PDA

View Full Version : Nordyke impact: Pause UOC


hoffmang
07-30-2009, 1:31 AM
All,

I haven't spoken to anyone so this is no one's policy or thought but mine. However, now that there is no Second Amendment right in California until Nordyke is reissued or the Supreme Court issues an opinion in one of the Chicago Cases, we should not be UOCing at all.

I'd prefer to not fully explain why as it's a bit late, but the basic issues is that there now is not a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. As such, the ability to use the Federal courts to protect UOC'ers is diminished until either a new Nordyke opinion or June of 2010.

I know there are other reasons that some have asked to hold off, but this is a major issue and I really hope that folks will understand why I say this. I'm not trying to start a flame thread here. Importantly, the worst likely case is that UOCers should wait for the Supremes in June of 2010.

-Gene

artherd
07-30-2009, 1:40 AM
My personal thoughts on the matter mirror Gene's.

marshaul
07-30-2009, 2:08 AM
Predictable. :rolleyes:

You'd think people didn't UOC until Nordyke.

GM4spd
07-30-2009, 5:06 AM
I wish you a lot of luck with that request,Gene. I believe you are correct in
your assessment,however,the UOC backers only see it their way. Pete

Irrational Voice
07-30-2009, 6:12 AM
I'd prefer to not fully explain why as it's a bit late, but the basic issues is that there now is not a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. As such, the ability to use the Federal courts to protect UOC'ers is diminished until either a new Nordyke opinion or June of 2010.


I'm missing something, isn't UOC legislatively protected in CA? How can you use the Federal courts to protect a legal activity? As long as the UOC is being done per the letter of the law aren't state laws adequate protection? Now, I understand the issues that some other have brought up re: don't UOC because antis will try to outlaw it but you pretty specifically said that isn't your current concern.

CitaDeL
07-30-2009, 6:56 AM
You'd think people didn't UOC until Nordyke.

OC Veteran since 2006.

I appreciate what Gene is trying to do, however this is a little like putting feathers back into a pillow. Outside. While the wind blows.

This is the nature of liberty. Once you set it loose, you have little remedy other than tyranny to bind it again.

7x57
07-30-2009, 7:19 AM
This is the nature of liberty. Once you set it loose, you have little remedy other than tyranny to bind it again.

The whole point, I think, is that there is nothing standing in the way of tyranny pending further action in federal court (ETA: or a favorable en banc decision, of course).

Welcome back to the familiar California.

7x57

HowardW56
07-30-2009, 7:27 AM
My personal thoughts on the matter mirror Gene's.

I'm in agreement...

Window_Seat
07-30-2009, 7:30 AM
And of course, as my opinion was revealed by myself here with others being critical (constructively), I don't plan on OCing until (if, really) it actually becomes a "protected activity", and at that time, it would make sense for it to become LOC.

Erik; waiting & breathing normally.

locosway
07-30-2009, 7:35 AM
I'm missing something, isn't UOC legislatively protected in CA? How can you use the Federal courts to protect a legal activity? As long as the UOC is being done per the letter of the law aren't state laws adequate protection? Now, I understand the issues that some other have brought up re: don't UOC because antis will try to outlaw it but you pretty specifically said that isn't your current concern.

This would be my questions as well. Regardless of federal law, UOC is legal per current CA law. Not trying to go against anyone here, just wondering what the difference is?

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 7:58 AM
I wish you a lot of luck with that request,Gene. I believe you are correct in
your assessment,however,the UOC backers only see it their way. Pete

Yeah, we be a selfish lot.

Python2
07-30-2009, 8:00 AM
Wow, this is sooooo confusing. For the UOC they simply are following 12031 (state law) yet now that incorporation is on hold, RKBA is therefore on hold. So we have a law (12031) on something we are not allowed to do? Ay, mamma mia.

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 8:02 AM
Well, that totally sucks. I shall be patient though.

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 8:04 AM
Wow, this is sooooo confusing. For the UOC they simply are following 12031 (state law) yet now that incorporation is on hold, RKBA is therefore on hold. So we have a law (12031) on something we are not allowed to do? Ay, mamma mia.

It isn't a right, it is a privilege at the moment. Until crap gets decided, we aren't protected. 7x57 pointed it out as waiting until we can "put a lawyer on our shoulders"

locosway
07-30-2009, 8:09 AM
It isn't a right, it is a privilege at the moment. Until crap gets decided, we aren't protected. 7x57 pointed it out as waiting until we can "put a lawyer on our shoulders"

I don't see a difference. If it's legal per the written law, why would it matter of it's a right or a privilege other than the latter can be removed and the first can't?

Scarecrow Repair
07-30-2009, 8:12 AM
I don't see a difference. If it's legal per the written law, why would it matter of it's a right or a privilege other than the latter can be removed and the first can't?

Because there's a lot more scope for anti-gunners to put a crimp in your wallet defending yourself.

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 8:12 AM
I don't see a difference. If it's legal per the written law, why would it matter of it's a right or a privilege other than the latter can be removed and the first can't?

AFAIK, it isn't so much removal as it is bad legislation that would require further fighting on our part to get removed (read: years)

locosway
07-30-2009, 8:15 AM
Because there's a lot more scope for anti-gunners to put a crimp in your wallet defending yourself.

Perhaps I'm incredibly dense this morning from a lack of sleep, but why would one need to defend themselves from something that is legal?

I guess what I'm doing is relating this to driving, which also is not a right.

Decoligny
07-30-2009, 8:37 AM
Wow, this is sooooo confusing. For the UOC they simply are following 12031 (state law) yet now that incorporation is on hold, RKBA is therefore on hold. So we have a law (12031) on something we are not allowed to do? All laws are on things we are not allowed to do. 12031 says we can't carry a loaded firearm in an incorporated city. UOC is carrying an UNLOADED gun in an incorporated city.Ay, mamma mia.

12031 and it's execptions existed before Nordyke. People were UOCing before Nordyke. People will be UOCing while Nordyke is en banc.

You can't unring a bell.

7x57
07-30-2009, 8:39 AM
I don't see a difference. If it's legal per the written law, why would it matter of it's a right or a privilege other than the latter can be removed and the first can't?

I'm going to riff on this a bit--possibly there will be an error somewhere as this is partly about some technical details of the law that I'm not as inclined to pontificate about as I am about what the core meaning of the law is supposed to be, but I think I'll get it mostly right and it's an important subject. Someone will correct really egregious errors anyway.

First, the fact that a privilege can be revoked at the pleasure of the legislature is *significant*, and significant in a way that will stick in the craw of a lot of people here. Me, too, but it's true: a privilege gets lost by "misusing it" in the eyes of the giver. The giver in this case does not believe that anyone has rights that restrict them, and most of all not a right to arms. That might not matter if the revocation was about UOC and UOC alone, but as Gene has said many times it's likely to happen in a way that has ugly consequences for everybody.

More importantly, the standard of scrutiny for a privilege is much lower than for a non-revocable right. As a privilege is at pleasure, the courts are quite deferential to the legislature. That's how we got to where we are now. But a right, when backed up by the caselaw we intend to establish, makes the courts look a lot harder at what the legislature is up to. That makes a *big* difference regardless of what the law says, to begin with because it has to do with who wins when the situation is unclear (as well as in other ways).

Consider two states with exactly the same laws on justifiable homicide in self-defense, but state B places the burden of proof on the citizen and state R places the burden on the DA. The law is the same, except for how the courts are to decide in the face of uncertainty. And yet, in state B you're very likely to go to jail for defending yourself in your own home--there are probably no witnesses and it's your word against the meth-head. Guess what--ties go against you. But in state R, in this same very likely situation, you're probably not going to jail for doing the right thing.

See how it matters, even though otherwise the legal situation is the same? If a right is really recognized as a fundamental right, something similar happens. In the case of a privilege, the courts won't strike down the law unless it's truly insane--"rational basis" is the scrutiny, and what the courts think is "rational" is far broader than the dictionary meaning of the word. In the case of a right, it's much stricter--while it varies when the right is something the courts don't like, it is something like requiring the state to show it had a compelling public interest in the regulation and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to be the minimum infringement necessary to meet that compelling interest.

Basically, in the case of a privilege, ties go to the state. In the case of a right, ties go to you. With that in mind, I will offer you a series of bets. We each lay down $5 and then each roll a die. High roll wins. Fair, right? But I just want one little thing--in the case of a tie, I win. High roll still wins most of the time, I'm just resolving the ambiguous case--so it's a fair bet, right? :43:

One of the other things that happens is that official liability for misbehavior is much greater. That's what I said to PNS about needing to put a lawyer on his shoulder. If UOC is a privilege, and some nervous rookie cop shoots him, the courts are going to shrug and say, effectively, he was abusing the privilege the legislature gave him and the cop's regrettable misjudgment was an honest mistake. Or if they prone him out at gunpoint and all the rest, well, they have to ensure their safety. Why not? There are few consequences for them.

OTOH, if there is a fundamental Right to Bear Arms, we're in Federal Civil Rights Violation territory. The cop is expected to *know* what a citizen's basic rights are in a way he isn't expected to know the precise details of the PC. He is expected to take more care in not Infringing on a right where he isn't expected to take care to respect edge cases in the PC. And the liability for him and (the one we really care about) his department are far greater if he is negligent in respecting fundamental rights than they are if he is negligent in understanding some obscure detail of the PC (and to California courts, the fact that the legislature forgot to outlaw *unloaded* OC is likely to be viewed as just that by an anti- California judge--an obscure detail).

So if PNS is exercising a fundamental legal right when OCing, after we've established the Right to Bear and backed it up with case law we've metaphorically put a "lawyer on his shoulder." Each time the police stop him, there is a line which, if crossed, opens up the officer and his department to serious consequences in federal court. And that makes him both physically and legally safer, because he's less likely to get shot by a scared cop and he's less likely to get harassed by a virulently anti-gun California legal system. Effectively, there are federal judges and civil rights lawyers looking over the shoulders of both the cop and the California judge. That's the endgame we want--a lawyer on each citizen's shoulder, and one that the police know is there.

But without that lawyer, there is fairly little we can do about his personal and legal risks, and worse (because he can choose his own personal risks whether foolish or wise) fairly little we can do about the personal and legal risks he puts on *others* when he UOCs (and as explained over and over, they can extend to putting people who LCC or simply transport arms in physical and legal danger).

Bottom line: guardian angels are nice, but we'd much rather have guardian lawyers on the shoulders of every citizen who Bears Arms, whatever the manner in which he Bears. The CGF/Coalition strategy is to put it there. But he isn't there yet.

