Is it possible open carry is harmful?

[what2be]

First, let me state, I do have a ccw, and im all for shall issue instead of our current ccw laws. But what Im curious about is, do you ever think that the OC movement will do more harm than good?

What im referring to is that everytime someone in the public see's someone open carrying, there is a good chance that person will be uncomfortable.

Now it goes to reason, that if these same people complain enough, they could very well get the law changed to outlaw open carry, or at the very least hurt the ccw movement by making current laws even more strict.

I know alot of people, especially white collar people, that feel that wearing a gun (outside of law enforcement) went away in the late 1800's. They feel there is no place in a civilized society for wearing guns, and that's why we have the police.

now, as you and I well know, the police cant be everywhere at once, and there is good reason to be prepared for a encounter that could save you or your families life, but I got to thinking of what some of these people said, and I can see their point of this hurting more than helping current carry laws.

Has this been discussed in the OC movement at all?

[CitaDeL]

...everytime someone in the public see's someone open carrying, there is a good chance that person will be uncomfortable.

Has this been discussed in the OC movement at all?

Yes, there has been some debate about it.

The problem with esteeming other people's comfort more than your own rights only nets you the results anti-gunners desire. I have not encountered anyone so agrieved at my state of being armed that I would discontinue my activities. Even if I did find such a person, I would persist, not out of spite, but because I am in no way responsible for their irrational and unreasonable reaction to exposed firearms.

Is this inflammatory? Will this result in legislation banning the practice? Yes, to both. The Black Panthers initiated the passage of 12031 nearly 40 years ago by storming the State Capitol and even today, the legislature has seen this modern activism as such a threat that they are moving to expand the gun free zones around schools in 626.9 by an additional 500 feet. To me, this is a mixed blessing... on one hand you see the traitors tip their hand as to the specious and arbitrary nature of their bans- on the other, if passed the open carry movement will slow as fewer people will want to risk a felony charge. There is no benefit however, by doing nothing.

The argument that this is not the 1800's, that we do not live in the 'Wild West' is wholly accurate. In examining the statistics our country in this modern age, has more murders, rapes, and robberies per capita than our counterparts of the 1880's. The irony is that there were fewer police and there was no 911 to call in case of an emergency that demanded an armed response.

I believe repeated exposure of the general public to ordinary people carrying firearms will engender tolerance. The legislature on the other hand, isnt as likely to be swayed.

[Meplat]

Yes, ad infinitum. The consensus at the moment seems to be that while respecting and admiring and supporting UOCers, many of us to the point of financially contributing to their defense, it actually could be a strategic mistake right now.

However, some are not just crusaders and actually need to do it to keep themselves and their families safe.
:thumbsup:

P.S. Unlawful CCW is probably less legally and financially risky than lawful UOC, go figure.


First, let me state, I do have a ccw, and im all for shall issue instead of our current ccw laws. But what Im curious about is, do you ever think that the OC movement will do more harm than good?

What im referring to is that everytime someone in the public see's someone open carrying, there is a good chance that person will be uncomfortable.

Now it goes to reason, that if these same people complain enough, they could very well get the law changed to outlaw open carry, or at the very least hurt the ccw movement by making current laws even more strict.

I know alot of people, especially white collar people, that feel that wearing a gun (outside of law enforcement) went away in the late 1800's. They feel there is no place in a civilized society for wearing guns, and that's why we have the police.

now, as you and I well know, the police cant be everywhere at once, and there is good reason to be prepared for a encounter that could save you or your families life, but I got to thinking of what some of these people said, and I can see their point of this hurting more than helping current carry laws.

Has this been discussed in the OC movement at all?

[M1A Rifleman]

Some may take your question/post wrong, and be ticked that you'd dare ask since you have a CCW and are in a location where a CCW is obtainable.

However, I would agree with you, OC may end up changing the laws in three possible ways:

1) What the OC folks want: More people OCing, increased political pressure makes the laws change to be less restrictive for OCing than they are now, meaning less hassels by LEO's; OR

2) What the OC and CCW folks want: More people OCing, causing political pressure to mount a change in the CCW laws to be less restrictive. This could be by court challenge based upone Heller that OCing and CCW is too restricted, OR

3) What I bet will happen: More people OC, causing political pressure from the police unions and others to prohibit any carry of handguns without a CCW, and without any loosening of the CCW laws. After all, loaded open carry was legal until about 1962 when the Panthers stormed the Capitol with loaded weapons. After that stunt the legislature wasted no time outlawing the carrying of loaded weapons in public. Check it out, they changed the law like in a few months after the stunt. If they could do that then, they can easily outlaw OC today.

Just my two cents.

[bwiese]

Normally I'd say UOC could add unneeded drama at the wrong time.

The worst thing that could happen - certainly for the individual! - would be if a UOCer got shot thru some escalated incident with a cop. Things could well go sideways.

This is in part why CGF asked folks to retrain themselves until close of legislative session last year.

However, post-Heller, and with the pendency of Nordyke, UOC may lead to interesting conflicts with bad CCW issuance policies.

One might even think it may be very useful for literate UOCers to work with knowledgeable folks in their county for the best attempts at 'good cause' and file for CCW and go thru the complete process all the way to full formal rejection, regardless of dissuasion of continuing the process by the 'powers that be'. An arrest of an UOCer who's been denied a CCW by a rational CCW application with good cause stated that's been good enough for at least some counties can lead to 'favorable interesting situations'.

There will have to be an outlet for exercise of RKBA and one outlet is blocked, another has to pop open. My bet is that 'panic the natives' UOC may lead to somewhat more rational far-less-discretionary CCW. Some 'pure OC/UOC' folks may dislike that but at least we get somewhere.

[knuckled]

What im referring to is that everytime someone in the public see's someone open carrying, there is a good chance that person will be uncomfortable.

Now it goes to reason, that if these same people complain enough, they could very well get the law changed to outlaw open carry, or at the very least hurt the ccw movement by making current laws even more strict.



Not UOC'ing to avoid others trying to make UOC illegal seems to be a self ban on it anyway.

As far as hurting the CCW movement, many that can't get one think here is little to loose. The most likely way that the CCW situation will change in CA is through incorporation of Heller + more 2A litigation*. If done that way, the whims of a few uncomfortable fence sitters in CA probably won't matter too much.

*unless you have some extra info about AB 357.

[megavolt121]

3) What I bet will happen: More people OC, causing political pressure from the police unions and others to prohibit any carry of handguns without a CCW, and without any loosening of the CCW laws. After all, loaded open carry was legal until about 1962 when the Panthers stormed the Capitol with loaded weapons. After that stunt the legislature wasted no time outlawing the carrying of loaded weapons in public. Check it out, they changed the law like in a few months after the stunt. If they could do that then, they can easily outlaw OC today.

Just my two cents.

I'm more willing to put money on this scenario... Politicians won't care about presenting an alternative to OC, they'll just ban it.

[KWA-S]

Well, I think that while people may be uncomfortable now, they will eventually become desensitized to guns if people open carry enough. Seeing people going about their business, not doing anything shifty, carrying a gun would show them that not everyone with a gun is a movie villain. And if they are uncomfortable with it, let them issue CCWs. :D

[oaklander]

I go back and forth on UOC. On the one hand, I think it's great that people are exercising their rights! On the other hand, I worry about the fallout when something goes sideways.

