PDA

View Full Version : The Consequences of UOC: Good, Bad or Irrelevant?


Pages : [1] 2

navyinrwanda
07-24-2009, 2:48 PM
I originally posted this on page 57 of the "Got an interview tomorrow..." thread. That probably wasn't the best choice if I wanted more response. So here it is again. Thanks to bdsmchs for a better phrasing of my question.

In response to continued publicity of UOC activism, how would you feel if California passed a law that said all firearms, regardless of type, must be transported only to and from designated lawful shooting areas or private property in a fully enclosed, locked container? One could still drive to and from the range and shoot guns at the range. Loaded guns would still be lawful in the home for self-defense.

Would it be beneficial to the overall cause of greater gun rights? If so, how?
Would it set back efforts to liberalize burdensome restrictions? Again, how?
Or does UOC carry no risk of unintended consequences? Why?

I ask this question since, barring some sort of catastrophe like a police shooting, new legislation of this sort seems to be the most likely unintended — and unwelcome — consequence of UOC. Bills to this effect have previously been introduced, and given a bit of high-profile publicity, it would seem that they would pass fairly easily. Please don't reply simply that "it'd be unconstitutional." As hopefully everyone knows, unconstitutional legislation is passed all too frequently. Once it's on the books, absent a public consensus to the contrary, it oftentimes take lengthy and costly litigation to undo the damage.

Also, please remember that it is accepted that the holding in Heller is limited to possession of handguns in one's home. Further post-incorporation litigation (e.g., Sykes et al) is needed to establish a right to bear in public. Such litigation may not be conclusive unless or until the Supreme Court chooses to accept review.

wildhawker
07-24-2009, 2:56 PM
The last half of the interview thread should be moved here.

Theseus
07-24-2009, 3:01 PM
I would be fine because I might just break the law anyway.

Calguns and some of its members have been helpful and supportive to me and the cause, but I refuse to not exercise my right because some may seek to limit that right. To me, OC is not that much more dangerous to our gun rights than OLL.

Other than me they have not charged a single open carrier. And if you believe that the new laws regarding school zones or ammo are around only because of OC then you are foolish. They have and will continue to try and take our guns and rights until we do somethign about it.

navyinrwanda
07-24-2009, 3:12 PM
I would be fine because I might just break the law anyway.
Whether to obey or disregard a law is a personal decision, and generally, the consequences are personal, too.

My question is what about everyone else? If public disobedience is the goal of UOC, how will it improve or worsen gun rights for all Californians? I'd like to hear some reasoned and factual arguments.

bwiese
07-24-2009, 3:20 PM
To me, OC is not that much more dangerous to our gun rights than OLL.

Wrong.

They had nowhere to go with OLL. It was a tightly constrained situation with interface between specific laws, regulations and DOJ past actions/ approvals.

They (DOJ+leg) could either ..
(1) reg OLLs as assault weapons
(2) create legislation to create Cat 4 assault weapons
(3) try to ban all semaiuto rifles.

#1 didn't happen because they didn't wanna appear to give in.
#2 was so abstruse nobody would understand and they though Alison had it handled - but we knew otherwise.
#3 had zero political will eps if "wooden rifles' were banned, even
many Dems would not sign on -esp after late 90s confiscation dramas.

Contrast this with relatively open CA gun transit laws in many areas (compare MD/MA/NY) and the risk of 'fill-in' laws trying to treat many other guns with the limits that reg'd AWs currently have.

Yes, Nordyke and Heller will give us much. But why generate whole new trains of cases and build fights we don't need?

Librarian
07-24-2009, 3:22 PM
They have and will continue to try and take our guns and rights until we do somethign about it.

I'm sure the Black Panthers in 1967 thought the same way - and they were right then, and you're right now.

But see what a group of legislators who are 'scared stupid' can do.

Remember, a lot of our gun laws come from the legislature's belief that it is important to be seen 'doing something' about something voters fear. They didn't and don't particularly care about 'doing something useful'.

navyinrwanda
07-24-2009, 3:29 PM
To me, OC is not that much more dangerous to our gun rights than OLL.
It's my understanding that the OLL campaign was one of careful analysis, selective litigation, OAL petitions, lobbying and a set of laws too complex for their own good.

Never was there an effort to openly confront either the public or law enforcement with OLL weapons.

Theseus
07-24-2009, 3:32 PM
And I do. Like I have said before, open carry was and is, for me, not about activism as much as it is about having a weapon of self defense.

I will no longer jeopardize the safety of my family for the sake of following unconstitutional laws.

What I hate most about the OC deal is that it is the only legal way I can carry without having to pay for some ridiculous license that I likely would not get anyway.

If I could get a CCW without having to pay some outrageous fee and a reasonable certainty of obtaining I might just do that. Until then I will take whatever means of protecting my family, legal or otherwise.

As for the OLL thing, it may have worked, and it may have been smartly thought out, but that doesn't change the risk that was taken and the potential damage. Open carry is legal and it is more dangerous to our gun rights than trying to push the legal envelope? Think for a moment why that is.

technique
07-24-2009, 3:37 PM
If I could get a CCW without having to pay some outrageous fee and a reasonable certainty of obtaining I might just do that. Until then I will take whatever means of protecting my family, legal or otherwise.

So isn't UOC possibly jeopardizing the future of an easily obtainable CCW...If you can legally OC then why would there be any reason to make a CCW more obtainable?

M198
07-24-2009, 3:39 PM
And I do. Like I have said before, open carry was and is, for me, not about activism as much as it is about having a weapon of self defense.

I will no longer jeopardize the safety of my family for the sake of following unconstitutional laws.

What I hate most about the OC deal is that it is the only legal way I can carry without having to pay for some ridiculous license that I likely would not get anyway.

If I could get a CCW without having to pay some outrageous fee and a reasonable certainty of obtaining I might just do that. Until then I will take whatever means of protecting my family, legal or otherwise.

As for the OLL thing, it may have worked, and it may have been smartly thought out, but that doesn't change the risk that was taken and the potential damage. Open carry is legal and it is more dangerous to our gun rights than trying to push the legal envelope? Think for a moment why that is.

If you were illegally CC, you'd probably saved some money. Hand there man. If it's not illegal, why wouldn't you OC?

Theseus
07-24-2009, 3:47 PM
So isn't UOC possibly jeopardizing the future of an easily obtainable CCW...If you can legally OC then why would there be any reason to make a CCW more obtainable?

So I shouldn't UOC because it might make a CCW harde to get? Duh.

Then I will keep UOC'ing.

navyinrwanda
07-24-2009, 3:52 PM
What I hate most about the OC deal is that it is the only legal way I can carry without having to pay for some ridiculous license that I likely would not get anyway.
My question is specifically about unloaded open carry in locales where loaded carry is prohibited. I'm not sure which you mean.

Open carry is not prohibited in certain unincorporated portions of California, which are usually rural and/or small towns. Ironically, if you live in one of these counties, obtaining a CCW license is typically not difficult.

The current state of case law does not provide a right to openly bear arms. That's just the reality, until further litigation is successful.

technique
07-24-2009, 3:52 PM
So I shouldn't UOC because it might make a CCW harde to get? Duh.

Then I will keep UOC'ing.

Um...that was a question. I never said for you to stop UOC. So I guess I should say..... Duh?

Theseus
07-24-2009, 3:58 PM
Um...that was a question. I never said for you to stop UOC. So I guess I should say..... Duh?

Seemed to me you were askign a rhetorical question. And even if not, the answer would still be "Duh. .. . I keep OC'ing."

technique
07-24-2009, 4:02 PM
Seemed to me you were askign a rhetorical question. And even if not, the answer would still be "Duh. .. . I keep OC'ing."

Oh...now I get it. It's about you not the affects it has on the rest of us. I should have recognized it from the get go...people are right its just a self righteous thing.....Duh.

Well instead of a neutral stance you have now convinced me otherwise. Good luck to you.

Theseus
07-24-2009, 4:04 PM
My question is specifically about unloaded open carry in locales where loaded carry is prohibited. I'm not sure which you mean.

Open carry is not prohibited in certain unincorporated portions of California, which are usually rural and/or small towns. Ironically, if you live in one of these counties, obtaining a CCW license is typically not difficult.

The current state of case law does not provide a right to openly bear arms. That's just the reality, until further litigation is successful.

I am sorry, I didn't know that I needed the law to tell me what my rights are. My mistake. Next time I will be sure to ignore my rights and hope the law works it out for me.

Even as Heller says: "The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon."

I don't need the law to tell me what a right is, only what the law says.

I have, up until now, followed the law, but the more ridiculous they become and the more it becomes impossible for the regular human to abide them, the more likely it will be that I will ignore any such laws.

7x57
07-24-2009, 4:06 PM
I have, up until now, followed the law, but the more ridiculous they become and the more it becomes impossible for the regular human to abide them, the more likely it will be that I will ignore any such laws.

Is this really a good time to be talking about this?

7x57

Theseus
07-24-2009, 4:06 PM
Oh...now I get it. It's about you not the affects it has on the rest of us. I should have recognized it from the get go...people are right its just a self righteous thing.....Duh.

Well instead of a neutral stance you have now convinced me otherwise. Good luck to you.

You are right. It is about me and my family. Unless you are going to follow me around and protect my family it is my job. Since I can't get a CCW then why should I care that you can?

You ask me to not OC so that you can keep your precious piece of paper, how is that not just as selfish?

GaryV
07-24-2009, 4:10 PM
My question is, if no one ever UOCs, because everyone is afraid of possible consequences, how is this materially different from having such a hypothetical law in place already?

Let's face it, whether everyone is afraid to UOC in order to avoid the passage of such a law, or such a law is actually passed, it's still going to take a legal battle to get the right to carry recognized.

Now, except for the strategic considerations of choosing the particulars of the battle in court, such as place, time, plaintiff, etc., I don't see how one situation is any better than the other, except that if people UOC, at least they are not defenseless, and being disarmed is only a theoretical possibility, not a foregone conclusion.

scr83jp
07-24-2009, 4:11 PM
I'm armed for my own protection & my family ,I don't carry open only concealed.

technique
07-24-2009, 4:11 PM
You are right. It is about me and my family. Unless you are going to follow me around and protect my family it is my job. Since I can't get a CCW then why should I care that you can?

You ask me to not OC so that you can keep your precious piece of paper, how is that not just as selfish?

I don't have a precious piece of paper, nor do I OC. But if UOC has moved into "ignoring law"...I'm sure most of us want nothing to do with it.

There are plenty of alternatives in self defense and defense of your family.
I feel sorry for people who rely on firearms as their only means of defense.

Theseus
07-24-2009, 4:12 PM
Whether to obey or disregard a law is a personal decision, and generally, the consequences are personal, too.

My question is what about everyone else? If public disobedience is the goal of UOC, how will it improve or worsen gun rights for all Californians? I'd like to hear some reasoned and factual arguments.

I also missed this. Public disobedience is not the goal of OC. We promote strict obedience like your OLL deal. They wrote the laws telling us what we can and can't do. We educate our self so that we can follow the law and stay within it.

The fact that we are following the law seems to be what everyone has a problem with. . . I put it to you all again. Why is it being suggested that we stop exercising a right and obeying the law for fear that it might get us more restrictions against our right?

7x57
07-24-2009, 4:12 PM
You are right. It is about me and my family. Unless you are going to follow me around and protect my family it is my job. Since I can't get a CCW then why should I care that you can?

You ask me to not OC so that you can keep your precious piece of paper, how is that not just as selfish?

This would be easier to swallow if you had not gotten money from other gunnies for your defense. Since it is clear you don't believe in NATO doctrine, why should anyone donate to your defense fund?

The reason the human race is not composed mainly of individualists is that radical individualism is a non-survival trait.

7x57

Theseus
07-24-2009, 4:16 PM
I don't have a precious piece of paper, nor do I OC. But if UOC has moved into "ignoring law"...I'm sure most of us want nothing to do with it.

There are plenty of alternatives in self defense and defense of your family.
I feel sorry for people who rely on firearms as their only means of defense.

If the law comes to the point where I have no legal means to protect my family then yes, I might just ignore the law.

I wish there was another way. I wish it was not an issue. I wish that I could get a CCW and have the choice to LOC everywhere I went. But put wishes in one hand and poop in the other and see which fills first.

Besides, I obeyed the law and I am still in trouble. . . So where is the logic? At some point I think everyone becomes disenfranchised and I am at that point.

Decoligny
07-24-2009, 4:17 PM
You are right. It is about me and my family. Unless you are going to follow me around and protect my family it is my job. Since I can't get a CCW then why should I care that you can?

You ask me to not OC exercise a right so that you can keep your precious piece of paper Government provided privilege, how is that not just as selfish?

Fixed that for ya!

Theseus
07-24-2009, 4:18 PM
This would be easier to swallow if you had not gotten money from other gunnies for your defense. Since it is clear you don't believe in NATO doctrine, why should anyone donate to your defense fund?

The reason the human race is not composed mainly of individualists is that radical individualism is a non-survival trait.

7x57

I appreciate those that donated to help me and those that support me. What I don't appreciate is when people act as if OC'ing is a wholely selfish act and that no one else enters my mind. It is the same people that don't want us to OC because they may loose something.

Some people helped me, sure. And again I am grateful. But at the same time many more spit at the idea and cursed me.

I was here for the cause, but it seems more and more the cause isn't here for me. At some point I have to stop caring about the cause and worry about me since it has apparently done the same for me.

technique
07-24-2009, 4:26 PM
. . So where is the logic? .

I ask where is the logic in carrying an unloaded firearm? Oaklander touched on it and I will stand by it...I've lived in some serious ghettos, East Oakland being one of them..In most places you and your family would be bum rushed and bludgeoned over the weapon on your hip before you ever got a chance to load it!

What are you gonna do when someone hops outta no where already pointing a gun at you and demanding your weapon? Instead of that unloaded firearm being your savior...its making you and your family a target.

I just want to know your side...where are you coming from? I don't want you to feel picked on...I need to know where you stand in order to support your movement and your decisions....heck what if I get jury duty on your trail?

7x57
07-24-2009, 4:27 PM
I was here for the cause, but it seems more and more the cause isn't here for me. At some point I have to stop caring about the cause and worry about me since it has apparently done the same for me.

Or, and it's just a wild idea here, you could man up and fight like we're at war and not like we're playing a game. Soldiers don't do their duty because it's personally the safest thing--the economics are nearly always in favor of taking advantage of a Commons situation and letting others take the risks.

I assume you'd fight a hot war if called up in order to defend the Constitution. How about when the war is a soft one?

7x57

GaryV
07-24-2009, 4:28 PM
How does UOC threaten to place further restrictions on people who already refuse to UOC? Whether the restrictions are placed on them by navyinrwanda's hypothetical law, or by their own choices, the restrictions are already in place for those people. While (since) I myself have no desire to UOC, I don't see what difference it makes to me whether others do or not.

bulgron
07-24-2009, 4:28 PM
All political activism aside, I spent part of last weekend doing drills where I had to draw a dead gun from a holster, load it, and it get on target. The goal was to accomplish this in less time that it takes an aggressive man to cover 30 feet at a dead run.

I promise you that if I ever had to do that for real, I'd be a dead man. For me, UOC is no better than going unarmed. Either way, my best bet is to simply turn tail and run and hope for the best.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just getting older and therefore slower. But I honestly can't see how anyone thinks that UOC is tactically a good idea.

LOC or CCW or bust!

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 4:30 PM
My question is, if no one ever UOCs, because everyone is afraid of possible consequences, how is this materially different from having such a hypothetical law in place already?


Today I don't have to lock up long arms or handguns when I transport them correctly. After that law, I would have to. How many innocent gun owners would be thrown in jail for otherwise routine traffic stops based on that law change versus simply not UOCing. Note that no one here is saying that LOC is a problem where LOC is legal.

-Gene

Riodog
07-24-2009, 4:35 PM
Oh...now I get it. It's about you not the affects it has on the rest of us. I should have recognized it from the get go...people are right its just a self righteous thing.....Duh.

Well instead of a neutral stance you have now convinced me otherwise. Good luck to you.

Technique, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Theseus, after reading your diatribe of BS I'll just say that->
1. don't compare apples and oranges and expect the rest of us to buy your crap.
2. I am really sorry I donated 100 bucks to your defense as I'm now convinced it would be more beneficial to the cause with you behind bars.
3. I have nothing to lose or gain one way or the other.
4. YOU have thus proven my point that UOC is nothing more than a ploy to draw attention to ones self. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'defending one's family.

Rio
ps...the next time I feel generous, I'll just give it t the homeless on the freeway off ramp.

GaryV
07-24-2009, 4:40 PM
Today I don't have to lock up long arms or handguns when I transport them correctly. After that law, I would have to. How many innocent gun owners would be thrown in jail for otherwise routine traffic stops based on that law change versus simply not UOCing. Note that no one here is saying that LOC is a problem where LOC is legal.

-Gene

But, aside from being arrested for not knowing the law (which can happen even now - you still have to transport them "correctly", such a law would only redefine that term slightly), does this in any real way restrict your rights more than they already are? How is putting them in a locked case significantly worse than what you already have to do?

Like I said, I'm not a fan of UOC myself, but all the talk against it seems like so much FUD. Not saying that it is, but so far no one has given me any reason to believe that it's not.

Theseus
07-24-2009, 4:41 PM
All political activism aside, I spent part of last weekend doing drills where I had to draw a dead gun from a holster, load it, and it get on target. The goal was to accomplish this in less time that it takes an aggressive man to cover 30 feet at a dead run.

I promise you that if I ever had to do that for real, I'd be a dead man. For me, UOC is no better than going unarmed. Either way, my best bet is to simply turn tail and run and hope for the best.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just getting older and therefore slower. But I honestly can't see how anyone thinks that UOC is tactically a good idea.

LOC or CCW or bust!


I agree. I would prefer LOC or CCW, but none of those options are available for me most of the time. When OC the risk of loading it and getting caught is very high. It is still only a misdemeanor, but if I illegally CC and load then it is less likely to get caught and I only get 2 misdemeanors.

As for the rest of you, I took the risk and OC'd. I am on trial. If I loose the case I will be prohibited from owning guns for 10 year. You think this is something I chose to do as a selfish act?

The real selfish act would be to help get my ruling made into case law by appealing if I loose. So far I have not decided to do so.

Theseus
07-24-2009, 4:49 PM
Technique, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Theseus, after reading your diatribe of BS I'll just say that->
1. don't compare apples and oranges and expect the rest of us to buy your crap.
2. I am really sorry I donated 100 bucks to your defense as I'm now convinced it would be more beneficial to the cause with you behind bars.
3. I have nothing to lose or gain one way or the other.
4. YOU have thus proven my point that UOC is nothing more than a ploy to draw attention to ones self. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'defending one's family.

Rio
ps...the next time I feel generous, I'll just give it t the homeless on the freeway off ramp.

I thank you for what you did donate.

Also I will have you all know that the only reason I need your donations is because "the right people" talked me into getting a lawyer. I was going to go public defender and save us all the money. I was convinced that it was "bad for the cause" to go with a PD lawyer. I was convinced that the "responsible thing" was to get a lawyer and that the cause would be there. . . Now the cause is out $3500 or so and I am in the hole for over $20K. . . Maybe next time I really will be selfish. . .

And you Rio are entitled to your opinion, but I honestly don't care. Those against OC are normally never going to understand just the same as the common gun-grabber won't.

berto
07-24-2009, 4:49 PM
But, aside from being arrested for not knowing the law (which can happen even now - you still have to transport them "correctly", such a law would only redefine that term slightly), does this in any real way restrict your rights more than they already are? How is putting them in a locked case significantly worse than what you already have to do?

Like I said, I'm not a fan of UOC myself, but all the talk against it seems like so much FUD. Not saying that it is, but so far no one has given me any reason to believe that it's not.

A more restrictive law would be a step backwards and cost money and time better spent moving forwards instead of regaining foolishly and needlessly lost ground.

GaryV
07-24-2009, 4:59 PM
A more restrictive law would be a step backwards and cost money and time better spent moving forwards instead of regaining foolishly and needlessly lost ground.

Besides an almost exclusively symbolic step, I don't see any of this. Since the vast majority of people already do not UOC, the change wouldn't significantly affect anyone but the tiny handful of people who do.

And what money and time would be spent? Assuming no one who doesn't UOC now will want to in the future, Who's going to spend any of either? And in order to expand carry rights beyond the presently legal UOC, it's going to take the same court challenges anyway, except the more restrictive the law, the easier it is to challenge in court. So, unless Calguns, or SAF, or the NRA, etc., would suddenly take up the cause of UOC just because such a law passed, I don't see how it could do anything except put the state in the position of defending an even less-defensible law when/if a statewide LOC challenge ever comes.

navyinrwanda
07-24-2009, 5:12 PM
It is about me and my family. Unless you are going to follow me around and protect my family it is my job.
My original question was directed at organized UOC as a form of protest — or agitation for greater freedoms. I'm still waiting to hear a rational, reasoned and fact-based argument for how and why such activity would lead to greater respect for gun owner's rights in California.

I think it's an entirely different situation if one faces a clear, present and articulable threat to themselves or their family's personal safety. The preservation of one's life — and the lives of their loved ones — trumps almost everything else. But I can't but help question how UOC materially affects personal safety.

If personal safety is at issue, I think reasonable people would take all available steps to avoid or eliminate that threat, including alerting police, avoiding specific areas at certain times of day, and possibly moving to another location. Cost really isn't relevant when your life is in jeopardy — one always finds a way to avoid death or serious injury.

As an answer to specific threats, UOC also suffers from some of the same problems as CCW: do you always carry each and every time you leave your home? Does you family only leave home in your armed presence? How would you defend yourself (and your family) against one or more drawn weapons?

I don't want to start a debate on concealed carry tactics with the last question — it's purpose is to illustrate that nothing's foolproof or 100% certain, and that part of the benefit of widespread CCW is the uncertainty is places in the calculations of a potential assailant.

navyinrwanda
07-24-2009, 5:23 PM
I was here for the cause...
So which is it? Personal and family protection, or activism? Mixing them doesn't advance a reasoned discussion.

Theseus
07-24-2009, 5:29 PM
My original question was directed at organized UOC as a form of protest — or agitation for greater freedoms. I'm still waiting to hear a rational, reasoned and fact-based argument for how and why such activity would lead to greater respect for gun owner's rights in California.

I think it's an entirely different situation if one faces a clear, present and articulable threat to themselves or their family's personal safety. The preservation of one's life — and the lives of their loved ones — trumps almost everything else. But I can't but help question how UOC materially affects personal safety.

If personal safety is at issue, I think reasonable people would take all available steps to avoid or eliminate that threat, including alerting police, avoiding specific areas at certain times of day, and possibly moving to another location. Cost really isn't relevant when your life is in jeopardy — one always finds a way to avoid death or serious injury.

As an answer to specific threats, UOC also suffers from some of the same problems as CCW: do you always carry each and every time you leave your home? Does you family only leave home in your armed presence? How would you defend yourself (and your family) against one or more drawn weapons?

I don't want to start a debate on concealed carry tactics with the last question — it's purpose is to illustrate that nothing's foolproof or 100% certain, and that part of the benefit of widespread CCW is the uncertainty is places in the calculations of a potential assailant.

For your evened approach I can not answer for the effect of a group, I have only OC'd individually.

But when I have I was quite often forwarded the opportunity to educate people on the current gun laws and even inform them that, "yes, it is legal to buy a gun."

By open carrying people would ask the question and listen to an answer. I was invited to provide them with information. Getting more people educated to the fact that owning a gun is in fact legal and not as complicated as people think we can hope to drive people to our side with information.

Sure, I can respect that people won't OC, and why people are against it, but it is an educational tool. I see it not that awfuly different than a man standing at the park with a bible and yelling sermons from a small pedistool.

What I can see as a benefit to groups is:
1. More OC'ers in a group are less likely to get harrassed by police.
2. More OC'ers in a group are more able to get the message out by the fact there are more people to educate and draw attention to.

Hopi
07-24-2009, 5:32 PM
More restrictive law how???? It clearly says that it is already legal...... You want your rights, Stand the F up and fight for em!!! Stop running your mouth and do something about it.. You guys just sitting and waiting and seeing whats going to happen is what got us here in the first place.. IF, when the law went into effect you fought it then, we wouldnt be dealing with it now.
YOu keep running your mouth about your rights, what are you doing to keep them??
So put your knitting needles do you Nancys. Grab a bottle of Midol, and stand the F up, Or bend over and take whats coming to you.. What ever comes your way is your own dang fault for not taking a proactive stance
Your mouth is does no good except to pleasure your loved one or some random stranger.. Blood and sweat is what got us this in the first place, blood and tears are whats going to take to keep them if you dont have the stomach for it, move to Russia or Mexico
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=6928



Wow. This post must be satire?



