorneys on this board are not in a criminal-firearms practice, there are ample support resources (and of course an attorney is free to become competent and educated in whatever area of law they want or need) to allow pro bono counsel to effectively represent a firearms client in uncolored cases.

So, what about the CalGuns auxiliary legal corps? Whether pro bono, or at a steep discount, there are more resources available than most folks might necessarily think.

Discuss.

I think it's the opposite, I generally hear about every OC arrest and there have been more than a couple this month.Without exception these were upstanding patriotic people that now face real charges, and in some cases have no ability to pay for a proper legal defense. I just don't want to see more people in that situation right now, when it can't possibly do any good

OC is, right now, FAR more dangerous than OLLs which we have already fought the hard battles on, one case at a time. That said, if you want to do it and you can afford the legal defense, then go for it. I'm not here to tell you what to do, I'm just giving my opinion, and the opinion of the main people fighting for the RKBA in California.

MudCamper
07-22-2008, 2:34 PM
I'm not telling you what to do,

I refer you to the title of your thread. Also the last paragraph of the initial post (which you now have changed) which originally simply stated, "Don't do it."

but keep in mind that open carry could result in legislation making having an unloaded rifle and a loaded magazine in the back seat, or an unloaded shotgun in a soft case in the back seat and a shell in your gear that you forgot about, a crime. While they are at it they might even make loaded carry a Felony. And until we get incorporation THERE IS NOTHING WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO ABOUT IT.

Don't do it because it may cause knee-jerk anti-gun legislation. Maybe. Your glass is half empty. Mine is half full on this. I think more good than harm is and will continue to result.

bwiese
07-22-2008, 2:38 PM
edwardm has brought up a very good point.

For those attorneys that have the willingness (and, possibly, support from their firms) this could be a 'force multiplier'.

Some of the OLL cases that have run to a favorable conclusion were not with 'gun lawyers' but with whatever attorney was at hand and that sufficient information provided to him/her by Calgunners + TMLLP.

Matt C
07-22-2008, 2:43 PM
I refer you to the title of your thread. Also the last paragraph of the initial post (which you now have changed) which originally simply stated, "Don't do it."


And I refer you to the OP- At this junction however, I am asking everyone NOT to open carry.


Don't do it because it may cause knee-jerk anti-gun legislation. Maybe. Your glass is half empty. Mine is half full on this. I think more good than harm is and will continue to result.

What good? We are months away from being able to force shall issue CCW. If we lose open carry before then, we lose that ability. Not to mention all the folks who would end up in jail if the law changes. The last thing we need here is another premature Silvera type case.

edwardm
07-22-2008, 2:47 PM
You make my chuckle. "Firms". In my case, more like "I can squeeze this in, too." But either way, a resource is a resource, and it might be a good idea to gather them ahead of time. Whether or not it is done as an adjunct to CGF, or even more informally, is probably of no consequence. That there is a list of folks (say, by county or city) that can be of some service, instead of the automatic "call TMLLP" refrain, is more important than who makes the list and hands it out.

Maybe something for the CGF folks to kick around at their next gathering.

edwardm has brought up a very good point.

For those attorneys that have the willingness (and, possibly, support from their firms) this could be a 'force multiplier'.

Some of the OLL cases that have run to a favorable conclusion were not with 'gun lawyers' but with whatever attorney was at hand and that sufficient information provided to him/her by Calgunners + TMLLP.

Matt C
07-22-2008, 2:51 PM
An open carry case, handled by people that know what they are doing, would probably be minimum 4 court appearances and 20 hours+ outside of court. I don't know of any lawyers willing to work for free on 2A a bunch of cases (please let me know if there are any, I still don't have my guns back...). They have to pay the bills just like everyone else. It's going to cost A LOT if you get popped for this, the idea that it somehow won't is exactly what I am trying to dispel.

Are you volunteering?

This raises a question in my mind. There are a number of attorneys who frequent CG and are active therein. CGF aside (since it's actually funded, at least in part, by donations), where's the pro bono effort stand?

This is not an accusatory, rhetorical question, but actually something that has come to mind several times. Depending on the nature and complexity of criminal charges, a case can be disposed of in anywhere from 2 hours to 2000 hours, with the vast majority falling somewhere on the lower end of that range.

While at least some of the attorneys on this board are not in a criminal-firearms practice, there are ample support resources (and of course an attorney is free to become competent and educated in whatever area of law they want or need) to allow pro bono counsel to effectively represent a firearms client in uncolored cases.

So, what about the CalGuns auxiliary legal corps? Whether pro bono, or at a steep discount, there are more resources available than most folks might necessarily think.

Discuss.

sorensen440
07-22-2008, 2:51 PM
And I refer you to the OP-
We are months away from being able to force shall issue CCW.

do you see that as much of a possibility ?
That would officially make California part of the USA again in my book

Liberty1
07-22-2008, 2:53 PM
edwardm has brought up a very good point.

For those attorneys that have the willingness (and, possibly, support from their firms) this could be a 'force multiplier'.

Some of the OLL cases that have run to a favorable conclusion were not with 'gun lawyers' but with whatever attorney was at hand and that sufficient information provided to him/her by Calgunners + TMLLP.

I think this could work in the SM case even with a public defender if "experts" were available to testify as to the correct definition of 12031. IF this even gets to court.

Like Lonnie, I think a total ban on OC, pre-incorporation, post Heller is in our favor. It gives the state no wiggle room regarding possession in public for a post incorporation suit. With just a loaded ban (loaded mags separate) they have something to defend as "reasonable" especially when UOCers keep saying they're only 3-5 seconds away from being loaded (stop saying that:D).

We should dare them to outlaw OC for the above reason. They'll know we want it and won't give it to us and will therefor attempt to defend 12031 as not a violation of 2nd A. (IMO).

I don't see UOC helping to get shall issue CCWs. I see LOADED OC helping to get shall issue. But LOC is still the Right which should ultimately be the legal goal. The privilege of CC is a side benefit IMO. Down with 12031!:)

As for as continuing to UOC, supporting the current cases over creating new ones for the Foundation is a fair position.

However, I'd hate to see the gains with Sac., Turlock, and SD PDs lost and I hope individuals there continue to meet for fellowship. SD seems to be our first truly "OC sanctuary city".

sloguy
07-22-2008, 2:55 PM
i have to weigh in on this.
matt is a guy whos been there, and done that and when the people who have been thru the fights speak, its usually a good idea to listen.

there is a battle plan. no, we dont all get to hear it spelled out. right now is not the time to get all butthurt about not being in on the big plans. right now the small guy oc'ing who gets arrested is not in the battle plan and he hasnt been allowed for. no money, or time to help him, and if resources were used to help him then it WILL HURT OUR ABILITY TO FIGHT BIGGER BATTLES.

this is a team sport people. we are all on the same side and we need to fight as one. we cant afford to fight side scirmishes right now.

matt isnt telling you what to do, he isnt your babysitter. hes being kind enough to inform you that if your luck runs out and you get arrested for oc, your on your own.

heller is a big thing. lots of progress can be made and one domino must fall before the next can be toppled. lets all push from the same direction on the same domino, shall we?

MudCamper
07-22-2008, 3:01 PM
What good?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=111324

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=111888

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 3:02 PM
Pro Bono:

Guys, the well funded corporate law firms are where the LCAV gets their pro-bono attorneys. The pro-gun attorneys in California are very small shops. As such, the number of amicus briefs that have to be filed in Nordyke, Chicago, and San Francisco alone are going to be hugely time consuming. Add in CFLC, AW issues, current OC cases, and a couple of cases that are strategically quiet out there and I can promise you that there is not a lot of bandwidth left. Many of the pro-gun shops also do real Criminal defense and the problem is that real criminal defense pays the light bill and the non-criminal legal challenges get some income but not too much. There is some potential for other criminal defense attorneys to take these cases but they still need support from the same guys who have extremely important filings to make for all of us.

Trunk guns:
Lonnie - here in CA, you can have a rifle in your trunk and loaded magazines in the trunk too - just outside the mag well. If OC unloaded changes the definition of loaded, that trunk gun will now be "loaded."

Also remember that Washington State has an RKBA in the State Constitution. Add on the fact that California criminal courts are - shall we say - not of the highest quality, and you can see why we need to be a bit more careful over the next 6 months or so.

Everybody is kind of missing a part of this threads title. It is the word "yet".

You can poor man's CCW today and your not risking a setback for the movement. Open carrying is pushing for pushing's sake. You'll know from my posts on Nordyke when it is time to OC. Note that you'll probably want to have applied for a CCW and been turned down when you do...

-Gene

guns_and_labs
07-22-2008, 3:04 PM
We are months away from being able to force shall issue CCW.

Well, now, the clock is ticking as we await anxiously -- or maybe the calendar pages are turning? :)

I know you started out with the best of intentions and a credible plan, and I do agree with you...but I can't help but be a little amused by the turn of history.

It wasn't that long ago that The Right People (but a different Right People, I hasten to add) were urging us all not to push the OLL thing, not to antagonize the legislature, or the government, etc. Several notables on this board did it anyway, and it turned out kind of OK.

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 3:06 PM
there is a battle plan. no, we dont all get to hear it spelled out. right now is not the time to get all butthurt about not being in on the big plans. right now the small guy oc'ing who gets arrested is not in the battle plan and he hasnt been allowed for. no money, or time to help him, and if resources were used to help him then it WILL HURT OUR ABILITY TO FIGHT BIGGER BATTLES.


Guys,

If people are feeling like they don't understand the battle plan, please ask. We have a lot more ability these days to explain things.

-Gene

Matt C
07-22-2008, 3:13 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=111324

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=111888

Since multiple LE agencies cover every area of CA one PD releasing a memo does not mean it's safe to OC there. Also, not getting harassed by the popo only means that the sheeple will be more likely to demand a new law. Which brings me to my next point.

Like Lonnie, I think a total ban on OC, pre-incorporation, post Heller is in our favor. It gives the state no wiggle room regarding possession in public for a post incorporation suit. With just a loaded ban (loaded mags separate) they have something to defend as "reasonable" especially when UOCers keep saying they're only 3-5 seconds away from being loaded (stop saying that).

We should dare them to outlaw OC for the above reason. They'll know we want it and won't give it to us and will therefor attempt to defend 12031 as not a violation of 2nd A. (IMO).

I don't see UOC helping to get shall issue CCWs. I see LOADED OC helping to get shall issue. But LOC is still the Right which should ultimately be the legal goal. The privilege of CC is a side benefit IMO. Down with 12031!

I guess if you prefer OC over CC than that makes sense, but personally I'd rather put resources somewhere else. When Heller is incorporated a further ban on U/OC very well may never happen on the state level. Than means we can push for CCW and get it, without ever going to court! That means more money to fight other battles. If U/OC gets banned now, we will never get shall issue CCW without a protracted legal fight.

