PDA

View Full Version : UOC: "Jumping the gun", "unhelpful" per Chuck Michel


lomalinda
09-02-2009, 11:13 PM
Check the NRA website for today's interview wherein he discusses, among other things, his views on the goings on in SD and other areas where people are indulging in UOC activities.

Couldn't come from a better-versed guy, either...

Dr Rockso
09-02-2009, 11:25 PM
If the UOCers won't listen to CGF I doubt they'll listen to Michel.

lomalinda
09-02-2009, 11:29 PM
Maybe so, but one could hope that common sense might trump brazen "individuality" on matters that have wide-reaching importance.

First things first. Creeping incrementalism can work in our favor, too.

:43:

dantodd
09-02-2009, 11:35 PM
Didn't find the link at the homepage. Was he referring specifically to CA UOC or the whole OC thing and carrying to Obama events etc?

lomalinda
09-02-2009, 11:45 PM
Go to "Program Archive."

Select Sept 2.

In brief, he talks about UOC, and specifically mentions what's going on in CA and how the UOC movement is undermining the overall work he and others are doing.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 12:03 AM
Go to "Program Archive."

Select Sept 2.

In brief, he talks about UOC, and specifically mentions what's going on in CA and how the UOC movement is undermining the overall work he and others are doing.

Well at least now I know it was on the audio program and not a written interview. Which program? Cam & Company or NRA news?

H Paul Payne
09-03-2009, 12:07 AM
Well at least now I know it was on the audio program and not a written interview. Which program? Cam & Company or NRA news?
The "Daily News" W/ Ginny Simone and "Cam & Company".

Paul

dantodd
09-03-2009, 12:11 AM
The "Daily News" W/ Ginny Simone and "Cam & Company".

Paul

So it was on both. Good, I'll just grab the daily news, much shorter and easy to find what I'm looking for. Did they use the same clips in both? I'd hate to miss part of the context should I choose to comment.

H Paul Payne
09-03-2009, 12:15 AM
So it was on both. Good, I'll just grab the daily news, much shorter and easy to find what I'm looking for. Did they use the same clips in both? I'd hate to miss part of the context should I choose to comment.
No. They were similar, but different conversations. Basically the same conversations that we had during the Q & A part of the NRA Members' Council of South Orange County meeting (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=214053) on Tuesday.

Paul

dantodd
09-03-2009, 12:20 AM
Listened to the portion on the Daily News. (I love the NRA, their podcast is on the RSS feed almost immediately many take days)

While I appreciate Chuck's perspective which echos CGFs (or vice versa) I am not sure that it is based on sound reasoning. I accept that the UOCers are setting the battleground right now and it is not the fight CGF and others want to fight. What I don't accept is that if were UOC to go away (or was never happening in the first place) CGF or Chuck would be able to set the battleground. If they are asking for stasis I believe that the antis would then be cut loose to choose the battleground, I do not believe the bad guys are willing to just sit and wait for incorporation. I also fear that if the bad guys picked the venue of battle they may pick one that would be harder to fight than "bearing" arms.

hoffmang
09-03-2009, 12:32 AM
If they are asking for stasis I believe that the antis would then be cut loose to choose the battleground, I do not believe the bad guys are willing to just sit and wait for incorporation. I also fear that if the bad guys picked the venue of battle they may pick one that would be harder to fight than "bearing" arms.

...

If UOC was not in the papers, federal judges would only have the stories of peaceful adoption of shall issue in 40 states of the union. Now that same jurist is faced with an unflattering caricature of gun owners with his morning coffee.

Life isn't fair, but that's the media environment we operate in in California. It seems that those who defend UOC as a good idea at this time are willfully ignorant of that issue.

-Gene

rabagley
09-03-2009, 1:11 AM
Doesn't he know he's eating calgunners?

Or something...

Maybe I'm confused...

dantodd
09-03-2009, 2:03 AM
Now that same jurist is faced with an unflattering caricature of gun owners with his morning coffee.


I am well aware of this and really don't want to re-hash the whole thing as we both understand each others position. I only want to say that it is not clear that the same jurist wouldn't open his paper to a different equally or more unflattering caricature of gun owners. For example AR-15 carrying, Obama-death-prayer-man in AZ or perhaps made up stories about illegal transfers at gun shows or shootings at a community college made up to look like a VT slaughter, while the UOCers are giving the media potential fodder it is naive to suggest they would not have any negative stories without the UOCers.

aplinker
09-03-2009, 4:58 AM
I am well aware of this and really don't want to re-hash the whole thing as we both understand each others position. I only want to say that it is not clear that the same jurist wouldn't open his paper to a different equally or more unflattering caricature of gun owners. For example AR-15 carrying, Obama-death-prayer-man in AZ or perhaps made up stories about illegal transfers at gun shows or shootings at a community college made up to look like a VT slaughter, while the UOCers are giving the media potential fodder it is naive to suggest they would not have any negative stories without the UOCers.

When your enemy is scrounging for ammunition, why do you insist on delivering them a shipping container full of grenade launchers?

trashman
09-03-2009, 6:18 AM
I'd love to chime in here, but I don't want to get drawn into another UOC debate and called some kind of un-egalitarian elitist gun-lover-hating back-room-dealing politician who hates freedom. And eats other calgunners.

Clearly Chuck hates freedom, too. All that "political reality" mumbo-jumbo.

--Neill

hawk1
09-03-2009, 7:50 AM
...While I appreciate Chuck's perspective which echos CGFs (or vice versa) I am not sure that it is based on sound reasoning...

Thats too funny right there...:rolleyes:

MudCamper
09-03-2009, 8:42 AM
It seems that those who defend UOC as a good idea at this time are willfully ignorant of that issue.

I would like to point out again that your and the CGF discouragement of UOC only stops those of us who are moderate enough to listen to you, and it leaves only the hard-core extremest (like the minute men groups) out there representing us. This makes it much easier for the media to spin it negatively. I think your plan has backfired.

CalNRA
09-03-2009, 8:47 AM
Clearly Chuck hates freedom, too. All that "political reality" mumbo-jumbo.


clearly.

swhatb
09-03-2009, 9:26 AM
Link please!:-)

Check the NRA website for today's interview wherein he discusses, among other things, his views on the goings on in SD and other areas where people are indulging in UOC activities.

Couldn't come from a better-versed guy, either...

Bruce
09-03-2009, 9:26 AM
UOCers remind me of the little kid who has been told not to touch something and stands there with a finger within inches saying "I'm not touching it." :rolleyes:

MudCamper
09-03-2009, 9:35 AM
UOCers remind me of the little kid who has been told not to touch something and stands there with a finger within inches saying "I'm not touching it." :rolleyes:

And ad hominem arguments like yours only distracts from constructive debate.

pullnshoot25
09-03-2009, 9:50 AM
I was notified of this last night actually. Disturbing to say the least about some of the activities that have been occurring as of late in the higher offices of our state.

I am trying to discourage groups down here from OCing but I haven't found much success in doing so.

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 9:52 AM
And ad hominem arguments like yours only distracts from constructive debate.

Agreed.

We have no ability to control the actions of individuals nationwide. It has been found lately that we have very little power of suggestion over even those individuals here at Calguns.

Many are as conflicted about how to work with open carry as are Catholics about supporting condom distribution in schools.

If we could provide a perfect political reality for NRA, SAF, CGF to operate within I'm confident that we would. That said, we all have to make the best of it sometimes, as will those orgs working on our behalf - including being handed a plate of **** to work with by their own side (although I hope such is not the case, obviously). Life isn't fair - if something goes sideways we'll all regret it, be pissy for a while then move on with life to the next battle.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 10:14 AM
Thats too funny right there...:rolleyes:

What do you find funny? That two reasonable people can disagree about important points?

hawk1
09-03-2009, 10:32 AM
What do you find funny? That two reasonable people can disagree about important points?

What I find funny is your choice of words stating that one of the foremost leaders in gun rights perspective is not based on sound reasoning.
Please,

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 10:46 AM
Take a deep breath, Hawk. No one is questioning Gene as a leader or a strategist. I think some may view Gene's preference for no UOC until the cases are settled as highly optimistic based on recent events.

What I find funny is your choice of words stating that one of the foremost leaders in gun rights perspective is not based on sound reasoning.
Please,

dantodd
09-03-2009, 10:49 AM
What I find funny is your choice of words stating that one of the foremost leaders in gun rights perspective is not based on sound reasoning.
Please,

I am no disagreeing with his assertion that UOC is not helpful to his and our agenda only the implication that if it weren't for UOC the battlefield would somehow be clear for the CGF/Him to set the agenda. I find it more sound to assume that the antis would simply use their energy and money to pursue other issues such as gun shows. They are obviously still pursuing these things but if they are expending their energy on UOC as Chuck and Gene are saying then that same political capital and energy is not available for their own agenda items either.

If your issue is simply a personal attack that you feel I don't have the mental capacity to have a well considered opinion then please feel free to just bow out. I will not feed someone simply spewing ad hominems.

Kestryll
09-03-2009, 11:01 AM
hawk and dantodd, consider this a warning.
Knock off the personal crap and stick to the topic.

If you can not stick to the topic and post like adults either don't post or don't be surprised when you can not post.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 11:03 AM
hawk and dantodd, consider this a warning.
Knock off the personal crap and stick to the topic.

If you can not stick to the topic and post like adults either don't post or don't be surprised when you can not post.

I apologize Kes. I was trying very hard to not post any personal attacks. Can you please point out the portion of my post you found offensive? Thank you.

DVSmith
09-03-2009, 11:05 AM
UOCers remind me of the little kid who has been told not to touch something and stands there with a finger within inches saying "I'm not touching it." :rolleyes:

And ad hominem arguments like yours only distracts from constructive debate.

First, I disagree that Bruce's argument is ad hominem or that it is an argument at all. As I see it, he is clearly just illustrating in more colorful terms the image that Gene refers to below.

And I find it freaking hilarious.

...

If UOC was not in the papers, federal judges would only have the stories of peaceful adoption of shall issue in 40 states of the union. Now that same jurist is faced with an unflattering caricature of gun owners with his morning coffee.

Life isn't fair, but that's the media environment we operate in in California. It seems that those who defend UOC as a good idea at this time are willfully ignorant of that issue.

-Gene

I am well aware of this and really don't want to re-hash the whole thing as we both understand each others position. I only want to say that it is not clear that the same jurist wouldn't open his paper to a different equally or more unflattering caricature of gun owners. For example AR-15 carrying, Obama-death-prayer-man in AZ or perhaps made up stories about illegal transfers at gun shows or shootings at a community college made up to look like a VT slaughter, while the UOCers are giving the media potential fodder it is naive to suggest they would not have any negative stories without the UOCers.

Your point is correct, there is plenty of fodder out there in the mainstream media to feed the gun nut image of any jurist. My question then becomes; is it rational to increase the amplitude and frequency of the signal being sent to jurists and I would add legislators? I don't believe so. I take it that you feel differently.

grammaton76
09-03-2009, 11:14 AM
Which "NRA website"? There are 4-5 NRA websites! :p

dantodd
09-03-2009, 11:14 AM
First, I disagree that Bruce's argument is ad hominem or that it is an argument at all. As I see it, he is clearly just illustrating in more colorful terms the image that Gene refers to below.

You will notice that Gene was very careful not to call UOCers names such as "little kids" in his description of the perils of their actions.



Your point is correct, there is plenty of fodder out there in the mainstream media to feed the gun nut image of any jurist. My question then becomes; is it rational to increase the amplitude and frequency of the signal being sent to jurists and I would add legislators? I don't believe so. I take it that you feel differently.

I guess the question really comes down to whether or not the UOC events actually increase the amplitude or merely change the location of the signal. For example, Gene has pointed out some of the UOC activities threaten to push CGF and other Gunny resources to areas they'd rather not focus on. Is it not reasonable to assume that the antis' efforts are not also so split?

Perhaps there would be much more push around gun shows were the antis' not forced to expend some energy making law abiding UOCers look bad. I am not saying that I advocate UOC as a way of diverting antis' efforts but I am saying that it's possible the efforts are no more harmful to our side than the bad guys.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 11:17 AM
Which "NRA website"? There are 4-5 NRA websites! :p

Paul said above that it showed up in both Cam & Company and NRA Daily News for 9/2/09. I listened to the version on NRA Daily News because that show is much shorter than Cam & Company and it was very easy to find the interview. They actually opened with the interview so I would suggest listening to it there. I think they have links on the front page of www.nra.com I just pulled it out of my itunes library.

MudCamper
09-03-2009, 11:24 AM
Your point is correct, there is plenty of fodder out there in the mainstream media to feed the gun nut image of any jurist. My question then becomes; is it rational to increase the amplitude and frequency of the signal being sent to jurists and I would add legislators? I don't believe so. I take it that you feel differently.