Certainly, this thread, even more so than the interview thread, is helping bring clarity to the depth of knowledge and maturity found on both sides of this issue. Bravo.

navyinrwanda
07-24-2009, 5:32 PM
But, aside from being arrested for not knowing the law (which can happen even now - you still have to transport them "correctly", such a law would only redefine that term slightly), does this in any real way restrict your rights more than they already are? How is putting them in a locked case significantly worse than what you already have to do?
Ignorance of laws isn't at issue here.

At the moment, the movement of unloaded weapons generally isn't prohibited in public. Legislative intent was likely to not unduly burden a gun owner's ability to transport handguns and long guns from place to place, e.g., from a residence to a car on the street, etc.

Prohibiting all movement except in locked containers is a significant change.

technique
07-24-2009, 5:34 PM
I just wanted to post this because it reminds me of the UOC guys....

I'm not a hunter but i am told,
that, uh, in places like in the arctic,
where indigenous people sometimes might, might, hunt a wolf,
they'll take a double edged blade,
and they'll put blood on the blade,
and they'll melt the ice and stick the handle in the ice,
so that only the blade is protruding,
and that a wolf will smell the blood and wants to eat
,
and it will come and lick the blade trying to eat
,
and what happens is when the wolf licks the blade,
of course, he cuts his tongue, and he bleeds,
and he thinks he's really having a good thing,
and he drinks and he licks and he licks,
and of course he is drinking his own blood and he kills himself,
thats what the Imperialists did with us with crack cocaine,
you have these young brothers out there who think they are getting something
they gonna make a living with,
they is getting something they can buy a car,
like the white people have cars, why can't i have a car?
they getting something they can get a piece of gold,
white people have gold, why can't i have gold?
they getting something to get a house,
white people have a house, why can't i have a house?
and they actually think that theres something thats bringing resources to them,
but they're killing themsleves just like the wolf was licking the blade,
and they're slowly dying without knowing it.
thats whats happening to the community, you with me on that?
thats exactly, precisely what happens to the community,
and instead of blaming the hunter who put the damn handle and blade in the ice
for the wolf,
that what happens is the wolf gets the blame, gets the blame for trying to live,
thats what happens in our community,
you don't blame the person, the victim,
you blame the oppressor, Imperialism, white power is the enemy,
was the enemy when it first came to Africa,
and snatched up the first African brothers here against our will,
isss the enemy today,
and thats the thing
that we have to understand.

7x57
07-24-2009, 5:42 PM
2. I am really sorry I donated 100 bucks to your defense as I'm now convinced it would be more beneficial to the cause with you behind bars.


OK, I may have started this, so I just want to say right now that I *don't* think it was bad to donate to Theseus' fund. I'm sorry he doesn't see the point of acting as a disciplined army for the greater good of the whole--but his mistake does not change the fact that it was a good thing to do to support a gunnie.

Aside from that moral argument, it is a very, very bad idea to start making donations to someone's aid a "leash" on which to pull when the board, or one person, thinks they're out of line. I was only trying to point out that he had reasons to be grateful that others don't think the same as his statements suggested, but it easily turns into just that leash. My point was not worth starting that, and I'm sorry I referred to his fund or even his case at all.

7x57

navyinrwanda
07-24-2009, 5:42 PM
But when I have I was quite often forwarded the opportunity to educate people on the current gun laws and even inform them that, "yes, it is legal to buy a gun."

By open carrying people would ask the question and listen to an answer. I was invited to provide them with information. Getting more people educated to the fact that owning a gun is in fact legal and not as complicated as people think we can hope to drive people to our side with information.

Sure, I can respect that people won't OC, and why people are against it, but it is an educational tool. I see it not that awfuly different than a man standing at the park with a bible and yelling sermons from a small pedistool.

What I can see as a benefit to groups is:
1. More OC'ers in a group are less likely to get harrassed by police.
2. More OC'ers in a group are more able to get the message out by the fact there are more people to educate and draw attention to.
Well, that's pretty clearly all about activism and not about self-defense.

So I come back to my original question: how does this improve or worsen the overall state of gun rights in California?

For every successful one-on-one UOC encounter, there can be many, many more individuals negatively affected. Large group UOC outings can have even more widespread influence through media reporting, notwithstanding the intent to be seen by as many people as possible.

navyinrwanda
07-24-2009, 5:46 PM
...thats what happens in our community,
you don't blame the person, the victim,
you blame the oppressor, Imperialism, white power is the enemy,
was the enemy when it first came to Africa,
and snatched up the first African brothers here against our will,
isss the enemy today,
and thats the thing
that we have to understand.

Wow. Where's that from?

berto
07-24-2009, 5:49 PM
Besides an almost exclusively symbolic step, I don't see any of this. Since the vast majority of people already do not UOC, the change wouldn't significantly affect anyone but the tiny handful of people who do.

And what money and time would be spent? Assuming no one who doesn't UOC now will want to in the future, Who's going to spend any of either? And in order to expand carry rights beyond the presently legal UOC, it's going to take the same court challenges anyway, except the more restrictive the law, the easier it is to challenge in court. So, unless Calguns, or SAF, or the NRA, etc., would suddenly take up the cause of UOC just because such a law passed, I don't see how it could do anything except put the state in the position of defending an even less-defensible law when/if a statewide LOC challenge ever comes.

A more restrictive law would need to be fought throughout the legislative process lest NRA, CRPA, et al. be accused of not doing anything. Why waste their time on battles that are easily avoided?

A more restrictive law affects those open carrying. It also affects those unaware of new restrictions going about their business. Leaving aside that we should all keep up with the law, a new law would sweep up some folks that would otherwise have been fine. Would they not spend money on attorneys? Would there not be posts here asking for help? Would money donated to them not be better spent?

A more restrictive law is perhaps more easily challenged. Why don't we all join Brady and lobby for the silliest most easily challenged laws since that gets us in court faster and gives us supposedly easier wins?

I'm not sure any of this will come to pass but why not err on the side of caution at this stage of the game?

CHS
07-24-2009, 5:52 PM
Besides an almost exclusively symbolic step, I don't see any of this. Since the vast majority of people already do not UOC, the change wouldn't significantly affect anyone but the tiny handful of people who do.


Just think of this in terms of time and money.

We have a 2A that doesn't really exist in California and California has X number of 2A-violating laws.

It is the work of the SAF, CGF, NRA and CRPA to dismantle those laws and restore the 2A like it should exist in our state.

Each lawsuit and court challenge that they bring hopefully gets us to X-1 unconstitutional laws.

Eventually, thousands and thousands of dollars and hours (in terms of years), we WILL have a 2A in CA. The problem is that it's going to take all that time and money. And if a bunch of selfish UOC'ers get us to X+1 laws, it works CONTRARY to the constitution and CONTRARY to the work of the SAF/CGF/NRA/CRPA/etc to get us at X-1.

That is how the hypothetical law would affect you. It would mean you have to wait that much longer to experience a real and true 2A.

The one thing that really bugs me about the UOC'ers is that they go on and on about exercising their rights, and they continually accuse those of us against UOC (FYI, I used to be hugely PRO-UOC), even after they are repeatedly told that it is the GOAL of the SAF/CGF/NRA/CRPA/etc to get not only shall-issue CCW in CA, but PROPER LOADED open-carry. But as more laws get in their way, it makes it harder and takes longer to achieve those goals.

navyinrwanda
07-24-2009, 6:08 PM
Why don't we all join Brady and lobby for the silliest most easily challenged laws since that gets us in court faster and gives us supposedly easier wins?
I think I've heard proponents of UOC make the same argument.

hawk1
07-24-2009, 6:30 PM
Wow. Where's that from?

3og0JaKAbZw

locosway
07-24-2009, 7:04 PM
I think CA will fall off into the ocean before we see LOC.

If I did have a CCW, I would always be afraid of exposing the weapon on accident and then getting in trouble. I'd much rather LOC for the most part, and then CCW when LOC isn't generally accepted.

GaryV
07-24-2009, 7:13 PM
Just think of this in terms of time and money.

We have a 2A that doesn't really exist in California and California has X number of 2A-violating laws.

It is the work of the SAF, CGF, NRA and CRPA to dismantle those laws and restore the 2A like it should exist in our state.

Each lawsuit and court challenge that they bring hopefully gets us to X-1 unconstitutional laws.

Eventually, thousands and thousands of dollars and hours (in terms of years), we WILL have a 2A in CA. The problem is that it's going to take all that time and money. And if a bunch of selfish UOC'ers get us to X+1 laws, it works CONTRARY to the constitution and CONTRARY to the work of the SAF/CGF/NRA/CRPA/etc to get us at X-1.

That is how the hypothetical law would affect you. It would mean you have to wait that much longer to experience a real and true 2A.

The one thing that really bugs me about the UOC'ers is that they go on and on about exercising their rights, and they continually accuse those of us against UOC (FYI, I used to be hugely PRO-UOC), even after they are repeatedly told that it is the GOAL of the SAF/CGF/NRA/CRPA/etc to get not only shall-issue CCW in CA, but PROPER LOADED open-carry. But as more laws get in their way, it makes it harder and takes longer to achieve those goals.

But you still fail to show that there is any reason to believe that such a law as the OP mentioned would bring about such action. I understand everything you talk about already. But if LOC is going to eventually be a goal, then the law suits will be the same in number whether they have to challenge the law as it currently stands or as it would stand under the OP's hypothetical (because they're not going to mount a separate challenge to get UOC back). The new law would supersede the current law, not be a separate law requiring an extra challenge. Not only that, but the law would then be more in conflict with the 2A, and therefore easier (and cheaper) to challenge. So none of you points are at all convincing.

In the mean time, such a law would only affect two activities: transporting guns between home and the range, and UOC. As far as transporting goes, people would have to put their guns in locked cases. That's a minor inconvenience, but hardly more of an imposition than the current requirements. As far as UOC, the only area where such a law would significantly increase the limits on our rights, since virtually no one does it now, virtually no one would be affected.

So what is the actual (not symbolic) risk to the larger gun-owning population?

greasemonkey
07-24-2009, 7:16 PM
Sure, I can respect that people won't OC, and why people are against it, but it is an educational tool. I see it not that awfuly different than a man standing at the park with a bible and yelling sermons from a small pedistool.

It's funny you use that analogy, I often wonder about these street corner soap box preachers and sign holders, whether they're begging people to consider their religion of love or screaming about everyone going to hell, the gist of the feedback I hear is that they can't take a break from speaking out to have an informative discussion with someone. They're so busy trying to make an impact that people find their overenthusiasm to be outlandish and repulsive; and that image is burned in their minds whenever they hear anything about X-religion.

Not that I think UOC guys are out yelling at people, waving signs and being obnoxious, quite the contrary, actually. But the soap box preachers do very little to further their cause and that one person a month is the only result they're willing to see; they don't see the masses of people that are shunned and put off by their impersonal techniques.

Also, it seems like the question does UOC worsen the legislation for 2A in general doesn't really matter much to its advocates. Either it doesn't make a difference or 'I don't care if it makes a difference because it shouldn't'.

If we disregard the legislative impact and only look at the personal, does UOC really benefit you? You're carrying to aid in protecting yourself from a criminal who doesn't follow the law, so he's likely going to have something loaded and concealed and will get a chance to scope out his threats...propelling you to being the primary target hit from behind. Did that serve its' purpose??

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to help raise public perception that it's not just criminals that have guns and be extremely proactive in the community; but to defiantly flaunt OC in groups/protests, thumbing our nose just because it's legal really isn't going to win people over; the same as soap box preachers on street corners and college campuses may not be the most effective use of energy.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 7:32 PM
Worsening the laws on firearms in public heightens the risk of the end state being that the only way you can have an unlocked firearm in public is to have a CCW.

I'm banking on having certain contradictions in the law that currently exist, continue to exist after we prevail in the long road which is Sykes for shall issue CCW. UOC creates real risks of that not being the case.

If UOC is about educating people, then why can't white male straight non disabled UOCers recruit women, LGBT, minorities, or the disable to UOC in their place? Certainly you can convince one person in one of those groups if you're sure that you're otherwise educating the masses.

-Gene

locosway
07-24-2009, 7:40 PM
Worsening the laws on firearms in public heightens the risk of the end state being that the only way you can have an unlocked firearm in public is to have a CCW.

I'm banking on having certain contradictions in the law that currently exist, continue to exist after we prevail in the long road which is Sykes for shall issue CCW. UOC creates real risks of that not being the case.

If UOC is about educating people, then why can't white male straight non disabled UOCers recruit women, LGBT, minorities, or the disable to UOC in their place? Certainly you can convince one person in one of those groups if you're sure that you're otherwise educating the masses.

-Gene

Does this mean you opening support UOC for said groups?

technique
07-24-2009, 7:48 PM
Does this mean you opening support UOC for said groups?

I think more importantly he won't have too.....ACLU will.

locosway
07-24-2009, 7:55 PM
I think more importantly he won't have too.....ACLU will.

The ACLU doesn't concern most people, and until they do actually show support for the 2A I'll continue to not support them.

What I would be more interested in knowing is if the CGF would support said groups for UOC. I would gladly give up my RIGHT to UOC if someone else who could further the cause more effectively would stand in my place.

GaryV
07-24-2009, 7:55 PM
Worsening the laws on firearms in public heightens the risk of the end state being that the only way you can have an unlocked firearm in public is to have a CCW.

But if the only meaningful possession of unlocked firearms in public is UOC, and no one practices UOC for fear of such a law, what difference does it make?

technique
07-24-2009, 8:04 PM
The ACLU doesn't concern most people, and until they do actually show support for the 2A I'll continue to not support them.


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=199953

I don't know about that. See link above...I make a connection.

Minorities, gays....so on, UOC'ing to means???????

locosway
07-24-2009, 8:06 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=199953

I don't know about that. See link above...I make a connection.

Minorities, gays....so on, UOC'ing to means???????

That along with the CO incident is starting to make the ACLU look better. If they keep it up I think they'll be more respected, as I know I will respect them more and so would others I know.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 8:06 PM
Does this mean you opening support UOC for said groups?
Yes. It needs to be at least a small group and there must be a lot of preplanning to make sure they aren't in school zones.

But if the only meaningful possession of unlocked firearms in public is UOC, and no one practices UOC for fear of such a law, what difference does it make?

I think you didn't quote the rest of what I said:

I'm banking on having certain contradictions in the law that currently exist, continue to exist after we prevail in the long road which is Sykes for shall issue CCW. UOC creates real risks of that not being the case.

Do realize that should the legislature ban UOC, they'll take LOC with it. Do you feel good about limiting the choices of the rural residents of California in the process?

-Gene

locosway
07-24-2009, 8:07 PM
Although the only cases I've seen the ACLU support so far are 4A causes, and not a 2A case.

7x57
07-24-2009, 8:09 PM
Do realize that should the legislature ban UOC, they'll take LOC with it. Do you feel good about limiting the choices of the rural residents of California in the process?


Um, urk. I am embarrassed to say I didn't consider that consequence. Might we by chance have a revolt of some of our rural gunnies? Hard to blame them if we betray them like that. :chris:

7x57

locosway
07-24-2009, 8:10 PM
Yes. It needs to be at least a small group and there must be a lot of preplanning to make sure they aren't in school zones.


I think this is good to know. It shows the people who UOC that CGF does care and support their rights in an effective way. If those groups are the maybe the only way we can see action and support for UOC, LOC, and CCW. I think if there was proper channels for getting the information out to these people we may just make a difference.

CHS
07-24-2009, 8:15 PM
But you still fail to show that there is any reason to believe that such a law as the OP mentioned would bring about such action. I understand everything you talk about already. But if LOC is going to eventually be a goal, then the law suits will be the same in number whether they have to challenge the law as it currently stands or as it would stand under the OP's hypothetical (because they're not going to mount a separate challenge to get UOC back). The new law would supersede the current law, not be a separate law requiring an extra challenge. Not only that, but the law would then be more in conflict with the 2A, and therefore easier (and cheaper) to challenge. So none of you points are at all convincing.


Please open your mind and start thinking. The law referenced was one example and only one example.

KylaGWolf
07-24-2009, 8:18 PM
Whether to obey or disregard a law is a personal decision, and generally, the consequences are personal, too.

My question is what about everyone else? If public disobedience is the goal of UOC, how will it improve or worsen gun rights for all Californians? I'd like to hear some reasoned and factual arguments.

Ah there is the thing not all who UOC do so as a form of public disobedience. I will also say there there seem to be two schools of thought here on Calguns. Those that are for and those against open carry.

GaryV
07-24-2009, 8:19 PM
Do realize that should the legislature ban UOC, they'll take LOC with it. Do you feel good about limiting the choices of the rural residents of California in the process?

-Gene

No, I don't realize this. No one has made anything remotely like a convincing case that this is true. LOC, as it is legal now, is an explicit exception to the law, whereas UOC is just an activity allowed because the current wording of the law doesn't explicitly prohibit it; a "loophole", as it were. While they certainly COULD completely rewrite the law in a way that would do away with current exceptions, I see no reason to believe that they would. It'd be far easier to simply amend the current law to ban UOC without disturbing any existing listed exceptions.

artherd
07-24-2009, 8:19 PM
To me, OC is not that much more dangerous to our gun rights than OLL.

Make no mistake, when I began the OLL movement in 2005 I did so in a controlled and calculated environment over the course of 2 years of preparation.

I literally boxed DOJ & the Leg. into a situation in which they had no alternatives but to do something we wanted. And I did this all before pushing the start button.

DOJ & Leg's options were:
1) Reg. (we win)
2) Ban all semiautos and reg (no political support.)
3) Ignore us (we win)
4) Ignore us and eliminate their power to create new AWs (we win biggest.) <they chose this one!

They had one reset option in the very early days - buyback - which I quickly and deliberately eviscerated via massive group buys.

artherd
07-24-2009, 8:22 PM
If you are going to dare someone to do something that you really don't want done... make sure they won't do it! before you make the dare!

technique
07-24-2009, 8:25 PM
3og0JaKAbZw

Fred Hampton

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 8:29 PM
No, I don't realize this. No one has made anything remotely like a convincing case that this is true. LOC, as it is legal now, is an explicit exception to the law, whereas UOC is just an activity allowed because the current wording of the law doesn't explicitly prohibit it; a "loophole", as it were. While they certainly COULD completely rewrite the law in a way that would do away with current exceptions, I see no reason to believe that they would. It'd be far easier to simply amend the current law to ban UOC without disturbing any existing listed exceptions.

LOL. You do know this (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1171&sess=PREV&house=B&author=scott) was only veto'ed because of the budget crisis, right?

Our legislature doesn't like gunowners. When they end UOC they're not going to be precise and dainty about it. To think differently is the epitome of wishful thinking.

-Gene

demnogis
07-24-2009, 8:31 PM
More like those who prefer the government privilege card or the natural right.

Ah there is the thing not all who UOC do so as a form of public disobedience. I will also say there there seem to be two schools of thought here on Calguns. Those that are for and those against open carry.

KylaGWolf
07-24-2009, 8:31 PM
Ignorance of laws isn't at issue here.

At the moment, the movement of unloaded weapons generally isn't prohibited in public. Legislative intent was likely to not unduly burden a gun owner's ability to transport handguns and long guns from place to place, e.g., from a residence to a car on the street, etc.

Prohibiting all movement except in locked containers is a significant change.

Well there is a law that is in the process of being amended that if the amended version passes it will be illegal to have a gun even in a locked container within 1500 feet of a school. So unless you have a garage for your car or your driveway and yard are fenced in you won't be able to take your gun to the range. And in all honesty I wouldn't put it past the anti gun people to try to pass a law as you suggested on here.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 8:34 PM
More like those who prefer the government privilege card or the natural right.

You mean like a parade permit or a zoning variance to open an adult bookstore?

-Gene

demnogis
07-24-2009, 8:36 PM
I disagree with permits to exercise rights.

I also dislike the FCC...

You mean like a parade permit or a zoning variance to open an adult bookstore?

-Gene

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 8:44 PM
I disagree with permits to exercise rights.

I also dislike the FCC...

And I hate the TSA, but I deal with the world we live in, not the world we wish it to be. I do however tend to put a lot of effort into making progress back to a place we'd like to be. Utopianism infects gun controllers and gun rights puritans. The real world isn't there.

-Gene

demnogis
07-24-2009, 8:59 PM
You're right. The real world isn't there. Sadly, our neighboring states are much closer to it than our rights-hating cesspit state of CA.

A lot of UOCers deal with it the best way they can, too.

And I hate the TSA, but I deal with the world we live in, not the world we wish it to be. I do however tend to put a lot of effort into making progress back to a place we'd like to be. Utopianism infects gun controllers and gun rights puritans. The real world isn't there.

-Gene

What bothers me to no end is the infighting, even on a PRO-2A forum.
It's not unreasonable to wish to be armed for your own protection. So many supporting Shall-issue have the desire to be armed for their protection, their family's protection, or any other reason preventative of danger. Someone wishing to properly obtain a CCW should understand then why some choose to OC.

If someone is Unloaded Open Carrying in a place where it is legal to do so... What's the beef with them? Is it because you can see it? New legislation being brought up isn't just aimed at UOC, it's aimed at LCCW - the method of carry that those whom are pro CCW over OC prefer to stay "legal".

It's almost as though the majority do prefer the privilege over the right. This isn't thrown at you, Gene. All of us know where you stand (all bad laws taken down) -- I agree with that, and if I had enough income I would be making a weekly donation to the cause.

Alas, many of the users here are looking at UOC with fire in their eyes, not noticing the bills in the works are aimed at everyone trying to be an armed, Law Abiding Citizen. How many UOCers here do you see preaching about the faults or frailties of Concealed Carry? None. They support your desire to conceal carry as well. We've all agreed that there may be times where the situation or an event a person attending would be better suited carrying concealed.

Let me put it this way, too. In our neighboring state of Arizona, why is it gun owners there respect the freedom of choice, yet in our state so many only support one choice - concealed. Are there so many here, scared to see others armed?

-

I forgot to add... Given many of the anti-OC opinions here (not naming names), it sounds like these are the same people that if in AK, AZ, UT, VI (any state that allows LOC) legislation was in their assembly to ban LOC, they'd be screaming to their 2A communities not to OC because it could further advance anti-2A laws in that state. Once the legislature has established that they're against the freedom of the people, as they have in CA, that should tell us something -- The state wants to make you subjects, not citizens. It doesn't matter what you do while they make the bills in assembly. The lawmakers are working against us on our dime, and we've let them have a blank check.

GaryV
07-24-2009, 9:07 PM
LOL. You do know this (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1171&sess=PREV&house=B&author=scott) was only veto'ed because of the budget crisis, right?

Our legislature doesn't like gunowners. When they end UOC they're not going to be precise and dainty about it. To think differently is the epitome of wishful thinking.

-Gene

But this has nothing to do with UOC, LOC, or anything else under discussion here. Just because the legislature is anti-gun (a fact that I don't dispute), doesn't mean that it automatically follows that UOC is going to lead to the end of LOC in rural areas. Is it possible? Yes. Is there any actual reason to believe it will happen? No. Can anyone actually point to anything, other than a general (well-earned) distrust of the legislature, that supports the idea that UOC will lead to the end of LOC?

Like I said, I don't personally support UOC. I have no desire to do it, and I think that it's of questionable positive value. But I think its possible negative effects are equally questionable, and I have to wonder why such weak points on either side lead to so much friction between people here.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 9:12 PM
Can anyone actually point to anything, other than a general (well-earned) distrust of the legislature, that supports the idea that UOC will lead to the end of LOC?

Let me spell out for you how the legislature will ban UOC. They will make it a crime to have a firearm and ammunition in possession of the same person in public regardless of where that person is (no discharge zone or not.) That may also end poor mans CCW depending on how its worded.

Irwin has already explained this to our folks in Sacramento. You are naive if you don't think they take LOC with UOC...

-Gene

Alaric
07-24-2009, 9:16 PM
This is the most circular debate I've seen in a long while. We never really seem to come to consensus on even the most basic points.

