PDA

View Full Version : The UOC thing..Enlighten me..


Swatguy10_15
10-27-2009, 6:27 PM
Thanks to those who contributed with intelligent, educated responses! Neat to gain a new perspective. Mods feel free to lock this..

Geo
10-27-2009, 6:29 PM
UOC seems to be mostly for peeps that want to draw attention to themselves. I understand their arguments and even agree with most of them (exercising a right, etc...), but in spite of their valid arguements to UOC, I think most mainly do it due to some deap-seated attention-whore issue.

Theseus
10-27-2009, 6:31 PM
:mad:

Until you have actually OC'd you will not know exactly how wrong you are about your assumptions.

I assure you Geo, I am no whore.

Telperion
10-27-2009, 6:35 PM
Well now that Sheriff has a great deal of anti-citizen with a gun resentment and essentially says "screw that!" to the increased issuance of Concealed weapons permits.


If the sheriff verily doth abhor open carried guns so much, maybe he could start issuing CCW permits. Worked in Ohio, maybe eventually work in California once the incorporation issue is decided.

Vinz
10-27-2009, 6:55 PM
:mad:

Until you have actually OC'd you will not know exactly how wrong you are about your assumptions.

I assure you Geo, I am no whore.

you might not be a whore but you did take one for the team. BTW, Congratulations for the win. Glad to see everything went your way.

I guess, in a way its considered a big no no here now.

I UOC when I am on walks with the dogs or my 3 mile walk to the bank at night. Make sure im not near any schools and such. Actually ran into a local LEO at 7/11 and he just asked if it was unloaded and I said yes and he replied "good man". I just nodded and walked away.

We live in a great neighborhood but for a few months we had a large band of stray dogs that roamed the area and had killed a few pets. I think it is taken care of now but nothing hits pucker factor 12 faster than seeing 8 pitbulls and 2 Rotwilers running full speed on a cross street 60 feet from you with two Yorkies on pink leashes. Yes, my wife loves to torture me. LOL

I haven't had the urge to UOC cause I now just carry a big stick. :D

Might be a good idea to PM someone in the know or maybe run it by one of the Mods. Hate to be the one to set a negative presidence.

vinz

a1c
10-27-2009, 6:59 PM
:mad:

Until you have actually OC'd you will not know exactly how wrong you are about your assumptions.

I assure you Geo, I am no whore.

He was actually specifically referring to unloaded open carry, and I see his point.

I've got nothing against open carry. But unloaded open carrying in public seems to be all about making a point. Nothing to do with safety - you might as well CCW - with your gun loaded, of course (provided you can).

RandyD
10-27-2009, 7:03 PM
So Ive read alot of posts pertaining to different aspects of this whole concept of UOC...What the purpose of this?
In my eyes this is moving backwards in an effort to retain and restore our 2nd amendment rights..NRA and Calguns seem to have plenty of good educated ideas as to what to do and how to help..I dont think Ive seen the endorsment for UOC..(Just because I havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist, I know this)
Heres my thought(s).

Anytime a firearm is introduced into any situation,coffee at yuppiebucks, a book at B&N, anywhere..The situation has now become uncomfortable for John Q public. People will call 911, and as anyone whos involved in LE knows, people who call 911 dont always relay the facts..Simply carrying UOC can be quickly twisted into a "crazy man with a gun" 911 call..Now youve got all units running code to get there..No good can come of this..
On top of that PUSHING UOC down the throat of the local LE agency creates an anti-gun attitude by both LE patrol and overhead..For instance a County Sheriff who is kinda midway as far as issuing CCW's. With the economy and officers having to be laid off,hes reconsidering his position and is toying with the idea of issuing more permits..Then he starts having to deal with his patrol guys being constantly called to "man with a gun" calls. Only to hear that the person carrying a gun is proclaiming theyre 2nd amendment right to carry that firearm..Irregardless that the presence of that weapon has caused a bunch of grief,some scared citizens and alot of wasted patrol time.Also noting that a code 3 response is DANGEROUS.
Well now that Sheriff has a great deal of anti-citizen with a gun resentment and essentially says "screw that!" to the increased issuance of Concealed weapons permits.
Another factor..Carrying a firearm openly, without a badge is LOOKING for problems. Theres no if and or buts about it. When youre average citizen sees a gun, and no badge..Problem..Now the gang member WITH A LOADED weapon see's an opportunity to score another firearm...or...Now someone pissed because theyre kids saw it and are terrified..
I thought the 2nd amendment fight was one won by public support and legal battles..Not shoving the presence of a weapon down the publics throat. Especially in the larger cities..Alot of the public, arent necessarily anti-gun or pro gun..Society is such that if it doesnt personally affect someone,they usually dont care. Now it would seem those individuals would be leaned toward anti-gun because theyve been made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a firearm in a public place.."I cant even go to yuppiebucks without seeing someone toting a gun!"
Now before some keyboard commando goes and tells me how much of a bas*** I am..Im simply trying to understand..Im open to all thoughts,educated input and such..Whats the concept behind UOC, what purpose is it seving in the fight to restore and keep our 2nd amendment rights? Do the benefits outweigh the negative attention? Im all about fighting to keep what little rights weve been left with..But Im about an educated effective fight, not a hip shoot reflex :43:

I am in agreement with you. I have written similar comments. Stand by to be shouted down by the keyboard commandos who have not grown out of their desire to carry a firearm.

Vinz
10-27-2009, 7:05 PM
So Ive read alot of posts pertaining to different aspects of this whole concept of UOC...What the purpose of this?
In my eyes this is moving backwards in an effort to retain and restore our 2nd amendment rights..NRA and Calguns seem to have plenty of good educated ideas as to what to do and how to help..I dont think Ive seen the endorsment for UOC..(Just because I havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist, I know this)
Heres my thought(s).

Anytime a firearm is introduced into any situation,coffee at yuppiebucks, a book at B&N, anywhere..The situation has now become uncomfortable for John Q public. People will call 911, and as anyone whos involved in LE knows, people who call 911 dont always relay the facts..Simply carrying UOC can be quickly twisted into a "crazy man with a gun" 911 call..Now youve got all units running code to get there..No good can come of this..
On top of that PUSHING UOC down the throat of the local LE agency creates an anti-gun attitude by both LE patrol and overhead..For instance a County Sheriff who is kinda midway as far as issuing CCW's. With the economy and officers having to be laid off,hes reconsidering his position and is toying with the idea of issuing more permits..Then he starts having to deal with his patrol guys being constantly called to "man with a gun" calls. Only to hear that the person carrying a gun is proclaiming theyre 2nd amendment right to carry that firearm..Irregardless that the presence of that weapon has caused a bunch of grief,some scared citizens and alot of wasted patrol time.Also noting that a code 3 response is DANGEROUS.
Well now that Sheriff has a great deal of anti-citizen with a gun resentment and essentially says "screw that!" to the increased issuance of Concealed weapons permits.
Another factor..Carrying a firearm openly, without a badge is LOOKING for problems. Theres no if and or buts about it. When youre average citizen sees a gun, and no badge..Problem..Now the gang member WITH A LOADED weapon see's an opportunity to score another firearm...or...Now someone pissed because theyre kids saw it and are terrified..
I thought the 2nd amendment fight was one won by public support and legal battles..Not shoving the presence of a weapon down the publics throat. Especially in the larger cities..Alot of the public, arent necessarily anti-gun or pro gun..Society is such that if it doesnt personally affect someone,they usually dont care. Now it would seem those individuals would be leaned toward anti-gun because theyve been made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a firearm in a public place.."I cant even go to yuppiebucks without seeing someone toting a gun!"
Now before some keyboard commando goes and tells me how much of a bas*** I am..Im simply trying to understand..Im open to all thoughts,educated input and such..Whats the concept behind UOC, what purpose is it seving in the fight to restore and keep our 2nd amendment rights? Do the benefits outweigh the negative attention? Im all about fighting to keep what little rights weve been left with..But Im about an educated effective fight, not a hip shoot reflex :43:


The effort of the UOP group is to slowly,legally make a legal right mainstream so it will not be out of the ordinary to see a citizen with a gun.

I assume you are referering to the protest being carried out in Santa Clara? I have yet to hear of any arrests or citations so I assume all is legal.



As long as all laws are followed it should be allowed. I agree that there is a place for everything.

vinz

weezil_boi
10-27-2009, 7:17 PM
So Ive read alot of posts pertaining to different aspects of this whole concept of UOC...What the purpose of this?

... I thought the 2nd amendment fight was one won by public support and legal battles..Not shoving the presence of a weapon down the publics throat.

..Im simply trying to understand..Im open to all thoughts,educated input and such..Whats the concept behind UOC, what purpose is it seving in the fight to restore and keep our 2nd amendment rights? ...


My humble opinion-
I think it is fundamentally wrong to enforce any police action against a citizen who is exercising a right, within the law, simply because it makes others uncomfortable. After the initial assessment that the gun is unloaded... anything other than a simple..."thank you for your cooperation" is HARASSMENT.

To answer your question of WHY... rights that are unexercised may be questioned by a public that chooses not to as well. For example, If no one ever protested again because it was regarded as vulgar, scary, or profoundly wrong by near all of our states citizens... would it make the person who chooses to exercise that right a JERK or a Good Citizen?

Your response to that last question pretty much sums up your opinion of California gun owners... at least those of us who are not LEOs.

-my 1.5 cents

Librarian
10-27-2009, 7:22 PM
BTW, Congratulations for the win. Glad to see everything went your way.

What? What'd I miss?

oaklander
10-27-2009, 7:24 PM
Not this again.

We all kind of made our peace on the issue a few months ago. . .

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1166/1454018245_5986b5e6c1.jpg

Vinz
10-27-2009, 7:38 PM
What? What'd I miss?
perhaps it was I that is missing something...:leaving:

I maybe wrong.

vinz

Vinz
10-27-2009, 7:39 PM
Not this again.

We all kind of made our peace on the issue a few months ago. . .

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1166/1454018245_5986b5e6c1.jpg

this is what I am talking about. We need info...big bill boards....blimps....guidence.


vinz

Army
10-27-2009, 7:44 PM
a1c, trust me, Theseus knows ALL about UOC...and its consequences.

To the OP, we don't have the luxury of CCW, nor the convenience of living far enough out of town to carry loaded. Since California has decided that protecting yourself is a privilege to be doled out to the highest bidder, then we little people must comply with existing law.

That means UOC.

I UOC on a fairly regular basis, with 40 rounds at the ready for the 1911 in a Serpa. My personal and professional training keeps me condition orange whenever I am awake. My weapons training helps me to draw, drop the empty mag, and load in less than 3 seconds. It's nothing that anyone else can't do.

I have been stopped and "E" checked by local PD and Sheriff in other cities, but not my own...go figure. But, you know what? Are you sitting down? Ready?

Never had a MWAG call on me. Never had a panicked grandma. Never had any children self abort. Not one screaming mommy. Negative on grown men pissing their pants at the sight of me. I fail to recall any sirens screaming in for the major bust. Not one gang banger has tried to take my gun (on the contrary, they seem to want to call me "sir" a lot). While eating at one of my favorite sandwich shops, nobody assume the puking position in total fear (on the contrary, the owner usually gets his own sandwich and sits with me to shoot the BS). I've yet to witness any car wrecks due to fearful drivers swerving around me. Oh yes, butterflies alight upon my shoulders because I am so sweet.

Your assumptions are far-fetched, with no clear basis in reality. I'm not looking for trouble...trust me, I can find trouble really really fast...and trouble does not seem to be able to find me. I do not push anything down any LEO throat, other than to make sure THEY follow the same law I must. I don't care if they like it or not, same as I don't care what they think about my low-rider truck.

Geo feels we are "attention whores". Well, I feel he is some ignorant punk that should not venture too far from his mothers basement. See, I can be nasty too.

Calling attention to myself and my gun would be rather foolish, don't you think? I wouldn't smoke my tires just because I have a vehicle that can do it. I won't run around naked to show off my manhood...although the ladies would indeed pay attention :)

I will, however, go about my business in a normal and legal manner, making no special effort to be noticed..or to hide.

This is one of those "been there, done that" things. Unless you have packed in public, your opinion of ME doing so is rather moot. The LAW allows it, what you think means nothing.

7x57
10-27-2009, 8:25 PM
What? What'd I miss?

What Librarian said. I had to go and find the main Theseus thread, thinking that Big News had happened while I was hunting. Nothing.