Mute
07-22-2008, 3:15 PM
I can see the points from both sides of this debate, but let me ask this: is it really so bad to refrain from UOC for just six months? What have we to lose? No one is saying wait without a firm objective or time frame in mind, so why not let this play out for the prescribed time?

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 3:20 PM
If U/OC gets banned now, we will never get shall issue CCW without a protracted legal fight.

Let me paint a quick picture.

1. Heller says that states can regulate CCW and that's not protected under the 2A.

2. We keep OCing for the next 180 days and the legislature makes all open carry illegal or changes the definition of loaded to something more onerous.

3. After another 24-36 months of fighting we can overturn the restrictions on open carry loaded because "bear arms" means what it says. During said 2-3 years, we don't have good self defense options anymore.

3. Oops. Since we can open carry we can't effectively challenge CCW may issue on 2A, Ohio style grounds because we beat the open carry loaded law.

4. For a painfully long time people will be harassed by LEO's in San Francisco or LA for open carrying because they can't get a CCW.

Or we could get through this legislative session and the current batch of cases and force Ohio style CCW reforms - maybe even without a Federal Court.

-Gene

tombinghamthegreat
07-22-2008, 3:20 PM
Everybody is kind of missing a part of this threads title. It is the word "yet".
-Gene

Can you define "yet"? Are we taking 6-12 months?

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 3:23 PM
Can you define "yet"? Are we taking 6-12 months?

Probably less, but yes. 6-12 months.

-Gene

Matt C
07-22-2008, 3:23 PM
Can you define "yet"? Are we taking 6-12 months?

It could very well be, but none of us here control when the courts will hear cases. Basically we are saying wait until the incorporation issue is decided. Nordyke will probably be heard first as it's pretty far along already. If that does not pan out we will wait until the SF case. After that, one way or another, I'll be the first one out there open carrying.

grammaton76
07-22-2008, 3:29 PM
You can poor man's CCW today and your not risking a setback for the movement. Open carrying is pushing for pushing's sake. You'll know from my posts on Nordyke when it is time to OC. Note that you'll probably want to have applied for a CCW and been turned down when you do...

So, the big question is: when do we want to have applied for a CCW and been turned down by? Give us a timeline to ensure that we're ready well in advance.

It would make me laugh my rear off if "I'm one of those guys who annoyed you by open carrying at El Indio, so you'd probably rather not deal with the hassle anymore" worked as a good cause statement. Or, of course, "If you don't give me a permit, I'll just open carry, and concealed would be more fashionable".

No, I wouldn't try any such silly grounds. But, do let us know when we should apply.

Would now be the best time?

Also - looks like you aren't hung up on the locked cases being transparent, like some of the folks over in my lockbox-holster thread. Care to weigh in on why? Is it because briefcases/whatnot aren't concealed, whereas a concealed lockbox would be?

WokMaster1
07-22-2008, 3:31 PM
Guys,

If people are feeling like they don't understand the battle plan, please ask. We have a lot more ability these days to explain things.

-Gene

Gene, I just feel like we just gave the opposition some pages from our playbook, a couple of one-two ups, some of the strategies, moves, scratches, etc.

I'm sure the right people have many more trump cards in their pants but I feel that the antis are not so smart and I want them to remain not so smart.:p It's just more comforting to know that they are standing in a pool of zhit & them telling themselves, "It can't be!"

Theseus
07-22-2008, 3:34 PM
I do recall that recently (2004 I believe) they tried specifically outlawing open carry and changing the definition of loaded and it was struck down in the Assembly! I will have to dig it up, but the opposition claimed that the definition of loaded being changed to in the possession of the same person would catch too many otherwise legal persons and would have no conceivable impact on reduction of crime which was the intention of the bill.

I will have to find the bill. . . but I do remember reading it.

SevenFifty
07-22-2008, 3:37 PM
If you want/need self defense there is a better legal solution that will keep you from having run ins with Law Enforcement.

Buy a bag with a three wheel combo lock. Something like this:
http://www.baggageforless.com/prodimages/large/8423.jpg

You can keep a handgun and a magazine in it and as long as you have to turn one dial one click, it's a locked container. You can keep the loaded magazine right next to the firearm in the bag. I'd argue you can probably get that out and in action even faster.

The other option is to get a combo lock like this and use it with a fanny pack or a backpack:
http://akamai.globalsources.com.edgesuite.net/f/593/3445/5d/pdt.static.globalsources.com/IMAGES/PDT/BIG/486/B1003085486.jpg

That takes care of self defense for the next couple of months while we get the courts in the right place to start making large headway in forcing CCW reform.

If you are otherwise open carrying, then you're just protesting or being civilly disobedient. Right now we're winning in court. We don't yet need to be civilly disobedient and we aren't at the right stage in the courts to have their protection if something doesn't go correctly out on the street.

-Gene

Is it 100% legal to carry this way?

Would section (b) still apply, or does section (c) cover you?
"12026.2. (b)...and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances."
(c) This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter."

Gray Peterson
07-22-2008, 3:41 PM
Pro Bono:

Guys, the well funded corporate law firms are where the LCAV gets their pro-bono attorneys. The pro-gun attorneys in California are very small shops. As such, the number of amicus briefs that have to be filed in Nordyke, Chicago, and San Francisco alone are going to be hugely time consuming. Add in CFLC, AW issues, current OC cases, and a couple of cases that are strategically quiet out there and I can promise you that there is not a lot of bandwidth left. Many of the pro-gun shops also do real Criminal defense and the problem is that real criminal defense pays the light bill and the non-criminal legal challenges get some income but not too much. There is some potential for other criminal defense attorneys to take these cases but they still need support from the same guys who have extremely important filings to make for all of us.

Trunk guns:
Lonnie - here in CA, you can have a rifle in your trunk and loaded magazines in the trunk too - just outside the mag well. If OC unloaded changes the definition of loaded, that trunk gun will now be "loaded."

Also remember that Washington State has an RKBA in the State Constitution. Add on the fact that California criminal courts are - shall we say - not of the highest quality, and you can see why we need to be a bit more careful over the next 6 months or so.

Everybody is kind of missing a part of this threads title. It is the word "yet".

You can poor man's CCW today and your not risking a setback for the movement. Open carrying is pushing for pushing's sake. You'll know from my posts on Nordyke when it is time to OC. Note that you'll probably want to have applied for a CCW and been turned down when you do...

-Gene

Agreed, and what's even more interesting is that we have apparent case law that allows for the protection of civil rights of out of state visitors and new residents that doesn't require incorporation issues: Saenz v. Reno and Ward v. Maryland. I'll look up those cases later.

I made also this posting over at interdependent:
That being said, and given the point that I make in #2, I can only control myself. Though this pledge only effects me, I myself pledge to not UOC in California until such time as is determined to have maximum effect to get CCW reform via sheriff capitulation. This pledge only effects myself.

Ding126
07-22-2008, 3:42 PM
Heck..I've lived here most of my life and saw all the bans take place in the 90's and up to today. Another 6 months, a year or 2 years isn't going to change my life.
If the people involved here are trying to secure our rights to CCW or loaded OC..They are on the front line. We as soldiers, don't always agree with the generals decisions, but we have to follow orders to win the battle. I think we should respect their knowledge and do our part to try and ensure the best out come possible. This is the most exciting times in decades and we all have a real chance to make a change.

The key word here is " stealth "

Gray Peterson
07-22-2008, 3:44 PM
I can see the points from both sides of this debate, but let me ask this: is it really so bad to refrain from UOC for just six months? What have we to lose? No one is saying wait without a firm objective or time frame in mind, so why not let this play out for the prescribed time?

I made my own personal pledge to not UOC or OC during my visits to California.

outersquare
07-22-2008, 3:45 PM
it's often the actions of few, that punish everyone else
hopefully we can skate by this time
thank you guys for continuing to work our cause

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 3:48 PM
Gramma,

You can carry a locked container with a handgun in it pretty much anywhere except the sterile area of an airport or inside a court. Transparent isn't necessary when there is a lock involved.

SevenFifty:

To the extent any DA anywhere could assert 12026.2 (b) against a non street gangster, it is very rare to not be going to an authorized location. Just make sure you know where you were going that's authorized. Plus - you've got a long road to get down for a LEO to be asking you where you are going. A locked briefcase has lots of 4th Amendment protection because it can have confidential information in it. It's certainly not a gun case. Once its not a gun case, then you'll pretty much have to be already under arrest for something else for them to have figured out you are carrying in the first place.

-Gene

Theseus
07-22-2008, 4:05 PM
Fine. Other than the OC dinner we already have planned and mostly organized in Northridge I will stop OC'ing for 6 months.

If I do not see enough forward movement by that time I will continue my efforts.

GuyW
07-22-2008, 4:17 PM
What good? We are months away from being able to force shall issue CCW. If we lose open carry before then, we lose that ability.


No, as someone else posted, the state outlawing ALL carry of guns is head-on with Heller dicta. It's exactly what Washington DC loons would do...

CCWFacts
07-22-2008, 4:29 PM
What exactly do you think you're proving before the Second Amendment is incorporated?

To put it another way:

THERE IS NO SECOND AMENDMENT IN CALIFORNIA. The right to keep and bear arms is NOT an individual right in this state. It is as if the Second Amendment does not even exist. Heller has no applicability to state laws, and it's state laws that regulate carrying of guns.

All of the statements in the above paragraph will change the moment that Heller is incorporated in this state, but not a single moment before. You can't use Heller as a defense for anything because Heller is in no way binding on state law. At this point.

Hopefully all this will change within the next six months and then we'll have a whole range of more options, but acting as if you can rely on Heller, when you can't, is foolish.

Matt C
07-22-2008, 4:32 PM
Fine. Other than the OC dinner we already have planned and mostly organized in Northridge I will stop OC'ing for 6 months.

If I do not see enough forward movement by that time I will continue my efforts.

How about 6 months and two weeks? :D

No, as someone else posted, the state outlawing ALL carry of guns is head-on with Heller dicta. It's exactly what Washington DC loons would do...

Can you clarify that a bit?:confused:

Gray Peterson
07-22-2008, 4:45 PM
Gene, I sent you a PM.

GuyW
07-22-2008, 4:48 PM
Originally Posted by GuyW
No, as someone else posted, the state outlawing ALL carry of guns is head-on with Heller dicta. It's exactly what Washington DC loons would do...


Can you clarify that a bit?:confused:

I'm assuming its even POSSIBLE for CA to craft a workable law that makes it more difficult to move guns from place to place, because even the loons would have a hard time publically justifying outlawing the movement of a gun to the range or hunting or the gunshop, etc.

So, CA outlawing ALL open transport of guns (other than CCW for the special few, or hunting) is head-on with Heller dicta that says its a fundamental constitutional right to carry a weapon for self-defense against a confrontation.