To sum up:

1. UOC can cause bad press - Logical to believe it will eventually, given how biased our liberal media is, but the UOC'ers deny this possibility. They think the liberal media is too busy covering Michael Jackson's funeral. They are partially correct about this.

2. UOC can lead to more restrictive laws - Also a logical conclusion to believe could happen, especially if #1 happens. UOC'ers deny this, as they've been told we have a Republican Governator. LoL.

3. UOC is an ineffective means to protect oneself - Clearly a bad guy who wants your gun won't be restricted by the same laws you are, so yes, a foregone conclusion. UOC'ers deny this and think their super ninja loading skills and ability to slow the time space continuum will save their butts.

4. UOC is an effective means to educate the gun-wary public - Sure, families walking the boardwalk with small children are looking forward to being approached by a group of armed men. UOC'ers think guns are as attractive to everyone as bunny wabbits.

5. UOC will get us our other gun rights back - OK, after passing more restrictive measures year after year consistently and turning more and more biased towards guns it's now going to magically result in the California Legislature repealing all restrictions on firearms. What?

6. UOC is all about personal rights and to hell with the rest of you, move to Russia if you don't like it and STFU. Yeah, see post #38, that's what he basically said. How is UOC not a totally selfish undermining of our collective battle to regain our rights again?

7. UOC could be done with the blessings of the CGF if only they would use people to carry out the protest who are more politically viable and media viable. May as well wear Nazi SS uniforms out there when you're OC'ing, cause that's how some people are seeing you, like it or not. The media is all about perceptions and playing off stereotypes. You guys are playing right into the hands of gun grabbers who want to portray you as white, right-wing gun nuts. UOC'ers think they come off as playfull puppy dawgs, awwww, so cute.

Is that pretty much it, did I cover all the points? Oh yeah, in conclusion, please don't UOC. I know you can, but please don't. Thanks!

Ron-Solo
07-24-2009, 9:18 PM
You are right. It is about me and my family. Unless you are going to follow me around and protect my family it is my job. Since I can't get a CCW then why should I care that you can?

You ask me to not OC so that you can keep your precious piece of paper, how is that not just as selfish?

Dude,

Alhambra ain't exactly the 'hood.

While I firmly understand the law concerning firearms and understand that UOC is legal in many circumstances, what you don't seem to understand is that YOUR decision to UOC effects the potential outcome of future legislation banning UOC. The political climate right now is tenuous and poor judgement can be used against all of us.

I can legally CCW and Loaded OC, but I wouldn't dream of OC (except when on-duty) because you have a tactical disadvantage because you're the first person the BG is going to take out because he knows you're packing. Plus, if caught off guard they can always take your gun and use it against you. That's why LEO's train in weapons retention. When I'm on-duty and in uniform, I am always aware of anyone on my gun side. I have a friend who's name is on the Peace Officer's Memorial in Sacramento and D.C. because he forgot some of those basic principles for a split second that cost him his life.

The last thing we need is some crusader going out and setting a bad example and getting the wrong kind of publicity. Bad publicity is what got us the 89 AW ban. If you think there are any pro-gun media out there, you are sorely mistaken.

We have a saying in law enforcement: "Bad police work makes bad case law" The same goes in the 2A arena.

This isn't Hollywood where even bad publicity is good publicity. In the 2A arena, bad publicity can be lethal to our cause.

FYI, I support CCW for law abiding citizens with no criminal history and clean bill of health in the mental health arena.

Common sense and proper timing are critical to changing the stupid gun laws. Too many incidents with UOC could lead to a panic by one or more anti-gun legislators resulting in more bad laws.

HondaMasterTech
07-24-2009, 9:24 PM
I stay hoping the tide turns. Due to BoR immunity the state has over the 2nd right now, "they" could outlaw gun ownership completely.

dustoff31
07-24-2009, 9:35 PM
Let me put it this way, too. In our neighboring state of Arizona, why is it gun owners there respect the freedom of choice, yet in our state so many only support one choice - concealed. Are there so many here, scared to see others armed?

I don't think it is quite fair to compare CA and AZ in this respect. The cultures surrounding guns are completely different. Both in the citizenry and the legislature.

When you ask "are there so many here, scared to see others armed?" Do you mean here on CalGuns, or here being CA in general? If the latter, then yes, the vast majority are scared to see people armed.

FWIW, In my part of AZ, I don't know anyone who open carries just because they can. If going to the range, out in the desert, or some particular reason, (like going to Phoenix) then yeah. But to strap just to go to the grocery store..it just doesn't happen all that much.

To be quite frank. Most of the people open carrying around here are visitors from CA. And most of those who express shock or dismay about people open carrying are visitors from CA or the Northeast.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 9:36 PM
I stay hoping the tide turns. Due to BoR immunity the state has over the 2nd right now, "they" could outlaw gun ownership completely.

Politically they can't. This is at the heart of understanding the electoral issues. The gun ban side gets that they can only go so far. However, so far includes making guns never be in public if not on the waist of a sworn LEO.

Decoding the socio-political reality is much of what a lot of us ask of folks who think UOC is a good idea. Unfortunately it seems that those who most defend UOC don't take that skill very seriously.

-Gene

GaryV
07-24-2009, 9:39 PM
Let me spell out for you how the legislature will ban UOC. They will make it a crime to have a firearm and ammunition in possession of the same person in public regardless of where that person is (no discharge zone or not.) That may also end poor mans CCW depending on how its worded.

This is a completely different approach to banning UOC than the OP's hypothetical law, and seems a far less likely approach since it would be problematic in several ways.

On a slightly different note, given the other argument over UOC, whether it is effective for self-defense, if UOC is of questionable use, poor man's CCW is even more so.

The reality is that, for the vast majority of Californians, no really effective means of carry exists, and will not exist until either shall-issue CCW or state-wide LOC is gained. Whatever laws get passed because of a backlash against UOC (assuming it even happens at all), they're not likely to significantly change that, because what little right exists now is either virtually worthless or very rarely exercised (or both). So I don't see the point to all the fuss over it either way.

But clearly people on both sides are entrenched, so I'll just accept that it will continue to be a distracting point of friction.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-24-2009, 9:42 PM
4. UOC is an effective means to educate the gun-wary public - Sure, families walking the boardwalk with small children are looking forward to being approached by a group of armed men. UOC'ers think guns are as attractive to everyone as bunny wabbits.

[...]

7. UOC could be done with the blessings of the CGF if only they would use people to carry out the protest who are more politically viable and media viable. May as well wear Nazi SS uniforms out there when you're OC'ing, cause that's how some people are seeing you, like it or not. The media is all about perceptions and playing off stereotypes. You guys are playing right into the hands of gun grabbers who want to portray you as white, right-wing gun nuts. UOC'ers think they come off as playfull puppy dawgs, awwww, so cute.

Is that pretty much it, did I cover all the points? Oh yeah, in conclusion, please don't UOC. I know you can, but please don't. Thanks!

Thank you for saying this. Many of us believe this. And if the UOC crowd is having trouble convincing even everyone on this forum - which is about as sympathetic a community as you're going to get - how does it play to the rest of the population to whom guns are intimidating and UOC is unnerving?

wildhawker
07-24-2009, 9:42 PM
As much as I respect Gene's vast experience, understanding and savvy (as well as his perspective), I will disagree that U/OC using even non-white males would be effective or useful at this time. Until there is no stone left to overturn (read: we have CCW firmly locked, preferably along with LOC), the media and the anti-gun orgs will spin each and every one of the U/OCers into a living reason why carry of any sort is not prudent or safe. I've spent 23 years very intimately involved with the DD/disabled community, and have very well-educated (masters and PhD-level folks) friends and acquaintances with varying degrees of CP, etc. who are sympathetic to 2A. Even they would be spun into slobbering short-bus riding lunatics with guns on their (twisted) hips.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 9:49 PM
On a slightly different note, given the other argument over UOC, whether it is effective for self-defense, if UOC is of questionable use, poor man's CCW is even more so.

Poor mans CCW:

1. Is as useful as UOC.
2. Doesn't risk hurting gun rights - it's concealed after all.

You have to think about the optimal ways to LUCC (locked unloaded concealed carry) to really understand why it is superior to UOC.

-Gene

berto
07-24-2009, 9:52 PM
Like I said, I don't personally support UOC. I have no desire to do it, and I think that it's of questionable positive value. But I think its possible negative effects are equally questionable, and I have to wonder why such weak points on either side lead to so much friction between people here.

You've summed it up.

The positive or negative value of UOC is questionable. There's friction because the UOC crowd is unwilling to let the possible negative outcome dissuade them and the anti-UOC crowd would prefer it not take place because any possible positive outcome isn't worth the possibility of a negative outcome. We can default to doing it because we want to, damn any consequences, or default to not doing it because it carries an element of risk that may complicate the larger fight. Many of us have strong beliefs on this and there isn't a ton of middle ground.

locosway
07-24-2009, 9:52 PM
Overall I think this thread is pointless. Too many opinions, too many directions, and no clear winner. The people with more experience see that UOC is a bad idea at this time. The people without said experience think it's fine. And when I'm talking about experience I mean with CGF and this forum.

I'd bet money that everyone would hold off on UOC if there was a sure deadline of LOC and CCW being locked in and fixed. I've heard it's right around the corner, but what does that mean? Will we see it in weeks, months, or years?

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 9:54 PM
I'd bet money that everyone would hold off on UOC if there was a sure deadline of LOC and CCW being locked in and fixed. I've heard it's right around the corner, but what does that mean? Will we see it in weeks, months, or years?

There were a lot of African Americans who had fallen in love with white women who wanted the answer to a similar question in 1950. In hindsight it took them another 18 years.

I can promise you that it will not take 18 years to give you a positive answer.

-Gene

locosway
07-24-2009, 9:57 PM
There were a lot of African Americans who had fallen in love with white women who wanted the answer to a similar question in 1950. In hindsight it took them another 18 years.

I can promise you that it will not take 18 years to give you a positive answer.

-Gene

Good, because I won't be in CA much over 6 years I'm hoping.

On a side note. Can you explain how the Sykes case will affect other counties besides the two listed?

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 10:02 PM
On a side note. Can you explain how the Sykes case will affect other county's besides the two listed?

Sykes core point is that there is a right to carry. If California restricts that to CCW, then CCW's are parade permits and can't be denied via simple discretion. Once that is the rule in the Eastern District of California Federal Court it is almost a foregone conclusion that that will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Once we've won there - which may take a trip to SCOTUS - then that rule will apply to every county in every state in the 9th Circuit.

-Gene

7x57
07-24-2009, 10:05 PM
On a side note. Can you explain how the Sykes case will affect other county's besides the two listed?

The Romans would punish a severely misbehaving legion by decimation, killing every tenth man as a warning to the 90% who remained that their necks were on the line. Generally the remaining 90% changed their behavior even though nothing had actually been done to them.

It works with sheriffs, too. :43:

7x57

GaryV
07-24-2009, 10:05 PM
Poor mans CCW:

1. Is as useful as UOC.
2. Doesn't risk hurting gun rights - it's concealed after all.

You have to think about the optimal ways to LUCC (locked unloaded concealed carry) to really understand why it is superior to UOC.

-Gene

Even the most optimal method of LUCC is not as useful as UOC. There's no locked container from which a gun and magazine can both be withdrawn and combined into a functional weapon anywhere near as quickly as from a holster and mag pouch.

Yes, the risk of adverse political effects is less, because of the concealment. But the first time someone is involved in even the slightest bit questionable shooting while LUCC, that will change. And the type of law you suggested is a much more likely response to that situation than it would be to UOC. UOC can be stopped with a far less restrictive law than LUCC. So, while there is LESS risk of reactive legislation, it isn't zero.

Again, I'm not taking either side in the larger debate. I think both these carry options suck, and I think the points on both sides of the argument are exceedingly weak, leading to a wasteful disagreement over what should or should not be done.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 10:07 PM
Even the most optimal method of LUCC is not as useful as UOC. There's no locked container from which a gun and magazine can both be withdrawn and combined into a functional weapon anywhere near as quickly as from a holster and mag pouch.


There is, but you have to think about things temporally. I'll leave it at that. I hope your imagination can fill in the blanks. However, if you can't figure out what I'm saying then you will not understand why I say it is superior to UOC and - when using it for self defense - is an excellent risk reward profile.

If there is a shooting - how the gun got there will not matter. At. All.

-Gene

bigtoe416
07-24-2009, 10:23 PM
Today I don't have to lock up long arms or handguns when I transport them correctly. After that law, I would have to.

Sorry about jumping back in time 6 hours, but how exactly does one transport handguns to the range if you aren't either open carrying them or locking them in a fully enclosed container?

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 10:25 PM
Sorry about jumping back in time 6 hours, but how exactly does one transport handguns to the range if you aren't either open carrying them or locking them in a fully enclosed container?

It is legal (but not advised as most LEO's are unaware) to put an unloaded handgun in plain view on the dash when transporting it to the range.

-Gene

locosway
07-24-2009, 10:27 PM
It is legal (but not advised as most LEO's are unaware) to put an unloaded handgun in plain view on the dash when transporting it to the range.

-Gene

Assuming you miss every school zone...

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 10:43 PM
Assuming you miss every school zone...

Yep.

-Gene

HondaMasterTech
07-24-2009, 10:51 PM
Politically they can't. This is at the heart of understanding the electoral issues. The gun ban side gets that they can only go so far. However, so far includes making guns never be in public if not on the waist of a sworn LEO.

Decoding the socio-political reality is much of what a lot of us ask of folks who think UOC is a good idea. Unfortunately it seems that those who most defend UOC don't take that skill very seriously.

-Gene

I agree that it likely wont happen. My comment is directed at the fact that we have no RKBA in our constitution (CA). Which is not reassuring to me.

odysseus
07-24-2009, 11:05 PM
Let me spell out for you how the legislature will ban UOC. They will make it a crime to have a firearm and ammunition in possession of the same person in public regardless of where that person is (no discharge zone or not.) That may also end poor mans CCW depending on how its worded.

Irwin has already explained this to our folks in Sacramento. You are naive if you don't think they take LOC with UOC...

The end goal for all of us I would think is shall issue CCW, as is in so many other states in the Union. It is the best (and really only) way to carry for defense, and the most personal way to practice your RKBAs without constant intrusion about you having to be a visual target. I have stayed a lot in the sidelines about the UOC with a point of observing, for I like to keep an open mind, but I am increasingly concerned on the merits of what Gene and CGF are saying. It will be used as a tool of fear by those who are constantly attempting to never have the end goal of shall issue CCW for Californians.

On another note, I have always preferred the man whom plays poker well and with stealth over the man who flashes his cards and gives his tells to everyone as he runs his mouth. The man who plays his cards right more than often wins the pot.

7x57
07-24-2009, 11:14 PM
The end goal for all of us I would think is shall issue CCW, as is in so many other states in the Union. It is the best (and really only) way to carry for defense, and the most personal way to practice your RKBAs without constant intrusion about you having to be a visual target.

Beg differ. I want LOC with no drama, and no sneaky LA-county special rules, when back-country hiking.

I also want legal LOC while CCWing in the city so I cannot be harassed if I accidentally expose my sidearm.

I'm gonna be pissed if UOC ends up meaning I cannot LOC in the wilderness to protect my family from cougars bears pot farmers, and almost as pissed if it means I have to do it concealed.

7x57

locosway
07-24-2009, 11:17 PM
Beg differ. I want LOC with no drama, and no sneaky LA-county special rules, when back-country hiking.

I also want legal LOC while CCWing in the city so I cannot be harassed if I accidentally expose my sidearm.

I'm gonna be pissed if UOC ends up meaning I cannot LOC in the wilderness to protect my family from cougars bears pot farmers, and almost as pissed if it means I have to do it concealed.

7x57

Same...

Sons of Liberty
07-24-2009, 11:45 PM
It just doesn't seem right what CGF is asking: to not exercise OC'ing. It's like CGF is doing what the California legislature wants. They don't want guns visible in public. They don't want them to be seen on the hips of lawabiding citizens. They don't want the common man to have access to a tool of self-protection outside his home.

It has not been unlawful in the past. Why make it unlawful (de facto) now? Why would I want to give up something that I have, my father had, and his father had?

What is being asked of UOC'ers is to disarm and be quiet. That's not right.

Theseus
07-25-2009, 12:07 AM
So ignoring the rhetoric and disagrement about the benefit or negative impact. . . Assuming we stop open carrying and no new laws are made the idea is that we will, in time, attack:

1. 12031
2. 12025/12050
3. 626.9

There are others, but these are really the ones that OC will effect. So, lets play this out. If we continue to OC we will likely end up not with new laws, but with edited versions of:

1. 12031
2. 12025/12050
3. 626.9

So the question is, if we are going to attack them in the first place, then what will be the difference fighting them if OC leads to some newly edited really bad version of the same?

At this point I am simply trying to understand how OC will make it any more complicated than it already is? We will still have to fight the same laws, the only possible or perceived difference would be that we might have some more ridiculous laws to fight instead of some marginally agreeable ones.

I kind of understand what Gene and them are talking about, and I somewhat agree. Sometimes the ideal gets away from reality. They are right in the fact that OC will likely not produce a positive result in California when dealing with California legislature or legal system. The real issue I have and albeit perhaps misguided is the fact that because of the CA laws I do not have a legal mens to, with adequate speed and freedom, have one of the best tools to defend and protect my family with in the event my other tools are not good enough (such as my SA).

Sure, Alhambra isn't the "hood", but as we say all the time crime can happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere. I have been to the local malls and TWICE has someone gunned down less than 10 feet in front of me. I have been in the local 99 Ranch super market when some Asian gang gunned down someone in the parking lot. I have myself been stabbed. Just because at this moment I am not being hit by a car doesn't mean I don't have health insurance.

Perhaps California is the ONE state the OC won't work in because there is nothing California seems to hate more than an activist.

wildhawker
07-25-2009, 12:33 AM
No one is asking for or demanding disarmament. What IS being asked is to consider the ramifications open carry may (likely) have to the END GAME and place the attainment of the goal ahead of our personal interests for a short time.

Your assertions are baseless and assenine. CGF works tirelessly to provide an opportunity that we ALL should have the right to carry outside the home. You, the 'common man', will one day benefit from their work (and likely already do)- that is, unless you and others undermine it with foolish and self-interested actions today.

Let me ask you this- would you agree to NEVER carry again, and place your life into the hands of God and the forces of this world, if it meant that carry rights were guaranteed for all who come after you? Could you accept the loss of your own life, if that is the course of things, that others may live and enjoy the freedoms you so cherish?

Your father unloaded open carried? You grandfather unloaded open carried? Really? How ironic that the people who will make U/OC unlawful are the people who practice and flaunt it before the public and politicians. Such a steep price we all will pay for the socio-political tantrum of just a few.

What is so difficult to understand about a temporary suspension of activity? You are not permanently GIVING UP anything by practicing restraint. Every year I overeat at Thanksgiving and Christmas, and every year I restrain from eating pie and such for a month or so following the holidays in order for me to realize my goal, to slim down and allow for more pie-eating throughout the year. I'm not 'giving it up', I just take a break so that I can enjoy it in the future.

What Open Carry-ers are being asked is to put the lives, interests and rights of the millions alive now and to come ahead of their own. What an incredible opportunity to make such a substantial impact- all by simply doing nothing for now. Many in the U/OC crowd have shown themselves to lack the understanding, foresight and/or courage to do just that. I shudder to think if ever our armed forces were to take on such a culture.

It just doesn't seem right what CGF is asking: to not exercise OC'ing. It's like CGF is doing what the California legislature wants. They don't want guns visible in public. They don't want them to be seen on the hips of lawabiding citizens. They don't want the common man to have access to a tool of self-protection outside his home.

It has not been unlawful in the past. Why make it unlawful (de facto) now? Why would I want to give up something that I have, my father had, and his father had?

What is being asked of UOC'ers is to disarm and be quiet. That's not right.

Theseus
07-25-2009, 12:53 AM
No one is asking for or demanding disarmament. What IS being asked is to consider the ramifications open carry may (likely) have to the END GAME and place the attainment of the goal ahead of our personal interests for a short time.

Your assertions are baseless and assenine. CGF works tirelessly to provide an opportunity that we ALL should have the right to carry outside the home. You, the 'common man', will one day benefit from their work (and likely already do)- that is, unless you and others undermine it with foolish and self-interested actions today.

Let me ask you this- would you agree to NEVER carry again, and place your life into the hands of God and the forces of this world, if it meant that carry rights were guaranteed for all who come after you? Could you accept the loss of your own life, if that is the course of things, that others may live and enjoy the freedoms you so cherish?

Your father unloaded open carried? You grandfather unloaded open carried? Really? How ironic that the people who will make U/OC unlawful are the people who practice and flaunt it before the public and politicians. Such a steep price we all will pay for the socio-political tantrum of just a few.

What is so difficult to understand about a temporary suspension of activity? You are not permanently GIVING UP anything by practicing restraint. Every year I overeat at Thanksgiving and Christmas, and every year I restrain from eating pie and such for a month or so following the holidays in order for me to realize my goal, to slim down and allow for more pie-eating throughout the year. I'm not 'giving it up', I just take a break so that I can enjoy it in the future.

What Open Carry-ers are being asked is to put the lives, interests and rights of the millions alive now and to come ahead of their own. What an incredible opportunity to make such a substantial impact- all by simply doing nothing for now. Many in the U/OC crowd have shown themselves to lack the understanding, foresight and/or courage to do just that. I shudder to think if ever our armed forces were to take on such a culture.

Let me see if I can sum this up pretty succinctly.

Calguns Foundation has helped the Californian gun owner. Almost no gunner that knows of Calguns would disagree with that. Even I agree they have done for me.

I think the real issue for OC'ers is the end game and the timeframe.

OC'ers want it now, and CGF is saying "wait". We have no idea how long this will last and with no gurantee that in the end what we want will be the same as what CGF wants and will provide.

We want to see something that would prove or indicate to us that we are truly in not the thoughts and minds of CGF but in the actions.

I am sure that most OC'ers will agree that if there were some actionable moves by CGF that might set us at ease and make us slightly more agreeable.

But here is the problem with that. We dont want to put our money and effort into a group that might not ever be on the same page as us, and CGF does not want to help us unless we provide our money and effort. So someone will have to make the first move.

I believe that I will treak CGF like the ACLU. I will support you in every regard I can, but for help in OC I will seek to start another group of OC'ers that are dedicated to that cause.

Perhaps there will be a time where the groups can work together, but until then each will fight its own battles and stop distracting each other. Is that a fair answer to our current predicament?

Dr. Peter Venkman
07-25-2009, 1:01 AM
Perhaps there will be a time where the groups can work together, but until then each will fight its own battles and stop distracting each other. Is that a fair answer to our current predicament?

Considering that CGF is the forerunner, I'd say that's a big NO. A UOC split is pointless. CGF is doing all of the legal battling and handling the key players behind RKBA. The Black Panthers did just as you were saying, "Our rights, and our rights NOW!" 30 years ago when they walked into the state capital with multiple firearms. They were arrested and later released because it was not a crime. Shortly thereafter the legislature decided to make that very act illegal. You are proposing doing the same thing, albeit in public and not in front of politicians. What is UOC going to accomplish again, let alone a smaller group that does not have any resources available to it?

Theseus
07-25-2009, 1:37 AM
Considering that CGF is the forerunner, I'd say that's a big NO. A UOC split is pointless. CGF is doing all of the legal battling and handling the key players behind RKBA. The Black Panthers did just as you were saying, "Our rights, and our rights NOW!" 30 years ago when they walked into the state capital with multiple firearms. They were arrested and later released because it was not a crime. Shortly thereafter the legislature decided to make that very act illegal. You are proposing doing the same thing, albeit in public and not in front of politicians. What is UOC going to accomplish again, let alone a smaller group that does not have any resources available to it?

Maybe nothing, but at least we can each get on with it instead of distracting each other from their goals. Besides, I am sure that properly motivated that perhaps we can through time develop connections and influence.

wildhawker
07-25-2009, 1:41 AM
Why does the change have to be on O/OCers' timeframe? What makes one think that is a reasonable or probable outcome?

My point was to ask if it is not better to 'win', even if that means you and I don't get to enjoy the fruit of the labor (and sacrifice)? (Although I highly suspect we will in our lifetimes).

What I see in U/OCers is a growing trend of well-intentioned impatience and irrational action in response to their internalized frustrations.