7x57

Paladin
07-30-2009, 8:43 AM
Well, that totally sucks. I shall be patient though.

Thanks, PNS. I, for one, appreciate your understanding and cooperation. Timing is everything in these things.

Yeah, this sucks. Although OCing isn't my primary goal -- de facto or de jure "Shall Issue" is -- I'd LOVE to safely OC (either LOC or even UOC) my 10 1/2" Ruger Super Blackhawk in downtown SF w/o harassment just for the pure joy of exercising my 2nd A RKBA in the belly of the beast. :43: When that day comes, I shall change the location in my profile from the PRK to CA!

FWIW I would prefer to LOC than CC while hiking or backpacking/camping in spring, summer, or fall.

Honestly, I'm amazed we're as close to getting what we should get over the next three years. I, too, will be patient and supportive.

drutledge79
07-30-2009, 8:46 AM
I'm going to riff on this a bit--possibly there will be an error somewhere as this <snip>

Thanks 7x57. I've been keeping tabs on progress lately and this really helped to clear things up for me.

KylaGWolf
07-30-2009, 8:53 AM
All,

I haven't spoken to anyone so this is no one's policy or thought but mine. However, now that there is no Second Amendment right in California until Nordyke is reissued or the Supreme Court issues an opinion in one of the Chicago Cases, we should not be UOCing at all.

I'd prefer to not fully explain why as it's a bit late, but the basic issues is that there now is not a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. As such, the ability to use the Federal courts to protect UOC'ers is diminished until either a new Nordyke opinion or June of 2010.

I know there are other reasons that some have asked to hold off, but this is a major issue and I really hope that folks will understand why I say this. I'm not trying to start a flame thread here. Importantly, the worst likely case is that UOCers should wait for the Supremes in June of 2010.

-Gene

OK I won't UOC till this is resolved one way or the other. Gene would LUCC still be an option at this point or is that too going to be put on hold for now?

locosway
07-30-2009, 9:04 AM
OK I won't UOC till this is resolved one way or the other. Gene would LUCC still be an option at this point or is that too going to be put on hold for now?

I think the key is visibility. LUCC is not visible to anyone, and so long as you aren't a complete moron no one would be the wiser including LEO's.

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 9:10 AM
I think the key is visibility. LUCC is not visible to anyone, and so long as you aren't a complete moron no one would be the wiser including LEO's.

+1. We got an LUCC specific case in the pipeline coming up from a fellow Calgunner that should be out sometime in the near future.

Sgt Raven
07-30-2009, 11:58 AM
Yeah, we be a selfish lot.

QFT :p

locosway
07-30-2009, 12:00 PM
+1. We got an LUCC specific case in the pipeline coming up from a fellow Calgunner that should be out sometime in the near future.

Interesting; Anything to worry about since I've been LUCC now for a few weeks?

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 12:07 PM
Interesting; Anything to worry about since I've been LUCC now for a few weeks?

Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant case as in a physical case that can safely contain the gun, not a court case.

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 12:08 PM
QFT :p

???

Sgt Raven
07-30-2009, 12:13 PM
???

It's a joke, boy, a joke. I keep pitching and you keep missing. :p

odysseus
07-30-2009, 12:25 PM
First, the fact that a privilege can be revoked at the pleasure of the legislature is *significant*, and significant in a way that will stick in the craw of a lot of people here. Me, too, but it's true: a privilege gets lost by "misusing it" in the eyes of the giver. The giver in this case does not believe that anyone has rights that restrict them, and most of all not a right to arms. That might not matter if the revocation was about UOC and UOC alone, but as Gene has said many times it's likely to happen in a way that has ugly consequences for everybody.

That's the nuance some are not accepting. Without incorporated 2A rights, which is commonsensical to everyone here but simply not factually existing currently in California, you are simply walking the line of legislative law in this state. This is dynamic and while inherently unConstitutional, the fight is best made with a strategy. It is painful to swallow that for anyone, but the reality is the enemy does this.

E Pluribus Unum
07-30-2009, 12:38 PM
All,

I haven't spoken to anyone so this is no one's policy or thought but mine. However, now that there is no Second Amendment right in California until Nordyke is reissued or the Supreme Court issues an opinion in one of the Chicago Cases, we should not be UOCing at all.

I'd prefer to not fully explain why as it's a bit late, but the basic issues is that there now is not a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. As such, the ability to use the Federal courts to protect UOC'ers is diminished until either a new Nordyke opinion or June of 2010.

I know there are other reasons that some have asked to hold off, but this is a major issue and I really hope that folks will understand why I say this. I'm not trying to start a flame thread here. Importantly, the worst likely case is that UOCers should wait for the Supremes in June of 2010.

-Gene

You are assuming that we need the protection of the second amendment to legally UOC; we do not.

As you well know, California law allows us to UOC and as such, if done correctly we don't need the second amendment protection of Nordyke to do so.

Sgt Raven
07-30-2009, 12:48 PM
You are assuming that we need the protection of the second amendment to legally UOC; we do not.

As you well know, California law allows us to UOC and as such, if done correctly we don't need the second amendment protection of Nordyke to do so.

So if you go out and cause more harm and make us spend money fighting crap, it's just to dam bad? :rolleyes:

Irrational Voice
07-30-2009, 12:58 PM
First, the fact that a privilege can be revoked at the pleasure of the legislature is *significant*, and significant in a way that will stick in the craw of a lot of people here. Me, too, but it's true: a privilege gets lost by "misusing it" in the eyes of the giver. The giver in this case does not believe that anyone has rights that restrict them, and most of all not a right to arms. That might not matter if the revocation was about UOC and UOC alone, but as Gene has said many times it's likely to happen in a way that has ugly consequences for everybody.

This is nonsensical. That is like arguing that one should not go to rallies in an open park because doing so might incite the legislature to force permits for rallies where one was previously not needed. All this does is follow some non-existent law because you are afraid the law might become reality. If you are going to act as though the law exists why worry about its actualization? Now, you might argue "because IF 2A is incorporated we don't have to worry because they won't be able to create this new law." The problem with that is that if we don't wait for incorporation then the law will be mooted anyway if it is passed.


More importantly, the standard of scrutiny for a privilege is much lower than for a non-revocable right. As a privilege is at pleasure, the courts are quite deferential to the legislature. That's how we got to where we are now. But a right, when backed up by the caselaw we intend to establish, makes the courts look a lot harder at what the legislature is up to. That makes a *big* difference regardless of what the law says, to begin with because it has to do with who wins when the situation is unclear (as well as in other ways).

Standard of scrutiny is irrelevant. No one in the UOC movement has suggested challenging or breaking any law so scrutiny is moot.

If a right is really recognized as a fundamental right, something similar happens. In the case of a privilege, the courts won't strike down the law unless it's truly insane--"rational basis" is the scrutiny, and what the courts think is "rational" is far broader than the dictionary meaning of the word.

If we don't have incorporation within 18 months it will mean the USSC has ruled against up and the CA legislature will starting passing anti-gun measures out the wazoo regardless of Nate and his escapades. Do you really think they don't want further limits? Why do you think they aren't passing even more anti-gun laws? The only reason is they are afraid they will eventually run afoul of the courts. If we don't have incorporation we will lose UOC, CCW and possibly handgun possession rights within the decade.

bodger
07-30-2009, 2:03 PM
And of course, as my opinion was revealed by myself here with others being critical (constructively), I don't plan on OCing until (if, really) it actually becomes a "protected activity", and at that time, it would make sense for it to become LOC.

Erik; waiting & breathing normally.

This would be my questions as well. Regardless of federal law, UOC is legal per current CA law. Not trying to go against anyone here, just wondering what the difference is?

I'm confused by this as well. "Protected activity"?? Does that mean as it stands now UOC is "Unprotected activity"? And does that mean it's against the law?
I'm not an advocate of UOC personally, but what I keep seeing on this board makes me think nobody knows whether it's legal, it's a right, or WTF it is other than something the cops can see you do and kick your arse for.

So Nordyke is en banc and suddenly UOC is "Unprotected"?
Or does that mean "technically legal" or, "technically illegal" but defensible depending on the Nordyke outcome.

Gunnies will be stamped out by the sheer neurotic nature of this crap sooner or later. maybe that's the plan.

locosway
07-30-2009, 2:06 PM
It's still legal, but they're afraid that with more UOC PR that the legislature will suddenly ban UOC and at the same time dismiss LOC and more fair CCW.

I really can't see that happening, but that's just me.

bodger
07-30-2009, 2:15 PM
I think I get it.
Let's not piss anybody off by exercising what's actually legal or they might make it illegal.

Meanwhile, let's wait and see if they make a whole lot of even better stuff that we want legal while we lay low.

Have some tea, there isn't any.

I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.

GJJ
07-30-2009, 2:28 PM
I respect the courage of those that UOC. Face it, nothing we do will ever make the gun banners happy. So, stop trying.

Theseus
07-30-2009, 2:34 PM
I still say that we should challenge and get LOC legal and protected. Then the legislature will either 1. Do nothing and let that be or 2. Make a deal with us for shall-issue or even better Alaska carry.

As for private companies prohibiting OC, that might happen, but we already know Wal-Mart allows OC if it is legal in their states. No official position from Target, but I have shopped at many Targets for sometimes more than an hour and never asked once to leave or looked at crooked.

There are plenty of businesses that don't want to get in the way of 2A rights. Those that do can suffer the lack of business.

Decoligny
07-30-2009, 2:34 PM
I respect the courage of those that UOC. Face it, nothing we do will ever make the gun banners happy. So, stop trying.

I am reminded of when the President in "Independance Day" asks the alien behind the glass "What do you want us to do?"

The alien gives a one word answer, "Die."

This is about how vehemently the antis feel about us gunnies.

Python2
07-30-2009, 2:41 PM
I respect the courage of those that UOC. Face it, nothing we do will ever make the gun banners happy. So, stop trying.

You mean give up and be a sheep? Yeah right!

GJJ
07-30-2009, 2:43 PM
Decoligny, in that case, here is our response (from the movie Independence Day)

"We will not go quietly into the night!" We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!

Python - No. The exact opposite. We fight back without worrying about our actions hurting their precious feelings. Stop trying to get them to like us. Do what we have to do.

Python2
07-30-2009, 2:46 PM
Decoligny, in that case, here is our response (from the movie Independence Day)

"We will not go quietly into the night!" We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!

Python - No. The exact opposite. We fight back without worrying about our actions hurting their precious feelings. Stop trying to get them to like us. Do what we have to do.

Now you are talking:43:

bodger
07-30-2009, 3:01 PM
I still say that we should challenge and get LOC legal and protected. Then the legislature will either 1. Do nothing and let that be or 2. Make a deal with us for shall-issue or even better Alaska carry.

