PDA

View Full Version : Calgun Open Carry Supporters - And Calguns


Theseus
09-12-2009, 11:41 AM
This thread is to discuss how open carry supporting Calgunners can help our cause, and how OCDO'ers can work with Calguns. . . in a mutually beneficial manner to achieve both groups goals.

Open carriers and supporters. . . If there is any flaming, ignore it. Don't respond, comment, or pay it any mind. If it is honestly an idea, but merely misguided, respond in a constructive way.

Also, I alone do not represent the entire open carry movement. Nothing I say is to be considered to represent the views, thoughts and opinions of anyone other than me except the ones that I specifically say DO represent views of others.

Open carriers especially need to note, and I forget it at times too, that Calguns.net is not Calguns Foundation. Although there are a vocal few here on the forums, the members of the foundation are the ones that truly decide where they go and what they will be doing. With that in mind forcus more on the words of the foundation leaders and not the forums when it comes to determining the motvies of the foundation. The foundation is intent on getting rid of 12031, 626.9, the only true obstructions to usefull and effective just about everywhere unlicensed loaded open carry. - Foundation leaders correct me if I am wrong...But this is my understanding.

Although I believe it is a good sign that some are here suggesting leaders for the open carry group, but for most of us, OCDO is the gathering place for our group and I think that is the place any leadership discussions take place. Right now I think we need to understand that some of the open carry group conversations and planning need to happen with them in their playground and not in the playground of Calguns. . . I am sure you all can understand and respect that. If you would like to support our efforts in developing leadership, and overall activities then by all means, join us there.

For the open carriers that are here and want to support Calguns, I suggest doing so. This thread is discussing some of the many ways we might help them. In the last thread it was noted that we are typically an active and motivated group. Because of that we might be well suited to helping Calguns in some very specific ways that their regular membership might not be prepared or capable of doing.

Do please note however, that when you are offering your time to Calguns that you need to be able to check your OC activism at the door. It is not in all cases and at all times, but that you need to be able to do so from time to time if you are going to try to help them reach their goals.

And, I am not sure if it is needed as I have already said it on OCDO. . . Calguns goals are not counter productive to ours. Although we have a difference of opinion on which way to achieve our end goal, since we are not in a pisition to change that ourselves right now, lets assume that their plan is the way as we build our group. If they fail then we will still be there to do it our way.

I will open the floor now to some specific suggestions about what we as open carriers can do for Calguns.

gravedigger
09-12-2009, 1:00 PM
The main benefit I see to OC helping the cause of CC and getting rid of 12031 and 626.9 is that society tends to follow a predictable pattern. As people SEE open carry folks around with guns on their hips, and reports are shared about how a MWG was seen, but nothing happened they'll begin to understand that is IS legal. The have two options at that point. Raise Holy Hell about taking all of the guns away OR contact their representatives and say, "As long as these citizens are going to legally carry weapons, I would prefer they carry them concealed. The sight of a gun makes me nervous ..."

Society tends to default to, "As long as they're going to be allowed to do (A), I'd prefer they do it MY way, the way that makes me feel comfortable..."

The very fact that CARRY will take place will necessarily coerce society to push for CC just so the hoplophobes can feel more comfortable and not freak out at the sight of a firearm on someone's hip.

JustGone
09-12-2009, 1:15 PM
Your problem is the "people" will start to become used to it. But the "media" is going to spot light it and twist it into something. Then "people" who have not seen anyone OC personally are going to jump on it and say "This is outrageous! People with guns allowed to walk around and not be arrested!?"

But that being said, I support OC. Heck where I'm living outta state its pretty much a non-issue people can OC/CC if they want as long as they have a LTCH they can choose anyway to carry. The arguments over this are usually over tactical advantages lol

1923mack
09-12-2009, 1:26 PM
For us newbies to open carry (OC) please define OCDO.

wildhawker
09-12-2009, 1:34 PM
Open Carry Dot Org

Gray Peterson
09-12-2009, 3:17 PM
Just to point out a particular error that was made in previous threads.

One particular claim in the thread is that CGF and CGN would try to stop attempts to remove PC12031 and PC626.9 due to a believe that if LOC is allowed statewide (as it was before 1967), then may-issue CCW would be constitutional.

There are several problems with this assumption:

1) This assumes it's politically possible to get the Legislature to repeal those laws, or to do so via initiative.