That being said, I do respect the passion and hard work that the UOC'er are doing. They are among some of the hardest working RKBA folks in the movement, IMHO!

[SevenFifty]

P.S. Unlawful CCW is probably less legally and financially risky than lawful UOC, go figure.


Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the penalty for unlawful CCW is?
Lets say you got busted for unlawful CCW with a handgun that is legally registered to you..

[Meplat]

I'm not one of the legale experts but it is my understanding that first offense, non-gang-banger, registered to you is misdemeanor. But, generally, the more urban the jurisdiction demeanor they get.

Around here if you are fat & forty, have a clean record, and nothing else about the circumstances smells bad, it's pretty much catch and release. I don't do it any more because I have a CCW. But, I have been caught three times and it never progressed beyond "have a nice day". When It became a wobbler I was very carful until I could get my CCW.:43:



Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the penalty for unlawful CCW is?
Lets say you got busted for unlawful CCW with a handgun that is legally registered to you..

[SgtDinosaur]

I'm not one of the legale experts but it is my understanding that first offense, non-gang-banger, registered to you is misdemeanor. But, generally, the more urban the jurisdiction demeanor they get.

Around here if you are fat & forty, have a clean record, and nothing else about the circumstances smells bad, it's pretty much catch and release. I don't do it any more because I have a CCW. But, I have been caught three times and it never progressed beyond "have a nice day". When It became a wobbler I was very carful until I could get my CCW.:43:

That's what I was thinking, too. In the olden days I thought it was first offense: misdemeanor and second offense: felony, but that could be wrong. Also in the olden days it was not strictly enforced. I had a Sheriff's deputy advise me to "buy a piece and carry it" back around 1980 when I was having a problem with some individuals. Now, as Meplat said, I believe it is a wobbler. The really stupid thing is a collapsible baton is an automatic felony.

As for the original topic, I was wondering the same thing and was very interested what Bill Wiese had to say.

[Moto4Fun]

Mind elaborating as to what a "wobbler" is?

[The Wingnut]

But, I have been caught three times and it never progressed beyond "have a nice day".

Wow, no kidding? I wish the rest of the state was that way.

I was curious as to what 'wobbler' means, plugged it into Google and got this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_offence). Interesting.

[knuckled]

Mind elaborating as to what a "wobbler" is?

A criminal offense that can be charged/penalized as a felony OR misdemeanor.

[evan69]

So you propose that we don't use our rights, so that people won't feel the need to take them away? What?

[rp55]

The Black Panthers initiated the passage of 12031 nearly 40 years ago by storming the State Capitol


See what we could be doing today if it weren't for those bad Black Panthers.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DPCxYPN3yDM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DPCxYPN3yDM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[MP301]

Some may take your question/post wrong, and be ticked that you'd dare ask since you have a CCW and are in a location where a CCW is obtainable.

However, I would agree with you, OC may end up changing the laws in three possible ways:

1) What the OC folks want: More people OCing, increased political pressure makes the laws change to be less restrictive for OCing than they are now, meaning less hassels by LEO's; OR

2) What the OC and CCW folks want: More people OCing, causing political pressure to mount a change in the CCW laws to be less restrictive. This could be by court challenge based upone Heller that OCing and CCW is too restricted, OR

3) What I bet will happen: More people OC, causing political pressure from the police unions and others to prohibit any carry of handguns without a CCW, and without any loosening of the CCW laws. After all, loaded open carry was legal until about 1962 when the Panthers stormed the Capitol with loaded weapons. After that stunt the legislature wasted no time outlawing the carrying of loaded weapons in public. Check it out, they changed the law like in a few months after the stunt. If they could do that then, they can easily outlaw OC today.

Just my two cents.


I agree with most of what you said, but Im not sure your considering a few things. Any one of your possibilities could happen, but #3 is no more possible then the other 2 options.

The difference now from when the Black Panthers pulled their stunt is the Heller decision and the current trends on firearms, 2A, etc. Correct me if im wrong, nut we are seeing progress in CA and in many other states.

Do you think the geniuses the run CA Gov really want to try and change the OC law at this juncture? They run the serious risk of expediting things in the other direction then they want to go by biting into that apple.

On top of that, it may sound strange, but its begining to appear that Obama getting elected may just end up being the best possible thinng for our gun rights. The fact that he is so anti-gun and the fact that he appointed the best possible people to his administration to further an anti-gun agenda, has created a serious sense of urgency about us losing our rights.

Think about it, we are seeing more motivation ( I know I have gotten off my butt ) in a lot of people....look at the gun/ammo buying frenzy.

A lot of people voted for Obama, even pro gun people ( I didnt vote for him ), because of money issues - thinking (mistakenly IMO) that because he was from the other party or could somehow do better or whatever. Even these folks are buying guns and ammo!

So, IMO, UOC is not a negative at this time...I think it has more positives then negatives....

[Liberty1]

See what we could be doing today if it weren't for the CA. Legislature.

fixed it for you.:cool2:

[tyrist]

It's harmful to itself...if it ever gets really wide media attention expect the legislature of California to outlaw it quickly.

[CitaDeL]

It's harmful to itself...if it ever gets really wide media attention expect the legislature of California to outlaw it quickly.

We already have the legislature's attention. If they thought they could completely ban UOC, I think more substantive changes to 12031, 626.9, or 12025, 12026, et al would have been introduced.

[Liberty1]

It's harmful to itself...if it ever gets really wide media attention expect the legislature of California to outlaw it quickly.

That might help out our side too much legally so I don't think they will. With UOC as it is now they at least have an argument that 12031 doesn't infringe on the 2nd A because you can possess loaded mags separate from the gun and there are some self defense exemptions.

If they out law both open carry with the concealed prohibition in 12025 they'd have really painted themselves into an unconstitutional corner I'd love to see them in. :D

[bdsmchs]

First, let me state, I do have a ccw, and im all for shall issue instead of our current ccw laws. But what Im curious about is, do you ever think that the OC movement will do more harm than good?


I'm still undecided on the whole issue. To be honest, I really don't know if it will do more harm than good. Can it? Sure. Will it? Dunno. I'm leaning towards "no".


What im referring to is that everytime someone in the public see's someone open carrying, there is a good chance that person will be uncomfortable.


I really don't care how uncomfortable someone else is while I exercise my RIGHT. Their FEELING of being uncomfortable doesn't reflect the reality that while I'm around and OC'ing, THEY are safer.

Some hippie liberals are uncomfortable with my Jeep. That doesn't stop me from enjoying offroading.

[1859sharps]

I am not against OC/UOC... but I do not believe the time is right to be pushing the issue. Without incorporation, without the right sons of Heller and sons of incorporation suites successfully resolved, I think we are risking locking some doors before we even have a chance to open them.

[Liberty1]

I am not against OC/UOC... but I do not believe the time is right to be pushing the issue. Without incorporation, without the right sons of Heller and sons of incorporation suites successfully resolved, I think we are risking locking some doors before we even have a chance to open them.

I agree actually, OC in CA may be "early" as exercising current law (and sweat, blood, and tears it's taken to get the memos issued along with the risks and costs of false arrests) doesn't change those existing laws in any way and poking the Bear can get you clawed.