And, those guns need to be loaded in order to be useful in self-defense.

Such direct, stupid, and useless violations of the 2nd is exactly what Washington DC anti-gun loons would do (and would get judicially slapped down for)...so maybe its exactly what the Sacto loons would do...

trashman
07-22-2008, 5:03 PM
Eeesh....I just read through all 9 pages of this thread. For the love of Smith & Wesson....please give consideration to what BWO and Gene have said about the potential for damage UOC has in the next few months.

It really kinda baffles me why folks are pushing the envelope on UOC *right now* --- especially when I think about how it potentially jeopardizes some successful CCW casework that might eventually make it possible for me to obtain a CCW in San Francisco, where I live.

I totally get the whole OC thing - but we should focus our efforts on achievable gains -- like the whole National Park CCW issue -- not antagonizing cops and non-gunny citizens.

Gene has outlined the very straight-ahead consequences -- and I think we all ought to heed them. This is one issue where I DO NOT WANT to hear Gene Hoffman utter the words "I told you so".

--Neill

Matt C
07-22-2008, 5:12 PM
So, CA outlawing ALL open transport of guns (other than CCW for the special few, or hunting) is head-on with Heller dicta that says its a fundamental constitutional right to carry a weapon for self-defense against a confrontation.

And, those guns need to be loaded in order to be useful in self-defense.

I agree with that, we are just saying that since open carry of some sort is legal now, that is one less battle to fight later if we leave it for a few months.

fleegman
07-22-2008, 5:53 PM
there is a very good chance if you open carry that you will be arrested. If this happens you are looking at spending a MINIMUM of $10k out of YOUR pocket to avoid a conviction

The day the State extorts 10k from me on a false arrest then refuses to pay it back, is the day I become an Enemy of the State.

As to OC, I get it, I get it. I have no criticism for those that OC, it's just not for me; I prefer to blend with the herd. Having said that, if I feel like I am seriously in danger, then I am carrying loaded and concealed, the law be damned. And yes, I am comfortable with saying so publicly. The State makes it a crime to carry concealed without a license, then makes it literally impossible to get such a license (except for lawmakers, of course). Screw that. If your going to make laws, make 'em fair. I'd rather be breathing and guilty of a misdemeanor, then six feet under but a good little sheeple.

grammaton76
07-22-2008, 6:01 PM
Err, we don't have the British legal system. Here, you don't get reimbursed for their legal fees, last I checked. Otherwise, innocent men would throw down unlimited amounts of money for legal defense.

Ding126
07-22-2008, 6:06 PM
To put it another way:

THERE IS NO SECOND AMENDMENT IN CALIFORNIA. The right to keep and bear arms is NOT an individual right in this state. It is as if the Second Amendment does not even exist. Heller has no applicability to state laws, and it's state laws that regulate carrying of guns.

All of the statements in the above paragraph will change the moment that Heller is incorporated in this state, but not a single moment before. You can't use Heller as a defense for anything because Heller is in no way binding on state law. At this point.

Hopefully all this will change within the next six months and then we'll have a whole range of more options, but acting as if you can rely on Heller, when you can't, is foolish.

+1 I don't think you can say it any clearer.

tenpercentfirearms
07-22-2008, 6:51 PM
The day the State extorts 10k from me on a false arrest then refuses to pay it back, is the day I become an Enemy of the State.

Good luck with that one. BWO, how much of your money did you get back? :rolleyes:

I think it is clear. We all have free will. We can do what we want. If you want to OC, do not expect financial assitance like BWO received if you should get arrested. Also be aware if your arrest is made public and used as public relations material to ban the open carry of firearms in this state, you will not be popular and should rightfully feel like a moron.

As long as you acknowledge that, do what you want. We can't stop you. I have a CCW so I won't criticize anyone for what they choose to do.

CitaDeL
07-22-2008, 6:59 PM
The State of California, being a part of the United States and subservient to the Constitution thereof, does reap the benefits of the second amendment.

Not nearly to the degree we as citizens certainly deserve though. At some point we may be required to take back this essential right. The quandry over when and how will not be resolved through debate in the legislature, but by the actions of the most ardent supporters of the second amendment.

Now, as far as strategies are concerned- there appears to me to be only two- On the one hand, there is the quiet plodding but consistant efforts of pro-gun groups intent on acquiring winable victories- on the other, there are those of a more vocal minority, whose anger and discontent at any loss of individual liberties results in a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach. In spite of my predisposition to join the latter group, I have to agree, that as the final defenders of liberty here in California, we must be unified.

I would say that it would be wise to accept the battlelines that have been established- That open carry advocacy where it has not resulted in anything other than a breif detention is acceptable- But open carry in new territory should be curtailed temporarily, until such time it can be used as an advantage to our collective efforts.

Am I asking anyone to change their behavior? No- I'm just saying that capturing new territory at the risk of going to law does not have a balanced risk/benefit ratio at present. I also think that this advocacy should be more thoughful and more meaningful, than to just do it for an effect.

I believe we do have an obligation to move ahead while momentum is in our favor, but let us not sacrifice essential manpower and resources for the repeated education of law enforcement.

Decoligny
07-22-2008, 7:11 PM
The State of California, being a part of the United States and subservient to the Constitution thereof, does reap the benefits of the second amendment.

Doesn't the California Constitution already put the state under the auspices of the United States Constitution in its entirity?

Specifically:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Matt C
07-22-2008, 7:15 PM
Doesn't the California Constitution already put the state under the auspices of the United States Constitution in its entirity?

Specifically:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

CA and local circuit courts have ruled that basically means we can't violate the constitution, but since the bill of rights was only written to limit federal power and the 14th has not yet been ruled to incorporate the 2nd, the above does not limit CA law using the second amendment.

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 7:41 PM
Article 3, Section 1 is a supremacy clause, not an incorporation clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

At first, the 2A clearly didn't bind the states - it only bound the Federal government. Article 3, Section 1 means that California can't overrule the Federal government on things delegated to the Feds. Firearms ownership rules were quite clearly never delegated to the Feds because the 2A made that clear enough. The 14th changed that analysis though. Now we need a Federal Court to interpret the 14th Amendment as passing through the protections of the 2A to be applied as against the states.

-Gene

edwardm
07-22-2008, 8:41 PM
The "know what they are doing" is highly subjective. Between law, motion and procedure, there aren't many who come out of the box ready to roll.

And I'm not implying that such a group of counsel would, individually, take on a "bunch" of cases for free, but maybe 1 or 2 as time and schedule allowed them to commit.

For example, I'd be able to (right now) take 1 case, no more, in the bay area. Is that as good as being Chuck and Jason with their larger practice and greater resources? Probably not. Will it get the issue dealt with in a professional and *informed* manner? Most likely. But if you've got 4 or 5 or 8 lawyers from CG that could each handle the load of a single (or two) freebie cases, that's a good amount of coverage.

So yes, I'll put my money where my mouth is. That's the only way things get done.

An open carry case, handled by people that know what they are doing, would probably be minimum 4 court appearances and 20 hours+ outside of court. I don't know of any lawyers willing to work for free on 2A a bunch of cases (please let me know if there are any, I still don't have my guns back...). They have to pay the bills just like everyone else. It's going to cost A LOT if you get popped for this, the idea that it somehow won't is exactly what I am trying to dispel.

Are you volunteering?

Theseus
07-22-2008, 8:59 PM
How about 6 months and two weeks? :D

If I do not see enough forward movement by that time I will continue my efforts.

If it seems like we are truly moving forward for example I see a declared date of hearing. . . or some other action that indicates we won't be waiting another 6 months, I will wait.

I will instead dedicate more time on peoples front steps against AB2062.

CCWFacts
07-22-2008, 9:01 PM
The State of California, being a part of the United States and subservient to the Constitution thereof, does reap the benefits of the second amendment.

It only reaps these benefits at the federal level. We don't have incorporation yet, and until we do, Heller has no effect on our state and local governments. It might as well not even exist. Right now, the feds could not make a law that bans all handguns. However, the CA state leg could indeed make such a law and it would be valid and enforceable.

You can believe whatever you want, but these are the facts.

TheCiscoKid
07-22-2008, 9:40 PM
forgive me for playing devil's advocate:43:...but let me pose this question:

if someone reads the plea of the OP and the rest of the supporters on this thread, and the reader then decides to stop OCing for the sake of the "Cause," then tomorrow, on a day he would have normally been OCing, he comes face to face with a self defense situation, unarmed, and they end up a victim of a crime, maybe even dead, would everyone here be ok with that?

it seems to me that OCing is primarily about the preservation of life, not a political movement, as noble as it may be.

it seems to me that lots of people here are concentrating on winning 2A rights, and putting the ability to defend yourself for 6 months on the back burner. do we have our priorities a little backwards here? or am i alone here?

Theseus
07-22-2008, 9:47 PM
forgive me for playing devil's advocate:43:...but let me pose this question:

if someone reads the plea of the OP and the rest of the supporters on this thread, and the reader then decides to stop OCing for the sake of the "Cause," then tomorrow, on a day he would have normally been OCing, he comes face to face with a self defense situation, unarmed, and they end up a victim of a crime, maybe even dead, would everyone here be ok with that?

it seems to me that OCing is primarily about the preservation of life, not a political movement, as noble as it may be.

it seems to me that lots of people here are concentrating on winning 2A rights, and putting the ability to defend yourself for 6 months on the back burner. do we have our priorities a little backwards here? or am i alone here?

You are very right. I will say however that I can still have the gun with me. . just not OC'd. I can still have it in the gayest fanny pack I can find or a briefcase as Hoffman suggests. I just won't carry it openly except for the dinner we have planned.

CA_Libertarian
07-22-2008, 9:50 PM
Tactically speaking, are you proficient enough in a situation where you can un-holster, load a mag, cock it, and be ready to shoot at the target within a matter of a few seconds, all while keeping your eye on the target?

Yes, I can. Just like anything else, one can become proficient in this. It takes me about 2 seconds to load, cock, and aim. I practice this a few dozen times before each open carry outing.

Legally speaking, what are your rights if you went from LEGAL unloaded OC to a situation where you have a loaded gun in public post shootout? Assuming its a justified shooting and everything is kosher, you DID just break the law and you've got yourself a loaded weapon. Lets say you didn't have to discharge your gun, you still have a loaded gun in public.

See 12031(j) for the exemption for scenario you pose.

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 9:51 PM
it seems to me that lots of people here are concentrating on winning 2A rights, and putting the ability to defend yourself for 6 months on the back burner. do we have our priorities a little backwards here? or am i alone here?

Buy a locking briefcase if you need the firearm ready for self defense as I pointed out earlier in this thread.

Even some of the right people who can't get CCWs use that strategy. In the briefcase you can keep a semiauto slide locked back for faster action...