2) This leaves the federal court system as the only other method of dealing with this issue.

3) California current laws on gun carry is very specifically unique in their interactions with each part of the gun carry related penal codes, and the exemptions in those codes for a carry license. I am not sure if it will be possible for unlicensed OC to be politically or judicially possible.

4) A federal court attack on PC12031/PC626.9 at this juncture of 2nd amendment case law development is premature. In fact, this sort of attack against any carry ban/restriction statute to have it struck down as facially unconstitutional is a disfavored form of litigation, and you still run into standing problems. At this junction, it is better to apply for a carry license (as it functions in CA, HI, NJ, MD, DC, IA, MA, NY and RI) for self defense, be denied, and then sue. For example, Heller was the only surviving plaintiff of the Parker case due to the fact that he was the only one who applied for a registration certificate and was denied. McDonald will likely trigger carry-related litigation against these recalcitrant states, but it will come in the form of carefully planned lawsuits which line up plaintiffs (preferentially the first plaintiff being GLBT, due to the existence of the state laws where the Legislatures has passed hate crime statutes which enunciate the specific threats to the GLBT communities) who have applied and then were denied for self defense. Sykes and Palmer are never going to have to risk prison to get standing, and they never have to due to the case history with the Heller case.

5) Most people want to carry concealed for personal protection, it's just that the unique interplay of statute allows a case like Sykes to move forward, and the laws underpinning that unique situation is not going to go away. My want is to have over a million licenses to carry issued within the first 5 years after finality with Sykes. I think we can do it.

6) We can litigate fee requirements later. One state in particular, despite a shall-issue statute, is requiring psych eval which forces the applicant to pay $400 to the evaluator (CA has a similar statute). My personal opinion is that the psych eval is prior restraint, but I think it'll be easier to litigate the fee payment. Force the towns or the state to pay for it, they'll drop it like a bad habit because it'll be too expensive, especially when they get tens of thousands of applicants.

7) We're all in this together, and when some specific people are generally telling you to stop doing general UOC'ing, it's so that you will get the benefit of something better down the line.

gunsmith
09-12-2009, 4:15 PM
I would prefer OC but I am not willing to risk all the good work done by our fine thinkers here.

KylaGWolf
09-12-2009, 11:11 PM
OK Theseus good to see you brought another thread here. As to your comment on taking this to OCDO. I think the discussion should happen on both due to the fact there are some that don't like that forum for various reasons...good, bad or indifferent. Also I honestly think that by the conversation happening on both boards it will bring a wider range of ideas to the table from both sides.

Gray you made some good points. I am not sure if the "fees" for the right to CCW will go away anytime soon even after we get favorable rulings on Nordyke en banc hearing and Sykes and Pena to boot. I do like your vision to see 1,000,000 licenses to carry...but I would like to see that number even higher :).


And lol now I know its time for me to get some sleep I had gotten sidetracked when I wrote this and just now realized it when I went to shut down the computer.

My personal feelings on things is I would love to see CA give the option for you to choose if you want to LOC or CCW.

Gray Peterson
09-13-2009, 12:10 AM
OK Theseus good to see you brought another thread here. As to your comment on taking this to OCDO. I think the discussion should happen on both due to the fact there are some that don't like that forum for various reasons...good, bad or indifferent. Also I honestly think that by the conversation happening on both boards it will bring a wider range of ideas to the table from both sides.

The issue there is that there's only two moderators over here, who are busy with lawschool and their lives, and many moderators here. It works differently.

Gray you made some good points. I am not sure if the "fees" for the right to CCW will go away anytime soon even after we get favorable rulings on Nordyke en banc hearing and Sykes and Pena to boot. I do like your vision to see 1,000,000 licenses to carry...but I would like to see that number even higher :).

$400 every 3 years for ownership of a firearm is NOT going to fly. That's the cost in New York City to even own a firearm, not just carrying (though the licensing procedure and fees is the same), and they have some unconstitutional regulations on top of that. Processing the paperwork and paying the work is one thing, but when it's as simple as running a NICS check and running LiveScan fingerprints, the fingerprints is about 19.25 or so, and NICS is a free online check, I think anything higher than $50 or $100 for a 4 year license is going to be questionable.