As for private companies prohibiting OC, that might happen, but we already know Wal-Mart allows OC if it is legal in their states. No official position from Target, but I have shopped at many Targets for sometimes more than an hour and never asked once to leave or looked at crooked.

There are plenty of businesses that don't want to get in the way of 2A rights. Those that do can suffer the lack of business.

What's "Alaska Carry"? Is that in reference to no CCW necessary up there?

sorensen440
07-30-2009, 3:07 PM
I'm pro UOC but I see nothing good coming of it while Nordyke is en banc

Decoligny
07-30-2009, 3:07 PM
What's "Alaska Carry"? Is that in reference to no CCW necessary up there?

Alaska carry is in reference to anyone who can legally own a gun can carry that gun either openly or concealed without asking for, or paying for a Government permission slip.

GJJ
07-30-2009, 3:12 PM
Alaska carry is in reference to anyone who can legally own a gun can carry that gun either openly or concealed without asking for, or paying for a Government permission slip.

Sounds kind of like an idea that some guys had a coupe hundred years ago:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and BEAR Arms, shall not be infringed.


Most people don't realize that "shall issue" is really an infringement of your right to keep and bear arms too. Like the previous poster said, it is a permission slip. A right does not require a permission slip.

Technical Ted
07-30-2009, 3:18 PM
Perhaps I'm incredibly dense this morning from a lack of sleep, but why would one need to defend themselves from something that is legal?
29 years ago it used to be perfectly legal in California to go to a gun store, select a semiautomatic, detachable magazine fed, centerfire rifle with a pistol grip, collapsing stock under 30 inches in length, fill out a 4473, pay your money and walk right out with a long gun. No lock. No case. No second looks from anyone, not even the cops coming and going from the police department headquarters up the street.

No DROS. No DROS fees. No 10 day waiting period.

I know. I did it myself.

bodger
07-30-2009, 3:23 PM
29 years ago it used to be perfectly legal in California to go to a gun store, select a semiautomatic, detachable magazine fed, centerfire rifle with a pistol grip, collapsing stock under 30 inches in length, fill out a 4473, pay your money and walk right out with a long gun. No lock. No case. No second looks from anyone, not even the cops coming and going from the police department headquarters up the street.

No DROS. No DROS fees. No 10 day waiting period.

I know. I did it myself.

As did I. At B & B Guns. We've come one hell of a long way in the wrong direction.

HondaMasterTech
07-30-2009, 3:26 PM
OP: Are you talking about EVERYWHERE eg, NFS or BLM, or only cities and such?

Technical Ted
07-30-2009, 3:28 PM
OP: Are you talking about EVERYWHERE eg, NFS or BLM, or only cities and such?
I'm pretty sure he's talking about municipalities.

HondaMasterTech
07-30-2009, 3:31 PM
I'm pretty sure he's talking about municipalities.

That's what I was assuming.

vrand
07-30-2009, 3:45 PM
29 years ago it used to be perfectly legal in California to go to a gun store, select a semiautomatic, detachable magazine fed, centerfire rifle with a pistol grip, collapsing stock under 30 inches in length, fill out a 4473, pay your money and walk right out with a long gun. No lock. No case. No second looks from anyone, not even the cops coming and going from the police department headquarters up the street.

No DROS. No DROS fees. No 10 day waiting period.

I know. I did it myself.

Ahh, "the good old days" :cheers2:

E Pluribus Unum
07-30-2009, 3:48 PM
So if you go out and cause more harm and make us spend money fighting crap, it's just to dam bad? :rolleyes:

No one has explained to me how it can hurt the cause.

If one is more than 1500 feet from a school and the gun is not loaded then there is no crime to charge one with. The reason Theseus is in his legal battle is based on someone's measurement of 1000 feet. If he were more than 1500-2000 feet away from a school, he would never have been charged.

E Pluribus Unum
07-30-2009, 3:50 PM
29 years ago it used to be perfectly legal in California to go to a gun store, select a semiautomatic, detachable magazine fed, centerfire rifle with a pistol grip, collapsing stock under 30 inches in length, fill out a 4473, pay your money and walk right out with a long gun. No lock. No case. No second looks from anyone, not even the cops coming and going from the police department headquarters up the street.

No DROS. No DROS fees. No 10 day waiting period.

I know. I did it myself.

Unfortunately for me... 29 years ago, I was 3 years old.

coolusername2007
07-30-2009, 4:41 PM
OK, so let me get this straight. Heller gave us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms in our HOME. So then Nordyke will be heard en banc, therefore no 2A incorporation in CA. Therefore, all you anti-UOC'ers should do the following...

Not Protected Rights
1. Stop going to the range
2. Stop hunting
3. Stop transporting
4. Stop conceal carrying
5. Basically just about everything, and arguably even stop BUYING

Because if you don't who knows what laws they'll pass next. Sorry, the argument just doesn't hold water. No wonder we're in this mess! Maybe we should stop trying to incorporate the 2A, and just incorporate the 9th. That would solve everything now wouldn't it?

locosway
07-30-2009, 4:58 PM
29 years ago it used to be perfectly legal in California to go to a gun store, select a semiautomatic, detachable magazine fed, centerfire rifle with a pistol grip, collapsing stock under 30 inches in length, fill out a 4473, pay your money and walk right out with a long gun. No lock. No case. No second looks from anyone, not even the cops coming and going from the police department headquarters up the street.

No DROS. No DROS fees. No 10 day waiting period.

I know. I did it myself.

I fail to see any direct relation with UOC and this post.

Granted, the Black Panthers did ruin LOC for everyone; however I don't believe it was there fault. Instead they should have prohibited civilian firearms from government buildings instead of a broad ban on LOC.

What we have here is a state with people who just have no clue. Why wasn't the LOC ban protested?

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 5:14 PM
I fail to see any direct relation with UOC and this post.

Granted, the Black Panthers did ruin LOC for everyone; however I don't believe it was there fault. Instead they should have prohibited civilian firearms from government buildings instead of a broad ban on LOC.

What we have here is a state with people who just have no clue. Why wasn't the LOC ban protested?

I believe it was. People v. Delong seems to be the result of such a protest after the fact.

The Black Panthers going into the capitol were protesting the Mulford act, which is the loaded ban.

Sgt Raven
07-30-2009, 5:15 PM
I fail to see any direct relation with UOC and this post.

Granted, the Black Panthers did ruin LOC for everyone; however I don't believe it was there fault. Instead they should have prohibited civilian firearms from government buildings instead of a broad ban on LOC.
What we have here is a state with people who just have no clue. Why wasn't the LOC ban protested?

There's so much you don't know, Grasshopper, they did both. Plus they made a special law about firearms and the Capital Area in Sacramento. :rolleyes:

locosway
07-30-2009, 5:21 PM
There's so much you don't know, Grasshopper, they did both. Plus they made a special law about firearms and the Capital Area in Sacramento. :rolleyes:

It's true, there's a lot I don't know about RKBA in CA. I'm reading as much as my wife will let me. Right now she thinks I've gone off the deep end.

I was able to find the Mulford act, but couldn't find the People v. Delong.

Librarian
07-30-2009, 5:32 PM
It's true, there's a lot I don't know about RKBA in CA. I'm reading as much as my wife will let me. Right now she thinks I've gone off the deep end.

I was able to find the Mulford act, but couldn't find the People v. Delong.

It's nicely treated at opencarry - http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=27689&forum_id=12&jump_to=471870

B Strong
07-30-2009, 5:33 PM
I fail to see any direct relation with UOC and this post.

Granted, the Black Panthers did ruin LOC for everyone; however I don't believe it was there fault. Instead they should have prohibited civilian firearms from government buildings instead of a broad ban on LOC.

What we have here is a state with people who just have no clue. Why wasn't the LOC ban protested?

Because very few gun owners saw it as applying to them - everybody knew who the law was aimed at...

Technical Ted
07-30-2009, 5:52 PM
I fail to see any direct relation with UOC and this post.

Granted, the Black Panthers did ruin LOC for everyone; however I don't believe it was there fault. Instead they should have prohibited civilian firearms from government buildings instead of a broad ban on LOC.

What we have here is a state with people who just have no clue. Why wasn't the LOC ban protested?
The point is: laws can be changed. One day an every day act is legal and the next it isn't.

Back then information networks were limited. There was no cable. There was no internet. There were no forums. There were no blogs. Most people only knew what was going on based on their local news.

bodger
07-30-2009, 6:24 PM
I fail to see any direct relation with UOC and this post.


Duly noted and added to your moderator resume. :43:

hoffmang
07-30-2009, 7:33 PM
The point of UOCing is to be in society's face. Trying to egg on a negative reaction during the period in which we have no protections in Federal Court is like not packing a backup chute when skydiving.

There is no right to keep and bear arms in California at this time.

-Gene

MudCamper
07-30-2009, 7:43 PM
The point of UOCing is to be in society's face. Trying to egg on a negative reaction

Gene, this is not the point of UOC. For some, this may be one of many (http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html) reasons. For me, your "point" does not apply. Primarily I UOC in remote unincorporated territory. And for me, as for most UOCers I know, one of many points is to spread a positive message, not to "be in society's face".

hoffmang
07-30-2009, 7:55 PM
Gene, this is not the point of UOC. For some, this may be one of many (http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html) reasons. For me, your "point" does not apply. Primarily I UOC in remote unincorporated territory. And for me, as for most UOCers I know, one of many points is to spread a positive message, not to "be in society's face".

When California doesn't approve of guns by a ratio of 3:2, your message is not going out to a receptive audience.

If you need an unloaded firearm for protection, locked container carry works and exempts you from school zones.

-Gene

vrand
07-30-2009, 8:13 PM
When California doesn't approve of guns by a ratio of 3:2, your message is not going out to a receptive audience.

If you need an unloaded firearm for protection, locked container carry works and exempts you from school zones.

-Gene

Bingo

wildhawker
07-30-2009, 8:19 PM
Mud, what statistically relevant audience is present in remote unincorp territories?

hoffmang
07-30-2009, 8:21 PM
Primarily I UOC in remote unincorporated territory.

Is the remote territory a no discharge zone? If it's not you can and should feel free to LOC.

-Gene

MudCamper
07-30-2009, 8:25 PM
Is the remote territory a no discharge zone? If it's not you can and should feel free to LOC.

Anywhere near a road is no-go for me, per PC 374c in county and 36 CFR 261.10 (d) on federal lands.

MudCamper
07-30-2009, 8:27 PM
Mud, what statistically relevant audience is present in remote unincorp territories?