But the horse is out of the gate and with Heller and Nordyke's timing I think it has invigorated and grown the 2nd A. ranks in CA so that we are ready for that next step what ever that is as the coming new case laws may allow.

Have you checked out californiaopencarry.org ? I'm very proud of what the UOC boys have created over there!

[Mulay El Raisuli]

So you propose that we don't use our rights, so that people won't feel the need to take them away? What?


That is what we're basically being asked to do. Yes, we are a bit ahead of the curve with UOC right now. Yes, there are risks. But everything worth getting takes some risk. So, no, I won't give up my Rights just so that they won't be taken away from me.

The Raisuli

[Decoligny]

See what we could be doing today if it weren't for those bad Legislators.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DPCxYPN3yDM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DPCxYPN3yDM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Fixed that for ya.

[M1A Rifleman]

[QUOTE=MP301;2148375]I agree with most of what you said, but Im not sure your considering a few things. Any one of your possibilities could happen, but #3 is no more possible then the other 2 options.

The difference now from when the Black Panthers pulled their stunt is the Heller decision and the current trends on firearms, 2A, etc. Correct me if im wrong, nut we are seeing progress in CA and in many other states.

Do you think the geniuses the run CA Gov really want to try and change the OC law at this juncture? They run the serious risk of expediting things in the other direction then they want to go by biting into that apple.
QUOTE]


I'm not against the UOC types, but I believe Option 3 IS more likely because of the iron-clad grasp the anti-gun socialists, drat, I mean democrats and republicrats have on the legislature. They don't give a rats pitute about Heller nor are they affraid of imposing on it - just look at DC they don't seem to worried and the ruling was against THEM. Most of the anti's believe Heller was just a fluke due to right wing jusges and this will changes onece they get their people on the court, and they are counting the days!

I doubt there has been any positive movement toward gun rights in CA, only a stalemate due to the current gov not signing any drastic anti-gun legislation. The same buffoons are still in charge of the legislature creating/pushing/approving the same anti-gun trash. If there was such pro-gun change in CA you would see it in the turn over or the voting out of the anti-gun types.

[swhatb]

heads or tails... i pick heads!

[SteveH]

Yes, there is as much chance as UOC resulting in a ban on UOC as there is of it resulting in a lessoning of the CCW restrictions.

Scare enough of the sheep and the legislature will try to "fix" it. They can fix it by letting everyone conceal their guns or they can fix it by prohibiting UOC.

[Flintlock Tom]

John Pierce wrote an interesting article about Open Carry here:
http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d22-Open-carry-is-the-2nd-Amendment

“What do you say to those 2nd Amendment supporters who oppose open carry?” I have been asked this question before and had always answered it by talking about the political and public policy benefits of open carry. However, it suddenly occurred to me that the question, as asked, made absolutely no sense. My answer, paraphrased for brevity, was “If you are a 2nd Amendment supporter then you are, by definition, a supporter of open carry because open carry is the right that the 2nd Amendment is enumerating!”

And I like to quote George Washington:
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.”


Back in January a couple gang-bangers walked into a cafe in the L.A. area, shot 7 people and walked out. I can't help but wonder, if they looked in the window and saw 2 or 3 people open carrying, would they change their mind about walking in?

[Palindari]

To be honest, OC is a throw back to the wild west days. At the risk of sounding like a liberal - even our founding fathers knew that survival from not only our government, but for simple essentials (hunting, protection in frontier areas, etc) was something that was needed. So open carry was common place - unlike current society since the mid 1800's.

As to Flint's assessment of the cafe shooting... yeah, you might get that or if there were enough ccw carrying peeps in there and a few shootouts occur in the past perhaps they would hesitate and think twice before attempting such stupidity.

And I happen to agree with What2be and a few here in regards to lax OC rules introducing undo anxiety to any situation. Adding guns to the mix is never a plus. Having one available is, no doubt - but as a known presence - is something else entirely.

Don't get me wrong - like most here I feel strongly about the current issues concerning ccw's and 2A. But to have anybody go around sporting weapons - and that's the image you give at these events - brings apprehension.

Consider the flipside of the coin - let's say OC becomes common place again - with today's misguided youths (current CG members excluded) they have the same opportunity to carry as anyone else. In my business, I see people blatantly ignore driver license laws and motor about without. Unless they get pulled over and checked is the only time they get caught.

What's to stop them if open carry becomes common place - are you going to have cops asking everyone whether or not they can carry? Assuming they will restrict felons from doing so - who here knows, at a glance, who is and who isn't?

All I can see is a whole can of worms that needs to be left alone.

But CCW laws that's an entirely different thing - it's regulated to some degree so not anyone can carry and only those wanting the responsiblity can.

That's my 2 cents ;)

[Flintlock Tom]

To be honest, OC is a throw back to the wild west days. At the risk of sounding like a liberal - even our founding fathers knew that survival from not only our government, but for simple essentials (hunting, protection in frontier areas, etc) was something that was needed. So open carry was common place - unlike current society since the mid 1800's.

As to Flint's assessment of the cafe shooting... yeah, you might get that or if there were enough ccw carrying peeps in there and a few shootouts occur in the past perhaps they would hesitate and think twice before attempting such stupidity. (Wouldn't it be better if they decide it's a bad idea BEFORE they start shooting?)

And I happen to agree with What2be and a few here in regards to lax OC rules introducing undo anxiety to any situation. Adding guns to the mix is never a plus. Having one available is, no doubt - but as a known presence - is something else entirely.

Don't get me wrong - like most here I feel strongly about the current issues concerning ccw's and 2A. But to have anybody go around sporting weapons - and that's the image you give at these events - brings apprehension.

Consider the flipside of the coin - let's say OC becomes common place again - with today's misguided youths (current CG members excluded) they have the same opportunity to carry as anyone else. In my business, I see people blatantly ignore driver license laws and motor about without. Unless they get pulled over and checked is the only time they get caught.

What's to stop them if open carry becomes common place - are you going to have cops asking everyone whether or not they can carry? Assuming they will restrict felons from doing so - who here knows, at a glance, who is and who isn't?

All I can see is a whole can of worms that needs to be left alone.

But CCW laws that's an entirely different thing - it's regulated to some degree so not anyone can carry and only those wanting the responsiblity can.

That's my 2 cents ;)

Thank you for your opinion, but it doesn't reflect reality. Consider states where open carry IS commonplace. They do not have any of the problems you hypothesize.

[Palindari]

If you're trying to compare CA to VT (an open carry state) that's like apples an oranges.

They have neither the population nor the age demographic. So you are correct - they don't have none of the problems I laid out hypotheticly. As for reflecting reality - it's not a far fetched conclusion by any stretch of the imagination either, mate.

[what2be]

Thank you for your opinion, but it doesn't reflect reality. Consider states where open carry IS commonplace. They do not have any of the problems you hypothesize.

What state is OC commonplace? because I travel frequently all over the US and have never seen OC anywhere, and im out and about quite a bit.

I think the majority of people that see anyone open carrying think that the guy is a kook.
Very very small group of individuals, but if they keep up the oc movement, you can expect to see a law outlawing it.

All its going to take is enough LEOS's complaining about it, and then some congressman (or woman) will pick it up and introduce it as a bill. Once that happens, adios OC.