I will note that the U/OC camp has not provided any "...gurantee that in the end what [we] want will be the same as what..." [U/OC] wants and will provide. It's being demanded of CGF, but no one in the U/OC has been able to provably articulate how U/OC will achieve what they "want". Frankly, I don't think many U/OCers have been as honest or open in stating their motivations as you just were, which has largely prevented us from discussing *these* critical points (the main point, of course, is that there are no *guarantees* to any of this, only more probable outcomes than others). This truth instills in each of us a fear that we may *lose* something regardless of all the hard work, blood, sweat, money and tears that have been put forth in the fight. Where we are left with uncertainty and fear, such is where faith has no greater purpose and, quite naturally, our instincts prod us into developing this faith as a survival mechanism. This is where we are today- deciding where to place our faith (and the risk of heartbreak, and maybe even death), and fight or flight is driving us into a battle amongst ourselves. Fear has created and defined this conversation and both movements.

I do appreciate your candor here, Theseus, and hope this conversation will continue along these lines. The honesty is refreshing.

Let me see if I can sum this up pretty succinctly.

Calguns Foundation has helped the Californian gun owner. Almost no gunner that knows of Calguns would disagree with that. Even I agree they have done for me.

I think the real issue for OC'ers is the end game and the timeframe.

OC'ers want it now, and CGF is saying "wait". We have no idea how long this will last and with no gurantee that in the end what we want will be the same as what CGF wants and will provide.
We want to see something that would prove or indicate to us that we are truly in not the thoughts and minds of CGF but in the actions.

I am sure that most OC'ers will agree that if there were some actionable moves by CGF that might set us at ease and make us slightly more agreeable.

But here is the problem with that. We dont want to put our money and effort into a group that might not ever be on the same page as us, and CGF does not want to help us unless we provide our money and effort. So someone will have to make the first move.

I believe that I will treak CGF like the ACLU. I will support you in every regard I can, but for help in OC I will seek to start another group of OC'ers that are dedicated to that cause.

Perhaps there will be a time where the groups can work together, but until then each will fight its own battles and stop distracting each other. Is that a fair answer to our current predicament?

Theseus
07-25-2009, 2:10 AM
Why does the change have to be on O/OCers' timeframe? What makes one think that is a reasonable or probable outcome?

My point was to ask if it is not better to 'win', even if that means you and I don't get to enjoy the fruit of the labor (and sacrifice)? (Although I highly suspect we will in our lifetimes).

What I see in U/OCers is a growing trend of well-intentioned impatience and irrational action in response to their internalized frustrations.

I will note that the U/OC camp has not provided any "...gurantee that in the end what [we] want will be the same as what..." [U/OC] wants and will provide. It's being demanded of CGF, but no one in the U/OC has been able to provably articulate how U/OC will achieve what they "want". Frankly, I don't think many U/OCers have been as honest or open in stating their motivations as you just were, which has largely prevented us from discussing *these* critical points (the main point, of course, is that there are no *guarantees* to any of this, only more probable outcomes than others). This truth instills in each of us a fear that we may *lose* something regardless of all the hard work, blood, sweat, money and tears that have been put forth in the fight. Where we are left with uncertainty and fear, such is where faith has no greater purpose and, quite naturally, our instincts prod us into developing this faith as a survival mechanism. This is where we are today- deciding where to place our faith (and the risk of heartbreak, and maybe even death), and fight or flight is driving us into a battle amongst ourselves. Fear has created and defined this conversation and both movements.

I do appreciate your candor here, Theseus, and hope this conversation will continue along these lines. The honesty is refreshing.

I don't expect guarantees of result, but I do expect or desire a guarantee that OC won't be thrown under the bus.

I know we have said it often, and even CGF has said that they have no desire to throw us under the bus, but we see that backed up in nothing but words.

CGF's goals and actions are not presently aligned with OC'ers goals and actions. Until we can get those assurances I don't think the two can work together.

Let us start here. I remember in about July of last year we were asked to hold off on open carrying until the Aug break of legislature where no new legislation could be passed. We were reluctant but assured that once that happened we could OC again. We did that (well, most of us).

We were then asked to "wait for Nordyke" and then we could OC again. The day Nordyke came down we were told again "Don't OC yet! We have a long way to go still".

It is the perverbial carrot and stick. We made concessions and waited, holding off because we had faith in "the right people" and their promises that we would soon be out of the forest...We are still waiting and I think many are done.

We don't see how shall-issue CCW will help us receive LOC statewide. We do see how OC can help push for shall-issue CCW, especially considering it has happened in other states.

And keep in mind I don't speek for all open carriers any more than Calguns speaks for all California gunnies. I can only tell you what I feel and presume that the others feel the same.

artherd
07-25-2009, 2:49 AM
Good, because I won't be in CA much over 6 years I'm hoping.

On a side note. Can you explain how the Sykes case will affect other counties besides the two listed?

Sykes will almost certainly go to the 9th - when it does (and we win, which may take a little while) it will become binding precedent in the entire circuit.

artherd
07-25-2009, 3:06 AM
It just doesn't seem right what CGF is asking: to not exercise OC'ing.

No, what we're saying here amounts to "Hey, don't attack that guy over there on the hill shooting up the place with your wooden spoon. It's not gonna work so good, and besides I have a pair of F-15s inbound with JDAMS.

What is being asked of UOC'ers is to disarm and be quiet. That's not right.

Hardly, what we're asking is you to arm up via LCC, and instead of screwing this all up with your wooden spoons, kick a thousand bucks our way to fund This Already Filed Lawsuit (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/news/71-saf-calguns-challenge-arbitrary-denial-of-right-to-bear-arms-in-california) which. will. win.

Liberty1
07-25-2009, 3:29 AM
It just doesn't seem right what CGF is asking: to not exercise OC'ing. It's like CGF is doing what the California legislature wants. They don't want guns visible in public. They don't want them to be seen on the hips of lawabiding citizens. They don't want the common man to have access to a tool of self-protection outside his home.

It has not been unlawful in the past. Why make it unlawful (de facto) now? Why would I want to give up something that I have, my father had, and his father had?

What is being asked of UOC'ers is to disarm and be quiet. That's not right.

I helped jump start UOC several years ago along with several others. So please accept my opinion as NOT anti OC.

What I see is that the legal strategy to establish a "Right to bear" being propagated by SAF/CGF Gura/Kilmer in FED CIVIL COURT compared to the exercise of UOC (and it's defense in CA CRIMINAL COURTS) for all the good reasons we've stated is analogous to the differences between Chess and Checkers.

I agree with Eugine Voloch that the Federal 2nd A. right which will reign from coast to coast will be LOC. But what SAF/CGF are doing in their battle plan might just get CA what every gold star OC state has and that's shall issue concealed carry.

And as much as OC is for me (and is the Right:p) CC will serve the private and business purposes of a majority of self defense rights supporters in Ca as it is practiced nation wide.

There must be an order of suits and what has been envisioned takes in to account the greater good. I do believe we'll get LOC at the same point in time regardless of whether or not individuals UOC now.

Realize that "the plan" will get re-evaluated after Sykes to take advantage of or redeploy according to the ever changing battle field. If Sykes fails because "laws which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons do not offend the second amendment" (USSC Robertson v Baldwin dicta) for example then we attack school zones or the loaded ban in regard to OC (I'm speculating here for discussion purposes as I have no inside info).

UOCers would be wise to shift with the changing battle field as the enemy is maneuvering on our flank.

TO BE MORE BLUNT: UOCers, (great Americans all!!!!), MUST CONSIDER LUCC FOR SELF DEFENSE NEEDS AND FOR ACTIVISM DESIRES GO RECRUIT GUN OWNERS, OUR NATURAL ALIES, TO THE CAUSE THROUGH OUTREACH (such as CGF booths, NRA meetings, etc...) (GROW THE BASE and STAY UNITED!)




(and for all those who are pining for CC - I've done it for 9 years now and it's a PITA, literally. OC, feels like skinny dipping: :43:)

greasemonkey
07-25-2009, 4:54 AM
I don't see how this is so difficult to understand. Combined with the perspective and warnings from people that are aggressively pursuing our bogus laws, working to get them overturned, also helping to get effective laws on the books...if the people doing this are saying "hey, UOC in the immediate future is going to hurt us all", what is there to argue over? Doing something just because you can that hurts the statewide 2A community seems pretty grossly selfish.

7x57
07-25-2009, 6:09 AM
OC'ers want it now, and CGF is saying "wait".


So does my four-year-old. Says volumes.


We have no idea how long this will last and with no gurantee that in the end what we want will be the same as what CGF wants and will provide.


That's more or less what happens when you're born mortal. Welcome to adult life.


I am sure that most OC'ers will agree that if there were some actionable moves by CGF that might set us at ease and make us slightly more agreeable.

But here is the problem with that. We dont want to put our money and effort into a group that might not ever be on the same page as us, and CGF does not want to help us unless we provide our money and effort. So someone will have to make the first move.


It's hard to even be polite about such misrepresentation. Gene has said quite clearly that the reason for moving on CCW first is to get both. And Sykes moves on CCW, so CGF has already taken the first step toward LOC.

Do actually read the same board? Or is the problem just that you want what you want when you want it and frankly don't care who dies to get it for you?


Perhaps there will be a time where the groups can work together, but until then each will fight its own battles and stop distracting each other. Is that a fair answer to our current predicament?

If you're that amazingly selfish, perhaps. Why use CG to talk about betraying everyone and sabotaging all the good work of CGF?

7x57

7x57
07-25-2009, 6:27 AM
I don't expect guarantees of result, but I do expect or desire a guarantee that OC won't be thrown under the bus.


This is a lie, or perhaps simply very bad memory. You did, actually, a personal one from Gene. Right here on this board. Very, very clear and unambiguous. He gave an approximate time frame, in that he said that CCW had to be clarified first and why, and told you the strategy to get LOC once CCW was established (if there is a Right to Bear then it must be OC for long guns). In fact, he all but promised to do some OC himself at that time. (May have actually promised, but I'd have to look at the precise wording.)

I'd give a link, but that was a very very long thread and frankly I don't feel like running it down--so are you going to call me a liar too?


I know we have said it often, and even CGF has said that they have no desire to throw us under the bus, but we see that backed up in nothing but words.


Theseus, at this point honor demands that you either retract that or confirm that you are calling Gene a liar, and probably others. Because you are.

Are you calling the CGF board liars? It's a yes/no question, and I want an answer.


CGF's The goals and actions of people who think and act like responsible adults are not presently aligned with OC'ers goals and actions.


Fixed it for you.


Until we can get those assurances I don't think the two can work together.


Probably not, but the reason is that all this is childish, selfish behavior. I'm very sorry to have to say that out loud, but the adults at the table are thinking it at this point anyway.

I want everyone to note this: Gene's point about the UOC people having no insight about the public's reaction to UOC is precisely mirrored by this demonstrated lack of insight about CGF and other gunnies. The UOC people are not living in the real world in any area.


We don't see how shall-issue CCW will help us receive LOC statewide.


Theseus, I've met you, and I really don't believe you are stupid. So what is your game here? Is it just what Gene said, total lack of social insight? Or what? It's puzzling.


We do see how OC can help push for shall-issue CCW, especially considering it has happened in other states.


More lack of reality. You see things that aren't there. This is just a joke.

I think we're done here. As John Ashcroft said, free people are free to do bad things.

I'm starting to have a weird sympathy with how it must have been to be a leftist revolutionary, with splinter groups forming and fissioning all the time. It must have been just like this. I might as well grow the beard and get the big fur hat right now.

7x57

Midian
07-25-2009, 6:48 AM
California's idea of Unloaded Open Carry is pretty insulting. At least in Utah--for example--you can have a mag in the weapon, just not a round in the chamber. By their definition, that is unloaded.

Seems like a fair enough way to make everyone happy. Draw, cycle the slide, ready to go.

It would be amazing to say the least to have CA be a state where gun owners aren't viewed by their governing body as a seething mess of undesirables when in reality they are the zenith of the law abiding citizen, taking on what really is these days a heavy civic burden.

Whether or not open carrying in California jeapordizes some future ruling in our favour about how we are treated legislatively, I couldn't tell you. I do think the public needs to see handguns more out in the open and get over the shock associated with them--as portrayed in their favourite TV Cop shows and the piles of misinformation fed to them through mass media.

Thesus and PullNShoot have some pretty big brass balls on the issue.

Hats off to those two.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-25-2009, 7:48 AM
...I ask this question since, barring some sort of catastrophe like a police shooting, new legislation of this sort seems to be the most likely unintended — and unwelcome — consequence of UOC....


Since you later clarified that you're talking about UOC events, & since I participate in all of those that I'm invited to, I'll state why I do so & why I think the call to stop is the wrong approach.

First, new anti-gun legislation isn't going to be the consequence of UOC. Here in the PRK, new anti-gun legislation is the norm. That's just the way it is. It doesn't matter what we do or don't do, new restrictions are coming our way. So, there's no real downside to UOC.

Second, because that's just the way it is, our battlefield isn't the PRK legislature. Just as state "Jim Crow" laws weren't defeated in the state legislatures, anti-gun laws in the PRK won't be defeated in Sacramento. They'll be defeated in the same place that Jim Crow was, in the Federal Courts. Given this reality, worries over what the PRK legislature will do should not be a major concern.

Third, gun rights aren't just for gunnies. We (all Calgunners, not just the UOC crowd) do what we do to benefit We The People. THIS is what makes us the Civil Rights workers that we truly are. Part & parcel with this is that We The People have to be educated; both as to the Constitutional issues involved, & to the value of the 2A. That requires going out among We The People & spreading The Word. That isn't accomplished by lobbying. That isn't accomplished by lawsuits. That's accomplished by talking to We The People.

And this works. Take a look at the "Reader" article about the latest UOC event. Especially the end paragraphs:

"He attended the El Indio lunch and reports that everyone in the restaurant was respectful and supportive.

“A couple of girls came in and had lunch and asked about it,” he says. “They said, ‘Why are you guys all wearing guns?’ ”

He pauses, laughing at the story.

“And we explained the program to them, and they said, ‘You know, I bet this is the safest place in San Diego right now!’ ”

Those "couple of girls" probably hadn't given a minute's thought to the 2A before that moment. But now they have, & their thought is that the 2A is a good thing. Lobbying didn't achieve this epiphany. Court actions didn't either. WE, those who participate in UOC events, achieved this. Yes, we could pass out pamphlets on street corners while unarmed, but then we'd be ignored just like all who pass out pamphlets on street corners are ignored. The last event got us a "couple of girls," a whole restaurant full of people & whomever was met on the streets knowing about the 2A & thinking positively about their rights. Not many people? Its more than what lobbying & litigating has gotten us.

And what of the future? Heller, McDonald & all the other cases (in FEDERAL court) are going to go our way. The benefit to the country won't mean much unless We The People not only have the Right, but know about it & exercise the Right. The country needs more than just gunnies knowing about the Right. It needs to be known by just about everyone. The time to start educating We The People is now.

UOC events do exactly this & that is why I put my butt on the line at UOC events.

The Raisuli

wildhawker
07-25-2009, 8:44 AM
Since you later clarified that you're talking about UOC events, & since I participate in all of those that I'm invited to, I'll state why I do so & why I think the call to stop is the wrong approach.

First, new anti-gun legislation isn't going to be the consequence of UOC.

Prove this assetion.

Here in the PRK, new anti-gun legislation is the norm. That's just the way it is. It doesn't matter what we do or don't do, new restrictions are coming our way. So, there's no real downside to UOC.

Prove this assertion. You're creating a fantasy of a situation with an inevitable downside to justify actions you know are wrong but deny to continue to fulfill your self-interested needs.

Second, because that's just the way it is, our battlefield isn't the PRK legislature. Just as state "Jim Crow" laws weren't defeated in the state legislatures, anti-gun laws in the PRK won't be defeated in Sacramento. They'll be defeated in the same place that Jim Crow was, in the Federal Courts. Given this reality, worries over what the PRK legislature will do should not be a major concern.

You've used a fantasy to prove this assertion- try again.

Third, gun rights aren't just for gunnies. We (all Calgunners, not just the UOC crowd) do what we do to benefit We The People. THIS is what makes us the Civil Rights workers that we truly are. Part & parcel with this is that We The People have to be educated; both as to the Constitutional issues involved, & to the value of the 2A. That requires going out among We The People & spreading The Word. That isn't accomplished by lobbying. That isn't accomplished by lawsuits. That's accomplished by talking to We The People.

Most people do not CARE about gun carry rights- if they DID, we would HAVE THEM. You have NO results to prove the effectiveness of your actions. Again, we're using a fantasy to prove your assertions.

And this works. Take a look at the "Reader" article about the latest UOC event. Especially the end paragraphs:

"He attended the El Indio lunch and reports that everyone in the restaurant was respectful and supportive.

“A couple of girls came in and had lunch and asked about it,” he says. “They said, ‘Why are you guys all wearing guns?’ ”

He pauses, laughing at the story.

“And we explained the program to them, and they said, ‘You know, I bet this is the safest place in San Diego right now!’ ”

Those "couple of girls" probably hadn't given a minute's thought to the 2A before that moment. But now they have, & their thought is that the 2A is a good thing. Lobbying didn't achieve this epiphany. Court actions didn't either. WE, those who participate in UOC events, achieved this. Yes, we could pass out pamphlets on street corners while unarmed, but then we'd be ignored just like all who pass out pamphlets on street corners are ignored. The last event got us a "couple of girls," a whole restaurant full of people & whomever was met on the streets knowing about the 2A & thinking positively about their rights. Not many people? Its more than what lobbying & litigating has gotten us.

A no-name rag and a few quotes and you're claiming victory? How many people have you put off that were never interviewed?

And what of the future? Heller, McDonald & all the other cases (in FEDERAL court) are going to go our way. The benefit to the country won't mean much unless We The People not only have the Right, but know about it & exercise the Right. The country needs more than just gunnies knowing about the Right. It needs to be known by just about everyone. The time to start educating We The People is now.

Why does anyone NEED to exercise the right to keep and bear? Isn't that a judgement for each of us as freepeople? It sounds like you actually believe that most people will choose to carry.

UOC events do exactly this & that is why I put my butt on the line at UOC events.

The Raisuli

Please provide the dataset which you used to support your position.

wildhawker
07-25-2009, 8:52 AM
Again I ask:

Why does the change have to be on O/OCers' timeframe? What makes one think that is a reasonable or probable outcome?

Answer those questions.

I don't expect guarantees of result, but I do expect or desire a guarantee that OC won't be thrown under the bus.

I don't believe you now. You're changing the standards you yourself established in this very conversation. Pick a horse and ride it.

I know we have said it often, and even CGF has said that they have no desire to throw us under the bus, but we see that backed up in nothing but words.

Are they lobbying for LEOs to harass and DAs to more aggressively prosecute? What bus ran you over?

CGF's goals and actions are not presently aligned with OC'ers goals and actions. Until we can get those assurances I don't think the two can work together.

Of the latter, I wholeheartedly agree. You still haven't answered my questions.

Let us start here. I remember in about July of last year we were asked to hold off on open carrying until the Aug break of legislature where no new legislation could be passed. We were reluctant but assured that once that happened we could OC again. We did that (well, most of us).

We were then asked to "wait for Nordyke" and then we could OC again. The day Nordyke came down we were told again "Don't OC yet! We have a long way to go still".

It is the perverbial carrot and stick. We made concessions and waited, holding off because we had faith in "the right people" and their promises that we would soon be out of the forest...We are still waiting and I think many are done.

So what you're [again] saying is that this is a movement based on impatience? What if you could never carry in your lifetime, but not doing so now would guarantee that your children could? Would you stop, or carry on?

We don't see how shall-issue CCW will help us receive LOC statewide. We do see how OC can help push for shall-issue CCW, especially considering it has happened in other states.

California is not other states, and to continue to ignore that fact only serves to undermine your credibility.

And keep in mind I don't speek for all open carriers any more than Calguns speaks for all California gunnies. I can only tell you what I feel and presume that the others feel the same.

Fair enough- anyone else care to answer the questions I posed?

FreedomIsNotFree
07-25-2009, 10:20 AM
The irony here is almost laughable...

There is a segment of the gun community, owners of shotguns and hunting rifles, that have looked down upon the EBR crowd for many years. They say we don't need semi-automatic rifles..etc..etc..they say those of us that want EBR's and such are pushing the envelope and will damage their ability to legally hunt, target shoot..etc..etc..

Now we have the EBR crowd looking down upon the UOC crowd. Claiming that pushing the envelope will damage their ability to transport a handgun or rifle or even LOC in unincorporated areas of the state.

You UOC'ers better stop doing what you do or the CA legislature will pass MORE unconstitutional laws.

Progress in CA, from our perspective, will not come from the legislature...only from the courts.

*** I would like to add that once the incorporation question is fully determined, in our favor I anticipate, there will be a challenge to the current laws regarding transportation and lack of LOC in incorporated areas. For the sake of the argument lets say the legislature passes new restrictions to ban UOC...wouldn't the same lawsuit address all these points?

greasemonkey
07-25-2009, 11:05 AM
So what you're [again] saying is that this is a movement based on impatience? What if you could never carry in your lifetime, but not doing so now would guarantee that your children could? Would you stop, or carry on?


Oh come on...it's far too inconvenient to consider how the effects of our current actions will affect the future. Psh, why so much planning ahead?! Who cares about our impact on the next generation, anyway...I wanna carry NOW!


(by the way, the sarcasm there is spread thicker than cold peanut butter)

hoffmang
07-25-2009, 11:23 AM
I've explained before that there is a reason for the order of operations here.

We can get shall issue CCW if we attack that first (and say some things in that attack that OC proponents will not like - I'm warning you.) Once we secure shall issue CCW there is a specific way in which we can likely decriminalize LOC as well. I too don't want to be in the Texas situation of being cited for OC when I have a CCW too. That will also mean we'll head after GFSZ's too but those are certainly not the first cases you want to bring.

If we went in the other order, then I worry simply that LOC will end up being prohibited by every mall and restaurant in California. Just look at what is happening in Arizona and Tenessee for goodness sake. Bars are posting "no guns" signs even after both states started allowing CCW carriers in. Don't for a moment think that if LOC is our only choice, that we will not suffer the effect of having gun haters outnumber us 3:2 and have that make the private sector make it virtually impossible to carry.

LCAV and Brady would enjoy us attempting to get the equivalent ruling to Pruneyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins) on guns. Here's a hint - it will not happen. We'll have a mooted right to LOC - basically useless...

I've open carried before in places where it is legal and the public support ratio is more like 1:1. It is nicer and easier than CCW. Personally I want to walk down Market Street in San Francisco with an AR on my back and a Sig on my hip and a s**t eating grin on my face.

Do this in reverse, and we'll all hang separately. Remember that it took 100 years after the end of slavery for black people to stop being lynched. The patience we're asking for is very, very short in comparison. Also note that I'm certainly not saying no UOC. I'm saying no lone UOC and that it would be far, far better politically if the group UOC wasn't a bunch of normal white males.

-Gene

Theseus
07-25-2009, 11:36 AM
This is a lie, or perhaps simply very bad memory. You did, actually, a personal one from Gene. Right here on this board. Very, very clear and unambiguous. He gave an approximate time frame, in that he said that CCW had to be clarified first and why, and told you the strategy to get LOC once CCW was established (if there is a Right to Bear then it must be OC for long guns). In fact, he all but promised to do some OC himself at that time. (May have actually promised, but I'd have to look at the precise wording.)

I'd give a link, but that was a very very long thread and frankly I don't feel like running it down--so are you going to call me a liar too?



Theseus, at this point honor demands that you either retract that or confirm that you are calling Gene a liar, and probably others. Because you are.

Are you calling the CGF board liars? It's a yes/no question, and I want an answer.



Fixed it for you.



Probably not, but the reason is that all this is childish, selfish behavior. I'm very sorry to have to say that out loud, but the adults at the table are thinking it at this point anyway.

I want everyone to note this: Gene's point about the UOC people having no insight about the public's reaction to UOC is precisely mirrored by this demonstrated lack of insight about CGF and other gunnies. The UOC people are not living in the real world in any area.



Theseus, I've met you, and I really don't believe you are stupid. So what is your game here? Is it just what Gene said, total lack of social insight? Or what? It's puzzling.



More lack of reality. You see things that aren't there. This is just a joke.

I think we're done here. As John Ashcroft said, free people are free to do bad things.