My argument is, when Gene asks UOCers to stand down, the ones that actually do are the ones that we would prefer to have in front of the TV cameras. The ones that do not stand down are the fringe extremists that the media love to put on screen and portray us all as lunatics. I see this happening right now. I truly believe that the request to stand down has backfired on us.

grammaton76
09-03-2009, 11:30 AM
Paul said above that it showed up in both Cam & Company and NRA Daily News for 9/2/09. I listened to the version on NRA Daily News because that show is much shorter than Cam & Company and it was very easy to find the interview. They actually opened with the interview so I would suggest listening to it there. I think they have links on the front page of www.nra.com I just pulled it out of my itunes library.

Aha. So, a direct link for Cam + Company, 9/2/09, is:

http://dataservices.nranews.com/assets/podcasts/9_2_09_Cam_and_Company.mp3

Just so everyone knows, this is an hour or so program... unfortunately the Quicktime player on the mac won't give me a time, but Chuck starts around 80%-90% through the program.

Flopper
09-03-2009, 12:10 PM
UOCers remind me of the little kid who has been told not to touch something and stands there with a finger within inches saying "I'm not touching it." :rolleyes:

This is not an ad hominem attack, this is a metaphor.

If he had simply called them "little kids," then it would be an ad hominem attack.

Instead, he compared them to a little kid that is performing a certain action.

Stopping at "little kid" is taking it out of context.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 12:20 PM
This is not an ad hominem attack, this is a metaphor.

he compared them to a little kid that is performing a certain action.



I suppose we will merely have to disagree on whether that was an attack on the argument or on the individual. I will point out he did not say UOCing in spite of the warning is like.... He said *UOCers* remind him of the little kids UOCing in spite of the warning.

grammaton76
09-03-2009, 12:31 PM
Now that I've gotten to Chuck's bit, he's talking primarily about not wanting to have to fight a bunch of local ordinances.

Desert Hot Springs tried to pass an ordinance banning open carry, and they were able to convince them they shouldn't try. But it did cost time and money, on both sides.

He's also concerned that bills advertised to "stop open carry" will also include extra poison to prohibit gun shows, etc.

BTW, if you're fast forwarding and trying to find Chuck's bit, he's the one that sounds all "phoned in"; the rest of the program is mostly microphones and interviews.

Wow, just learned something... calnra.com is a LOT easier to remember than nramemberscouncils.com, and it goes to the same site. I used to keep trying .org or leaving off the last s, which results in showing you a domain squatter instead of where you want to go.

Flopper
09-03-2009, 12:32 PM
I suppose we will merely have to disagree on whether that was an attack on the argument or on the individual. I will point out he did not say UOCing in spite of the warning is like.... He said *UOCers* remind him of the little kids UOCing in spite of the warning.

The usage of like, as, or than is often but not always necessary with similes, but never with metaphors, so this doesn't matter.

MudCamper
09-03-2009, 12:34 PM
This is not an ad hominem attack, this is a metaphor.

So in the future should I compare you to a donkey's read end, it's not an ad hominem attack, it's a metaphor. ;)

Flopper
09-03-2009, 12:40 PM
So in the future should I compare you to a donkey's read end, it's not an ad hominem attack, it's a metaphor. ;)

If you're saying it because I'm big, hairy, and smelly, then that would be appropriate, because I am. :D

PS-I'd rather be a donkey's rear end than what COMES OUT OF a donkey's rear end.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 12:45 PM
So in the future should I compare you to a donkey's read end, it's not an ad hominem attack, it's a metaphor. ;)

It is rarely advantageous to respond to a personal attack with another.

MudCamper
09-03-2009, 12:49 PM
If you're saying it because I'm big, hairy, and smelly, then that would be appropriate, because I am. :D

LOL!

It is rarely advantageous to respond to a personal attack with another.

I was trying to use humor while making a point. Clearly looks like it was received that way.

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 12:49 PM
The symantics games are not very constructive.

Back to the topic...

Gramma, thanks for the link and bullets. The antis are no doubt looking for a way to prohibit all gun shows at public venues. Hopefully SCOTUS will address the sentitive places issue via Nordyke after the en banc sideshow is over and give us something to work with. After Incorporation (via Nordyke in CA9, or McDonald/NRA), we'll have a much more solid platform by which to attack the local ordinances. Unfortunately, they may not be the battles we want to fight but they are an inevitability, as our anti counterparts no doubt recognize the opportunity to stretch our resources. This makes our local outreach and activism efforts that much more important.

bsim
09-03-2009, 1:08 PM
Correct by a few posters above - us moderates who *would* UOC won't per advice (which I think is sound advice). But the ones that *will* UOC may not be the best representatives of the cause.

On the other hand, BEAR is included in KEEP. If open carry is abolished, concealed carry MUST be allowed.

UOC *is* allowed now, so it's a whole other fight to tell people not to do something perfectly legal when they've felt oppressed for so long and want to be a part of something bigger than themselves.

Me, I'll defer to people that are more knowledgeable than I am about specific issues (of which there are many).

wash
09-03-2009, 1:10 PM
Every time a UOC event or incident winds up in the news, that gives the mostly anti-gun media a free chance to vilify us.

A FREE CHANCE, they are not spending a dime.

If we had shall issue CCW, the police were better trained to handle UOC (perhaps handing out CCW applications?) and the media wasn't full of anti's, we wouldn't see any of this on the news. It would be a non-issue, like it should be.

We want guns to be a non-issue, as common and accepted as bumper stickers or baseball caps.

Raising a big stink about them outside of a court room is dumb because the anti's will use it against us.

There will always be morons that do the wrong thing but mixing bad with good will make the whole bag of potatoes seem rotten. And if we don't mix, the bag of rotten potatoes will be a lot smaller.

MudCamper
09-03-2009, 1:16 PM
We want guns to be a non-issue, as common and accepted as bumper stickers or baseball caps.

This will require frequent and common open carry everywhere, and by "normal" people, not extremists.

wash
09-03-2009, 1:27 PM
Wrong, it requires a shall issue CCW victory through the courts and good behavior by gun owners.

After that, gently pushing the envelope so that no one notices things changing overnight.

That is the right way to do it.

CoinStar
09-03-2009, 1:31 PM
Check the NRA website for today's interview wherein he discusses, among other things, his views on the goings on in SD and other areas where people are indulging in UOC activities.

Listening to the link that someone else provided, I didn't hear him address anything other than challenging the local ordinance in Desert Hot Springs... nothing about any of the recent San Diego carry events, etc.

Is everyone on the same page or did I somehow miss something?

hoffmang
09-03-2009, 1:33 PM
Many here have the order of operations backwards. I had asked many of the moderate UOCers to be more careful and stand up and stand down based on verifiable issues. I however warned them that "moderate" from their perspective bore some serious risks. We are now seeing that serious risk in that stronger radical factions picked up on the "moderate" UOCers media coverage and are doing and saying things not productive to the overall cause.

And the anti's aren't fighting in most of the major battlefields. They're going town to town to try to pass every really annoying thing they can think of. Do you think it will be easier or harder for them to get a town council were UOC is causing police problems to pass illegal but enforceable ordinances?

-Gene

Casual_Shooter
09-03-2009, 1:36 PM
No one knows whether the current people UOC'ing are going to hurt or help the "cause". (and what was the cause again?).

Lawyers think like lawyers... non-lawyers don't.

I don't pretend to understand the current cases going on but I do understand that win or lose both sides are doing what they feel is best for the "cause" and neither side knows just how this is all going to turn out.

My feeling is that the outcome will be something neither side expected.

MudCamper
09-03-2009, 1:36 PM
Wrong, it requires a shall issue CCW victory through the courts and good behavior by gun owners.

After that, gently pushing the envelope so that no one notices things changing overnight.

That is the right way to do it.

That's one way to do it.

But for firearms to be "as common and accepted as bumper stickers" will require that people see them on a daily basis, in a matter-of-fact way, like the way lock-blade knives with pocket clips have become vogue. Have you noticed that? Sometime in the last 10 years, openly displaying one's deadly weapon, in the form of wicked cool knives, went from taboo to normal.

nicki
09-03-2009, 1:47 PM
If we can't get them to stop UOC, then we should consider helping them so that they do so in the least harmful matter.

Where I see big problems is with anything that is said to the press. If each group has people who are well spoken, then perhaps we can limit damage.

If we present UOC as more of an act of political speech than practical self defense, a form of "peaceful political protest" against abusive government policies.

Nicki

Kestryll
09-03-2009, 1:49 PM
If we can't get them to stop UOC, then we should consider helping them so that they do so in the least harmful matter.

There has been some thought and discussion on that very topic recently.

Meplat
09-03-2009, 2:04 PM
No way will you ever get them to not notice the beginnings of open carry in this state.

But your post brought back a fond memory of walking into a restaurant in Rifle CO. with a knife on one hip and a Blackhawk on the other, up to my elbows in fresh blood, and asking where the washroom was. Nobody batted an eye! Of course that was forty years ago.



Wrong, it requires a shall issue CCW victory through the courts and good behavior by gun owners.

After that, gently pushing the envelope so that no one notices things changing overnight.

That is the right way to do it.

6172crew
09-03-2009, 3:42 PM
It's always been disturbing to me when I see this issue divide what is normally a very united group of people.

I don't see the problem with people legally exercising their gun rights. Yes, the media finds it scary and they can use pictures of people open carrying as their ammunition. If none of us open carry, then what good is that? Isn't that what the anti's want? So the way I see it is if you can, and you want to, go for it, and be respectful. Try to put a good face on the open carry movement and don't be the one person who ruins it for the masses.

To those who think that we should hold off on open carry until the political climate is better, I'd like to know what sort of political climate you envision for open carry to be okay? And do you realistically think we'll see that political climate anytime soon or is it a fantasy?

I think the guys who are in the know are saying that the cases that are in the courts could be hurt because of the UOC and the UOC guys are saying we dont care, we should have it all and we want it now.

Just because its leagal to UOC doesnt mean you should do it without having a plan of action. Some of the action plan I hear about arent so good and some of them are good. Why not make them good ones and not have everyone on thier own page?

I posted a UOC memo from the LASD and it seemed like a waste and the cops thought the only reason they were doing it was to sue the dept.

Thats only one case but I have heard more like that than the one in SD which was well thought out.

demnogis
09-03-2009, 3:55 PM
Desert Hot Springs tried to pass an ordinance banning open carry, and they were able to convince them they shouldn't try. But it did cost time and money, on both sides.

He's also concerned that bills advertised to "stop open carry" will also include extra poison to prohibit gun shows, etc.

I'm glad that the NRA got involved with that Ordinance. In fact, is that not why many of us pay dues to the NRA? So they work in support of our rights, whether it be concealed or open carry? I consider their allocation of time and legal resources against Desert Hot Springs' ordinance some of my money well spent.

Now, as for the store they put together to sell wine... I dunno...

taloft
09-03-2009, 3:58 PM
I find it ironic that some people donate to CGF, SAF, NRA, etc. and yet ignore the requests from these same groups to not UOC at this time. These lawyers are in the legal trenches daily. Odds are exceptionally good that their understanding of the situation is superior to most peoples. After all, that is why we give them money to do what they do. Why ignore valuable input that you help pay for!?

To second guess them is the height of hubris. There is a saying, "Too many cooks spoil the broth." If you really want to help the movement, try showing a little restraint. You've waited all this time, will it kill you to wait a little bit longer? Most of these pending issues will be resolved within the year. Then you can carry to your heart's content without undermining the movement. I realize that some don't share my opinion. It would be a boring world if we all thought alike. However, I'd like to hear a much better line of reasoning from the UOC crowd than what I've seen so far. Most societies that find a small minority of people doing something against a social norm often view it as an aberration and take steps to abolish it. I fear your actions will only motivate them to outlaw UOC across the board. We need to have legal precedent in place to safeguard us from this sort of fear legislation. Until it is in place, we remain vulnerable on several fronts.

Also, it appears that we've had a sudden influx of johnny-come-lately's to the UOC movement. The local media does a couple of stories about pullnshoot25 and friends UOCing, and suddenly there are people I've never heard of in the local news doing the same. I do question their motivation. Are they just attention whores? If not, why wait until now to start UOCing? At least pullnshoot25 and company had the guts to step up even when there was no telling what kind of reception they'd receive. Now that the ground has been tested, everyone wants to dance. I'm not trying to disparage the motivations of these individuals, I'm merely pointing out how it looks from my perspective. I don't really know why they chose now to start packing. I sincerely wish they'd hold off for a while. Sorry for the long post but, this is the first time I've said my piece regarding this issue and I don't want to have to rehash it later. I'll get off my soap box now.:D

p.s. we need a good soap box smilie, the rant doesn't convey the same feeling.:p

Merle
09-03-2009, 4:06 PM
Also, it appears that we've had a sudden influx of johnny-come-lately's to the UOC movement. The local media does a couple of stories about pullnshoot25 and friends UOCing, and suddenly there are people I've never heard of in the local news doing the same. I do question their motivation. Are they just attention whores? If not, why wait until now to start UOCing?

