PDA

View Full Version : Official UOC day for California.


Beelzy
11-07-2009, 7:05 AM
Ths site is huge, and Statewide.

Why hasn't anyone come up with one day a year when EVERYONE who owned
firearms and wanted to participate, could make a bold statement all at the
same time for maximum effect.

I mean a few guys doing it here and there undermines the cause, but 50,000
all doing it on one day would tell folks something.

What do you guys think??

Good idea or just another cause underminer?

bombadillo
11-07-2009, 7:10 AM
I'd put my flame suit on if I were you!

dantodd
11-07-2009, 7:28 AM
No need for a flame suit. Hopefully.

The folks no the site who are leading the political fight to regain our 2A rights in California have studied OUC and at this time feel it is not advantageous to our cause to do so until after we have incorporation via McDonald (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/) and at least one via mechanism for people to carry via Sykes. (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf)

Please feel free to search the forum for the extended discussions that have taken place on why this is.

thefurball
11-07-2009, 7:34 AM
I like the idea but only IF it were possible to get unbiased media coverage of the event, which as we all know, is impossible.

Let us say 100,001 people show up with a firearm.

100,000 of them are upstanding productive members of society that conduct themselves in a civil manner, are polite, well dressed, courteous and articulate as to the purpose of the event.

One is an overly tattooed, mullet wearing, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, meth freak that could not form a cogent thought if he had to.

Guess who is going to get 99% of the media coverage as 'typical' of the type of person that supports this movement?

I like the idea, I am just not certain it would work well.

CitaDeL
11-07-2009, 8:02 AM
Let me illustrate the fault in such a proposal... (beyond the objection that this is not congruous with Cal Guns desire for gunnies to keep a low profile until the environment changes.)


Should we organize one day to excersize our free speech?
Should we organize one day to celebrate our right not to be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures?
Should we organize one day to celebrate our right not to be compelled to incriminate ourselves?

The organization of such one day demonstrations suggests that we possess none of those rights,... that we cannot go about our daily activities without worry that any one of those rights could be abused.

One day of freedom may be memorable to a criminal or a slave, but our predecessors seized freedom not just for one day, but for posterity. We should do likewise and act as free men every day, not on just one day.

GrizzlyGuy
11-07-2009, 8:20 AM
I imagine you will hear many reasoned and persuasive arguments for why that wouldn't wouldn't be a good idea at this time. But just to be fair and balanced, I think inbox485 presents a reasoned and persuasive counter-argument in his posts here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3309138&postcount=97

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3319941&postcount=119

Shamelessly borrowing from FOXNews, 'we report, you decide'. :D

bodger
11-07-2009, 8:24 AM
50,000 doing it in one day would probably result in hundreds of arrests. If it were possible to mobilize that many gun enthusiasts to UOC, my guess is a lot of them would not be aware of the intricacies involved to make sure they were doing it legally.

GFSZ, can't conceal a loaded mag, etc. The cops would have a field day rounding up the strayers and the uninformed. And there would be your media coverage. A bunch of gunnies rose up to exercise and demonstrate their rights, and went near a school or concealed something or mouthed off to a cop during an (e) check and Bada-Bing! Evil people with their evil guns.

I like the idea of taking action, but I also agree withthe Right People about laying low until we get incorporation.

demnogis
11-07-2009, 8:30 AM
50,000?

Well, you better rent a big hall to educate these 50,000 people on how to do it without getting arrested for falling into one of the many pitfalls of pre-incorporation UOC.

bodger
11-07-2009, 8:33 AM
50,000?

Well, you better rent a big hall to educate these 50,000 people on how to do it without getting arrested for falling into one of the many pitfalls of pre-incorporation UOC.



My point exactly.

How many arrests would you estimate on a gathering of 50,000 gunnies in full UOC?

10% ...maybe 20%?


LOL, 50,000 people in one place in CA with guns in open carry.

They would be looking down the barrel of tanks under the command of a nationalized CA Army National Guard.