-Gene

CA_Libertarian
07-22-2008, 9:53 PM
If you are otherwise open carrying, then you're just protesting or being civilly disobedient

I think you mean civilly obedient. Civil disobedience would involve violating some law.

TheCiscoKid
07-22-2008, 9:53 PM
ahhh, i learn a little more every day, gene. thank you :)

ETA: gene

oaklander
07-22-2008, 9:54 PM
I see your point. . .

1) not that many people OC in the state - so the likelihood of someone who formerly OC'ed getting harmed/killed is remote.

2) what IS more likely is that OC will become completely illegal, and laws will be passed outlawing trunk guns, making CCW harder, etc..

It's better to take a remote risk now in order to forestall a larger risk later.

:)

forgive me for playing devil's advocate:43:...but let me pose this question:

if someone reads the plea of the OP and the rest of the supporters on this thread, and the reader then decides to stop OCing for the sake of the "Cause," then tomorrow, on a day he would have normally been OCing, he comes face to face with a self defense situation, unarmed, and they end up a victim of a crime, maybe even dead, would everyone here be ok with that?

it seems to me that OCing is primarily about the preservation of life, not a political movement, as noble as it may be.

it seems to me that lots of people here are concentrating on winning 2A rights, and putting the ability to defend yourself for 6 months on the back burner. do we have our priorities a little backwards here? or am i alone here?

ke6guj
07-22-2008, 9:54 PM
If I do not see enough forward movement by that time I will continue my efforts.

If it seems like we are truly moving forward for example I see a declared date of hearing. . . or some other action that indicates we won't be waiting another 6 months, I will wait.

I will instead dedicate more time on peoples front steps against AB2062.

The "6 months" they are talking about is probably regarding the Nordyke case. If so, we have already been re-assigned to a 3-judge panel that previously ruled on Nordyke with a pro-2nd opinion (within the limititations of existing precident) and there should be a hearing date scheduled in the next 3 months or so. Once that hearing happens, we should be able to read the arguements (and amicus briefs) and then have a 9th circuit ruling in hopefully another 3 months after that. So, you should see actual movement, and not have to just wait blindfolded.

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 10:16 PM
The "6 months" they are talking about is probably regarding the Nordyke case. If so, we have already been re-assigned to a 3-judge panel that previously ruled on Nordyke with a pro-2nd opinion (within the limititations of existing precident) and there should be a hearing date scheduled in the next 3 months or so. Once that hearing happens, we should be able to read the arguements (and amicus briefs) and then have a 9th circuit ruling in hopefully another 3 months after that. So, you should see actual movement, and not have to just wait blindfolded.

Exactly.

Here are the upcoming milestones that matter - in date order:

1. End of the CA Legislative session - probably 8/31/08.

2. 14th and 2A briefing due in Nordyke.

3. Oral arguments in Nordyke. Quite a few of us will be in attendance and I'll post the date as soon as we know it. The location is likely to be SF Federal Court.

4. 60-90 days after Oral Arguments - a ruling on Nordyke.

All of these dates will be well watched and announced on here.

On the civil disobedience - that's awfully cute but you know that if you took a poll of the 10 people around you in a Safeway in San Francisco that 9 or 10 of them would say that they don't want you carrying a gun in there. Civil society is not always the law. That issue is one of the strongest reasons in favor of shall issue CCW.

-Gene

M. D. Van Norman
07-22-2008, 10:22 PM
It really kinda baffles me why folks are pushing the envelope on UOC *right now* …

It’s in the nature of revolutions. We’ve just won an unprecedented victory in the Supreme Court, so many are ready and willing to press for more. The danger, of course, is the counterrevolution. Oddly enough, I always thought that if this kind of situation ever came to pass, our positions would be reversed.

Anyway, so we can have incorporation in six months instead of 60 years? Then what?

hoffmang
07-22-2008, 10:29 PM
Anyway, so we can have incorporation in six months instead of 60 years? Then what?

Then you apply for a CCW, get turned down, sue both the sheriff and the state, OC, hope you get harassed to create even more bad facts for the other side, and hand the court a pile of turd that only fits through the straight-jacket of fundamental constitutional rights scrutiny one way. "Either the state or the sheriff is wrong - which is it?"

And the funny thing is - they know its coming and there isn't a darn thing they can do about it but start actually loosening certain restrictions and/or try to make our lives worse in the very short run.

-Gene

savageevo
07-22-2008, 10:39 PM
Now that I read all these 11 pages and understand what we must not do, did you contact other sites like opencarry.org Ca members to refrain from OC. Are there other sites that know what is happening.

Quake0
07-22-2008, 10:43 PM
We need to talk an other time.

shellyzsweet
07-22-2008, 10:46 PM
Then you apply for a CCW, get turned down, sue both the sheriff and the state, OC, hope you get harassed to create even more bad facts for the other side, and hand the court a pile of turd that only fits through the straight-jacket of fundamental constitutional rights scrutiny one way. "Either the state or the sheriff is wrong - which is it?"

And the funny thing is - they know its coming and there isn't a darn thing they can do about it but start actually loosening certain restrictions and/or try to make our lives worse in the very short run.

-Gene

wow....11 pages later. So heller is incorporated within about 6 months. A day later everyone here goes and applies for a ccw and gets issued one and is happy or denied and sues?? on the grounds that the county is violating my personal constitutional right to keep and bear arms?? -what about the argument that you can keep and bear arms in your home, not in public??
-I am not a legal expert and haven't read the 100+ pages on the heller decision. I know its pro 2a and says the right is for the people individually, but if you could help me out with a better explanation I would REALLY appreciate it.

grammaton76
07-23-2008, 5:06 AM
You'll know from my posts on Nordyke when it is time to OC. Note that you'll probably want to have applied for a CCW and been turned down when you do...

Still waiting for an answer on what the appropriate timeline to start applying for CCW's is - or if it's something everyone needs to do, or just a handpicked few, or what?

WokMaster1
07-23-2008, 7:01 AM
Still waiting for an answer on what the appropriate timeline to start applying for CCW's is - or if it's something everyone needs to do, or just a handpicked few, or what?

I can just imagine when we get the "GO!" from Gene. 80-100 people a day crowding the Sheriff's Office applying for CCW permit. If evryone gets a rejection letter, can "we" sue individually or collectively?

CitaDeL
07-23-2008, 7:40 AM
I can just imagine when we get the "GO!" from Gene. 80-100 people a day crowding the Sheriff's Office applying for CCW permit. If evryone gets a rejection letter, can "we" sue individually or collectively?

I think this would depend on the background make up of the applicants being rejected. If a pattern of discrimination can be exposed (race, gender, orientation, income, social standing,-- fill in the blank), the stronger case would be with those who had been rejected on that basis. If everyone gets rejected, then we could see a suit with multiple litigants.

I agree with the strategy of applicants going en masse, so this will require some orchestration...Heck, I'd even go just to take up space in line.

Ironchef
07-23-2008, 8:17 AM
I'll just wait off on wasting the $500 or so it'll cost to attempt and fail at a CCW and hope my Utah CCW eventually becomes accepted in CA. Surely the reciprocity agreement other states have for a CA CCW will translate into CA accepting theirs?? Or I can hope, can't I?

Anyone know the OTD cost for applying these days?

MudCamper
07-23-2008, 8:47 AM
OK, can I ask a stupid question?

How does Heller incorporation help a person in this situation:

A person is legally open carrying unloaded and gets arrested and charged with 12031. The person was clearly not violating 12031, but is charged anyway.

Pre Heller incoporation, the arrest is false, and the charges are invalid.

Post Heller incorporation the arrest is false, and the charges are invalid.

Either way the perp is SOL because he's got a lengthy and expensive legal battle.

How is pre/post incorporation any different here? How does it make any difference to his pocket book? I don't get it.

Gray Peterson
07-23-2008, 9:00 AM
$500? The maximum amount they can charge you is $20.

CA_Libertarian
07-23-2008, 9:08 AM
I understand OC is a good tool in the fight for CCW reform. However, I'm not interested in applying for a permission slip, even if we get strict 'shall-issue' status in this state. I am fundamentally against taxes and testing (training) as a prerequisite to exercising a right.

So, what's the long-term strategy for people not interested in a permit? Why should I care if the exercise of my right is socially acceptable or not? What event do you think will suddenly make open carry 'a good idea.' I'm still waiting to be convinced it will be in my best interest to stop OC'ing.

So far, the only argument is "it might result in further legislation." This, I think wouldn't be a big deal. Any such legislation would be easily challenged once Heller is incorporated, which should happen faster than the legislature could put new law into effect.

I get the impression that most people here don't want to see open carry practiced, except as a tool to reform CCW. If we ever get 'shall-issue,' I have a feeling that the sentiment will be: "Stop open carrying, it's not socially acceptable. Go get your permission slip like the rest of us."

SOneThreeCoupe
07-23-2008, 9:13 AM
OK, can I ask a stupid question?

How does Heller incorporation help a person in this situation:

A person is legally open carrying unloaded and gets arrested and charged with 12031. The person was clearly not violating 12031, but is charged anyway.

Pre Heller incoporation, the arrest is false, and the charges are invalid.

Post Heller incorporation the arrest is false, and the charges are invalid.

Either way the perp is SOL because he's got a lengthy and expensive legal battle.

How is pre/post incorporation any different here? How does it make any difference to his pocket book? I don't get it.

Exactly my line of reasoning.

We have Fourth Amendment rights guaranteed in our state constitution, yet if they are violated we still must force the government to recognize their mistake. It still happens, and it still costs people money.

If what we are doing is legal, how does it change a darn thing whether or not the Second Amendment is incorporated? It is LEGAL. The government cannot break laws to enforce laws that were not broken in the first place.

This is ridiculous. We are fighting to get our rights recognized by the very government which does not recognize its own criminal law or case law.

We have seen the extent to which the government will go to cover its tracks and scramble to find ANYTHING with which to charge an individual it wrongly accused.

All of this would work if the system worked, but the system is deeply flawed. We need judicial reform before incorporation becomes a semblance of security for our right.

MudCamper
07-23-2008, 9:24 AM
Exactly my line of reasoning.

It's not just a line of reasoning for me. It's an honest-to-god question. I want to understand the proponents of the "wait until after incorporation". I really do. But I still don't see how it will effect me at all if/when I get falsely arrested for 12031 when I'm not violating 12031.

megavolt121
07-23-2008, 9:24 AM
I understand OC is a good tool in the fight for CCW reform. However, I'm not interested in applying for a permission slip, even if we get strict 'shall-issue' status in this state. I am fundamentally against taxes and testing (training) as a prerequisite to exercising a right.

So, what's the long-term strategy for people not interested in a permit? Why should I care if the exercise of my right is socially acceptable or not? What event do you think will suddenly make open carry 'a good idea.' I'm still waiting to be convinced it will be in my best interest to stop OC'ing.