[SgtDinosaur]

I have a friend in Arizona that open carries when he's riding his motorcycle. He told me to does it to PO the people from California.

[Gray Peterson]

Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Utah. Open Carry is quite common in all of these western states. California is the odd bird out, and that's because it doesn't have it's own state constitution.

Btw, to the one who said "Not to sound like a liberal". Again, you equate liberal with being anti-gun, which is not the case.

[RobG]

P.S. Unlawful CCW is probably less legally and financially risky than lawful UOC, go figure.

A very interesting point. Some say to have 5k for bail and 5k for a lawyer on tap if UOC goes bad. What is the penalty for unlawful CCW figuring the gun is yours, no felonious intent, just basically getting caught?

[Palindari]

Btw, to the one who said "Not to sound like a liberal". Again, you equate liberal with being anti-gun, which is not the case.

lol... in current Limbaughesse it seems to be ;)

Personally, if this was a different age where everyone is taught about guns (something that won't happen for generations) then OC would work easier as more will be comfortable with handling them.

[pullnshoot25]

OK, so I have got to ask... are you anti-OC people confused about your Constitutional rights, are buttbuddies with the Brady Bunch or both? OC is the free man's permission-less expression of the 2nd Amendment. Since when does a time frame exclude or provide good cause to forcibly regulate a Constitutional right? Do you guys seriously keep forgetting the whole "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" part? For years we have waited for a case like Heller to come about so we could finally tell the sheeple what patriots have known for years, that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, much like anything else in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

If you feel that OC is "too much Wild West" (they had a lower crime rate, btw), "is not worth it" (not true, I have more fun drinking the Constitution Kewl-Aid than pinwheeling rabbits!), "is going to get our rights lost" (yeah, like sitting back at a Stitch 'n' ***** convention has done anything to preserve our rights), or even "it doesn't make tactical sense" (neither does NOT having your gun!), then there are a plenty of Com-Bloc, African and South American countries that would love to have you.

End rant. Off to kiss *** by writing about Meryl Streep.

[Palindari]

Speaking only for myself, like I said before, I'm all for 2A and that current CA ccw rules need to be changed - but OC is currently a tough nut to roll as W2B mentions. A sudden exposure to weapons in public - even some diehards were completely uncomfortable having police do a hostage pratice run around kids in their school (read through that thread) - will most likely cause a similar aversion to guns to the uninitiated.

As many have pointed out - if you have a ccw there's a great deal of responsibility that comes with it. You're taught that to qualify for one. If what most propose here for OC to work - and you have clearly reiterated the "shall not be infringed" part of 2A - then any knucklehead that turns of age (I'm assuming this since personally, I wouldn't want a 16 yr old strapping a sidearm) or any felonious, mentally embalanced, sociopath for that matter cannot have his right infringed...

That may be cause for concern, mate, is what I'm saying ;)

[what2be]

Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Utah. Open Carry is quite common in all of these western states. California is the odd bird out, and that's because it doesn't have it's own state constitution.

Btw, to the one who said "Not to sound like a liberal". Again, you equate liberal with being anti-gun, which is not the case.

Nevada? Everytime Im there, (which is quite often) I see CCW everywhere, but have yet to see open carry outside the employees of the gun store, which really isnt OC since they are LOADED weapons they are carrying.

Its so easy to get a ccw in nevada you would have to be a retard to OC.
Every gun store has a class, usually every wed/thursday night.

[CitaDeL]

Its so easy to get a ccw in nevada you would have to be a retard to OC.

Gosh. I guess I am a retard then- along with a growing number of pure rights advocates across the nation.

This is one of the reasons that gun rights cannot move forward. If we cannot agree that we are all on the same team, then we will busy ourselves by calling each other names (attention whore, mall ninja, tacticool, retard), while the anti-gunners feed off our division.

If you are not with me in soldarity, supporting the pre-existing right to arm ourselves for defense of ourselves, hearth and home- you are part of the problem.

[pullnshoot25]

Nevada? Everytime Im there, (which is quite often) I see CCW everywhere, but have yet to see open carry outside the employees of the gun store, which really isnt OC since they are LOADED weapons they are carrying.

Its so easy to get a ccw in nevada you would have to be a retard to OC.
Every gun store has a class, usually every wed/thursday night.

Wait, that is real OC... are you confusing the California term of OC being UOC and thinking it applies to Free States or ?

[Decoligny]

Speaking only for myself, like I said before, I'm all for 2A and that current CA ccw rules need to be changed - but OC is currently a tough nut to roll as W2B mentions. A sudden exposure to weapons in public - even some diehards were completely uncomfortable having police do a hostage pratice run around kids in their school (read through that thread) - will most likely cause a similar aversion to guns to the uninitiated.

As many have pointed out - if you have a ccw there's a great deal of responsibility that comes with it. You're taught that to qualify for one. If what most propose here for OC to work - and you have clearly reiterated the "shall not be infringed" part of 2A - then any knucklehead that turns of age (I'm assuming this since personally, I wouldn't want a 16 yr old strapping a sidearm) or any felonious, mentally embalanced, sociopath for that matter cannot have his right infringed...

That may be cause for concern, mate, is what I'm saying ;)

If you are a schizophrenic, and are hearing voices, and are ignoring them, I would not presume to infringe upon your 2nd Amendment Rights any more than I would presume to infringe upon your 1st Amendment Rights.

If you are a schizophrenic, and give in to the voices that say kill everyone, then you need to be held accountable FOR THE ACTIONS YOU ACTUALLY TAKE, not for the "possibility" of action that you MIGHT take.

[bdsmchs]

A sudden exposure to weapons in public - even some diehards were completely uncomfortable having police do a hostage pratice run around kids in their school (read through that thread) - will most likely cause a similar aversion to guns to the uninitiated.


So?

I don't give a damn what other people think or "feel".

[what2be]

Gosh. I guess I am a retard then- along with a growing number of pure rights advocates across the nation.

This is one of the reasons that gun rights cannot move forward. If we cannot agree that we are all on the same team, then we will busy ourselves by calling each other names (attention whore, mall ninja, tacticool, retard), while the anti-gunners feed off our division.

If you are not with me in soldarity, supporting the pre-existing right to arm ourselves for defense of ourselves, hearth and home- you are part of the problem.

You guys will learn who the real problem is when you kill it off by walking around open carry and piss off all the leos and it gets banned. Just like the black panthers, you guys are next. There are alot of laws that you can exploit, but that doesent mean you should.

Heres the fact about california.

Pro gun advocating open carry>All other Ca citizens by id guess 80 to 20.

The minority never wins, and you are pipe dreaming to think that OC will change the law in your favor.


Wait, that is real OC... are you confusing the California term of OC being UOC and thinking it applies to Free States or ?

Whats UOC? im referring to Open carry, regardless of loaded or unloaded, regardless of state. Strictly open carry.

[pullnshoot25]

You guys will learn who the real problem is when you kill it off by walking around open carry and piss off all the leos and it gets banned. Just like the black panthers, you guys are next. There are alot of laws that you can exploit, but that doesent mean you should.

Heres the fact about california.

Pro gun advocating open carry>All other Ca citizens by id guess 80 to 20.

The minority never wins, and you are pipe dreaming to think that OC will change the law in your favor.