It's not fair to get our hopes up for Theseus like that. :nono:

Hah, always wanted to use that smiley. :nono: :nono:

7x57

camsoup
10-27-2009, 8:32 PM
Here are some of my thoughts on OC...

So Ive read alot of posts pertaining to different aspects of this whole concept of UOC...What the purpose of this?

The fact that most people cant get a ccw in this state, and the fact that CA law requires us to carry unloaded when in incorporated areas. UOC is the only choice for most of us that want to be able to protect ourselves and can not obtain a CCW. Or have the strength to carry a police officer around on our back everwhere we go, :D

UOC may not be the best option, but it is the only option alot of people in CA have. Its still better than not having a firearm at all.

In my eyes this is moving backwards in an effort to retain and restore our 2nd amendment rights..NRA and Calguns seem to have plenty of good educated ideas as to what to do and how to help..I dont think Ive seen the endorsment for UOC..(Just because I havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist, I know this)
Heres my thought(s).

While the NRA and Calguns have done wonderful things for us in CA, just because they don't endorse it, doesn't mean we shouldn't have the option of doing it, if we so choose.

Anytime a firearm is introduced into any situation,coffee at yuppiebucks, a book at B&N, anywhere..The situation has now become uncomfortable for John Q public. People will call 911, and as anyone whos involved in LE knows, people who call 911 dont always relay the facts..Simply carrying UOC can be quickly twisted into a "crazy man with a gun" 911 call..Now youve got all units running code to get there..No good can come of this..

I believe the good that come of this, is making John Q public and LE aware that what we choose to do is legal, and there is no reason to get all crazy and call in a MWAG call. OC is legal in Vermont and Arizona, do you know what the dispatchers do in those states when they receive a MWAG call??

They actually ask questions and obtain information before dispatching units at code 3, questions like, what is the man with the gun doing? the gun is in a holster? He is just sitting having lunch?

On top of that PUSHING UOC down the throat of the local LE agency creates an anti-gun attitude by both LE patrol and overhead..For instance a County Sheriff who is kinda midway as far as issuing CCW's. With the economy and officers having to be laid off,hes reconsidering his position and is toying with the idea of issuing more permits..Then he starts having to deal with his patrol guys being constantly called to "man with a gun" calls. Only to hear that the person carrying a gun is proclaiming theyre 2nd amendment right to carry that firearm....Irregardless that the presence of that weapon has caused a bunch of grief,some scared citizens and alot of wasted patrol time.Also noting that a code 3 response is DANGEROUS.

Again, this "typical" response you have laid out is not the only option for LE, THEY choose to respond in this fashion, it doesn't happen everywhere (AZ,VT etc) and it doesn't have to happen in this fashion here.

Also, just because I walk down the street UOCing doesn't mean I am PUSHING it down the throat of john q public or LE, if someone wants to perceive it has being shoved down their throat, that is all on them.

Well now that Sheriff has a great deal of anti-citizen with a gun resentment and essentially says "screw that!" to the increased issuance of Concealed weapons permits.

Most people don't even notice when I OC, let along show any type of anti-gun sentiment towards me.

Another factor..Carrying a firearm openly, without a badge is LOOKING for problems. Theres no if and or buts about it. When youre average citizen sees a gun, and no badge..Problem..Now the gang member WITH A LOADED weapon see's an opportunity to score another firearm...or...Now someone pissed because theyre kids saw it and are terrified..

The gangbanger doesn't know my weapon is empty, do you really think he is going to risk trying to steal my gun just because he sees it??...isn't it more likely that my gun will deter him from trying to do anything to me? If you were to CCW that same gangbanger with a LOADED gun as no idea your carrying, whats to stop him from trying to take your wallet, or anything else he wants from you?


I thought the 2nd amendment fight was one won by public support and legal battles..Not shoving the presence of a weapon down the publics throat. Especially in the larger cities..Alot of the public, arent necessarily anti-gun or pro gun..Society is such that if it doesnt personally affect someone,they usually dont care. Now it would seem those individuals would be leaned toward anti-gun because theyve been made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a firearm in a public place.."I cant even go to yuppiebucks without seeing someone toting a gun!"
Now before some keyboard commando goes and tells me how much of a bas*** I am..Im simply trying to understand..Im open to all thoughts,educated input and such..Whats the concept behind UOC, what purpose is it seving in the fight to restore and keep our 2nd amendment rights?

If we don't exercise a right, can we really lay claim to even having it?

Do the benefits outweigh the negative attention? Im all about fighting to keep what little rights weve been left with..But Im about an educated effective fight, not a hip shoot reflex :43:

Not everyone that participates in UOC is doing it for the fight, or to restore rights.

Yes I believe in the 2nd amendment and the fact we should be able to exercise it, but I also OC to protect me and mine. CA being may issue and the fact that they don't issue many CCW permits really leaves me with no other choice.

MudCamper
10-27-2009, 8:34 PM
To the OP, if you honestly want to know why UOC (and Army's post wasn't enough, which I think it was) you can check out the following links.

http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html#why
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

CitaDeL
10-27-2009, 8:40 PM
So Ive read alot of posts pertaining to different aspects of this whole concept of UOC...What the purpose of this?
In my eyes this is moving backwards in an effort to retain and restore our 2nd amendment rights..NRA and Calguns seem to have plenty of good educated ideas as to what to do and how to help..I dont think Ive seen the endorsment for UOC..(Just because I havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist, I know this)
Heres my thought(s).

Anytime a firearm is introduced into any situation,coffee at yuppiebucks, a book at B&N, anywhere..The situation has now become uncomfortable for John Q public. People will call 911, and as anyone whos involved in LE knows, people who call 911 dont always relay the facts..Simply carrying UOC can be quickly twisted into a "crazy man with a gun" 911 call..Now youve got all units running code to get there..No good can come of this..
On top of that PUSHING UOC down the throat of the local LE agency creates an anti-gun attitude by both LE patrol and overhead..For instance a County Sheriff who is kinda midway as far as issuing CCW's. With the economy and officers having to be laid off,hes reconsidering his position and is toying with the idea of issuing more permits..Then he starts having to deal with his patrol guys being constantly called to "man with a gun" calls. Only to hear that the person carrying a gun is proclaiming theyre 2nd amendment right to carry that firearm..Irregardless that the presence of that weapon has caused a bunch of grief,some scared citizens and alot of wasted patrol time.Also noting that a code 3 response is DANGEROUS.
Well now that Sheriff has a great deal of anti-citizen with a gun resentment and essentially says "screw that!" to the increased issuance of Concealed weapons permits.
Another factor..Carrying a firearm openly, without a badge is LOOKING for problems. Theres no if and or buts about it. When youre average citizen sees a gun, and no badge..Problem..Now the gang member WITH A LOADED weapon see's an opportunity to score another firearm...or...Now someone pissed because theyre kids saw it and are terrified..
I thought the 2nd amendment fight was one won by public support and legal battles..Not shoving the presence of a weapon down the publics throat. Especially in the larger cities..Alot of the public, arent necessarily anti-gun or pro gun..Society is such that if it doesnt personally affect someone,they usually dont care. Now it would seem those individuals would be leaned toward anti-gun because theyve been made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a firearm in a public place.."I cant even go to yuppiebucks without seeing someone toting a gun!"
Now before some keyboard commando goes and tells me how much of a bas*** I am..Im simply trying to understand..Im open to all thoughts,educated input and such..Whats the concept behind UOC, what purpose is it seving in the fight to restore and keep our 2nd amendment rights? Do the benefits outweigh the negative attention? Im all about fighting to keep what little rights weve been left with..But Im about an educated effective fight, not a hip shoot reflex :43:

I began carrying exposed in 2006 to do two things; one-to practice the right to 'keep and bear' without the permission of the State and two- to challenge misconceptions about what was legal and how others would react to an ordinary person being visably armed.

I had researched the laws pertaining to the lawful possession and carry of firearms in California. I had consulted an attorney. And I had the example of those who carry loaded and exposed in dozens of States across the nation.

In the beginning I had zero support.

Upon mentioning open carry, I was told by gunnies not to even try it- some suggested I would be arrested or shot on sight by responding police. I got wary glances from range employees after asking about the legality and spoon fed FUD based on their own preferences to concealed carry. When the topic arose on a CCW forum an instructor and 'expert witness' suggested to his fans and students that if I open carried in public, that I was a 'good shoot'- that it would have been justifiable to shoot to kill me for merely walking up the street with a holstered firearm. After months of research and internal debate, I had to set aside the doubts that others built up in my mind.

So one day in August 2006, I went to get a sandwich while visably armed. It would take the police more than a year to respond. In this interceding time, I went on dozens of solo open carry excursions in various venues; everywhere from a crowded grocery store, to my bank, to pumping gas at a gas station, to eating at an outdoor hamburger stand. To my recollection there were only four instances where there was a reaction. The first three were that of curiosity, the forth resulted in detention by police that lasted for approximately 10 minutes. One person called 911. One.

In this year of living dangerously I had accomplished both my goals; I practiced my right unfettered by onerous regulation and I proved to gunnies that exposed carry would not result in an impromptu dirt taste test, an arrest, or death.

Things did change.

There were unintended consequences-

Gunnies arent totally disqualifying OC as an option-the debate continues.
A movement that 5 years ago would have been unthinkable, spawned cells of activists statewide.
No fewer than 10 departmental and legal memos have been issued (outlining with varying degrees of accuracy) the legality of exposed carry in California. (This was particularly advantageous since the authorities were spreading the word for us by educating hundreds of peace officers.)
It has been suggested that legislation has been forwarded to expand the gun-free school zone by 500 additional feet was instigated by OC activity. (And that there is more on the way.)
My license to carry concealed was revoked for not toeing the issuing authorities line. (Giving me no other alternative than to do what they were attempting to disuade me from doing.)


As I see it, the usefulness of open carry in California will be unrealized until incorporation. I am convinced my activities were premature. However, with the 2nd incorporated, exposed carry will not only be a visable deterent to criminals, but also be a lever by which anti-gun bias and policy will be overturned.

a1c
10-27-2009, 8:48 PM
Citadel or GunCamper, when you UOC, are your mags in a visible holster pocket as well? I have to admit you both made good points and changed my perception of the issue... At this point I'm almost thinking of trying UOC until I get my CCW license...

Vinz
10-27-2009, 8:55 PM
Citadel or GunCamper, when you UOC, are your mags in a visible holster pocket as well? I have to admit you both made good points and changed my perception of the issue... At this point I'm almost thinking of trying UOC until I get my CCW license...
please learn,know and follow the laws in your area. This very important.

vinz

Vinz
10-27-2009, 8:56 PM
What Librarian said. I had to go and find the main Theseus thread, thinking that Big News had happened while I was hunting. Nothing.

It's not fair to get our hopes up for Theseus like that. :nono:

Hah, always wanted to use that smiley. :nono: :nono:

7x57
sorry, my bad. :TFH:


vinz

MudCamper
10-27-2009, 9:04 PM
At this point I'm almost thinking of trying UOC until I get my CCW license...

Presently the CalGuns Foundation is asking that we do not UOC in urban areas or other high-profile areas, until we re-win 2A Incorporation, which should be around June 2010. This is to avoid knee-jerk bad legislative response until our 2A rights are secure here in CA. But if you want to know more about the specifics and legalities visit http://www.californiaopencarry.org/

wildhawker
10-27-2009, 9:10 PM
There is strategic value in not prompting a legislative response before incorporation and coloring the judicial outcome via Sykes.

Let's please keep this civil; if one would like more commentary on the arguments for and against, please do a search.

a1c
10-27-2009, 9:19 PM
please learn,know and follow the laws in your area. This very important.

vinz

Oh, trust me... with a spouse working in LE, I kinda have to. :D

The UOL picked my curiosity. I certainly wouldn't want to make any waves. It sounds like I'm going to have some conversations with the local SOs and PD LEOs.

Vinz
10-27-2009, 9:19 PM
Presently the CalGuns Foundation is asking that we do not UOC in urban areas or other high-profile areas, until we re-win 2A Incorporation, which should be around June 2010. This is to avoid knee-jerk bad legislative response until our 2A rights are secure here in CA. But if you want to know more about the specifics and legalities visit http://www.californiaopencarry.org/

thats what I wanted to read. A definitive answer. Thank you.

vinz

locosway
10-27-2009, 9:22 PM
I am in agreement with you. I have written similar comments. Stand by to be shouted down by the keyboard commandos who have not grown out of their desire to carry a firearm.