So far, the only argument is "it might result in further legislation." This, I think wouldn't be a big deal. Any such legislation would be easily challenged once Heller is incorporated, which should happen faster than the legislature could put new law into effect.

I get the impression that most people here don't want to see open carry practiced, except as a tool to reform CCW. If we ever get 'shall-issue,' I have a feeling that the sentiment will be: "Stop open carrying, it's not socially acceptable. Go get your permission slip like the rest of us."

While further legislation could be challenged, whose going to bankroll that challenge? It would really suck if our rights were limited even more due to further legislation because some politician and yuppie didn't like the idea of someone OCing.

I think the point that is being made here is Wait a bit on OC. I'm going to assume you haven't been OCing your whole life, and if so, what's another few months wait?

Gene and some other people have a few tricks up their sleves and their grand plan doesn't need a huge roadbump(aka further emergency feel good legislation) thrown in it. Wait a bit to see what happens, than OC away, even if CCWs become shall issue in this state.

Decoligny
07-23-2008, 9:35 AM
I understand OC is a good tool in the fight for CCW reform. However, I'm not interested in applying for a permission slip, even if we get strict 'shall-issue' status in this state. I am fundamentally against taxes and testing (training) as a prerequisite to exercising a right.

So, what's the long-term strategy for people not interested in a permit? Why should I care if the exercise of my right is socially acceptable or not? What event do you think will suddenly make open carry 'a good idea.' I'm still waiting to be convinced it will be in my best interest to stop OC'ing.

So far, the only argument is "it might result in further legislation." This, I think wouldn't be a big deal. Any such legislation would be easily challenged once Heller is incorporated, which should happen faster than the legislature could put new law into effect.

I get the impression that most people here don't want to see open carry practiced, except as a tool to reform CCW. If we ever get 'shall-issue,' I have a feeling that the sentiment will be: "Stop open carrying, it's not socially acceptable. Go get your permission slip like the rest of us."

My view exactly. I want to be able to carry a gun either concealed or openly without having to request permission or pay the government to exercise my rights. If they go with what the Heller case said and regulate Concealed Carry, then Open Carry by default has to be the RIGHT to bear arms that the Heller referred to.

So if we are indeed fighting for the Right to Keep and BEAR Arms, the fight has to be for Loaded Open Carry.

If we are fighting for Shall Issue CCW, then we are fighting for a privelege, not a right.

We currently only have 2 states that actually have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Alaska and Vermont. Alaska's idea of a concealed carry permit is a piece of paper that you can get if you need it for use in other states that require a CCW for you to carry.

When Heller is incorporated, we should fight for the FULL Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Until then I will continue to Open Carry LOADED around my neighborhood (unincorporated area, private roads). I will continue to carry around my Center of Mass safe within easy reach while driving. I may even Open Carry to/at one or two of the Open Carry events that will be held in the future.

Kestryll
07-23-2008, 9:40 AM
OK, can I ask a stupid question?

How does Heller incorporation help a person in this situation:

A person is legally open carrying unloaded and gets arrested and charged with 12031. The person was clearly not violating 12031, but is charged anyway.

Pre Heller incoporation, the arrest is false, and the charges are invalid.

Post Heller incorporation the arrest is false, and the charges are invalid.

Either way the perp is SOL because he's got a lengthy and expensive legal battle.

How is pre/post incorporation any different here? How does it make any difference to his pocket book? I don't get it.


I may be mistaken but what I'm getting is this.

Pre Heller incorporation, the Second Amendment is NOT incorporated in to California law and the State Constitution does NOT have a 'right to keep and bear arms' in it.
Since California does not recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms your legal status while OC'ing could be called in to question. Without legal recognition of the Second as in individual right a 'collective rights' argument could be made limiting or removing the legal status of OC.
Even if found not guilty or charges are not filed you still are out a lot of time and money.

Post Heller incorporation, the Second Amendment and the Heller decision that it is a individual right becomes part of California legal doctrine. This means that if the laws states the OC is legal and you are arrested you now have recourse. You will not risk facing an activist DA and Judge who want to use the current 'collective rights' doctrine to strike the current OC laws from the books.
Instead of running around putting out 'spot fires' there would likely only be one or two medium sized cases needed to get enough notice to limit or stop future arrests.

Like I said, this is just my guess on what the differences would be, I'm sure someone else will come along with a better answer but to me it's a matter of fighting from strength or fighting from weakness.
I'd rather have the law and case law place me in the ensconced defender position and let the DA be the one chasing up the hill against the weight of an incorporated 2nd Amendment and Heller decision.

hoffmang
07-23-2008, 9:52 AM
Gramma - when to apply for a CCW: Probably after oral arguments in Nordyke but before the opinion issues. There is an argument that some should go before and some should go after the opinion as the law is different as applied to both groups.

Mud: What we absolutely need to do is duck emergency legislation this session. This session is over 8/31 and probably sooner.

As to your second issue - what's different after incorporation: If you're arrested for unloaded open carry after the 2A is incorporated the police officer looses qualified immunity. The law is clearly established and he's arresting for the exercise of a fundamental right. That means you can actually win a Federal 1983 Civil Rights violation case after incorporation. That makes it worth the poor guy going through the hell that is being falsely accused.

Today the DA gets a swing at People v. Clark and the best we can do is spend a bunch of money and time to get the guy out of trouble.

-Gene

CCWFacts
07-23-2008, 10:04 AM
As to your second issue - what's different after incorporation: If you're arrested for unloaded open carry after the 2A is incorporated the police officer looses qualified immunity. The law is clearly established and he's arresting for the exercise of a fundamental right. That means you can actually win a Federal 1983 Civil Rights violation case after incorporation. That makes it worth the poor guy going through the hell that is being falsely accused.

It may not be clear to some what exactly that means, but the importance of this cannot be overstated.

Today, police officers, and all public officials, have sweeping immunity from liability for their actions. You can't sue a cop for doing his job, even if he does it wrong in some way, or causes injury, or whatever.

The one place where that immunity evaporates is for civil rights violations. A cop can arrest a drug dealer, and can't be sued for it, because there isn't a constitutional right to drug dealing. On the other hand, if a cop arrests someone because the guy is wearing a t-shirt that says some political message the cop doesn't like ("vote for Candidate X"), the cop can be sued personally, because the immunity goes away if it's a violation of the person's rights.

And after Heller gets incorporated, then bearing arms becomes a right, and if a person is deprived of that right, the cop who makes the arrest has no immunity and does have personal liability for that. That's bad.

Note: it's my understanding that all police departments have big liability insurance policies that also cover the officers as individuals, so even if someone wins a $5mil judgment against an officer, it doesn't come out of his pocket.

Gray Peterson
07-23-2008, 10:08 AM
OK, can I ask a stupid question?

How does Heller incorporation help a person in this situation:

A person is legally open carrying unloaded and gets arrested and charged with 12031. The person was clearly not violating 12031, but is charged anyway.

Pre Heller incoporation, the arrest is false, and the charges are invalid.

Post Heller incorporation the arrest is false, and the charges are invalid.

Either way the perp is SOL because he's got a lengthy and expensive legal battle.

How is pre/post incorporation any different here? How does it make any difference to his pocket book? I don't get it.

That's an interesting question that's been answered in terms of "political", that the California Legislature will completely ban open carry statewide if the "Unloaded Open Carry" movement has any sort of legs, though I tend to believe that the cat is already out of the bag.

That being said, the reason for this is due to the Legislature. It's all predicated on the idea that the California Legislature will miraculously suddenly start respecting the rights of gun owners if Nordyke goes our way.

I think they will do the opposite and start trying to state, like some defeatist gun owners are saying, that Heller only applies in your home, without even reading the holdings and the decision, similar to what the DC government is doing. I have no confidence that the California Legislature may not start doing something similar to "Massive Resistance" which happened in Virginia in the 1960's, passing laws to frustrate the federal courts, etc.

I've seen anti-gunners become indignant, obstinent, and otherwise trying to lash out at gun owners however they can. They have the perfect audience in the California Legislature, and if it "saves the children", fundamental rights be damned.

Update: Still sticking to my no UOC pledge.

SOneThreeCoupe
07-23-2008, 10:17 AM
It's not just a line of reasoning for me. It's an honest-to-god question. I want to understand the proponents of the "wait until after incorporation". I really do. But I still don't see how it will effect me at all if/when I get falsely arrested for 12031 when I'm not violating 12031.

It won't affect you if you get falsely arrested. It will affect and effect your defense after you are falsely arrested.

AEC1
07-23-2008, 10:27 AM
What a great thread, I have learned a great deal by reading it. I did participate in the SD event and had a great time. I think an event like that is a bit diferant, as the PD was aware and we were very organized. IMO it is diferant then just carrying at Vons, but am very willing to be further educated. I am just waiting for the go word for my wife and I to put in aplications for CCW...

CA_Libertarian
07-23-2008, 10:32 AM
Post Heller incorporation, the Second Amendment and the Heller decision that it is a individual right becomes part of California legal doctrine. This means that if the laws states the OC is legal and you are arrested you now have recourse. You will not risk facing an activist DA and Judge who want to use the current 'collective rights' doctrine to strike the current OC laws from the books.

The statutes do not permit open carry; that's not how law works. The statutes restrict open carry. It would be a good thing if an activist DA & judge struck the current gun control laws from the books.

With that correction, I think you do pose a valid point: Once we have incorporation, it will be much easier to hold bad cops accountable for their misconduct.

Gray Peterson
07-23-2008, 10:48 AM
My only other issues with this is that as it currently stands, out of staters can't apply for a CCW or an OCW/Less than 200,000 license at all. I suggest that everyone who's an out of stater in here read Ward v. Maryland and Saenz v. Roe.

CA_Libertarian
07-23-2008, 11:01 AM
I see a couple more posts clarified the questions I had, and some compelling arguments are presented. I definitely will have to mull this a bit more before I decide whether to continue OC'ing or not.

Thanks for being patient and articulating your positions so well.

Ironchef
07-23-2008, 11:06 AM
Seems alot of what's been said as reasoning for "waiting" out for incorporation will almost guarantee shall issue CCW favorability. I'd like to know how exactly, can the SCOTUS opinion on the individual right to have guns at home for self defense translates into getting the privilege of CCW in CA? How does incorporation translate into getting a shall issue condition in CA?

I'm asking because we're being asked to curtail UOC for now as a means to an end..the end being to push for shall issue status here. If there's a real chance of getting that shall issue status, then cool, I'm down. If it's a snowballs chance in hell (which I believe..probably because I don't expect much from this state), then yes, I'd be reluctant and would say the right to protect ourselves (however pitifully it may be to load an unloaded gun and present if needed) far supersedes this effort.