Start posting flyers about shall-issue carry in the urban areas, in both english and spanish, with a contact forum address and a google voice number to contact in case of problem, with general descriptions, and do it in both English AND Spanish, and in certain other communities, other languages. I'm sure that Oleg Volk would be perfectly willing to give permission to use this work for specific kinds of targets. You'd be surprised how many people flat out WON'T know about California not being shall-issue. Some people are disconnected from the world, especially in the inner cities. You think there's probably 36 million people in California, you have to exclude anyone under 18, anyone unlawfully present in the United States, anyone with a prohibitive criminal background, that'll probably cut down the "eligible" population down to about 25 million. 1 million=4 percent. I'd love for it to be 2 or 3 million, but that gets to a lever higher than Washington State and Pennsylvania, and unless there's a huge organization and advertisement push, with discounted courses for those who are more indigent, I don't think we can get it to that level. Doesn't mean someone shouldn't try! :)

My personal feelings on things is I would love to see CA give the option for you to choose if you want to LOC or CCW.

Call it a hunch, but I think it won't be a matter of California giving that option.

AndrewMendez
09-13-2009, 2:13 AM
Doesn't anyone have connects with FoxNews? They are going to be the only Non Liberal Main Stream news we can find! We need someone on the inside, then organize a mass OC Event, statewide, and have it get national attention! Then Nothing will go wrong, no one will die, no one will get shot, just a bunch of cops getting in trouble, for detaining us, and the news will play us out as good guys. Then we get more people curious and involved! More people start talking. Less people afriad that we are not helping our cause!

artherd
09-13-2009, 3:09 AM
The Foundation is intent on getting rid of 12031, 626.9, the only true obstructions to usefull and effective just about everywhere unlicensed loaded open carry. - Foundation leaders correct me if I am wrong...But this is my understanding

Correct but not far reaching enough - I personally want AK/VT style carry. For a select fire suppressed MP5. I dare anyone who says I don't to call up AM and ask her to arrest them too. ;)

Do please note however, that when you are offering your time to Calguns that you need to be able to check your OC activism at the door. It is not in all cases and at all times, but that you need to be able to do so from time to time if you are going to try to help them reach their goals.

I realize that "in order to gain OC, we must not OC right now" is a difficult pill to swallow. All I can really do is point to our track record and beg your trust.

I will open the floor now to some specific suggestions about what we as open carriers can do for Calguns.

Honestly, stop getting pinched and costing us money to defend you, and START donating to CGF! Stay ready, we will call on you to OC (perhaps in a way you may not have thought of, possibly with minorities and women.) on day. soon.

artherd
09-13-2009, 3:10 AM
Just to point out a particular error that was made in previous threads.

One particular claim in the thread is that CGF and CGN would try to stop attempts to remove PC12031 and PC626.9 due to a believe that if LOC is allowed statewide (as it was before 1967), then may-issue CCW would be constitutional.

That's. (unprintable). Ludicrous.

I missed that but I want to know who said that. It doesn't even make any sense, 12031 and 626.9 are not really material to our challenge in Sykes.

Seriously, whoever said that needs a serious kick in the rear end.

7) We're all in this together, and when some specific people are generally telling you to stop doing general UOC'ing, it's so that you will get the benefit of something better down the line.

Yes, this. Better and including.

artherd
09-13-2009, 3:11 AM
Doesn't anyone have connects with FoxNews?
Yes, good ones.

Start posting flyers about shall-issue carry in the urban areas...with a contact forum address and a google voice number to contact in case of problem... I'm sure that Oleg Volk would be
I had dinner with Mr Volk earlier this week.

KylaGWolf
09-13-2009, 2:04 PM
Artherd You have my trust on the whole stand down on OC at this time. I don't like not being to OC but I understand why.

Gray you touched on something in your response to me. You made the comment about supplementing the cost for those less able to afford to pay when it comes to CCWl I think that is something that is going to have to be looked at some point. Heck part of what I would like seen done to make guns more available is to hold workshops to teach those that are interested in learning to shoot. Maybe that could be a way to gain more outreach of those that are not a part of the gunnie community. Yes the costs right now are worse for NY then they are for us here in CA. We just have to get the bad laws beaten down one at a time. I also like your idea about the fliers too.

wildhawker
09-13-2009, 2:56 PM
Andrew, a spot on FoxNews does not guarantee a positive spin. If the news is worthy enough for Fox to pick it up nationally, count on other outlets and media picking it up as well. We have to be wise in how we interface with the public- that doesn't mean we can't ;). Distributing printed material will comprise a substantial part of our outreach efforts.