How does one outgrow the desire to carry a firearm? Do you even know what you're talking about when you make this comment? While I don't condone UOC at this time, I do support people who want to, and do carry a firearm.

Did you ever stop and think that with SI CCW these people might not partake in UOC? Sure, some do it to bring attention to the movement, but I think those days are over for the most part (at least with CGN members). While I can't speak for everyone who has or will UOC, I think that most of them are doing so in protest to the lack of CCW issuance and the current ban on LOC in incorporated areas.

Protesting is not wrong, bringing attention to issues that need attention is not wrong. However, bringing the wrong kind of attention does hurt our cause. And until we have 2A incorporation it's a good idea to not protest so openly.

MudCamper
10-27-2009, 9:23 PM
Oh, trust me... with a spouse working in LE, I kinda have to. :D

The UOL picked my curiosity. I certainly wouldn't want to make any waves. It sounds like I'm going to have some conversations with the local SOs and PD LEOs.

You should take a look at some of the various LEA OC memos: http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html#memos

The latest one is one of the better ones, out of Sunnyvale: http://www.opencarryradio.com/documents/Sunnyvale_California_Memo_18_Sep_09.pdf

artherd
10-27-2009, 9:28 PM
Presently the CalGuns Foundation is asking that we do not UOC in urban areas or other high-profile areas, until we re-win 2A Incorporation, which should be around June 2010. This is to avoid knee-jerk bad legislative response until our 2A rights are secure here in CA. But if you want to know more about the specifics and legalities visit http://www.californiaopencarry.org/

Exactly. We are presently asking for a stand-down, so that we can properly soften up the enemy with fast-movers.

Swatguy10_15
10-27-2009, 9:29 PM
See..Thats the problem..Some of those out there are really incredibly rude. Isnt that what these forums are for? Isnt that what it says? A place to dsicuss,ask questions etc ? All I did was ask what others view of the subject was..Anyone who paid any attention to what i wrote would see that the situation(s) I put forth were thereotical (even though Ive seen a couple firtshand)..My simply wanting others opinion is hardly justification for being exceptionally rude.
Army takes the cake for this.Youre one person.ONE. AS I STATED being only one person doesnt indicate any kind of trend..Its people like you..If youre this way on a simple forum intended to ask questions and gain the perspective of others..and youre this rude? Why SHOULD someone with that kind of poor attitude carry a gun? What happens if you come across someone who doesnt agree? Do you go into "condition red?" what the?
For those who took the time to give an educated and or thoughtful 2 cents,thank ya kindly! Aside from the never ending keyboard commandos and rude folks its neat to be able to get others perspectives! :chinese:

Swatguy10_15
10-27-2009, 9:31 PM
Exactly. We are presently asking for a stand-down, so that we can properly soften up the enemy with fast-movers.

Word from the man himself! This is what i was trying to inquire about..An educated fight!

MudCamper
10-27-2009, 9:35 PM
See..Thats the problem..Some of those out there are really incredibly rude. Isnt that what these forums are for? Isnt that what it says? A place to dsicuss,ask questions etc ? All I did was ask what others view of the subject was..Anyone who paid any attention to what i wrote would see that the situation(s) I put forth were thereotical (even though Ive seen a couple firtshand)..My simply wanting others opinion is hardly justification for being exceptionally rude.
Army takes the cake for this.Youre one person.ONE. AS I STATED being only one person doesnt indicate any kind of trend..Its people like you..If youre this way on a simple forum intended to ask questions and gain the perspective of others..and youre this rude? Why SHOULD someone with that kind of poor attitude carry a gun? What happens if you come across someone who doesnt agree? Do you go into "condition red?" what the?
For those who took the time to give an educated and or thoughtful 2 cents,thank ya kindly! Aside from the never ending keyboard commandos and rude folks its neat to be able to get others perspectives! :chinese:

Interesting. I saw things differently. I took your original post as very hostile, and Army's as simply reactionary, and informative. I guess I can chalk it up to the typical problems with text communications. You also may not know that this has been a very heated discussion that has gotten quite nasty many times already in these forums. Sometimes that past bad taste taints people's way of reading things, on both sides of the issue.

wildhawker
10-27-2009, 9:36 PM
Word from the man himself! This is what i was trying to inquire about..An educated fight!

There's lots to do - get involved where you can and help to expand 2A awareness in CA. Welcome to Calguns.

Swatguy10_15
10-27-2009, 9:38 PM
Thanks wildhawker! Agreed! Lots to do. Always up to donate or help!

Vinz
10-27-2009, 9:38 PM
See..Thats the problem..Some of those out there are really incredibly rude. Isnt that what these forums are for? Isnt that what it says? A place to dsicuss,ask questions etc ? All I did was ask what others view of the subject was..Anyone who paid any attention to what i wrote would see that the situation(s) I put forth were thereotical (even though Ive seen a couple firtshand)..My simply wanting others opinion is hardly justification for being exceptionally rude.
Army takes the cake for this.Youre one person.ONE. AS I STATED being only one person doesnt indicate any kind of trend..Its people like you..If youre this way on a simple forum intended to ask questions and gain the perspective of others..and youre this rude? Why SHOULD someone with that kind of poor attitude carry a gun? What happens if you come across someone who doesnt agree? Do you go into "condition red?" what the?
For those who took the time to give an educated and or thoughtful 2 cents,thank ya kindly! Aside from the never ending keyboard commandos and rude folks its neat to be able to get others perspectives! :chinese:

I didn't find his post as rude...staright forward and to the point. Well... its not like he sugar coats anything otherwise.


vinz

Army
10-27-2009, 9:51 PM
a1c, having a magazine in the pocket can be considered a concealed weapon...even if there is not a gun within 10 miles of you. Court decisions, using the "gang" additions in the PC, have established this.

I carry 4 magazines in a Blade-Tech quad holster. It's a bit bulky, but better than many magazines wrapped around my waist and it rides better in the truck (yes, that's legal too). All mags are filled with Cor-Bon 165HP's, the fifth mag is empty and in the 1911 in the Serpa.

This, of course, when I don't carry my Sheriffs model SAA in the John Wayne rig :D

Army
10-27-2009, 10:10 PM
See..Thats the problem..Some of those out there are really incredibly rude. Isnt that what these forums are for? Isnt that what it says? A place to dsicuss,ask questions etc ? All I did was ask what others view of the subject was..Anyone who paid any attention to what i wrote would see that the situation(s) I put forth were thereotical (even though Ive seen a couple firtshand)..My simply wanting others opinion is hardly justification for being exceptionally rude.
Army takes the cake for this.Youre one person.ONE. AS I STATED being only one person doesnt indicate any kind of trend..Its people like you..If youre this way on a simple forum intended to ask questions and gain the perspective of others..and youre this rude? Why SHOULD someone with that kind of poor attitude carry a gun? What happens if you come across someone who doesnt agree? Do you go into "condition red?" what the?
For those who took the time to give an educated and or thoughtful 2 cents,thank ya kindly! Aside from the never ending keyboard commandos and rude folks its neat to be able to get others perspectives! :chinese:
Wow, really?...I even used a smiley too.

Thanks for the PM attack, "brother". I read my response over and over...and I'm just not seeing any hostility towards you. I'm a big fluffy bundle of joyful fun, can't see why you would want to get all nasty in a PM.

I suppose I was a bit poopy towards the kid in the basement, but I was pretty clear who that was for...I used his nickname.

See, you say you wanted to be civil, but you essentially repeated the tired mantra that we who UOC are dumb neanderthals, wanting to drag our knuckles in front of the poor frightened citizens just so we can shove our rights down LEO throats when they come screaming around the corner in full-on code 3 razzle-dazzle.

Ah well, you can't please everyone, especially those who already have an unwavering conclusion to the loaded questions they ask :D


(oh looky.another smiley face!)

a1c
10-27-2009, 10:16 PM
Presently the CalGuns Foundation is asking that we do not UOC in urban areas or other high-profile areas, until we re-win 2A Incorporation, which should be around June 2010. This is to avoid knee-jerk bad legislative response until our 2A rights are secure here in CA. But if you want to know more about the specifics and legalities visit http://www.californiaopencarry.org/

Hmm... I suppose my first instinct might have been the correct one then...

I'm definitely for the prudent path. Thanks for the heads up. I'm definitely going to get involved with the CGF.

wildhawker
10-27-2009, 10:22 PM
a1c, there are many ways to get involved right now. Shoot me an email with your contact info and what time/skills/resources you feel comfortable sharing and we'll find a place for you in the ground game.

That said, let's all look forward to the day when we, every one, can carry openly (or not) at our discretion. Once the appropriate foundation's been laid, you'll see me walk proudly next to many a Calgunner with a trusty sidearm on my hip.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-28-2009, 6:07 AM
Wow, really?...I even used a smiley too.

Thanks for the PM attack, "brother". I read my response over and over...and I'm just not seeing any hostility towards you. I'm a big fluffy bundle of joyful fun, can't see why you would want to get all nasty in a PM.

I suppose I was a bit poopy towards the kid in the basement, but I was pretty clear who that was for...I used his nickname.

See, you say you wanted to be civil, but you essentially repeated the tired mantra that we who UOC are dumb neanderthals, wanting to drag our knuckles in front of the poor frightened citizens just so we can shove our rights down LEO throats when they come screaming around the corner in full-on code 3 razzle-dazzle.

Ah well, you can't please everyone, especially those who already have an unwavering conclusion to the loaded questions they ask :D


(oh looky.another smiley face!)


I didn't see any hostility on your part. Not even a little bit. Just a straight up answer to the (loaded) question that was asked.

The Raisuli

pullnshoot25
10-28-2009, 6:41 AM
Call me cranky (I am sick this morning) but swatguy, you are, at a MINIMUM, a troll. I hate to say this since it seems to be the favorite quip of so many people on here, but the search function would have saved you that entirely too long and grammatically bastardized post and me the frustration of just merely skimming over it.If you did use the search function and STILL can't grasp the concepts at hand, then there isn't much that I or we can do to help you. Criminey!

As last ditch effort to inform you of even the basics, I will say that reading my first blog post shall give you what you (apparently) are seeking. My viewpoints have not changed much since then, if at all.

Time for microbiology.

-N8

dantodd
10-28-2009, 6:52 AM
In case you can't find it pullnshoot's blog is at: http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/

KylaGWolf
10-28-2009, 9:09 AM
UOC seems to be mostly for peeps that want to draw attention to themselves. I understand their arguments and even agree with most of them (exercising a right, etc...), but in spite of their valid arguements to UOC, I think most mainly do it due to some deap-seated attention-whore issue.

Geo not all that open carry are out for drawing attention or being attention whores as you claim although I am sure there are a few that do. I don't UOC to draw attention to myself as you claim. My reason to UOC is that I have a better chance of loading said handgun and using it if needed than running away from a situation that would require me to defend myself being disabled. I walk with a cane that wouldn't do jack in stopping someone if I used it to defend myself. And being 6'1" female usually gets enough attention I don't need anymore than I already have.

KylaGWolf
10-28-2009, 9:30 AM
Citadel or GunCamper, when you UOC, are your mags in a visible holster pocket as well? I have to admit you both made good points and changed my perception of the issue... At this point I'm almost thinking of trying UOC until I get my CCW license...

When I UOC my mags are on the opposite side from my gun in a pouch. If you put them in your pocket then you are breaking the law. If you are seriously considering to UOC some things you may want to keep in mind:

1. Make sure to have a DIGITAL tape recorder that can record at least four hours continuous with FRESH batteries

2. Make sure to carry at least 15 fliers that have the relevant laws of what is legal when it comes to open carrying and be able to articulate what those laws mean to those that ask you.

3. Have a non gun carrying friendly witness with you that won't leave your side and that they carry said tape recorder and have access to either a digital video or still camera and make sure they understand that IF you get stopped they are not to stop taping or taking pictures even if asked by an LEO. Now some would say this is in your face. I look at it like this it not only protects you but the LEO from saying this or that did or did not happen.

4. Have the number for a good gun law attorney in your possession make sure your friend has said number too in case something does go horribly wrong and you get detained. Also make sure that you have the funds available to pay said attorney if needed.

5. Make sure there are NO schools within at least 1000 feet from where you plan to open carry. Do this by using things such as google earth and not only look for public schools but also private and charter schools. Also if it is not any area you know like the back of your hand take a look at the area before hand and double check. I have found schools that have NOT shown up on any map that would have been a violation had I UOCed in that area.

dantodd
10-28-2009, 9:32 AM
I walk with a cane that wouldn't do jack in stopping someone if I used it to defend myself.