Quite a few like-minded people, who are pleasantly surprised to learn about OC legalities.

But even most of the city UOCer's accounts tend to be positive ones too.

wildhawker
07-30-2009, 8:34 PM
Affirmation and approval from friendlies are pleasant but hardly spreading the gospel in hostile territory...

coolusername2007
07-30-2009, 9:27 PM
When California doesn't approve of guns by a ratio of 3:2, your message is not going out to a receptive audience.

If you need an unloaded firearm for protection, locked container carry works and exempts you from school zones.

-Gene

Ok, If I haven't already, I'm going to go out on a limb here. If I understand this ratio of 3:2, that's the same as 1.5:1 or 10:6.67 which isn't that bad, numbers that close are not insurmountable. I would argue, respectfully, that if that number is true, and I have no idea where that data comes from, then perhaps the problem isn't the "audience", but perhaps its the "message".

And to the larger point, national conservative message makers, so to speak, have all but abandoned California. I hear negative gun, negative 2A, negative hunting, and other similar messages coming from the ultra left liberal elites and hollyweird types, and the media constantly. But where is the balance? Where is the positive message? In the absence of an alternative message, people will align themselves with what they hear. And I don't hear any positive messages being played out in CA providing that much needed balance. In fact, the silence in CA is so deafening you don't even hear the roar of the significant legal victories that are won.

Case in point, until just recently I wasn't active on these forums, or with UOC, and I like to think I keep my ears open with regards to positive, conservative news. And I never heard anything about the Nordyke decision until getting into these forums. And here again, only on these forums did I learn about the Nordyke en banc decision. Clearly the message, whatever it is, isn't getting out.

POLICESTATE
07-30-2009, 9:39 PM
According to what I learned back in school and also recently from INS (my wife became a citizen a few years back) The Constitution is the highest law in the COUNTRY. So since the 2nd amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed I don't understand how SCOTUS could have interpreted that states have the ability to to supersede 2A then, and it does say "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be INFRINGED"

The Founding Fathers were not rocket scientists after all, and most of them were not lawyers either. I think they intended the ultimate law of the land to be easily understood by everyone.

locosway
07-30-2009, 10:02 PM
I still believe UOC has the advantage over LUCC, unless there's some super secret to this LUCC that allows for quicker access...

hoffmang
07-30-2009, 10:11 PM
I still believe UOC has the advantage over LUCC, unless there's some super secret to this LUCC that allows for quicker access...

There is a considerably more effective way to LUCC but you have to think it through.

The other option is a long gun in an unlocked guitar case...

-Gene

locosway
07-30-2009, 10:12 PM
I keep hearing the "think it through" phrase. Care to PM me with details on this?

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 10:29 PM
I never went out OCing with the intent "to get in the face of society." However, I will admit that I was inspired to prove a lot of naysayers and my parents wrong about the acceptance (or general ignorance) of guns in society.

The closest thing that anyone could say to be close to being "getting in society's face" is my using OC as a protest against the lack of CCW permit issuance here in SD County. Other than that, I feel it has been a helpful educational tool.

Paladin
07-31-2009, 4:54 AM
According to what I learned back in school and also recently from INS (my wife became a citizen a few years back) The Constitution is the highest law in the COUNTRY. So since the 2nd amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed I don't understand how SCOTUS could have interpreted that states have the ability to to supersede 2A then, and it does say "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be INFRINGED"

The Founding Fathers were not rocket scientists after all, and most of them were not lawyers either. I think they intended the ultimate law of the land to be easily understood by everyone.
Use the "CGN Google Search" and search for the word "incorporation" in this subforum.

Paladin
07-31-2009, 5:05 AM
When California doesn't approve of guns by a ratio of 3:2, your message is not going out to a receptive audience. We know that Arnold, the Executive, is an anti, given his opposition to national reciprocity saying it violates states' right, when he has yet to join the other states in asserting CA state sovereignty:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/state-sovereignty-resolutions/
(I guess when you go begging to Obama for a "stimulus" for your bankrupt state, it would be bad form to then turn around and thumb your nose at D.C.! :p)

So Gene, what are the ratios in the two "audiences" that matter, the our two legislative bodies: the CA State Assembly and Senate?

wildhawker
07-31-2009, 7:27 AM
I never went out OCing with the intent "to get in the face of society." However, I will admit that I was inspired to prove a lot of naysayers and my parents wrong about the acceptance (or general ignorance) of guns in society.

The closest thing that anyone could say to be close to being "getting in society's face" is my using OC as a protest against the lack of CCW permit issuance here in SD County. Other than that, I feel it has been a helpful educational tool.

Nate, with the best of intentions you're not recognizing the overall psychology surrounding guns (esp in public) within the context of California's very unique culture and sociopolitical status quo. I have no doubt that you've successfully encountered tens of not hundreds of citizens in your efforts; however, "six-gun wearing" gun owners may, at best, be approached by most with a sense of novelty, and real acceptance is a far sight from the dynamics of an amusement park. How many of those "washed in the faith" will be at the next U/OC event?

Mud,

No doubt that some were intrigued by the thought of open carry- I'm not sure there are many expressive acts as powerful as openly carrying a firearm capable of delivering death upon one's public person. For this reason, I think the U/OCers have a difficult time putting the feathers back into the pillow, as CD stated earlier.

pullnshoot25
07-31-2009, 9:46 AM
Nate, with the best of intentions you're not recognizing the overall psychology surrounding guns (esp in public) within the context of California's very unique culture and sociopolitical status quo. I have no doubt that you've successfully encountered tens of not hundreds of citizens in your efforts; however, "six-gun wearing" gun owners may, at best, be approached by most with a sense of novelty, and real acceptance is a far sight from the dynamics of an amusement park. How many of those "washed in the faith" will be at the next U/OC event?

Mud,

No doubt that some were intrigued by the thought of open carry- I'm not sure there are many expressive acts as powerful as openly carrying a firearm capable of delivering death upon one's public person. For this reason, I think the U/OCers have a difficult time putting the feathers back into the pillow, as CD stated earlier.

Considering the number of people that have joined CGN and OCDO, taken a look at californiaopencarry.org, read my blog, sent me emails/youtube messages/left forum posts asking about "getting on the list" and OCing by themselves... I would say quite a few. Even if just those 20 new guys came that would increase our usual group by 50%

Psy Crow
07-31-2009, 4:14 PM
There is a considerably more effective way to LUCC but you have to think it through.

The other option is a long gun in an unlocked guitar case...

-Gene

Pardon my ignorance - what is "LUCC"?

Shotgun Man
07-31-2009, 4:24 PM
Pardon my ignorance - what is "LUCC"?

I'll take a stab-- Locked Unloaded Concealed Carry.

Irrational Voice
07-31-2009, 4:27 PM
Considering the number of people that have joined CGN and OCDO, taken a look at californiaopencarry.org, read my blog, sent me emails/youtube messages/left forum posts asking about "getting on the list" and OCing by themselves... I would say quite a few.

:gene:

7x57
07-31-2009, 4:43 PM
:gene:

Quite likely people got tired of explaining the same things over and over and over again.

7x57

KylaGWolf
07-31-2009, 5:14 PM
It's still legal, but they're afraid that with more UOC PR that the legislature will suddenly ban UOC and at the same time dismiss LOC and more fair CCW.

I really can't see that happening, but that's just me.

Not outright but they can and ARE trying to make it next to impossible to get your gun to the range or even out of your house if you are living near a school. They are trying to limit the amount of ammo we can buy each month. And a few other nasty little bills that are working their way through the state senate and assembly at this point.

KylaGWolf
07-31-2009, 5:21 PM
No one has explained to me how it can hurt the cause.

If one is more than 1500 feet from a school and the gun is not loaded then there is no crime to charge one with. The reason Theseus is in his legal battle is based on someone's measurement of 1000 feet. If he were more than 1500-2000 feet away from a school, he would never have been charged.

OK keep this in mind right now if the new distance for the gun free school zone passes it also would make it illegal to even take your gun in a LOCKED case even unloaded. Thats right if you live in a gun zone when this little zinger passes you will now be a criminal to even take your gun out of your house unless you have a garage or fenced in yard/driveway area.

KylaGWolf
07-31-2009, 5:27 PM
When California doesn't approve of guns by a ratio of 3:2, your message is not going out to a receptive audience.

If you need an unloaded firearm for protection, locked container carry works and exempts you from school zones.

-Gene

At least for now it does. But we all know that right now that is one of the things they are trying to change.

navyinrwanda
07-31-2009, 5:31 PM
Ok, If I haven't already, I'm going to go out on a limb here. If I understand this ratio of 3:2, that's the same as 1.5:1 or 10:6.67 which isn't that bad, numbers that close are not insurmountable. I would argue, respectfully, that if that number is true, and I have no idea where that data comes from, then perhaps the problem isn't the "audience", but perhaps its the "message".
I posted (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2819247&post2819247) opinion polling data from The Field Poll that supported the 3:2 ratio.

Look at the population distribution of California — almost exactly 60% are in coastal or urban areas (LA except Orange, San Bernardino & Riverside counties; Santa Barbara; Carmel/Monterrey; SF Bay Area; Sacramento; North Coast). The other 40% is in the Central Valley, Sierras, and San Diego/Imperial counties. That's exactly 3:2.

The polling data shows that attitudes in California about guns have been steady over a long time, and if anything, are moving in an anti-gun direction. That's most likely being driven by the well-reported demographic shifts occurring in the state (more Hispanic/Aisan and other immigrants, less Caucasian/native born).

I suspect that most pro-gun rights people living in areas with like-minded people (rural, small towns — Central Valley, Sierras) don't spend much time in large urban areas of California like Los Angeles and San Francisco. And if they do, they probably still tend to interact with like-minded people. That's just human nature.

So the audience is the problem, not the message.

pullnshoot25
07-31-2009, 9:26 PM
Quite likely people got tired of explaining the same things over and over and over again.

7x57

I agree. Being a broken record totally blows.

swhatb
08-01-2009, 1:35 AM
All,

I haven't spoken to anyone so this is no one's policy or thought but mine. However, now that there is no Second Amendment right in California until Nordyke is reissued or the Supreme Court issues an opinion in one of the Chicago Cases, we should not be UOCing at all.

I'd prefer to not fully explain why as it's a bit late, but the basic issues is that there now is not a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. As such, the ability to use the Federal courts to protect UOC'ers is diminished until either a new Nordyke opinion or June of 2010.

I know there are other reasons that some have asked to hold off, but this is a major issue and I really hope that folks will understand why I say this. I'm not trying to start a flame thread here. Importantly, the worst likely case is that UOCers should wait for the Supremes in June of 2010.