Roadrunner
11-07-2009, 8:42 AM
While we're talking about "gun free school zones" and incorporation all in one breath, do the experts think that GFSZ's can be successfully challenged in a post incorporation world? Or will they stand up to scrutiny as a legitimate "sensitive area"? Considering that politicians are attempting to spread that net out as far as they can, it would seem that this is an area that should be addressed and a determination of what is reasonable should be established, or politicians will simply use it as another way of infringing on 2A rights if it isn't.

hoffmang
11-07-2009, 8:59 AM
While we're talking about "gun free school zones" and incorporation all in one breath, do the experts think that GFSZ's can be successfully challenged in a post incorporation world? Or will they stand up to scrutiny as a legitimate "sensitive area"? Considering that politicians are attempting to spread that net out as far as they can, it would seem that this is an area that should be addressed and a determination of what is reasonable should be established, or politicians will simply use it as another way of infringing on 2A rights if it isn't.

Due to the fact that a person licensed pursuant to PC 12050 is exempt from both Federal and State GFSZ's I don't think they're generally open to challenge. They are open to challenge by home and business owners inside the Zone, but I expect those will be as applied to create real exemptions for e.g. front yards, parking lots that store owners control, sidewalk in front of one's own home.

-Gene

Roadrunner
11-07-2009, 10:04 AM
Due to the fact that a person licensed pursuant to PC 12050 is exempt from both Federal and State GFSZ's I don't think they're generally open to challenge. They are open to challenge by home and business owners inside the Zone, but I expect those will be as applied to create real exemptions for e.g. front yards, parking lots that store owners control, sidewalk in front of one's own home.

-Gene

Thanks for the info, but in a post incorporation world, I would expect that LOC will be considered constitutional and an infringement on that will be unconstitutional. So how does that set with current laws? If a person LOC's in a GFSZ, in a post incorporation world, will laws setting up GFSZ's be considered unconstitutional and therefore repealed? I ask this because I've read several posts where the poster has expressed a desire to LOC rather than getting licensed to CCW. At this point, my only interest would be when I go to Urbania. Beyond that I personally have no need to carry here.

dantodd
11-07-2009, 10:44 AM
Thanks for the info, but in a post incorporation world, I would expect that LOC will be considered constitutional and an infringement on that will be unconstitutional. So how does that set with current laws? If a person LOC's in a GFSZ, in a post incorporation world, will laws setting up GFSZ's be considered unconstitutional and therefore repealed? I ask this because I've read several posts where the poster has expressed a desire to LOC rather than getting licensed to CCW. At this point, my only interest would be when I go to Urbania. Beyond that I personally have no need to carry here.

There is no reason LOC couldn't be licensed the same as CCW is. That is essentially the state of the law in CA right now.

demnogis
11-07-2009, 12:24 PM
But due to the saturation of most cities in CA with schools... It is currently nye-improbably to traverse along most main roads and freeways even without being within the 1000' school zone, couple that with "private property is not private" stance they're taking...

Also, to be a sensitive place i thought there had to be regulated entry/exit? ex: Courthouses, airports, etc. Defining a "playground" as a sensitive place with no fences or guards, how would that pass muster?

Due to the fact that a person licensed pursuant to PC 12050 is exempt from both Federal and State GFSZ's I don't think they're generally open to challenge. They are open to challenge by home and business owners inside the Zone, but I expect those will be as applied to create real exemptions for e.g. front yards, parking lots that store owners control, sidewalk in front of one's own home.

-Gene

Roadrunner
11-07-2009, 1:41 PM
There is no reason LOC couldn't be licensed the same as CCW is. That is essentially the state of the law in CA right now.

Hardly a right if it is regulated by a licensing authority. In fact the state doesn't consider anything they license a right. As I see it, we don't have a right to drive a car, so they license us. Since the state currently believes that we have no right to bear arms outside of our homes, they license that also. The bottom line is that license is synonymous with the word permit, which is the root word to the word permission, as in a person needs approval from licensing authority before we are permitted to do a thing such as carry a gun in public.

Kharn
11-07-2009, 2:20 PM
Instead of risking all the penalties of a UOC arrest, maybe follow Maryland Shall Issue's 'Open Holster Day' idea?