I'm starting to have a weird sympathy with how it must have been to be a leftist revolutionary, with splinter groups forming and fissioning all the time. It must have been just like this. I might as well grow the beard and get the big fur hat right now.

7x57
I am not your mama. You want to cry to someone about how I am being selfish go cry to her. You want to call me out then do so, you will be standing there alone. I don't have time for such a waste of my energy and effort. If you want to discuss this then lets discuss it and stop with the crying name calling. If I intend to call Gene or anyone else a liar I will do it with no need for clarity.

I believe that Gene, when he said it, fully intended to follow through with his words. What I doubt is that it will work out that way. Maybe it will work as he says where the courts will give us shall-issue CCW and LOC. Maybe it won't work out that way.

Perhaps that is acceptable end game. And thinking about it you may be right. The other states where OC worked did so because they were in states that had and somewhat respected the right to keep and bear. They had loaded open carry. They then used that constitutionally protected right to bargain for better CCW as an agreement that many who now open carried would choose to CC if the policy were respectable enough.

The problem we face is that the only way to get loaded OC here is through the Federal courts. For whatever the BOR and the 2A means we can most all agree that the basic right is for openly carried and loaded firearms. Many OC'ers believe that if taken to Federal and even SCOTUS that we would get this along with incorporation.

Once we have LOC as a constitutionally protected right we would then do as the other states. . . Bargain with them that there would still be only a small few that would choose to continue OC'ing and the rest would agreeably CC if the process was fair and reasonable.

Again, we will likely not get an answer to this by going back and fourth calling names and trying to damage eachothers pride. OC'ers are not the kind of people to be easily pushed around as many of you can see. If you are to get what you want out of them you will need to work with them and their desires and needs.

I am stubborn I know, but I can be convinced if the argument is compelling enough. Right now the argument is not compelling enough, but it might be the more I mull it over.

Decoligny
07-25-2009, 11:39 AM
Worsening the laws on firearms in public heightens the risk of the end state being that the only way you can have an unlocked firearm in public is to have a CCW.

I'm banking on having certain contradictions in the law that currently exist, continue to exist after we prevail in the long road which is Sykes for shall issue CCW. UOC creates real risks of that not being the case.

If UOC is about educating people, then why can't white male straight non disabled UOCers recruit women, LGBT, minorities, or the disable to UOC in their place? Certainly you can convince one person in one of those groups if you're sure that you're otherwise educating the masses.

-Gene

You mean like in this thread? Some attempts have been made, but I don't know if any have come to fruition.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=25700&forum_id=12&highlight=pink+pistols

hoffmang
07-25-2009, 11:43 AM
Once we have LOC as a constitutionally protected right we would then do as the other states. . . Bargain with them that there would still be only a small few that would choose to continue OC'ing and the rest would agreeably CC if the process was fair and reasonable.


The problem with this strategy is that private property owners don't have to bargain and neither does the CA Legislature. The Legislature will just let private property owners make being unarmed a condition of access and we'll have a mooted right. You need to read Pruneyard in the 1A context to get what I'm saying about this.

-Gene

Decoligny
07-25-2009, 11:43 AM
Ah there is the thing not all who UOC do so as a form of public disobedience. I will also say there there seem to be two schools of thought here on Calguns. Those that are for and those against open carry.

Those who open carry are not "disobeying" anything. They are actually doing a form of "civil obedience". Exercising their RKBA as fully as the law allows. They go out of their way to avoid breaking the law.

Theseus
07-25-2009, 11:48 AM
I've explained before that there is a reason for the order of operations here.

We can get shall issue CCW if we attack that first (and say some things in that attack that OC proponents will not like - I'm warning you.) Once we secure shall issue CCW there is a specific way in which we can likely decriminalize LOC as well. I too don't want to be in the Texas situation of being cited for OC when I have a CCW too. That will also mean we'll head after GFSZ's too but those are certainly not the first cases you want to bring.

If we went in the other order, then I worry simply that LOC will end up being prohibited by every mall and restaurant in California. Just look at what is happening in Arizona and Tenessee for goodness sake. Bars are posting "no guns" signs even after both states started allowing CCW carriers in. Don't for a moment think that if LOC is our only choice, that we will not suffer the effect of having gun haters outnumber us 3:2 and have that make the private sector make it virtually impossible to carry.

LCAV and Brady would enjoy us attempting to get the equivalent ruling to Pruneyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins) on guns. Here's a hint - it will not happen. We'll have a mooted right to LOC - basically useless...

I've open carried before in places where it is legal and the public support ratio is more like 1:1. It is nicer and easier than CCW. Personally I want to walk down Market Street in San Francisco with an AR on my back and a Sig on my hip and a s**t eating grin on my face.

Do this in reverse, and we'll all hang separately. Remember that it took 100 years after the end of slavery for black people to stop being lynched. The patience we're asking for is very, very short in comparison. Also note that I'm certainly not saying no UOC. I'm saying no lone UOC and that it would be far, far better politically if the group UOC wasn't a bunch of normal white males.

-Gene

See, this is what I was apparently missing. I was understanding that, and this might be because of the other threads, that we were talking the cessation of ALL UOC.

Individual UOC I can see as being damaging and risky. We have already seen that the larger the OC group the less likely PD are to pounce.

And perhaps there is a shred of truth as well in the idea that private businesses would simply ban OC and thus we would have the paddles but no boat. I don't see how this will ever be changed though. Every business will have the right to not allow firearms on their property. I don't see how going for CCW first will ever change this. Even in the mall scenario they can ask a CCW holder to leave as well, can they not?

Many of the other states including Ohio, Virginia have not had that issue. Even in California I have only been asked to leave one business when I did OC and that was to be expected, it was a Chuck E Cheeses.

Decoligny
07-25-2009, 11:50 AM
No, I don't realize this. No one has made anything remotely like a convincing case that this is true. LOC, as it is legal now, is an explicit exception to the law, whereas UOC is just an activity allowed because the current wording of the law doesn't explicitly prohibit it; a "loophole", as it were. While they certainly COULD completely rewrite the law in a way that would do away with current exceptions, I see no reason to believe that they would. It'd be far easier to simply amend the current law to ban UOC without disturbing any existing listed exceptions.

Exactly where does this exception to the law show up in the Penal Code?

As I read it, the only law in play is 12031.

It says you can't carry a loaded gun in an incorporated city or in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

LOC and UOC are BOTH just activities that are NOT made illegal by the Penal Code.

pullnshoot25
07-25-2009, 12:08 PM
I've explained before that there is a reason for the order of operations here.

We can get shall issue CCW if we attack that first (and say some things in that attack that OC proponents will not like - I'm warning you.) Once we secure shall issue CCW there is a specific way in which we can likely decriminalize LOC as well. I too don't want to be in the Texas situation of being cited for OC when I have a CCW too. That will also mean we'll head after GFSZ's too but those are certainly not the first cases you want to bring.

If we went in the other order, then I worry simply that LOC will end up being prohibited by every mall and restaurant in California. Just look at what is happening in Arizona and Tenessee for goodness sake. Bars are posting "no guns" signs even after both states started allowing CCW carriers in. Don't for a moment think that if LOC is our only choice, that we will not suffer the effect of having gun haters outnumber us 3:2 and have that make the private sector make it virtually impossible to carry.

LCAV and Brady would enjoy us attempting to get the equivalent ruling to Pruneyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins) on guns. Here's a hint - it will not happen. We'll have a mooted right to LOC - basically useless...

I've open carried before in places where it is legal and the public support ratio is more like 1:1. It is nicer and easier than CCW. Personally I want to walk down Market Street in San Francisco with an AR on my back and a Sig on my hip and a s**t eating grin on my face.

Do this in reverse, and we'll all hang separately. Remember that it took 100 years after the end of slavery for black people to stop being lynched. The patience we're asking for is very, very short in comparison. Also note that I'm certainly not saying no UOC. I'm saying no lone UOC and that it would be far, far better politically if the group UOC wasn't a bunch of normal white males.

-Gene

As much as I love OCing, what Gene is saying is correct. It isn't right that much of California has been Pavlov'd into being jittery about guns but if we get LOC first they can fark us on CCW and thus generally disable many of us from effectively carrying our self-defense tools with us.

We have been trying down here to get more women and minorities involved (Mollie and a few cute moms that I know will fit the bill) and we will continue to do so after the August 31st deadline. Until then, I invite all bigger UOC groups and newer lone wolf UOCers (even self included) to stand down. I ask this for the sake of longevity of the fight, not because I feel it is a lost cause.

Carry on.

-N8

navyinrwanda
07-25-2009, 12:11 PM
No surprise — things have wandered. Let me summarize what I've learned and clarify my original question:


It's pretty clear that UOC, whether practiced individually or in organized groups, is purely political activism. No one has put forth a clean and convincing argument that UOC is a reasonable response to a threat to their (or their family's) personal safety. Simply proclaiming "it's my right" or "it's (currently) legal" doesn't change the fact that it's still activism.
Activism is a tactic. It's usually part of a greater effort to change society, and, typically, the laws that govern society. It's also a high-risk tactic. I assumed our common goal was to promote greater rights for gun owners. Activism might be a viable tactic in that effort. But I'm still waiting for a fact-based scenario demonstrating how UOC activism, as currently practiced, furthers this common goal without unnecessarily risking adverse results.
I didn't ask about the direct impact of a law prohibiting all movement of firearms except in unlocked containers. Dismissing the effect of such a law, while debatable, misses the larger issue: What are the likely unintended consequences of legislative reaction to UOC activism? Will those consequences likely improve or worsen the state of gun rights in California?
This is calguns. We're talking about California. Not Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, or any other nearby state with markedly different public sentiment about gun rights. I posted some public opinion polling data earlier that convinced me that Californians (and our elected officials) clearly favor greater restrictions on gun rights, up to and including (if it were possible) a complete ban. A better comparison state would be New York. Or Massachusetts.
Even if the sole goal of UOC activism is to accelerate change, there's still an open question about the likely direction of that change. Simple impatience with other tactics isn't a valid reason to pursue activism. The ability to postpone gratification is the hallmark of a mature, responsible adult.
The elimination of loaded open carry in certain unincorporated areas is not only a foreseeable consequence of UOC activism, it was almost exactly what I suggested in my original post. As Gene Hoffman points out, that would leave licensed conceal carry as the only method to arm oneself in public, and also the only legally viable manner to transport firearms in California. If that's not a bad outcome, then I don't know what is.

Just because this topic exposes strong emotions doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be discussed. Or discussed rationally. One can always dream...

hoffmang
07-25-2009, 12:19 PM
I don't see how going for CCW first will ever change this. Even in the mall scenario they can ask a CCW holder to leave as well, can they not?

You're missing the practical reality. If you are concealing, a business generally can't tell you are carrying. Right now, if they did find out, all they could do is ask you to leave and not CCW there in the future.

-Gene

trashman
07-25-2009, 12:25 PM
Beg differ. I want LOC with no drama, and no sneaky LA-county special rules, when back-country hiking.

I also want legal LOC while CCWing in the city so I cannot be harassed if I accidentally expose my sidearm.

I'm gonna be pissed if UOC ends up meaning I cannot LOC in the wilderness to protect my family from cougars bears pot farmers, and almost as pissed if it means I have to do it concealed.


Yep, you nailed it. The loss of LOC in the (non-Natl Park) Wilderness areas is perfect example of what might happen if UOC gets enough media attention to provoke the Legislature into action.

And as a regular solo backpacker, I would be pretty angry if this (needlessly) comes true.

--Neill

Theseus
07-25-2009, 12:29 PM
You're missing the practical reality. If you are concealing, a business generally can't tell you are carrying. Right now, if they did find out, all they could do is ask you to leave and not CCW there in the future.

-Gene

I see, so the only real argument you make is that we may just get LOC, and then they take away CCW. Once that happens then we will be stripped of the actual right by private companies and thus we won't really be allowed LOC or CCW. Is that what you are suggesting?

Sons of Liberty
07-25-2009, 12:35 PM
No surprise — things have wandered. Let me summarize what I've learned and clarify my original question:

[LIST=1]
...No one has put forth a clean and convincing argument that UOC is a reasonable response to a threat to their (or their family's) personal safety...


Doesn't common sense tell you that having a gun in your possession increases your ability to defend yourself and family from a threat? If possession does not increase your ability to defend yourself and family from a threat, then why CC?

But for those who don't have the legal paperwork to CC, there is only one way today to increase that ability to defend yourself and family with a gun away from home...UOC or LOC depending on where you are.

As clean as it gets.

Theseus
07-25-2009, 12:49 PM
I originally posted this on page 57 of the "Got an interview tomorrow..." thread. That probably wasn't the best choice if I wanted more response. So here it is again. Thanks to bdsmchs for a better phrasing of my question.

In response to continued publicity of UOC activism, how would you feel if California passed a law that said all firearms, regardless of type, must be transported only to and from designated lawful shooting areas or private property in a fully enclosed, locked container? One could still drive to and from the range and shoot guns at the range. Loaded guns would still be lawful in the home for self-defense.

Would it be beneficial to the overall cause of greater gun rights? If so, how?
Would it set back efforts to liberalize burdensome restrictions? Again, how?
Or does UOC carry no risk of unintended consequences? Why?

I ask this question since, barring some sort of catastrophe like a police shooting, new legislation of this sort seems to be the most likely unintended — and unwelcome — consequence of UOC. Bills to this effect have previously been introduced, and given a bit of high-profile publicity, it would seem that they would pass fairly easily. Please don't reply simply that "it'd be unconstitutional." As hopefully everyone knows, unconstitutional legislation is passed all too frequently. Once it's on the books, absent a public consensus to the contrary, it oftentimes take lengthy and costly litigation to undo the damage.

Also, please remember that it is accepted that the holding in Heller is limited to possession of handguns in one's home. Further post-incorporation litigation (e.g., Sykes et al) is needed to establish a right to bear in public. Such litigation may not be conclusive unless or until the Supreme Court chooses to accept review.

This post is what started this whole thing in the first place. It was asked what I would do if the legislature passed a law as stated above. My answer was that I would then have to consider breaking the law.

Then everyone took that all out of proportion and accused me of trying to damage the right.

Now that more cool heads have prevailed what we have is the argument that:

The real issue at hand isn't the question as stated above. The real concern of the CGF or Gene seems to be that if we fight for LOC first then those who wish to CC might be denied the right as they will argue that since we have the right to LOC that we don't need CCW.

That form of argument is the most convincing to me.

If I have to sacrifice someones right to CCW so that I can LOC without a license then it is as you say selfish. I don't wish for that outcome and can, in that context understand why the anger and hatred.

Until this conversation I did not see the argument put as such and that changes everything.

If UOC would only lead to some rediculous re-wording of 12031 that made OC illegal then that is not a big issue for me, but getting 12031 erased at the expense of erasing 12050 is not acceptable to me.

navyinrwanda
07-25-2009, 1:33 PM
But for those who don't have the legal paperwork to CC, there is only one way today to increase that ability to defend yourself and family with a gun away from home...UOC or LOC depending on where you are.

As clean as it gets.
Many people have pointed out that by exposing the fact that you're armed, you give a potential assailant an advantage. And those who have practiced loading an unloaded handgun testify that they'd be dead before they could take aim or fire upon an armed aggressor.

Yes, there's a convenience factor in the ability to open carry loaded in rural or backcountry areas. Here one's attacker might not be human, so the element of surprise is somewhat irrelevant. I've heard loud and clear that no one wants to loose this ability.

A significant protective aspect of concealed carry is the uncertainty it poses to a potential assailant. They can't be sure who is or isn't armed. For self-protection in urban or suburban areas, I haven't heard anyone claim that open carry is superior to concealed carry. Plus, outlawing any open carry increases the risk of inadvertent exposure of a concealed weapon.

So, no, there's no clear case for open carry as the best alternative for self-defense. Gene has already made the case that concealed unloaded carry (in a locked container) is the best alternative if licensed concealed carry is unavailable.

And there's certainly no clean argument that unloaded open carry is purely self-defense and not activism.

navyinrwanda
07-25-2009, 1:49 PM
This post is what started this whole thing in the first place. It was asked what I would do if the legislature passed a law as stated above. My answer was that I would then have to consider breaking the law. The question was to assess the overall impact of direct legislative response to UOC activism: would it improve gun rights, further restrict them, or make no difference? And explain how.

I tried to phrase the hypothetical legislation carefully to include prohibition of loaded carry. So I said all firearms in California. Not just in incorporated areas.

By specifically mentioning that bills to this effect have already been proposed (such as SB 1171 in the 2007-2008 Session), I was hoping to stimulate broader thinking.

navyinrwanda
07-25-2009, 2:24 PM
You're missing the practical reality. If you are concealing, a business generally can't tell you are carrying. Right now, if they did find out, all they could do is ask you to leave and not CCW there in the future.

-Gene
There's a much bigger risk, too.

In states that have fought and won shall-issue concealed carry, there are typically many restrictions on when and where one can exercise this limited right. In California, chiefly because concealed carry licenses aren't easy to obtain, we don't have many restrictions on where they can be used.

In Georgia, for example, there's an ongoing legal and political fight to expand where one can carry concealed. Two notable recent battles have been about 1) carrying onboard Atlanta's rapid transit system MARTA (very similar to BART), and 2) carrying in non-sterile areas of the Atlanta Airport.

Carrying onboard MARTA trains and buses is ostensibly legal, but MARTA Police have been very uncooperative. There's been no breakthrough via litigation.

As for the Atlanta Airport, concealed carry lost. And it lost at the Federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Legislative enactment of many, many more restrictions of potentially "shall-issue" open/concealed carry is a foreseeable and likely consequence of UOC activism. As is widespread prohibition of carry on the premises of many private businesses.

Theseus
07-26-2009, 5:16 PM
The question was to assess the overall impact of direct legislative response to UOC activism: would it improve gun rights, further restrict them, or make no difference? And explain how.

I tried to phrase the hypothetical legislation carefully to include prohibition of loaded carry. So I said all firearms in California. Not just in incorporated areas.

By specifically mentioning that bills to this effect have already been proposed (such as SB 1171 in the 2007-2008 Session), I was hoping to stimulate broader thinking.

And my answer was taken to mean that I would likely break any such law. Then I was attacked for being a selfish open carrier. Regardless of if UOC lead to the law or not, I would have to consider breaking it.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-27-2009, 5:42 AM
There's a much bigger risk, too.

In states that have fought and won shall-issue concealed carry, there are typically many restrictions on when and where one can exercise this limited right. In California, chiefly because concealed carry licenses aren't easy to obtain, we don't have many restrictions on where they can be used.

In Georgia, for example, there's an ongoing legal and political fight to expand where one can carry concealed. Two notable recent battles have been about 1) carrying onboard Atlanta's rapid transit system MARTA (very similar to BART), and 2) carrying in non-sterile areas of the Atlanta Airport.

Carrying onboard MARTA trains and buses is ostensibly legal, but MARTA Police have been very uncooperative. There's been no breakthrough via litigation.

As for the Atlanta Airport, concealed carry lost. And it lost at the Federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Legislative enactment of many, many more restrictions of potentially "shall-issue" open/concealed carry is a foreseeable and likely consequence of UOC activism. As is widespread prohibition of carry on the premises of many private businesses.



In GA, they lost on airport carry because Federal laws prevailed there. Carriers won on the issue of carrying on MARTA. Cops are giving carriers a hard time? That's just for now. The Law is an the side of carriers. The cops will come around to obeying the law.

You still haven't shown why UOC events will inspire the CAL legislature to do anything. They're already inspired to attack the 2A. Any reading of the legislative history of this state will show this (my answer to Wildhawker as well).

And, what the CAL legislature does isn't all important anyway. Post-incorporation, it'll be what happens in DC, & in the Federal Courts, that matters.

But, as pointed out before (post #120), education of We The People will matter & the UOC events do this very well. The positive message spread may not matter in Sacramento, but I'll bet it will in DC.

The Raisuli

wildhawker
07-27-2009, 8:50 AM
Raisuli,

You're willing to take the legislative history and statements by the lawmakers in Sacramento at face value to prove U/OC was not a factor in legislative intent? The same people you vehemently distrust with your rights today you'll use to support your theory tomorrow? I find this fascinating.

Note that no one has yet answered my questions. What about them are so difficult or uncomfortable that they would be ignored outright by the U/OC proponents?

navyinrwanda
07-27-2009, 8:54 AM
You still haven't shown why UOC events will inspire the CAL legislature to do anything.
Honestly, I don't think the burden of proof should be on me or anyone else who's simply questioning the wisdom of UOC activism.

UOC proponents are the activists. It's their responsibility to insure that they first do no harm. Constant circular arguments and baseless rebuttals aren't going to convince me or anyone else that UOC activism doesn't carry a clear risk of harm.

The more I hear these sorts of retorts, the more I believe that UOC proponents don't care about the consequences of their actions.

wildhawker
07-27-2009, 8:56 AM
It's their responsibility to insure that they first do no harm. Constant circular arguments and baseless rebuttals aren't going to convince me or anyone else that UOC activism doesn't carry a clear risk of harm.

The more I hear these sorts of retorts, the more I believe that UOC proponents don't care about the consequences of their actions.

This, sir, is exactly correct.

7x57
07-27-2009, 9:45 AM
The more I hear these sorts of retorts, the more I believe that UOC proponents don't care about the consequences of their actions.

That seems to be the general ethos of the movement. :thumbsup:

OTOH, a couple of UOCers have posted some not-insane, not-reckless opinions recently.

7x57

ilbob
07-27-2009, 9:52 AM
I would guess in the longer run, say 5 to ten years, anything UOC fans do will be meaningless.

Either the courts somehow rule the "bear" part of RTKBA has some practical meaning and you get to carry loaded (maybe concealed, maybe not) or the courts rule it has no practical meaning. In any case, it is unlikely UOC will make any difference in the federal court decisions.

At best it will get some favorable publicity from pro carry people. At worst, it encourages the CA legislature to ban UOC.

Theseus
07-27-2009, 9:55 AM
You all see what you want to see.

Did you not ever get taught in Science that it is impossible to prove a negative? I can't prove that UOC didn't lead to the legislation any more than you can prove it did.

Bweise and Gene have suggested there might have been talks, and that might be proof, but unfortunately it is still mostly hearsay.

And as I said before, you can talk down to OC'ers all you want, but in doing so you prove that you only seek to fail.

As with Gene. He put it to me in pretty clear language. The real reason he wants us to stop individual UOC is the risk that it might loose others CCW. That is a consequence I can't live with. Perhpas other UOC'ers might agree? But if all you do is call them names and attack you will never make that argument to them.

And I can only control my actions. Gene may have convinced me, but I am only one.

7x57
07-27-2009, 10:09 AM
As with Gene. He put it to me in pretty clear language. The real reason he wants us to stop individual UOC is the risk that it might loose others CCW. That is a consequence I can't live with. Perhpas other UOC'ers might agree? But if all you do is call them names and attack you will never make that argument to them.


While I appreciate that, and could withdraw some things based on that sensible position, it is the same thing we've been saying over and over again. While I'm glad that Gene found a way to say it that made sense to you, it's the same argument as before.

In any event, if you are willing to take Gene's counsel I have no further beef with your position. You have a right to *L*OC under the Constitution as far as I'm concerned, but as more than one of us have said that buys you what the 14th amendment would buy a mixed couple during segregation. In California (and not necessarily elsewhere) OC is the equivalent of fighting segregation by mixed couples kissing in public. Not wrong, just counterproductive. Um, and physically dangerous too.

I'm gonna try a little Johnnie Cochran style here: "If it doesn't fit...you must acquit." No, no, that's the wrong one. "It may be the right, but it ain't the fight."

That said--I hope Gene's strategy or another gets you, and everyone else, true OC. What else is the fight to give legal meaning for, if not the Right to Bear?

7x57

Old Timer
07-27-2009, 10:19 AM
I think we can all agree that the RKBA includes open, loaded, carry as well as concealed carry. It is difficult to see how one right can be exercised while the other right is denied when they are two aspects of the same right!

However, what we seem to disagree on is the means of attaining the end. Some believe open carry will be the catalyst to bring about our goals and others believe the opposite. What we must bear in mind is that open carriers are not the enemy. They are our comrades, literally, in arms. Let's fight the right foe! If we spend too much time fighting amongst ourselves somebody might think we are Irish! :D

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 10:28 AM
I've explained before that there is a reason for the order of operations here.