We need to remove the prohibition on Cane Guns.

KylaGWolf
10-28-2009, 9:33 AM
There is strategic value in not prompting a legislative response before incorporation and coloring the judicial outcome via Sykes.

Let's please keep this civil; if one would like more commentary on the arguments for and against, please do a search.

Yes there is a strategic value in not poking them with a stick doesn't mean I have to like the fact that they are basically making it hard for me to protect myself because they want the sheep to be unarmed.

dantodd
10-28-2009, 9:33 AM
1. Make sure to have a DIGITAL tape recorder that can record at least four hours continuous with FRESH batteries


You need a voice recorder that can be concealed in a magazine body and keep that one in your mag well. You can be pretty sure that the LEO will not let that out of their sight during the detention.

KylaGWolf
10-28-2009, 9:35 AM
Exactly. We are presently asking for a stand-down, so that we can properly soften up the enemy with fast-movers.

You know I can think of some ways that would soften them up faster :rolleyes:. Sorry in a mood today.

MudCamper
10-28-2009, 9:38 AM
When I UOC my mags are on the opposite side from my gun in a pouch. If you put them in your pocket then you are breaking the law.

This is NOT true. There is no law that forbids concealing magazines or ammo. The problem is People v Hale. Depending on circumstances, this could be argued to be illegal, based on the Hale decision. Let me quote http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html#magazines here:

I've heard concealed magazines are illegal. Is that true?

While there is no code that supports this, there was an appellate case in 1974, People v. Hale (http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/43/353.html), that ruled this way. It ruled that although the firearm in question was not concealed, the magazine was, and that only partial concealment is still concealment, and that the magazine was an "essential component" of the firearm. The logic is tortured beyond belief, but it currently could be used as a persuasive precedent in court. One way to avoid this pitfall is to carry your magazines in belt holsters, so that they match the 12025(f) language of "carried openly in belt holsters". Another option would be to keep an unloaded magazine in the firearm, thereby "completing" the firearm, and invalidating the asinine "essential component" logic.

If you have an unloaded magazine in your firearm, feel free to keep loaded mags in your pocket.

MudCamper
10-28-2009, 9:39 AM
You need a voice recorder that can be concealed in a magazine body and keep that one in your mag well. You can be pretty sure that the LEO will not let that out of their sight during the detention.

That is a brilliant idea!

dantodd
10-28-2009, 9:46 AM
You need a voice recorder that can be concealed in a magazine body and keep that one in your mag well. You can be pretty sure that the LEO will not let that out of their sight during the detention.

That is a brilliant idea!

Thanks, I thought it was kinda cool. Probably want to start with 1911 magazines since they are so common and decently sized.

technique
10-28-2009, 9:47 AM
That is a brilliant idea!

How would you retrieve the data from the recorder if its confiscated(worst case)?
What about the watch Gene posted a while back?

MudCamper
10-28-2009, 9:50 AM
How would you retrieve the data from the recorder if its confiscated(worst case)?

True. I didn't think of that.

dantodd
10-28-2009, 9:52 AM
How would you retrieve the data from the recorder if its confiscated(worst case)?
What about the watch Gene posted a while back?

At ten buck a pop you can keep a backup which makes a good decoy. If you are arrested you will have access to the recorder and a new set of batteries will bring back what was recorded. If it is disabled or damaged that would mean VERY BAD things for the police officers involved.

technique
10-28-2009, 9:59 AM
At ten buck a pop you can keep a backup which makes a good decoy. If you are arrested you will have access to the recorder and a new set of batteries will bring back what was recorded. If it is disabled or damaged that would mean VERY BAD things for the police officers involved.

Well, I hear you but the "magazine" is evidence..not personal property(wallet, belt, keys..). I have never had access to either. Your personal property is released to you after you are let go...but evidence comes sometime later....assuming you are gonna be sitting in jail for a day or so.

KylaGWolf
10-28-2009, 10:02 AM
You need a voice recorder that can be concealed in a magazine body and keep that one in your mag well. You can be pretty sure that the LEO will not let that out of their sight during the detention.

Well they won't see my recorder in the open but that is beside the point. :D Yes I carry mine on me and its not easily seen. But I am not going to say where I put it.

Yes a cane gun would be nice but even better would be that I could LOC or CCW without any issue.

dantodd
10-28-2009, 10:03 AM
Well, I hear you but the "magazine" is evidence..not personal property(wallet, belt, keys..). I have never had access to either. Your personal property is released to you after you are let go...but evidence comes sometime later....assuming you are gonna be sitting in jail for a day or so.

If it comes to charges you WILL have access to the evidence. Unless they've REALLY repealed parts of the constitution, other than the 18th Amendment.

GrizzlyGuy
10-28-2009, 10:34 AM
So Ive read alot of posts pertaining to different aspects of this whole concept of UOC...What the purpose of this?

For someone that doesn't have a CCW permit, UOC is the only legal way to transport a handgun on foot when your destination/purpose doesn't fit one of the exemptions to PC 12025 (the concealed carry prohibited statute). I know there is a fairly widely held belief that you can always carry it in a locked case while on foot ("poor-man's CCW"), but that isn't true.

Swatguy10_15
10-28-2009, 11:21 AM
Thats a good point grizlly,really good point actually.(Hence why I started this thread) Thanks for the input!

Swatguy10_15
10-28-2009, 11:30 AM
Call me cranky (I am sick this morning) but swatguy, you are, at a MINIMUM, a troll. I hate to say this since it seems to be the favorite quip of so many people on here, but the search function would have saved you that entirely too long and grammatically bastardized post and me the frustration of just merely skimming over it.If you did use the search function and STILL can't grasp the concepts at hand, then there isn't much that I or we can do to help you. Criminey!

As last ditch effort to inform you of even the basics, I will say that reading my first blog post shall give you what you (apparently) are seeking. My viewpoints have not changed much since then, if at all.

Time for microbiology.

-N8


Troll? Hmm.Been called alot of things but troll..Thats new.Kinda neat. All I see are youre viewpoints.Youre one person.With youre own opinions. In the big scheme of things that doesnt equate to much. But hey, you obviously have the answer! If it frustrates you to read a post,then dont.. Thanks for the input!

Swatguy10_15
10-28-2009, 11:34 AM
Interesting. I saw things differently. I took your original post as very hostile, and Army's as simply reactionary, and informative. I guess I can chalk it up to the typical problems with text communications. You also may not know that this has been a very heated discussion that has gotten quite nasty many times already in these forums. Sometimes that past bad taste taints people's way of reading things, on both sides of the issue.

Fair enough mudcamper ..That is the problem with simple text communications. I was unaware that this had been discussed and didnt think it wrong of me to simply ask....I meant anything but hostility, just wanted others opinions..Someone who just came to "loaded" conclusions,questions etc..Wouldnt care what anyone else thought, as they have already come to those conclusions..But I dont, I ask..Like to know what other people think.

wildhawker
10-28-2009, 11:37 AM
Nate is a major player in the OC movement; his viewpoints on OC are shared by many. I'm not sure what you were driving at by diminishing the position of someone who has worked very hard to promote our 2A rights and has taken it upon himself to promote cooperation with others in the RKBA movement in this period of voluntary OC standdown.

Have your questions been answered to the degree you desired?

Troll? Hmm.Been called alot of things but troll..Thats new.Kinda neat. All I see are youre viewpoints.Youre one person.With youre own opinions. In the big scheme of the world that doesnt mean much,thanks for the input though!

wildhawker
10-28-2009, 11:39 AM
Fair enough mudcamper ..That is the problem with simple text communications. I was unaware that this had been discussed and didnt think it wrong of me to simply ask....I meant anything but hostility, just wanted others opinions..Someone who just came to "loaded" conclusions,questions etc..Wouldnt care what anyone else thought, as they have already come to those conclusions..But I dont, I ask..Like to know what other people think.

Your OP was full of conclusions. If it had been a simple question I doubt you would have received the responses that the actual post garnered.

dantodd
10-28-2009, 11:41 AM
I ask..Like to know what other people think.

I would really suggest using google search for the forum, the local search is not great. Hopefully that will fulfill your desire to know what people think and the roles people play around here. It's always great to have more voices in the conversation but there are much more efficient and less divisive ways to find what you are looking for than trying to re-hash the whole issue here.

Swatguy10_15
10-28-2009, 11:46 AM
Nate is a major player in the OC movement; his viewpoints on OC are shared by many. I'm not sure what you were driving at by diminishing the position of someone who has worked very hard to promote our 2A rights and has taken it upon himself to promote cooperation with others in the RKBA movement in this period of voluntary OC standdown.

Have your questions been answered to the degree you desired?

Did you read his reply? Did that sound like a simple response..No. That was exactly what I was warned of earlier in this thread..A keyboard "shout down"..A troll? Bastardized grammar? ..To answer youre question yes..Ive gotten more than what I desired..Including a new outlook on some things..

wildhawker
10-28-2009, 11:51 AM
Good, then I suggest you work alongside us and use that newfound outlook for furthering our rights and not misinformed notions of gun rights activists.

inbox485
10-28-2009, 2:29 PM
Presently the CalGuns Foundation is asking that we do not UOC in urban areas or other high-profile areas, until we re-win 2A Incorporation, which should be around June 2010. This is to avoid knee-jerk bad legislative response until our 2A rights are secure here in CA. But if you want to know more about the specifics and legalities visit http://www.californiaopencarry.org/

There is strategic value in not prompting a legislative response before incorporation and coloring the judicial outcome via Sykes.

Let's please keep this civil; if one would like more commentary on the arguments for and against, please do a search.

I have a request for a few points of clarification on this. It has been stated here and elsewhere that OCing should be suspended until after June 2010 lest OCing incite the ire of legislatures resulting in an anti OC law in addition to the anti loaded in public law we already have, and somehow complicate the incorporation effort.

1) What is the difference between OC being banned and simply choosing not to do it?
2) I can see how incorporation could help the OC (and the CC) effort, and I can see how incorporation could be used to fight an all out OC ban, but how does not OCing to prevent a ban on OC help further either the OC or the CC cause?
3) Assuming the legislature decided to go full throttle after an anti-OC law in the next session, it wouldn't take effect until July 2010 at the earliest (January 2011 being more realistic). How would that hurt the incorporation effort if it is expected to be resolved one way or the other by June 2010?

wildhawker
10-28-2009, 2:56 PM
1) What is the difference between OC being banned and simply choosing not to do it?

At first glance it appears the answer is contained within your question.

2) I can see how incorporation could help the OC (and the CC) effort, and I can see how incorporation could be used to fight an all out OC ban, but how does not OCing to prevent a ban on OC help further either the OC or the CC cause?

Incorporation will allow "bear" cases to proceed on 2A grounds with at least intermediate scrutiny. Until we have a right to bear, it is wise to avoid any actions which would compromise the future vehicles to secure an open and loaded means of "bear" or, alternatively, create an outcome where open carry is the sole acceptable manner of "bear" (which can then be easily restricted on private property, etc.).

3) Assuming the legislature decided to go full throttle after an anti-OC law in the next session, it wouldn't take effect until July 2010 at the earliest (January 2011 being more realistic). How would that hurt the incorporation effort if it is expected to be resolved one way or the other by June 2010?

U/OC does not affect incorporation of 2A via McDonald.

MudCamper
10-28-2009, 3:28 PM
inbox485, I have asked very similar questions myself, and I too have never received a very good answer, other than one, which I have only inferred, and which I will relate here.

Pre-Incorporation, the CA legislature could more easily pass a carry ban, or worsen 12031 (loaded or ammo restrictions). Then post-incorporation, this would cost us time and money to fight to overturn, distracting us from whatever the fight could be at that point. So the theory goes, don't scare the legislature with UOC and make us lose ground before incorporation.

Now this assumes a few things. First, that the actions of UOCers actually will garner enough attention from the legislature for them to take action. Second, that they aren't planning to do so already. Third, that it is somehow more difficult to pass bad laws post-incorporation than pre-incorporation. I have my doubts about all of these things myself.

The question that I want answered most is, how exactly is it more difficult for the legislature to pass bad law post-incorporation?

7x57
10-28-2009, 3:32 PM
I
1) What is the difference between OC being banned and simply choosing not to do it?