The group pulls a permit from a city (they did the swanky/touristy part of Baltimore today, Annapolis a few weeks ago), get the number of the on-shift police lieutenant in case there are issues, and set up a booth with literature and people to explain what is going on. Participants wear whatever exposed holster they'd like (Western-style were popular today due to the cold and heavy jackets) with only one rule: It must be 100% empty, no airsoft, no red guns, etc. Everyone visits local shops and other venues in the area to spread the word and try to raise awareness of our inability to carry for self defense.

(MD does not even permit the transportation of a handgun unless you're going to/from your house, your business, FFL or range, and then it must be unloaded and in an enclosed case)

mikehaas
11-07-2009, 4:01 PM
Gee, funny how no pro-gun organization supports organized UOC? I mean, it's such a good idea and all, right? I'm just sayin'...

But it makes ya feel good, huh? And that's all that matters, right? It DOESN'T matter that many other gun-owners think you're reckless and impatient and your approach to "protecting your rights" is akin to bulls in china shops.

Yep, you and the Black Panthers will save the world.

Because it's YOUR right, right? Just go ahead and ignore the opinions of those who have been doing this for 10, 15, 20+ years. Go ahead, risk the efforts of those who work to organize gun-owners in PRODUCTIVE ways, craft court cases, bills in the legislature and other efforts that are careful not to present gun-owners as reactionary, thoughtless, "in your face" citizens.

After all, it's not like UOCers have anything ELSE they can do to help the Second Amendment - like join NRA Members' Councils or help CRPA - nope, let's just "strap one on" and freak people out - "...these are a few of our favorite things...".

Because we're excercising our rights. Oh, we're p-r-o-t-e-c-t-i-n-g them too. Uh-huh. Yeah.

Shotgun Man
11-07-2009, 5:35 PM
Gee, funny how no pro-gun organization supports organized UOC? I mean, it's such a good idea and all, right? I'm just sayin'...

But it makes ya feel good, huh? And that's all that matters, right? It DOESN'T matter that many other gun-owners think you're reckless and impatient and your approach to "protecting your rights" is akin to bulls in china shops.

Yep, you and the Black Panthers will save the world.

Because it's YOUR right, right? Just go ahead and ignore the opinions of those who have been doing this for 10, 15, 20+ years. Go ahead, risk the efforts of those who work to organize gun-owners in PRODUCTIVE ways, craft court cases, bills in the legislature and other efforts that are careful not to present gun-owners as reactionary, thoughtless, "in your face" citizens.

After all, it's not like UOCers have anything ELSE they can do to help the Second Amendment - like join NRA Members' Councils or help CRPA - nope, let's just "strap one on" and freak people out - "...these are a few of our favorite things...".

Because we're excercising our rights. Oh, we're p-r-o-t-e-c-t-i-n-g them too. Uh-huh. Yeah.

Mike, I mean this constructively, but it seems you're always shouting, up on your hind legs. You could convince folks a lot better with a calm, deliberative approach.

pullnshoot25
11-07-2009, 5:44 PM
50,000?

Well, you better rent a big hall to educate these 50,000 people on how to do it without getting arrested for falling into one of the many pitfalls of pre-incorporation UOC.

My videos don't even have 50k views. UOCers are a very small niche in the gun community.

dantodd
11-07-2009, 6:59 PM
Mike, I mean this constructively, but it seems you're always shouting, up on your hind legs. You could convince folks a lot better with a calm, deliberative approach.

^^ This.

dantodd
11-07-2009, 7:06 PM
Hardly a right if it is regulated by a licensing authority. In fact the state doesn't consider anything they license a right. As I see it, we don't have a right to drive a car, so they license us.

You and I may think that a license is an undue burden but there is little evidence from Heller that SCOTUS would agree.

[T]he Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues.