I think a lot of people have seen their rights erode and their voice in government diminish. They understand and recognize fundamental rights and have been looking for an outlet.

Take healthcare for example. People are bringing guns and biting off fingers. It has nothing to do with health care, just a general upswelling of emotion which isn't truly caused by healthcare but by the people themselves.

IMO the civil rights movement started this way: A lady got tired of sitting in the back of the bus and giving up her seat.

DVSmith
09-03-2009, 4:19 PM
You will notice that Gene was very careful not to call UOCers names such as "little kids" in his description of the perils of their actions.

Yes, he did and that is why we love Gene!


I guess the question really comes down to whether or not the UOC events actually increase the amplitude or merely change the location of the signal. For example, Gene has pointed out some of the UOC activities threaten to push CGF and other Gunny resources to areas they'd rather not focus on. Is it not reasonable to assume that the antis' efforts are not also so split?

Perhaps there would be much more push around gun shows were the antis' not forced to expend some energy making law abiding UOCers look bad. I am not saying that I advocate UOC as a way of diverting antis' efforts but I am saying that it's possible the efforts are no more harmful to our side than the bad guys.

I don't believe that the efforts in UOC move anything as they are completely additional to the efforts already in play. They may distract attention though, perhaps masking other activities or even possibly diluting the public's ability to absorb. Kind of like my tuning out all of the stories about a topic after reading the first one. Still, I don't think it is lost on anyone the furor that provocative, even when legal, activities have on the general public.

My gut feeling, and I admit it is just that, tells me that anyone who is not a gun person, who sees someone UOC will simply never understand the rational basis for that activity.

And to whoever mentioned the UOCers activity being noticed, remember that the Orange County Sheriff's department used a post on some board about UOCing at the Board of Supervisors meeting as a reason to fill the chambers with undercover officers when the issue of CCW policies under Hutchens was being discussed.

dantodd
09-03-2009, 4:21 PM
I find it ironic that some people donate to CGF, SAF, NRA, etc. and yet ignore the requests from these same groups to not UOC at this time.

You would prefer these people don't support the other excellent work done by the aforementioned organizations?

Also, it appears that we've had a sudden influx of johnny-come-lately's to the UOC movement. The local media does a couple of stories about pullnshoot25 and friends UOCing, and suddenly there are people I've never heard of in the local news doing the same. I do question their motivation. Are they just attention whores? If not, why wait until now to start UOCing?

Perhaps because they were ignorant or apathetic until the last presidential election. It is not as if OC is the only area in 2A rights that has seen a number of "Johnny-come-lately's." Are you completely unaware of the steep increase in gun sales or people like me who do not UOC but are just beginning to become active the 2A movement? To suggest you can divine their motivation without ever asking or speaking with them seems to be the height of hubris to me.

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 5:17 PM
Some have asked that (Unloaded) Open Carry activities be suspended until we have Incorporation; I would guess that it is also preferrable to hold off until Sykes has established bear outside the home although I cannot recall any specific posts to this effect.

So are there specific cases that people would like us to wait for and then they'll give their okay to UOC?



I totally agree. I think having some literature and a voice recorder on your person are excellent steps. If you can, it's probably a good idea to go with an unarmed friend, should you encounter trouble, but also to show that people who UOC can get along with people who don't.

My impression is though that certain people are saying no UOC at all right now...but perhaps I'm wrong.

wash
09-03-2009, 5:32 PM
I would support organized events like beach clean-ups and stuff if it didn't encourage people to put on an LAPD baseball cap and UOC at Walmart.

If we get incorporation but something screws up shall issue CCW in the courts (Gorski?), then is the time for organized UOC. If that Walmart incident had happened under those circumstances, it would be a good argument for a shall issue CCW bill in the legislature.

It seems like the people who still UOC just want to walk around with a pistol and they don't care about the political repercussions.

Librarian
09-03-2009, 5:40 PM
So are there specific cases that people would like us to wait for and then they'll give their okay to UOC?



I totally agree. I think having some literature and a voice recorder on your person are excellent steps. If you can, it's probably a good idea to go with an unarmed friend, should you encounter trouble, but also to show that people who UOC can get along with people who don't.

My impression is though that certain people are saying no UOC at all right now...but perhaps I'm wrong.

I believe that impression to be accurate.

In high-level summary....

We're waiting for Nordyke (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King) to come out of en banc, and we hope with a re-assertion that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states. That might be preceded by, or closely followed by, a Supreme Court acceptance of the Chicago cases, which may lead to a nationwide, rather than 9th Circuit, incorporation ruling.

Incorporation is important. Incorporation is the big club to beat state courts over the head. In California, without incorporation, the general run is 'you peons are not militia and you have no gun rights.'

We're waiting for Pena (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid) but mostly for Sykes (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness) (which, itself, is now waiting for Nordyke).

Unloaded Open Carry (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Open_Carry_Unloaded) is legal, if done carefully. Earlier events have resulted in some positive training materials for some large LE departments.

Escondido seems to have been a success, in that nobody got arrested in error.

But the UOC people suffer from one handicap - they don't control the way their legal, peaceful activities are portrayed in the media. The media in CA is near-uniformly anti-gun, and where not anti-gun is usually very uninformed about laws or technical aspects of firearms.

Bad press scares voters.

Scared voters create an opportunity for our anti-gun legislators to appear to 'do something'.

One highly probable 'do something' seems to be AB 668 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_668&sess=0910&house=B&author=lieu), the bill to both extend gun free school zones from 1000 feet to 1500 feet and eliminate the locked case exception to 626.9 unless the handgun is actually in a motor vehicle.

Some people, myself among them, judge that it is easier to defeat legislation by not letting it be introduced, or, more precisely, not motivating legislators with activities and bad press which seems to them to call for soothing the voters with legislation to address their (unfounded) fears. (See AB 962 threads.)

UOC seems, to some people, likely to encourage Our Fine Legislature to additional rash behavior, introducing things which would likely be overturned in court - eventually. (Rash behavior in legislators introducing dumb things is not predicated solely on UOC.)

There are counter arguments,which I leave to others. It's possible to be persuaded by either position.

hawk1
09-03-2009, 5:51 PM
Take a deep breath, Hawk. No one is questioning Gene as a leader or a strategist. I think some may view Gene's preference for no UOC until the cases are settled as highly optimistic based on recent events.

His remark had nothing to do with Gene. He mentioned Chuck Michel specifically.

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 6:28 PM
His remark had nothing to do with Gene. He mentioned Chuck Michel specifically.

Substitute "Gene" with "Chuck" as needed.

H Paul Payne
09-03-2009, 6:32 PM
I'm glad that the NRA got involved with that Ordinance. In fact, is that not why many of us pay dues to the NRA? We all pay our dues for a number of reasons, including fighting to defend the Second Amendment. And the vast majority of those members expect (and rightfully so) that we use their resources in the best possible and most responsible manner. And we try to be mindful of that and do the best that we can do. But sometimes we are forced to expend valuable capital (literally and figuratively) that detracts from other more important battles. This can be seen in this current example.

Before I go on, I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to roll-around-in-the-mud with anyone, nor will I engage in a deep cyber-discussion of fundamental philosophies whether-or-not we have "the right" to UOC. Doing so will serve little purpose and serve to further detract our limited Staff (me) from doing more productive duties.

So they work in support of our rights, whether it be concealed or open carry? I consider their allocation of time and legal resources against Desert Hot Springs' ordinance some of my money well spent.
I wish I could tell you that our efforts to attempt to influence cities, such as Desert Hot Springs (and others), not to enact prohibitive legislation was "money well spent." But I can't. It is not the best and most preferred use of resources (staff time, attorneys' time, legal time, BOD time, media time, volunteers' time, etc.) because it takes us away from other very critical and time-sensitive issues such as AB962 and SB585.

These bills are in play RIGHT NOW in Sacramento and although we are doing our best to oppose them, we are also diverting an amount of attention and resources to issues such as the one in Desert Hot Springs. For example: Instead of hearing about this issue on NRA News last night, it might have been better for everyone to discuss how certain legislators are trying to use procedural wrangling to amend AB962 so that they can get it passed before next week's deadline. But unfortunately, we were unable to inform you and urge you to re-double your efforts in opposition to AB962.

Let's not forget that if cities do pass these ordinances, then we must consider legal action against them. That will cost us even more of our valuable resources. And if we win, we have spent all of that time, money, and effort, to get right back to where we are today. We won't actually GAIN anything. And all of this makes the dangerous assumption that the state legislature won't change the law outlawing UOC (and other currently legal activities). BTW, there has been some talk in the Capitol of doing just that!

I guess all of this just boils down to one simple rhetorical question: "Why, when everyone knows that important court cases are pending, does this issue need to be pushed at this very moment - instead of being a little more patient since we have a good chance of winning in court?" In other words, "What's the rush?"

Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts. I am not inclined to respond further. Instead, I will spend my time focusing on imminent threats to our Second Amendment (aka our freedom) with the hopes that many of you will join with me in defeating bad legislation, passing good legislation, and working to roll-back some of the infringements already inflicted upon us all.

It is good to FIGHT HARD, but to win - we must also FIGHT SMART!

Paul

CoinStar
09-03-2009, 6:36 PM
IAnd do you realistically think we'll see that political climate anytime soon or is it a fantasy?

The political climate isn't as big a factor as the social environment.

Someone around here recently put it succinctly enough. In a nutshell, they said, "Regulations move at a greater rate than public opinion can be swayed".

The game is all about winning over the hearts and minds of Joe voter or whoever. These open carry events don't seem to be accomplishing that... worse, they're polarizing people who would otherwise not be rendering an opinion on the matter of guns.

That to me is counterproductive.

Meplat
09-03-2009, 6:37 PM
This is fore those who are still beside themselves because they can’t seem to make others behave the way they want them to.

I had a very good friend who wanted to quit smoking. He knew it was not good for his health. He wanted to quit for that and other reasons. In California at the time smokers were one of the groups that it was acceptable to bash. First it was smoking sections in restaurants, then no smoking in restaurants at all, then no smoking in bars, it just kept building. Every time he would get resolved to quit another insult would trigger an instinct of defiance. He moved to a state where he can smoke where ever he wants and nobody gives a damn. In six months he had kicked the habit.

As an old farm boy I can tell you that you cannot lead a calf or colt anywhere. They will set there feet and fight the lead rope until their eyes roll back in their heads. But, if you get behind them they will go forward. And if you are savvy you can even guide them to where you want them to be.

Am I getting through here?

pullnshoot25
09-03-2009, 7:43 PM
Every time a UOC event or incident winds up in the news, that gives the mostly anti-gun media a free chance to vilify us.

A FREE CHANCE, they are not spending a dime.

If we had shall issue CCW, the police were better trained to handle UOC (perhaps handing out CCW applications?) and the media wasn't full of anti's, we wouldn't see any of this on the news. It would be a non-issue, like it should be.

We want guns to be a non-issue, as common and accepted as bumper stickers or baseball caps.

Raising a big stink about them outside of a court room is dumb because the anti's will use it against us.

There will always be morons that do the wrong thing but mixing bad with good will make the whole bag of potatoes seem rotten. And if we don't mix, the bag of rotten potatoes will be a lot smaller.

That is one of the reasons for the UOC protest, in case you haven't heard...

Also, I have been turned into a training toy multiple times by three different departments and still counting. They should know the law by now.

I think a lot of people have seen their rights erode and their voice in government diminish. They understand and recognize fundamental rights and have been looking for an outlet.

Take healthcare for example. People are bringing guns and biting off fingers. It has nothing to do with health care, just a general upswelling of emotion which isn't truly caused by healthcare but by the people themselves.

IMO the civil rights movement started this way: A lady got tired of sitting in the back of the bus and giving up her seat.

This seems to be a big part of it.

I would support organized events like beach clean-ups and stuff if it didn't encourage people to put on an LAPD baseball cap and UOC at Walmart.

If we get incorporation but something screws up shall issue CCW in the courts (Gorski?), then is the time for organized UOC. If that Walmart incident had happened under those circumstances, it would be a good argument for a shall issue CCW bill in the legislature.

It seems like the people who still UOC just want to walk around with a pistol and they don't care about the political repercussions.

Very few places don't have illegal ordinances in place that ban guns on the beach so beach cleanups are generally out.