CGF doesn't have to spend a lot of time and money reversing a cessation, which would be in lieu of using those resources to go after the AW ban, or OC. It means it costs us to get back to where we are now instead of moving forward.

It may also place us in a poorer strategic position, particularly if we can't strike down *everything* about the ban and then have a precedent that says infringement X is Constitutional.

Why roll the dice if we don't have to?

Another way it matters is that if UOC is legal but under the radar, it is still available in emergencies.

Another way it matters is that there are many ways UOC could be made illegal, and some of them have very very nasty side effects on all gun owners. Even just getting to the range. For obvious reasons we don't like to talk openly about which ways are the worst on a public forum known to be read by antigunners, but we must not do things that could inadvertently make criminals of people for doing what they've always done. It would also greatly damage the living gun culture we still have.


2) I can see how incorporation could help the OC (and the CC) effort, and I can see how incorporation could be used to fight an all out OC ban, but how does not OCing to prevent a ban on OC help further either the OC or the CC cause?


It's clear a state cannot ban both OC and CC if the 2A is incorporated against them. But it isn't so clear they can't choose only one as the preferred mode (this is a debatable point--some have suggested to me that OC specifically is the protected right and CC is always at the state's discretion, while others including notably Alan Gura think a state may choose either so long as one mode of carry is available). If they ban OC now, and we win CC, we might never get OC back if the courts tell us that shall-issue CC is sufficient to satisfy the Right to Bear.

That said, Gene has a reasonable way to go after both *if* we go after CC before OC (that's at least one reason CGF is going after CC before OC--we want both). But again, why roll the dice?


3) Assuming the legislature decided to go full throttle after an anti-OC law in the next session, it wouldn't take effect until July 2010 at the earliest (January 2011 being more realistic). How would that hurt the incorporation effort if it is expected to be resolved one way or the other by June 2010?

Laws don't vanish because they're unconstitutional. Incorporation simply gives us a license to litigate. Litigation in federal court is expensive. We want to spend our money moving forward, not, as the Red Queen says, running as fast as we can just to stay in one place.

Plus, there is always risk of a weird result in court, so, one more time, I say "why roll the dice if we don't have to?"

7x57

pullnshoot25
10-28-2009, 3:41 PM
OK, I will read your mindless drivel of a post.

So Ive read alot of posts pertaining to different aspects of this whole concept of UOC...What the purpose of this?
In my eyes this is moving backwards in an effort to retain and restore our 2nd amendment rights..NRA and Calguns seem to have plenty of good educated ideas as to what to do and how to help..I dont think Ive seen the endorsment for UOC..(Just because I havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist, I know this)
Heres my thought(s).

Search function is DEFINITELY your best friend. In fact, searching "california open carry" in Google gives you my blog on the third link. Even better, California Open Carry is the first link. Information is literally OVERFLOWING at that site.

Anytime a firearm is introduced into any situation,coffee at yuppiebucks, a book at B&N, anywhere..The situation has now become uncomfortable for John Q public. People will call 911, and as anyone whos involved in LE knows, people who call 911 dont always relay the facts..Simply carrying UOC can be quickly twisted into a "crazy man with a gun" 911 call..Now youve got all units running code to get there..No good can come of this..

Now you are sounding like some gutless degenerate that thinks as long as people crawl in the gutter that they won't be noticed. Newsflash! Learning takes EXPOSURE. Besides, cops are not legally obligated to come out. They can LEGALLY sit around munching on french cruellers if they wanted to.

On top of that PUSHING UOC down the throat of the local LE agency creates an anti-gun attitude by both LE patrol and overhead..For instance a County Sheriff who is kinda midway as far as issuing CCW's. With the economy and officers having to be laid off,hes reconsidering his position and is toying with the idea of issuing more permits..Then he starts having to deal with his patrol guys being constantly called to "man with a gun" calls. Only to hear that the person carrying a gun is proclaiming theyre 2nd amendment right to carry that firearm..Irregardless that the presence of that weapon has caused a bunch of grief,some scared citizens and alot of wasted patrol time.Also noting that a code 3 response is DANGEROUS.

Again, they are not required to come out. I have never asked a cop to come out and molest me and I never asked them to break the law.

Most county sheriffs are VEHEMENTLY anti-gun.

You propose pipe dream conjectures with little to no substance.

Well now that Sheriff has a great deal of anti-citizen with a gun resentment and essentially says "screw that!" to the increased issuance of Concealed weapons permits.
Another factor..Carrying a firearm openly, without a badge is LOOKING for problems. Theres no if and or buts about it. When youre average citizen sees a gun, and no badge..Problem..Now the gang member WITH A LOADED weapon see's an opportunity to score another firearm...or...Now someone pissed because theyre kids saw it and are terrified..

Yay! More worthless anecdotes amongst more mindless drivel!

I thought the 2nd amendment fight was one won by public support and legal battles..Not shoving the presence of a weapon down the publics throat. Especially in the larger cities..Alot of the public, arent necessarily anti-gun or pro gun..Society is such that if it doesnt personally affect someone,they usually dont care. Now it would seem those individuals would be leaned toward anti-gun because theyve been made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a firearm in a public place.."I cant even go to yuppiebucks without seeing someone toting a gun!"

The only way you can get public support is by going out INTO PUBLIC. Slithering around and hoping that no one notices you does not get support at all. This isn't France, this is America.

The image of a gun owner getting coffee and not acting in the oft-quoted but highly inaccurate stereotypical manner goes a lot farther than just talking about it over the internet in what appears to be pseudo-bonics.

Now before some keyboard commando goes and tells me how much of a bas*** I am..Im simply trying to understand..Im open to all thoughts,educated input and such..Whats the concept behind UOC, what purpose is it seving in the fight to restore and keep our 2nd amendment rights? Do the benefits outweigh the negative attention? Im all about fighting to keep what little rights weve been left with..But Im about an educated effective fight, not a hip shoot reflex

You aren't trying to understand. Your mind is made up and you have made that quite clear by not only siding with police in their illegal harassment of gun owners but by belittling the common gun owner and creating wild fantasies of public mayhem caused by an inanimate object.

-----

Well, that analysis blew 15 minutes of my time. Back to more important matters, like analyzing the relationship between lungs and kidneys in blood pH regulation.

wildhawker
10-28-2009, 4:04 PM
Nate, this thread did not need to continue the sillyness.

Ignoring the insults, your position is based at least partially on unsupported presuppositions. Let's not digress into the us vs. them threads of months past.

If we can agree, I'd prefer to discuss this issue with the OP offline and mitigate further senseless arguing in this public forum.

GrizzlyGuy
10-28-2009, 4:17 PM
Did you read his reply? Did that sound like a simple response..No. That was exactly what I was warned of earlier in this thread..A keyboard "shout down"..A troll? Bastardized grammar? ..To answer youre question yes..Ive gotten more than what I desired..Including a new outlook on some things..

To lighten it up a bit, have a look at this video he made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDWxCpVlrkw

Is that not the most hilarious video on YouTube ever? :D

locosway
10-28-2009, 4:19 PM
Nate is just upset that he can't work out the kinks in his bioluminescent leather pants for the coming Halloween party.

wildhawker
10-28-2009, 4:20 PM
To lighten it up a bit, have a look at this video he made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDWxCpVlrkw

Is that not the most hilarious video on YouTube ever? :D

The hip twist with arms folded is worth the price of admission.

pullnshoot25
10-28-2009, 4:36 PM
Lol you guys crack me up. I gotta see what you are talking about when I am at an actual computer.

Btw, there IS a way to make a sustainable colony of bacteria, even bioluminescent ones. However, it would have to be on a small scale. I just learned about it today, it is called a chemostat. Also, I would probably have to use E. Coli, which I am a little leery about using.

We shall see who gets the first glow, dammit!

technique
10-28-2009, 4:44 PM
:hide:
Damn Nate....

OP if you really did look into the subject, you wouldn't be asking those questions. Opinions vary on the board but both sides(with the exception of the Veleny(?) Weenie(?) dude, what ever his name is..) are pretty much in cooperation...so why bother post and rehash a tired subject when you can just read past arguments or join Cal-open-carry and see what its about for yourself?

camsoup
10-28-2009, 7:21 PM
To answer youre question yes..Ive gotten more than what I desired..Including a new outlook on some things..

If you were really looking for a simple response, it seems you would have posted a simple question.

You are only one person and gave us YOUR opinions on OC and then get upset when someone posts an opinion different than yours?

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see Army posting anything that could be construed as rude.

pullnshoot25
10-28-2009, 8:24 PM
The hip twist with arms folded is worth the price of admission.

Just got to a real computer. This was a fun video to make. :)

BTW, I can twist my hips in all sorts of funny ways... ;)

locosway
10-28-2009, 8:37 PM
Just got to a real computer. This was a fun video to make. :)

BTW, I can twist my hips in all sorts of funny ways... ;)

Dude, TMI man... TMI....

tankerman
10-28-2009, 8:39 PM
I think most mainly do it due to some deap-seated attention-whore issue.Kind of like your post

locosway
10-28-2009, 8:42 PM
I don't like people knowing I'm armed. The less they know about me, the better off I am.

Now, with UOC, I'd do it because I can't get a CCW. There are many times I can see a need to be close enough to a gun to use it in seconds, instead of hoping the bad guys stay home.

For me, it's not about attention. It's about having the ability to fight back if I need to. Although, perhaps for some, it is about attention. However, don't lump those few people into the rest of gun owners who think UOC is worth doing.

inbox485
10-29-2009, 7:11 PM
At first glance it appears the answer is contained within your question.
That was kinda my point, but I was hoping I was missing something.
Incorporation will allow "bear" cases to proceed on 2A grounds with at least intermediate scrutiny.
Sounds good so far...
Until we have a right to bear, it is wise to avoid any actions which would compromise the future vehicles to secure an open and loaded means of "bear" or, alternatively, create an outcome where open carry is the sole acceptable manner of "bear" (which can then be easily restricted on private property, etc.).
This is where things get fuzzy. We already have UOC, and the rest is up to legal battles with or without incorporation. If there were a ban on UOC, the fight to restore UOC would be enveloped in the fight for LOC that is already unavoidable at this point. Every time politicians complain about gun owners they cite examples of vicious violence. I can't see a politician standing up and saying "people are carrying guns in public, nothing bad is happening, and that is why we need to ban them".
U/OC does not affect incorporation of 2A via McDonald.
Again back to the question of why it is such a big deal.

inbox485, I have asked very similar questions myself, and I too have never received a very good answer, other than one, which I have only inferred, and which I will relate here.

Pre-Incorporation, the CA legislature could more easily pass a carry ban, or worsen 12031 (loaded or ammo restrictions). Then post-incorporation, this would cost us time and money to fight to overturn, distracting us from whatever the fight could be at that point. So the theory goes, don't scare the legislature with UOC and make us lose ground before incorporation.
Like I said, any fight for LOC would include both the gun and the loaded part. One is already banned, so what difference would the other being banned make? And any fight for SI CCW is not relevant to an UOC ban, unless distain for OC made getting SI CCW easier.
Now this assumes a few things. First, that the actions of UOCers actually will garner enough attention from the legislature for them to take action. Second, that they aren't planning to do so already. Third, that it is somehow more difficult to pass bad laws post-incorporation than pre-incorporation. I have my doubts about all of these things myself.
I share these doubts.
The question that I want answered most is, how exactly is it more difficult for the legislature to pass bad law post-incorporation?
If DC is any example, it is not only easy, but heroic in the eyes of gun grabbers.