-Gene

:hide::lurk5:

artherd
08-01-2009, 1:55 AM
The closest thing that anyone could say to be close to being "getting in society's face" is my using OC as a protest against the lack of CCW permit issuance here in SD County.

Post incorporation, an interesting UOC demonstration would involve actual victims of hate crimes (preferably gay women of small stature... cue the dave chapelle here...) UOCing, with their CCW denial letters printed out on their t-shirts.

Absent those conditions, you're just not going to win the PR war.

CitaDeL
08-01-2009, 5:07 AM
Post incorporation, an interesting UOC demonstration would involve actual victims of hate crimes (preferably gay women of small stature... cue the dave chapelle here...) UOCing, with their CCW denial letters printed out on their t-shirts.

Absent those conditions, you're just not going to win the PR war.

That sounds about as certain as the prediction that I was going to be taken down hard by police and arrested the first time I OC'd. It is impossible to know what is possible without having first tried.

As for your suggestion- I think many have taken that concept to heart and are actively seeking out those 'protected classes' for the express purpose of shaming the legislature and issuing authorities.

tenpercentfirearms
08-01-2009, 7:19 AM
I have largely stayed away from this fracus, but here is my simple take.

If you are organizing large rallys in urban centers where people are running around with guns on their hips and that also draws media attention, it might not be the best idea. Seeing that we live in an anti-gun state full of people not supportive of the right to keep and bear arms, you could quite possibly scare the people on the fence or in the middle enough where they might actually turn against UOC.

End result, new legislation that bans UOC.

What are the realistic odds that even if you brought in a diverse or even specific protest group that looked "acceptable" or less like angry white males that the sheeple are going to think gays and minorities really need to defend themselves through better CCW policies? Again, remember where you live.

Is that what you want to accomplish?

Now for some areas and people, you could totally get away with UOC on an individual level. Army UOCed from SLO to my gun shop and no one batted an eye.

So basically you need to be smart about this. As has been pointed out LUCC might actually be more efficient since you don't have to worry about school zones.

Due to the high profile nature of UOC and the lack of any real productive results if you do gain attention through it, it might not be a great idea. You must know your target audience. Open carry in Taft might not be so bad, however the whole town is blanketed by school zones. Open carry in bigger cities is not going to get you anywhere. The anti-gun legislature is not going to be shamed into giving gays and minorities guns to protect themselves through better CCW policies when they would rather ban all guns all together. Get serious.

Yes it is a legislatively granted activity at this time so you have a right to do it. Do what you want. Just don't be surprised if someday we lose UOC. I will just give you a "we told you so" as I continue to run about the state with my CCW. I don't value UOC, but if you do, be smart about it.

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 10:00 AM
Look at the population distribution of California — almost exactly 60% are in coastal or urban areas (LA except Orange, San Bernardino & Riverside counties; Santa Barbara; Carmel/Monterrey; SF Bay Area; Sacramento; North Coast). The other 40% is in the Central Valley, Sierras, and San Diego/Imperial counties. That's exactly 3:2.

That's most likely being driven by the well-reported demographic shifts occurring in the state (more Hispanic/Aisan and other immigrants, less Caucasian/native born).

So the audience is the problem, not the message.

Uhm, what's the message again? Because I haven't heard it out in public. You can't keep the message a secret or only whisper it in polite company and expect positive polling numbers and/or public sentiment. You can't simply say well the look at the population demographics and conclude the pro-gun ratio is 3:2 against. There are many democrats and independents who are pro-gun. So you can't just simply extrapolate. The data needs to be collected scientifically. Has the pro-gun movement run official scientific polling on this issue recently? What was the informational background language, what was the question, then what was the response.

For example you could ask the following (and this isn't scientific just trying to be brief): How do you feel about people carrying loaded guns in public? Love or Hate

Then you provide an argument such as: Did you know the 2A says the RKBA shall not be infringed? Did you know that at Columbine the police did not enter the school for a long time leaving innocent children to fend for themselves as standard practice and policy? Did you know you have no constitutional right to police protection? Did you know the SCOTUS said the police aren't there to protect you, they are there to investigate crimes after the fact?

Then you ask again: Now how you feel about people carrying loaded guns in public to protect themselves and possibly others? Love or Hate

You see, you have to frame the argument, not let your opponents frame the argument, don't concede the point. Then use the right language to persuade people to your side.

One last example, maybe we shouldn't be "Pro-Gun" maybe we should be "Pro-Self Protection". It might sound silly, but if we win, what would you say then?

All UOC'ers should be carrying brochures with this kind of supporting arguments/language, not just legal briefs saying "its legal".

Safonator
08-01-2009, 11:07 AM
How can I help to spread the word?

dustoff31
08-01-2009, 11:11 AM
Uhm, what's the message again? Because I haven't heard it out in public. You can't keep the message a secret or only whisper it in polite company and expect positive polling numbers and/or public sentiment. You can't simply say well the look at the population demographics and conclude the pro-gun ratio is 3:2 against. There are many democrats and independents who are pro-gun. So you can't just simply extrapolate. The data needs to be collected scientifically. Has the pro-gun movement run official scientific polling on this issue recently? What was the informational background language, what was the question, then what was the response.


What's with the scientific data thing? The facts aren't good enough for you?

The facts being:

1. The CA legislature as a whole, is anti-gun.

2. The CA legislature is elected by the population.

3. The vast majority of gun rights gains in CA have come about through having those changes rammed up the state's behind by the courts, or some form of administrative action, not due to legislators listening to what their constitutients think.

4. It doesn't matter how many pro-gun democrats, independents,(or any other party) exist, if they elect people to office who are anti-gun.

navyinrwanda
08-01-2009, 12:41 PM
Uhm, what's the message again? Because I haven't heard it out in public. You can't keep the message a secret or only whisper it in polite company and expect positive polling numbers and/or public sentiment. You can't simply say well the look at the population demographics and conclude the pro-gun ratio is 3:2 against. There are many democrats and independents who are pro-gun. So you can't just simply extrapolate. The data needs to be collected scientifically. Has the pro-gun movement run official scientific polling on this issue recently? What was the informational background language, what was the question, then what was the response.

For example you could ask the following (and this isn't scientific just trying to be brief): How do you feel about people carrying loaded guns in public? Love or Hate

Then you provide an argument such as: Did you know the 2A says the RKBA shall not be infringed? Did you know that at Columbine the police did not enter the school for a long time leaving innocent children to fend for themselves as standard practice and policy? Did you know you have no constitutional right to police protection? Did you know the SCOTUS said the police aren't there to protect you, they are there to investigate crimes after the fact?

Then you ask again: Now how you feel about people carrying loaded guns in public to protect themselves and possibly others? Love or Hate

You see, you have to frame the argument, not let your opponents frame the argument, don't concede the point. Then use the right language to persuade people to your side.

One last example, maybe we shouldn't be "Pro-Gun" maybe we should be "Pro-Self Protection". It might sound silly, but if we win, what would you say then?

All UOC'ers should be carrying brochures with this kind of supporting arguments/language, not just legal briefs saying "its legal".
If you'd read the linked post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2819247&post2819247), you'd have seen a summary of the most recent on-point polling data. Polling companies regularly test for public sentiment on gun control, along with a large group of other issues (health care, taxes, abortion, affirmative action, climate change, etc.).

The questions are usually framed something like "are you in favor of stronger gun control laws," or "would you support greater rights for gun owners," and sometimes "do you feel that gun control laws are effective?" When asked this way, Californians have consistently favored stronger gun controls by a 3:2 margin. The state's population also happens to be divided geographically by a similar ratio in a way that intuitively reinforces this finding.

You're certainly welcome to call up Field Research Corporation (http://www.field.com/) (or some other reputable California opinion polling organization) and pay them to conduct a more specific poll on public attitudes towards guns. Until then, how about citing some real data rather than posting opinions, speculation or unsubstantiated assertions?

As for the "message", another UOC proponent suggested that activism was the correct message.

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 1:00 PM
How can I help to spread the word?

Become educated on the facts of the issue, know the history, exercise your rights, vote not only at the ballot box, but also with your wallet on a daily basis; do not support the opposition with your hard earned dollars. Write your political representatives...repeatedly. Overall, be a good ambassador of the pro-gun ideals.

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 1:06 PM
What's with the scientific data thing? The facts aren't good enough for you?

The facts being:

1. The CA legislature as a whole, is anti-gun. True

2. The CA legislature is elected by the population. True

3. The vast majority of gun rights gains in CA have come about through having those changes rammed up the state's behind by the courts, or some form of administrative action, not due to legislators listening to what their constitutients think. True

4. It doesn't matter how many pro-gun democrats, independents,(or any other party) exist, if they elect people to office who are anti-gun.Not so true. The people of CA are locked into this mess with overwhelming numbers of Dems in the state legislature because of the unfairly drawn political boundaries keeping them in office. Hopefully, this will change in 2011 (I think) when the district lines will be re-drawn by non-politicians.

My comments are above in blue.

Decoligny
08-01-2009, 1:16 PM
I have largely stayed away from this fracus, but here is my simple take.

If you are organizing large rallys in urban centers where people are running around with guns on their hips and that also draws media attention, it might not be the best idea. Seeing that we live in an anti-gun state full of people not supportive of the right to keep and bear arms, you could quite possibly scare the people on the fence or in the middle enough where they might actually turn against UOC.

End result, new legislation that bans UOC.

What are the realistic odds that even if you brought in a diverse or even specific protest group that looked "acceptable" or less like angry white males that the sheeple are going to think gays and minorities really need to defend themselves through better CCW policies? Again, remember where you live.

Is that what you want to accomplish?

Now for some areas and people, you could totally get away with UOC on an individual level. Army UOCed from SLO to my gun shop and no one batted an eye.

So basically you need to be smart about this. As has been pointed out LUCC might actually be more efficient since you don't have to worry about school zones.

Due to the high profile nature of UOC and the lack of any real productive results if you do gain attention through it, it might not be a great idea. You must know your target audience. Open carry in Taft might not be so bad, however the whole town is blanketed by school zones. Open carry in bigger cities is not going to get you anywhere. The anti-gun legislature is not going to be shamed into giving gays and minorities guns to protect themselves through better CCW policies when they would rather ban all guns all together. Get serious.

Yes it is a legislatively granted activity at this time so you have a right to do it. Do what you want. Just don't be surprised if someday we lose UOC. I will just give you a "we told you so" as I continue to run about the state with my CCW. I don't value UOC, but if you do, be smart about it.