We can get shall issue CCW if we attack that first (and say some things in that attack that OC proponents will not like - I'm warning you.) Once we secure shall issue CCW there is a specific way in which we can likely decriminalize LOC as well. I too don't want to be in the Texas situation of being cited for OC when I have a CCW too. That will also mean we'll head after GFSZ's too but those are certainly not the first cases you want to bring.

If we went in the other order, then I worry simply that LOC will end up being prohibited by every mall and restaurant in California. Just look at what is happening in Arizona and Tenessee for goodness sake. Bars are posting "no guns" signs even after both states started allowing CCW carriers in. Don't for a moment think that if LOC is our only choice, that we will not suffer the effect of having gun haters outnumber us 3:2 and have that make the private sector make it virtually impossible to carry.

LCAV and Brady would enjoy us attempting to get the equivalent ruling to Pruneyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins) on guns. Here's a hint - it will not happen. We'll have a mooted right to LOC - basically useless...

I've open carried before in places where it is legal and the public support ratio is more like 1:1. It is nicer and easier than CCW. Personally I want to walk down Market Street in San Francisco with an AR on my back and a Sig on my hip and a s**t eating grin on my face.

Do this in reverse, and we'll all hang separately. Remember that it took 100 years after the end of slavery for black people to stop being lynched. The patience we're asking for is very, very short in comparison. Also note that I'm certainly not saying no UOC. I'm saying no lone UOC and that it would be far, far better politically if the group UOC wasn't a bunch of normal white males.

-Gene

worth quoting...

Liberty1
07-27-2009, 10:31 AM
I think we can all agree that the RKBA includes open, loaded, carry as well as concealed carry. It is difficult to see how one right can be exercised while the other right is denied when they are two aspects of the same right!

However, what we seem to disagree on is the means of attaining the end. Some believe open carry will be the catalyst to bring about our goals and others believe the opposite. What we must bear in mind is that open carriers are not the enemy. They are our comrades, literally, in arms. Let's fight the right foe! If we spend too much time fighting amongst ourselves somebody might think we are Irish! :D

Thanks for that! I want to keep OC advocates here and involved. We are them is us;). RKBA needs to be a big tent to succeed.

The strongest arguments are forged in the hottest fires. We all have a lot to learn from each other. The brain trust here is our strength.

wildhawker
07-27-2009, 10:37 AM
No one is talking down to U/OCers. I don't think anyone in this conversation actively "[seeks] to fail". What I believe you are seeing in the tone of the posts is the urgency that many feel in response to the apparent growth and segregation of the U/OC crowd into its own subculture that is not responsive to the "team" ethos of the NRA/CRPA/CGF/SAF braintrust.

Ignoring the legislative issues for a moment (which, to me, are far less relevant to the crux of this entire movement), I have asked some simple and pointed questions that would help me to understand the basis for the "OC now" philosophy. Many, if not all remain unanswered.

I appreciate that you found some substance within Gene's comments by which to consider the actions of open carry and the consequences related thereto. Hopefully other U/OCers will find some similarly-poised comments by Gene or any of the many others who have shared some well-written and focused comments on the topic.

You all see what you want to see.

Did you not ever get taught in Science that it is impossible to prove a negative? I can't prove that UOC didn't lead to the legislation any more than you can prove it did.

Bweise and Gene have suggested there might have been talks, and that might be proof, but unfortunately it is still mostly hearsay.

And as I said before, you can talk down to OC'ers all you want, but in doing so you prove that you only seek to fail.

As with Gene. He put it to me in pretty clear language. The real reason he wants us to stop individual UOC is the risk that it might loose others CCW. That is a consequence I can't live with. Perhpas other UOC'ers might agree? But if all you do is call them names and attack you will never make that argument to them.

And I can only control my actions. Gene may have convinced me, but I am only one.

7x57
07-27-2009, 11:08 AM
I appreciate that you found some substance within Gene's comments by which to consider the actions of open carry and the consequences related thereto. Hopefully other U/OCers will find some similarly-poised comments by Gene or any of the many others who have shared some well-written and focused comments on the topic.

The problem seems to operate at other levels besides statewide. It isn't my story to say, but it wasn't said as private so it's probably OK to say that in general terms the OC (Orange County) situation seems to be made worse by OC (Open Carry--amusing coincidence). The efforts to get rid of Hutchens seem to have some support in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. But those same political hacks seem to be quite dismayed now that they've heard about OC. Orange County gunnies won't be happy if they lose political support outside of gun-rights because OC scared someone who doesn't mind CC.

7x57

navyinrwanda
07-27-2009, 11:40 AM
If being on trial for violating existing state laws can't convince someone of the imprudence of their actions, then there's nothing I or anyone here can say that will make any difference.

Sometimes, people just have to make their own mistakes and learn from them. At one time or another, every parent's had the same frustrations with their children.

It's just unfortunate that so many other people will likely be affected by these headstrong impulses.

Theseus
07-27-2009, 7:27 PM
The problem seems to operate at other levels besides statewide. It isn't my story to say, but it wasn't said as private so it's probably OK to say that in general terms the OC (Orange County) situation seems to be made worse by OC (Open Carry--amusing coincidence). The efforts to get rid of Hutchens seem to have some support in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. But those same political hacks seem to be quite dismayed now that they've heard about OC. Orange County gunnies won't be happy if they lose political support outside of gun-rights because OC scared someone who doesn't mind CC.

7x57

I actually find it a little interesting though that when I was watching those hearings the people were saying. . . give us back our good CCW policy or we will have to start OC'ing until you do!

I don't see anything wrong with that. It seems to me to make perfect sense. I may be wrong about the numbers, but I am sure a good majority of OC'ers would love to be able to just pay $35 and CC.

The idea that those that were CCW supporters would not want to continue supporting CCW because of OC seems to me a completely contrary. I am ok with people hiding their guns but not those that don't, so I am going to take away peoles ability to conceal. :confused:

7x57
07-27-2009, 7:58 PM
I don't see anything wrong with that. It seems to me to make perfect sense. I may be wrong about the numbers, but I am sure a good majority of OC'ers would love to be able to just pay $35 and CC.


Realistically, social pressure makes that certain.


The idea that those that were CCW supporters would not want to continue supporting CCW because of OC seems to me a completely contrary. I am ok with people hiding their guns but not those that don't, so I am going to take away peoles ability to conceal. :confused:

I don't know the details, so you're stuck with that little bit of casual knowledge. However, it's easy to construct examples of how that could happen. (I say it that way so there isn't a shadow of a doubt that I don't actually know more than what I said, and all that follows is so much moonshine.)

For example, perhaps they aren't CCW supporters because they believe in the 2A, but just have no ideological objection and would like a little ballot box love from gunnies. However, they probably do have an objection to OC. In other words, people who have bought part of the anti-gunners' ideology, but not all of it. People who probably think of themselves as sensible, moderate, whatever. Or, more likely they don't care about any of it, but they know that the public reaction to them supporting OC could be dangerous to their political careers, while CC doesn't have that stigma. The general population doesn't worry too much about CC weapons it can't see, but freaks when it sees the same gun. It's like the ostrich fable--if they can't see it, the evil nasty gun can't seem them. :-)

The question is what to do with such people. I think we should work with them so far as possible--every extension (or better, reclamation) of the right increases our numbers and debunks the claim that blood will run. Incremental progress. Later on, perhaps they'll part ways with us, but at that point we'll be stronger. Or perhaps they'll see that blood didn't run in the streets and go farther with us. I'm just happy we've gotten so far that even in California people who aren't one of us support CCW. It means we're winning the same way we used to be losing, a step at a time.

Once again, I emphasize the pure guesswork there. All I know is that word of OC caused some consternation among people willing to back our CC play. You can guess from there as well as I can.

7x57

rynando
07-27-2009, 8:09 PM
You mean like a parade permit or a zoning variance to open an adult bookstore?

-Gene

To be fair, language specifically discusing planning variances to open adult bookstores isn't found in the constitution.

R

hoffmang
07-27-2009, 8:19 PM
To be fair, language specifically discusing planning variances to open adult bookstores isn't found in the constitution.

R

Nor are parade permits or the exceptions for libel or slander, but they're all part of the Republic.

-Gene

KylaGWolf
07-27-2009, 8:38 PM
As much as I love OCing, what Gene is saying is correct. It isn't right that much of California has been Pavlov'd into being jittery about guns but if we get LOC first they can fark us on CCW and thus generally disable many of us from effectively carrying our self-defense tools with us.

We have been trying down here to get more women and minorities involved (Mollie and a few cute moms that I know will fit the bill) and we will continue to do so after the August 31st deadline. Until then, I invite all bigger UOC groups and newer lone wolf UOCers (even self included) to stand down. I ask this for the sake of longevity of the fight, not because I feel it is a lost cause.

Carry on.

-N8

LOL I am a mom but not cute :)

7x57
07-27-2009, 8:43 PM
Nor are parade permits or the exceptions for libel or slander, but they're all part of the Republic.


It is unfortunate that reading the Constitution in an Originalist framework is closer to Koranic than Biblical exegesis. Like the Koran, the Constitution contains far, far less of it's own context than the bible, and thus requires far more in the way of external context to understand with any kind of historical validity.

Balancing that is that enormously more context for the Constitution surivived than what we have in the Hadith--the Constitution is not simply young but postdates Gutenberg. Once past the manuscript era, everything changes, fortunately in our favor.

7x57

KylaGWolf
07-27-2009, 8:43 PM
Honestly, I don't think the burden of proof should be on me or anyone else who's simply questioning the wisdom of UOC activism.

UOC proponents are the activists. It's their responsibility to insure that they first do no harm. Constant circular arguments and baseless rebuttals aren't going to convince me or anyone else that UOC activism doesn't carry a clear risk of harm.

The more I hear these sorts of retorts, the more I believe that UOC proponents don't care about the consequences of their actions.

Well you would be mistaken if you don't think that all of them don't care of their actions. Some of us do care and a great deal but that seems to get over looked by many.

Sgt Raven
07-27-2009, 9:10 PM
I agree. I would prefer LOC or CCW, but none of those options are available for me most of the time. When OC the risk of loading it and getting caught is very high. It is still only a misdemeanor, but if I illegally CC and load then it is less likely to get caught and I only get 2 misdemeanors.

As for the rest of you, I took the risk and OC'd. I am on trial. If I loose the case I will be prohibited from owning guns for 10 year. You think this is something I chose to do as a selfish act?
The real selfish act would be to help get my ruling made into case law by appealing if I loose. So far I have not decided to do so.

You've already said if it was against the law, you'd carry anyway, so whats the difference.

navyinrwanda
07-28-2009, 12:59 AM
Well you would be mistaken if you don't think that all of them don't care of their actions. Some of us do care and a great deal but that seems to get over looked by many.
Caring means having concern for — and changing behavior based upon — the consequences of one's actions, in particular as those actions may affect other members of society.

It is a function of a mature superego, and is absent in those who engage in quixotic pursuits.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-28-2009, 6:13 AM
Raisuli,

You're willing to take the legislative history and statements by the lawmakers in Sacramento at face value to prove U/OC was not a factor in legislative intent? The same people you vehemently distrust with your rights today you'll use to support your theory tomorrow? I find this fascinating.



If I had actually siad anything even remotely like that, you'd have something. Since I didn't, you don't.


Note that no one has yet answered my questions. What about them are so difficult or uncomfortable that they would be ignored outright by the U/OC proponents?



In fact, I have answered your question. You are so blinded by what you think MUST BE my motivation that you refuse to see it. That's not my problem. If you ever do want to discuss my reasons for favoring UOC events, do let me know.

The Raisuli

Old Timer
07-28-2009, 6:26 AM
It is a function of a mature superego, and is absent in those who engage in quixotic pursuits.Tell that to Rosa Parks! We may disagree with their methods but we can't fault their motives or their goals.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-28-2009, 7:08 AM
Honestly, I don't think the burden of proof should be on me or anyone else who's simply questioning the wisdom of UOC activism.



Actually, since you're one of those asking us to stop, you do bear the burden of justifying the request.



UOC proponents are the activists. It's their responsibility to insure that they first do no harm. Constant circular arguments and baseless rebuttals aren't going to convince me or anyone else that UOC activism doesn't carry a clear risk of harm.



While sitting around theorizing that this or that could cause harm may have some validity before an event, to ignore what actually happens afterward is not the the sign of a thinking person. The UOC events have NOT caused panic in the streets. The claim that they have inspired the PRK legislature to crack down on this and/or other aspects of the Right simply doesn't bear any kind of scrutiny, given the fact they are already completely motivated to infringe upon the Right anyway.

So, we're not doing any harm, which meets the burden you impose.




The more I hear these sorts of retorts, the more I believe that UOC proponents don't care about the consequences of their actions.



And the more I read trash like this, the more I see that you are also so blinded by what you think must be so that what I actually say doesn't register with you. But I'll point out (re-phrased) the good of what we do once again. Maybe you'll actually read it. Maybe not.

The sheeple are sheeple because all they hear about the 2A is what the MSM & Our Masters tell them. Is being denied access to the malls & such a real fear once LOC becomes the minimal Constitutional Standard? Sure. Regardless of anything else, private property rights will always be a factor (keep in mind it will be a factor in re CCW as well). So, how do we fix this? By making it a non-issue. IE; making it so that mall owners, etc don't desire to ban us. How can this be done?

With education. Not just of the mall owners, but of the sheeple. This is the "We The People" part of the equation that you haven't started thinking about & the part that I never stop thinking about. If We The People are comfortable with LOC, then bans won't be an issue. IOW, if we educate the sheeple, then they'll stop being sheeple.

So, how to educate? Will litigation educate We The People? No, of course not. Will lobbying? Again, of course not. Will passing out pamphlets at gun shows? Preaching to the choir has never educated anyone BUT the choir. So, what will? Having gunnies going out among them will do that. Getting a favorable response from the MSM would also, but I'm not holding my breath on that! So, the ONLY public education effort (that I can see) that actually reaches out to We The People is us, the UOC bunch.

So (and let me remind you, once again) THIS is why I attend UOC events. If anyone against this should ever want to address THIS, do let me know. But, if you want to go on & on about what you think MUST BE my motivations, I'll cheerfully ignore you.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
07-28-2009, 7:26 AM
Time now for me to state why I think education of We The People isn't just something that should be done, be is something that I think should be done NOW.

If the guess I read on scotusblog.org is correct, SCOTUS is going to take up the issue "early" in their next session. That could mean that, before the end of the year, we'll have incorporation (maybe even P&I incorporation) & all the stupid little laws that bedevil us will go away. Voloch, & even the Brady Bunch (as near as I can tell) agree with me that LOC is going to be the Minimum Constitutional Standard. That doesn't mean that CCW is in any way endangered. I see the CCW suit against Sacramento & Yolo Counties getting a big push also.

But, once LOC is our Constitutional Right again, people are going to start packing heat on their hips. Count on it. Given this reality, non-gunnies (AKA, We The People) are going to be seeing something new to them. To keep MWG calls to a minimum, & to keep excitement in general down, the public is going to have to be educated about this. I think it would be best if this education happened BEFORE swarms of gunnies started walking about.

The Raisuli

P.S. I say that Voloch & the Brady Bunch agree with me, rather than the other way around, because I said it first.

So there! :)

wildhawker
07-28-2009, 9:13 AM
Again, Mulay, you did not:

Let me ask you this- would you agree to NEVER carry again, and place your life into the hands of God and the forces of this world, if it meant that carry rights were guaranteed for all who come after you? Could you accept the loss of your own life, if that is the course of things, that others may live and enjoy the freedoms you so cherish?


If I had actually siad anything even remotely like that, you'd have something. Since I didn't, you don't.

In fact, I have answered your question. You are so blinded by what you think MUST BE my motivation that you refuse to see it. That's not my problem. If you ever do want to discuss my reasons for favoring UOC events, do let me know.

The Raisuli

Hopi
07-28-2009, 9:30 AM
Does this seem like a dangerous unintended consequence to anyone else?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2836547#post2836547
Hello Everyone,
I'm a new member as of today. I live in Las Vegas, NV where OC & CC is legal. I have a CC permit here in Nevada. I discovered your group from a link in another gun forum (defensivecarry.com) that included a link to an article in "Reader" magazine. This was the link that was about the open carry laws of in incorporated parts of California. I enjoyed that article very much. Until I read that article I almost gave up on the thought of carrying a firearm in my favorite vacation location of San Diego, CA. Now I'm rethinking about OC'ing while I'm on vacation later this year in your beautiful city.

I look forward to reading about the various subjects that are listed in this forum.

Tourists with guns....I hope the school zone and locked container issues are simple enough to understand for the sake of these curious people attracted by irresponsible/incomplete media releases.....

pullnshoot25
07-28-2009, 9:36 AM
Does this seem like a dangerous unintended consequence to anyone else?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2836547#post2836547


Tourists with guns....I hope the school zone and locked container issues are simple enough to understand for the sake of these curious people attracted by irresponsible/incomplete media releases.....

Don't get your panties in a bunch, a PM is already on its way.

It is probably best to not discourage new members, don't you think?

Hopi
07-28-2009, 9:54 AM
Don't get your panties in a bunch, a PM is already on its way.

Panties in a bunch? That's cute.

Did that PM go out to every person that has read that article and might have the same thoughts that our new member does? Or just to the 1 person that was proactive enough to register and post here?

You can't control the message or its reach once it is out of your hands. That is my point with posting here, and I'd bet the aim of many who are questioning UOC at this time.



It is probably best to not discourage new members, don't you think?

Where did I discourage new members? And what did I discourage them from doing?

FWIW, based on admissions and implied intent, what 'is probably best' and what I think are probably irrelevant to many in the UOC camp.

Theseus
07-28-2009, 10:53 AM
Does this seem like a dangerous unintended consequence to anyone else?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2836547#post2836547


Tourists with guns....I hope the school zone and locked container issues are simple enough to understand for the sake of these curious people attracted by irresponsible/incomplete media releases.....

Quite arguably a vacationer would not have knowledge or be proven to have reasonable knowledge of a school zone as they are not familiar enough with the area.

And you are right, you can't control the message once it is out of your hands, just like the gun store has no actual control of what you do with your gun when out of there hands. Does that mean they should stop selling guns?

Hopi
07-28-2009, 11:13 AM
Quite arguably a vacationer would not have knowledge or be proven to have reasonable knowledge of a school zone as they are not familiar enough with the area.

Are they prepared to make an educated decision on this matter based on limited, incomplete, and/or possibly misleading media coverage?
Is the process for demonstrating 'reasonable' insufficient knowledge fully disclosed to folks like I quoted above? Do they understand the costs/time/grief involved with the necessary defense to prove this insufficient knowledge?




And you are right, you can't control the message once it is out of your hands, just like the gun store has no actual control of what you do with your gun when out of there hands. Does that mean they should stop selling guns?


That's absurd.

Dissuading bad or dangerous behavior is not relevant in that context for at least two reasons;

1. Causing harm with a firearm is perpetrated regardless of education and knowledge. Said simply, people know that killing is wrong, they needn't be educated on that before or after a purchase. Not an applicable parrallel to knowledge of school zones etc.

2. Illegally configuring weapons such as OLLs and then getting arrested for it, carries minimal risks to the gun-owning community as a whole due to political and legislative procedural roadblocks. Again, risk v. reward.

7x57
07-28-2009, 11:26 AM
Quite arguably a vacationer would not have knowledge or be proven to have reasonable knowledge of a school zone as they are not familiar enough with the area.


And $50,000 they didn't know they'd have to spend later, maybe that will help them. What are your legal bills so far again?


And you are right, you can't control the message once it is out of your hands, just like the gun store has no actual control of what you do with your gun when out of there hands. Does that mean they should stop selling guns?

This is nonsense. The fact that guns are dangerous if you're an idiot or untrained is common knowledge in our culture. By contrast, it is unlikely that tourists will necessarily be aware that OC can get them shot very easily, and can get them serious jail time in any of several very inobvious ways. This is like selling guns to members of a stone-age culture; what they don't know can easily kill them.

I had hopes for a rise in responsibility in the OC community, but it's dipping again. People (more than one) don't seem willing to be responsible for what they're doing, and affecting others is far, far worse than what you do to yourself. You, personally, are free to decide what fight is worth risking jail or a nervous cop's bullet for. Anyone who OC's has a moral obligation to make those risks very, very clear. That's a basic moral obligation as fundamental as the Right of self-defense itself.

7x57

wildhawker
07-28-2009, 11:49 AM
This really has become somewhat of a draining thread <sigh>. I'll echo Hopi and 7x57's last comments and continue to wait for the U/OC response to my question (which I am beginning to doubt that we'll see from even the most vocal of U/OCers here).

navyinrwanda
07-28-2009, 11:53 AM
The sheeple are sheeple because all they hear about the 2A is what the MSM & Our Masters tell them... if we educate the sheeple, then they'll stop being sheeple.

So, how to educate? Having gunnies going out among them... (is) the ONLY public education effort... that actually reaches out to We The People is us, the UOC bunch.
Got it. 99% of the population of California are "people unable to think for themselves. Followers. Lemmings. Those with no cognitive abilities of their own. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sheeple)"

So, first you reduce anyone who doesn't share your opinion to the level of sub-human livestock. Then you claim that these "sheeple", who by definition are "people (that) believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by a perceived authority figure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple)," will nonetheless be swayed by a few young while males with guns strapped to their hips, defiantly insisting upon their personal right to stroll amongst them in their beloved shopping mall.

Pardon me if I question your assessment of your "students."

navyinrwanda
07-28-2009, 12:33 PM
Draining it is. It's tough reasoning with a “true believer”.

This reminds me of some required reading from a long time ago. Edward A. Shils published an essay entitled Authoritarianism: “Right” and “Left” in which he contended that superficial differences aside, radicals of the far left are nearly the same as right-wing radicals, particularly in zealotry, susceptibility to Manichean interpretations of human events, implacable hatred of opponents, intolerance towards dissenters and deviants, and an inclination to view public affairs as the outcome of conspiracies and secret plots. According to Shils, the radical left and the radical right may differ in their choice of allies and enemies, but they share a common style of political thought and employ similar techniques of political engagement.

Lancear15
07-28-2009, 12:53 PM
where is the pole?

bulgron
07-28-2009, 12:55 PM
Draining it is. It's tough reasoning with a “true believer”.

This reminds me of some required reading from a long time ago. Edward A. Shils published an essay entitled Authoritarianism: “Right” and “Left” in which he contended that superficial differences aside, radicals of the far left are nearly the same as right-wing radicals, particularly in zealotry, susceptibility to Manichean interpretations of human events, implacable hatred of opponents, intolerance towards dissenters and deviants, and an inclination to view public affairs as the outcome of conspiracies and secret plots. According to Shils, the radical left and the radical right may differ in their choice of allies and enemies, but they share a common style of political thought and employ similar techniques of political engagement.

I need to read this essay, because this is exactly my observation.

pullnshoot25
07-28-2009, 1:23 PM
I called the guy and we had a nice chat. He wants to come out for a group OC meet later this year.

For all those that are waiting for the UOC response... feel free to pop a Zoloft and meeeeellllloooowww out, we are working on it.

"But Nate, I haven't said anything about it! I am already mellow!"

That's fine, just keep being mellow.

"Dammit, I want answers now!"

And I want a date tomorrow with Emmy Rossum or Margo Harshman, doesn't mean it will happen at all or in my own timeframe.

That should take care of most objections...

wildhawker
07-28-2009, 1:43 PM
If U/OCers haven't already formulated their response, they're behind the curveball. I would have thought this would have been considered BEFORE making the choice to become the posterboys of in-your-face political reform.

I called the guy and we had a nice chat. He wants to come out for a group OC meet later this year.

For all those that are waiting for the UOC response... feel free to pop a Zoloft and meeeeellllloooowww out, we are working on it.

"But Nate, I haven't said anything about it! I am already mellow!"

That's fine, just keep being mellow.

"Dammit, I want answers now!"

And I want a date tomorrow with Emmy Rossum or Margo Harshman, doesn't mean it will happen at all or in my own timeframe.

That should take care of most objections...

pullnshoot25
07-28-2009, 1:45 PM
If U/OCers haven't already formulated their response, they're behind the curveball. I would have thought this would have been considered BEFORE making the choice to become the posterboys of in-your-face political reform.

Well, I and others made one already but it is not as "fulfilling" as many of the members on here deem it should be. Hence, we thought we should make a more comprehensive one, particularly since some members seem to be denser than Osmium and keep flaunting the same stale viewpoints and asking the same moldy questions. I figure with a more comprehensive document we can save ourselves many hours of frustration and typing.