CGF doesn't have to spend a lot of time and money reversing a cessation, which would be in lieu of using those resources to go after the AW ban, or OC. It means it costs us to get back to where we are now instead of moving forward.
Like I've said above, a bad on OC would be irrelevant to fighting for LOC since the loaded part is already banned.
It may also place us in a poorer strategic position, particularly if we can't strike down *everything* about the ban and then have a precedent that says infringement X is Constitutional.
Which brings us back to the example of DC passing every form of gun control they could think of post Heller to see what would stick and to stall while wasting enormous amounts of tax payer money. No court ruling would prevent the legislature from passing every gun ban they could think of afterward to test exactly what infringements they could get away with. In that case, getting public support before hand makes sense to me.
Another way it matters is that if UOC is legal but under the radar, it is still available in emergencies.
LOC, LCC, and LC in Hand and Pointed In are already options in emergencies.
Another way it matters is that there are many ways UOC could be made illegal, and some of them have very very nasty side effects on all gun owners. Even just getting to the range. For obvious reasons we don't like to talk openly about which ways are the worst on a public forum known to be read by antigunners, but we must not do things that could inadvertently make criminals of people for doing what they've always done. It would also greatly damage the living gun culture we still have.
The obvious way to ban UOC is to remove the open carry provisions that make it legal. Anti gunners are well aware of other worse ways to prevent OC and are only not pursuing them for lack of votes. I think Fienstien said it best.
It's clear a state cannot ban both OC and CC if the 2A is incorporated against them. But it isn't so clear they can't choose only one as the preferred mode (this is a debatable point--some have suggested to me that OC specifically is the protected right and CC is always at the state's discretion, while others including notably Alan Gura think a state may choose either so long as one mode of carry is available). If they ban OC now, and we win CC, we might never get OC back if the courts tell us that shall-issue CC is sufficient to satisfy the Right to Bear.
If there is ever a ruling that forces one option to be available, while allowing the other to be banned, no force on earth will stop the current CA legislature from picking one and banning it. The only debate will be which.
That said, Gene has a reasonable way to go after both *if* we go after CC before OC (that's at least one reason CGF is going after CC before OC--we want both).
While I agree with the rational of going after CC before OC, I return to my previous thoughts regarding to the relativity to UOC.
Laws don't vanish because they're unconstitutional. Incorporation simply gives us a license to litigate. Litigation in federal court is expensive. We want to spend our money moving forward, not, as the Red Queen says, running as fast as we can just to stay in one place.
And constitutional rulings don't stop bad laws from being passed. And as I mentioned, fighting an OC ban would be enveloped in any fight for LOC.
Plus, there is always risk of a weird result in court, so, one more time, I say "why roll the dice if we don't have to?"
I still think the real risk is the mud slide of bad laws that will be flung to see what sticks post incorporation, and that public support will be more valuable than attempting to pacify anti-gunners in the legislature. I've only UOC'd once in CA at a group get together. The overwhelming response from people that talked to us was wanting to know how they could do it to. Where n=1 I won't try to argue that that response is universal, but it has had me thinking ever since.

dantodd
10-29-2009, 7:18 PM
If there is ever a ruling that forces one option to be available, while allowing the other to be banned, no force on earth will stop the current CA legislature from picking one and banning it. The only debate will be which.


Even if this is true why raise the red flag if we have no way to protect against it? At least with incorporation and a defined right to carry we can show the legislature how expensive and potentially unconstitutional it is. As you said they may lack the vote now for an outright ban but probably only by a little, why push those fence sitters to the "ban now" side when we might later have ammunition to keep them on the fence of pull them our way by showing the expense and questionable constitutionality?

demnogis
10-29-2009, 7:56 PM
dantodd, expense is not a factor for the antis or those pushing anti-gun agenda in the .gov -- they're using our money, remember?

dantodd
10-29-2009, 8:00 PM
dantodd, expense is not a factor for the antis or those pushing anti-gun agenda in the .gov -- they're using our money, remember?

No, but it may be for some of the fence sitters. We will never win over the hardcore antis. What people are trying to do is build a positive perception of guns and negative perception of the cost and futility in defending gun laws in the minds of the folks who might vote either way before they are forced to vote by the antis. No one doubts the antis will try.

demnogis
10-29-2009, 8:15 PM
I should have elaborated...

Money is not a factor.

Getting the "majority" to eat their canned crap with a smile is. Getting the fence-sitters and pro-constitution members of .gov to vote-bargain is. Convincing the public that disarming them is safer for them, is.

inbox485
10-30-2009, 11:51 AM
I should have elaborated...

Money is not a factor.

Getting the "majority" to eat their canned crap with a smile is. Getting the fence-sitters and pro-constitution members of .gov to vote-bargain is. Convincing the public that disarming them is safer for them, is.

And this is where I don't get the anti-OC stance. Short of a group of OCers starting a shootout, I can't see repeated OCing pushing the fence sitters against guns, but I can see it showing both the fence sitters and the public which even the anti's have to tend with that OCing isn't a public safety issue (contrary to what the anti's have been pushing all these years).

What I've read so far on other threads seems to indicate a sort of a can't hurt vs a might hurt debate. I can't help but to wonder if it may actually help in ways that legislative and judicial efforts can't.

inbox485
10-30-2009, 11:54 AM
Even if this is true why raise the red flag if we have no way to protect against it? At least with incorporation and a defined right to carry we can show the legislature how expensive and potentially unconstitutional it is. As you said they may lack the vote now for an outright ban but probably only by a little, why push those fence sitters to the "ban now" side when we might later have ammunition to keep them on the fence of pull them our way by showing the expense and questionable constitutionality?

This brings me back to the question I asked earlier: What is the difference between OC being banned and just choosing not to do it?

7x57
10-30-2009, 11:57 AM
I can't help but to wonder if it may actually help in ways that legislative and judicial efforts can't.

There may well come a time when it's strategic to OC.

The time to have that discussion is when the legislature has been made fully aware that Keeping and Bearing Arms is no longer legally a privilege they can revoke at any time, but a right that will be defended in federal court. My guess is we'll also want to have crucial wins on a case or two after that, but at some point it seems likely that there will be a strategic role for OC in some way.

I believe I once told Nate that what we needed to do was put a lawyer on each shoulder and make law enforcement aware that they are riding there with him while he OCs. :D

7x57

locosway
10-30-2009, 11:57 AM
And this is where I don't get the anti-OC stance. Short of a group of OCers starting a shootout, I can't see repeated OCing pushing the fence sitters against guns, but I can see it showing both the fence sitters and the public which even the anti's have to tend with that OCing isn't a public safety issue (contrary to what the anti's have been pushing all these years).

What I've read so far on other threads seems to indicate a sort of a can't hurt vs a might hurt debate. I can't help but to wonder if it may actually help in ways that legislative and judicial efforts can't.

There are a lot of people who were raised to fear guns. For a woman with kids who's shopping, she doesn't want to see some 18 year old kid carrying a S&W 500 that his dad gave him. To that woman, she's going to say "what about my kids", and that's the famous term that will strip every single person of any rights they have left.

Fence sitting isn't bad, it just means they haven't been swayed to a side. The only time it can be bad for us gunnies is when that fence sitter perceives us as being against them or their family. Once that happens, it's damn hard to get them on our side.

Currently, without incorporation, these fence sitters, if swayed against us, can make for a lot more laws that we'll have to challenge later on. Honestly, these normal every day people are the only ones who can make or break us.

locosway
10-30-2009, 12:03 PM
This brings me back to the question I asked earlier: What is the difference between OC being banned and just choosing not to do it?

Well, the difference being how you, as a gun owner, sees the situation. It feels good knowing you can strap a gun onto your hip and cruise the town, and that you're legal while doing so. However, if these "fence sitters" perceive you as going against what they believe to be "normal", then we could be in for a long haul after we get incorporation.

The more laws that are passed pre-incorporation the more time AND money it will take post-incorporation to gain our rights back. So, it may seem right to UOC because it's legal, however it's not smart, simply because of the potential damages that can come. McDonald should be heard by the SCOTUS in a few months, I can't imagine waiting a few months longer being that much harder.

I would still UOC in a none demonstration fashion if I felt there was a need to do so. Say, I'm moving a lot of computer equipment from my car into my house. While my neighbors might see me doing it, it's not a giant exposure like walking down Main Street with the 6 O'clock news behind you.

dantodd
10-30-2009, 3:05 PM
This brings me back to the question I asked earlier: What is the difference between OC being banned and just choosing not to do it?

Yes, there is. If we choose not to do it at this time we can choose to do it when it is politically helpful or apolitical. If it is banned we lose those other 2 choices.

camsoup
10-30-2009, 10:15 PM
Yes, there is. If we choose not to do it at this time we can choose to do it when it is politically helpful or apolitical. If it is banned we lose those other 2 choices.

And if it isn't banned, we sat around not doing it for nothing.



I just thought of a weird way of looking at it.

Obama gets elected, and everyone thinks he "might" ban assualt weapons/enact ammo regulations. We as gun people run out and buy AS many guns and AS much ammo as we can because it "might" be banned.

Yet when its thought/rumored that OC "might" get banned, those same folks who ran out and caused an ammo/gun shortage in a panic buying spree ask us to NOT do the thing that might get banned??

Seems to me we should be OCing so much that we incite public panic and send the children screaming (sarcasm), or we shouldn't have bothered buying all those guns and ammunition the past year.

Mulay El Raisuli
10-31-2009, 4:59 AM
Yes, there is. If we choose not to do it at this time we can choose to do it when it is politically helpful or apolitical. If it is banned we lose those other 2 choices.


That's the perfect (short) answer to the question.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
10-31-2009, 5:13 AM
And if it isn't banned, we sat around not doing it for nothing.



I just thought of a weird way of looking at it.

Obama gets elected, and everyone thinks he "might" ban assualt weapons/enact ammo regulations. We as gun people run out and buy AS many guns and AS much ammo as we can because it "might" be banned.

Yet when its thought/rumored that OC "might" get banned, those same folks who ran out and caused an ammo/gun shortage in a panic buying spree ask us to NOT do the thing that might get banned??

Seems to me we should be OCing so much that we incite public panic and send the children screaming (sarcasm), or we shouldn't have bothered buying all those guns and ammunition the past year.


But there are different factors at play. What is done in public in front of news cameras is a lot different than what is done over the counter. Even though one is done much less frequently than the other.

I basically agree with you. There are few here who pushed the "hell no, lets UOC anyway" mantra harder than I. I even got a few people here very angry with me. I'm still not entirely happy with the decision to wait. But, the consensus was that its better to wait until McDonald gets decided. While I agree with you that we'll have wasted some time, we can even that out by pushing all the harder when we re-start. IE, we should have good things in about the same time frame. At least, that's what I have concluded & why I have decided that waiting is the better (albeit teeth-grinding) choice.

So, hang in there. When we re-start, I will be with you & so will a lot of other CalGunners. Its only a few months more.

The Raisuli

Liberty1
10-31-2009, 9:07 AM
While I agree with you that we'll have wasted some time, we can even that out by pushing all the harder when we re-start. IE, we should have good things in about the same time frame. At least, that's what I have concluded & why I have decided that waiting is the better (albeit teeth-grinding) choice.

So, hang in there. When we re-start, I will be with you & so will a lot of other CalGunners. Its only a few months more.

The Raisuli

No time is being wasted as we can't "take and hold ground" legally at this time. UOC "legally" is just treading water (I hate to say it) waiting for someone to attach a 100lb weight to your leg.

Once we get into the same position as say Ohio or Wisconsin with the bear right better defined and protected by incorporation and case law THEN bearing will take off at lightning speed in what ever form. UOCing now could get us Texas/Florida rather then AZ/NV/Wash.

inbox485
11-03-2009, 12:49 PM
There may well come a time when it's strategic to OC.

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I appreciate the level of civility, but I still can't shake the feeling that now is that time when it would be strategic. Given the various defensive trade-offs between UOC and ULCC, I only consider UOC a baby step better than ULCC defensively. For that reason, I don't intend to go against the grain, but I did want to throw this out there for people to chew on:

- No UOC ban could take effect until after incorporation is scheduled to be settled.
- If incorporation is affirmed, the moment CalGuns/CalNRA starts pushing against current laws, the legislature is virtually guaranteed to start blasting the books with every form of gun control they can push through just to see what sticks under the new ruling. I'd be shocked if that didn't include an attempt at an open carry ban.
- One of the few things that has held legislatures across the country back is the fear that if they go too far, the SCOTUS would be more inclined to make a pro-2A ruling. If incorporation fails, the legislature will undoubtedly declare open season on gun control, and again I doubt open carry would be overlooked.
- The one thing that would push back against both of these scenarios is public support. From the one time I attended an open carry gathering, and from every story I've heard from those who have done it on other occasions, the public response to seeing a peaceful armed citizen going about their business has been on the whole positive and LE reactions have been trending that way.
- In addition to the public support benefit, the legislature will be robbed of their favorite anti-gun argument that "blood will be flowing in the streets" as they have been in other states. If OC is banned before it is practiced publicly, they will be able to claim that theory in the legislature and in court.

There are a lot of people who were raised to fear guns. For a woman with kids who's shopping, she doesn't want to see some 18 year old kid carrying a S&W 500 that his dad gave him. To that woman, she's going to say "what about my kids", and that's the famous term that will strip every single person of any rights they have left.