We (as in my group) have never advocated for wearing pseudo-LEO attire.

demnogis
09-03-2009, 8:26 PM
Paul, I appreciate the lengthy response. I understand that many people (those in the NRA and those not) may think the NRA's involvement in Desert Hot Springs' attempted prohibitive ordinance was time and money wasted, but we're omitting the other details of the ordinance. It was not solely about UOC. It was about all possession on "public property". IIRC it would prohibit possession on public housing, even if you lived there, possession for CCWP holders, etc. Basically making any "public" part of DHS prohibited from possession, keep and carry. It was a bad law in all aspects to the 2A.

Keep up the hard, good work. We're glad to have upstanding people on the legal battlefront.

We all pay our dues for a number of reasons, including fighting to defend the Second Amendment. And the vast majority of those members expect (and rightfully so) that we use their resources in the best possible and most responsible manner. And we try to be mindful of that and do the best that we can do. But sometimes we are forced to expend valuable capital (literally and figuratively) that detracts from other more important battles. This can be seen in this current example.

Before I go on, I want to make it very clear that I'm not going to roll-around-in-the-mud with anyone, nor will I engage in a deep cyber-discussion of fundamental philosophies whether-or-not we have "the right" to UOC. Doing so will serve little purpose and serve to further detract our limited Staff (me) from doing more productive duties.


I wish I could tell you that our efforts to attempt to influence cities, such as Desert Hot Springs (and others), not to enact prohibitive legislation was "money well spent." But I can't. It is not the best and most preferred use of resources (staff time, attorneys' time, legal time, BOD time, media time, volunteers' time, etc.) because it takes us away from other very critical and time-sensitive issues such as AB962 and SB585.

These bills are in play RIGHT NOW in Sacramento and although we are doing our best to oppose them, we are also diverting an amount of attention and resources to issues such as the one in Desert Hot Springs. For example: Instead of hearing about this issue on NRA News last night, it might have been better for everyone to discuss how certain legislators are trying to use procedural wrangling to amend AB962 so that they can get it passed before next week's deadline. But unfortunately, we were unable to inform you and urge you to re-double your efforts in opposition to AB962.

Let's not forget that if cities do pass these ordinances, then we must consider legal action against them. That will cost us even more of our valuable resources. And if we win, we have spent all of that time, money, and effort, to get right back to where we are today. We won't actually GAIN anything. And all of this makes the dangerous assumption that the state legislature won't change the law outlawing UOC (and other currently legal activities). BTW, there has been some talk in the Capitol of doing just that!

I guess all of this just boils down to one simple rhetorical question: "Why, when everyone knows that important court cases are pending, does this issue need to be pushed at this very moment - instead of being a little more patient since we have a good chance of winning in court?" In other words, "What's the rush?"

Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts. I am not inclined to respond further. Instead, I will spend my time focusing on imminent threats to our Second Amendment (aka our freedom) with the hopes that many of you will join with me in defeating bad legislation, passing good legislation, and working to roll-back some of the infringements already inflicted upon us all.

It is good to FIGHT HARD, but to win - we must also FIGHT SMART!

Paul

dantodd
09-03-2009, 8:37 PM
Paul, I appreciate the lengthy response. I understand that many people (those in the NRA and those not) may think the NRA's involvement in Desert Hot Springs' attempted prohibitive ordinance was time and money wasted, but we're omitting the other details of the ordinance. It was not solely about UOC. It was about all possession on "public property". IIRC it would prohibit possession on public housing, even if you lived there, possession for CCWP holders, etc. Basically making any "public" part of DHS prohibited from possession, keep and carry. It was a bad law in all aspects to the 2A.

Keep up the hard, good work. We're glad to have upstanding people on the legal battlefront.

I believe the argument is that while the ordinance would impact all those activities UOC was the impetus for the council to make the ordinance.

What I have not heard is an official request by the NRA for UOC to stop in CA by its members. This would be a big step as, unlike CGF, the NRA is a membership organization and with its much larger following would have a greater impact in making the request. In fact, the request along with a call to action for those currently UOCing to contact the calnra for ways they can make positive efforts, aside from the obvious monetary contributions, would go a long way to fill the desire of these people to be activists.

lomalinda
09-03-2009, 8:48 PM
Most people have managed to find the interview that I referenced in post 1, but for those who have not:

http://home.nra.org/#/home

Choose the "Program Archive" section.

Look at Sept 2

Chuck Michel's interview has its own link.

In general. I think that a problem here is that there is an emerging group who resent the idea that Gene and CGF might be "calling the shots."

Guess what: they're the ones who got us the OLL and all the rest of the stuff--parts kits, right?

Think they might have some information that others don't have?

Hey, I'm a professional with a buncha titles and a bit of an ego, too.

But I can sit back on my *** and let these guys, who have expertise in this area, handle the show.

Let's face it: we're largely here because of what they knew and did.

Others made some sacrifices along the way, but the overall battle has been won by these guys.

Yeah, it blows to have a buncha left-leaning people run around telling us what to do and how to do it.

But the answer is to look at the type of voting block we're dealing with and play ball accordingly.

Most of these people have never held a gun, and the idea of people running around carrying unloaded guns just because they can strikes them as weird at best. We need these peoples' support, and this approach ain't going to cut it.

This ain't Texas. Most of these Cali-types lost their freedom years ago.

Now we're trying to win it back.

But it takes time, and sometimes you gotta rely on those who know better.

This is one of those times.

Ground Loop
09-03-2009, 9:47 PM
My observation is that more people are UOC'ing right now -- and they've never heard of CalGuns, the court cases active now, the people working for our rights, or much at all.

They saw it in the Reader and said "Right on! I had no idea that was legal. It's time to use it or lose it."

I ran into one guy at an El Cajon buffet with a G17 on his hip. "Open Carry fan?" "Hell yeah, bro! It's our right. It's legal. Buy a gun and wear it!"
The discussion didn't get much more intellectual from there.

My point is that the legal-calculating-strategists are a minority among gun owners. If the NRA wanted to run an article or send out an envelope, their opinions might reach more people than a CalGuns post.

Meanwhile, I'm not carrying, and Señor G17 is.

hoffmang
09-03-2009, 9:53 PM
There is a simple question I've never really heard UOC advocates address.

If you can't convince the heart of the pro-gun community that its a good idea at this time, why do you think you can convince the middle or mildly anti-gun that it's a good idea now?

-Gene

sorensen440
09-03-2009, 9:54 PM
There is a simple question I've never really heard UOC advocates address.

If you can't convince the heart of the pro-gun community that its a good idea at this time, why do you think you can convince the middle or mildly anti-gun that it's a good idea now?

-Gene
Can you even convince the heart of the pro-gun community that the sky is blue ?

ETA: some of us even supported Obama

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 10:04 PM
A completely reasonable question that's been asked in other threads. The underlying issue is that many of the advocates do not share the same view as to who/what make up the "heart" of the pro-gun community as you or I might.

There is a simple question I've never really heard UOC advocates address.

If you can't convince the heart of the pro-gun community that its a good idea at this time, why do you think you can convince the middle or mildly anti-gun that it's a good idea now?

-Gene

hoffmang
09-03-2009, 10:10 PM
I'll say it simpler then.

If UOCers can't convince people who like guns and appreciate self defense that UOC is a good idea in California at this time, then why do they think they can convince the middle or mildly anti-gun that it's a good idea now?

-Gene

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 10:13 PM
Probably for the same reason that Gorski thought he would win a mighty victory(s) for 2A.

jdberger
09-03-2009, 10:18 PM
I'll say it simpler then.

If UOCers can't convince people who like guns and appreciate self defense that UOC is a good idea in California at this time, then why do they think they can convince the middle or mildly anti-gun that it's a good idea now?

-Gene


Prolly for the same reason they ask 18 year olds to charge heavily defended beaches.....a deeply held belief in their invincibility and an equal measure of naivete....

7x57
09-03-2009, 10:20 PM
What I have not heard is an official request by the NRA for UOC to stop in CA by its members. This would be a big step as, unlike CGF, the NRA is a membership organization and with its much larger following would have a greater impact in making the request. In fact, the request along with a call to action for those currently UOCing to contact the calnra for ways they can make positive efforts, aside from the obvious monetary contributions, would go a long way to fill the desire of these people to be activists.

Unfortunately, I don't believe it would have that effect. Recall that the incessant NRA-bashing by GOA and others has an effect. Those who are determined to UOC no matter what the consequences would simply shrug and say "well, the NRA sold us out again, so what?" After all, they know *quite* well what our NRA on-the-ground staff thinks, and if they were inclined to listen to the NRA at all they would listen to that. Cal NRA might as well not weigh in officially at all, since there seems to be little percentage in it.


"And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--for I have five brothers, all dedicated Open Carriers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

"But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets of Calguns; let them hear them.'

"But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the NRA, they will repent!'

"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the NRA.'"


It's a somewhat free translation, but not entirely inaccurate.

7x57

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 10:37 PM
Prolly for the same reason they ask 18 year olds to charge heavily defended beaches.....a deeply held belief in their invincibility and an equal measure of naivete....

Quite.

Ultimately, if well-organized and directed, a powerful force which can create fantastic results. If applied ad hoc, tragic consequences are inevitable.

We have an opportunity to try and reach these folks; further, to reach those who want to identify with some of these movements, who want to have their voice heard, before another element of RKBA does. Time is of the essence, and I'm not going to cross my fingers and hope they find Calguns through a Google search before they find someone they are enamored with in a local rag.

jdberger
09-03-2009, 10:39 PM
Quite.

Ultimately, if well-organized and directed, a powerful force which can create fantastic results. If applied ad hoc, tragic consequences are inevitable.

We have an opportunity to try and reach these folks; further, to reach those who want to identify with some of these movements, who want to have their voice heard, before another element of RKBA does. Time is of the essence, and I'm not going to cross my fingers and hope they find Calguns through a Google search before they find someone they are enamored with in a local rag.

That's why we have to be that beacon on the hill.

lomalinda
09-03-2009, 10:53 PM
"We have an opportunity to try and reach these folks; further, to reach those who want to identify with some of these movements, who want to have their voice heard, before another element of RKBA does. Time is of the essence, and I'm not going to cross my fingers and hope they find Calguns through a Google search before they find someone they are enamored with in a local rag."

Indeed..

taloft
09-04-2009, 1:06 AM
You would prefer these people don't support the other excellent work done by the aforementioned organizations?No, I'd prefer that they take the excellent advice offered by Chuck and others to heart since they are paying for it with their donations/memberships. Plus, the money would go further if they are not dealing with distractions.

Perhaps because they were ignorant or apathetic until the last presidential election. It is not as if OC is the only area in 2A rights that has seen a number of "Johnny-come-lately's." Are you completely unaware of the steep increase in gun sales or people like me who do not UOC but are just beginning to become active the 2A movement? I never said OC was the only area this applied to, I was merely addressing the topic at hand. Perhaps my post wasn't long enough for you?:p I was limiting my statements to UOC only. You're trying to paste my statements as if I'm applying them to the whole 2A issue. I'm well aware of what has been happening since long before the election. It is a consequence of doing my homework. I have no problem with new people just now getting into shooting and defending the 2nd. The more the merrier. That is why I teach new people how to shoot via NRA shooting programs. Ignorance isn't a crime unless it is willful. There is a cure.
To suggest you can divine their motivation without ever asking or speaking with them seems to be the height of hubris to me.
Again, I never said I knew for sure what was motivating them, I was merely pondering their motivation and sharing an opinion. I was hoping that maybe one of them would post so that I could get a better feel for what they are thinking. Given the reasons why they've been asked to hold off a bit, the logic they presented in the news story seems a bit thin to me. I addressed why I thought so in my first post. You on the other hand seem to have no problem taking what I said completely out of context. Did you not see the part of my post where I said:
...I'm not trying to disparage the motivations of these individuals, I'm merely pointing out how it looks from my perspective. I don't really know why they chose now to start packing.I stand by that statement.

Most of them don't look like first time gun buyers and UOC has been legal for quite some time. Again, why start now?

The only thing I don't like is uninformed individuals telling people who do this for a living that they are misinformed. This goes doubly so when it is readily apparent that these people haven't really researched the matter. Also, I'm not painting all people who support UOC into this category. Some of them definitely have a grasp of the issues at hand, others obviously don't. It is quite apparent which are which. If someone wants to make an informed decision to UOC, despite requests to refrain at this time, it is their right. Just don't expect me to applaud what I think is a bad idea, at this point in time.