Whats UOC? im referring to Open carry, regardless of loaded or unloaded, regardless of state. Strictly open carry.



So basically... sit in a corner while hugging your knees, hoping that more of your rights won't be eroded if you just sit around and do nothing?

[7x57]

So basically... sit in a corner while hugging your knees, hoping that more of your rights won't be eroded if you just sit around and do nothing?

I'm not really involved in these OC debates, but the unstated assumptions here fascinate me. There is a LOT of this "we must do something" rhetoric going around. So doing something is better than doing nothing even if the something is counterproductive? There is a natural law that all action is good, or a moral prohibition against doing nothing even if strategic? Or perhaps the theory is that there are no actions with negative results? God smites those who don't take some action, however misguided or harmful?

Now here's an interesting thought--the antis have been slowly winning for most of the last century--and yet there were plenty of times they were doing nothing. How could they advance their agenda if they were doing nothing? Is it possible they profited from doing nothing when all action would have been counterproductive?

In any event, it seems to be a widespread idea. Whenever there is a shooting in the public eye, the antis tell the public that "they must do something." Apparently even if it is to disarm the victims and create more crime, or to destroy the Bill of Rights, *SOMETHING* must be done. No matter how awful, it *must* be done.

I am beginning to wonder if the idea that "someone must do something" is in fact the root of all political evil.

7x57

[wildhawker]

Fascinating how this

If we cannot agree that we are all on the same team, then we will busy ourselves by calling each other names (attention whore, mall ninja, tacticool, retard), while the anti-gunners feed off our division.

turns into this

If you are not with me in soldarity, supporting the pre-existing right to arm ourselves for defense of ourselves, hearth and home- you are part of the problem.

What a difference just one period makes.

Who's being devisive here?

[1859sharps]

pullnshoot25...dude...take 2 breaths and calm down. at least on calguns.net you appear to be emerging as a face/voice maybe even leader in the UOC movement. to maintain credibility and effectiveness you need approach differences of opinion a bit more diplomatically.

"OK, so I have got to ask... are you anti-OC people confused about your Constitutional rights, are buttbuddies with the Brady Bunch or both?"

Not the most diplomatic way to gain supporters.... just some food for thought ;)

Truth (like it or not) is, a LOT has changed since the 2nd was incorporated into the constitution. in the ideal, yes OC is 100% protected and should be allowed, but at least in California there is a LONG road to go before the common everyday person isn't going to flip out when they see their fellow citizen carrying a gun on their hip. Like it or not this fight will take more then just "asserting" your rights, wining court cases etc. You have an image and culture war to fight. comments like above are going to cost you. because even among gun owners and otherwise pro 2nd amendment types, strapping on a gun and walking down the street is a new concept. people need time to get used to this again. to win people over you need to not come off as some hot head kook...kind supports the other sides argument if you know what I mean.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

you will when there is a referendum put on the Kommiefornia ballot to prevent possession of a firearm in *any public space* this is how it is in Hawaii
and even worse in Londonistan. "Why do we need a referendum for this?"..." well you know that last shooter was one of those gun kooks". Once this hits that stage you will be registering your empty holster! Just because some of us have an awareness of the uneducated public sentiment does not mean we aren't pro 2A. Just means we may be more selective in our battles. I think everyone would be better off educating the public in a different way. I have said it before, the only reason the authorities are allowing it right now is to sucker people in and bait and switch. You UOCers need to read the Sun Tzu. Do not mistake discernment for lack of concern for the 2A.


Thank you. I have read Sun Tzu. I keep a copy with me at all times. If I don't have anything else to, I read it again. I don't see anything in there about sitting & waiting for victory to handed over. If victory is the goal, it must be taken! Sitting on our duff, hoping to not tick people off is not the way to win. Are there people out there hoping to impose 'Londonistan' (a term I just LOVE, btw) laws on us? Of course there are. But UOC isn't going to inspire an effort in that direction. Because those people are already so inspired.

Further, UOC isn't a matter doing 'something' just for the sake of doing. Someone mentioned incrementalism. That's all that UOC is. The first step into getting people ready for what is to come. Any referendum for Londonistan-type change would have to be approved by the people. If all the people hear & see is what they've heard & seen so far, then they'll be inclined to vote for what we have now. To have any hope of changing minds, something different must be done. This all ignores the certainty (after incorporation) that any such referendum would be struck down by the courts anyway.

In any event, while the courts will support us, it isn't like we want to be seen as imposing anything on anyone. BEST would be to have a majority joining us. That's not going to happen unless we get out there & talk to them. W/O guns on our hips, we'll be seen as yet another group of people passing out pamphlets. BEST is that we're seen as what we are; their neighbors, who happen to carry guns. Which we'll accomplish if we're out there showing ourselves to the public.

As for the risks, yes, there are some. But, there were risks to the civil rights workers of old also. Changing the established thinking to the thought that ALL have the right to vote, to sit anywhere in a diner, etc., wasn't done by sitting in their homes hoping for something better. That was accomplished by getting out there & DOING IT.

As for the thought that a "gun kook" might go wild, why not consider what the effect would be if one of us gun kooks should STOP a crime tomorrow? What then? I mean, that is WHY we do this isn't it? Why promote the thought that any of us would do anything BUT prevent a crime?

The Raisuli

P.S. pullnshoot25, you know I am with you. I am fully on your side. But 1859 is right.

[joeyriv]

the only reason the authorities are allowing it right now is to sucker people in and bait and switch.
Well, no, they are allowing it right now because it's actually legal.

As UOC'ers, we aren't tryingtrying to hurt the cause for gun rights. We are simply practicing our chosen (or only available) means of carry. Our guess is that the general populace of voters in this state will become desensitized to firearms in general. If the opposite were true, there would probably be more instances of people panicking at the sight of an openly-carried weapon. The truth is that there just aren't.

Now, if some legislator decides that this needs to be outlawed, I'm sure we'll be all over that issue, and may change habits accordingly. But what's the big deal to everyone out there that already doesn't open carry anyway? Also, don't you think that if UOC is targeted, CCW is next? One method of carry is protected, the other is not. When incorporation comes, will CCW be automatically "Shall issue"? Probably not right away. The same general public that is supposedly adversely affected by my firearm in plain view will most likely go into a rage with they find out that almost anyone can get a permit to carry their guns hidden. You and I know the real effect of that, but 80% of California sure doesn't. Neither do their elected officials, (and Sherriffs should know better, tsk tsk).

But these are all just opinions from another internet commando with something on his mind.

[yellowfin]

This must be what it was like at the Council of Nicaea.

[joeyriv]

Good one, Yellowfin! :thumbsup:

Hey I hear ya, M-Freeman. Your crystal ball must be pretty clear because you sound very sure of yourself. I don't know how you have this magic, but what you say is definitely probable. We'll see how the next decade or so plays out. Hopefully, after incorporation, we'll all be able to excercise our rights in full confidence.
We'll probably never get to the point where LOC is legal everywhere, but that's a given; School zones, pub. buildings, post offices, etc. will most likely still be gun-free. Sooner or later, we (as Californians) will have to address the whole alcohol-selling-establishments thing, but right now, we got that one pretty good, at least as compared to other states.

Maybe the answer is just to give up all our guns like they want us to do. That way, we won't have to worry about losing any rights that we will not be practicing anyway.