NoTime2Shoot
07-23-2008, 11:07 AM
....... there is a real danger of both state and local ordinances getting passed that will completely BAN open carry.


IIRC, Hayward has had an ordinance against open carry for years.

Gray Peterson
07-23-2008, 11:25 AM
Haywood has no ordinance against open carry unloaded. Checked their municodes.

tazmanian devil dog
07-23-2008, 11:26 AM
I can definetely see not doing OC right now. I live in Richmond and well, lets just say if I OC'd right now, I would be taken down at gunpoint and transported to Co Co County Jail for at least a week or more. Then would come the 10 - 20 K needed to get charges dropped. The cops here in Richmond aren't interested in justice, they are interested in arrests and statistics. Besides that, it would make us gun owners look bad. Lets keep a low profile as far as OC goes. Bid our time and strike when the time is right. Our time for shall issue CCW in this state is coming, lets not screw it up just to make a temporary point. We will have a hard time with law enforcement as it is when we eventually do get shall issue. They(not all, but most) will resent the hell out of it. Trust me on this one.

Liberty1
07-23-2008, 11:38 AM
How does incorporation translate into getting a shall issue condition in CA?

After incorporation you may see a thread from the "right people" saying, "Open Carry do it NOW" :) and it will be used to push for CCW and other legislative reforms.

Note: I don't have a crystal ball.

AEC1
07-23-2008, 11:44 AM
My only other issues with this is that as it currently stands, out of staters can't apply for a CCW or an OCW/Less than 200,000 license at all. I suggest that everyone who's an out of stater in here read Ward v. Maryland and Saenz v. Roe.

This raises a question I had not thought of. I am in the military stationed here but maintain my residance in Florida. I have never had an issue here, I have bought and sold firearms, using only my miltary ID and orders, in order to qualify for CCW do my wife and I need to change out citizenship?

M. D. Van Norman
07-23-2008, 11:49 AM
I want to be able to carry a gun either concealed or openly without having to request permission or pay the government to exercise my rights. If they go with what the Heller case said and regulate Concealed Carry, then Open Carry by default has to be the RIGHT to bear arms that the Heller referred to.

So if we are indeed fighting for the Right to Keep and BEAR Arms, the fight has to be for Loaded Open Carry.

If we are fighting for Shall Issue CCW, then we are fighting for a privelege, not a right.

This is a good point. If I recall correctly, some states have sacrificed unrestricted open carry to get permitted concealed carry. I’m sure there are many here who would make that bargain as well.

Ironically, open carry isn’t even the default way to carry a handgun. The belt is a middle layer of clothing, outside the pants but often under the shirt and always under the jacket. Should bearing arms deny the right to keep ourselves warm and dry?

Anyway, I just want to defend my family and stay out of jail at the same time.

CA_Libertarian
07-23-2008, 12:01 PM
IIRC, Hayward has had an ordinance against open carry for years.

Most local ordinances banning firearms are preempted by the legislature. I think the only exception is on property owned by the locality (such as fairgrounds - and even that is being challenged).

USN CHIEF
07-23-2008, 12:04 PM
This raises a question I had not thought of. I am in the military stationed here but maintain my residance in Florida. I have never had an issue here, I have bought and sold firearms, using only my miltary ID and orders, in order to qualify for CCW do my wife and I need to change out citizenship?

You could change your citizenship to Mexican or Canadian but you would have to get out of the Armed Forces:eek: You can legally apply for a CCW here in CA because your Active Duty Orders act as your proof of CA residency. Don't know about your wife, I think that she is still covered or might have to change her residency to CA.:p

hoffmang
07-23-2008, 12:06 PM
That being said, the reason for this is due to the Legislature. It's all predicated on the idea that the California Legislature will miraculously suddenly start respecting the rights of gun owners if Nordyke goes our way.


Emergency legislation before incorporation can withstand a preliminary injunction (an order stopping it before implementation.) Post incorporation it probably can not. I'd rather be in position to be able to stop a new bad carry or loaded law from being implemented than have to certainly suffer the consequences of that law for a while.

-Gene

AEC1
07-23-2008, 12:14 PM
You could change your citizenship to Mexican or Canadian but you would have to get out of the Armed Forces:eek: You can legally apply for a CCW here in CA because your Active Duty Orders act as your proof of CA residency. Don't know about your wife, I think that she is still covered or might have to change her residency to CA.:p

That would be ok as she has to pay state taxes anyway and I will still get the vehicle registration and FL homestead exemption, thanks...

Liberty1
07-23-2008, 12:26 PM
That would be ok as she has to pay state taxes anyway and I will still get the vehicle registration and FL homestead exemption, thanks...


The "right people" may also need individuals who are "out of state" visitors to apply. How famous does your wife want to be?

AEC1
07-23-2008, 12:38 PM
The "right people" may also need individuals who are "out of state" visitors to apply. How famous does your wife want to be?

If I know her, she would be more then willing to be the next Brittney Spears...lol

SOneThreeCoupe
07-23-2008, 12:38 PM
"This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
others retained by the people."

-California State Constitution Bill of Rights

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

-United States Constitution Bill of Rights, Ninth Amendment

We have the natural right to self-defense. Any law passed that prevents the exercise of this right to self-defense is unconstitutional, both in our state Bill of Rights and in the Ninth Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights.

CCWFacts
07-23-2008, 12:58 PM
The "right people" may also need individuals who are "out of state" visitors to apply. How famous does your wife want to be?

It seems like out-of-staters are in a great position to challenge laws here. There is no realistic way for them to bear arms in this state. They are being deprived of their rights.

Gray Peterson
07-23-2008, 1:55 PM
It seems like out-of-staters are in a great position to challenge laws here. There is no realistic way for them to bear arms in this state. They are being deprived of their rights.

*waves hand* Washington State resident here.

AEC1
07-23-2008, 2:43 PM
It seems like out-of-staters are in a great position to challenge laws here. There is no realistic way for them to bear arms in this state. They are being deprived of their rights.

Out of state military here, with a spouse, both want CCW...

CCWFacts
07-23-2008, 3:06 PM
Well, Lonnie and AEC1, hopefully Nordyke will incorporate Heller within the short-term (6 months) and then you'll be able to apply. When you are denied, your chief or sheriff will have deprived you of your civil rights, and so he will lose his civil immunity, and so you will be able to hit him with a wonderful lawsuit. You will win money, the city or county taxpayers will be happy that they did everything possible to keep guns off the streets, and it will be a win for everyone.

grammaton76
07-23-2008, 4:20 PM
Ok, Gene - given that you're planning on having a bunch of folks go before and after... how about we give you our email addresses, county, maybe even race/gender, then you can separate the groups for optimal impact and tell us when to go do things?

pullnshoot25
07-25-2008, 12:16 PM
Well, I am convinced. The legalization of normal OC and shall-issue CCW permits is, in the end, the ultimate goal. As such, I will stand down on my OC activities for the time being.

Time to say some novenas...

gunsmith
07-25-2008, 2:37 PM
HOW do we get the message out there, the people who do it but are not
on calguns? not on the internet?

What about all those folks I used to see on the trails and campsites in National Forest land open carrying loaded?
They're still out there.

sorensen440
07-25-2008, 2:42 PM
HOW do we get the message out there, the people who do it but are not
on calguns? not on the internet?

What about all those folks I used to see on the trails and campsites in National Forest land open carrying loaded?
They're still out there.

Id recommend against trying to convince someone you don't know in forest land to not openly carry there guns

Matt C
07-25-2008, 2:49 PM
Id recommend against trying to convince someone you don't know in forest land to not openly carry there guns

Especially considering that the guy with the gun in the NF might be guarding his pot farm...

Paladin
07-25-2008, 7:49 PM
deleted OT post

MudCamper
07-25-2008, 8:10 PM
What about all those folks I used to see on the trails and campsites in National Forest land open carrying loaded?
They're still out there.

That is an exreme overreaction. OC in the NF is the norm. Even if you agree with or abide by the "stop carrying" argument, there is no reason to stop carrying in the NF. IMO that is just plain absurd. I have carried in the NF for the last 20 years.

N6ATF
07-25-2008, 10:43 PM
If the Open Carry community voluntarily stood down until August 31st- then no new bills can be introduced or tampered with until 2009.

This opinion is quite optimistic. I don't see why the legislature wouldn't fast-track a bill in this session (even in the total absence of OC) purely out of spite for gun owners, the Constitution, and a general disdain for the preservation of human life.

swhatb
07-25-2008, 11:39 PM
ran out of time reading... it goes on and on and on.... good thread. a sticky should be summarized.

hoffmang
07-25-2008, 11:51 PM
This opinion is quite optimistic. I don't see why the legislature wouldn't fast-track a bill in this session (even in the total absence of OC) purely out of spite for gun owners, the Constitution, and a general disdain for the preservation of human life.

If we're careful from here until the end of August this will not get on the radar at the Legislature. We have enough inside access to know it's not there yet. Further, this session is only a wee bit distracted by... a 15 Billion dollar hole in the budget. Nothing can be passed except the budget after 8/31.

If we get through 8/31 - and all signs point to that being true, then the earliest the legislature could do something is April-May of next year. First of all, that's not likely to happen for all sorts of legislature specific reasons so we've really bought an entire year. More importantly, before the legislature goes back into session, we are likely to have an opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals incorporating the 2nd against California.

-Gene

pullnshoot25
07-26-2008, 12:06 AM
If we're careful from here until the end of August this will not get on the radar at the Legislature. We have enough inside access to know it's not there yet. Further, this session is only a wee bit distracted by... a 15 Billion dollar hole in the budget. Nothing can be passed except the budget after 8/31.

If we get through 8/31 - and all signs point to that being true, then the earliest the legislature could do something is April-May of next year. First of all, that's not likely to happen for all sorts of legislature specific reasons so we've really bought an entire year. More importantly, before the legislature goes back into session, we are likely to have an opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals incorporating the 2nd against California.

-Gene

WOO HOO! I can go to bed a happy man!

gunsmith
07-26-2008, 1:40 PM
can some of these post be deleted so not to much info gets into the hands of comitted antis?

davedog665
07-26-2008, 2:59 PM
If we're careful from here until the end of August this will not get on the radar at the Legislature. We have enough inside access to know it's not there yet. Further, this session is only a wee bit distracted by... a 15 Billion dollar hole in the budget. Nothing can be passed except the budget after 8/31.

If we get through 8/31 - and all signs point to that being true, then the earliest the legislature could do something is April-May of next year. First of all, that's not likely to happen for all sorts of legislature specific reasons so we've really bought an entire year. More importantly, before the legislature goes back into session, we are likely to have an opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals incorporating the 2nd against California.