While I would expect nothing less from the Brady bunch, from what I've seen the public reaction is something like 10% nervous looks, 60% not noticing, 20% saying cool - more power to you, 10% saying that's awesome - how can I do that and stay out of trouble, and 0% hysterical screaming. I doubt any change in political or legal climate will ever change the goals or rhetoric of the anti-gunners, but the public response seems a lot more positive than has been assumed.

Fence sitting isn't bad, it just means they haven't been swayed to a side. The only time it can be bad for us gunnies is when that fence sitter perceives us as being against them or their family. Once that happens, it's damn hard to get them on our side.

Right now those fence sitters hear nothing but bad things about guns and gun owners. I equate hoplophobia with xenophobia and racism, and as such it follows that positive exposure is the cure. The sight of law abiding gun owners in public, going peaceably about their business exposes a logical fallacy in those who have been told all their life that gun owners are violent ticking time bombs and makes them re-reconcile the things they have been told against their experience. Without the experience they are left only with what they are told.

Well, the difference being how you, as a gun owner, sees the situation. It feels good knowing you can strap a gun onto your hip and cruise the town, and that you're legal while doing so. However, if these "fence sitters" perceive you as going against what they believe to be "normal", then we could be in for a long haul after we get incorporation.

The more laws that are passed pre-incorporation the more time AND money it will take post-incorporation to gain our rights back. So, it may seem right to UOC because it's legal, however it's not smart, simply because of the potential damages that can come. McDonald should be heard by the SCOTUS in a few months, I can't imagine waiting a few months longer being that much harder.

I can't imagine that an incorporation ruling similar to Heller would be any more discouraging to the legislature than the current likelihood of that ruling is already. In fact, I could see bills in the next session being shelved just because the ruling is pending and the laws couldn't take effect until after and would be subject to temporary injunction whereas after the ruling, they could be tailored to the language of the ruling.

I would still UOC in a none demonstration fashion if I felt there was a need to do so. Say, I'm moving a lot of computer equipment from my car into my house. While my neighbors might see me doing it, it's not a giant exposure like walking down Main Street with the 6 O'clock news behind you.

You can also UCC on "lawfully possessed private property" in cases like this. 12026(a) provides the exemption, and isn't subject to the public place definition that loaded carry is.

Another middle ground might be in oldtowns where there is a western bent and a preexisting acceptance of guns in that area.

I just thought of a weird way of looking at it.

Obama gets elected, and everyone thinks he "might" ban assualt weapons/enact ammo regulations. We as gun people run out and buy AS many guns and AS much ammo as we can because it "might" be banned.

Yet when its thought/rumored that OC "might" get banned, those same folks who ran out and caused an ammo/gun shortage in a panic buying spree ask us to NOT do the thing that might get banned??

An interesting way to think about it, but the "ban" that was expected is expected to prohibit future purchases, not ban possession or currently legal use. I think the core of this debate is centered around the pros and cons in terms of public perception and how that sways the legislature and to some degree the judiciary.

No time is being wasted as we can't "take and hold ground" legally at this time. UOC "legally" is just treading water (I hate to say it) waiting for someone to attach a 100lb weight to your leg.

With or without incorporation the legislature may launch a war a financial brinkmanship. The judiciary often fails to check the legislature because of this. The only way to really take and hold ground is in the court of public opinion. Take DC for example. They have had Heller for over a year now, and while they "can" have one of a short list of guns, they aren't that much better off than they were before due to the onslaught of willfully defiant legislation that is tied up in court and will stay that way for a long time. Had their been a decent public support base, their legislature wouldn't be so boldly defiant and quite possibly wouldn't have so many anti-gunners in the first place.

Once we get into the same position as say Ohio or Wisconsin with the bear right better defined and protected by incorporation and case law THEN bearing will take off at lightning speed in what ever form. UOCing now could get us Texas/Florida rather then AZ/NV/Wash.

Oddly enough, I wonder if the split between gun owners in the OC or bust and those in the CC or bust will force both OC and CC to be legal. Ohio got its OC only law because it was thought that it would ever be exercised. It makes sense that the CA legislature would choose SICC over OC if forced to choose a legal option, but since CC would be licensed it wouldn't be a right. That means that OC would be protected as a right unless the state decided not to license CC anymore.

To summarize my sentiments in the matter, while the judicial side of things is great and exciting, the only thing that will hold the legislature back from launching an all out war against gun owners once incorporation has been ruled on is public opinion. UOC sends a very clear message to the public that law abiding gun owners are peaceful and that having a gun for self defense does not equate with gangs and violence as the media has pushed on the public for so many years. It is a message that refutes the empty words of anti-gunners with deeds that speak for themselves.

That said, I don't intend to go against the consensus for now. My solo plans for now are to CC where legal without a licence, UCC when legal and CC is not, ULCC when legal and both CC and UCC are not, and leave my ULCCW in the car when none of those options are legal. I have been to one group UOC gathering with OCDO and seeing as plenty of positive interaction occurred and absolutely zero negative publicity occurred, I will consider future gatherings on a case by case basis.

locosway
11-03-2009, 1:00 PM
Inbox, you make some valid points, but I just don't see the risk being better than the reward. McDonald will be heard in a few months, and it's very likely we'll see incorporation from that.

Why should we chance adding more bad laws that we'll have to spend time and money fighting to remove? Me, personally, I don't even have a pot to piss in right now. My money situation is bad from being laid off. So, I can't just throw money at this like maybe you can, and remove all of the bad laws through court decisions.

inbox485
11-03-2009, 2:01 PM
Inbox, you make some valid points, but I just don't see the risk being better than the reward. McDonald will be heard in a few months, and it's very likely we'll see incorporation from that.

Why should we chance adding more bad laws that we'll have to spend time and money fighting to remove? Me, personally, I don't even have a pot to piss in right now. My money situation is bad from being laid off. So, I can't just throw money at this like maybe you can, and remove all of the bad laws through court decisions.

Don't worry, I'm not solidly convicted either way. I just want to consider alternatives to the current consensus. Money is an issue for everybody - I don't have much to spare either, and I'm not suggesting a course that would blow money for the heck of it. I'm just wondering if a great deal of money and legal headache could actually be saved by reconsidering UOC before incorporation now that it is effectively too late to ban.

locosway
11-03-2009, 2:02 PM
Maybe too late at a state level, but what out counties and cities? Can they push through ordnances at their level which could go through faster or immediately and would require the same resources to remove as a state law?

inbox485
11-03-2009, 2:12 PM
Maybe too late at a state level, but what out counties and cities? Can they push through ordnances at their level which could go through faster or immediately and would require the same resources to remove as a state law?

I don't know, but I doubt it. IIRC, some already have long standing bans on OC among other things. They face preemption issues, but that hasn't stopped them since they defend the illegal laws with tax payer money and there are no consequences for passing the illegal laws even if they loose (which is actually one of my points for why incorporation may not be the armor plated shield people are hoping for).

Mulay El Raisuli
11-04-2009, 4:26 AM
Once we get into the same position as say Ohio or Wisconsin with the bear right better defined and protected by incorporation and case law THEN bearing will take off at lightning speed in what ever form. UOCing now could get us Texas/Florida rather then AZ/NV/Wash.


Yes, waiting for this & then re-starting the events is what I was talking about.

Speaking of which, once we do have Incorporation, will we see you out there with us at the first event?

The Raisuli

zeleny
11-04-2009, 8:07 AM
There is strategic value in not prompting a legislative response before incorporation and coloring the judicial outcome via Sykes.When and if incorporation takes place, adverse legislative responses and judicial outcomes will have been mooted. Till then, it remains unlikely that grass-roots exhibitionism will sway the Heller Five. Either way, the purported "strategic value" of abstinence from exercising our rights is nil.

zeleny
11-04-2009, 8:16 AM
- No UOC ban could take effect until after incorporation is scheduled to be settled.
- If incorporation is affirmed, the moment CalGuns/CalNRA starts pushing against current laws, the legislature is virtually guaranteed to start blasting the books with every form of gun control they can push through just to see what sticks under the new ruling. I'd be shocked if that didn't include an attempt at an open carry ban.
- One of the few things that has held legislatures across the country back is the fear that if they go too far, the SCOTUS would be more inclined to make a pro-2A ruling. If incorporation fails, the legislature will undoubtedly declare open season on gun control, and again I doubt open carry would be overlooked.To my mind, these are the key points. In thinking these matters through, it helps to attribute as much rationality to the gun banners, as the gun lovers claim on their own behalves.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
11-04-2009, 3:54 PM
the purported "strategic value" of abstinence from exercising our rights is nil.

UOC can be scary to some people. The state legislature could pass a bill tomorrow outlawing it completely. They've outlawed plenty of other things because somebody thought they were scary. Therefore, don't scare people. Scaring people with guns has a history of eroding our rights. Once we have an environment where the state legislature can't outlaw it (possibly post-incorporation), we can exercise those rights without too much worry.

Tortoise vs Hare: slow and steady wins the race, not being flashy.

HowardW56
11-04-2009, 4:05 PM
I think it's best to let the dust settle, before kicking up more....

We are only looking at a year until all of the pending California cases are heard, and probably ruled on, at the district court level. If there are appeals, then tack on another year...

I see UOC as a real hot button issue for DA's and state legislators right now...

zeleny
11-04-2009, 4:06 PM
UOC can be scary to some people. The state legislature could pass a bill tomorrow outlawing it completely. They've outlawed plenty of other things because somebody thought they were scary. Therefore, don't scare people. Scaring people with guns has a history of eroding our rights. Once we have an environment where the state legislature can't outlaw it (possibly post-incorporation), we can exercise those rights without too much worry.If the Second Amendment gets incorporated, all comprehensive bans on bearing arms will be voided. If not, our exercise of these rights is doomed and we might as well enjoy it while we can. Either way, our fate lies in the hands of our judiciary. There is no need to worry about our legislators.

HowardW56
11-04-2009, 4:17 PM
If the Second Amendment gets incorporated, all comprehensive bans on bearing arms will be voided. If not, our exercise of these rights is doomed and we might as well enjoy it while we can. Either way, our fate lies in the hands of our judiciary. There is no need to worry about our legislators.

Not without litigation , nothing happens automatically... If a law is not voluntarily repealed, then the only option is to challenge it in the courts.
We don't need to add more hurdles right now...

sierratangofoxtrotunion
11-04-2009, 4:18 PM
If the Second Amendment gets incorporated, all comprehensive bans on bearing arms will be voided. ripe for challenge.

Fixed it for ya. :)

HowardW56
11-04-2009, 4:22 PM
Fixed it for ya. :)

Very good!

zeleny
11-04-2009, 4:26 PM
Not without litigation , nothing happens automatically... If a law is not voluntarily repealed, then the only option is to challenge it in the courts.
We don't need to add more hurdles right now...I disagree with your use of the plural pronoun. Individual interests differ legitimately within the scope of rightful actions. It takes a wannabe communist to subjugate them to a cornpone notion of common needs.

HowardW56
11-04-2009, 4:41 PM
I disagree with your use of the plural pronoun. Individual interests differ legitimately within the scope of rightful actions. It takes a wannabe communist to subjugate them to a cornpone notion of common needs.


Have you been following the California Legislature for very long, watch some of the bills that are proposed....?

What about the states cash flow crisis, lets raise everyone's withholding by 10%, and if there is an over payment they can have an IOU as payment sometime next year. Interest on your loan to the state, surely, you jest....

It’s for the common good…

Mulay El Raisuli
11-05-2009, 4:08 AM
I think it's best to let the dust settle, before kicking up more....

We are only looking at a year until all of the pending California cases are heard, and probably ruled on, at the district court level. If there are appeals, then tack on another year...

I see UOC as a real hot button issue for DA's and state legislators right now...


We were only asked to wait until June.

The Raisuli

HowardW56
11-05-2009, 6:04 AM
We were only asked to wait until June.

The Raisuli


Wasn't that before Nordyke and the Sacramento cases got put on hold pending the Supreme Court's Opinion....

Decoligny
11-05-2009, 6:59 AM
Wasn't that before Nordyke and the Sacramento cases got put on hold pending the Supreme Court's Opinion....

RANT ON:

Prior to Nordyke it was "just wait until the end of Aug", then it became "just wait until Nordyke", then after Nordyke it became "just wait until whenever", then when Nordyke went en banc it became "just wait until after the en banc for Nordyke", then after that was put on hold it became "just wait until June 2010" if we win in McDonald v. Chicago, after which it will be "just wait until after this next case where we try to overthow this other law" and then "just wait until after this other case where we try to overthrow the next law".