You first though.

[7x57]

This must be what it was like at the Council of Nicaea.

Interesting analogy--we seem to read a lot of the same stuff. But who is the analog of Constantine, saying "I don't care all that much what you decide, but decide *something* I can enforce uniformly across the empire?

Interestingly, no schism resulted from Nicaea as it did from the subsequent councils, breaking off the Nestorians, then the Monophysites (or miaphysites). Does that mean we're going to come through together, or is it going to be more like Chalcedon?

In any case, I'll play ball. "Down with Arius!" :D

7x57

[bdsmchs]

Now, if some legislator decides that this needs to be outlawed, I'm sure we'll be all over that issue, and may change habits accordingly.

AB686. It's already happening.

[joeyriv]

AB686. It's already happening.
Polling place procedures? Help me out here, I think I have the wrong AB686.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

So what is to come? Open loaded carry anywhere, in any public space? This will never happen in Kommiefornia. Is this your natural and inalienable right? I think so, especially when the police can't guarantee your safety and our politicians continue to make policy that increase threats to public safety. The sheeple of Kommiefornia have been brainwashed to belive a gun is a symbol of violence and is bad. Scaring the public will increase public sentiment for the legislators to "do something". So I have a question for the UOCers. How will you feel when your picture is plastered all over the Nations media as being the symbol of why we need Londonistan type regulations. I promise you, the only reason the DAs of Kommifornia are allowing you to get as far as you have is because they know the press can be manipulated into painting *you* as the villian. I assure you the success you have had is not because they fear a lawsuit, it is because you can be used to meet their goals by exploiting the publics hoplophobia. So you guys need to think about that.


Yes, I really do think that Open Carry in any public space is coming. I don't have the crystal ball you clearly have, but have I read HELLER. More importantly, I'm paying attention to what our enemies are saying also, & our enemies almost universally recognize that carrying openly is a Constitutional Right. They aren't even disputing that any more. What they are doing is clinging like limpets to the 'not incorporated yet' strategy, along with distractions like 'semi-autos are really machineguns.' But the basic "to bear means to carry around" argument? They're not even trying. The 'since HELLER stated that restrictions on concealed only are allowed & that means none on open carry' argument is something they're also just not fighting.

I understand the desire for CCW. I understand that a lot of people want that most of all, & so don't want that applecart upset. But, Open Carry is ALREADY our Constitutional Right, awaiting only NORDYKE or similar to incorporate the Right against the states.

I see that. Our enemies see that. Too bad you don't.

As for how the people of this state might want to vote in regards Open Carry, even if the matter weren't closed by HELLER, the people won't have their minds changed UNLESS they're shown something different. That something different is, again, the UOC movement. Because sitting in your home, not doing anything to win people over ain't gonna do anything.

The Raisuli

[oaklander]

I don't think UOC "shows something different."

The problems with UOC right now are basic and substantial:

1) all it would take would be ONE bad public incident to rally the press and politicians against UOC/CCW/LC, and guns in general.

2) all it would take would be ONE poorly decided appellate case to further restrict firearms rights in California.

3) all it takes is ONE legislator to write a bill outlawing UOC, and we are already seeing an attempted restriction on it.

Winning wars is about choosing your battles wisely. Right now, without incorporation, we are on shaky ground with respect to UOC (and other things). *We* need to be the ones picking our battles, where they are waged, and how. In general terms, UOC is kind of like "leading with the chin," and allows the other side to pick our battle for us.


As for how the people of this state might want to vote in regards Open Carry, even if the matter weren't closed by HELLER, the people won't have their minds changed UNLESS they're shown something different. That something different is, again, the UOC movement. Because sitting in your home, not doing anything to win people over ain't gonna do anything.

[Decoligny]

I Open Carry to the convenience store. The convenience store owner is now comfortable with guns, it took a little explaining as to why and how to legally, but it worked.

I Open Carry to the Pizza Place. The owner and workers and regulars are all now comfortable with guns, it took a little explaining as to why and how to legally, but it worked.

If I had not Open Carried, then all these people would probably not know about the legality of Open Carry. They would probably vote on any gun related issue based on their feelings either ambivalent or neutral about guns. Now if they vote, they have some good gun info from a law abiding citizen who carries a gun.

If I had sat on my thumbs with my gun locked away and never carried out into the view of the average citizen, these people would not have had a chance to interact with a normal person carrying a gun.

I will continue as I have to Open Carry wherever and whenever I can.

[oaklander]

I applaud you on your efforts to educate non-gun owners about guns. But you don't need to UOC to do it.

The problem with UOC, at this juncture, is that the risk/benefit ratio is out of whack. Sure, you educated 5 people about guns, and like I said above, that's great!!!

BUT, you did so at the substantial risk of getting arrested. The problem with these arrests (and they happen more frequently than most Calgunners know about) is that they:

1) can lead to negative press

2) can lead to very bad case law

3) can lead to additional legislation

I Open Carry to the convenience store. The convenience store owner is now comfortable with guns, it took a little explaining as to why and how to legally, but it worked.

I Open Carry to the Pizza Place. The owner and workers and regulars are all now comfortable with guns, it took a little explaining as to why and how to legally, but it worked.

If I had not Open Carried, then all these people would probably not know about the legality of Open Carry. They would probably vote on any gun related issue based on their feelings either ambivalent or neutral about guns. Now if they vote, they have some good gun info from a law abiding citizen who carries a gun.

If I had sat on my thumbs with my gun locked away and never carried out into the view of the average citizen, these people would not have had a chance to interact with a normal person carrying a gun.

I will continue as I have to Open Carry wherever and whenever I can.

[what2be]

I Open Carry to the convenience store. The convenience store owner is now comfortable with guns, it took a little explaining as to why and how to legally, but it worked.

I Open Carry to the Pizza Place. The owner and workers and regulars are all now comfortable with guns, it took a little explaining as to why and how to legally, but it worked.

If I had not Open Carried, then all these people would probably not know about the legality of Open Carry. They would probably vote on any gun related issue based on their feelings either ambivalent or neutral about guns. Now if they vote, they have some good gun info from a law abiding citizen who carries a gun.

If I had sat on my thumbs with my gun locked away and never carried out into the view of the average citizen, these people would not have had a chance to interact with a normal person carrying a gun.

I will continue as I have to Open Carry wherever and whenever I can.

I applaud you for educating these people, and I mean it. BUT, how many others saw you OC and thought.."woahh...is that guy a kook thats gonna shoot the place up?"

Unfortunately, people are paranoid as it is, and everytime there is another mass shooting, it makes people even more scared. There is no way to know how much good you did versus bad by the above scenario in the pizza parlor and the convienence store, but I agree with the other poster that maybe we should save our stand for another issue that isnt so controversial in the gun circles.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

you don't need magic just observe their past behavior. I judge them by their actions. I honestly haven't looked at Heller thoroughly but I do recall something about local govenments not being restricted to enact gun regulations. So judging by the antis and medias history I base my previous comments.


You SHOULD take a close look at HELLER.

The Raisuli

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I applaud you on your efforts to educate non-gun owners about guns. But you don't need to UOC to do it.

The problem with UOC, at this juncture, is that the risk/benefit ratio is out of whack. Sure, you educated 5 people about guns, and like I said above, that's great!!!