-Gene

I really like the last sentence here:D

bigstick61
07-26-2008, 10:02 PM
I don't se how incorporation will help with concealed carry. The opinion in Heller clearly stated that concealed carry was not a right and could be regulated, restricted, etc. On the other hand, they stated open carry (loaded) to be a right. If anything, incorporation would help open carry, not concealed carry.

And even if we get shall-issue, if the cost of a CCW is what it is in my county, I would not bother to get one and open carry instead. Personally, I will not discourage anyone from open carrying, and probably will do it myself. It is more practical than carrying a pistol locked in a briefcase for defense, and defense is the reason to carry. I also don't think you'll have much luck convincing most open-carriers to stop carrying. It's one of the only ways we have to protect ourselves, and you would be asking people to stop exercising one of the few things they can legally do in this State.

Decoligny
07-26-2008, 11:32 PM
I don't se how incorporation will help with concealed carry. The opinion in Heller clearly stated that concealed carry was not a right and could be regulated, restricted, etc. On the other hand, they stated open carry (loaded) to be a right. If anything, incorporation would help open carry, not concealed carry.

And even if we get shall-issue, if the cost of a CCW is what it is in my county, I would not bother to get one and open carry instead. Personally, I will not discourage anyone from open carrying, and probably will do it myself. It is more practical than carrying a pistol locked in a briefcase for defense, and defense is the reason to carry. I also don't think you'll have much luck convincing most open-carriers to stop carrying. It's one of the only ways we have to protect ourselves, and you would be asking people to stop exercising one of the few things they can legally do in this State.

There are some people who actually want to get their License to Carry Concealed.

When Heller is incorporated, they are relying on the fact that Loaded Open Carry will be made the legal standard for exercising the 2A right.

I think their hopes are that this will tick off the hoplophobic masses, and the terrified sheeple will want to do all they can to make sure they can't see the dreaded guns, because if they can't see them, they can't be hurt by them. :rolleyes:

This will force the legislature to make sure that anyone who wants to hide away their gun from the sensitive eyes of the fearful masses will have the ability to legally do just that.

N6ATF
07-27-2008, 11:20 PM
With an increase in the fees and regulatory requirements to discourage the non-campaign-contributors from even applying.

Gray Peterson
07-28-2008, 1:29 AM
With an increase in the fees and regulatory requirements to discourage the non-campaign-contributors from even applying.

Then one just continues to open carry and gives a finger to the CCW licensing system.

pullnshoot25
07-28-2008, 2:29 PM
I really like the last sentence here:D

So around what time is the opinion of the 9th Circuit going to happen?

ke6guj
07-28-2008, 2:33 PM
So around what time is the opinion of the 9th Circuit going to happen?Nordyke is awaiting scheduling for arguements right now in 2-3 months and a ruling would be expected ~3 months later. So, we could have an 9th Circuit Incorporation ruling in ~6 months or so.

swhatb
09-05-2008, 9:32 AM
Backwater OPS -

What happened or is happening with the Incorporation case?

bwiese
09-05-2008, 9:45 AM
Backwater OPS -

What happened or is happening with the Incorporation case?

It's trudging along as expected. Don't expect to hear much for 3-6 months.

There may be some stuff in relatively minor other case(s) below the radar that could help in this arena too [if these cases don't go away, which is likely]

Matt C
09-05-2008, 11:02 AM
Backwater OPS -

What happened or is happening with the Incorporation case?

The courts are very slow. If I get any updates from TMLLP I will post them here right away.

Annie Oakley
09-05-2008, 11:49 AM
Guys, you may have answered this question already, but I'm going to ask anyway. Why wasn't the 2A incorporated at the time that the 14th amendment was ratified ? It seems that laws like the 1st, 4th, and 5th were. So what makes the 2A so different ? Also, I don't remember who said it, but someone brought up the point of OC and CCW going hand in hand. I asked on another post, but I really didn't understand some of the answers.

Open carry only just doesn't seem to make sense to me. I know we have gorgeous weather here and in the summer it gets very hot. But, in about two months a person will need a jacket at night, and we will be into the rainy season also. I could carry in my purse, but what if someone tries to steal it ? This just doesn't seem so absolute, and it just makes me not want to carry anything without plenty of assurances.

ke6guj
09-05-2008, 12:10 PM
Read this; Wiki has a pretty good write-up regarding Incorporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

hoffmang
09-05-2008, 12:44 PM
The Second Amendment was arguably the BOR item most meant to be incorprorated. However, due to intrinsic racism after the Civil War the Supreme Court gutted the Amendment. It took until the 1930's-1960's for the Supreme Court to start overruling the horrible decisions from the late 1800's ("It's ok, they only murdered 50ish black guys who were the sheriff and his posse - no civil rights violation there" - see Cruikshank...)

Nordyke's Incorporation filings are due 9/11 with replies due 10/2.

-Gene

WolfMansDad
09-05-2008, 1:01 PM
Annie, the short (and perhaps cynical) answer to your question is, being armed is the right our overlords, liberal or conservative, most don't want us to have. An armed populace limits the power of the ruling class, and nobody likes having their power limited. It also scares the crap out of them, which it is supposed to do. Keeps them out of trouble, and that was the whole purpose of that amendment.

mikehaas
09-05-2008, 2:32 PM
You know, I had a really extensive post and it got deleted by the back space of the keyboard.

CTRL-Z is "undo" in any browser that I know of. Should have undone that backspace and brought back your good post. Maybe next time.

Look, folks, There are - correction: HAVE BEEN - for years - many "Right People" working hard for our rights. Back before many of you owned your first gun. Before the current "Right People" were here.

There have also been "Wrong People". No, not anti-gunners, I mean those who purport to be pro-gun, but either knowingly or unknowingly, hurt the cause. And you'de be surprised how easy it can be to seriously hurt the cause these days because the media will make it so. Or one of our fellow gun-owners will stubbornly carry a point too far (Silveira?) and almost kill the Second Amendment for the rest of us. Or popoff for SF media and get the Prop H handgun ban put on the ballot when NRA had quietly killed it behind the scenes (costing NRA millions to then defeat it in court). Or trading the firing of a CAF&G commisioner for the passing of Microstamping & Lead Ammo Bans. I can cite case after case and they all boil down to someone doing what they were wisely advised not to do.

It's a shame too because "our side" has repeatedly been setback and had to make up (where possible) in the aftermath. Where would we be today without that huge waste of resources?

So respect the work of those former "Right People" and the ones who have signed up for the job. Be part of the team and support it by excercising a little patience RIGHT NOW. We're winning - this is not the tim to act on frustration or make demands.

The "Right People" have been doing a bang up job, so let's not "short circuit" them by taking legal but foolish actions.

Any organized "OC" event is a mistake. And how much of a mistake you may not find out about until later. It's only through unity we make progress.

IMO, everyone who is "on the team" is one of the "Right People." And there's a lot of them here.

Annie Oakley
09-05-2008, 2:54 PM
The Second Amendment was arguably the BOR item most meant to be incorprorated. However, due to intrinsic racism after the Civil War the Supreme Court gutted the Amendment. It took until the 1930's-1960's for the Supreme Court to start overruling the horrible decisions from the late 1800's ("It's ok, they only murdered 50ish black guys who were the sheriff and his posse - no civil rights violation there" - see Cruikshank...)

Nordyke's Incorporation filings are due 9/11 with replies due 10/2.

-Gene

Originally posted by Wolfmansdad
Annie, the short (and perhaps cynical) answer to your question is, being armed is the right our overlords, liberal or conservative, most don't want us to have. An armed populace limits the power of the ruling class, and nobody likes having their power limited. It also scares the crap out of them, which it is supposed to do. Keeps them out of trouble, and that was the whole purpose of that amendment.

Thanks guys, but how do you feel about your very expensive mode of self defense being drenched by a downpour ?

I guess that's what prompts me to ask. I think I would hate to have to dry my gun everytime I came out of the rain. So, it seems to me that open carry would be okay, but it would seem like such a nusance. I know how I felt when I was in the Army and we had to deal with rainstorms. It was terrible and I was constantly oiling and cleaning my M16. I think we need CCW just so that we can protect our guns from the environment. So what do you think ?

Matt C
09-05-2008, 2:56 PM
Thanks guys, but how do you feel about your very expensive mode of self defense being drenched by a downpour ?

I guess that's what prompts me to ask. I think I would hate to have to dry my gun everytime I came out of the rain. So, it seems to me that open carry would be okay, but it would seem like such a nusance. I know how I felt when I was in the Army and we had to deal with rainstorms. It was terrible and I was constantly oiling and cleaning my M16. I think we need CCW just so that we can protect our guns from the environment. So what do you think ?

Fully enclosed holsters would still be considered "open" carry, and would protect your piece from the rain.

Annie Oakley
09-05-2008, 2:58 PM
Fully enclosed holsters would still be considered "open" carry, and would protect your piece from the rain.

Wouldn't that mean that I would have to wear some big old Indiana Jones kind of belt ? That's just so tacky.

Matt C
09-05-2008, 3:01 PM
Wouldn't that mean that I would have to wear some big old Indiana Jones kind of belt ? That's just so tacky.

Heh, well , can't help you there. I think it would look good on me-

http://a390.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/17/l_e2fe208c1f621aa1229ae15a2c2a89d5.jpg

MrSigmaDOT40
09-05-2008, 3:03 PM
Let me just say that I support the concept of open carry. I think all rights should be exercised!

However -- open carry, at this juncture, is simply premature.

Due to the activities of certain people (on both sides of the gun control debate), there is a real danger of both state and local ordinances getting passed that will completely BAN open carry.

This assessment is based on numerous conversations I have had with people who are familiar with the political landscape in California.

At this point, OC does nothing to educate anyone, but rather simply gives local and state politicians a new, convenient, and politically-expedient "gun control" target.

OLL's are a different story. They are not "in your face" with respect to the general public. They are below the radar of most politicians. Not only that, but the DOJ has essentially given up the right to name new listed AW's. We can make a lot of progress with respect to OLL's right now.

We have to pick our battles, and OC is not something that is wise to pursue at this juncture. It will be in the future, after Heller incorporation.

Off topic a bit but I'm from Oakland too, if you need a OLL shooting partner PM me some time!

MrSigmaDOT40
09-05-2008, 3:05 PM
Guys, you may have answered this question already, but I'm going to ask anyway. Why wasn't the 2A incorporated at the time that the 14th amendment was ratified ? It seems that laws like the 1st, 4th, and 5th were. So what makes the 2A so different ? Also, I don't remember who said it, but someone brought up the point of OC and CCW going hand in hand. I asked on another post, but I really didn't understand some of the answers.

Open carry only just doesn't seem to make sense to me. I know we have gorgeous weather here and in the summer it gets very hot. But, in about two months a person will need a jacket at night, and we will be into the rainy season also. I could carry in my purse, but what if someone tries to steal it ? This just doesn't seem so absolute, and it just makes me not want to carry anything without plenty of assurances.