PonchoTA
09-13-2009, 3:43 PM
You folks are my heroes!! I wish I understood more of the law to be able to be more effective. I know the argument in my head, but trying to articulate all the points just doesn't come easy to me all the time. I'm much better writing out my thoughts!!

A couple of points I'd like to note:

Regarding the CCW "Shall Issue" limitations imposed by this state's legislature, it seems completely ridiculous to me to say on one hand that "Personal Protection" is NOT a good reason as a good cause, and protection of valuables is; however in every lecture I've ever attended regarding Deadly Force, the primary reason for invoking this is... (wait for it)......... yes, Personal Protection!!!!! Do they not get the hypocrisy of their own requirements/regulations? This is asinine at best. Can't we get them to capitulate on this?

I think it's a good idea to play upon the left's/liberal's soft spot for "feelings", and make them admit that if they don't see a weapon, then it's ok for others to carry. I don't know how to do this. The smart people on this board understand what I'm trying to say, I'm sure! :rofl:

We should have a national open carry day! Point out that everywhere that the gun "control" laws (and by extension, CCW) are lax, there is a LOWER crime rate, and the opposite exists for those states with more gun "control". [BTW, I'm using the quotation marks like this intentionally. "Gun Control" is not about guns, it's about control. :rolleyes: ]

Lastly, we should work on converting a high ranking member of the Brady Bunch to our side!!! Wouldn't THAT beat all??? :rofl2:

Cheers, and thank goodness we have the good guys on our side and leading the fight! :thumbsup:

.

Theseus
09-15-2009, 11:50 AM
Well, at least it hasn't turned into a gratuitous bashing thread! Haha.

I understand that at this exact time attacking 12031 and 626.9 are somewhat not beneficial. We will get them in due time, that time is just not due, but that doesn't change their intent (leadership).

hvengel
09-16-2009, 10:09 AM
...If the news is worthy enough for Fox to pick it up nationally, count on other outlets and media picking it up as well....

This is true for many stories but not for those that are not politically correct and favorable stories about guns/open carry are not PC. For example Fox has run extensive stories on ACORN and Van Jones and for the most part the main stream media has been silent (until Van Jones was fired). Just look at the under cover ACRON corruption tapes that are coming out now. Fox is covering them in detail and NBC, ABC and CBS are ignoring them in spite of the tapes showing what appears to be wide spread criminal activity/corruption in an organization that receives large amounts of tax payer money. If ACORN was a right wing group then for sure the main stream media would be covering the undercover recordings extensively. We need to keep in mind how corrupt the MSM is and temper our expectations based on those realities.

wash
09-16-2009, 11:02 AM
The OC movement isn't a down and out Hollywood actor. You don't want to get arrested and there is no such thing as good press (right now).

Fox might be great but the perception is that the station spins everything conservative. Having favorable coverage on Fox is preaching to the choir and will be perceived negatively by a lot of the public.

Theseus, I'm glad to hear that you have lost a lot of your us against them rhetoric. We need to be united now. Carry issues are very serious and they have to be treated in a serious manner.

I wish we had no permit CCW and LOC and eliminate or make the GFSZ perhaps 100 yards (unless we can find some other way to keep gang bangers out of schools. Arming teacher would be smart too). The problem is that it might be impractical to get all of that.

We need to get what we can first. We can't make out a wish list and start fighting for our #1 item, we need to fight for what we can get. The only way we have made progress so far is in the courts. We've never got anything from positive media coverage or successful police encounters. We need to keep fighting in the courts until we can no longer make any progress there or we have gained a legal standing that allows us to UOC without fear of sabotaging our court battles.

We're with you, we want it all but we want to fight the battles we can win first.

nicki
09-17-2009, 3:20 AM
Think of the current legal cases like a football game.

We are on offense, we are on first down and we are on a running game.

Each court victory is another first down.

The Heller case changed us from defending gun rights to going on offense and right now we are on the 20 yard line.

When we get incoportation, that will move us to the 30 yard line. First down.

When we win on the Sykes case that will be another first down, we will be at the 40 yard line.

We have a running game, but we have the risk of fumbles.

UOC opens us up to fumbles in the court of law and the court of public opinion.

Let's get to at least the 50 yard line in court cases before we consider any open carry in California.

Nicki