BUT, you did so at the substantial risk of getting arrested. The problem with these arrests (and they happen more frequently than most Calgunners know about) is that they:

1) can lead to negative press

2) can lead to very bad case law

3) can lead to additional legislation


He educated more than 5 people, since "the regulars" at the pizza place is certainly more than that. There's also the regulars (probably) at the convenience store. Also, its like that shampoo commercial of a few years ago, "they'll tell two friends, & they'll two friends, and so, and so on." So, decoligny may have educated hundreds of people to legality of Open Carry.

As for the risks, "negative press" is a function of how WE behave. Judging from the PB event, I'm not worried. "Bad case law" & "additional legislation" aren't big worries either, given the reality of HELLER. Yes, incorporation hasn't happened yet, but I am very sure it is coming. We aren't all that far ahead of the curve.

The Raisuli

[joeyriv]

AB668...

There it is. I was thinking there was something else I hadn't heard about. Whew.

[hoffmang]

"Bad case law" & "additional legislation" aren't big worries either, given the reality of HELLER.

Are you signing up to personally fund the two extra lawsuits we'd have to bring to clear up bad case law and new legislation?

-Gene

[TheBundo]

Interesting analogy--we seem to read a lot of the same stuff. But who is the analog of Constantine, saying "I don't care all that much what you decide, but decide *something* I can enforce uniformly across the empire?

Interestingly, no schism resulted from Nicaea as it did from the subsequent councils, breaking off the Nestorians, then the Monophysites (or miaphysites). Does that mean we're going to come through together, or is it going to be more like Chalcedon?

In any case, I'll play ball. "Down with Arius!" :D

7x57

I took the comment a somewhat different way, in that the Nicean Council resulted in a "watering down" of the purer early form of Christianity, thereafter allowing idolatry, spiritual "fornication" with the state, etc. These current discussions ultimately revolve around "watering down" the Constitution.

[TheBundo]

Yes, I really do think that Open Carry in any public space is coming. I don't have the crystal ball you clearly have, but have I read HELLER. More importantly, I'm paying attention to what our enemies are saying also, & our enemies almost universally recognize that carrying openly is a Constitutional Right. They aren't even disputing that any more. What they are doing is clinging like limpets to the 'not incorporated yet' strategy, along with distractions like 'semi-autos are really machineguns.' But the basic "to bear means to carry around" argument? They're not even trying. The 'since HELLER stated that restrictions on concealed only are allowed & that means none on open carry' argument is something they're also just not fighting.

I understand the desire for CCW. I understand that a lot of people want that most of all, & so don't want that applecart upset. But, Open Carry is ALREADY our Constitutional Right, awaiting only NORDYKE or similar to incorporate the Right against the states.

I see that. Our enemies see that. Too bad you don't.

As for how the people of this state might want to vote in regards Open Carry, even if the matter weren't closed by HELLER, the people won't have their minds changed UNLESS they're shown something different. That something different is, again, the UOC movement. Because sitting in your home, not doing anything to win people over ain't gonna do anything.

The Raisuli

Good points. I haven't open carried yet, except out on BLM land where it wouldn't be an issue to anyone. I might take the dog for a walk tonight and try it out.

[7x57]

I took the comment a somewhat different way, in that the Nicean Council resulted in a "watering down" of the purer early form of Christianity, thereafter allowing idolatry, spiritual "fornication" with the state, etc. These current discussions ultimately revolve around "watering down" the Constitution.

To some extent, and depending on how you intend that to be construed, it is likely that I think that theory is a bunch of crap historically, which is probably why I didn't take it that way. :D

But the theology of Nicaea (or Constantinople) is perhaps rather far from the Calguns charter. The closest we could come is the ethics and theology of self-defense, which doesn't have a great deal to do with Nicaea!

7x57

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Good points. I haven't open carried yet, except out on BLM land where it wouldn't be an issue to anyone. I might take the dog for a walk tonight and try it out.


Thank you. My prayers go with you.

The Raisuli

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Are you signing up to personally fund the two extra lawsuits we'd have to bring to clear up bad case law and new legislation?

-Gene


If your comments about when we'll a ruling from NORDYKE are right, there won't be any new case law or legislation.

Also, while we're on the same side, we are working for slightly different things here. You want "shall issue" & then LOC. I (and our enemies) see LOC as already being a Const. Right, needing only incorporation to be a complete reality. To my mind, finishing the task near done is a better way to go then starting a new task. But I don't have the ability to do anything about that. All I can do is rant & urge.

Anyway, if we didn't already have HELLER, & if we weren't about to get NORDYKE, I would agree with you 100%. In fact, I did agree with you 100%. But the fact is, we DO have HELLER & we ARE about to get NORDYKE. So NOW is the time to start preparing the ground (see, Sun Tzu) for what is to come.

The Raisuli

[MadMex]

“Have you ever been involved in an incident involving firearms?
No___ Yes___ (If yes, explain)?”

… is common question on CCW applications, including CA.

If you believe that you will never ever leave your current circumstance (ie, county or state of residence), believe you’ll have a sympathetic CCW applicant interviewer/reviewer when your current circumstance does change (ie, move to a CCW friendly location), or don’t mind being dishonest on the application, on a personal level, there’s not much to lose. I tend to agree that it poses risks to the rkba.

[hoffmang]

Anyway, if we didn't already have HELLER, & if we weren't about to get NORDYKE, I would agree with you 100%. In fact, I did agree with you 100%. But the fact is, we DO have HELLER & we ARE about to get NORDYKE. So NOW is the time to start preparing the ground (see, Sun Tzu) for what is to come.

You misunderstand the timeline. Assume we win the three judge panel. In the very best case it will take 120ish days to become final due to en-banc appeal. In the worst case it goes en-banc and then all the way to SCOTUS and that means we have about 48 months before its final. 4 years is a long time to live with a new anti-gun law.

Also, if we go for LOC first, there is a very strong risk that that's all we're going to get in California. Then we'll face not being able to LOC into malls, coffee shops etc because they put up signs and can kick you out for LOC.

That would Sun Tzu tell you about being on the battlefield before you are ready?

Also your non-answer is that you have no resources that you're willing to post to stop the new extra anti-gun legislation that UOC at this time can bring us. Thanks for spending other people's time and treasure.

-Gene

[scr83jp]

The Sun March 15 Headlines Allowed to be Armed Citizens start exercising right to carry guns openly state law allows adults who are not prohibited by law to visibly carry an unloaded gun in public places excluding school zones,gov't buildings,state and national parks ans secured areas like airports.police are permitted only to ensure the weapon is ,they can't run the gun serial number,ask for carrier's identification or detain them. When I started college in AZ in 1961 my instructor advised me not to get concerned if I observed someone on a tote goat with 2 revolvers since open carry was allowed in arizona (never was in the new york police state).Open carry has never been an issue with me because I worked in le and had a ccw.

[bdsmchs]

The Sun March 15 Headlines Allowed to be Armed Citizens start exercising right to carry guns openly state law allows adults who are not prohibited by law to visibly carry an unloaded gun in public places excluding school zones,gov't buildings,state and national parks ans secured areas like airports.police are permitted only to ensure the weapon is ,they can't run the gun serial number,ask for carrier's identification or detain them. When I started college in AZ in 1961 my instructor advised me not to get concerned if I observed someone on a tote goat with 2 revolvers since open carry was allowed in arizona (never was in the new york police state).Open carry has never been an issue with me because I worked in le and had a ccw.