KylaGWolf
11-07-2009, 8:09 PM
Even IF you could find enough people to do this the chance of pulling it off is slim to none. The planning alone would be a logistical nightmare. I mean come on how in the heck are you going to get 50,000 people to agree to do anything at one time such as unloaded open carry. Then how are you going to insure that every one of those people know the laws, have enough fliers? Not to mention are you going to have them go in groups or alone? Can you make sure that they all know that if they have loaded magazines they cannot be concealed? What if they accidentally have their shirt over part of the grip of the gun? Can you assure that each and every member of your event is unloaded? Can you assure each and every one that will participate have a digital voice recorder, have enough money for a possible defense if something goes horribly wrong. What about the fact that you are the one that organizes this do YOU have enough money to cover things if you get sued by someone? Can you make sure that everywhere you have these groups gather are not within 1000' of any public, private, or charter school that is K-12? Can you be assured that those that you recruit for this event are even able to carry a handgun? IE not criminal, old enough, if they don't own their own handgun have a valid HSC? OK how do you plan on publicizing said event? Do you plan to contact the local law enforcement agencies that will have to deal with an influx of calls to their dispatchers? What about the media how would you plan on dealing with the coverage? How would you deal with the negative coverage that you WILL get for your actions, I can say from experience that the media has a very dim view of open carriers.

Now taking all of that in to account. What about the lovely fact that the wonderful state we all live in has NO second amendment rights.

hoffmang
11-07-2009, 8:22 PM
When people tell me that a license is an undue burden I point out two things. Parades require permits in many places and that's totally constitutional even though you have a right to speak and to peaceably assemble. You need a permit to have more than 20 people organized on the Mall for goodness sake. Second, I point you to the state of Texas where it is completely illegal to open carry but shall issue to conceal carry. Texas has long had a strong and firmly enforced right to arms in its state constitution.

Carry is a right subject to some time place and manner restrictions. Those have been in effect in state with real RKBA's for 150+ years. They are the historical restrictions that SCOTUS will allow.

CA's regime doesn't fit that paradigm however.

-Gene

kcbrown
11-07-2009, 8:25 PM
You and I may think that a license is an undue burden but there is little evidence from Heller that SCOTUS would agree.[T]he Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues.

Except that there is a difference between a limitation and a privilege. A limitation is just that: a limitation, or a specified exception to the general right. A privilege is an allowance, something you have to get permission for before you can do it. A privilege and a blanket prohibition with state-issued exceptions are identical.

For the right to bear arms to be a true right, it has to be exercisable without interference in the majority of circumstances. Because CCW requires a permit, it should be obvious on its face that it is not handled as a right, it is treated a privilege, because it is something you cannot do unless you get explicit permission from the state to do so. There is no difference between CCW and driving: they are handled identically.

So that means that for the right to bear arms to be a right, there must be some way to exercise it in the majority of circumstances that does not require the permission of the state. If CCW isn't the means to do that, then some form of open carry must be, because it's the only alternative left on the table.


If the word "right" doesn't adhere to the above then I submit that the definition of a "right" has been twisted to the point that it's meaningless. And if you don't agree, substitute the right to free speech for the right to bear arms and see how it stacks up.

kcbrown
11-07-2009, 8:29 PM
By the way, if the pen is mightier than the sword (or the gun), then would it not follow that the ability to exercise the right to free speech should require a permit (even if the permit is "shall issue")?

:43:

locosway
11-07-2009, 8:46 PM
My videos don't even have 50k views. UOCers are a very small niche in the gun community.

Well, not everyone is needing to compensate...




















I'll be here all night!!! :D :D :D

secretasianman
11-07-2009, 8:50 PM
I'll wait for the word from "the right people" on when I should UOC, OC, or participate in a mass CCW application in unfriendly counties. At this point, we don't have a 2nd Amendment right in CA.

a1c
11-07-2009, 8:56 PM
Marriage is a right, yet you need a license to marry.

locosway
11-07-2009, 8:57 PM
Marriage is a right, yet you need a license to marry.

It's a religious event, no idea why the state even interferes...

hoffmang
11-07-2009, 9:04 PM
By the way, if the pen is mightier than the sword (or the gun), then would it not follow that the ability to exercise the right to free speech should require a permit (even if the permit is "shall issue")?


In some instances, the First Amendment does require a permit: Here is 13 pages on the restrictions and permit requirements to hold a demonstration or speech event on the national mall: http://www.nps.gov/nama/planyourvisit/upload/36%20CFR%207.96.pdf

If you sell non obscene books, you can be required to get a special permit and not stay open past a certain time.