I figure by the time Open Carry is advocated, I will own the handgun shown below:

http://scifiwire.com/assets_c/2009/03/StarTrekMoviePhaser-thumb-400x312-15072.jpg

RANT OFF.

MudCamper
11-05-2009, 7:20 AM
RANT ON:

Prior to Nordyke it was "just wait until the end of Aug", then it became "just wait until Nordyke", then after Nordyke it became "just wait until whenever", then when Nordyke went en banc it became "just wait until after the en banc for Nordyke", then after that was put on hold it became "just wait until June 2010" if we win in McDonald v. Chicago, after which it will be "just wait until after this next case where we try to overthow this other law" and then "just wait until after this other case where we try to overthrow the next law".

I figure by the time Open Carry is advocated, I will own the handgun shown below:

RANT OFF.

You are absolutely correct. However, a lot of people, like myself, are currently respecting the advice to stand down from UOC, and to discourage others from UOC. But once we finally have incorporation, I for one, and many others I suspect, will ignore such requests.

HowardW56
11-05-2009, 7:22 AM
RANT ON:

Prior to Nordyke it was "just wait until the end of Aug", then it became "just wait until Nordyke", then after Nordyke it became "just wait until whenever", then when Nordyke went en banc it became "just wait until after the en banc for Nordyke", then after that was put on hold it became "just wait until June 2010" if we win in McDonald v. Chicago, after which it will be "just wait until after this next case where we try to overthow this other law" and then "just wait until after this other case where we try to overthrow the next law".

I figure by the time Open Carry is advocated, I will own the handgun shown below:

http://scifiwire.com/assets_c/2009/03/StarTrekMoviePhaser-thumb-400x312-15072.jpg

RANT OFF.

I'm sorry it's taking so long, ever wonder how the Nordyke's feel, 10 years.....

Decoligny
11-05-2009, 9:19 AM
You are absolutely correct. However, a lot of people, like myself, are currently respecting the advice to stand down from UOC, and to discourage others from UOC. But once we finally have incorporation, I for one, and many others I suspect, will ignore such requests.

I am currently respecting the request also, just venting my frustration with what "feels like" a never ending extension.

inbox485
11-05-2009, 1:46 PM
UOC can be scary to some people. The state legislature could pass a bill tomorrow outlawing it completely.
Actually they can't. The legislature would have no hope of banning OC until the spring session even if they had the support to do it. And even if they did, it wouldn't take effect until July 2010 at the very earliest (after incorporation is ruled in June 2010) which would make it subject to a temporary injunction while it was being argued in court.
They've outlawed plenty of other things because somebody thought they were scary. Therefore, don't scare people. Scaring people with guns has a history of eroding our rights.
I still think OC does more good than bad in the court of public opinion. OC is not the same as Black Panthers marching on the legislature and implying that they would have a shootout if the legislature didn't play along with their political agenda. The only people who have anything to fear from OCers are gang bangers and thugs. The handful of LEOs that have misinterpreted OCers as being either out for a lawsuit or looking to cause trouble will come around when they see that isn't the case.

I remember following knife forums during the 90's when having a pocket knife clip showing or heaven forbid an exposed fixed blade could land you a prolonged detention or worse. Doesn't happen any more. Knife enthusiasts didn't get or even try for an incorporation ruling. They just followed the law and when LEOs realized that they were no threat to anybody, they moved on.
Once we have an environment where the state legislature can't outlaw it (possibly post-incorporation), we can exercise those rights without too much worry.
So exactly what ruling would you suppose would prevent the legislature from passing any law they feel like and letting the courts settle it. The only thing they fear are the voters. The courts are irrelevant to the legislature.

Perhaps it would be enlightening to observe the legislative reaction in DC to the Heller ruling. Given the likelihood of an incorporation ruling being similar in effect, I would not expect the legislature to back down afterwards, but rather launch and all out war to tie up the courts for the next several years.

I think it's best to let the dust settle, before kicking up more....
I'm not one for dancing on egg shells for our public servants. If we were talking about civil disobedience that involved actually breaking laws, than I'd agree that waiting for a pending court ruling would be the correct course of action, but we're not talking about breaking laws. We are talking about following the law in letter and spirit. The dust is being kicked up by a few DA's, certain LE brass, and a few legislators.
We are only looking at a year until all of the pending California cases are heard, and probably ruled on, at the district court level. If there are appeals, then tack on another year...
I see UOC as a real hot button issue for DA's and state legislators right now...
Neither DA's nor legislators will change their tone on account of an incorporation ruling. If anything, they will become more aggressive.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-06-2009, 4:56 AM
Wasn't that before Nordyke and the Sacramento cases got put on hold pending the Supreme Court's Opinion....


Doesn't matter. As pointed out by others, the idea was to hold off on UOC events until after we had a better way to fight back attempts to stop this completely legal activity. That 'better way' is Incorporation. Which we'll have no later than June 2010. So, also no later than June 2010, the UOC events will resume.

The Raisuli

locosway
11-06-2009, 8:18 AM
I wonder if the "right people" will support UOC as a cause once we have incorporation, or if they'll still say it's not worth the effort.

dantodd
11-06-2009, 11:08 AM
I wonder if the "right people" will support UOC as a cause once we have incorporation, or if they'll still say it's not worth the effort.

Probably not immediately post incorporation. After Sykes it will hopefully be a moot point. If the law changes for the worse after Sykes I can see a potential for the "Right People" to support Ohio-like events.

demnogis
11-06-2009, 12:33 PM
They'll probably support/condone U/L/OC after 12031 is stricken.

Decoligny
11-06-2009, 12:39 PM
They'll probably support/condone U/L/OC after 12031 is stricken.

After 12031 is stricken, there will be no need for UOC as LOC will then be legal in incorporated cities.

demnogis
11-06-2009, 12:56 PM
I knew that before I posted ;)

After 12031 is stricken, there will be no need for UOC as LOC will then be legal in incorporated cities.

inbox485
11-07-2009, 3:42 PM
I wonder if the "right people" will support UOC as a cause once we have incorporation, or if they'll still say it's not worth the effort.

They will go after CC rights first so that we don't end up with an OC only state, and they are correct in doing so. The possibility that they will throw in the towel once CC is secure is possible, but since it would paint them as backstabbers even to those who dislike OC, it is unlikely.

wildhawker
11-07-2009, 3:52 PM
Anyone who believes that those fighting for our rights will walk away if and when CC is secured neither grasp the strategy or know the character of the people involved.

camsoup
11-07-2009, 4:14 PM
Anyone who believes that those fighting for our rights will walk away if and when CC is secured neither grasp the strategy or know the character of the people involved.


It has been very clear that even though this site is here to support the 2A and help fight laws that restrict it, they have chosen to fight certain things first.

I know we cant fight everything all at once, but it does seem they would rather see/fight for shall issue CCW over OC. I would guess that if OC were banned, most on this site wouldn't care as long as they get Shall issue.

IMO once we get incorporation they will push for Shall issue CCW and OC will still be on the back burner.

I for one have not stopped OC'ing, whether it be UOC or LOC were allowed. After all "a right un-exercised is a right lost" Yes I know it isn't a "right" yet, :rolleyes: But the law still says I can do it.

It would be like buying a brand spanking new Corvette ZR1, 600 street/smog legal HP but you never step on the gas more than 1/4 throttle or drive faster than 55mph.....if that's the case why even bother owning the vette?

inbox485
11-07-2009, 4:25 PM
It has been very clear that even though this site is here to support the 2A and help fight laws that restrict it, they have chosen to fight certain things first.

I know we cant fight everything all at once, but it does seem they would rather see/fight for shall issue CCW over OC. I would guess that if OC were banned, most on this site wouldn't care as long as they get Shall issue.

IMO once we get incorporation they will push for Shall issue CCW and OC will still be on the back burner.

I for one have not stopped OC'ing, whether it be UOC or LOC were allowed. After all "a right un-exercised is a right lost" Yes I know it isn't a "right" yet, :rolleyes: But the law still says I can do it.

It would be like buying a brand spanking new Corvette ZR1, 600 street/smog legal HP but you never step on the gas more than 1/4 throttle or drive faster than 55mph.....if that's the case why even bother owning the vette?

In order to get both CC and OC, CC has to be fought first. That is just the way it is. But OC is just as critical to CCers as it is to OCers, since without OC rights, the state could make it a felony to print. So the first time a cop gets an incling that you are packing you get jailed fined and permanently banned from ever even owning a gun again.

wildhawker
11-07-2009, 5:24 PM
Camsoup, your assertion is as much insulting as it is incorrect.

CitaDeL
11-07-2009, 7:24 PM
Camsoup, your assertion is as much insulting as it is incorrect.

Allow me to use another analogy, one perhaps more germain to our fight.

What is the point in purchasing a handgun, shotgun, or long gun for self defense, if it would occupy a safe inside your closet, only to be removed under strictly regulated circumstances where they were under lock and key, used exlusively for hunting, or rendered inert or inoperable (ie; unloaded and/or cased)?

I think what is being suggested is that there are some (not all) that will accept infringements as long as they get specific benefits, which in my view are small, yet incremental infringements- rather than the broadest level of freedom to which we are all entitled.

Clearly the objectives of some in the California gun world do not include unregulated, unlicensed exposed carry.

KylaGWolf
11-07-2009, 7:32 PM
It has been very clear that even though this site is here to support the 2A and help fight laws that restrict it, they have chosen to fight certain things first.

I know we cant fight everything all at once, but it does seem they would rather see/fight for shall issue CCW over OC. I would guess that if OC were banned, most on this site wouldn't care as long as they get Shall issue.

IMO once we get incorporation they will push for Shall issue CCW and OC will still be on the back burner.

I for one have not stopped OC'ing, whether it be UOC or LOC were allowed. After all "a right un-exercised is a right lost" Yes I know it isn't a "right" yet, :rolleyes: But the law still says I can do it.

It would be like buying a brand spanking new Corvette ZR1, 600 street/smog legal HP but you never step on the gas more than 1/4 throttle or drive faster than 55mph.....if that's the case why even bother owning the vette?

Obviously you haven't bothered to read the Pena case that CGF has filed. Or the any of the other cases. The Pena fights for not only CCW but also for LOC. Here is the thing while yes they are fighting for all rights they have to pick the battles that are going to open up more avenues to fight to get the ones that will be harder wins. And right now while yes UOC is legal we have NO 2A rights in this state at this time. Here is the thing right now our state lawmakers are writing some nasty anti 2A bills and if we sit there and thumb our noses at them and go neener neener neener to them is more likely to get even worse bills on the books than if we sit back and wait for McDonald case to reaffirm we have a 2A right in this country.

And to use your analogy of the vette real simple I wouldn't buy one of those in the first place but then I have never been a vette fan to begin with. But why does anyone buy any kind of flashy sports car one reason and one reason only for flash. But let me now give you an analogy. What good does it to have that same vette if you can't drive it because you were stupid enough to rack up enough tickets to get your driving privileges taken away.

And by the way I am one of those that open carry when it is feasible to do so. But I along with many others here in San Diego stood down even before we were asked by Gene and others here on Calguns. While yes I know this forum has some very anti UOC people there are many that are for it just using common sense in knowing when to decide patience is the better part of valor.

wildhawker
11-07-2009, 8:35 PM
Allow me to use another analogy, one perhaps more germain to our fight.

What is the point in purchasing a handgun, shotgun, or long gun for self defense, if it would occupy a safe inside your closet, only to be removed under strictly regulated circumstances where they were under lock and key, used exlusively for hunting, or rendered inert or inoperable (ie; unloaded and/or cased)?

In a world where the extent of our right to keep and bear is as presented in your hypothetical, the point would be to own "a handgun, shotgun, or long gun for self defense". Thankfully we need not be consumed by fear of such an outcome as Heller clearly does not agree with policy rendering firearms kept for self-defense inert or inoperable.

I think what is being suggested is that there are some (not all) that will accept infringements as long as they get specific benefits, which in my view are small, yet incremental infringements- rather than the broadest level of freedom to which we are all entitled.

Clearly the objectives of some in the California gun world do not include unregulated, unlicensed exposed carry.

Maybe so, but I've yet to meet any RKBA activists or strategists in the CGN/CGF/NRA community who take that view. It's not clear to me that those who might actively and vocally oppose OC rights exist to any substantial degree, and if they do they're surely not of any particular relevance.