I'm not trying to be divisive, we are all more or less on the same page here. Having said that, if I think someone is being a knucklehead then I'm going to say so, that is my right. I try to be as diplomatic about it as possible.;)

artherd
09-04-2009, 1:28 AM
That's why we have to be that beacon on the hill.

http://www.cfb4.com/images/tank_light_photos/VSS3_07_23_05_Bs.jpg

http://www.cfb4.com/images/tank_light_photos/VSS3_07_23_05_Cs.jpg

CalNRA
09-04-2009, 1:41 AM
http://www.cfb4.com/images/tank_light_photos/VSS3_07_23_05_Bs.jpg

http://www.cfb4.com/images/tank_light_photos/VSS3_07_23_05_Cs.jpg

um...how did you get the pics of Larry(or was it BVH)'s lights?:confused:

taloft
09-04-2009, 2:02 AM
I think a lot of people have seen their rights erode and their voice in government diminish. They understand and recognize fundamental rights and have been looking for an outlet.

Take healthcare for example. People are bringing guns and biting off fingers. It has nothing to do with health care, just a general upswelling of emotion which isn't truly caused by healthcare but by the people themselves.

IMO the civil rights movement started this way: A lady got tired of sitting in the back of the bus and giving up her seat.I agree with the point you're making, and you're probably right. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that a lot of this is motivated by strong emotions. I too have very strong emotions concerning my rights. However, cooler heads must prevail. Only logic will get us a winning strategy. I'm not saying that emotion plays no part, on the contrary, passion is what gives us our dreams. You can't achieve your dreams if you don't have any. I just don't see creating fear in the general population as a great way to go about it. It is obvious from the comments at the end of the story that more people were fearful than hopeful. Even curiosity would be okay. Remember, the frogs will only stay in the pot as long as they don't get nervous. If they are fearful, the jig is up. Of course, I addressed this in my first post.

Rosa Parks is a pretty good analogy except she was fighting for a civil right that wasn't recognized at the time. We already have the right to UOC. I can see communities passing knee jerk ordinances to stop UOC. Yes, we'd eventually get it tossed but, not without time and funds that could be better spent. I'd much rather have a bunch of precedences to back our play regarding this issue. That way when the sheeple get nervous and start trying to pass these laws, they are already dead in the water. Think of it as a lid to slam over the pot before the frogs can jump out.:p

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for all of us to be able to carry fully loaded firearms either open or concealed. I truly believe it is a fundamental right. We will get it all back, it's just going to take a bit of time.:patriot:


Whoa, now that's a tac light.:cool:

B Strong
09-04-2009, 6:05 AM
Why won't the UOC'ers listen to reason?

Because their movement is about them as individuals, and their self-appointed position as leaders in the Pro-Liberty, Second Amendment movement.

It would be hard for most of them to go from personal website stars to working as part of a team.

dantodd
09-04-2009, 6:28 AM
There is a simple question I've never really heard UOC advocates address.

If you can't convince the heart of the pro-gun community that its a good idea at this time, why do you think you can convince the middle or mildly anti-gun that it's a good idea now?

-Gene

That's actually a pretty straightforward question. Largely those at the heart of this community are acutely aware of, and trying to manage, the perception of the firearms community by the judicial and legislative branch. While the general public doesn't follow the "gun debate" and only relate to what they see on a daily basis. Perhaps to this vastly larger group of both gun owners and non-owners seeing OC is out of the ordinary but wouldn't make they squirm or nervous about the PR implications of what they see.

halifax
09-04-2009, 7:34 AM
This doesn't seem to be as much about rights as it is about perception. In 1967 Huey P. Newton and the Black Panther Party For Self-Defense had every right to march on the state capitol with firearms. It was not against the law. Yet, the perception by the public and newspapers led to laws that further eroded everyone's rights. That was NOT a step forward.

trashman
09-04-2009, 7:46 AM
Perhaps to this vastly larger group of both gun owners and non-owners seeing OC is out of the ordinary but wouldn't make they squirm or nervous about the PR implications of what they see.

This doesn't really answer Gene's pointed question. It also goes to a point I have raised tirelessly -- which is "where is this sleeping majority of pro-gun voters UOC is trying to appeal to"?

Because I spend a lot of time with non-gunnies, and they often have trouble distinguishing between the simple mechanical concepts of "semi-automatic" and "machine gun" and "high capacity" except that they think it's reasonable to restrict ownership of those things.

--Neill

wash
09-04-2009, 9:07 AM
We (as in my group) have never advocated for wearing pseudo-LEO attire.

That does not matter one bit.

The fact is some guy heard about UOC, and did it. That makes all gun owners look bad. It doesn't matter that what he did was really dumb and he maybe might not have done it if he had thought about it more carefully.

You can't undo it and there are going to be more people that do dumb things until it ends very badly.

I know that one of your goals is shall issue CCW. Your approach could even work, but not when you've got idiots screwing things up.

You're making us fight a war on two fronts at exactly the time that we need focus.

MudCamper
09-04-2009, 9:41 AM
I'll say it simpler then.

If UOCers can't convince people who like guns and appreciate self defense that UOC is a good idea in California at this time, then why do they think they can convince the middle or mildly anti-gun that it's a good idea now?

-Gene

OK. I'll bite. Both of these groups fear something. One fears public opinion, the media, and the legislature. The other fears inanimate objects (guns). One of these fears is irrational. (You know which one.) It is much easier to dissuade an irrational fear than a real one.

I'm just answering your question for the sake of argument. This whole debate is a waste of time at this point. Neither side is listening to the other.

wash
09-04-2009, 9:44 AM
You must not have dealt with many irrational people.

1911su16b870
09-04-2009, 11:21 AM
Just listened to Chuck's call on the link that Grammaton posted. It is at 2:41 to 2:47 in the 2:54 long program.

From the program, Chuck's biggest example on why we do not want to fight the UOC fight right now is that local municipalities will make ordinances prohibiting UOC which could lead to a state wide prohibition on UOC.

Theseus
09-04-2009, 12:54 PM
I may respect Chuck, but I still think that UOC is useful. I have already said I will not individually UOC, but I will, as today, attend events and gatherings.

sorensen440
09-04-2009, 12:55 PM
From the program, Chuck's biggest example on why we do not want to fight the UOC fight right now is that local municipalities will make ordinances prohibiting UOC which could lead to a state wide prohibition on UOC.
Right but if were not doing it anyways whats the worry about them prohibiting it ?

GuyW
09-04-2009, 1:08 PM
If UOCers can't convince people who like guns and appreciate self defense that UOC is a good idea in California at this time, then why do they think they can convince the middle or mildly anti-gun that it's a good idea now?

-Gene

I'm not saying that UOC is beneficial now, but since the 2 groups have nothing else substantive in common, why should their concepts (or lack thereof) about guns have common elements ?

.

1911su16b870
09-04-2009, 1:28 PM
Right but if were not doing it anyways whats the worry about them prohibiting it ?

IMO it is a concern that the UOC-ers may be portrayed negatively (in the press) and loose the battle of public opinion, leading cities to pass anti-UOC municipal codes (ala fear based legislation).

Theseus
09-04-2009, 1:42 PM
IMO it is a concern that the UOC-ers may be portrayed negatively (in the press) and loose the battle of public opinion, leading cities to pass anti-UOC municipal codes (ala fear based legislation).

Same thing was mentioned elsewhere about the same being said about the gays in their movement.

People may be somewhat irrational, but I believe it is like many things. . . My experience is that only few are truly scared of guns, and many more are interested that one can own, and even carry one. Other than a few select people crying over the most recent national exposure, many more were educated and interested, of that I am sure.

Our cause will win out. Either open carry is an inalienable right, or it is not. We may not win tomorrow, but 5 years from now, but we will win the cause, much like shall-issue did.

cbn620
09-04-2009, 2:14 PM
I say listen to Mr. Michel and the guys here at CGF. I'm not one for blind authority worship, but we're seeing them bring us real progress on an almost daily basis. They are a valid authority. They give us results, let's give them cooperation. When the guys who toil to fight our battles for us in court politely tell us to please not do things that are giving them even more headaches, I for one will listen.

This is not to say that UOC is wrong or illegal; it is just to say that unfortunately, the climate in this state is what it is, and we have to deal with it realistically. Our day will come. Until then, get on the right side.

artherd
09-04-2009, 2:58 PM
Please understand, I'm FOR UOC, in principle. Heck I'm for you being able to walk down the street naked with a suppressed MP5!


My concerns lie in the correlation of lack of PR skills, and a desire to UOC at the present time.

UOC itself is interesting - as done by a lesbian hate crime victim with her CCW denial letter printed on her shirt.

It's a PR disaster done by a bunch of old white men. right now, in the present legal climate, which changes on a monthly basis...

demnogis
09-04-2009, 3:36 PM
I'll bite as well...

Many of those (like myself) who have Unloaded Open Carried and took heed to the legal battles going on, are pausing until Nordyke has ruled incorporation yet again.

The issue is not that Open Carriers can't listen or be convinced -- as many comments in the immature nature make by their ad hominid attacks on the childishness of UOCers -- it's that these are people who feel oppressed and don't yet have a proper direction. What they need is a community they can interact with, foster those feelings of oppression and governmental misrepresentation into positive work for the 2A fight in CA.

Instead of such a community (as Calguns, which really is the liaison to NRA in CA) welcoming them with open arms and helping give them direction, instead they are belittled and treated as red-headed step-children and dismissed. All the while said community wonders why they cannot be reached. Pretty circular, don't you think?

Then there's my personal belief, that what is publicly said by the leads of CGF about UOC is only echoed with personal emotion in the wrong respect. Too much FUD about the media, imho. Many of us ask you to get involved as we have and invited you to group events for UOC so you can see first-hand the positive responses we get. Yet, that invitation is declined.

That begs the question... Which pro-2A group is being more hospitable?

Don't take my comments as an attack; they aren't. Personally I believe the RIGHT of carrying comes before the PRIVILEGE of the method (concealed) -- BUT, I understand how CGF is working on their path tomake the 2A true as it should be in this state. If level-headed reasoning can get through to people such as Theseus, Decoligny, PNS, El Sensai, Cato and myself... Maybe it's time to re-evaluate the way the community here is presenting their side of the argument. Those mediate and reasonable comments are too far and few inbetween -- and that is why IMHO UOCers are not listening to the community's comments here, and vice-versa.

Just my $0.48 (inflation).

I'll say it simpler then.

If UOCers can't convince people who like guns and appreciate self defense that UOC is a good idea in California at this time, then why do they think they can convince the middle or mildly anti-gun that it's a good idea now?

-Gene

Theseus
09-04-2009, 3:56 PM
The idea of what the "right side" is negotiable and highly subjective.

As mentioned, I don't believe that CGF is out to hurt us and agree they are making progress, but I don't believe they are fully right.

I don't disagree with their entire idea, just parts. I will support the parts I agree with and not with the ones I don't.

CGF has ok'ed group OC events and those I will attend.

artherd
09-04-2009, 4:58 PM
it's that these are people who feel oppressed and don't yet have a proper direction.

EXACTLY!

What they need is a community they can interact with, foster those feelings of oppression and governmental misrepresentation into positive work for the 2A fight in CA.

It's my job to provide that forum and community. We openly encourage and foster discussion of UOC, and I for one will re-examine it's usefulness on a daily basis.

rynando
09-04-2009, 9:07 PM
And the anti's aren't fighting in most of the major battlefields. They're going town to town to try to pass every really annoying thing they can think of. Do you think it will be easier or harder for them to get a town council were UOC is causing police problems to pass illegal but enforceable ordinances?

-Gene

I doubt many municipalities will consider adopting ordinances banning UOC. They might discuss it however after their legal representation explains that such an ordinance would expose them to litigation and cost them money that they don’t have right now they would most likely curb their enthusiasm quite a bit.

The cities that will pass such ordinances are going to be the few larger ones that are dominated by left-leaning ideologues and that have salaried legal staff on hand to deal with the ramifications. The bulk of the local governments in this state either have a minuscule legal staff (usually just a single, barely-qualified city attorney) or no legal staff (all legal services subbed out to a law firm).

I guess what I’m saying is that I believe that there’s a significantly reduced risk of any ordinance passing in the bulk of this state’s municipalities over an issue that would instantly expose them litigation with a very predictable outcome. The cities that might pass an ordinance are the very few that are already very unfriendly to 2A rights and have resources to deal with the consequences.

R

1911su16b870
09-04-2009, 10:15 PM
....Our cause will win out. Either open carry is an inalienable right, or it is not. We may not win tomorrow, but 5 years from now, but we will win the cause, much like shall-issue did.

Theseus I sure hope so! The whole thing just blows my mind because 200 years ago in this great country, one could carry anything he wanted, and that right in CA has degenerated into us fighting to carry anything.

Theseus
09-04-2009, 11:31 PM
Theseus I sure hope so! The whole thing just blows my mind because 200 years ago in this great country, one could carry anything he wanted, and that right in CA has degenerated into us fighting to carry anything.