Decoligny
07-28-2009, 1:49 PM
For all those that are waiting for the UOC response... feel free to pop a Zoloft and meeeeellllloooowww out, we are working on it.

I don't have any Zoloft, I guess I will have to settle for Tylenol 3 when I get home.

pullnshoot25
07-28-2009, 1:52 PM
I don't have any Zoloft, I guess I will have to settle for Tylenol 3 when I get home.

Gunnip works well too. It is like catnip, but with a sulphur and testosterone kick to it.

Hopi
07-28-2009, 2:10 PM
Well, I and others made one already but it is not as "fulfilling" as many of the members on here deem it should be. Hence, we thought we should make a more comprehensive one, particularly since some members seem to be denser than Osmium and keep flaunting the same stale viewpoints and asking the same moldy questions. I figure with a more comprehensive document we can save ourselves many hours of frustration and typing.

Sure signs of incomplete interrogation. Hmmmm......


some members seem to be denser than Osmium

That's rich to say the least.

navyinrwanda
07-28-2009, 2:11 PM
I need to read this essay, because this is exactly my observation.
It was published in Richard Christie and Marie Jahoda, Studies in the Scope and Method of "The Authoritarian Personality" (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1954).

wildhawker
07-28-2009, 2:11 PM
What is so old and moldy about a simple unanswered question?

1. Would you agree to never carry again, and place your life into the hands of God and the forces of this world, if it meant that carry rights were guaranteed for all who come after you?

A simple yes/no will suffice.

Well, I and others made one already but it is not as "fulfilling" as many of the members on here deem it should be. Hence, we thought we should make a more comprehensive one, particularly since some members seem to be denser than Osmium and keep flaunting the same stale viewpoints and asking the same moldy questions. I figure with a more comprehensive document we can save ourselves many hours of frustration and typing.

Old Timer
07-28-2009, 5:49 PM
What is so old and moldy about a simple unanswered question?

1. Would you agree to never carry again, and place your life into the hands of God and the forces of this world, if it meant that carry rights were guaranteed for all who come after you?

A simple yes/no will suffice.I suspect you may have committed a couple logical fallacies. Firstly the logical fallacy of Plurium Interrogationum is committed when you demand a simplistic answer to a complex question. Your a priori assumption is that somehow, by never carrying again, an OCer can guarantee, for all time, the rights of others to unlimited open carry. It would be nice if that were true, but, unfortunately, reality is somewhat different.

Also Ignoratio Elenchi is the fallacy of the irrelevant thesis. A single OCer carrying or not carrying is irrelevant to the future gun rights of Americans.

There have been times in my life when I was willing to lay down my life for the cause of freedom. Not just my freedom, nor the freedom of my family and friends, but the freedom of people I did not even know. I have some pretty impressive scars from those days, but it would have been incredibly immature of me to think my sacrifice could, somehow, guarantee freedom for all posterity for all time.

Our rights are something we must fight for every day. It is an ongoing cultural battle involving many people and many issues. We are all in this battle together. Let's not do the enemy's job for them by taking pot shots at our own fellow soldiers. We don't need any friendly fire causalities in the battle for our civil rights. :)

trashman
07-28-2009, 6:35 PM
Also Ignoratio Elenchi is the fallacy of the irrelevant thesis. A single OCer carrying or not carrying is irrelevant to the future gun rights of Americans.


Except that it's very much the thesis of the day.

And, I would respectfully submit, we are not scoring an oxford-style debate. We are trying to reduce risk. UOC increases political risk for not much gain.

--Neill

navyinrwanda
07-28-2009, 8:07 PM
It seems that the polarization of opinion concerning UOC is also mirrored in geography: virtually all proponents of UOC are in the San Diego area, with a few further north in Orange County and nearby cities.

The experiences of UOC proponents also seems to mirror location: the further south one is, the less likely they are to experience negative reactions during their UOC activities. In fact, UOC in San Diego appears to be well accepted by both the police and local population.

This is just an observation — I have no real data to support such a hypothesis, nor should anyone else act as if I did. But if true, it has some serious repercussions for the debate over the wisdom and efficacy of UOC.

UOC activists in Southern California are encouraged by the reactions of those they encounter and rarely personally experience adverse consequences. This leads them to believe that their "educational" efforts are successful, and that their is little or no downside from UOC. From this very positive and exhilarating personal experience, they either assume that "as goes San Diego goes California." Or they discount the sentiments of California citizens from Los Angeles northward to the Oregon border. And because they do not personally experience hostile police reaction, they tend to view the few reported cases as outliers, symptomatic of futile resistance in the face of great change.

There doesn't appear to be any sustained UOC activity in Los Angeles — or anywhere else along the coast up to and including Carmel/Monterrey, the San Francisco Bay Area, and greater Sacramento. And there have been arrests and prosecutions of individual carriers in these areas, too. I personally have not heard anyone realistically suggest that it would be wise or safe to practice UOC in the City of San Francisco. Nor have I heard anyone claim that there is much public support for gun rights in general in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, or Sacramento.

But we're all in one state. Other U.S. states have similar urban/rural divides; in those states, such as New York and Illinois, the cities hold power. Yet California also has a north/south political and cultural divide separating its heavily urbanized areas, a divide that's not much different than the one along the Eastern Seaboard. And like the Eastern Seaboard, California encompasses such a geographically large area that many residents of San Diego rarely, if ever, travel to San Francisco, and vice versa.

So, what works in San Diego (and maybe Orange County, too) may not work in Los Angeles or San Francisco. Yet we're all subject to the same laws, and the vast majority of political power in California is held by the representatives of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. We also live in an integrated media market, too. So what happens in San Diego makes news in San Francisco.

So, I can see how a resident of San Diego could personally experience UOC as a positive, exhilarating, liberating and empowering adventure — one with an almost intoxicating appeal and little or no perceptible negative consequences. But before you become too convinced of the righteousness of your cause, come spend a week walking in our shoes in the rest of California.

7x57
07-28-2009, 8:17 PM
Also Ignoratio Elenchi is the fallacy of the irrelevant thesis. A single OCer carrying or not carrying is irrelevant to the future gun rights of Americans.


But that itself is an unproven assertion, if we're going to be technical, and hides complexity. What is the number required to get unwanted attention? My suspicion is that the number actually is one, if that one person happens to OC in the presence of, say, the speaker of the Assembly. It might be many more than that, if the OC is circumspect (but the point seems to be precisely to gather attention, not be circumspect). You see that this is not a one-parameter family parameterized by the number of people carrying. It has many variables: when, where, who is doing the carrying and their overall demanor, etc.

In reality, all we can really know is that there is some threshold above which OC gets on legislator's radar screens. Whatever that threshold, we wish not to exceed it at this time, and as the threshold is unknowable (and depends dramatically where and when the OC is done, and how often), we wish to keep the mean rate of OCing very low. If it is known that there is a pit somewhere in the darkness, the only sensible thing to do is not to walk around blindly. Not because the odds of falling in are high with any given step, but because over time the odds of falling in become great indeed.

7x57

KylaGWolf
07-28-2009, 8:28 PM
Those who open carry are not "disobeying" anything. They are actually doing a form of "civil obedience". Exercising their RKBA as fully as the law allows. They go out of their way to avoid breaking the law.

I forgot the word not in my post. That is what I get for not proof reading.

KylaGWolf
07-28-2009, 9:45 PM
It seems that the polarization of opinion concerning UOC is also mirrored in geography: virtually all proponents of UOC are in the San Diego area, with a few further north in Orange County and nearby cities.

The experiences of UOC proponents also seems to mirror location: the further south one is, the less likely they are to experience negative reactions during their UOC activities. In fact, UOC in San Diego appears to be well accepted by both the police and local population.

This is just an observation — I have no real data to support such a hypothesis, nor should anyone else act as if I did. But if true, it has some serious repercussions for the debate over the wisdom and efficacy of UOC.

UOC activists in Southern California are encouraged by the reactions of those they encounter and rarely personally experience adverse consequences. This leads them to believe that their "educational" efforts are successful, and that their is little or no downside from UOC. From this very positive and exhilarating personal experience, they either assume that "as goes San Diego goes California." Or they discount the sentiments of California citizens from Los Angeles northward to the Oregon border. And because they do not personally experience hostile police reaction, they tend to view the few reported cases as outliers, symptomatic of futile resistance in the face of great change.

There doesn't appear to be any sustained UOC activity in Los Angeles — or anywhere else along the coast up to and including Carmel/Monterrey, the San Francisco Bay Area, and greater Sacramento. And there have been arrests and prosecutions of individual carriers in these areas, too. I personally have not heard anyone realistically suggest that it would be wise or safe to practice UOC in the City of San Francisco. Nor have I heard anyone claim that there is much public support for gun rights in general in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, or Sacramento.

But we're all in one state. Other U.S. states have similar urban/rural divides; in those states, such as New York and Illinois, the cities hold power. Yet California also has a north/south political and cultural divide separating its heavily urbanized areas, a divide that's not much different than the one along the Eastern Seaboard. And like the Eastern Seaboard, California encompasses such a geographically large area that many residents of San Diego rarely, if ever, travel to San Francisco, and vice versa.

So, what works in San Diego (and maybe Orange County, too) may not work in Los Angeles or San Francisco. Yet we're all subject to the same laws, and the vast majority of political power in California is held by the representatives of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. We also live in an integrated media market, too. So what happens in San Diego makes news in San Francisco.

So, I can see how a resident of San Diego could personally experience UOC as a positive, exhilarating, liberating and empowering adventure — one with an almost intoxicating appeal and little or no perceptible negative consequences. But before you become too convinced of the righteousness of your cause, come spend a week walking in our shoes in the rest of California.

Ah here is the thing I used to live in North California and my views where the same there as they are here. Maybe the reason that it seems to be more popular down here is the fact that people are:
1. Actually discussing it
2. Actually planning events for it

And for you to know I do NOT carry to be an intoxicating appeal. Your comment earlier to a post from me stated that I didn't take things in to account. Well you would be wrong. I do take things in to account and yes I considered long and hard before I even did do UOC. I have actually UOC one time. I have also done Gene's alternative ULCC one time. But I have been to all but one of the OC events down here in San Diego. You say we cannot say there is a positive but at the same time you cannot deny there may have been a positive. On that one thing there is no way to say definitely one way or the other since none of us can read everyone's mind. I have said it at least twice on this thread given the choice I would rather CC or LOC...and give those two choices LOC would actually be the better for me with the fact that I am disabled. But if my only option of the two were to CC give it to me I will gladly take it. But the way the county I live in is I don't see that as even a remote possibility until the next election here and even then its not a given if you go by the things that happened in both Sacramento and Orange County with their new sheriffs.

Gene you said that you would like to see more women and minorities UOC. In all honesty so would I. I am a female and sometimes feel like a minority when it comes to liking guns but then again I am an odd female that likes NFL football...although I don't get to see my team play living down here in San Diego. I am all for any suggestions on getting more females involved. Not so much just UOC but more active on Calguns in general.

Wildhawker you state your question as a simple yes or no...but to me that is a bit of a double edged. Since there is never a 100% guarantee of much in life except that someday everyone dies. My next generation (my daughter) is one of the anti's I am afraid. She used to be OK with guns then she hit high school and did a complete 180. I hope that someday she will change her mind again. But in all honesty would i stop UOCing if it meant that it would secure the right for the next generation then I would say yes. If you mean give up the right to ever LOC or CC I would have to say no. Thing is though that your question is just that a hypothetical situation. Now yes that statement will probably earn me the ire of some on this forum that I would stop UOC. But then I have never been accused of following the crowd and can think for myself.

Sons of Liberty
07-28-2009, 9:47 PM
What is so old and moldy about a simple unanswered question?

1. Would you agree to never carry again, and place your life into the hands of God and the forces of this world, if it meant that carry rights were guaranteed for all who come after you?

A simple yes/no will suffice.

Yes...if you could GUARANTEE that...but of course, how can you?

DedEye
07-28-2009, 9:49 PM
Yes...if you could GUARANTEE that...but of course, how can you?

What if it isn't a guarantee, but a statistically high probability? At what point does it reach the tipping point where you say "Yes, the potential future gains justify the short term compromise?"

Sons of Liberty
07-28-2009, 9:52 PM
What if it isn't a guarantee, but a statistically high probability? At what point does it reach the tipping point where you say "Yes, the potential future gains justify the short term compromise?"

That wasn't the question.

DedEye
07-28-2009, 10:04 PM
That wasn't the question.

No, and thank you for answering the previous one. You are to my knowledge the first person to answer it one way or another.

That is the new question that I just asked.

Theseus
07-28-2009, 10:08 PM
If this all hinges on the single question you ask, then no.

As stated here what we have is a situation where by asking me to not OC you are asking me to not only risk my life, but that of my families.

So, no. Even with your "guarantee" scenario I still have the issue of my family. If it were just me, then I might consider it, but it isn't.

And yes I know you will come up with your tired argument that OC isn't tactically effective and I don't care. It is as effective as I am legally allowed to have (with a firearm). And no, it isn't my only defense.

Sons of Liberty
07-28-2009, 10:09 PM
No, and thank you for answering the previous one. You are to my knowledge the first person to answer it one way or another.

That is the new question that I just asked.

Point of order. My turn to ask a question.

How can you GUARANTEE this?

locosway
07-28-2009, 10:13 PM
There is no way to guarantee what the next generation will experience. It's almost like I'm watching the "ProtestEasyGuns" chick on youtube...

navyinrwanda
07-28-2009, 10:14 PM
Ah here is the thing I used to live in North California and my views where the same there as they are here.
Well, sure, UOC enthusiasts would be expected to support UOC — no matter where they live. It sounds like you voted with your feet and now live amongst more like-minded people.

My comment was about the rest of the population... all of those "civilians" that UOC's encounter in their outings. We are in fact talking about "reading their minds", that is, making an educated guess about how others react. I was just speculating how the general population in San Diego might differ from those in LA and Northern California.

It's not about you. Or other UOC activists. It's about how other people react to you.

Sons of Liberty
07-28-2009, 10:20 PM
Yes...if you could GUARANTEE that...but of course, how can you?

I would like wildhawker to answer the question, please.

It should be simple to answer. It is a fair question...one that deserves the courtesy of a reply.

I'll patiently wait.

How can you GUARANTEE what you have stated in your question?

locosway
07-28-2009, 10:23 PM
The practicality of UOC for self-defense has been debated ad nauseam.

Nobody's buying it.

What's there not to buy?

Isn't carrying a gun that CAN be loaded in seconds better than nothing?

DedEye
07-28-2009, 10:29 PM
Point of order. My turn to ask a question.

How can you GUARANTEE this?

Simple. I have magical powers, and if I so chose could strike down all gun laws, poverty, drug addiction, war and unhappiness. I could keep kittens and puppies from growing old and becoming less cute (and prevent them from pooping on the carpet), and keep the toilet from getting clogged by an epic two-sie. I will not do any of that, however, until you stop UOCing.














:p

I make no guarantees, only hypothetical situations.

Theseus
07-28-2009, 10:30 PM
What's there not to buy?

Isn't carrying a gun that CAN be loaded in seconds better than nothing?

I don't know why, but it won't let me quote the original post for this.

You tell the VA OC'er in Virginia that used his .45LC to save some 6 people from being murdered by a drugged up perp that OC is not viable for self-defense. Tell that to his victim.

navyinrwanda
07-28-2009, 10:30 PM
As stated here what we have is a situation where by asking me to not OC you are asking me to not only risk my life, but that of my (sic) families.
The practicality of UOC for self-defense has been debated ad nauseam.

Nobody's buying it.

And it's family's, not families. Possessive, not plural. Unless you have more than one, in which case it's families'.

DedEye
07-28-2009, 10:33 PM
If this all hinges on the single question you ask, then no.

As stated here what we have is a situation where by asking me to not OC you are asking me to not only risk my life, but that of my families.

So, no. Even with your "guarantee" scenario I still have the issue of my family. If it were just me, then I might consider it, but it isn't.

And yes I know you will come up with your tired argument that OC isn't tactically effective and I don't care. It is as effective as I am legally allowed to have (with a firearm). And no, it isn't my only defense.

I'm not going to make any such argument, since I agree that a UOC'd handgun is still more useful than the loaded gun locked in your safe. Even so, I think it's irrelevant.

Is your living situation really SO DIRE that you need a firearm on you at all times to protect your family? Better yet, why doesn't your family UOC? I don't recall your family situation if it's been posted in the past, but why doesn't your wife UOC?

If your situation is so desperately plagued by violence that you need a firearm, why not move (taking a page from both the anti's and the antburner's playbook here)? Instead of moving as they suggest though to a magical fairytale land free of violence and bad people, why not move to a shall issue state (or even shall issue CA County)? It's not as though you have a job holding you to your community, is it?

artherd
07-28-2009, 10:36 PM
A single OCer carrying or not carrying is irrelevant to the future gun rights of Americans.

Actually I have it on very good authority that a hundred or so OC-ers are going to get nasty new law passed if they keep sticking their fingers up the legislature's bunghole.

A couple dozen Black Panthers banned LOC and bought us 12031(e) when they had the brilliant idea of OCing.

artherd
07-28-2009, 10:43 PM
How can you GUARANTEE what you have stated in your question?

CGF has this annoying little habit of kicking extreme ***. We will win, and have far more effective (read: ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK!) means of doing so than UOC-ers.

Plus, I will throw in the tiniest non-pooping pony ever.

In?

Theseus
07-28-2009, 10:44 PM
I'm not going to make any such argument, since I agree that a UOC'd handgun is still more useful than the loaded gun locked in your safe. Even so, I think it's irrelevant.

Is your living situation really SO DIRE that you need a firearm on you at all times to protect your family? Better yet, why doesn't your family UOC? I don't recall your family situation if it's been posted in the past, but why doesn't your wife UOC?

If your situation is so desperately plagued by violence that you need a firearm, why not move (taking a page from both the anti's and the antburner's playbook here)? Instead of moving as they suggest though to a magical fairytale land free of violence and bad people, why not move to a shall issue state (or even shall issue CA County)? It's not as though you have a job holding you to your community, is it?

So now I have to dictate my life story to you in order to justify why I choose to OC? Why I would choose to use my firearm as a means to help me protect my family?

At this point the questions dont' stop and I will no longer play that game. I was asked to answer a "simple question with a simple answer". I have done that and no more from me. I don't need to justify my actions to anyone but maybe my wife, and you sir's are not her.

LGB Loader
07-28-2009, 10:51 PM
but why doesn't your wife UOC?


Please keep Wives and Mama's out of the discussion. They are taboo in heated discussions between men with guns.

LGB

navyinrwanda
07-28-2009, 11:36 PM
Is your living situation really SO DIRE that you need a firearm on you at all times to protect your family? Better yet, why doesn't your family UOC? I don't recall your family situation if it's been posted in the past, but why doesn't your wife UOC?

If your situation is so desperately plagued by violence that you need a firearm, why not move (taking a page from both the anti's and the antburner's playbook here)? Instead of moving as they suggest though to a magical fairytale land free of violence and bad people, why not move to a shall issue state (or even shall issue CA County)? It's not as though you have a job holding you to your community, is it?
That question's been asked yet never answered.

But self-defense keeps arising as justification for UOC. Along with teaching people about guns and constitutional rights. Except when things get confusing, then it's all about self-defense again.

Old Timer
07-29-2009, 5:54 AM
UOC increases political risk for not much gain.And I respectfully submit that you have assumed facts not in evidence. I know that the lawyers involved believe that OCing may poison the well, but, so far, that has not been demonstrated. At this point in the struggle for our civil rights we don't know what strategy may turn out to be the winner. It may be the establishment of case law as a result of the litigation brought by the excellent lawyers in question. However, it may also be that the activism of the OCers will capture the attention of the huddled masses in a positive way and result in a pro 2nd amendment ground swell. It is much too early to make any definitive statements.

Again, we, the people involved in the RKBA debate, must not treat fellow travelers as the enemy. We have a common goal being sought with slightly divergent methods. :)

And, just as an aside, logical thinking should always be a prerequisite to posting anything on any forum, or even speaking. :)

greasemonkey
07-29-2009, 6:28 AM
Actually I have it on very good authority that a hundred or so OC-ers are going to get nasty new law passed if they keep sticking their fingers up the legislature's bunghole.

A couple dozen Black Panthers banned LOC and bought us 12031(e) when they had the brilliant idea of OCing.

can we get 12031(e) thrown out on the basis of it being racist?!?! :TFH:

Old Timer
07-29-2009, 7:06 AM
Actually I have it on very good authority . . . Care to identify that authority?

Old Timer
07-29-2009, 7:12 AM
That question's been asked yet never answered.

But self-defense keeps arising as justification for UOC. Along with teaching people about guns and constitutional rights. Except when things get confusing, then it's all about self-defense again.What about doing so just because it is our constitutional right to do so?

Must I provide justification to you before I can exercise free speech?

How about my religion? Must I provide justification to you before I can attend church, or pray, or read the sacred literature of my choice?

Must I provide justification to you before I can exercise my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?

Why must I provide you with justification before I can exercise any right?

I don't open carry, but I will defend to my death the right of others to do so!

7x57
07-29-2009, 8:04 AM
You tell the VA OC'er in Virginia that used his .45LC to save some 6 people from being murdered by a drugged up perp that OC is not viable for self-defense. Tell that to his victim.

That was, however, *actual* OC, as in loaded.

As an irrelevant side note, could there be a worse weapon for unloaded OC than a single-action revolver? :eek:

"The victim, shot eight times, was found next to a single-action revolver with the loading gate open and one cartridge in the cylinder." :rofl:

7x57

Decoligny
07-29-2009, 8:20 AM
I'm not going to make any such argument, since I agree that a UOC'd handgun is still more useful than the loaded gun locked in your safe. Even so, I think it's irrelevant.

Is your living situation really SO DIRE that you need a firearm on you at all times to protect your family? Better yet, why doesn't your family UOC? I don't recall your family situation if it's been posted in the past, but why doesn't your wife UOC?

If your situation is so desperately plagued by violence that you need a firearm, why not move (taking a page from both the anti's and the antburner's playbook here)? Instead of moving as they suggest though to a magical fairytale land free of violence and bad people, why not move to a shall issue state (or even shall issue CA County)? It's not as though you have a job holding you to your community, is it?

Wow, you cut and paste that directly from the Brady Handbook on disarming gunowners!

Can you predict with 100% certainty when and where Theseus will NEED a firearm? If so, I am sure that he would be glad to only carry a firearm on those specific instances and to those specific places. The purpose for carrying a firearm for self defense it to have the firearm available in case that one in a million circumstance presents itself where you WOULD ACTUALLY NEED to have a firearm available.

So it is not about the need, it is about preparation for the unthinkable.

Decoligny
07-29-2009, 8:25 AM
That was, however, *actual* OC, as in loaded.

As an irrelevant side note, could there be a worse weapon for unloaded OC than a single-action revolver? :eek:

"The victim, shot eight times, was found next to a single-action revolver with the loading gate open and one cartridge in the cylinder." :rofl:

7x57

To add to the irrelavance, yes, there could.

http://www.weaponsemporium.com/WE-Flintlocks%20Scottish.jpg

kalguns
07-29-2009, 8:53 AM
Actually I have it on very good authority that a hundred or so OC-ers are going to get nasty new law passed if they keep sticking their fingers up the legislature's bunghole.

A couple dozen Black Panthers banned LOC and bought us 12031(e) when they had the brilliant idea of OCing.

:iagree:

7x57
07-29-2009, 8:56 AM
To add to the irrelavance, yes, there could.


Fair enough, I don't know why I was limiting myself to cartridge arms. I've pointed out the same thing w.r.t. whether the authors of the 2A would have regarded UOC as bearing arms.

7x57

navyinrwanda
07-29-2009, 9:23 AM
What about doing so just because it is our constitutional right to do so?

Must I provide justification to you before I can exercise free speech?

How about my religion? Must I provide justification to you before I can attend church, or pray, or read the sacred literature of my choice?

Must I provide justification to you before I can exercise my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?

Why must I provide you with justification before I can exercise any right?

I don't open carry, but I will defend to my death the right of others to do so!
There is currently no case law to support a federal or California state law to bear arms outside of one's home or other truly private property.