Or it could read this way:

If you are organizing large rallys in urban centers where people are walking around with guns on their hips and that draws media attention, it might be the best idea. Seeing that we live in an anti-gun state full of people not supportive of the right to keep and bear arms, you could quite possibly educate the people on the fence or in the middle enough where they might actually support UOC.

hoffmang
08-01-2009, 1:31 PM
If you are organizing large rallys in urban centers where people are walking around with guns on their hips and that draws media attention, it might be the best idea. Seeing that we live in an anti-gun state full of people not supportive of the right to keep and bear arms, you could quite possibly educate the people on the fence or in the middle enough where they might actually support UOC.

Or in fact you would persuade a bunch of soccer moms to actually call their state representatives and give the anti-gun side the one thing they don't really have - grass roots support.

The "middle" in urban California does not support open carry.

-Gene

navyinrwanda
08-01-2009, 1:41 PM
The "middle" in urban California does not support open carry.

The "middle" in urban California doesn't like guns. Period.

Why does anyone dispute this fact?

hoffmang
08-01-2009, 1:47 PM
The "middle" in urban California doesn't like guns. Period.

Why does anyone dispute this fact?

Recall that 58% of San Francisco residents voted to ban all handguns as recently as late 2005.

-Gene

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 1:57 PM
If you'd read the linked post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2819247&post2819247), you'd have seen a summary of the most recent on-point polling data. Polling companies regularly test for public sentiment on gun control, along with a large group of other issues (health care, taxes, abortion, affirmative action, climate change, etc.).

The questions are usually framed something like "are you in favor of stronger gun control laws," or "would you support greater rights for gun owners," and sometimes "do you feel that gun control laws are effective?" When asked this way, Californians have consistently favored stronger gun controls by a 3:2 margin. The state's population also happens to be divided geographically by a similar ratio in a way that intuitively reinforces this finding.

You're certainly welcome to call up Field Research Corporation (http://www.field.com/) (or some other reputable California opinion polling organization) and pay them to conduct a more specific poll on public attitudes towards guns. Until then, how about citing some real data rather than posting opinions, speculation or unsubstantiated assertions?

As for the "message", another UOC proponent suggested that activism was the correct message.

I did read the post, but to humor you I read it again; didn't learn anything new the second time around.

As far as calling an opinion polling company, don't try to put me in the leader's chair. Don't try to change the subject because you are losing not only the argument but also the larger gun control battle. I am new to the forum and am expressing my opinions, which is exactly what this forum is for. If you want me to take action, then call somebody and put me in a position of being able to do something, or start an opinion research fund so we can frame the argument and solicit educated rational reaction, not just emotional reaction (which is what the opposition does), and I'll do just that. I assure you I am capable enough.

As far as citing real data, here you go... http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx#1 Clearly the tide has turned, is anyone here capable, willing, and determined enough to take advantage of the prevailing winds? Quite frankly I'm tired of all the moaning on this forum, its not us, its the legislature. Boohoo! Cry me a river! Change it...constitutionally! Just like Prop 8 (I don't want to know your position on 8, but its a valid example). And don't tell me to do it, I'm not your "right people" leadership...tell them!

Lastly, activism is the correct action, BUT with a carefully crafted MESSAGE! Boom...right back where I started! You just lost the debate, I'm now bored. Go read Frank Luntz's "Words that Work". In the meantime, don't bother me anymore.

gn3hz3ku1*
08-01-2009, 1:57 PM
guys we all know cgf is on our side.. so just wait it out a bit...

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 2:00 PM
The "middle" in urban California doesn't like guns. Period.

Why does anyone dispute this fact?

Cite, please. I DO!!! Shouting, politely, at the top of my lungs. This is why the CA gun movement is losing in this state. You keep on conceding point. Stop doing that!

hoffmang
08-01-2009, 2:05 PM
Cite, please. I DO!!! Shouting, politely, at the top of my lungs. This is why the CA gun movement is losing in this state. You keep on conceding point. Stop doing that!

I hope you just missed the fact that just over 3 years ago the residents of San Francisco voted to ban all handguns by 58% for.

California is not the rest of the country. Show me any evidence that California has shifted it's position on the issue of gun controls. The field polling is both recent and above so the burden of proof shifts to you. Two valid data points versus your opinion is not strong argument.

-Gene

Decoligny
08-01-2009, 2:16 PM
Those who are against us will most likely always be against us. Those who are "in the middle" haven't made up their minds yet. They are the ones who can be swayed by rational discussion. They are the ones who may see someone with a gun on their hip in an area like Pacific Beach, with cops around and not arresting them, and start to ask questions. They are the ones who through education will start to swing the numbers more to our side.

By saying "The majority of Californians are against Guns, so don't Open Carry, or they might vote againt us" is stupid. They will already vote against us. Those on the fence do NOTHING for us, unless they can be brought over to our side of the fence. They will not just slip off and fall to this side.

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 2:26 PM
Recall that 58% of San Francisco residents voted to ban all handguns as recently as late 2005.

-Gene

Stop conceding the oppositions point! Yes, they did reach nearly 58%, with 123,033 votes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_H_(2005) in a state with nearly 37 million residents (see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html), of which more than 17 million are registered to vote (see http://www.publicradio.org/columns/kpcc/kpccnewsinbrief/2008/10/preliminary-numbers-indicate-r.html).

Further, everybody knows that San Fransicko is fringe, they are certainly not the urban "middle".

hoffmang
08-01-2009, 2:30 PM
Further, everybody knows that San Fransicko is fringe, they are certainly not the urban "middle".

Let's redefine "urban" and "middle" to throw out the points that don't fit the agenda? :rolleyes:

-Gene

locosway
08-01-2009, 2:45 PM
I think most of us can agree that SF is not the norm, even here in CA. I didn't have to go there to know this, but when I did go there it was so obvious.

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 2:49 PM
I hope you just missed the fact that just over 3 years ago the residents of San Francisco voted to ban all handguns by 58% for.

California is not the rest of the country. Show me any evidence that California has shifted it's position on the issue of gun controls. The field polling is both recent and above so the burden of proof shifts to you. Two valid data points versus your opinion is not strong argument.

-Gene

And San Fransicko is not the rest of the state. The point that I keep trying to make, that doesn't seem to be coming through (by my own lack of communication I'm sure), is this...who commissioned the polls? Who was responsible for the argument and question framing? What was their agenda? Show me our side's data. Show me polling that the NRA, CGF, SAF or others on our side have commissioned.

Someone close to me is by no means pro-gun, she's not anti-gun either, but at the same time prefers not to shoot one, and as far as I know, never has. I showed her my recent message with the quick poll question, my argument, and then re-question. Talk about an eye opener for her...she is definitely a lot softer on the issue than ever before. Anecdotal...yes; scientific...certainly not; but definitely revealing.

All I am saying is this...as far as I know, I know of no positive public message with our argument, framed our way, being played out across this state, repeatedly, day after day, year after year, as our opposition has, does and is doing. Yes, great work is being done in the courts, but what about in living rooms?

hoffmang
08-01-2009, 2:57 PM
And San Fransicko is not the rest of the state.
It is very similar to most urban areas in California. To have a valid point you have to find that San Jose, Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego would have 18% of the population be more favorable on gun control to just get to 50-50.


The point that I keep trying to make, that doesn't seem to be coming through (by my own lack of communication I'm sure), is this...who commissioned the polls? Who was responsible for the argument and question framing? What was their agenda? Show me our side's data. Show me polling that the NRA, CGF, SAF or others on our side have commissioned.
Why do you assume push polling gets at the truth? If there was strong support for carry would this picture look like it does? I mean sheriffs would be unelected for not giving carry permits, right?
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

There is a direct correlation between urban population and anti-carry sheriffs being elected.

-Gene

Meplat
08-01-2009, 3:15 PM
I hope you just missed the fact that just over 3 years ago the residents of San Francisco voted to ban all handguns by 58% for.

California is not the rest of the country. Show me any evidence that California has shifted it's position on the issue of gun controls. The field polling is both recent and above so the burden of proof shifts to you. Two valid data points versus your opinion is not strong argument.

-Gene

Actually, having 42% with us in the most bizarrely flaming leftwing pesthole in the nation is mildly encouraging!;)

B Strong
08-01-2009, 3:22 PM
Having witnessed in my lifetime the swing from being America to being whatever you want to call what California is now, I'd say that UOC isn't going to have any political benefit for California gunowners, and may have have a negative impact.

Politics here and elsewhere is a media driven animal.

Politicans look for "issues" that they can exploit for their own benefit, preferably without consequence to themselves.

In UOC, you almost have a perfect storm here in California - the public largely has no idea what it is or that it's legal, they are conditioned to see a gun and think "Danger!" the majority of urban areas have a anti-gun agenda and a majority of the public goes right along with it, The media would just love a juicy little morsel tied in with the fear of guns (Tonight on the 5 O'Clock news, handguns being carried in public by people without a license! That's up next...) tie in media anti-gun bias with lowlife politicans looking for an issue to ride, UOC looks like a losing proposition overall.

I know it's legal, I know what's right, but in the real world, take what's right in one hand and **** in the other - which hand fills up first?

UOC is a sideshow to the real fight for the Second Amendment - if we're going to win, and we have to win , we have to do it at the courthouse and the state house, not by walking around uoc and hoping that the word gets out that it's legal.

locosway
08-01-2009, 3:26 PM
Curious, what if we don't win?

What if they pass so many laws in CA that it's nearly impossible to own, transport, buy, or sell a gun?

Will everyone here be up in arms over it? Will anyone take action, political, legal, or physical?

Or will everyone just move to another state?

Meplat
08-01-2009, 3:40 PM
It is very similar to most urban areas in California. To have a valid point you have to find that San Jose, Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego would have 18% of the population be more favorable on gun control to just get to 50-50.


Why do you assume push polling gets at the truth? If there was strong support for carry would this picture look like it does? I mean sheriffs would be unelected for not giving carry permits, right?
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/clownburner/OCCCWS/ca_ccw_map-big.png

There is a direct correlation between urban population and anti-carry sheriffs being elected.

-Gene
Look at this map and imagine that each of the green counties had equal representation in the state senate as the red and yellow counties. Just like the federal system. You would have a whole nother state politically. That was the state I grew up in. The state where an 11 year old could lay a .22 rifle across his handlebars and ride his bike down the street and no one batted an eye.

When the CA Supreme Court forced a shift to “one man one vote” and destroyed regional representation was when we started to deteriorate.

hoffmang
08-01-2009, 3:41 PM
Curious, what if we don't win?


As long as we have 5 justices on the Supreme Court who will vote for the Second Amendment, we will win. The problem that careless UOC leaves us with is the simple question of how bad it will get (due to own goal behavior) before we can march the cases through the courts.

-Gene

7x57
08-01-2009, 3:48 PM
Or in fact you would persuade a bunch of soccer moms to actually call their state representatives and give the anti-gun side the one thing they don't really have - grass roots support.


That's a *VERY* good point, and we should worry about it. Right now, their calls seem to run mostly pro-gun, and they sometimes listen, sometimes not. If the numbers were more balanced, we would never be able to shoot down a bill again.

That would be an ugly legacy of the UOC movement.

7x57

Centurion_D
08-01-2009, 3:53 PM
Just trying to understand so forgive me asking but what is the point of UOC? I mean if you did OC wouldn't you want a your weapon at condition 1 ready to go?

locosway
08-01-2009, 3:54 PM
Why can't we start a grass roots educational effort. We don't need to be armed at all. We could head out on the weekends for an hour and actually talk to the soccer moms about guns and what not. It could only help.

locosway
08-01-2009, 3:56 PM
Just trying to understand so forgive me asking but what is the point of UOC? I mean if you did OC wouldn't you want a your weapon at condition 1 ready to go?

This could be argued any number of ways, and I don't think anyone wants to get back into the debate of UOC.

7x57
08-01-2009, 3:56 PM
Stop conceding the oppositions point!


Perhaps you should stop being entirely ignorant of the state you live in. Gene is right--social tone-deafness is a deadly disease. And as I'm not a social butterfly nor do I particularly try to be, the fact that I see this and you do not says volumes.


Yes, they did reach nearly 58%, with 123,033 votes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_H_(2005) in a state with nearly 37 million residents (see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html), of which more than 17 million are registered to vote (see http://www.publicradio.org/columns/kpcc/kpccnewsinbrief/2008/10/preliminary-numbers-indicate-r.html).


Quoting statewide rolls to compare to the rolls of the city/county (who can tell the difference with SF?) that actually could vote on the measure is irrelevant, bordering on deception, unless you can prove the relationship of the city/county sample to the larger statistical population. But you keep asking, in a rude and boorish way, for everyone else to prove their positions and cite their sources. So I know you're going to do the same, right? You're not going to be the poster child for what you publicly denounce, right?


Further, everybody knows that San Fransicko is fringe, they are certainly not the urban "middle".

Wrong again--you did.

YOU cite your sources: you don't accept "everybody knows" from others so you can't say it yourself without looking like a hypocrite. You prove your points with the rigor you demand from others.

7x57

wildhawker
08-01-2009, 4:13 PM
Why can't we start a grass roots educational effort. We don't need to be armed at all. We could head out on the weekends for an hour and actually talk to the soccer moms about guns and what not. It could only help.

We already are having some success with education and outreach (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=170). Types of events, scale and environments are expanding very soon, with some far-reaching education and outreach initiatives coming later this summer/early fall. We need volunteers and local coordinators, however, so please do PM if you'd like to get involved in these organized efforts.

locosway
08-01-2009, 4:25 PM
I thought I was already on the list for volunteer work?

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 5:20 PM
Why do you assume push polling gets at the truth? If there was strong support for carry would this picture look like it does? I mean sheriffs would be unelected for not giving carry permits, right?


Excellent map, thanks for posting it. Actually, I see the map as promising, it proves that 60% of the counties in CA "will issue" permits, while 40% will not. When was the last time that message was broadcast through the loudspeaker. I for one certainly did not know that the vast majority of counties in this state "will issue" carry permits, did anyone else? I don't know, maybe its just me, in my full and complete ignorance, but I do consider myself "normal". So I will say this, if it surprised me, then surely it will surprise others. Wouldn't that be a positive message to communicate?

Push polling, when used as an educational tool, can be effectively used to reach people. As I'm sure you already know, push polling can be used to try out, test, and find the correct language that resonates with the people. Then of course you use that language in your message to reach the masses.

I did not know, until recently joining this forum, that the county sheriff makes the decision on permit issue. Ok, again maybe I'm just dense, but I vote regularly and have for years. I like to pride myself in making sure I know what the issues are before casting my informed vote. Gee, I wonder how many other people are blind to this fact also? Again, the message is not being communicated. How about an internal poll or research to find out how many people know/don't know the sheriff makes this decision? Could prove interesting.

Hopi
08-01-2009, 5:32 PM
I did not know, until recently joining this forum, that the county sheriff makes the decision on permit issue. Ok, again maybe I'm just dense, but I vote regularly and have for years. I like to pride myself in making sure I know what the issues are before casting my informed vote. Gee, I wonder how many other people are blind to this fact also? Again, the message is not being communicated. How about an internal poll or research to find out how many people know/don't know the sheriff makes this decision? Could prove interesting.

That message does not need to be communicated. The discretionary issue procedure is being proactively addressed by CGF. The recognition of fundamental protected rights is not up for vote and the legal environment in CA will soon reflect that.
The point here is that there is absolutely no reason to risk making the process to restore our rights harder than it needs be. Thus the call to pause UOC.

hoffmang
08-01-2009, 5:43 PM
Excellent map, thanks for posting it. Actually, I see the map as promising, it proves that 60% of the counties in CA "will issue" permits, while 40% will not.

You miss that 80% of the population is in the 40% of counties that do not issue.

-Gene

Librarian
08-01-2009, 5:45 PM
I like to pride myself in making sure I know what the issues are before casting my informed vote.

You are unusual. (In a good way, to be sure!)

There is quite a bit of literature regarding the rational ignorance of the average voter. See http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/ for one.

I would also recommend Braman and Kahan's "More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions" (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=286205)

In short, voters do not know, do not want to know, and and in general find themselves unrewarded if they DO know much about the issues.

I've wanted a poll that firsts qualifies respondents on what they actually know, so the responses can be displayed showing that ignorance. But I think all we would find out is that voters elect representatives generally in tune with their ignorance.

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 5:52 PM
Perhaps you should stop being entirely ignorant of the state you live in. Clearly I am ignorant, but not as ignorant as I was a month ago. :) What changed? My own, extensive research because I bought my first pistol. It certainly wasn't due to some public message being communicated by the pro-gun lobby in this state.


Quoting statewide rolls to compare to the rolls of the city/county (who can tell the difference with SF?) that actually could vote on the measure is irrelevant, bordering on deception, unless you can prove the relationship of the city/county sample to the larger statistical population. I only did this to show that 58% sounded large, but in contrast, its an incredibly tiny number. How many other cities in CA have attempted the same ban? Again, just trying to show how fringe they are?


YOU cite your sources: you don't accept "everybody knows" from others so you can't say it yourself without looking like a hypocrite. You prove your points with the rigor you demand from others. Again, like Gene's earlier message, you are proving my point for me. I can't site sources with respect to CA gun data, because I can't find any CA specific data. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Which to me again seems to indicate a lack of message communication; there doesn't seem to be a message or messenger, just those fighting good fights in courts with very little to no fan fare. I can speak to what I believe in anecdotally, and because I consider myself "normal" hopefully I won't be too hypocritical :rolleyes: (first rifle as a young man-in another state, new first time pistol owner, never anti-gun, until recently never spent countless hours researching and chatting in forums like these).



My comments above in blue.

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 6:02 PM
You miss that 80% of the population is in the 40% of counties that do not issue.

-Gene

No I did not miss it, but again, when conducting a public policy campaign, one should try to show the positive, not the negative.

coolusername2007
08-01-2009, 6:24 PM
You are unusual. (In a good way, to be sure!)

Thanks, I was beginning to wonder, even convincing myself I was normal. Whew, that was close. ;)

GrizzlyGuy
08-01-2009, 6:52 PM
If you need an unloaded firearm for protection, locked container carry works and exempts you from school zones.

I'm new here, but is that really true in a general sense, such as when you are on foot, on a bike, or otherwise not in a motor vehicle?

626.9 exempts:

"(2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked
container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle."

So it would be available whether you are in a motor vehicle or not.

However, 12026.1 only exempts you if you are in a motor vehicle:

"1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than
the utility or glove compartment."

The 12026.2 exemptions are only available for specific transport cases (e.g., directly to or from a lawful camping activity) or the single non-transport case of making a "motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment
event".

So, if you wish to carry a handgun for any general purpose, while not in a motor vehicle (on foot, on a bike, on a horse, while riding a skateboard etc...) you really can't cross through school zones without a CCW permit.

Is that correct or did I miss something in our convoluted penal codes (I'm not a lawyer)?

Decoligny
08-01-2009, 7:14 PM
Just trying to understand so forgive me asking but what is the point of UOC? I mean if you did OC wouldn't you want a your weapon at condition 1 ready to go?

:banghead: This question has been answered about 15,395 times already, but here goes again.

Loaded Open Carry is only legal in unincorporated territory where discharge of a firearm is not prohibited.

If we could legally Open Carry with a weapon in condition 1, then we would.

Since this is not legal in most instances, we UOC. We are however allowed to keep full magazines right next to the gun, so it can be in battery in about 1 second with practice. This beats the time it takes to go back to your gun safe, open it, go to your ammo safe, open it, go to where you hide your magazines, fill the mags with ammo, put the mag in the gun, and rack the slide by about 15 minutes.

Centurion_D
08-02-2009, 11:08 AM
:banghead: This question has been answered about 15,395 times already, but here goes again.

Loaded Open Carry is only legal in unincorporated territory where discharge of a firearm is not prohibited.

If we could legally Open Carry with a weapon in condition 1, then we would.

Since this is not legal in most instances, we UOC. We are however allowed to keep full magazines right next to the gun, so it can be in battery in about 1 second with practice. This beats the time it takes to go back to your gun safe, open it, go to your ammo safe, open it, go to where you hide your magazines, fill the mags with ammo, put the mag in the gun, and rack the slide by about 15 minutes.

Not to sound like a smart @ss but if you can unholster your weapon, insert mag, and chamber a round in 1 second you should be a competitive shooter for S&W, Springfield, or one of the other manufacturers. :p I understand OC is legal in unincorporated areas but for the areas not permitted would it be worth the possible hassles one could get with UOC.

Sgt Raven
08-02-2009, 11:50 AM
Not to sound like a smart @ss but if you can unholster your weapon, insert mag, and chamber a round in 1 second you should be a competitive shooter for S&W, Springfield, or one of the other manufacturers. :p I understand OC is legal in unincorporated areas but for the areas not permitted would it be worth the possible hassles one could get with UOC.

You have to start the time when I start my draw, you have to take the normal reaction time out, because I get to choose when I draw/load. When I was in practice I could draw and fire 2 shots COM in under .75 seconds and that included the reaction time to buzzer/whistle. ;)

jazman
08-02-2009, 12:36 PM
You have to start the time when I start my draw, you have to take the normal reaction time out, because I get to choose when I draw/load. When I was in practice I could draw and fire 2 shots COM in under .75 seconds and that included the reaction time to buzzer/whistle. ;)

Man, if you can do this starting unloaded I am way impressed!

TatankaGap
08-02-2009, 1:14 PM
Wow, this is sooooo confusing. For the UOC they simply are following 12031 (state law) yet now that incorporation is on hold, RKBA is therefore on hold. So we have a law (12031) on something we are not allowed to do? Ay, mamma mia.

I think the point is that with the incorporation issue on hold so to speak in the 9th Cir, those pushing that issue, which we all agree is a super important issue to prevail on, feel that UOC while lawful may be a setback -

UOC remains legal in CA - it was before Nordyke, it still is.

dantodd
08-02-2009, 3:54 PM
Man, if you can do this starting unloaded I am way impressed!

I know it's been posted before and it isn't "really" related to UOC as the current discussion isn't actually about the efficacy but.....

StXMHw32kjA

Kestryll
08-02-2009, 7:16 PM
I know it's been posted before and it isn't "really" related to UOC as the current discussion isn't actually about the efficacy but.....



If you don't mind, and this is not really related to this thread, can you tell me why you made this account today to reply to this and didn't use your 'Irrational Voice' account?

Duplicate accounts are not allowed and more to the point they damage credibility as you give the impression of 'hiding behind a sock puppet' so as not to be tied to your opinion or statements.

Pick one of the two accounts and let me know which one you want to keep, the other will be deleted.

pullnshoot25
08-02-2009, 7:25 PM
If you don't mind, and this is not really related to this thread, can you tell me why you made this account today to reply to this and didn't use your 'Irrational Voice' account?

Duplicate accounts are not allowed and more to the point they damage credibility as you give the impression of 'hiding behind a sock puppet' so as not to be tied to your opinion or statements.

Pick one of the two accounts and let me know which one you want to keep, the other will be deleted.

Do you mind me asking how you know he has two accounts?

I ask out of genuine curiosity. :)

Invisible_Dave
08-02-2009, 7:31 PM
Do you mind me asking how you know he has two accounts?

I ask out of genuine curiosity. :)

IP address registration probably. Just my guess. You are never anonymous on the internet. Your city, location, even operating system is available to web hosts.

7x57
08-02-2009, 7:37 PM
Your city, location, even operating system is available to web hosts.

The city, location, and operating system of stupid people, at any rate. :43:

And no, I'm not going to offer suggestions.

7x57

ke6guj
08-02-2009, 7:40 PM
Mods can see stuff like the IP address used to post, and if Irrational used a specific IP address and immediately a new account is set up using the same IP address, it can point to a dupe account. That alone doesn't mean that someone is running a dupe account. Multiple persons behind a firewal can legitimately share an IP address, such as co-workers or family members.

locosway
08-02-2009, 8:05 PM
He could also be in a dorm, unless his OS comes up as something weird like OS2/Warp or something... ;)

dantodd
08-02-2009, 8:18 PM
The city, location, and operating system of stupid people, at any rate. :43:

Or ones who decide that the 2A is too important to hide behind aliases.



I was originally DDT and merely created IV to follow the traffic here and be able to customize my display. Once I started posting I had to decide exactly what I wanted to do wrt continued participation. Since my name, Dan Todd, is known to many people here, including Paul, I decided that using my own name was the only way to fully stand behind my words. The mail account etc. that I used in setting up this account is the same used for the DDT account and I made no effort to hide my identity, or past login, from the Paul or the few other posters here who already knew me. If you have more questions please feel free to take it to PM as we don't need to pollute the thread any further.

Kestryll
08-02-2009, 8:33 PM
Do you mind me asking how you know he has two accounts?

I ask out of genuine curiosity. :)

As others have stated there are several ways to check and verify, as you might guess not all of them are things I like to make public.

I this case there was no real detective work involved.

dantodd used very similar and identifiable information in both accounts which suggest he wasn't hiding.

hoffmang
08-02-2009, 8:36 PM
I was originally DDT

Good to have you back.

-Gene
(who is pretty darn easy to find... I hope)

wildhawker
08-02-2009, 8:55 PM
Good to have you back.

-Gene
(who is pretty darn easy to find... I hope)

+1 :chris:

stuckinhippytown
08-02-2009, 10:26 PM
The point of UOCing is to be in society's face. Trying to egg on a negative reaction during the period in which we have no protections in Federal Court is like not packing a backup chute when skydiving.

There is no right to keep and bear arms in California at this time.

-Gene

I hope to God you were drunk when you wrote this

I'm pro UOC but I see nothing good coming of it while Nordyke is en banc

Umm we are not doing it to have anything come out of it. Me personally I carry to protect myself, not to challenge LEOs or legislative. MY safety my choice

When California doesn't approve of guns by a ratio of 3:2, your message is not going out to a receptive audience.

If you need an unloaded firearm for protection, locked container carry works and exempts you from school zones.

-Gene
Yeah Im going to carry a case with me everywhere i go when I have a perfectly good holster

You miss that 80% of the population is in the 40% of counties that do not issue.

-Gene

Then Move
Snip.......
So, if you wish to carry a handgun for any general purpose, while not in a motor vehicle (on foot, on a bike, on a horse, while riding a skateboard etc...) you really can't cross through school zones without a CCW permit.


LMAO I rode on a horse through town they refused to get in the way It was so much fun

hoffmang
08-02-2009, 10:32 PM
Umm we are not doing it to have anything come out of it. Me personally I carry to protect myself, not to challenge LEOs or legislative. MY safety my choice


You confuse the word "we" with "I". I'd suggest that as long as you aren't in an urban area, no one really cares that you have a firearm on your hip. What this thread is about is UOC in urban areas. Seeing as you're 100 miles from anything anyone would call urban... Well.

Do you realize that your county is shall issue for CCW and may even issue a license to carry a loaded open carried firearm in the few place where you can't already LOC?

I'd prefer you not impugn my sobriety for - yet again - narcissistic value... Especially since you're apparently unloaded open carrying simply because you're unaware you could loaded carry concealed and probably openly.

And people think those of us who counsel against UOC are odd...

-Gene

7x57
08-02-2009, 11:27 PM
I was originally DDT

Hey. I wondered where you were.

I'll have a hard time associating DDT with dantodd--It just goes to show that your screen name becomes part of your identity.

7x57

artherd
08-02-2009, 11:44 PM
IP address registration probably. Just my guess. You are never anonymous on the internet. Your city, location, even operating system is available to web hosts.

Yep. And this isn't exactly our first rodeo :D

7x57
08-02-2009, 11:47 PM
Yep. And this isn't exactly our first rodeo :D

I can think of ways to test your perimeter a bit more severely, but I'm a nice guy. :D

7x57

rynando
08-03-2009, 5:49 PM
You are never anonymous on the internet.

This is a strange bit of misinformation to be coming from someone named "Invisible Dave."

Everyone here knows that you can easily "secure" and "anonymize" your internet connection by wrapping your cable modem in tin foil. :rolleyes:

R

HowardW56
08-03-2009, 5:56 PM
This is a strange bit of misinformation to be coming from someone named "Invisible Dave."

Everyone here knows that you can easily "secure" and "anonymize" your internet connection by wrapping your cable modem in tin foil. :rolleyes:

R

That is only one step....

If you really want to be safe, wrap your mouse and fingertips in saran wrap then tin foil...

That way your fingerprints cant be sucked through the wires...

:TFH::TFH::TFH::TFH:

Invisible_Dave
08-03-2009, 6:07 PM
That is only one step....

If you really want to be safe, wrap your mouse and fingertips in saran wrap then tin foil...

That way your fingerprints cant be sucked through the wires...

:TFH::TFH::TFH::TFH:
There are people doing this right now because "I read it on the internet so it must be true."

stuckinhippytown
08-04-2009, 1:04 AM
Umm I live in CHICO the county issues but the city doesnt.... I am aware that I can bypass the city and go straight to the county its just a matter of money. Will be happening soon though and i will be driving down to San Diego area to support them

KylaGWolf
08-04-2009, 12:09 PM
IP address registration probably. Just my guess. You are never anonymous on the internet. Your city, location, even operating system is available to web hosts.

Yeah but what about the situation where more than one person share the same internet connection through a router. Both my partner and I use the same connection and both are here on Calguns but both very different people. Although I am sure there is a way they can tell that too.

KylaGWolf
08-04-2009, 12:14 PM
Usually it is the county that issues CCW not the city.

7x57
08-04-2009, 12:16 PM
Yeah but what about the situation where more than one person share the same internet connection through a router. Both my partner and I use the same connection and both are here on Calguns but both very different people. Although I am sure there is a way they can tell that too.

It's simple. When you registered for Calguns a Trojan was uploaded to your computer. It constantly streams data back to the CGN "war room," where Kes sits and contemplates it on a wall of monitors with hands folded on his "budda belly." If he wants to know who is posting from your IP, he simply checks the output of your webcam to see who is sitting there. :chris:

Um, BTW, everyone should know it's a bad idea to post in your underwear. There's a special server with, um, "log data" available to those who make especially large donations. :eek:

7x57

dantodd
08-04-2009, 12:26 PM
LOL... this is why I would have preferred the drama take place via PM.

bodger
08-04-2009, 12:53 PM
I'm actually Mark Kirk.

Whoooooo.
Spy. :whistling:

Decoligny
08-04-2009, 12:58 PM
It's simple. When you registered for Calguns a Trojan was uploaded to your computer. It constantly streams data back to the CGN "war room," where Kes sits and contemplates it on a wall of monitors with hands folded on his "budda belly." If he wants to know who is posting from your IP, he simply checks the output of your webcam to see who is sitting there. :chris:

Um, BTW, everyone should know it's a bad idea to post in your underwear. There's a special server with, um, "log data" available to those who make especially large donations. :eek:

7x57

It wasn't "MY" underwear! :43:

stuckinhippytown
08-04-2009, 3:24 PM
yeah kalya hun Im aware of that however Bloody CSU chico state exists soo they think that they are above the law because it is a college town and the town is funded by the college

jazman
08-04-2009, 4:45 PM
Umm I live in CHICO the county issues but the city doesnt.... I am aware that I can bypass the city and go straight to the county its just a matter of money. Will be happening soon though and i will be driving down to San Diego area to support them

This is an excellent plan, I am sure PNS, your "hun" Kyla, and the rest of the group will welcome such an ardent supporter!