I am still researching further, but it is my understanding that part of the reason for no 2A in Cali was that when Cali was surrendered to the US part of the treaty called for the disarmament of its private citizens. The reason for this, to my understanding, was that California fought on the side of Mexico and the US wanted to prevent it being issues.

I am not fully sure as I have not been researching it as actively as I would like to be able to, and I am not sure where I gleamed such information.

hoffmang
09-04-2009, 11:39 PM
I am still researching further, but it is my understanding that part of the reason for no 2A in Cali was that when Cali was surrendered to the US part of the treaty called for the disarmament of its private citizens.

That's incorrect. The California Constitution appears to have been modeled after the Wisconsin's "progressive" Constitution...

-Gene

dchang0
09-05-2009, 12:33 AM
What I find funny is your choice of words stating that one of the foremost leaders in gun rights perspective is not based on sound reasoning.
Please,

Even leaders can make mistakes and have lapses in reasoning. Otherwise, we gun owners should have been stripped of our guns as soon as our great and wise leader Obama was sworn in. He's our righteous savior, after all.

Remember, there was a time when the world's foremost leaders insisted the world was flat and executed anyone who said the world was round.

-----

Though I don't particularly support either side of "to OC or not to OC," I do find it annoying that the pro-gun legal experts tend to act as if or be treated as if their avenue of attack is the only right approach.

Certainly, they have every right to be annoyed at what they see is an unraveling of their gargantuan efforts, but to think they have a monopoly on successful advancement of our rights is both arrogant and overreaching.

In the end, our pro-gun attorneys are still playing within the legal system, an artificial game made up of arcane rules by which we as a society agree to live our lives.

Sometimes the battle can only be won by stepping outside of that game and playing a larger game, under a different, more universal, Natural set of rules. George Washington and our Founding Fathers would never have won our freedom in a British court of law, playing on paper the game designed by and rigged in favor of the British Crown. In the end, they quit that game and insisted on more real rules, the rules that have been with us since the beginning of time and provided to us by God and Nature: lethal force.

I understand that though the UOCers may not understand the disasterous PR they are producing, I do respect them for understanding that in the end, the rule of law is ultimately built on a foundation of lethal force. They are connecting viscerally with the fundamental rules of life that all non-human animals understand instinctually: might makes right. You don't see lions putting on suits and writing briefs when fighting with hyenas--they rely on showing their fangs and claws, and if the show isn't enough to deter the hyenas, well then, by God, they actually use those fangs and claws. The UOCers out there are exercising their "show of force," a very natural and real act.

-----

It is the fatal mistake that anti-gunners make: they assume arrogantly that their civilized laws, made up of pretty, invisible words, can magically overpower and overcome all armed criminals everywhere. And here we are, playing at the same stupid and childish game.

It doesn't make sense to me that I can drive due east for a few hundred miles to Arizona, pick up a 15-rnd magazine, then drive back over some imaginary line and suddenly become a felon. Suddenly, according to the rules of the game called the California Criminal Code, I'm a "real" danger to society.

If we make the terrible mistake of thinking only within the box of California's idiotic legal system, we are truly our own captors, our own oppressors. We must always remember that these rules aren't real--they're only the rules we willingly agree to abide by when we join California's society.

So, in that way, Chuck Michel is making a huge mistake. He's devoted his entire life to playing a game, and [by claiming that the UOCers are making a mistake] he's made the mistake of believing that the game he's been playing is reality. The map is not the territory, as any SHTF situation or violent crime makes painfully clear. In those situations, our laws suddenly become as useless as the paper they are written on, and what truly matters is the gun in hand or worn on hip.

We may still grudgingly agree to play by California's rules while we willingly live here, but we should never assume that the rules are right and that we can only be right by winning the game within that set of rules.

hoffmang
09-05-2009, 1:01 AM
In the end, our pro-gun attorneys are still playing within the legal system, an artificial game made up of arcane rules by which we as a society agree to live our lives.

You contradict yourself in your own statement. Courts can sanction lethal force. It's why people follow court orders. There is a reason that the judiciary is considered co-equal. If you think I'm wrong, just ask George C. Wallace...

Disprove these statement: A near super majority of California's elected officials at both the state level and at the county and municipal level in non rural counties are anti-gun. California state courts are anti-gun. A majority of Californians in urban Counties are anti-gun or neutral leaning anti open carry.

The tyranny of the majority is why we have a Republic, not a democracy, and why Marbury v. Madison was rightly decided. I suggest you read this (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1430680) to understand what I'm getting at.

-Gene

Riodog
09-05-2009, 8:55 AM
So, dchangO, basically what you're advocating is we say to hell with the laws and start the revolution today.

Tell us all where to meet up, what's our first target and who's bringing the hand grenades? MRI's ? and the butt plugs for when we all wind up in the can for inciting an insurrection.

Me thinks we have a problem in the making.
Rio

pullnshoot25
09-05-2009, 10:12 AM
I'll bite as well...

Many of those (like myself) who have Unloaded Open Carried and took heed to the legal battles going on, are pausing until Nordyke has ruled incorporation yet again.

The issue is not that Open Carriers can't listen or be convinced -- as many comments in the immature nature make by their ad hominid attacks on the childishness of UOCers -- it's that these are people who feel oppressed and don't yet have a proper direction. What they need is a community they can interact with, foster those feelings of oppression and governmental misrepresentation into positive work for the 2A fight in CA.

Instead of such a community (as Calguns, which really is the liaison to NRA in CA) welcoming them with open arms and helping give them direction, instead they are belittled and treated as red-headed step-children and dismissed. All the while said community wonders why they cannot be reached. Pretty circular, don't you think?

Then there's my personal belief, that what is publicly said by the leads of CGF about UOC is only echoed with personal emotion in the wrong respect. Too much FUD about the media, imho. Many of us ask you to get involved as we have and invited you to group events for UOC so you can see first-hand the positive responses we get. Yet, that invitation is declined.

That begs the question... Which pro-2A group is being more hospitable?

Don't take my comments as an attack; they aren't. Personally I believe the RIGHT of carrying comes before the PRIVILEGE of the method (concealed) -- BUT, I understand how CGF is working on their path tomake the 2A true as it should be in this state. If level-headed reasoning can get through to people such as Theseus, Decoligny, PNS, El Sensai, Cato and myself... Maybe it's time to re-evaluate the way the community here is presenting their side of the argument. Those mediate and reasonable comments are too far and few inbetween -- and that is why IMHO UOCers are not listening to the community's comments here, and vice-versa.

Just my $0.48 (inflation).


Well said, Demnogis.

Your ending line is awesome.

yellowfin
09-05-2009, 10:17 AM
Here's an interesting and perhaps difficult question for ya, Gene. Which of the following reasons do you think accounts for what percentage of the situation being stacked that way:

A. The elected officials themselves are anti gun

B. They think their constituents are.

Or

C. The party is and they're bullied into it by wanting to suck up to the more powerful people in the party in hopes of promotion or

D. They'd be threatened to have their party funding pulled if they didn't toe the line.

hoffmang
09-05-2009, 10:25 AM
Here's an interesting and perhaps difficult question for ya, Gene. Which of the following reasons do you think accounts for what percentage of the situation being stacked that way:

A. The elected officials themselves are anti gun

B. They think their constituents are.

Or

C. The party is and they're bullied into it by wanting to suck up to the more powerful people in the party in hopes of promotion or

D. They'd be threatened to have their party funding pulled if they didn't toe the line.

No one answers my questions but asks me more...

In CA anti-gun politicians both have a majority of their districts who are anti-gun and being anti-gun is easier in that you look like you're doing something rather than actually doing something to address crime. When's the last time you saw a CA legislature hold a town hall in Hunter's Point?

On a different note, I know I've been explaining how UOC'ers can limit damage to themselves and others while also improving their persuasive powers. However, absent Incorporation UOC is not a good idea. The good news is that the worst case for Incorporation is end of June of 2010 and it may well happen faster. If you don't like it, you have an anonymous 9th Circuit Judge to whine to.

-Gene

yellowfin
09-05-2009, 12:09 PM
Interesting that you mention George Wallace. That particular example may be useful for campus CCW rights soon enough.

dchang0
09-05-2009, 12:43 PM
You contradict yourself in your own statement. Courts can sanction lethal force.

-Gene

Actually, no, Gene, you misread me. I am arguing that the rules of law are merely sugar-coating on top of the true rules of nature: lethal force. To play within the game of law and forget that it is built on top of the threat and use of force is a huge mistake.

Edit: Upon re-reading my previous post, I see how you came to your conclusion that I do not understand that law is built upon force. My apologies. I do fully understand that "all laws are enforced at the point of a sword (or muzzle of a gun)" and failed to make that known. It is this truth that drives my skepticism of the rule of law, because many members of advanced societies place far too much faith in what is merely an artificial game agreed upon in order to avoid playing by the real rules of Nature. Sort of like how sports are used as a proxy for war.

Take the Olympics for instance. It was a way for the Greek city-states to compete against one another, to best one another, without actually turning to bloodshed. Or take football--people all around the world identify themselves heart and soul with teams, looking at them as a way to jostle for social position without actually having to go out and defeat their opponents on the field themselves.

It is far too easy for people to get lost in these games and forget that they are merely replacements for real war. Imagine if we were to start deciding actions between nations using the Olympics: oh, if the USA swimming team beats North Korea's swimming team for the gold, North Korea agrees to surrender unconditionally to the USA.

Sounds silly, doesn't it? North Korea's got it right--they understand the real rules. That's why they're building nukes.

In my previous post, I'm saying that the UOCers understand intuitively that the game of law is just a game. They get the real rules--they're "building nukes" of their own. Get enough of 'em going, and they'd be unstoppable. Chuck Michel could call them wrong for doing so, but in the end, it takes men with guns to enforce the law, and if there are enough UOCers out there, it would simply not be possible to do so.


-----

Ah! I just came up with a good way to get my point across. They say that "the pen is mightier than the sword," which is true in some cases. But, if you brought a pen to a swordfight, the guy with the sword would win. Some guys (lawyers) have gotten so damned good at fighting with pens that they wrongfully disdain and disregard the power of the sword. And that's my point in a nutshell.

dchang0
09-05-2009, 12:45 PM
So, dchangO, basically what you're advocating is we say to hell with the laws and start the revolution today.

Tell us all where to meet up, what's our first target and who's bringing the hand grenades? MRI's ? and the butt plugs for when we all wind up in the can for inciting an insurrection.

Me thinks we have a problem in the making.
Rio

Nice try at slippery slope...

trashman
09-05-2009, 1:02 PM
Maybe it's time to re-evaluate the way the community here is presenting their side of the argument. Those mediate and reasonable comments are too far and few inbetween -- and that is why IMHO UOCers are not listening to the community's comments here, and vice-versa.


So I agree that now the conversation has regressed to the point that everybody's opinions are entrenched behind some hi-emotion shouting. I am certainly guilty of expressing my frustration on the board here.

Problem is, it didn't start that way. Gene was very measured in his request to temporarily stand down on UOC pre-Incorporation some weeks ago. The only thing I've observed is that the folks who insist on UOC-ing ('it's out of the bag, can't put the genie back in the bottle now', etc) have held firm in the face of reasonable requests, and on occasion called non-UOC folks "elitist" and so on. The only consistent thing (with notable exceptions - Nate, Liberty1, etc) has been the UOC folks going "nope, not gonna stop".

I think fundamentally we need to transition this whole conversation to face-to-face discussions that Brandon/Wildhawker has been putting together. It's a lot easier to shout at and taunt your compadres (and I've said it before, we are ALL on the same team) through your keyboard via an stupid anonymous screen name (like say, Trashman) than it is to actually get together and hash out some strategy in person.

--Neill

dchang0
09-05-2009, 1:33 PM
The only consistent thing (with notable exceptions - Nate, Liberty1, etc) has been the UOC folks going "nope, not gonna stop".

I think fundamentally we need to transition this whole conversation to face-to-face discussions that Brandon/Wildhawker has been putting together. It's a lot easier to shout at and taunt your compadres (and I've said it before, we are ALL on the same team) through your keyboard via an stupid anonymous screen name (like say, Trashman) than it is to actually get together and hash out some strategy in person.

--Neill

I don't think the UOCers can be reached with reason. They've turned to the show of force because they feel disenfranchised by the current rules/system/powers-that-be and have essentially stepped off the court, saying "this game is rigged."

Getting them back on board would require showing them that they actually have power within the system, within the rules of the game, and to do so, the legal-types would have to actually produce results right away (or soon, at the most) to earn the UOCer's trust.

hoffmang
09-05-2009, 2:19 PM
There is never enough progress and it's never fast enough is the basic refrain I continue to hear. Unfortunately UOC in certain situations actually frustrates the speed and progress.

-Gene

SgtDinosaur
09-06-2009, 8:59 AM
Interesting. I'm thrilled that we've made any progress at all. For a long time I just seethed about it all. Before I found Calguns I had just about given up hope that there would ever be any progress in this state. Then, lo and behold, I find out about OLL's. Then the Heller decision. Then Nordyke. And it dawns on me that despite the impossibility of changing anything through the legislature, there are some smart lawyers working on changing things through the courts. Brilliant!

I moved to California in 1977 when I got out of the Air Force. I have seen all the BS pile up as our rights were increasingly infringed upon. I have seen the anti-gun radical Democrat stranglehold on our state increase steadily. Now why would I support anyone who risks the amazing changes we're seeing in the courts by tempting the politicians to screw us over again even more? Even though I support their right to do it, I find it somewhat insane. We have never made any political progress in this state that I can remember. What changed?

WeRmany
09-06-2009, 7:26 PM
The UOC movement is really very simple.

Look down at the weapon you are carrying.

It is empty. Thats the law.

Look down at the holster.

It's one law away from being empty.

You want to raise public opinion on guns, take someone shooting.

Theseus
09-06-2009, 9:58 PM
So I agree that now the conversation has regressed to the point that everybody's opinions are entrenched behind some hi-emotion shouting. I am certainly guilty of expressing my frustration on the board here.

Problem is, it didn't start that way. Gene was very measured in his request to temporarily stand down on UOC pre-Incorporation some weeks ago. The only thing I've observed is that the folks who insist on UOC-ing ('it's out of the bag, can't put the genie back in the bottle now', etc) have held firm in the face of reasonable requests, and on occasion called non-UOC folks "elitist" and so on. The only consistent thing (with notable exceptions - Nate, Liberty1, etc) has been the UOC folks going "nope, not gonna stop".

I think fundamentally we need to transition this whole conversation to face-to-face discussions that Brandon/Wildhawker has been putting together. It's a lot easier to shout at and taunt your compadres (and I've said it before, we are ALL on the same team) through your keyboard via an stupid anonymous screen name (like say, Trashman) than it is to actually get together and hash out some strategy in person.

--Neill

I will point out that Gene has been civil in his requests, but just about only Gene.

While Gene asks civilly the rest of the board attacks, belittles and berates the OC'ers to the point that when their respectable leader speaks we are already deaf from the yelling.

trashman
09-06-2009, 11:09 PM
I will point out that Gene has been civil in his requests, but just about only Gene.

While Gene asks civilly the rest of the board attacks, belittles and berates the OC'ers to the point that when their respectable leader speaks we are already deaf from the yelling.

Respectfully, I think this is a bit of an overstatement. There has been plenty of name-calling on both sides, but Gene is far from the only one who's tried to keep the tone civil.

It does worry me that there are a lot of folks who are having trouble telling the difference between a disagreement 'on the facts' and disliking someone personally.

I'll say it again -- I loaded open carry every chance I have. We are all on the same team.

--Neill

Theseus
09-07-2009, 2:38 AM
Respectfully, I think this is a bit of an overstatement. There has been plenty of name-calling on both sides, but Gene is far from the only one who's tried to keep the tone civil.

It does worry me that there are a lot of folks who are having trouble telling the difference between a disagreement 'on the facts' and disliking someone personally.

I'll say it again -- I loaded open carry every chance I have. We are all on the same team.

--Neill

You are right that not everyone berates us. Some simply disagree and leave it at that.

Others, and quite a few, make comments that on the serface don't seem personal, but are.

I have even been told that people wish they hadn't donated to my fund because I am selfish and inconsiderate. . . They have attacked me, and yes, in these very forums.

And you can tell yourself whatever you like, but it seems to me that we are not on the same team. . .If we are, the other team sure wouldn't know it.

wildhawker
09-07-2009, 10:15 AM
We all need thick skin to operate in the RKBA environment, Theseus.

Everyone here takes the actions and consequences of the OC components of California RKBA seriously and personally; those who have expressed concerns about [U]OC may very well believe that their rights will be impacted because of such. Similarly, the open carryers feel the naysayers are seeking to oppress what is currently their right to unloaded open carry (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter). [U]IT IS PERSONAL, by all accounts- why would we expect people with a vested interest in gun ownership/RKBA to take a totally detached view of the issue? Let's not forget the open carry folks who said that those who did not support their efforts were, in their eyes, as bad or worse as the antis. No one here is blameless- let's stop acting like it, can we?

Theseus, the "other team" is laughing their asses off that our guys are giving them plenty to work with in making firearm ownership in CA uncomfortable, at best. If the U/OC folks want to get involved in other components of RKBA activism and outreach, there's plenty of opportunity. So far I see that many (with some exceptions, such as those amazing folks I met with in San Diego) in the [U]OC community are really doing squat for RKBA other than exercizing their pet right with a few groupies.

demnogis
09-07-2009, 10:28 AM
Trashman,
Where can I find the particulars of this event? I'd like to attend (assuming it's within riding distance).

Also, mind if I UOC? Bahahahahahahahahahahaha :D

So I agree that now the conversation has regressed to the point that everybody's opinions are entrenched behind some hi-emotion shouting. I am certainly guilty of expressing my frustration on the board here.

Problem is, it didn't start that way. Gene was very measured in his request to temporarily stand down on UOC pre-Incorporation some weeks ago. The only thing I've observed is that the folks who insist on UOC-ing ('it's out of the bag, can't put the genie back in the bottle now', etc) have held firm in the face of reasonable requests, and on occasion called non-UOC folks "elitist" and so on. The only consistent thing (with notable exceptions - Nate, Liberty1, etc) has been the UOC folks going "nope, not gonna stop".

I think fundamentally we need to transition this whole conversation to face-to-face discussions that Brandon/Wildhawker has been putting together. It's a lot easier to shout at and taunt your compadres (and I've said it before, we are ALL on the same team) through your keyboard via an stupid anonymous screen name (like say, Trashman) than it is to actually get together and hash out some strategy in person.

--Neill

wildhawker
09-07-2009, 10:32 AM
Trashman,
Where can I find the particulars of this event? I'd like to attend (assuming it's within riding distance).

Assuming you are referencing the Calguns Community Chapter events in your area, events will be posted soon.

Also, mind if I UOC? Bahahahahahahahahahahaha :D

Certain events will have an opportunity for attendees to L/U OC.

wash
09-07-2009, 11:10 AM
You are right that not everyone berates us. Some simply disagree and leave it at that.

Others, and quite a few, make comments that on the serface don't seem personal, but are.

I have even been told that people wish they hadn't donated to my fund because I am selfish and inconsiderate. . . They have attacked me, and yes, in these very forums.

And you can tell yourself whatever you like, but it seems to me that we are not on the same team. . .If we are, the other team sure wouldn't know it.
I'm glad I haven't donated to your fund because the idea of a legal fund is to keep you out of trouble but you seem to be looking for more.

If I had donated, I would be pissed off.

But once again, the problem with UOC is not the people who know how to do it right, it's the idiot who sees it on TV and does it 100% wrong.

UOC activism isn't going to get shall issue CCW or LOC any time soon. Incorporation and a pretty straight forward court case can get us shall issue CCW a lot quicker.

If you disagree, tell me how you think UOC activism will get us shall issue CCW within a year.

trashman
09-07-2009, 11:12 AM
And you can tell yourself whatever you like, but it seems to me that we are not on the same team. . .If we are, the other team sure wouldn't know it.

My aim isn't to convince 'the other team' - it's to convince you.

If you can't tell the difference between me and an anti-gunny...well...I dunno what to say except that I regret it.

Guess I'll head out to Chabot with my anti-guns, to go not-shooting with a bunch of other other-team anti-RKBA non-gunnies.:gene:

--Neill

wildhawker
09-07-2009, 11:19 AM
Guess I'll head out to Chabot with my anti-guns, to go not-shooting with a bunch of other other-team anti-RKBA non-gunnies.:gene:

--Neill

Maybe Lindz and I could join you for protests and demonstrations next weekend?

trashman
09-07-2009, 11:23 AM
Maybe Lindz and I could join you for protests and demonstrations next weekend?

Yes, exactly! Together we need to rid the Bay Area of as much ammunition as possible to keep the UOC-ers from....oh wait. For a minute I forgot it was Unloaded OC.

--Neill

ETA: just re-read this and want to make it clear I'm just trying to keep things light...

Theseus
09-07-2009, 12:12 PM
I'm glad I haven't donated to your fund because the idea of a legal fund is to keep you out of trouble but you seem to be looking for more.

If I had donated, I would be pissed off.

But once again, the problem with UOC is not the people who know how to do it right, it's the idiot who sees it on TV and does it 100% wrong.

UOC activism isn't going to get shall issue CCW or LOC any time soon. Incorporation and a pretty straight forward court case can get us shall issue CCW a lot quicker.

If you disagree, tell me how you think UOC activism will get us shall issue CCW within a year.

That just goes to show you don't know what your talking about. What trouble am I looking for?

wash
09-07-2009, 1:02 PM
Arguing for UOC at this time when our best legal minds are telling you to drop it (for now).

That's looking for trouble.

Also, since you still have legal troubles, you should keep your head down.

If I get in legal (gun) trouble, you wouldn't hear a peep from me until it was cleared up.

I have donated to other legal defense funds (child custody) and the involved party has behaved much better. Maybe it's because she really doesn't want to lose her kid (over a first amendment issue).

grammaton76
09-08-2009, 2:24 PM
That just goes to show you don't know what your talking about. What trouble am I looking for?

Plenty of it. Shall we review a posting of yours made elsewhere?

You're basically telling people, even though the judges are effectively saying "reasonably should have known" is irrelevant, that they should go ahead and get arrested and go with a public defender! You're entitled to your own opinion and can certainly express it, but at the same time if you're holding yourself up as some kind of experienced person people should learn from, you're not doing an adequate job of informing people of the risks involved in going your way. I'd have had much less of an issue with it if you'd included a reasonably detailed disclaimer with your post.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=29070&forum_id=12

Don't dig!

For events like this, looking for schools is OK, but for individual carry, informing yourself is ridiculous.

In the areas you commonly travel look for obvious signs of schools sans-OC. Keep them in mind and map them, but otherwise you are good to go. Trying to take all the risk out and inform yourself of all possible schools in any place you might think to happen to maybe go one day under a blue moon is unnecessary, ridiculous and still requires them to prove you knew or reasonable should have known. Trying to inform yourself of all schools makes it easier for them to try and get you on it. You had the school on your computer. . . so you had knowledge. . . guilty!

And I know many talk about costing money on defense, it is my firm belief that we should all go public defender. It costs us almost nothing, and them everything.

Theseus
09-08-2009, 3:09 PM
Plenty of it. Shall we review a posting of yours made elsewhere?

You're basically telling people, even though the judges are effectively saying "reasonably should have known" is irrelevant, that they should go ahead and get arrested and go with a public defender! You're entitled to your own opinion and can certainly express it, but at the same time if you're holding yourself up as some kind of experienced person people should learn from, you're not doing an adequate job of informing people of the risks involved in going your way. I'd have had much less of an issue with it if you'd included a reasonably detailed disclaimer with your post.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=29070&forum_id=12

So because I am not just going quietly in the night I am looking for trouble. . . Interesting.

And it does say it is my opinion!

All comments I make are my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone else.

I have no intent to discourage anyone from open carrying. I am not their keeper and will not pretend to me. If that means I am looking for trouble, then sure. I'll take it.

I guess it isn't enough that I stopped individual OC. . . Now I am personally responsible for all the other individuals out there.

grammaton76
09-08-2009, 3:34 PM
So because I am not just going quietly in the night I am looking for trouble. . . Interesting.

And it does say it is my opinion!

All comments I make are my opinion, as I don't speak for anyone else.

Sure, it's your opinion. However, you're doing nothing to make people aware that this carries an elevated level of risk.

I have no intent to discourage anyone from open carrying. I am not their keeper and will not pretend to me. If that means I am looking for trouble, then sure. I'll take it.

I guess it isn't enough that I stopped individual OC. . . Now I am personally responsible for all the other individuals out there.

You've apparently misread my point.

You're speaking as an experienced, "old hand" type at this. Noobs WILL look up to you. I'm not saying you need to discourage people from open carrying. However, you SHOULD include a warning that following THIS ("don't bother checking too thoroughly") approach does carry a significantly elevated risk.

Now, bear in mind that being somewhat of a mouthpiece DOES give you a certain moral responsibility. There were certain idiots who read the San Diego Reader article, did inadequate research, and started carrying in areas of San Diego which happen to be within 626.9 territory. It's only by the grace of God that none of them got picked up (that we know of, yet), and Nathan's done a good job of tracking down and educating some of those who were public about it on the internet. That was without advocating going on the risky side, even.

artherd
09-08-2009, 3:37 PM
FYI: You still have to pay for a public defender if it's ruled in a hearing that you have the capability to do so.

Theseus
09-08-2009, 4:12 PM
Sure, it's your opinion. However, you're doing nothing to make people aware that this carries an elevated level of risk.



You've apparently misread my point.

You're speaking as an experienced, "old hand" type at this. Noobs WILL look up to you. I'm not saying you need to discourage people from open carrying. However, you SHOULD include a warning that following THIS ("don't bother checking too thoroughly") approach does carry a significantly elevated risk.

Now, bear in mind that being somewhat of a mouthpiece DOES give you a certain moral responsibility. There were certain idiots who read the San Diego Reader article, did inadequate research, and started carrying in areas of San Diego which happen to be within 626.9 territory. It's only by the grace of God that none of them got picked up (that we know of, yet), and Nathan's done a good job of tracking down and educating some of those who were public about it on the internet. That was without advocating going on the risky side, even.

My stance has been consistent. OC is risky behavior and each needs to take the level of risk that they are willing to bear. It is my belief that researching every school in places you don't frequent is more risky than trying to remain somewhat ignorant.

If you research a school then they can gain evidence that you knew the school instead of having the difficulty of having to prove that you reasonably should have known.

If they can prove you knew their job is that much easier and thus your risk is increased. I don't consider making the DA's job easier as being responsible.

Again, I do condone searching for school zones in preparation for events, or in places you frequent, such as your bank, local malls, etc.

As I commonly transport the gun in a locked case and don't remove until in the parking lot I am minimizing the risk to myself by waiting until I am on private property.

Glock22Fan
09-09-2009, 8:52 AM
As I commonly transport the gun in a locked case and don't remove until in the parking lot I am minimizing the risk to myself by waiting until I am on private property.

I thought that your judge ruled that a private parking lot was indeed, as in Overturf, a "public place?"

Theseus
09-09-2009, 11:03 AM
I thought that your judge ruled that a private parking lot was indeed, as in Overturf, a "public place?"

Something similar. Whats the point? Until it becomes case law it isn't illegal.

hoffmang
09-09-2009, 11:25 AM
Something similar. Whats the point? Until it becomes case law it isn't illegal.

It's the law of your case and it's highly suggestive that anyone else in the same spot can get the same ruling.

If you don't appeal it, it might go away...

-Gene

Glock22Fan
09-09-2009, 11:33 AM
Something similar. Whats the point? Until it becomes case law it isn't illegal.

In your case, until you appeal and win, it is the de facto law if not the de jure law. And yet, you propose to keep doing the same thing before you have fought the first case to a conclusion?

Are you trying to fight more than one case on the same grounds at the same time?

To repeat your words, "What's the point?"

Theseus
09-09-2009, 12:27 PM
You all missed the real important point and focused on the other part.

By traveling with the pistol in the locked case I would be avoiding "possession" in a school zone that I might not even know exists. Waiting until I get into a private property parking lot is at least defensible.

As to the other point. . . I have already said I am not open carrying (alone). You need to take that into consideration.

Glock22Fan
09-09-2009, 12:32 PM
You all missed the real important point and focused on the other part.

By traveling with the pistol in the locked case I would be avoiding "possession" in a school zone that I might not even know exists. Waiting until I get into a private property parking lot is at least defensible.

As to the other point. . . I have already said I am not open carrying (alone). You need to take that into consideration.

OK, I take your point. However, and in the light of earlier posts by other people, it did seem as if maybe you were advocating this as a "safe" way to procede for other people. My apologies if I misunderstood this point.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 12:37 PM
OK, I take your point. However, and in the light of earlier posts by other people, it did seem as if maybe you were advocating this as a "safe" way to procede for other people. My apologies if I misunderstood this point.

But you are right. I consider it to be safe. Just because one judge can't understand the law doesn't mean it isn't safe.

For it to be un-safe they will have to convict me and not lose an appeal. I am firm in the belief that the absurdity that the ruling in my case will not stand at appeals level challenge.

The real issue to me is this. . . If I don't appeal it and simply accept a conviction there is nothing to prevent any other DA from doing the exact same thing to anyone else. The person might beat the wrap, might not.

But if I do appeal it and win (which we feel is likely) then it can prevent anyone from trying to use the same flawed argument. We get the affirmed protection of "private property".

grammaton76
09-09-2009, 12:42 PM
The real issue to me is this. . . If I don't appeal it and simply accept a conviction there is nothing to prevent any other DA from doing the exact same thing to anyone else. The person might beat the wrap, might not.

But if I do appeal it and win (which we feel is likely) then it can prevent anyone from trying to use the same flawed argument. We get the affirmed protection of "private property".

Who is "we"? So far, I have yet to hear from anyone with a legal background with any real optimism about how your interpretation of private property will go down. I have however heard plenty of negativity from folks with a legal background.

Publicly accessible is a pretty common concept in CA law, and if the judge were to rule on it it's more likely that he'll rule against your reading than for it. You're far more likely to get affirmed NON protection of publicly accessible private property.

I'd view your parking lot as a gray area, but "dark gray" vs say the front lawn or driveway of a private home. But chances are that your appeal would rule those "lighter-gray" areas as black, along with public-access parking lots.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 1:12 PM
Who is "we"? So far, I have yet to hear from anyone with a legal background with any real optimism about how your interpretation of private property will go down. I have however heard plenty of negativity from folks with a legal background.

Publicly accessible is a pretty common concept in CA law, and if the judge were to rule on it it's more likely that he'll rule against your reading than for it. You're far more likely to get affirmed NON protection of publicly accessible private property.

I'd view your parking lot as a gray area, but "dark gray" vs say the front lawn or driveway of a private home. But chances are that your appeal would rule those "lighter-gray" areas as black, along with public-access parking lots.

Well, if you knew my case as intimately as I do you might feel differently.

And there are only a few lawyers that actually know the specifics in my case.

The "public places" is a widely accepted, but only in terms and places where that wording existed before, such as 12031. 626.9 does not use that language.

"It is a well recognized principle of statutory construction that when the Legislature has carefully employed a term in one place and has excluded it in another, it should not be implied where excluded." Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena (1990) 51 Cal.3d 564, 576.)

Believe me, if I and the legal minds around me were not so optimistic I would not even consider appeal. As of yet I am not completely sure I have made up my mind. I will really have to wait until conviction to make up my mind.

Glock22Fan
09-09-2009, 1:17 PM
But you are right. I consider it to be safe. Just because one judge can't understand the law doesn't mean it isn't safe.

In my view, until that one judge's ruling is overturned, it is unsafe. I'm rooting for you, I really am, but (and admittedly I'm not an insider in your case) I really think that we have ample evidence that ignorant judges make and shape bad law.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 1:17 PM
No one answers my questions but asks me more...

In CA anti-gun politicians both have a majority of their districts who are anti-gun and being anti-gun is easier in that you look like you're doing something rather than actually doing something to address crime. When's the last time you saw a CA legislature hold a town hall in Hunter's Point?

On a different note, I know I've been explaining how UOC'ers can limit damage to themselves and others while also improving their persuasive powers. However, absent Incorporation UOC is not a good idea. The good news is that the worst case for Incorporation is end of June of 2010 and it may well happen faster. If you don't like it, you have an anonymous 9th Circuit Judge to whine to.

-Gene

If my vote counted I vote way before June 2010. And trust me if I knew what judge was stupid enough to ask for the en banc when neither side wanted it I would whine and LOUDLY with a bullhorn in his or her ear :D. I will also say this while I dislike my closest chance for self defense has been taken away from me right now I honor the request to stand down. I even had made the choice to willingly stand down before Gene made the request when Nordyke went in to questionable status.

Yes I know there are those that think UOC is worthless. But for me it is still my best chance to defend myself if I ever have to. I can't run away from a situation if it goes south fast. My cane is close to worthless for self defense which leaves me my gun. Which is unloaded but I can still load it faster than I can get away. If I had a choice I would want to be able to pick between CCW and LOC depending on the situation of the day which I would do.

I will also say that the anti's are getting exactly what they want with the infighting that seems to happen on this forum. They know that if they can cause friction we will be to busy fighting amongst ourselves than to fight them. I have heard both negative and positive comments on open carry in the public here. I think though that if there was a way to help educate the public that open carry isn't going to bring back the wild west then we maybe should work on that in meantime. Also I know there is a lot of education that can go to the various LEOs of this state of what is legal and what is not.

So we can either continue bickering amongst ourselves or try to figure out how to use the downtime to our advantage to help change the tide.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 1:26 PM
The only consistent thing (with notable exceptions - Nate, Liberty1, etc) has been the UOC folks going "nope, not gonna stop".

--Neill

Actually the list of those that willingly stopped UOC even before Gene asked us too is quite a few more than that. As someone else said two more groups have since started to UOC here in San Diego and even one of those two new ones have stood down. The other one refuses and is being very reckless in the process. He has been told by a few of us that have done UOC a lot longer than him or his group that he is not being careful and to actually stop UOC at this time and still seems to want to ignore us. Personally I would love to go put that person in a very long time out but I doubt that would do any good either. I am sure that this comment will be passed to them but right now I do not freaking care.

I get sick and tired of the group that go all of UOC are this way and that way when it is nothing further than the truth. But then again I guess that has also been put in this thread others are not willing to listen to the others side. Then there are ones like me who listening to the others point of view.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 1:32 PM
Yes, exactly! Together we need to rid the Bay Area of as much ammunition as possible to keep the UOC-ers from....oh wait. For a minute I forgot it was Unloaded OC.

--Neill

ETA: just re-read this and want to make it clear I'm just trying to keep things light...

lol although this UOCer has a 1000 rounds of ammo that will be used next week at Front Sight. :D :D :D :62:

trashman
09-09-2009, 2:16 PM
Actually the list of those that willingly stopped UOC even before Gene asked us too is quite a few more than that. As someone else said two more groups have since started to UOC here in San Diego and even one of those two new ones have stood down.

You are of course correct - point taken.

Then there are ones like me who listening to the others point of view.

Again, you are quite correct :)

--Neill

mikehaas
09-09-2009, 6:01 PM
What I find funny is your choice of words stating that one of the foremost leaders in gun rights perspective is not based on sound reasoning.
Please,
Indeed. That was the kind of comment self-proclaimed experts come up with - suggesting those who are PROVEN experts, trained in their field with years of experience, aren't making as much sense as an activist "OCer". Uh-huh.

I am reminded of another "movement" that the originators of were absolutely determinded to move forward against the advice of Michel, Kates, Halbrook, Kopel... remember the Silveira case?

That guy lost his "AW" case in every court it came up in and, against the advice of experts, appealed the loser all the way to SCOTUS. All of those noted attorneys described the case in terms of "disaster" and "catastrophe". Silveira's attorney was an RKBA neophyte (a stubborn, hard-headed one) and this was the team on which all of our Second Amendment rights would depend - for all time.

Except, thank God, SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Every credible 2A atty had agreed the case would have ended the 2A as we know it, such would have been the loss. And once you've lost at SCOTUS, you've lost the ball game.

And these inexperienced, impatient and unqualified "2A experts" damn near killed the thing before Heller could materialize. If SCOTUS had heard Silveira, Heller never could have been possible.

UOCers have done nothing to bring about the major victories that will actually advance CA gun-rights - OLL liberalization, defeating Prop H, Heller, incorporation, etc. But their eagerness to attain relevance, their insistance to grab a spotlight may set us back again, as so many "loose cannons" have before. Somebody remind these people how Prop H should never have appeared on the ballot (except for 2 "I know better" activists who ignored good advice.) The media are chomping at the bit to portray gun owners in a negative light and we have... this kind of irresponsible behavior... going on. It's a freakin' time bomb!

You need surgery, you listen to a doctor. Your computer needs major repairs, you listen to technicians. But gun-rights? Oh, every Tom, Dick & Harry is a genius there - forget the experts we pay to be experts. Forget what those who actually BROUGHT you those major victories say about OCing. Ignore them. Go do what "feels good". That always turns out well, right?

Unfortunate. Sometimes, our own worse enemies are on our own side.

artherd
09-10-2009, 3:50 AM
You need surgery, you listen to a doctor. Your computer needs major repairs, you listen to technicians. But gun-rights? Oh, every Tom, Dick & Harry is a genius there - forget the experts we pay to be experts. Forget what those who actually BROUGHT you those major victories say about OCing. Ignore them. Go do what "feels good". That always turns out well, right?

QFT