Don't know about you, but if I have to wear a coat or if I'm wearing my usual long shirts I'll use a Drop Leg Holsters.

GuyW
09-05-2008, 3:11 PM
Fully enclosed holsters would still be considered "open" carry, and would protect your piece from the rain.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

"PC 12025 (f) Firearms carried OPENLY in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section."

Annie Oakley
09-05-2008, 3:16 PM
OMG, well thanks, but I'm not a guy and I don't always wear things that allow me to carry a gun like that. I think I can honestly say that open carry is not a real option for women. We have to get CCW in California. I have a clutch that my little SD 9mm fits very well in, along with lipstick, compact and things like that.

CHS
09-05-2008, 3:49 PM
OMG, well thanks, but I'm not a guy and I don't always wear things that allow me to carry a gun like that. I think I can honestly say that open carry is not a real option for women. We have to get CCW in California. I have a clutch that my little SD 9mm fits very well in, along with lipstick, compact and things like that.

Hey Annie, I'm reading the thread and realized that the reason we're pushing for open carry isn't really being spelled out. Even though you're asking the right questions, no one's giving you the right answers.

So here's the basic reasoning:

1.) California has inherently discriminatory "may issue" CCW
2.) California has, against the 2A, banned the right to "Bear arms" by restricting loaded open-carry

Now, it will most likely, via incorporation, be easy to get #2 struck down as unconstitutional, allowing citizens to openly carry loaded firearms for self defense and to exercise our 2A rights.

The people in power, realizing how scary a bunch of civilians carrying around on their hip loaded firearms is, will then hopefully strike down all current CCW legislation and replace it with "shall issue" non-discriminatory CCW legislation.

So, basically the whole reason to go after UOC is so that we get shall-issue CCW. But there are certain steps that "the right people" want to take, in certain order, to get to that goal. The first step is incorporation, which is why this thread is calling for people NOT to open-carry unloaded.

CHS
09-05-2008, 3:50 PM
By the way, I'm sure my explanation leaves out a lot of stuff, so don't jump on me anyone :)

trinydex
09-05-2008, 4:00 PM
Legally speaking, what are your rights if you went from LEGAL unloaded OC to a situation where you have a loaded gun in public post shootout? Assuming its a justified shooting and everything is kosher, you DID just break the law and you've got yourself a loaded weapon. Lets say you didn't have to discharge your gun, you still have a loaded gun in public.


isn't this covered by imminent danger?

Matt C
09-05-2008, 4:08 PM
isn't this covered by imminent danger?

Yes, there are exceptions for self defense and when making an arrest.

Theseus
09-05-2008, 4:22 PM
The problem I have is that I don't want to CC! I want to OC!

I don't want to have to spend the money, time or energy to protect my family just because a few people in the society are "scared". If they don't have to hide their crosses or other signs of religion I shouldn't have to hide my tools of protection. I also want to send a signal to criminals that we will protect ourselves and not be made easy victims, a hint they will not so easily get if they can't see my gun.

trinydex
09-05-2008, 4:56 PM
Yes, there are exceptions for self defense and when making an arrest.

btw we're out of the 8/31/08 right? so were any emergency legislations proposed?

Annie Oakley
09-05-2008, 5:22 PM
Hey Annie, I'm reading the thread and realized that the reason we're pushing for open carry isn't really being spelled out. Even though you're asking the right questions, no one's giving you the right answers.

So here's the basic reasoning:

1.) California has inherently discriminatory "may issue" CCW
2.) California has, against the 2A, banned the right to "Bear arms" by restricting loaded open-carry

Now, it will most likely, via incorporation, be easy to get #2 struck down as unconstitutional, allowing citizens to openly carry loaded firearms for self defense and to exercise our 2A rights.

The people in power, realizing how scary a bunch of civilians carrying around on their hip loaded firearms is, will then hopefully strike down all current CCW legislation and replace it with "shall issue" non-discriminatory CCW legislation.

So, basically the whole reason to go after UOC is so that we get shall-issue CCW. But there are certain steps that "the right people" want to take, in certain order, to get to that goal. The first step is incorporation, which is why this thread is calling for people NOT to open-carry unloaded.

This is very helpful, thank you so much.

So, if I understand everything I've read so far, we'll have UOC without worry of arrest in about a year or so, legal LOC in about 3 years, and shall issue in about 5-10 years. Does that sound right ? If this is true, I should be a member of the BAR by then. :p

Matt C
09-05-2008, 5:33 PM
This is very helpful, thank you so much.

So, if I understand everything I've read so far, we'll have UOC without worry of arrest in about a year or so, legal LOC in about 3 years, and shall issue in about 5-10 years. Does that sound right ? If this is true, I should be a member of the BAR by then. :p

More like, UOC in 6 months, LOC in 1-2 years, and shall issue in 3 years.

Matt C
09-05-2008, 5:34 PM
btw we're out of the 8/31/08 right? so were any emergency legislations proposed?

Not that I know of.

Annie Oakley
09-05-2008, 5:37 PM
More like, UOC in 6 months, LOC in 1-2 years, and shall issue in 3 years.

That's so good to hear. I hope you're right.

nicki
09-06-2008, 12:55 AM
I can see open loaded carry happening within 2 years.

Don't know if the state will pass a "shall issue law', but I bet alot of sheriffs will start going shall issue on their own so that they won't have open carry walks in their counties.

Ohio followed this strategy and it caused enough heat to get former Gov Taft to finally sign a CCW bill in Ohio.

Ohio had no ccw system, we do, which means local sheriffs can feel the heat much faster.

Nicki

hoffmang
09-06-2008, 10:08 AM
Ohio had no ccw system, we do, which means local sheriffs can feel the heat much faster.

That's an understatement...

-Gene

tombinghamthegreat
09-06-2008, 10:33 AM
More like, UOC in 6 months, LOC in 1-2 years, and shall issue in 3 years.

Is that realistic time frame or wishful thinking?

GuyW
09-06-2008, 10:37 AM
...I bet alot of sheriffs will start going shall issue on their own so that they won't have open carry walks in their counties.


MMM mmm mmm - I can see gun owners bused in from several states for huge OC walks in San Fran, etc.

Great media event...we can bring VP Palin and others out to be keynote speakers...

coolusername2007
07-14-2009, 1:18 AM
So I find this old thread. I don't know how because I can't even retrace my steps that found it to begin with. :confused: So like a good boy, I read the whole book without turning to the last page first. :Angel_anim: I figure something really good is coming the whole time. Then anticipation builds all through my diligent reading...and then...total anti-climax! :sleeping: The book isn't finished! How can that be?! We've had Heller, and Nordyke. So before I go out and beat somebody's dog please answer the question...HOW ABOUT NOW?!?!? :notworthy: Did the "right people" ever give the green light? :thumbsup: Or did everybody just start open carrying again without their blessing? :devil2:

pullnshoot25
07-14-2009, 1:34 AM
So I find this old thread. I don't know how because I can't even retrace my steps that found it to begin with. :confused: So like a good boy, I read the whole book without turning to the last page first. :Angel_anim: I figure something really good is coming the whole time. Then anticipation builds all through my diligent reading...and then...total anti-climax! :sleeping: The book isn't finished! How can that be?! We've had Heller, and Nordyke. So before I go out and beat somebody's dog please answer the question...HOW ABOUT NOW?!?!? :notworthy: Did the "right people" ever give the green light? :thumbsup: Or did everybody just start open carrying again without their blessing? :devil2:

Umm... kind of?

StoneRoots
07-14-2009, 1:44 AM
CCW reform in 2010 ... we CAN do it !!!!!!

stuckinhippytown
07-14-2009, 3:30 AM
Master Shall I wipe my rear now?? Can I please, it hurts. Ummm I wasnt planning using the support of CAlguns. I strap up everyday by myself Im the only one in Chico that does this im not in So Cal... I will continue doing it til the PD gets sick of me and hands me my CCW but on a personal note I hate concealing ITs easier to worry about not concealing it than always wondering if someone can see it.

xxdabroxx
07-14-2009, 7:22 AM
Until you wander into a school zone and get bent over and ... by the man...

Theseus
07-14-2009, 8:02 AM
Until you wander into a school zone and get bent over and ... by the man...

Well, I am not getting bent over yet, but they are sure getting the lube ready. :chris:

I think that all things considered though, I will make it out with my virginity intact and only a bill about the size of BWO when I am done. . .

artherd
07-14-2009, 2:21 PM
Master Shall I wipe my rear now?? Can I please, it hurts. Ummm I wasnt planning using the support of CAlguns. I strap up everyday by myself Im the only one in Chico that does this im not in So Cal... I will continue doing it til the PD gets sick of me and hands me my CCW but on a personal note I hate concealing ITs easier to worry about not concealing it than always wondering if someone can see it.

I hope you're well funded!

Liberty1
07-14-2009, 2:42 PM
Did the "right people" ever give the green light?

No green light yet but a warning to have $$$$$ to fight false or real charges.

Prudence dictates generally waiting until there is "bear" case law post Nordyke (which may come out of Sykes or a follow up case (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=180923). This may take years :().

Those who continue to UOC generally find semi-formal groups with whom to do met-ups (there is some safety in numbers from unlawful police action). See Pullnshoots blog (http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/) for some of that info or check OCDO.

It is also thought that the likely expansion of the school zone firearm ban (from 1000' to 1500') is in response to UOC activities.

coolusername2007
07-14-2009, 11:33 PM
No green light yet but a warning to have $$$$$ to fight false or real charges.

Prudence dictates generally waiting until there is "bear" case law post Nordyke (which may come out of Sykes or a follow up case (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=180923). This may take years :().

Those who continue to UOC generally find semi-formal groups with whom to do met-ups (there is some safety in numbers from unlawful police action). See Pullnshoots blog (http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/) for some of that info or check OCDO.

It is also thought that the likely expansion of the school zone firearm ban (from 1000' to 1500') is in response to UOC activities.

Bummer. That's a shame. What are "they" waiting for? The Nordyke en banc decision? Sykes? A possible 2A SCOTUS decision in the next session? All of the above? More? :rolleyes:

Theseus
07-15-2009, 11:42 AM
They are waiting for the voice of God to boom for all to hear "Open carry is now a constitutionally protected right".

Now, I don't know if they are really waiting for God to say it, but certainly someone.

N6ATF
07-15-2009, 12:30 PM
Considering the harassment of open carriers even where it's protected in state constitutions, it may take the voice of God and the threat of divine intervention to force traitors' compliance.

Untamed1972
07-15-2009, 12:34 PM
Considering the harassment of open carriers even where it's protected in state constitutions, it may take the voice of God and the threat of divine intervention to force traitors' compliance.

I'd rather God just zap them with lightning and then say "Who wants to be next?" :58: