PDA

View Full Version : Is Open Carry Hurting or Helping Our Cause?


mhho
09-03-2009, 7:22 PM
Is open carry helping or hurting our cause? Here is an interesting view point and his line of reasoning:

starts at 24:22
http://www.downrange.tv/mp3s/123-mb082609.mp3

or link from
http://www.downrange.tv/radio/123.htm
show #123.

So tell us what you think. Does it hurt? Does it help? Why? What evidence do you offer?

Hunter158
09-03-2009, 7:52 PM
unknown... but:
OpenCarry Party (http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/article_7458254b-2c32-591e-8ef4-57f29cc09ed8.html)

aplinker
09-03-2009, 8:02 PM
How many threads do we really need on this?

Glock22Fan
09-03-2009, 8:05 PM
How many threads do we really need on this?

+ a gazillion

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 8:09 PM
Quite a few less than we have.

Meplat
09-03-2009, 8:46 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?

coolusername2007
09-03-2009, 8:49 PM
Actually, very good commentary and analysis. Thanks for posting this. He hit the nail on the head. I found it reassuring in that he said what I've been saying, its time our guns come out of the closet, out from being hidden away.

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 9:06 PM
Meplat, can we avoid the copy/paste arguments (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3014659#post3014659)?

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?

wildhawker
09-03-2009, 9:09 PM
We are all reassured when someone agrees with us. Men, in particular, go to great lengths to seek out approval, affirmation and affection- quite often this does nothing to further justice or the truth.

Who do we seek counsel with when we have a fight with a spouse/significant other- our friends, or theirs?

Actually, very good commentary and analysis. Thanks for posting this. He hit the nail on the head. I found it reassuring in that he said what I've been saying, its time our guns come out of the closet, out from being hidden away.

coolusername2007
09-03-2009, 9:53 PM
We are all reassured when someone agrees with us. Men, in particular, go to great lengths to seek out approval, affirmation and affection- quite often this does nothing to further justice or the truth.

Who do we seek counsel with when we have a fight with a spouse/significant other- our friends, or theirs?

Which is why, to some degree (some more than others) everybody is on this forum to begin with, including you. Open carry of whatever type or form of your preferred manner of self defense is innate and integral to the first law of nature. To suppress it is futile. You might succeed in suppressing it for awhile, but not forever.

Oh, and I don't seek counsel from friends about my wife, I seek counsel from my mentor and my Lord and Savior, as well as my wife.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-04-2009, 2:44 PM
How many threads do we really need on this?



Apparently just one more, since the link is new. To me at least.

And yes, I agree with the DJ completely.

The Raisuli

wildhawker
09-04-2009, 3:09 PM
Cool, what did God tell you about UOC?

eltee
09-04-2009, 3:58 PM
Didn't it backfire a little when the Black Panthers open carried loaded around the State Capitol, etc. back in the day, but in a manner totally legal at the time based on the letter of the law? IIRC, that caused the lawmakers to enact more restrictive laws.

Don't get me wrong. I believe anyone who wants to should have the legal right to UOC, but I see the media and politicians twisting this like they do everything else to make law abiding, pro-2A folks look like extremists. Are we offering too many photo ops for the anti's to manipulate? Or, is that offset by the amount of public information and awareness that UOC generates?

demnogis
09-04-2009, 4:04 PM
This discussion (and the OVER 9000!!! others) could be continued in this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=218743) where we have meaningful discussion about it.

CHS
09-04-2009, 5:27 PM
So, if I FIND a hi-cap mag in the desert, I can keep it right?

Can I then "rebuild/repair" it into a 30rd magpul PMAG?

Meplat
09-04-2009, 11:49 PM
Meplat, can we avoid the copy/paste arguments (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3014659#post3014659)?

Is there a rule?

pullnshoot25
09-05-2009, 7:54 AM
Is there a rule?

Prolly not, but it is nice to have fresh info.

motorhead
09-05-2009, 7:55 AM
new today (to me anyway)
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2009/09/cruisin_escondido_with_unloade.html

coolusername2007
09-05-2009, 4:40 PM
Cool, what did God tell you about UOC?

Don't leave home without it. Err, uh maybe that was my AMEX card. :rolleyes: Whatever, I'll just take them both. :D

coolusername2007
09-05-2009, 4:59 PM
Didn't it backfire a little when the Black Panthers open carried loaded around the State Capitol, etc. back in the day, but in a manner totally legal at the time based on the letter of the law? IIRC, that caused the lawmakers to enact more restrictive laws.

Don't get me wrong. I believe anyone who wants to should have the legal right to UOC, but I see the media and politicians twisting this like they do everything else to make law abiding, pro-2A folks look like extremists. Are we offering too many photo ops for the anti's to manipulate? Or, is that offset by the amount of public information and awareness that UOC generates?

Nope, they carried unloaded. At least according to this site. But that didn't stop the politicians from passing a racially motivated law. And while I'm too young to know for sure, something tells me nobody came to their aid. The fear mongers will attempt to paint you however they want. You cannot control that. You just have to be articulate, educated about the issue, stand firm in your principles, and defend your position with facts.
1967 The legislature was in session, debating a gun control bill, when two dozen armed members of the Black Panthers marched into the Assembly chamber. Then Assembly Chief Sergeant-at-Arms ordered the protesters out while terrified legislators hid behind their desks. The protesters, whose guns where not loaded, complied by leaving the building. Although they were not breaking any laws at the time, the next day legislation was introduced to make it illegal to bring weapons or firearms into the State Capitol.
http://www2.senate.ca.gov/portal/site/SENSergeant/SENSergeantNavHistory

wildhawker
09-05-2009, 5:02 PM
Cool, who do you believe will come to our aide if similarly prejudicial anti-class laws are passed?

artherd
09-05-2009, 5:23 PM
Nope, they carried unloaded. At least according to this site. But that didn't stop the politicians from passing a racially motivated law. And while I'm too young to know for sure, something tells me nobody came to their aid. The fear mongers will attempt to paint you however they want. You cannot control that. You just have to be articulate, educated about the issue, stand firm in your principles, and defend your position with facts.


No one came to their aid. Instead we got a statewide ban on LOC in urban areas, and PC12031(e) which is possibly the worst anti-gun law on the books.

But don't worry, nobody hates old white people with guns...

coolusername2007
09-05-2009, 5:37 PM
Cool, who do you believe will come to our aide if similarly prejudicial anti-class laws are passed?

Wildhawker, at some point the Pro-2A crowd is going to have to come to its own defense. If we cannot count on each other, then we're doomed to lose all our RKBA rights in this state. At some point, the Pro-2A crowd is going to have to say "even though I don't want to OC, I will defend those who do", just as much as the OC crowd is saying "we will defend the CCW crowd, even though we prefer OC."

“Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.” --Patrick Henry

coolusername2007
09-05-2009, 5:40 PM
No one came to their aid. Instead we got a statewide ban on LOC in urban areas, and PC12031(e) which is possibly the worst anti-gun law on the books.

But don't worry, nobody hates old white people with guns...

And let that be a lesson to us!

tombinghamthegreat
09-05-2009, 5:41 PM
I think it is helping but more needs to be done. I would hope that in the future there could be more support for OC like there is for OLLs

hoffmang
09-05-2009, 5:47 PM
At some point, the Pro-2A crowd is going to have to say "even though I don't want to OC, I will defend those who do", just as much as the OC crowd is saying "we will defend the CCW crowd, even though we prefer OC."

If you want to OC in WA or AZ, I'll back you up. If you wanted to LOC in California where it's legal, I'll back you up. If you want to UOC in urban California before incorporation (and somewhat before Sykes/Palmer is pretty far along) then you're just being impatient for no good reason.

Quote as many platitudes as you want, but those quotes will not be comforting when you can't drive an SUV to the range with loaded magazines.

-Gene

coolusername2007
09-05-2009, 7:01 PM
If you want to OC in WA or AZ, I'll back you up. If you wanted to LOC in California where it's legal, I'll back you up. If you want to UOC in urban California before incorporation (and somewhat before Sykes/Palmer is pretty far along) then you're just being impatient for no good reason.

Quote as many platitudes as you want, but those quotes will not be comforting when you can't drive an SUV to the range with loaded magazines.

-Gene

Yes Gene, everyone knows you are ensconced in your anti-UOC position before incorporation. It still doesn't make any sense why you will support LOC where it's legal, but you won't support UOC where it's legal. I am not trying to convince you of anything, but taking the sky is falling position does little to advance your position, and UOC is making very real progress in the court of public opinion and law enforcement.

So just to be clear, because your markers have moved more than once already, is it your intention to fully support UOC once Nordyke is incorporated for the second time? Or are you just going to move the markers again for Sykes/Palmer?

wildhawker
09-05-2009, 7:28 PM
Please provide citations for the stated "very real progress". If we're going to continue arguing, we might as well make facts a prerequisite to further discussion and debate. Your [continued] baseless assertions and outright dismissal of Gene's argument does little to advance your position.

BTW, you may want to make sure you understand what is being incorporated against the states.

Yes Gene, everyone knows you are ensconced in your anti-UOC position before incorporation. It still doesn't make any sense why you will support LOC where it's legal, but you won't support UOC where it's legal. I am not trying to convince you of anything, but taking the sky is falling position does little to advance your position, and UOC is making very real progress in the court of public opinion and law enforcement.

So just to be clear, because your markers have moved more than once already, is it your intention to fully support UOC once Nordyke is incorporated for the second time? Or are you just going to move the markers again for Sykes/Palmer?

hoffmang
09-05-2009, 7:38 PM
It still doesn't make any sense why you will support LOC where it's legal, but you won't support UOC where it's legal.
I'll assume you're new here.

In areas where you can legally LOC:
1. You are unlikely to be felony stopped for carrying. See BART accidental shooting for why I worry.
2. Locals will not call their CA Legislator or County/Municipal Rep to have the practice banned.
3. Your local sheriff will not send his lobbyist to Sacramento to stop the practice.
4. Your practice is unlikely to harm the gun rights of 38 million other Californians.

So just to be clear, because your markers have moved more than once already, is it your intention to fully support UOC once Nordyke is incorporated for the second time? Or are you just going to move the markers again for Sykes/Palmer?
I have never moved the marker and I assume again you are new here. I've asked people to do three and only three things.

1. Before Nordyke was decided and while a previous legislative session was still in, I asked everyone to stand down until the end of session.
2. Once session was over, I asked people to limit to groups of 3+ (safety in numbers.)
3. After Nordyke went en-banc I asked for folks to stand back down until incorporation returns which will be no later than 6/30/10.

Now, let me tell you the specific things UOC has done to hurt gun rights in California so far.

1. A politically motivated judge and DA may end up making it impossible for a business owner to have a firearm in a school zone. Please read up on Theseus' arrest and prosecution where not even being unaware he was in a school zone is keeping him from a likely conviction and a loss of his gun rights.

2. The GFSZ will be expanded from 1000' to 1500' and may end up being detrimental to anyone who wants to go to the range and doesn't have a trunk. Some UOC'ers have independently confirmed that this bill was a direct outcome of UOC.

3. Municipalities that aren't even really anti-gun are passing Alameda style bans on possession of firearms in public to respond to UOC.

I'll ask a question I've asked before. If you can't convince a bunch of gun loving, self defense loving gunnies that UOC in urban areas is a good idea at this time, how do you think you'll convince anyone in the broad political middle or who is mildly anti-gun?

Facts, not platitudes please.

-Gene

CHS
09-05-2009, 7:44 PM
I'll ask a question I've asked before. If you can't convince a bunch of gun loving, self defense loving gunnies that UOC in urban areas is a good idea at this time, how do you think you'll convince anyone in the broad political middle or who is mildly anti-gun?

Facts, not platitudes please.

-Gene

I just wanted to quote this so that it was displayed twice.

Effing truth.

Theseus
09-05-2009, 8:08 PM
Now, let me tell you the specific things UOC has done to hurt gun rights in California so far.

1. A politically motivated judge and DA may end up making it impossible for a business owner to have a firearm in a school zone. Please read up on Theseus' arrest and prosecution where not even being unaware he was in a school zone is keeping him from a likely conviction and a loss of his gun rights.

I'll ask a question I've asked before. If you can't convince a bunch of gun loving, self defense loving gunnies that UOC in urban areas is a good idea at this time, how do you think you'll convince anyone in the broad political middle or who is mildly anti-gun?
-Gene

Well, first this is not correct. I was never arrested and even if I lose my case on appeal and it becomes case law it will not affect business owners ability to have a firearm in a school zone.

The only thing my case would effect is the parking lot of a business in a school zone. It is such a ridiculous stretch of Tapia that it means that even in a private property parking lot that should be wholly exempt from 626.9 instead I might have to park one space over outside the 1000' zone.

The fact is that the very ruling makes the law even more arbitrary and aggravated than the clear meaning.

I dislike anyone trying to use my situation as ammunition to stop people from open carrying. . . Carry all ye whom are willing. Don't fear for me. Once my case is won we will all be vindicated.

As for not convincing you people. . . You have something to lose. Something precious and a large part of your life. Just about anyone would be willing to fight against anyone they think might harm that, even other gun supporters. There are many anti's to be sure, but there are many more that are simply ignorant of guns, law, and how the two of them work together.

People are changing their minds. We may not win all of them, but it might be easier to convince them than you.

CitaDeL
09-05-2009, 8:15 PM
If you can't convince a bunch of gun loving, self defense loving gunnies that UOC in urban areas is a good idea at this time, how do you think you'll convince anyone in the broad political middle or who is mildly anti-gun?

Facts, not platitudes please.

-Gene

Its possible that one cannot convince a bunch of gun-loving, self-defense loving gunnies of anything if they fail to recognize their own biases- while at the same time, those in the broad political middle might find that gun ownership isnt as creepy, mysterious, or criminal when they encounter someone who openly carries a gun demonstrating calm, rational behavior.

Liberty1
09-05-2009, 8:32 PM
Its possible that one cannot convince a bunch of gun-loving, self-defense loving gunnies of anything if they fail to recognize their own biases- while at the same time, those in the broad political middle might find that gun ownership isnt as creepy, mysterious, or criminal when they encounter someone who openly carries a gun demonstrating calm, rational behavior.

But it's not the gunnies or the broad political middle that write legislation or case law opinions. We really need to be operating (OCing) from a position of strength (court protected Right) like they had in Ohio AFTER their Supreme Court decision.

I see OCers at this time as Cavalry or Skirmishers. They can move forward rapidly but can't take and hold ground without guns and infantry (court precedence) also advancing.

(and you know me, I love OC)

hoffmang
09-05-2009, 8:36 PM
As for not convincing you people. . . You have something to lose. Something precious and a large part of your life.
My ability to go to the range with loaded magazines? I'll be charitable and not point out to you that it's arguable I shouldn't care as I can get a carry permit the old fashioned corrupt way. I don't enjoy taking time from my career and my family to fight for broad based gun rights to have people tell me that it's really about me. I'd be happy to send you my bill and retire. My market rate is $600 an hour and this post costs $50.

People are changing their minds. We may not win all of them, but it might be easier to convince them than you.
So that's why their calling their representatives and asking for the practice to be banned?

-Gene

Liberty1
09-05-2009, 9:02 PM
...if I lose my case on appeal and it becomes case law it will not affect business owners ability to have a firearm in a school zone.

It will if they can't cross their own parking lots with that firearm to get it inside that business.

I dislike anyone trying to use my situation as ammunition to stop people from open carrying.

But it is cases like yours which allows us to view the current battlefield and assess it's risks in order to make tactical decisions and recommendations on activities. You are right that you committed no crime. But without a clear Right in our pocket proving our point is difficult right now in criminal court.

And as long as your case exists we do not need and certainly don't want another so advising people to avoid an activity which got you there is not unwise. And with more people in the SD area who are not our core people OCing I expect someone to eventually run afoul of 626.9 soon. Even our regulars have to be very careful.

I know of one recent case in SD of 626.9 but it was dealing with an occasional target shooter who had an unloaded firearm in an UNlocked case in a vehicle. I'm assuming he is now a felon.

Theseus
09-05-2009, 9:29 PM
My ability to go to the range with loaded magazines? I'll be charitable and not point out to you that it's arguable I shouldn't care as I can get a carry permit the old fashioned corrupt way. I don't enjoy taking time from my career and my family to fight for broad based gun rights to have people tell me that it's really about me. I'd be happy to send you my bill and retire. My market rate is $600 an hour and this post costs $50.


So that's why their calling their representatives and asking for the practice to be banned?

-Gene

You was meant as a more general term. . . I wasn't intending to attack you personally any more than you were me.

My case is focusing on the fact that it was not in a locked case. I would have been ok had I taken it into the laundry mat in the locked case. . . This will not change.

wildhawker
09-05-2009, 10:11 PM
626.9 has (is?), as I've recently been made aware, been violated by an OC group in Southern CA that refuses to heed the warnings of those educated OCers and the general RKBA community.

None of this ends well.

coolusername2007
09-05-2009, 11:47 PM
I have never moved the marker and I assume again you are new here. I've asked people to do three and only three things.

1. Before Nordyke was decided and while a previous legislative session was still in, I asked everyone to stand down until the end of session.
2. Once session was over, I asked people to limit to groups of 3+ (safety in numbers.)
3. After Nordyke went en-banc I asked for folks to stand back down until incorporation returns which will be no later than 6/30/10.

You made many statements that I will be responding to in due time. But first let me readdress my question, which was not answered in your responding post to me. Is it your intention to fully support UOC once Nordyke is incorporated for the second time?

hoffmang
09-05-2009, 11:54 PM
Is it your intention to fully support UOC once Nordyke is incorporated for the second time?

CGF will not defend it necessarily. Group UOC with full diligence to avoid school zones I will not oppose. Unitary UOC in a urban areas I will not support fully yet simply because it doesn't create witnesses and video/audio.

Post incorporation, UOC is very different. However, there is something you don't yet understand about the Penal Code and I can't just spell it out for you.

-Gene

coolusername2007
09-06-2009, 10:05 PM
CGF will not defend it necessarily. Group UOC with full diligence to avoid school zones I will not oppose. Unitary UOC in a urban areas I will not support fully yet simply because it doesn't create witnesses and video/audio.

Post incorporation, UOC is very different. However, there is something you don't yet understand about the Penal Code and I can't just spell it out for you.

-Gene

Thank you for your clarification. It is good to know you are not opposing organized group UOC events. While I was preparing my detailed response to your message, I ended up deciding its better to focus on ground where we agree rather than doing the useless tit-for-tat debate.

So to that end, I would like to invite all forum posters and readers here to our group UOC events. You'll find the details to these events at opencarry.org. Hope to see you there.

hoffmang
09-06-2009, 10:07 PM
So to that end, I would like to invite all forum posters and readers here to our group UOC events. You'll find the details to these events at opencarry.org. Hope to see you there.

Incorporation first please.

-Gene

Sons of Liberty
09-06-2009, 10:20 PM
SNIP
So that's why their calling their representatives and asking for the practice to be banned?

-Gene

I sure hope the "they" are not those who are vocal anti-UOC on this board. That would be sad.

artherd
09-06-2009, 11:04 PM
And let that be a lesson to us!

And that lesson is - waving guns around does NOT swing moderates!

Truism that will not change anytime soon: Moderates control this state.

artherd
09-06-2009, 11:08 PM
...UOC is making very real progress in the court of public opinion and law enforcement.

Cite facts? UOC is about to get banned by the leg. (http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20090AB66897AMD)

artherd
09-06-2009, 11:17 PM
So to that end, I would like to invite all forum posters and readers here to our group UOC events. You'll find the details to these events at opencarry.org. Hope to see you there.


In UOC, we may be occasionally not catastrophically loosing local PR battles in conservative San Diego. We WILL loose the war, and indeed are (see above links to the Legislature's actions).

After Incorporation, the battlefield changes enough that we afford to loose the PR war.

At that point, I will join you in UOC with my CCW denial letter printed on my shirt.

hoffmang
09-07-2009, 12:04 AM
I sure hope the "they" are not those who are vocal anti-UOC on this board. That would be sad.

You're argument doesn't come from a position of strength when you accuse your supporters of treason.

-Gene

nicki
09-07-2009, 12:25 AM
I have several issues with UOC.

1. The sensitive zone or more specifically the school zone issue. Until we get a clarification and reasonable restrictions on "Sensitive Zones", it is a minefield for anyone who actually does open carry.

2. We don't have incorporation yet, once we have incorporation, the courts will probably settle many issues fairly quickly.

3. There is a well preparred CCW lawsuit already in the system, we will have shall issue, it is only a matter of a SHORT TIME.

4. With practice, someone could draw and load their gun within 2 seconds doing UOC. If you can't do that or better, having a non functional gun in a hostile situtation could get you killed.

We all have to make choices, I'll wait till we have shall issue CCW.

Nicki

Theseus
09-07-2009, 1:27 AM
Incorporation first please.

-Gene

This part I must have missed. . . I knew you didn't want individual UOC until we get incorporation back, but I don't recall seing anywhere you asking GROUPS to not meet.

I was under the impression that you were ok with groups. The fact that you are not now changes much in my opinion.

Gray Peterson
09-07-2009, 2:05 AM
As someone who laid the legal groundwork for open carry in Washington State and Oregon, and did a lot of the yeoman's work in terms of getting the police agencies on the ball on the issue in the last three years up here, my observation about UOC in California is that it's detrimental to the cause of gun rights in general.

In Washington and Oregon, we have RKBA clauses in our state constitution. Washington has been shall-issue with no training required for concealed pistol licenses since 1961. Oregon has been shall-issue for 20 years for residents, and may-issue (but shall-issue in practice for certain counties) for contigious state residents since 1993. Both states have had a good gun culture which crosses the party lines for generations.

California has NONE of these. No state RKBA provision, a very hostile Legislature which has shown time and again their contempt for gun owners for the last 3-4 decades. LCAV is based in San Francisco. Decades of destroying the state's gun culture, which must essentially be rehabbed nearly from scratch once we get incorporation and carry back into the mix here.

Speaking as one of the founding members of the open carry movement in the Cascades (WA and OR) region, I have become more concerned with the infiltration of these johnny-come-lately types who are part of the OC movement:

hrB2NmhNDSM

You'll notice the person carrying the Arizona Flag is William Kostric, the same open carrier who was in Portsmouth, New Hampshire outside of the Presidential town hall. He is being really chummy with the National Alliance/Neo-Nazi skinheads there. Open carriers are being portrayed in the Los Angeles and San Francisco media as allied with such groups. Right or wrong, true or not, this is currently the perception.

As a result of this recent activity, along with overhearing a comment that "I must be one of those knuckle-dragging *******s who would like to take a shot at the President" (despite myself being a supporter of reform, I made that clear to the people making the statement, but they did not care. I was already tainted in their eyes by Chris B. and William Kostric's actions thousands of miles away), I have significantly curtailed my open carry activities. I still do OC, but in much more limited circumstances. If that makes me wuss, a coward, or whatever, I'll take the shots on that one. I've paid my dues, did my work, and I hope that my grown up "children" in the OC movement up here continue to do good work.

I would have never done the kind of education campaign I did in Washington and Oregon in California. Period. I would have focused on the OLL's, the NeRF's (aborted for Pena), and laying the groundwork for the upcoming Parker case to have effect in California, exactly what Calguns and CGF have done in the last 3 years. They have not steered California gunnies wrong at all in the last 3 to 4 years, and I fully expect that they will be able to get shall-issue via court ruling in California within a year, and within 2 years throughout the whole 9th Circuit.

Continued UOC'ing activity will result in a situation where LUCC will be banned within 1500 feet of schools outside of being inside of home or vehicle. No one will be able to come home with their guns if they have an apartment within 1500 feet of a school. No more transport on public transit. You're just totally screwed unless you happened to be affluent enough to have those personal circumstances that would allow you to do LUCC if AB668 as currently written passes.

Maybe it's just me, but seeing someone (a UOC'er) poking a tiger (an anti-gun California Legislature) in the face and that someone not expecting to be mauled by the tiger who they're poking in the face is the height of the kinds of stupid we see in TV shows such as Jackass.

Seriously, UOC'ers need to stop being so self important and realize that actions have consequences. AB668 is purely the fault of UOC'ers who wouldn't listen to the people who know the Legislature the best, and now, said people have to fight this in the Legislature and possibly lose, and if they lose, the same set of people will throw rocks at the people who were fighting it in the trenches in Sacramento that "they didn't do enough".

/rant off

hoffmang
09-07-2009, 9:11 AM
This part I must have missed. . . I knew you didn't want individual UOC until we get incorporation back, but I don't recall seing anywhere you asking GROUPS to not meet.

When Nordyke went en banc I mentioned that folks should wait for Incorporation to return. As of today there is no Right to Keep and Bear Arms in California until either Nordyke returns a pro-incorporation decision or NRA/McDonald are decided in late June of 2010.

Being able to have a gun in public is a privilege revokeable at the will of the Legislature or local government right now.

-Gene

Sons of Liberty
09-07-2009, 9:24 AM
SNIP Seriously, UOC'ers need to stop being so self important and realize that actions have consequences. AB668 is purely the fault of UOC'ers who wouldn't listen to the people who know the Legislature the best, and now, said people have to fight this in the Legislature and possibly lose, and if they lose, the same set of people will throw rocks at the people who were fighting it in the trenches in Sacramento that "they didn't do enough".

/rant off

You know, I can't let this comment go unchallenged. "...purely the fault..." ???

I think your ranting is trying to kill two birds with one stone: 1) Need to find a scapegoat for AB668 and 2) further discredit UOC with the one BIG lie.

"...purely the fault..."

Please, I hope people aren't believing this.

Edit: Forgot the contraction.

Sons of Liberty
09-07-2009, 9:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty
I sure hope the "they" are not those who are vocal anti-UOC on this board. That would be sad.

You're argument doesn't come from a position of strength when you accuse your supporters of treason.

-Gene

There is no accusation here. If it were an accusation, I would come with one. My original statement is because of doubt due to the tone of some on this board. I hope no one on this board is making things more difficult for UOC by complaining to their legislature. I agree with you...it would be treason!

demnogis
09-07-2009, 9:42 AM
I understand what Gene is saying here. LOC on BLM land in unincorporated territory, LOC in national forest territory are OK. I also take this to mean that should there be an unlawful arrest for doing so, they're ready to provide some sort of legal aid in the event it is sought out... But UOC without incorporation (meaning there is no real right to keep or bear) in urban areas is too iffy.

Is that about right?

If you want to OC in WA or AZ, I'll back you up. If you wanted to LOC in California where it's legal, I'll back you up. If you want to UOC in urban California before incorporation (and somewhat before Sykes/Palmer is pretty far along) then you're just being impatient for no good reason.

Quote as many platitudes as you want, but those quotes will not be comforting when you can't drive an SUV to the range with loaded magazines.

-Gene

demnogis
09-07-2009, 9:46 AM
Gray, you must not have read the wording of AB668. You have overlooked the fact that the bill looks to prevent all methods of carry not proscribed by permit. LUCCW, which is the preferred method of carry by most here at CGN without a permit, is eliminated and made illegal (since you are not transporting it in your vehicle, locked, unloaded and concealed).

I don't understand how people wish to push that the legislation's prime motivator is UOC. Obviously they have resources that scour communities who find a loophole to do what they want without recourse. UOC or LUCCW, the legislature wants to make it so you can't carry without the fabled permit.

...
Seriously, UOC'ers need to stop being so self important and realize that actions have consequences. AB668 is purely the fault of UOC'ers who wouldn't listen to the people who know the Legislature the best, and now, said people have to fight this in the Legislature and possibly lose, and if they lose, the same set of people will throw rocks at the people who were fighting it in the trenches in Sacramento that "they didn't do enough".

/rant off

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 10:26 AM
Seriously, UOC'ers need to stop being so self important and realize that actions have consequences. AB668 is purely the fault of UOC'ers who wouldn't listen to the people who know the Legislature the best, and now, said people have to fight this in the Legislature and possibly lose, and if they lose, the same set of people will throw rocks at the people who were fighting it in the trenches in Sacramento that "they didn't do enough".

I too take issue with this statement. There isn't any proof that UOC'ers caused AB668 in the first place, nevermind the "pure fault of". That's just ridiculous fear mongering. I've seen messages posted here with "read between the lines" proof, but I haven't seen anything affirmative. This is how our extreme leftist legislature operates. First they extend the zone to 1500' for drugs. Then they argue the same for guns, after all we all know they believe guns are far more dangerous than drugs. So they sell their position to the uninformed masses who couldn't care less because their too busy watcing crap like John and Kate or American Idol.

Now for the "Johnny come lately" comments. Knock it off. Blaming the JCL crowd for whatever transgressions you prefer is analogous to blaming the old timers for the position we find ourselves in!

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 10:36 AM
Incorporation first please.

-Gene

OK, so you aren't opposed to group UOC, but you still say wait. Hmmm, not opposed but still saying don't. You wouldn't be playing games with me would you?

There is no reason why you can't still attend and show support without UOC'ing. Is helping to pass out brochures a bad thing? Or is that off limits too? And you can still wear your denied CCW shirts.

hoffmang
09-07-2009, 10:45 AM
OK, so you aren't opposed to group UOC, but you still say wait. Hmmm, not opposed but still saying don't. You wouldn't be playing games with me would you?


Your lack of competence is astonishing.

After the Nordyke ruling I had said that, though I don't think it's a good idea yet, I wasn't opposed to group UOC. When Nordyke went en banc (and therefor the decision was pulled) I said people should stand down.

You do realize you sound uneducated in your attempt to discredit me, right?

-Gene

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 10:46 AM
Cite facts? UOC is about to get banned by the leg. (http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20090AB66897AMD)

OK. How about Moms with children...NOT running for their lives at the site of my handgun. And LEO's NOT showing up to our group events even though they know we are there. And meeting more people who are in favor of our efforts and want to join, rather than running for their lives while screaming like school girls. And still being served by business' instead of being attacked or having 911 called on us. And maybe the security guard who didn't attack me, or call 911, or even draw his weapon on me when I entered the bank he's hired to protect. Or is any of this not fact?

Yes California is indeed moderate. But the state legislature is far from it. Political hay needs to be made, silence and inaction won't get you anywhere. Yes, fight the legal battles, but you don't have to do it quietly.

hoffmang
09-07-2009, 10:49 AM
OK. How about Moms with children...NOT running for their lives at the site of my handgun. And LEO's NOT showing up to our group events even though they know we are there.

You fail to point out that you live in an area that has a whopping population of 102,604...

-Gene

hoffmang
09-07-2009, 10:50 AM
son why you can't still attend and show support without UOC'ing. Is helping to pass out brochures a bad thing? Or is that off limits too? And you can still wear your denied CCW shirts.

Absent Incorporation UOC in urban areas of California is a bad idea. After Incorporation, the game changes. I don't tend to support behavior that I don't think is constructive yet.

-Gene

wildhawker
09-07-2009, 10:56 AM
Gene, 'sound' is really quite generous.

Cool, I'm amused that you find the common Californian so "uninformed" yet somehow think the negative press/coverage will be viewed in a positive light for gun owners by those catching news teasers between John and Kate and American Idol.

hoffmang
09-07-2009, 10:56 AM
I don't understand how people wish to push that the legislation's prime motivator is UOC. Obviously they have resources that scour communities who find a loophole to do what they want without recourse. UOC or LUCCW, the legislature wants to make it so you can't carry without the fabled permit.

A UOC group called the author's office and without telling the leg aide anything about why they were calling asked for status. The first question asked was "are you one of those unloaded open carriers?"

Now why is it that the first word out of the legislative aid's mouth was about UOC?

I'd prefer two things not to happen. I'd prefer that the open carry of firearms without a permit not be ended by legislation that we may not be able to beat. I'd also really prefer that the UOC movement not push local governments and the state to make gun ownership harder for all gun owners.

Some UOCers seem to want nothing than what they want right now and damn the consequences. It's telling that you're attacking the guy who was the chief driver behind open carry in Washington State.

It's become clear that losing cases, losing individual gun rights, and helping anti-gunners pass bad laws are not the type of facts some of you want to hear. You aren't part of the team - you're fast becoming part of the problem facing gun rights in this state.

-Gene

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 10:57 AM
Your lack of competence is astonishing.

After the Nordyke ruling I had said that, though I don't think it's a good idea yet, I wasn't opposed to group UOC. When Nordyke went en banc (and therefor the decision was pulled) I said people should stand down.

You do realize you sound uneducated in your attempt to discredit me, right?

-Gene

I am not trying to discredit you, nor am I lacking any competence, nor am I uneducated. But thanks for the personal attacks. And no you did not say this after Nordyke you said this yesterday. I am only attempting to get you to clarify your position, which according to my research shows your position to be one of continually moving the marker. Or maybe more accurate to say more markers are erected when the previous ones are reached. And I assure you I am well aware of your opposition to legal UOC, regardless of your politically circular rhetoric.

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 11:05 AM
Gene, 'sound' is really quite generous.

Cool, I'm amused that you find the common Californian so "uninformed" yet somehow think the negative press/coverage will be viewed in a positive light for gun owners by those catching news teasers between John and Kate and American Idol.

OK you got me. I'll clarify my statement, "uninformed" with respect to gun rights (or lack thereof), gun safety statistics, the true meaning of 2A, and so on. Or is this disagreeable too?

ETA: Again, go ahead and attack me, but you cannot argue the facts pertaining to our legislature's MO!

wash
09-07-2009, 11:45 AM
YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!

That's what you sound like.

You should listen to Gene and stop eating the paint off the walls.

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 12:11 PM
A UOC group called the author's office and without telling the leg aide anything about why they were calling asked for status. The first question asked was "are you one of those unloaded open carriers?"

Now why is it that the first word out of the legislative aid's mouth was about UOC?

Who knows? It could be for any number of reasons. Did they follow up with "Why do you ask?"

I'd prefer two things not to happen. I'd prefer that the open carry of firearms without a permit not be ended by legislation that we may not be able to beat. I'd also really prefer that the UOC movement not push local governments and the state to make gun ownership harder for all gun owners.

It goes without saying that we all want less anti-gun legislation, not more. I'd really prefer to support the CCW effort while having the UOC effort supported simultaneously.

Some UOCers seem to want nothing than what they want right now and damn the consequences. It's telling that you're attacking the guy who was the chief driver behind open carry in Washington State.

Not true. And we're not attacking Gray Peterson, just questioning the 'its UOC's fault' statement.

It's become clear that losing cases, losing individual gun rights, and helping anti-gunners pass bad laws are not the type of facts some of you want to hear. You aren't part of the team - you're fast becoming part of the problem facing gun rights in this state.

You said I am trying to discredit you when actually all I was trying to do was clarify your position so we could find common ground and work together like a team. I thought it was going to be carefully organized group UOC, but it seems I was mistaken.

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 12:18 PM
That's what you sound like.

You should listen to Gene and stop eating the paint off the walls.

Good. That's what it should sound like. Or is individual soverienty and liberty dead here too?

And I promise to stop eating the paint off the walls, when you promise to stop drinking the kool aid. Besides, thanks to my all-seeing, all-knowing, fearless leaders whom I bow to subserviently have made sure my paint is lead-free, biodegradeable, odor-free, and fortified with calcium, so it must be good for me, right?! While yours have made sure your kool aid is sugar free and tastes like my paint. Happy now? :)

dieselcarpenter
09-07-2009, 12:33 PM
The question of wether or not "open carry" is hurting our cause is an interesting one to me.

Is not all our cause on this forum Liberty? Do we all not profess a deep beleif in our own personal freedom and rights as protected in the constitution?

So now we have those few among us who are brave enough to no longer cower under the "they might brand us gun nuts" or "theyll use it against us" argument. And what happens, those here and else where who harbor the same beleifs in freedom and liberty savage and expell those who would exorcise their god given rights in public.

The problem here is this, we the ""gun culture"" have allowed our freedoms to be pushed and condensed so far that we have taken on this ""in the closet"" approach about our freedom. It is to the point that we grow so uncomfortable at the true expression of a leagl right that we revert to a "" theyre hurting our cause, theyre going to make it tougher on us"" reaction.

So now were fighting amongst ourselves. ""A house devided against itself cannot stand"

These open carriers are patriots, those willing to actually put their money where their mouth is. To exorcise their freedom within the bounds of the law of the land. The only people uncomfortable with this should be those of the gun grab and anti freedom crowd. NOT US!!!


We have sat back, for too long and allowed ourselves to become mere cowering shadows of those brave souls that took on the Brittish those many years ago. We speak in low voices, and try to hide our love of freedom out of fear we might be branded some sort of terrorist or criminal.

It is this behavior that has allowed the few yet louder voices then our own to impose these infringments that are in direct vilation of our founding documents.

So no, open carry is not hurting our cause, ours is the cause of all men. The cause of freedom. We should not be ashamed, nor timid in the exorcise thereof.

Give me liberty or give me death!!

:patriot:

wash
09-07-2009, 1:02 PM
Gene is trying to help you.

Can you understand that?

I joined calguns in Aug. 2007, I knew about calguns and had read a little before that. I owned a pistol and knew that UOC was legal since about 2000.

My opinion on UOC has not changed in that time. I never thought UOC in an urban area would be effective for self defense or changing the attitude of the public in regard to guns or CCW.

If anything I am starting to believe that there might be a time when UOC is the right tool for us, but now is not the time.

The only kool-aid I've drank is that I now believe we can win in the courts. In 2007 I doubted that gun laws in the state would ever improve, even the OLL movement was just exploiting the way the AWB was written.

Heller was huge, Nordyke was huge. I was at Santa Clara University when Alan Gura had a talk and I was at the Nordyke celebration with most of the CGF board on 4-20-09, the first day I have ever had a second amendment right.

What have you accomplished so far?

hoffmang
09-07-2009, 1:12 PM
Who knows? It could be for any number of reasons. Did they follow up with "Why do you ask?"

Keep moving the goal posts. GFSZ's are being expanded due to UOC. Thank goodness that's all. It also completely blows that UOC may make it so that you can't take public transit with an unloaded handgun in a locked container. Way to go expanding the civil rights of gunowners...


It goes without saying that we all want less anti-gun legislation, not more. I'd really prefer to support the CCW effort while having the UOC effort supported simultaneously.

Some things are step functions. Please go read 12031 and 12050 and think about what a carry permit really allows. I don't care to spell it completely out, but your showing me you haven't thought about what a shall permit world actually means...


You said I am trying to discredit you when actually all I was trying to do was clarify your position so we could find common ground and work together like a team. I thought it was going to be carefully organized group UOC, but it seems I was mistaken.
Then you are ill informed. It's not like I posted a thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=207777) or anything...

You are so sure that you're right that UOC is a good idea at this time that there is no fact, or advice that will dissuade you. That's an extermist and ill informed manner to go about life.

To the poster saying give me liberty or give me death - ever thought that bull headedness might get you less liberty at the end of the day?

-Gene

Theseus
09-07-2009, 1:57 PM
Then you are ill informed. It's not like I posted a thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=207777) or anything...-Gene

I just re-scanned that thread and still didn't see it specifically asking us not to have events.

hoffmang
09-07-2009, 1:59 PM
I just re-scanned that thread and still didn't see it specifically asking us not to have events.

The title of the thread is "Nordyke impact: Pause UOC"

-Gene

Meplat
09-07-2009, 2:17 PM
Prolly not, but it is nice to have fresh info.

It was fresh info, just posted in two concurrent threads at the same time. It's not my fault that people feel they need to have three or four threads running at exactly the same time on exactly the same subject.

KylaGWolf
09-07-2009, 3:48 PM
As someone who laid the legal groundwork for open carry in Washington State and Oregon, and did a lot of the yeoman's work in terms of getting the police agencies on the ball on the issue in the last three years up here, my observation about UOC in California is that it's detrimental to the cause of gun rights in general.

In Washington and Oregon, we have RKBA clauses in our state constitution. Washington has been shall-issue with no training required for concealed pistol licenses since 1961. Oregon has been shall-issue for 20 years for residents, and may-issue (but shall-issue in practice for certain counties) for contigious state residents since 1993. Both states have had a good gun culture which crosses the party lines for generations.

California has NONE of these. No state RKBA provision, a very hostile Legislature which has shown time and again their contempt for gun owners for the last 3-4 decades. LCAV is based in San Francisco. Decades of destroying the state's gun culture, which must essentially be rehabbed nearly from scratch once we get incorporation and carry back into the mix here.

Speaking as one of the founding members of the open carry movement in the Cascades (WA and OR) region, I have become more concerned with the infiltration of these johnny-come-lately types who are part of the OC movement:

hrB2NmhNDSM

You'll notice the person carrying the Arizona Flag is William Kostric, the same open carrier who was in Portsmouth, New Hampshire outside of the Presidential town hall. He is being really chummy with the National Alliance/Neo-Nazi skinheads there. Open carriers are being portrayed in the Los Angeles and San Francisco media as allied with such groups. Right or wrong, true or not, this is currently the perception.

As a result of this recent activity, along with overhearing a comment that "I must be one of those knuckle-dragging *******s who would like to take a shot at the President" (despite myself being a supporter of reform, I made that clear to the people making the statement, but they did not care. I was already tainted in their eyes by Chris B. and William Kostric's actions thousands of miles away), I have significantly curtailed my open carry activities. I still do OC, but in much more limited circumstances. If that makes me wuss, a coward, or whatever, I'll take the shots on that one. I've paid my dues, did my work, and I hope that my grown up "children" in the OC movement up here continue to do good work.

I would have never done the kind of education campaign I did in Washington and Oregon in California. Period. I would have focused on the OLL's, the NeRF's (aborted for Pena), and laying the groundwork for the upcoming Parker case to have effect in California, exactly what Calguns and CGF have done in the last 3 years. They have not steered California gunnies wrong at all in the last 3 to 4 years, and I fully expect that they will be able to get shall-issue via court ruling in California within a year, and within 2 years throughout the whole 9th Circuit.

Continued UOC'ing activity will result in a situation where LUCC will be banned within 1500 feet of schools outside of being inside of home or vehicle. No one will be able to come home with their guns if they have an apartment within 1500 feet of a school. No more transport on public transit. You're just totally screwed unless you happened to be affluent enough to have those personal circumstances that would allow you to do LUCC if AB668 as currently written passes.

Maybe it's just me, but seeing someone (a UOC'er) poking a tiger (an anti-gun California Legislature) in the face and that someone not expecting to be mauled by the tiger who they're poking in the face is the height of the kinds of stupid we see in TV shows such as Jackass.

Seriously, UOC'ers need to stop being so self important and realize that actions have consequences. AB668 is purely the fault of UOC'ers who wouldn't listen to the people who know the Legislature the best, and now, said people have to fight this in the Legislature and possibly lose, and if they lose, the same set of people will throw rocks at the people who were fighting it in the trenches in Sacramento that "they didn't do enough".

/rant off

they are taking the lock container clause out of AB668 but the expansion of the zone was already in progress before UOC started to get a foot hold in CA. I have to agree with you that ones like that are going to do damage for the rest of us no matter how you look at it. Even if UOC were to stop completely or LOC in your case they would still be out there where they are. I am not sure there is any way to undo the damage that those in that video have done but all we can do is try.

Although I do take offense to your comment about UOC not thinking of the consequences of their actions. I for one DO think of them. Which is why I was always thoughtful as to if I was going to UOC that day or not. If I decided to I made sure I was not in violation of 626.9. Now I may also not be the typical UOCer down here either. I don't do it because I can but it is the best chance of self defense I may have. Being disabled I still stand a better chance of loading my gun if needed than trying to run away. But I also stood down from UOC when asked by Gene. Do I like not being able to OC right now no but I understand as to why we were asked to step down and I agree with the reason. I am just hoping that it won't take as long for them to decide on the fate of Nordyke this time so that the Sykes case can move forward.

wildhawker
09-07-2009, 3:49 PM
Diesel, that was an amazing display of ignorance. Could you at least educate yourself on the issues and arguments for/against before spouting off with nonsense like that?

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 9:06 PM
My opinion on UOC has not changed in that time. I never thought UOC in an urban area would be effective for self defense or changing the attitude of the public in regard to guns or CCW.

And, though I will, I don't have to tell you that your beliefs and opinions are perfectly fine. And I'm certainly not berating you for those opinions and beliefs.

The only kool-aid I've drank is that I now believe we can win in the courts.

I agree 100%! But I think we may differ here...there is not one UOC'er, or one UOC'ing event, or even a multitude of UOC'ers and events that could change that course. There isn't a single right-minded judge who would deviate from their duties of correctly applying the law in those cases. Further, there isn't a single anti-gun judge who would do anything differently even if we weren't UOC'ing.

Sons of Liberty
09-07-2009, 9:13 PM
Keep moving the goal posts. GFSZ's are being expanded due to UOC. Thank goodness that's all. It also completely blows that UOC may make it so that you can't take public transit with an unloaded handgun in a locked container. Way to go expanding the civil rights of gunowners...


-Gene

I'm sorry Gene, but you sound like one of those politicians in Sacramento. I think you've been hanging around them too long. You're starting to believe your own rhetoric.

Please give evidence that the GFSZ's are being expanded due to UOC. I'm not talking about hearsay...get the facts out on the table. If there is not a perponderance of evidence that UOC is causing the GFSZ's to expand, then drop your case against UOC.

I think the title of this thread says it all. The implication is that "Our cause" excludes UOC. What a sad day for freedom and liberty if people on this forum believe it!

CHS
09-07-2009, 9:25 PM
I think the title of this thread says it all. The implication is that "Our cause" excludes UOC. What a sad day for freedom and liberty if people on this forum believe it!

What has been said, repeatedly, is that "our cause" INCLUDES LOC (LOC, not UOC), but you UOC'ers just won't listen.

You get so caught up with your absurd "no-compromise" view and the "I need it NOW!" whining that you can't possibly believe that what you're doing is hurting things for gun-owners.

hoffmang
09-07-2009, 9:30 PM
There isn't a single right-minded judge who would deviate from their duties of correctly applying the law in those cases. Further, there isn't a single anti-gun judge who would do anything differently even if we weren't UOC'ing.
You miss that the court cases assume the current state of the law. If the laws on the books change before we win some of those court cases, then the outcomes may actually be far more damaging to OC (U is stupid) than if those laws don't go on the books, then the post case outcomes are much better for open carry.


Please give evidence that the GFSZ's are being expanded due to UOC. I'm not talking about hearsay...get the facts out on the table. If there is not a perponderance of evidence that UOC is causing the GFSZ's to expand, then drop your case against UOC.

An UOC group called the author's office of the bill simply to inquire about the bill status. The leg aide's very first question was "are you one of those unloaded open carry people?" You can't prove what caused legislation, but that's about as close as you can come.

I'll say it again. Those of you who think I'm against open carry can't read the Penal Code and didn't read Sykes very closely.

-Gene

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 10:07 PM
Keep moving the goal posts. GFSZ's are being expanded due to UOC.

Sorry, haven't seen any proof of that. GFSZ's were being expanded before UOC was on anybody's radar. Sure they may quote it now, but they started their insidious work long before UOC.

Some things are step functions. Please go read 12031 and 12050 and think about what a carry permit really allows. I don't care to spell it completely out, but your showing me you haven't thought about what a shall permit world actually means...

I'm not from this state originally, I'm from Texas. So again I assure you I know all about what a shall permit world actually means. Never cared for conceal carry, never understood the point of it. Interestingly enough, at least as carry is concerned, from my point of view, I have more rights here in the PRK than I do in Texas. Chew on that cud. :p

Then you are ill informed. It's not like I posted a thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=207777) or anything...

I know that thread, you and I even discussed a few things there. I prefer confused over ill informed. You said in that thread no UOC, at all. Then you said you would not oppose UOC in groups. Then after that you said don't UOC in groups until after incorporation. See the source of my confusion? Again, not trying to discredit you, or even argue, just trying to find a little solid ground where the UOC'ers and CGF'ers can work together a little. Maybe there isn't any until after Nordyke, whenever that happens, now or next year.

You are so sure that you're right that UOC is a good idea at this time that there is no fact, or advice that will dissuade you. That's an extermist and ill informed manner to go about life.

No, maybe this is where you misunderstand me a little. I don't think UOC is a good idea at this time, I think UOC is good at any time. If I could truly see UOC'ing doing any harm then I wouldn't do it. But nobody's been able to prove it to me. Further, my personal UOC'ing experiences have proven just the opposite. And the efforts of many other UOC'ers have proven very real and positive results also.

To the poster saying give me liberty or give me death - ever thought that bull headedness might get you less liberty at the end of the day?

Now that's a most unfortunate statement, and very telling I might add.

One final thought...in that thread you provided the link to, you said "The point of UOCing is to be in society's face." in message #65. I would wager that with many UOC'ers that isn't a true statement at all. The point of UOC'ing isn't to show bravado or machismo, it's to protect ourselves. In fact, if we wanted to be in society's face there are much better ways to do so, because the vast majority of people don't even notice you're carrying at all. Now paint your hair red-hot pink and you'll know what I'm talking about. A political statement, to put it in the legislature's face, maybe, but not society's. We are after all members of the societies we carry in, and being a detriment to those societies is not the goal of Pro-2A UOC'ers.

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 10:09 PM
Diesel, that was an amazing display of ignorance. Could you at least educate yourself on the issues and arguments for/against before spouting off with nonsense like that?

Wildhawker, I couldn't disagree with you more. Why do you personally attack those with whom you disagree?

FreedomIsNotFree
09-07-2009, 10:10 PM
Not that Gene needs me to come to his defense, but many of you that doubt Gene's support of Open Carry simply haven't been around long enough to know better. A couple years ago, maybe a bit longer, Gene was kicking around the idea of open carrying at the Stanford Mall.

Well, look what I found in our glorious archives...

Open Rifle Carry in Cities (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58590&highlight=stanford)

Take a read through that thread if you doubt Gene's intentions regarding open carry. Fact of the matter is he was willing to put himself on the line to make the point.

I'm 100% supportive of gun owners that act within the law, including unloaded open carry. I believe that if you don't exercise your rights you risk losing them.

That said, our 2nd Amendment rights have finally moved out of the political arena and in to the courthouse. We are on the verge of major victories. Without rehashing all of the pro's/con's of current UOC let me say this...pushing the limits at this point does nothing productive that we aren't currently set to gain via the courts.

Gun owners are individualists by nature, so "telling" each other how to exercise our 2A rights is counter productive. I will say this, its simply bad poker to hold the nuts and go all in after the flop. Sure, not everyone will get the poker analogy, but it sure fits.

coolusername2007
09-07-2009, 10:14 PM
I think the title of this thread says it all. The implication is that "Our cause" excludes UOC. What a sad day for freedom and liberty if people on this forum believe it!

Well said Sons of Liberty! Only I would add UOC/LOC, because ultimately I would think every UOC'er would want LOC back.

hoffmang
09-07-2009, 10:15 PM
Sorry, haven't seen any proof of that. GFSZ's were being expanded before UOC was on anybody's radar. Sure they may quote it now, but they started their insidious work long before UOC.


Factually incorrect. The bill was written after UOC was occuring in California. And you continue to not respond to this fact:


An UOC group called the author's office of the bill simply to inquire about the bill status. The leg aide's very first question was "are you one of those unloaded open carry people?" You can't prove what caused legislation, but that's about as close as you can come.


UOC in urban areas of California is bull headed. With incorporation we at least have some strength.

If UOC is such a good idea at this time, why is Theseus about to lose his case? Why are GFSZs being expanded? Why are municipalities that aren't usually anti-gun passing no guns in public ordinances?

Just because it's legal under the first amendment for porn stores to put racks of girlie mags on the sidewalk, do you think its a good idea? It's their right too. Well, actually it's different. They actually have a right to speak in California. We do not have a right to keep and bear arms in California at this time.

Why can't you wait to UOC until worst case 6/30/2010? LUCC takes the argument about self defense away.

-Gene

FreedomIsNotFree
09-07-2009, 10:24 PM
Every personal attack and name calling session does nothing but increase the divide between those that currently UOC and those that choose to wait.

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-07-2009, 11:58 PM
Interesting to see that some UOCers dare to compare themselves to the Founding Fathers. We have met the enemy and he is us.

CalNRA
09-08-2009, 2:36 AM
Please give evidence that the GFSZ's are being expanded due to UOC. I'm not talking about hearsay...get the facts out on the table. If there is not a perponderance of evidence that UOC is causing the GFSZ's to expand, then drop your case against UOC.


what facts? do you want audio? video? Afidavit? The bill's author going on the record to say that "we are writing this bill in the name of safe schools but really want to F with the UOC people"?

UOC has been going on in CA for quite a few years now. I still consider myself a noob, but you may want to hang out a little longer before telling Gene to drop "his case against UOC"(which is just not true).

wash
09-08-2009, 8:02 AM
I'm not from this state originally, I'm from Texas. So again I assure you I know all about what a shall permit world actually means. Never cared for conceal carry, never understood the point of it. Interestingly enough, at least as carry is concerned, from my point of view, I have more rights here in the PRK than I do in Texas. Chew on that cud. :p

Well, there is your problem. What works in Texas has no bearing on the situation in California because the culture is so different.

We've got a super hostile media and lots of resistance in the urban PD's. On top of that we've got population density and GFSZ's that make UOC a prosecutable crime in all but a very few urban areas and most of those will disappear if the GFSZ's expand to 1,500 ft.

In the courts we've got a good chance of getting shall issue CCW.

Why do you want to give up a PR disaster right before our big win?

wildhawker
09-08-2009, 8:17 AM
Actually, Cool, I am one of the guys trying to get everyone pointed in the same direction. The problem is that some, such as yourself and Dieselcarpenter, are making it extremely difficult by stirring up the emotional pot and refusing to argue this issue on facts.

Frankly, I'm pretty tired of hearing that Gene and others who have sacrificed so much of their personal time, family, finances and other resources are "not patriots", "not gun right activists" or some other such nonsense simply because some impatient zealots who saw someone UOC on the news in between Idol and John and Kate think that is what it looks like to fight for our rights. Many in the U/OC community recognize that we're on the same team and have taken it upon themselves to serve as leaders and examples to their loyalists, doing their best to tow the lines between their highly-motivated groups and the requests of some who understand the political and legal ramifications. Unfortunately, most are copycats without a basic understanding of the current strategy and legal processes underway who cannot or refuse to think for themselves. Even worse, they are refusing to heed the warnings of those leaders in their own community, placing them and their followers into serious legal danger. That's not activism, that's malpractice.

Do you all realized how ****** we would be in so many ways if guys like Gene, Bill, Ben, Ivan, Kevin, Paul, Wes, Brett, Don Kilmer, Alan Gura, Jason Davis, Chuck Michel, Ed Worley and Paul Payne said, "To hell with you guys, it's just not worth it anymore"? What about this is lost on you? Let me put it another way- the difference between establishing good law and realizing liberty and establishing bad law and the continued oppression of our 2A rights are a group of men and woman we could count on just a few hands. Think about that. Where do you self-important "liberty or death" types fit into that picture? Are you guys ready to lead us into court, lobby the anti-gun legislators or make sure that we have a case against at the next lead ammo ban hearing?

Cool, my response to Diesel was not meant as a personal attack. It was, however, a commentary on the substance of Diesel's post. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.

Wildhawker, I couldn't disagree with you more. Why do you personally attack those with whom you disagree?

wash
09-08-2009, 8:43 AM
Where do you self-important "liberty or death" types fit into that picture? Are you guys ready to lead us into court, lobby the anti-gun legislators or make sure that we have a case against at the next lead ammo ban hearing?

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that. They are not ready but they will do it any way. Then we would never see any positive change in CA gun laws again.

It's not that you lack enthusiasm, it just that you are backing a strategy that has a horrible track record. It scares people who aren't on our side and our politicians really want to take away the "scary guns" to please their constituency.

How is UOC going to help?

Don't say LOC unless you can clearly connect the dots between UOC and LOC. If you can't, you're no better than the underpants gnomes.

KylaGWolf
09-08-2009, 9:08 AM
coolusername While yes extending the school zone started before UOC took effect here is something that is related to it or at least COULD be. The fact that after UOC became on the radar here in San Diego they STRUCK OUT the closed and locked container exemption. If that bill passes as it now stands it will basically screw gun owners over that live within 1500 feet of the school zone unless they have a garage that they can carry their gun to their car or a fenced in driveway. There are those of us that have UOCed for a while now that have stood down not because we are wimps or afraid but because we want to have more rights in the end. Fact of the matter is when Nordyke went en banc our 2nd amendment rights in this state again ceased to exist. In all honesty Nordyke is reheard in just a couple of weeks from now. Then we have to wait again for the ruling on to if it stands or not. If it does I can almost guarantee that things will move fast on the right to carry in this state. I have read every single court document that has come out of both Heller and Nordyke. I have also read the documents in Sykes. Here is the thing When Nordyke is ruled to have been right then Sykes can go forward which is HUGE in the 2A fight. If you take the time to read this document they are not only fighting for ccw but also LOC as shall issue.

So yes Gene went from being pro UOC in groups to no UOC at this time for good reason(point bland we have NO second amendment right in this state). Do you have to like the reason no. Personally I hate the fact that I am not able to OC right now but then again I don't do it for in your face or to stick it to the establishment. For me it is still the best chance I have for self defense. But that is a whole different argument. But if by standing down it will give me the option of being able to choose LOC or CCW then I will do it. Besides there are other ways we can fight to change things in the favor of 2A rights in CA.

I had the pleasure of meeting Wildhawker when he came to San Diego to talk about how Calguns wanted to help to give ALL California gun owners more 2A rights. There was a great discussion on how that can be achieved.

Old Timer
09-08-2009, 9:25 AM
OK, so you aren't opposed to group UOC, but you still say wait. Hmmm, not opposed but still saying don't. You wouldn't be playing games with me would you?It seems rather clear to me. Let me try to shed some light on the subject by means of an analogy. When my son was a teen we had the mandatory "what it means to be a man" discussion. I told him that I was not opposed to sex. I loved sex. Sex is wonderful. But, for him, not yet. Wait until the time is right. Don't mess up your life by jumping the gun.

Same concept, different subject. :)

I am an old soldier. I have fought in some pretty nasty battles in a very nasty war. There is one thing I learned. Even if you win the battle you might still lose the war! I support OC. But since the political and legal climate is constantly changing we, in order to win the war, must occasionally adjust our tactics regarding the battles we choose to fight. We want to win the war, not just a single battle.

OC is such a battle. It is a battle worth fighting. But let's wait until we have the ammunition to win that battle! Incorporation is the "big gun" that will go a long way in allowing us to win. And that battle, coupled with a "shall issue" win, will go a long, long way in winning the overall RKBA war.

However, we can't win if we shoot our own allies. Remember, we are all on the same side!

CHS
09-08-2009, 1:58 PM
OC'ers, a question:

Gene and others have provided first-hand proof of why OC is hurting our cause, can you provide any proof to the opposite?




This whole argument reminds me of the gun control debate. You've got us, gunnies, with proof and logic on our side as to why gun control doesn't work, and then you've got the emotional anti-gunners who can only spout non-sensical emotion like 'BUT GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!'.

The UOC side is like the anti-gun side. For whatever reason you just can't seem to grasp logic and fact and instead are blinded by emotion.

Theseus
09-08-2009, 2:15 PM
The title of the thread is "Nordyke impact: Pause UOC"

-Gene

Ok. . . So sometimes when you say UOC you mean individual, and now you mean ALL.

Thanks for the clarification, without it I would have continued to mistake what the issue was.

Theseus
09-08-2009, 2:33 PM
Every personal attack and name calling session does nothing but increase the divide between those that currently UOC and those that choose to wait.

Actually, Cool, I am one of the guys trying to get everyone pointed in the same direction. The problem is that some, such as yourself and Dieselcarpenter, are making it extremely difficult by stirring up the emotional pot and refusing to argue this issue on facts.

Frankly, I'm pretty tired of hearing that Gene and others who have sacrificed so much of their personal time, family, finances and other resources are "not patriots", "not gun right activists" or some other such nonsense simply because some impatient zealots who saw someone UOC on the news in between Idol and John and Kate think that is what it looks like to fight for our rights. Many in the U/OC community recognize that we're on the same team and have taken it upon themselves to serve as leaders and examples to their loyalists, doing their best to tow the lines between their highly-motivated groups and the requests of some who understand the political and legal ramifications. Unfortunately, most are copycats without a basic understanding of the current strategy and legal processes underway who cannot or refuse to think for themselves. Even worse, they are refusing to heed the warnings of those leaders in their own community, placing them and their followers into serious legal danger. That's not activism, that's malpractice.

Do you all realized how ****** we would be in so many ways if guys like Gene, Bill, Ben, Ivan, Kevin, Paul, Wes, Brett, Don Kilmer, Alan Gura, Jason Davis, Chuck Michel, Ed Worley and Paul Payne said, "To hell with you guys, it's just not worth it anymore"? What about this is lost on you? Let me put it another way- the difference between establishing good law and realizing liberty and establishing bad law and the continued oppression of our 2A rights are a group of men and woman we could count on just a few hands. Think about that. Where do you self-important "liberty or death" types fit into that picture? Are you guys ready to lead us into court, lobby the anti-gun legislators or make sure that we have a case against at the next lead ammo ban hearing?

Cool, my response to Diesel was not meant as a personal attack. It was, however, a commentary on the substance of Diesel's post. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.

I am not sure I have said it, but if not I will say it now.

I am not trying to say the Gene is not patriotic, or that he is against UOC, or any such notion. It is not personal with me and Gene, at least on my behalf.

I recognize that Gene and others here have done for me and others in California. I respect that fact.

artherd
09-08-2009, 2:52 PM
I too take issue with this statement. There isn't any proof that UOC'ers caused AB668 in the first place, nevermind the "pure fault of".

You know, I can't let this comment go unchallenged. "...purely the fault..." ???

Would you agree that PC 12031(e) was Purely the Fault of the Black Panthers?

artherd
09-08-2009, 2:56 PM
OK. How about Moms with children...NOT running for their lives at the site of my handgun. ... Or is any of this not fact?

None of that is persuasive, especially in a town who's population rounds to 0.

Yes California is indeed moderate. But the state legislature is far from it. Political hay needs to be made, silence and inaction won't get you anywhere. Yes, fight the legal battles, but you don't have to do it quietly.

I'm doing more for RKBA behind my keyboard than 250,000 UOC-ers.

To wit - I suggest you get behind a keyboard, it's more effective!

I love your energy, let's use it on something that will work

HowardW56
09-08-2009, 3:03 PM
I believe UOC is premature. The more press it gets, the more likely there will be an attempt to change the law for the worse...

I would prefer to see a couple more decisions in our favor first.

artherd
09-08-2009, 3:16 PM
I'm not from this state originally, I'm from Texas. So again I assure you I know all about what a shall permit world actually means. Never cared for conceal carry, never understood the point of it. Interestingly enough, at least as carry is concerned, from my point of view, I have more rights here in the PRK than I do in Texas. Chew on that cud. :p

Once again, go back and read the PC and look up what a CCW exempts you from in CA....

CitaDeL
09-08-2009, 4:50 PM
Once again, go back and read the PC and look up what a CCW exempts you from in CA....

I'm running offtopic here-

What happens to that grab bag of exemptions if an issuing authority revokes a 'CCW' for reasons that are not outlined in the PC?

While the half-dozen exemptions to unConstitutional prohibitions are a nice benefit to dole out, it exposes the basic problem with licensing. A revocable license is another form of gun control.

hoffmang
09-08-2009, 6:35 PM
I'm running offtopic here-

What happens to that grab bag of exemptions if an issuing authority revokes a 'CCW' for reasons that are not outlined in the PC?

While the half-dozen exemptions to unConstitutional prohibitions are a nice benefit to dole out, it exposes the basic problem with licensing. A revocable license is another form of gun control.

In a post Sykes/Palmer world, you can't revoke a parade permit or an adult zoning permit without reasons that basically survive strict scrutiny. Today, permits are revokable at whim. After it's clear you have a Constitutional right to carry, they can only be revoked for compelling cause like a conviction for a disabling crime.

-Gene

Sons of Liberty
09-08-2009, 7:55 PM
...An UOC group called the author's office of the bill simply to inquire about the bill status. The leg aide's very first question was "are you one of those unloaded open carry people?" You can't prove what caused legislation, but that's about as close as you can come.
-Gene

That doesn't seem fair to declare that UOC is the reason for such a contentious bill, to direct fire to those who are legally exercising their constitutional right to bear arms openly...

and then state, "You can't prove what caused legislation..."

It's placing blame where it does not belong.

These laws are being put into place because certain state representatives and senators have a distain for any type of activity that is counter to an anti-gun, disarmed society.

Why not blame AB962 on UOC'ers? What about SB585? Let's hang all of the anti-gun legislation on UOC.

Sad.

hoffmang
09-08-2009, 8:07 PM
That doesn't seem fair to declare that UOC is the reason for such a contentious bill, to direct fire to those who are legally exercising their constitutional right to bear arms openly...


I've given you clear and convincing evidence that the only thing on the mind of the legislative analyst that does all the day to day work of getting the bill passed is UOC. That's as close as you get to proof absent an author statement. After the bill passes and the legislator terms out, we may be able to get the bill file so I can find your smoking gun. Evidence isn't enough. Reliable sources isn't enough.

It's awfully hard to use rationality to counter what is for you an emotional argument. Put your emotions aside and give me a plausible other reason supported by any evidence for an extension of the GUN free zone other than UOC. Remember that this bill was written this calendar year and folks were UOCing in 2008 which means this bill post dates UOC in urban areas in California. Bonus points for taking into consideration that it's easier for the other side to pass if they steer clear of your "rights" even though you don't have any right to keep or bear arms in California yet...

-Gene

Sons of Liberty
09-08-2009, 8:49 PM
I've given you clear and convincing evidence that the only thing on the mind of the legislative analyst that does all the day to day work of getting the bill passed is UOC...

Put your emotions aside and give me a plausible other reason supported by any evidence for an extension of the GUN free zone other than UOC...

Bonus points for taking into consideration that it's easier for the other side to pass if they steer clear of your "rights" even though you don't have any right to keep or bear arms in California yet...

-Gene

Just because you say it's "clear and convincing evidence" doesn't make this statement any clearer or more convincing. It is what it is, hearsay.

As far as "plausible other reason", how about what the bill's analysis states from the Public Safety Committee:

"In 2008, Senate Bill 1666 (Ron Calderon - Chapter 726, Statute
of 2008) expanded the areas designated by California's Safe
School Zone law from 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet around schools.
This bill provided a safer environment for California's
children by creating a larger safe zone to keep out those who
would disturb school activity and drug offenders.

"However, SB 1666 did not increase the area in which enhanced
penalties apply for illegal gun possession around public or
private schools. Thus, there is a disparity in the areas
protected by California's Safe School Zone law and
California's Gun-Free School Zone Act. Safe School Zone
extends out to an area 1,500 feet from a public or private
school, while the Gun-Free School Zone only protects an area
1,000 feet from a public or private school.

"As a result of this disparity of the areas protected by the
different zones, if criminal possession or use of a gun
outside a Gun-Free School Zone but within a Safe School Zone,
the criminal penalties established by the Gun-Free School Zone
Act would not be applicable. AB 668 seeks to address this
discrepancy by making the zones the same footage and by
sending a strong message to our neighborhoods that unlawful
possession of a firearm will not be tolerated, especially when
it occurs in close proximity to children."

And finally as to the statement "you don't have any right..." In my mind, it does not matter what lower laws state. It does not matter what the courts have stated.

I have a constitutional right! I have a common law right! It is to some extent emotional. But it is fundamentally an issue concerning the cornerstone of liberty!

htjyang
09-08-2009, 9:01 PM
After reading page after page of UOC discussions spread across multiple threads, I have to say that I'm amazed by Gene's seemingly inexhaustible patience. Exactly what motivates him to endlessly preach to the deaf? I would think that it is more than clear to him by now that these people are beyond reason. You can't reason people out of what they've never reasoned into.

I think that when people go looking for trouble, they usually succeed in finding it. In the case of Parker/Heller, at least Robert Levy was a millionaire who could bankroll the whole enterprise for years and he also found a good lawyer in Alan Gura. What resources do the UOCers have?

I don't think UOCers appreciate the kind of resources the State can bring to bear. All the more curious considering Theseus's legal troubles are plain. These people don't seem to realize that the government will be prosecuting them with their own tax dollars. Meanwhile, they still have to defend themselves using their own money.

I also don't think that group UOC is as much protection as some people think it is. For an enterprising anti-gun prosecutor with ambitions for higher office, he might see it as an opportunity to bag them all. Try to imagine all the adulating newspaper headlines that will come his way, about how he keeps the streets clean of dangerous and evil black guns. Even if he loses the law suit, it's not as if he wasted any money from his own bank account. Meanwhile, he got the favorable headlines he wanted and the Bradyites will probably be so grateful that they'll offer him financial support should he choose to run for higher office. The sad thing is that it may only be a matter of time before some prosecutor figures this out.

hoffmang
09-08-2009, 9:02 PM
It's only hearsay in the legal sense because I'm trying to not out the UOCers or our political advocates' specific conversations. I expect that if you told me things in confidence you'd like the same respect.

You don't even have hearsay evidence to support that the GFSZ act is driven by something else. Why does the legislature need to "[enhance] penalties appl[ied] [to] illegal gun possession around public or private schools." That's not a statement of intent, it's a statement of justification pregnant with missing intent.

Keep saying, "In my mind, it does not matter what lower laws state. It does not matter what the courts have stated."

Are you prepared to spend the 3 months in jail happily and peacefully as King teaches (http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)?

You aren't making an argument. You're making an appeal to political and legal naivete. I'd discount you and ignore you if the risk to every Californian's gun rights wasn't so high. When the next anti-UOC bill that hurts Californians is introduced, can I name it after your Don Quixoteism? "The Sons Of Liberty Taking Liberty Away From 38 Million Californians Act Because I'm Impatient and Know I'm Right Act of 2010?"

-Gene

coolusername2007
09-08-2009, 10:11 PM
There have been far too many posts addressed and/or directed at me to respond to them all. So this will have to suffice as a summary to all of those who posted.

Changes in the law: you are ready to place blame on UOC'ers for any and all harm to the cause, and any potential changes in the law that the legislature might make that would hurt your court cases. Do you think the legislator doesn't see you and your lawsuits coming? You think they only see the UOC'ers? Who's to say the victories you now have in sight aren't the impetus for those changes in the law? Apparently the fact is nobody knows for sure, so stop trying to pin the blame on UOC'ers.

Patriotism: I'm not saying you folks here at CGF aren't patriots or that you haven't made excellent progress. But nonetheless, last I checked lawyers were still pretty far down the food chain. :D I consider myself no more or less a patriot than anybody else here.

Texas: no, that's not my problem. The problem is CA, either you where born here and don't know any better, or you have lived here too long to remember what's its like to not follow the crowd. Plus we know a fair bit more about being hospitable. As an aside, the folks here in CA are the rudest bunch I've ever seen next to NY'ers. Many of you really need to spend a little time in the south and learn some manners. Damn.

Emotion: I wouldn't characterize UOC'ers as an emotional bunch. I do believe we have our logic, opinions and so forth, that aren't based in the emotional rhetoric I've seen posted against us as if we're a bunch of cry babys. Again, knock it off.

Proving the positive effects of UOC: on a small scale no problem, on a large scale can't do it because not enough people are willing to do it. Plus nobody's been doing it long enough or regular enough. There's no organized UOC effort, no leadership body to bring legitimacy to that front. And with the fear mongering that's on this site no wonder. Sure your making legal progress and that's to be congratulated and thanked but your doing it at the expense of what's (barely) legal right now. You say its for the better, you say you have a brilliant legal strategy, maybe it is, and I'm sure you do. But what if you lose? Are you going to blame that on the UOC'ers too?

I've heard some say the reason Nordyke went en banc is because all the federal judges want their name on incorporation, not just a 3 judge panel. I wouldn't be so sure. Your well laid legal plans might amount to nothing but a hill of beans. I'm not a naysayer, so don't even try to pin that on me, I hope you win, but you might lose. And at least I'm not telling people what they can and can't do.

coolusername2007
09-08-2009, 10:21 PM
I'd discount you and ignore you if the risk to every Californian's gun rights wasn't so high. When the next anti-UOC bill that hurts Californians is introduced, can I name it after your Don Quixoteism? "The Sons Of Liberty Taking Liberty Away From 38 Million Californians Act Because I'm Impatient and Know I'm Right Act of 2010?"

Gene why do you go on and on about risking the gun rights of 38 million Californians? From your purely legal world they don't have any gun rights. You can't lose what you don't have.

hoffmang
09-08-2009, 10:25 PM
Gene why do you go on and on about risking the gun rights of 38 million Californians? From your purely legal world they don't have any gun rights. You can't lose what you don't have.

So I guess you should play cavalierly with them.

Since your a purist, can you explain why you follow PC 12031? I mean, in your point of view it's unconstitutional. You should openly carry loaded firearms in school zones.

Why don't you?

-Gene

Theseus
09-08-2009, 10:26 PM
Just because you say it's "clear and convincing evidence" doesn't make this statement any clearer or more convincing. It is what it is, hearsay.

As far as "plausible other reason", how about what the bill's analysis states from the Public Safety Committee:

"As a result of this disparity of the areas protected by the
different zones, if criminal possession or use of a gun
outside a Gun-Free School Zone but within a Safe School Zone,
the criminal penalties established by the Gun-Free School Zone
Act would not be applicable. AB 668 seeks to address this
discrepancy by making the zones the same footage and by
sending a strong message to our neighborhoods that unlawful
possession of a firearm will not be tolerated, especially when
it occurs in close proximity to children."

And finally as to the statement "you don't have any right..." In my mind, it does not matter what lower laws state. It does not matter what the courts have stated.

I have a constitutional right! I have a common law right! It is to some extent emotional. But it is fundamentally an issue concerning the cornerstone of liberty!

What I find most telling is how they say they look to only punish CRIMINAL POSSESSION and UNLAWFUL POSSESSION. . but the very law itself is not worded as an enhancement only, but a full prohibition.

Gray Peterson
09-08-2009, 10:27 PM
Gene why do you go on and on about risking the gun rights of 38 million Californians? From your purely legal world they don't have any gun rights. You can't lose what you don't have.

I know this is a question to a question, but I have for one for you: Do you want to lose any chance of being able to LOC statewide in California? Wouldn't the possibility of a change of law which would destroy the cornerstone of being able to do so later worth it? I don't know about you, but I would like the choice to be able to CCW or LOC in the future, as being MY choice, and constitutionally protected either way, during my travels in California. I have been as rabid an OC'er as anyone can ever claim to be, and did my yeoman's work. Open carrying an unloaded firearm is nothing much more to me than being able to carry a very heavy paperweight.

LOC is 75% about self defense, and 25% about a particular political statement. Loaded open carry is to me one of the most effective carry methods since I don't have to worry about snags with concealing. Unloading a pistol and having to load it again before using it in self defense costs you precious time plus if you carry even accidentley into a 1000 foot (soon to be 1500 foot zone), the California courts will force YOU to prove that you didn't know because they're anti-gun, and then you have to appeal it to a state court of appeals, also stacked to the gills with anti-gunners who will turn the idea of forcing you as a criminal defendant to prove innocence, rather than the state proving your guilt. Not only do you screw over gun owners, you screw over other criminal defendants with precedent which has absolutely zippo to do with guns. Great job there, boys. Keeping me from being able to LOC in a rural area with marriage equality bumper stickers on my car is such a WONDERFUL idea...NOT.

All UOC has gotten us is AB668, and also the ire of one of the most powerful politicians in the state, the Speaker Pro-Tempore of the California Assembly, now apparently working overtime to completely ban the practice, including possibly having LOC banned in the areas of rural California where it is in fact legal and would cause us no legal and political harm. Gee, which people that I have do I have to thank for this development?

You'll have no one but yourselves to blame when the only method to be able to carry is with a PC12050 license issued post-Sykes and Palmer.

wildhawker
09-08-2009, 10:50 PM
Cool, it appears that you trust only in yourself and your own devices. It's too bad that you couldn't make it to either the San Diego or Orange County town hall meetings- I think you would have enjoyed the open discussion of these issues in person.

The farther along we go in this debate the more it seems that some of our members are having a hard time visualizing the overall legal strategy and accepting it as anything more than some abstract pipe dream made up by some hand-picked (self-appointed?) members of the legal artistocracy; further, many (the majority) of us not having met each other face to face, there is little reason to see each other as more than an avatar and username. This has to change- can you help us break down the digital walls and really start working on California from the local level?

I think it would be great to see you join some of your fellow Calgunners at the Lytle Creek shoot-n-que (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=220139) and get to know some of the team. That team, by the way, is us.

Glock22Fan
09-09-2009, 7:25 AM
What I find most telling is how they say they look to only punish CRIMINAL POSSESSION and UNLAWFUL POSSESSION. . but the very law itself is not worded as an enhancement only, but a full prohibition.

Because ANY posession is seen in their minds as possession that should be unlawful, so they will make it such if they can.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 11:53 AM
Because ANY possession is seen in their minds as possession that should be unlawful, so they will make it such if they can.

Although if they do that won't necessarily be due to UOC. I think that would probably try to happen anyways in this state since it seems our elected officials seem to want to ignore the federal constitution and just about any other law that seems to not fit their agenda.

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 2:47 PM
Cool, it appears that you trust only in yourself and your own devices. It's too bad that you couldn't make it to either the San Diego or Orange County town hall meetings- I think you would have enjoyed the open discussion of these issues in person.

No, I think you may have mischaracterized me and my position. And yes, I would have tried to attend the town halls, didn't know about them.

I think it would be great to see you join some of your fellow Calgunners at the Lytle Creek shoot-n-que (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=220139) and get to know some of the team. That team, by the way, is us.

Thanks for the invite and link. I'll check my calendar.

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 3:16 PM
So I guess you should play cavalierly with them.

Since your a purist, can you explain why you follow PC 12031? I mean, in your point of view it's unconstitutional. You should openly carry loaded firearms in school zones.

Why don't you?

-Gene

I am not playing cavalierly with them. Even though your question is diversionary I will go ahead and answer it. The reason why I follow PC12031 is because its the law. Simple as that. I am not a law breaker, aka a criminal. And yes I believe it to be unconstitutional as is 626.9. But that doesn't mean one won't go to jail for failing to adhere to it. So again, UOC is not illegal.

I understand you think the timing is wrong. But see my point, it doesn't matter to the opposition what is constitutional or not, they "cavalierly" create and pass unconstitutional laws all the time. So let me ask you this. Say you win Nordyke, say you win Sykes, and Pena and any another case you want to cite. What will be your position when those rights have unconstitutional laws written that infringe upon them? Will the time not be right then also? I mean, you don't think they won't pass unconstitutional laws infringing upon those new found rights do you?

Kestryll
09-09-2009, 3:34 PM
I was on the fence with this and even considering that CGN might need an OC forum just to give a place for discussion but no more.

I read this from smoking357 on opencarry.org and it helped make up my mind.
This is the kind of IDIOT we do NOT need here.
It's time, people.

Know the three rules:

1. Police are an army whose enemy is the People.

2. Police are the greatest enemy America has ever faced.

3. America would be better off without the police.

When we see a car pulled over, we need to realize that there is a citizen at risk. We need to start defending each other.

It's time we all remembered what open carry is all about, and it ain't protection against burglars.

It's time.

With this kind of stupidity being seen as part of OC it is clear, it is going to hurt us.

HowardW56
09-09-2009, 3:38 PM
I was on the fence with this and even considering that CGN might need an OC forum just to give a place for discussion but no more.

I read this from smoking357 on opencarry.org and it helped make up my mind.
This is the kind of IDIOT we do NOT need here.


With this kind of stupidity being seen as part of OC it is clear, it is going to hurt us.

I read the post...

My response was not as polite as "IDIOT"...

Mine was ****ING IDIOT!!!

Poster child for birth control...

wildhawker
09-09-2009, 3:58 PM
Kes, as much as I agree with you wrt that particular poster and the content of his message, I do not believe that reflects the vast majority of OC proponents.

Honestly, firearms events and orgs in general have not really been the pinnacle of professionalism and balance (*ever*). Even here there are very likely members who feel that way and either a) understand that such nonsense would not be tolerated here and/or b) the moderators and admin do a great job of keeping this place in great shape.

We have the team we have; we cannot cherry-pick our side. The nice thing is, neither can the antis. Obviously our cause (and Calguns, particularly) has an obligation to put the best foot forward; I'm not sure we do that by excluding a growing (maybe the fastest-growing, and definitely the most publicly motivated) component of RKBA.

hoffmang
09-09-2009, 4:07 PM
So let me ask you this. Say you win Nordyke, say you win Sykes, and Pena and any another case you want to cite. What will be your position when those rights have unconstitutional laws written that infringe upon them?

After we get Incorporation either via NRA/McDonald or Nordyke, we'll have a tool called the Federal courts to use to invalidate unconstitutional rules. Once we win Sykes we'll have federal court precedent that a right to carry is protected.

At Incorporation group UOC that stays clear of GFSZs is fine again though I still think we should be careful with it as it tends to begat more bad legislation and I'd rather roll back laws from where they stand - not from a further anti-gun position. After Sykes... Well, read the Penal Code and think about what a license pursuant to 12050 will really allow you to do.

I'm not anti-OC. I prefer LOC.

You remain focused on your short term. You don't want to break unconstitutional laws, but you're happy to help the other side pass more of them - making work for those of us who are trying to stop unconstitutional laws.

-Gene

Theseus
09-09-2009, 4:13 PM
I was on the fence with this and even considering that CGN might need an OC forum just to give a place for discussion but no more.

I read this from smoking357 on opencarry.org and it helped make up my mind.
This is the kind of IDIOT we do NOT need here.


With this kind of stupidity being seen as part of OC it is clear, it is going to hurt us.

Not that I agree with smoking357, but your attitude is part of the reason I have received PM's from users here and elsewhere as to why they are shying away from Calguns.

I will point out that smoking357 was banned from OCDO and for good reason.

He does not represent the entire feeling of all OCDO members any more than any particular member here.

Kestryll
09-09-2009, 4:56 PM
Not that I agree with smoking357, but your attitude is part of the reason I have received PM's from users here and elsewhere as to why they are shying away from Calguns.
That's their choice, and I'll live with it.
My attitude is that the yoyos who advocate breaking the law, engaging in confrontation with LEOs and other forms of foolishness are more detriment than help and if they shy away than it's not a loss.

The OC'er that do NOT engage in such foolishness but instead are careful, law abiding and understand the potential problem I have no problems with.
We have quite a few of those here.

I will point out that smoking357 was banned from OCDO and for good reason.
Yes, he was, and from the sound of it after many incidents and statements like this one.
I saw several taking issue and several agreeing, that is a concern.

He does not represent the entire feeling of all OCDO members any more than any particular member here.

Perhaps not, but he DOES represent a vocal section of it that seems to be confrontational, intent on disregarding laws and have complete disregard for the ramifications of their actions.

You are quite well known for posts stating that if in your opinion it's not a good law you'll ignore it.
That alone to me disqualifies you as a spokesman for anyone.

guayuque
09-09-2009, 5:03 PM
Perhaps not, but he DOES represent a vocal section of it that seems to be confrontational, intent on disregarding laws and have complete disregard for the ramifications of their actions.

You are quite well known for posts stating that if in your opinion it's not a good law you'll ignore it.
That alone to me disqualifies you as a spokesman for anyone.

I don;t think there has ever been a social or legal cause that has been advanced when the proponents antogonize the other side. Confrontation, arrogance, condescencion is not useful to advance 2A, OC, or any other gun issue. Advances can only be made with the general public if the face of proponents is seen as rational, thoughful, willing to engage in debate.

GuyW
09-09-2009, 5:17 PM
I don;t think there has ever been a social or legal cause that has been advanced when the proponents antogonize the other side.

Yeah?. - Where were you during the Civil Rights '60s??


.

510shooter510
09-09-2009, 5:20 PM
hurting. Its like trying to legalize pot by smoking naked in the park.

Theseus
09-09-2009, 5:20 PM
Perhaps not, but he DOES represent a vocal section of it that seems to be confrontational, intent on disregarding laws and have complete disregard for the ramifications of their actions.

You are quite well known for posts stating that if in your opinion it's not a good law you'll ignore it.
That alone to me disqualifies you as a spokesman for anyone.

Apparently I am well known for it. I have made such comments and I will again.

If the circumstances are right and the law enough of an affront, then yes, with pride I may just ignore it.

Some laws should be ignored as they are unconstitutional. If it was made illegal tomorrow that in the State of California you could no longer use a firearm to defend your family in your home I would sure disregard that law.

That is something I am willing to risk. Does that disqualify me from being a spokesperson for Calguns? Maybe. At this point I am OK with that.
I so far am not seeing that being a bad thing when it comes to speaking out for OC.

I have taken issue for some time now with people that have such faith in the rule of law that they will follow all laws, even the unconstitutional ones. Not that I am comparing myself to a founder as even close the caliber of man, but if the fathers weren't willing to disobey laws and take a stand we would not be the United Stated of America.

But at no time have I condoned going out en mass and murdering officers of the law. At no time have I attempted to motivate people en mass to murder anyone. I believe there to be a pretty clear line between suggesting I would ignore some laws and threatening or inciting people to commit murder. If they are the same to you then there is nothing I can do about that.

CHS
09-09-2009, 5:23 PM
One thing that I'd like to point out regarding OC in CA and how the LEO's and politicians view it:

Take a look at all the LE memos regarding AW's and all the memo's regarding OC and look at the underlying tone.

All of the AW memo's appear very professional and without bias, they point out that the bullet button/maglock/whatever makes a legal firearm and instruct LE how to positively interact with the public. This is a win for us.

All of the OC memo's appear to have a very negative bias against OC and almost always spread FUD to the LEO audience about OC'ers motives.

This means that there is ACTIVE discrimination and hate being spread by the powers-that-be (politicians and LE) against OC. What better reason and what more proof do you need that it's a BAD IDEA AT THIS TIME?!

guayuque
09-09-2009, 5:28 PM
Yeah?. - Where were you during the Civil Rights '60s??


.

Seems to me that the intimidation was on the side of those trying to defeat the CRA1964, by murder, lockouts, etc., and that side lost. Where were you?

guayuque
09-09-2009, 5:31 PM
Apparently I am well known for it. I have made such comments and I will again.

If the circumstances are right and the law enough of an affront, then yes, with pride I may just ignore it.

Some laws should be ignored as they are unconstitutional. If it was made illegal tomorrow that in the State of California you could no longer use a firearm to defend your family in your home I would sure disregard that law.

That is something I am willing to risk. Does that disqualify me from being a spokesperson for Calguns? Maybe. At this point I am OK with that.
I so far am not seeing that being a bad thing when it comes to speaking out for OC.

I have taken issue for some time now with people that have such faith in the rule of law that they will follow all laws, even the unconstitutional ones. Not that I am comparing myself to a founder as even close the caliber of man, but if the fathers weren't willing to disobey laws and take a stand we would not be the United Stated of America.

But at no time have I condoned going out en mass and murdering officers of the law. At no time have I attempted to motivate people en mass to murder anyone. I believe there to be a pretty clear line between suggesting I would ignore some laws and threatening or inciting people to commit murder. If they are the same to you then there is nothing I can do about that.

It is never a good idea to try and change a law as a criminal defendant on appeal. Nineteen years of practicing law tell me that, but suit yourself and good luck. Most appeals do not succeed, but good luck.

GuyW
09-09-2009, 5:45 PM
Seems to me that the intimidation was on the side of those trying to defeat the CRA1964, by murder, lockouts, etc., and that side lost. Where were you?

"I don;t think there has ever been a social or legal cause that has been advanced when the proponents antogonize the other side."

So you think that black and white civil rights marchers in the south didn't antagonize the other side? They expected violence, fire-hoses, etc...because their mere public presence and rejection of the status quo antagonized the other side....

.

KylaGWolf
09-09-2009, 7:37 PM
I was on the fence with this and even considering that CGN might need an OC forum just to give a place for discussion but no more.

I read this from smoking357 on opencarry.org and it helped make up my mind.
This is the kind of IDIOT we do NOT need here.


With this kind of stupidity being seen as part of OC it is clear, it is going to hurt us.

Krestryll I whole heartily agree that what smoking357 is wrong very very wrong. But I will also say that most open carriers are not that way. As a matter of fact I am not anti police at all. I am a gran-daughter of a police chief that was a good officer and cared about the communities he worked for. I also was raised in a house where LEOs of many agencies would come by to see my step dad and mom. And had the honor of calling some as friends. I had even taken the steps to become one (probation officer was what I was working to get in to) before I had my spinal injury. After seeing that post on OCDC I am thinking on a major rant as to how much damage they have done. When I see posts like that it makes me sick to my stomach that anyone would advocate cold blooded murder. Not to mention be stupid enough to post those comments for anyone in the world to see and we all know that LEOs go to these sites. So now they make all gun owners suspect to if they are the same belief. It is comments like that give the anti-gun people all the ammunition they need to make it even harder in this state to be a gun owner. I am hoping that someday there will be a place here on Calguns that OC will be able to be discussed.

CitaDeL
09-09-2009, 8:10 PM
I was on the fence with this and even considering that CGN might need an OC forum just to give a place for discussion but no more.

I read this from smoking357 on opencarry.org and it helped make up my mind.
This is the kind of IDIOT we do NOT need here.


With this kind of stupidity being seen as part of OC it is clear, it is going to hurt us.

I'm pleased you came to a well reasoned conclusion based on the rant of a single poster who apparently speaks for the entire nationwide open carry community. I dont believe he is even from California- not that it matters much.

Would you consider it reasonable however, for me to select one particularly outspoken Calgunner with whom I disagree, to make them the reason why I,.. or my group would not make a contribution- financial or otherwise - to the Calguns Foundation?

I realize that open carry is a highly charged topic, resulting in numerous threads rife with hot headed debate, but I think Calguns is should welcome the pure rights advocates based on the philosophy and conduct of the entire community... not that of a raving loon, shouting from the bell tower.

coolusername2007
09-09-2009, 10:56 PM
I'm not anti-OC. I prefer LOC.

You remain focused on your short term. You don't want to break unconstitutional laws, but you're happy to help the other side pass more of them - making work for those of us who are trying to stop unconstitutional laws.

Yeah, sure. Think whatever you want.