Mind re-typing that in English please?

[Untamed1972]

I understand the need to push the issue, and admire those willing to do it.

That being said I think:

1) UOC just makes bad tactical sense from a personal protection stand point. Likely to cause you more hassle than it prevents. In most instances you'd really need, you'd like be dead before you could draw it and get it loaded. Research shows that a person with an edged weapon (ie a knife) can cover a distance of 21ft in the time it takes a trained officer to draw his openly carried and LOADED firearm and get off a shot. So add in a second or 2 for having to load a mag and rack it. more than likely if you were to use your weapon in a UOC situation it would be in the defense of someone else where you had time to load w/o having to be to concerned with your personal safetly. No....not a bad thing, but from a personal protection perspective it just doesn't make alot of sense right now. I personally don't wanna walk about with a "HEY LOOK AT ME" sign hanging on my belt. Nor do I want to have to take my buddy along with a video camera everytime I leave the house.

2) With the existence of the "e" check, I really don't want to be hassled by every LEO that passes by or is called by some ignorant, nosey person. I am a law abiding citizen with nothing to fear, but I still like to keep my LEO contact to a minimum, preferably non-existent. I really don't want to have to take 20 minutes out of my day to endure an improper detention by a LEO fishing for PC to make an arrest. There is the law, what they're supposed to do, and what they actually do. Yes, you're innocent till proven guilty, but don't forget when it's your word against the LEO's.....his word carries more weight. The best way to win a legal battles is not have to get in one in the first place. If it's just you and him and he says it's loaded, then it'll be considered to have been loaded. Nothing your recorder can do to prove it's not true.

At minimum get rid of the "e" check provision AND the stupid school zone requirement and maybe I will think about it . I live on a deadend street within 1000' of a school. I can't walk out my front door or leave my neighborhood w/o being in a school zone.

[rojocorsa]

The argument that this is not the 1800's, that we do not live in the 'Wild West' is wholly accurate. In examining the statistics our country in this modern age, has more murders, rapes, and robberies per capita than our counterparts of the 1880's. The irony is that there were fewer police and there was no 911 to call in case of an emergency that demanded an armed response.


The irony is simple. Because there were no emergency services back then, I am willing to be that people were way more self-reliant. This self reliance probably included personal protection.

[7x57]

The irony is simple. Because there were no emergency services back then, I am willing to be that people were way more self-reliant. This self reliance probably included personal protection.

I was told recently that someone asked Louis L'Amour if the old West was like the movies, where gangs would come into town an terrorize the shopkeepers. He said something to the effect that it never happened, because most of those supposedly meek shopkeepers were civil war veterans and no gang can intimidate a whole town full of rifles.

7x57

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I was told recently that someone asked Louis L'Amour if the old West was like the movies, where gangs would come into town an terrorize the shopkeepers. He said something to the effect that it never happened, because most of those supposedly meek shopkeepers were civil war veterans and no gang can intimidate a whole town full of rifles.

7x57


For anyone wishing to learn of two examples of this, just Google "Northfield, Minnesota" & "Coffeyville, Kansas."

The Raisuli

[TheBundo]

The irony is simple. Because there were no emergency services back then, I am willing to be that people were way more self-reliant. This self reliance probably included personal protection.

There are no emergency services now when it comes to being attacked. There are "after-the-emergency" services, take the report, clean up the mess, block traffic off for far too long, etc.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

You misunderstand the timeline. Assume we win the three judge panel. In the very best case it will take 120ish days to become final due to en-banc appeal. In the worst case it goes en-banc and then all the way to SCOTUS and that means we have about 48 months before its final. 4 years is a long time to live with a new anti-gun law.

Also, if we go for LOC first, there is a very strong risk that that's all we're going to get in California. Then we'll face not being able to LOC into malls, coffee shops etc because they put up signs and can kick you out for LOC.

That would Sun Tzu tell you about being on the battlefield before you are ready?

Also your non-answer is that you have no resources that you're willing to post to stop the new extra anti-gun legislation that UOC at this time can bring us. Thanks for spending other people's time and treasure.

-Gene


First, a "non-answer"? I would have thought that by saying that all I can do is rant & urge would have been an answer. I see that you favor limiting ranting & urging only for the rich. I'm going to express the opinion that this is just a bit elitist of you. Because, you know, expressing an opinion is the right of all. And of course, I can put something on the line. I can (and have) put ME on the line. Now, to the rest.

You presume that passage of a bad law is a certainty. I don't. There's something called the Office of Legislative Counsel here in California. Their job is to advise our masters about the legalities of pending legislation. I grant that there are those quite eager to pass new anti-gun laws. But once the OLC tells them that the courts will strike the new laws down, will even they bother? Will Arnie even sign such a waste of time? Add to this that even here in the PRK, gun control is regarded as poison to the Dems. Maybe not real strong poison, but maybe enough to keep all but the most fanatical from voting new laws in.

And of course, what of the people? "Preparing the ground" includes educating them. That isn't done by sitting & doing the nothing that you favor. When the anti-gun types announce the latest effort, what if Walter & Winnifred Whitebread called & said they weren't all that much in favor of it? What if this was because of those willing to dare a bit? The "Right People" have already abandoned one battlefield (the California courts), should we abandon the court of public opinion as well? Yes, Sun Tzu does talk about "winning a battle already won" (because of proper preparation & all). But he also recognized that war is not, & cannot be w/o risk. Victory goes to those willing to take risks. The tide is turning. Even our enemies recognize that. NOW is the time to dare.

Now, I'm not talking about pushing too hard. I'm not talking about taking foolish risks like LOC or CCW w/o a license. But engaging in a completely lawful activity? Yes, I do favor that. Especially when the argument against engaging in that completely lawful activity is that 'we might anger people.'

You're afraid that CCW might be outlawed entirely? This has come up before. I'm entirely with those who see that as extremely unlikely at best. So, IMHO, you're willing to put at risk what we already have (according to even our enemies) to protect something not really at risk in the first place??? I'm just a poor man, w/o the resources to really do anything about that (and so, according to you, unworthy of saying anything either) but to my mind, that ain't good poker.

Even if it should come to pass that Open Carry is all we get, so what? Do really see no chance of an anti-CCW law being voted out in the future? Anyway, yes, coffee shops & such could put up signs. But would all of them? What's been the experience in the other states that already have freedom? This isn't happening in a vacuum, after all. Even if many shops here in the PRK do put up signs, would they be carved into the stone walls of the shops? Do you see no hope at all of them changing their minds once they see the value of their neighbors being armed? Do you really see shopkeepers, etc. as being completely closed-minded?

While I'm on that thought, the whole idea of the 2A movement is that We The People not only have the Right to keep & bear, but that We The People can be trusted with that Right. Yet, I keep hearing on this forum the fear that something could go wrong at a UOC event. That one of us will act improperly. Doesn't this undercut the idea that anyone not only CAN be trusted with heat on his hip, but that he SHOULD be so trusted? How about instead of fearing the worst, you anticipate the best?

The Raisuli