UOC has no viable basis in self-defense, so it is activism in support of greater gun rights. The burden of proof should rightly be on UOC proponents to demonstrate that they first do no harm to those rights.

trashman
07-29-2009, 9:39 AM
And, just as an aside, logical thinking should always be a prerequisite to posting anything on any forum, or even speaking. :)

I don't disagree. I do, however, reassert that we're working in a political, and decisional arena (i.e., the legislature) that is not neutral; thus my comment about this not being an oxford-style debate.

And I respectfully submit that you have assumed facts not in evidence. I know that the lawyers involved believe that OCing may poison the well, but, so far, that has not been demonstrated.
That's because by the time there is "evidence", it'll be too late -- which is why I keep focussing on risk.

Fundamentally the process of evaluating (and quantifying) risk is an exercise in predicting the future - not examining evidence ex post facto.

And what we keep hearing from folks who are our friends in Sacramento is that UOC can, and will, cause drama because it will invite the kind of opportunistic anti-gun legislation we would like to avoid -- since it costs money, time, and political capital to fight it.


At this point in the struggle for our civil rights we don't know what strategy may turn out to be the winner. It may be the establishment of case law as a result of the litigation brought by the excellent lawyers in question. However, it may also be that the activism of the OCers will capture the attention of the huddled masses in a positive way and result in a pro 2nd amendment ground swell. It is much too early to make any definitive statements.I respectfully disagree: by equivocating in the graf above, you're saying "I don't have any ex post facto evidence so I can't evaluate the risk".

And what I think we're all trying to say here is that the risk of anti-UOC legislation, as we see it, very much outweighs the "huddled masses...2nd amendment ground swell".

Got any demographics to show where this groundswell is going to come from? Because it seems to me that in California we gunnies are a permanent minority -- which is why we are turning to the courts (starting with Heller) for protection.

--Neill

Theseus
07-29-2009, 10:16 AM
There is currently no case law to support a federal or California state law to bear arms outside of one's home or other truly private property.

UOC has no viable basis in self-defense, so it is activism in support of greater gun rights. The burden of proof should rightly be on UOC proponents to demonstrate that they first do no harm to those rights.

So when we offer out answers all you do is ignore the answer.

Believe it or not, but the crap that is comming out of your. . . um. . . keyboard is the same crap that the anti's argue about guns in general.

"Having a gun will only make you more of a target"
"Crime really isn't so bad that you need a gun. . . what are the chances YOU will be the target of violent crime?"

Welcome Brady Campaign trust. I knew it was only a matter of time before we were infiltrated by the likes of you.

Also navyinrandy, I never claimed OC to be anythign BUT self-defense in my case. I started OC'ing for self defense and I will conitnue to OC for self defense. Now that I have been charged I get the added bonus of doing it because as an educational tool for people and popo.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-29-2009, 11:32 AM
UOC has no viable basis in self-defense, so it is activism in support of greater gun rights. The burden of proof should rightly be on UOC proponents to demonstrate that they first do no harm to those rights.

Well, what is said to you is starting to register. That's nice. But, I'll note that this also puts paid to your "simple question" requiring a "simple answer." Would *I* give up UOC in order to "guarantee" greater freedom in the future? Sure. Time now for you to answer a "simple" question; can you guarantee that having us UOCers give up a right (in order to placate just about the most anti-2A legislature in the land) will actually placate the PRK Legislature??????

As to your demand that we UOCers show no harm, that's been addressed also. The PRK legislature is (as noted above) so very anti-2A that my mind just reels at what comes out of there. While there was an event that inspired the push for the anti-Black Rifle laws, I don't recall seeing anything of the sort before the push for micro stamping. I don't recall any such before the push for the "Safe Gun List." But for some unknown reason, you think that UOC events have inspired this anti-2A legislature to be even worse than they have been. I'm just not seeing it. Time then for you to show why you do see such.

While you're at it, why not show why you think this education effort is a bad thing. Because it isn't happening at San Fran or Sac'to? Wouldn't it be better to say that it hasn't happened there yet? After all, doesn't any effort have to start somewhere? Also, doesn't any effort start at the easy end first? IOW, would not a swimmer start in the shallow end of the pool before diving into the deep end? Wouldn't a mountain climber start with his local hills before going up Mt. Everest? Don't actors start with regional theater before appearing on Broadway? To criticize UOC efforts because we haven't yet gotten everywhere makes no sense. A big part of why you're regarded by me as nonsensical.

But, since you have (FINALLY!) acknowledged that education is the goal, maybe you could say why you (seemingly) regard this effort as not worth while? Don't you think educating We The People is worth doing? It looks to me like you're not doing anything to educate We The People & further that you don't intend to do anything. Which leads me to believe that you don't believe that this whole pro-2A effort is actually for We The People. If I'm wrong, then the way to show me that I'm wrong would be to start explaining what you would do to educate We The People. This is a simple question. Will I get a simple answer?

The Raisuli

Dr. Peter Venkman
07-29-2009, 11:38 AM
Also navyinrandy, I never claimed OC to be anythign BUT self-defense in my case. I started OC'ing for self defense and I will conitnue to OC for self defense. Now that I have been charged I get the added bonus of doing it because as an educational tool for people and popo.

UOC is like playing poker with showing everyone your hand. If I was a bad guy, my first target would be anyone likely to stop me. A person with a gun is numero uno. UOC in groups can be a deterrence to that however. I don't understand the "educating the public" bit about UOC. I'd treat any random person in public trying to sit down and talk to me for whatever reason as I would the people in the kiosks in the middle of the aisles at the local mall. That means a big "NOT INTERESTED". You think the general public will allow for people with guns to do just the same? I'd love to see how UOC attract more curious onlookers than it does deter them.

Theseus
07-29-2009, 12:00 PM
UOC is like playing poker with showing everyone your hand. If I was a bad guy, my first target would be anyone likely to stop me. A person with a gun is numero uno. UOC in groups can be a deterrence to that however. I don't understand the "educating the public" bit about UOC. I'd treat any random person in public trying to sit down and talk to me for whatever reason as I would the people in the kiosks in the middle of the aisles at the local mall. That means a big "NOT INTERESTED". You think the general public will allow for people with guns to do just the same? I'd love to see how UOC attract more curious onlookers than it does deter them.

And if I were a criminal . . . we can play that game all day long. You keep running the same tired Brady playbook and see where that gets you.

greasemonkey
07-29-2009, 12:26 PM
What about doing so just because it is our constitutional right to do so?

Must I provide justification to you before I can exercise free speech?

How about my religion? Must I provide justification to you before I can attend church, or pray, or read the sacred literature of my choice?

Must I provide justification to you before I can exercise my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?

Why must I provide you with justification before I can exercise any right?

I don't open carry, but I will defend to my death the right of others to do so!


It's your constitutional right to pee in your soup before you eat it, if you want to. There's a big difference in exercising UOC and what church you attend or what literature you read. Primarily because the religious/literature choice is a private decision that ultimately impacts only you directly. Something like UOC activism, whether you want it to or not(which most UOCers don't seem to care), it DOES effect all of us in the PRK.

No matter how friendly you're being, how much you think other people enjoy your activities or how much positive press you think is getting to Sac on this...that's all your own perspective. People from all over the state (especially people directly involved with the major legal battles and responsible for CGF kicking *** and taking names), people are begging UOCers, for a very temporary, short time to please stop because statewide, it's potentially creating a problem. And this problem won't be realized until it's too late, as Trashman just said a few posts ago.

If you'll notice, a lot of these guys, especially Gene, are by no means opposed to UOC, not opposed to carrying, they're not opposed to guns, they're just asking you to temporarily postpone a bunch of white guys running around town flaunting UOC just because they can in the best interest of EVERYONE in the state.

The last 20 pages of this argument bring to mind a kid complaining that he can't open his Christmas presents a week early because they're his anyway.

greasemonkey
07-29-2009, 12:35 PM
"Having a gun will only make you more of a target"
"Crime really isn't so bad that you need a gun. . . what are the chances YOU will be the target of violent crime?"

Having a visible gun will make you a substantially higher profile target. No one here is asking you to cut your guns up and never use them again.

Old Timer
07-29-2009, 12:40 PM
There is currently no case law to support a federal or California state law to bear arms outside of one's home or other truly private property.Which is why we must be active in our endeavor.UOC has no viable basis in self-defense, so it is activism in support of greater gun rights.Please support your a priori assumption that "UOC has no viable basis in self-defense."The burden of proof should rightly be on UOC proponents to demonstrate that they first do no harm to those rights.The burden of proof should rightly be on UOC opponents to demonstrate that they are causing harm.

Old Timer
07-29-2009, 12:52 PM
Fundamentally the process of evaluating (and quantifying) risk is an exercise in predicting the future - not examining evidence ex post facto.Actually, I am quite familiar with risk analysis, it is what I do for a living. We first identify the threat. Then we estimate the risk. Then we formulate a means of managing the risk. Then we analyze the result.

Your assumption is that UOC is a threat to RKBA progress. Then you use that assumption as your conclusion, that UOC is a threat to RKBA progress.
And what we keep hearing from folks who are our friends in Sacramento is that UOC can, and will, cause drama because it will invite the kind of opportunistic anti-gun legislation we would like to avoid -- since it costs money, time, and political capital to fight it.You mean the ones who have done such a great job, historically, in protecting our RKBA? :)
I respectfully disagree: by equivocating in the graf above, you're saying "I don't have any ex post facto evidence so I can't evaluate the risk".No. I am saying that when all aspects of the risk are evaluated the risk of not being active is possibly as great as or greater than the risk of being active.

Old Timer
07-29-2009, 1:22 PM
It's your constitutional right to pee in your soup before you eat it, if you want to. Could you please cite the Article or Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees such a right?There's a big difference in exercising UOC and what church you attend or what literature you read.And what, in your opinion, is the big difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendments?Primarily because the religious/literature choice is a private decision that ultimately impacts only you directly. Something like UOC activism, whether you want it to or not(which most UOCers don't seem to care), it DOES affect all of us in the PRK.How does carrying a gun, in a holster, that is not drawn or displayed in any manner other than open carry affect the rest of the people in California any more than my wearing a cross, a yarmulke, or a crescent??No matter how friendly you're being, how much you think other people enjoy your activities or how much positive press you think is getting to Sac on this...that's all your own perspective.Just as the obverse is just your own perspective. That is the whole point! There are two diametrically opposed perspectives! Why assume only your perspective has merit? People from all over the state (especially people directly involved with the major legal battles and responsible for CGF kicking *** and taking names), people are begging UOCers, for a very temporary, short time to please stop because statewide, it's potentially creating a problem.I know. But the fact remains that, so far, there is no evidence to support the fear that OCing is having a detrimental effect on the political posture of the state. On the contrary, judging from the training bulletins issued by several LEAs exactly the opposite can be asserted.And this problem won't be realized until it's too late, as Trashman just said a few posts ago.So, your best argument is, "I know I am right and the future will prove it." I am sorry but, as a pragmatic man, I require more than a mere assertion of precognition to cause me to militantly oppose another free citizens civil rights. :)

If you'll notice, a lot of these guys, especially Gene, are by no means opposed to UOC, not opposed to carrying, they're not opposed to guns, they're just asking you to temporarily postpone a bunch of white guys running around town flaunting UOC just because they can in the best interest of EVERYONE in the state.Yes, I know. However, the above statement is simply inaccurate. I was at the San Diego Open Carry activity in February and one of the most prominent participants was a gentleman of color. :)

The last 20 pages of this argument bring to mind a kid complaining that he can't open his Christmas presents a week early because they're his anyway.Yes, you do seem to want to peek into the future and demand I adjust my life according to your perception of events. :)

Okay, back to the main point. Just because we have differing opinions regarding the value of OCing, does not make us enemies. It just means we have a different opinion. I have been married for so many decades I can't even count that high any more, and, occasionally, my wife and I have held different opinions on some subject or another. But, we still love one another. We are still married. And we still enjoy each others company. Just because we might disagree about a few things does not make us enemies. :)

wildhawker
07-29-2009, 1:42 PM
U/OC is a risk to RKBA not only via the legislature but also by alienation of California's general population, which is my greater concern. It is reasonable to expect that the process whereby the people come to trust us, as publicly-carrying gun owners, take time. If our right to carry tomorrow is limited by the unintended consequences of today's actions we will have placed a much greater burden upon the success of the social component of our cultures' modification; if the social experiment goes awry I'd prefer to then have an opportunity to lean on my right to carry. Something I learned in business, I never wave my contract in someone's face and then ask them to work towards my position. It's usually much more effective to build a bridge and develop a relationship than jumping right to hammering someone with termination for default.

The difference between the camps, I think, is largely where we place our faith. Some of us have faith in NRA/CGF/CRPA/SAF and others (as a coalition), as well as ourselves; the U/OC camp, on the other hand, has faith only in itself as a vehicle for change (or, at best, does so distrust those organizations that any useful confidence has otherwise been muted).

There is a possibility that we're all wrong; time will tell. Until then, my faith and support will stand with those proven to be effective in their goals.

Theseus
07-29-2009, 1:53 PM
U/OC is a risk to RKBA not only via the legislature but also by alienation of California's general population, which is my greater concern. It is reasonable to expect that the process whereby the people come to trust us, as publicly-carrying gun owners, take time. If our right to carry tomorrow is limited by the unintended consequences of today's actions we will have placed a much greater burden upon the success of the social component of our cultures' modification; if the social experiment goes awry I'd prefer to then have an opportunity to lean on my right to carry. Something I learned in business, I never wave my contract in someone's face and then ask them to work towards my position. It's usually much more effective to build a bridge and develop a relationship than jumping right to hammering someone with termination for default.

The difference between the camps, I think, is largely where we place our faith. Some of us have faith in NRA/CGF/CRPA/SAF and others (as a coalition), as well as ourselves; the U/OC camp, on the other hand, has faith only in itself as a vehicle for change (or, at best, does so distrust those organizations that any useful confidence has otherwise been muted).

There is a possibility that we're all wrong; time will tell. Until then, my faith and support will stand with those proven to be effective in their goals.

How about this then. I have faith that when the courts rule they will determine LOC the constitutionally guaranteed right and that CCW will still be a regulated right with the need for a tax to get permission.

So if I feel that way, then why should I change anything?

I will inform you that I have not been OC'ing since I was charged and I might or might not after the case. Convince me why. Why should I care whether you keep your permission slip when you are sitting here telling me that I am a selfish moron and that I should stop exercising my Constitutional right to self-defense?

Give me a good reason why I should respect your choice when you don't resapect mine and instead berate me for it.

wildhawker
07-29-2009, 1:55 PM
Thanks for your patience.

I think you are overly defensive about the implications of my question. Never did I claim to (or be able to) guarantee any outcome any more than what can be offered by close analysis of the pending cases and their probable outcomes. Note that most U/OCers did not answer at all, and those that did avoided the direct implication (or said "no"). Your honesty is appreciated, and I think (again, to restate) that the underlying issue here is one of faith: can we trust Gene and CGF, or can we only trust ourselves to achieve carry rights and social acceptance?

I will note that the "rights" so vehemently argued today are hollow as compared to those objectives I believe we all share. Shouldn't the passion and energy be directed at achieving the *goal* and not simply our pride in our cool-looking band-aid?

I would like wildhawker to answer the question, please.

It should be simple to answer. It is a fair question...one that deserves the courtesy of a reply.

I'll patiently wait.

How can you GUARANTEE what you have stated in your question?

wildhawker
07-29-2009, 2:06 PM
Frankly, Theseus, how you feel about me and my rights is not at issue here. If you believe I am against your right to carry and self-defense, then maybe I should fly down and we should have a beer and talk about it, as nothing could be further from the truth. I don't expect you to trust me, and I don't believe you should take anyone else's word for it. So, my offer stands- whenever you (and others, if they're so inclined, but the next round is on you ;)) would like, I'll fly down if that would help us to build a bridge.

Your jaded perspective of the court system isn't entirely surprising or unwarranted considering, but don't you think that holding our chin up and carrying the torch high for just a little longer would be better than holding it to the dry grasslands upon which we now stand? I am troubled by the thought that some in U/OC may feel it's better to live for a few short moments in glorious freedom and die in the fire. The ironic thing, to me, is that the 'freedom' we now have isn't that damn glorious... but it will be, if we are methodical and patient.

The stone is heavy, but we're all here to carry it, together.

How about this then. I have faith that when the courts rule they will determine LOC the constitutionally guaranteed right and that CCW will still be a regulated right with the need for a tax to get permission.

So if I feel that way, then why should I change anything?

I will inform you that I have not been OC'ing since I was charged and I might or might not after the case. Convince me why. Why should I care whether you keep your permission slip when you are sitting here telling me that I am a selfish moron and that I should stop exercising my Constitutional right to self-defense?

Give me a good reason why I should respect your choice when you don't resapect mine and instead berate me for it.

GM4spd
07-29-2009, 2:18 PM
State govt. as of late has been preoccupied with the budget. It may not
take long before the general public starts to take notice of the UOC
movement.(If it hasn't already) News/media coverage that has been touted as "fair" may very
well be that,however, I have a bad feeling about the GENERAL public,(seeing/hearing about UOC)
starting to call/email their state reps. This could probably be followed by some
"knee jerk" legislation that will not be helpful to any of us. Pete

GuyW
07-29-2009, 3:22 PM
UOC has no viable basis in self-defense

That's because, in one dearly-loved Calguns hypothetical, the bad guy will have a gun and will do bad things to you.

So then carrying a closed, locking knife (Buck knife) in a case on your belt with a closed cover and snap, has no viable basis in self-defense either?

....because, hypothetically, the bad guy will have a gun and will do bad things to you.....

So then carrying a pepper spray has no viable basis in self-defense either?

....because, hypothetically, the bad guy will have a gun and will do bad things to you.....

...sounds like the thing you need to do just before leaving home.......is just kiss your #$% goodbye....

....because, hypothetically, the bad guy will have a gun and will do bad things to you.....


.

Decoligny
07-29-2009, 3:25 PM
That's because, in one dearly-loved Calguns hypothetical, the bad guy will have a gun and will do bad things to you.

So then carrying a closed, locking knife (Buck knife) in a case on your belt with a closed cover and snap, has no viable basis in self-defense either?

....because, hypothetically, the bad guy will have a gun and will do bad things to you.....

So then carrying a pepper spray has no viable basis in self-defense either?

....because, hypothetically, the bad guy will have a gun and will do bad things to you.....

...sound like the thing you need to do just before leaving home.......is just kiss your #$% goodbye........because, hypothetically, the bad guy will have a gun and will do bad things to you.....


.

No,no,no,no,no. That's all wrong. You have to lock yourself in your house, never come out for any reason, and apply for Government Aid because you are too afraid to leave your house and that's a disability. :rolleyes:

Then you can be another Government controlled lemming that survives off of the wealth of others who have had that wealth "redistributed".

navyinrwanda
07-29-2009, 3:55 PM
Would *I* give up UOC in order to "guarantee" greater freedom in the future?
You have me confused with someone else. Someone who said something that didn't make any sense to me, either.

navyinrwanda
07-29-2009, 4:12 PM
Believe it or not, but the crap that is comming out of your. . . um. . . keyboard is the same crap that the anti's argue about guns in general.
If the best the UOC proponents can do is stoop to name-calling and making the same unsubstantiated assertions time after time, then this so-called discussion's over — just like a discussion between a parent and a child is over when the child throws a temper tantrum.

Now that I have been charged I get the added bonus of doing it because as an educational tool for people and popo.
Will you be testifying at your own trial to educate the "people and (the) popo"?

I will inform you that I have not been OC'ing since I was charged and I might or might not after the case.
You're well on your way to being a dispossessed person. Check back with us after your verdict.

navyinrwanda
07-29-2009, 4:42 PM
While you're at it, why not show why you think this education effort is a bad thing. Because it isn't happening at San Fran or Sac'to? Wouldn't it be better to say that it hasn't happened there yet? After all, doesn't any effort have to start somewhere? Also, doesn't any effort start at the easy end first? IOW, would not a swimmer start in the shallow end of the pool before diving into the deep end? Wouldn't a mountain climber start with his local hills before going up Mt. Everest? Don't actors start with regional theater before appearing on Broadway? To criticize UOC efforts because we haven't yet gotten everywhere makes no sense. A big part of why you're regarded by me as nonsensical.
I made the effort to write a thoughtful and dispassionate post speculating on a reason why there are such radical differences of opinion on the wisdom of UOC (i.e., regional political and cultural differences between San Diego and the rest of coastal California). So far, no one has seen fit to reply in a similar fashion.

Instead, there's been a nonstop torrent of “nonsensical” tirades loaded with unsubstantiated assertions and circular arguments. Written with enough spelling and grammar errors to raise the suspicion that some never finished elementary school.

And why do you choose to associate yourself with Mulai Ahmed el Raisuni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulai_Ahmed_er_Raisuli)? You do realize that Sean Connery's portrayal of him in The Wind and the Lion was almost pure fiction?

Theseus
07-29-2009, 4:56 PM
If the best the UOC proponents can do is stoop to name-calling and making the same unsubstantiated assertions time after time, then this so-called discussion's over — just like a discussion between a parent and a child is over when the child throws a temper tantrum.

Will you be testifying at your own trial to educate the "people and (the) popo"?

You're well on your way to being a dispossessed person. Check back with us after your verdict.

Wow, now I called you a name? When and where?

And what unsubstantiated assertion have I made?

As for spelling and grammar, I am not here to write an english paper. When and if I need to write something to someone important enough I will do so with proper spelling and grammar.

locosway
07-29-2009, 5:27 PM
Honestly, there's no point in arguing either way. There's two camps, and both have valid points. We should agree to disagree until there's further information on the real life pros and cons and support the 2A in our own ways.

Old Timer
07-29-2009, 5:52 PM
Honestly, there's no point in arguing either way. There's two camps, and both have valid points. We should agree to disagree until there's further information on the real life pros and cons and support the 2A in our own ways.Amen and Amen! I wholeheartedly agree. Both sides has valid points. Both sides opinions are valid. Neither is the enemy of the other and it is time both sides stopped acting like it.:(:confused:

Theseus
07-29-2009, 6:23 PM
Amen and Amen! I wholeheartedly agree. Both sides has valid points. Both sides opinions are valid. Neither is the enemy of the other and it is time both sides stopped acting like it.:(:confused:
But my side is MORE right!:p

:beatdeadhorse5:

greasemonkey
07-29-2009, 9:28 PM
Could you please cite the Article or Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees such a right?

So there I was in front of hundreds of people with my foot firmly planted in my mouth. I clearly should have said it's not illegal to pee in your soup (as far as I know...). Not sure why I said constitutional right. I uh, I've got nothing aside from that sinking feeling when you realize you said something just ridiculously stupid.

And what, in your opinion, is the big difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendments? How does carrying a gun, in a holster, that is not drawn or displayed in any manner other than open carry affect the rest of the people in California any more than my wearing a cross, a yarmulke, or a crescent??

I mean that the outcome of exercising a publicly controversial activity in a volatile time frame is different than exercising a private religious decision. Someone's likely not going to freak out if they see you walking into a certain religious establishment and hop on the bandwagon contacting their legislators trying to ban all religions(though I do believe there are people who think that'd be a wonderful idea:rolleyes:). It's the effect that in the current state of things, public outcry against any type of UOC, LOC(OC) and CCW could all be affected equally adversely due to flaunting your right at this point in our progress in the legislative system.

Okay, back to the main point. Just because we have differing opinions regarding the value of OCing, does not make us enemies. It just means we have a different opinion. I have been married for so many decades I can't even count that high any more, and, occasionally, my wife and I have held different opinions on some subject or another. But, we still love one another. We are still married. And we still enjoy each others company. Just because we might disagree about a few things does not make us enemies. :)

That is true, I definitely don't see UOCers as enemies, I'd be willing to sit down over a beer at least once with pretty much any member from here or my diesel forum in light of the things we have in common. I'm excited for the day when OC/CC can quite literally be a family outing. Unfortunately, I do see some as current potential opposition to our end goal of a free state with the 'I want it now' mentality.

Theseus
07-29-2009, 9:36 PM
So there I was in front of hundreds of people with my foot firmly planted in my mouth. I clearly should have said it's not illegal to pee in your soup (as far as I know...). Not sure why I said constitutional right. I uh, I've got nothing aside from that sinking feeling when you realize you said something just ridiculously stupid.

Don't apologize! Just because the BOR and the Constitution don't specifically say it is a right doesn't mean it is not. The only real mistake you made was calling it a constitutional right.