Shall I continue with the rights that require a permit?

-Gene

locosway
11-07-2009, 9:05 PM
In some instances, the First Amendment does require a permit: Here is 13 pages on the restrictions and permit requirements to hold a demonstration or speech event on the national mall: http://www.nps.gov/nama/planyourvisit/upload/36%20CFR%207.96.pdf

If you sell non obscene books, you can be required to get a special permit and not stay open past a certain time.

Shall I continue with the rights that require a permit?

-Gene

Procreation?

Vinz
11-07-2009, 9:22 PM
patients everyone patients.....the day will come



vinz

locosway
11-07-2009, 9:25 PM
patients everyone patients.....the day will come



vinz

No matter how many times I miss my meds, I will not be called a patient!

a1c
11-07-2009, 9:29 PM
It's a religious event, no idea why the state even interferes...

Excuse me, a religious event? Not for everyone. My marriage was not a religious event by any mean. Ever heard of civil marriages?

It's a civil event - the religious part is optional.

kcbrown
11-07-2009, 9:31 PM
In some instances, the First Amendment does require a permit: Here is 13 pages on the restrictions and permit requirements to hold a demonstration or speech event on the national mall: http://www.nps.gov/nama/planyourvisit/upload/36%20CFR%207.96.pdf

If you sell non obscene books, you can be required to get a special permit and not stay open past a certain time.

Shall I continue with the rights that require a permit?

-Gene

That is not the same as CCW. CCW requires a permit in almost all circumstances, the exception being while on private property, and sometimes not even then. And at least in some states (such as Texas), CCW is the only way to legally bear arms in public.

There is essentially no difference at all between CCW and driving. Both require a license in order to do so legally on "public" property which, as it happens, encompasses nearly all of the routes by which one would travel from one private location to another.

So if you're going to argue that the "right" to bear arms is truly a right despite the fact that you can't do so on public property without a license (at least in some locations), then you must also argue that driving is a right with exactly the same stature in practice, because both are controlled in nearly the very same way under very nearly the same circumstances.


I would argue that if the way "the right to bear arms" is currently implemented in a number of locations (such as Texas) is considered an acceptable usage of the term "right", then the term "right" has lost any semblance of meaning -- it is indistinguishable from the term "privilege", as both require explicit permission of the state in most circumstances, and the only difference between them is that the right to bear arms is mentioned in a Constitutional amendment while the "right" to drive isn't.

If driving in public is a privilege, then so is bearing arms, at least in locations such as Texas, and it follows that it is a privilege in the eyes of the Supreme Court in practice because there is no meaningful difference between them.

locosway
11-07-2009, 9:31 PM
Excuse me, a religious event? Not for everyone. My marriage was not a religious event by any mean. Ever heard of civil marriages?

It's a civil event - the religious part is optional.

Yes, we had a civil union or marriage. However, marriage is part of ones beliefs, which is part of their religion or their faith. Surely you didn't get married simply for the tax breaks.

Vinz
11-07-2009, 9:34 PM
I know some that have had kids for the same reason...LOL


but... we have been through this and I hate to bring it up but some of us seem to forget the giant fiasco going on right now. We are still waiting to see if our brother is set free. Our thoughts for him and his familly.

Lets not let this issue divide us. We are fighting the same fight.


started here...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=112081


shortly got to this point.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=142379


vinz

kcbrown
11-07-2009, 9:43 PM
Marriage is a right, yet you need a license to marry.

Then unless you have a right to that license, marriage isn't a right.

Just because people call something a "right" doesn't mean it is. What matters is how it's governed. In particular, what matters is how often, when, and under what circumstances one can exercise the right unimpeded.

If it always (or even usually) requires the permission of the state, which is exactly what a license implies, then it by definition cannot be a right, for a right is precisely that which can be exercised without the prior permission of the state.


The founders of the country would laugh at what many seem to believe a "right" to be...

a1c
11-07-2009, 9:48 PM
Yes, we had a civil union or marriage. However, marriage is part of ones beliefs, which is part of their religion or their faith. Surely you didn't get married simply for the tax breaks.

I'm an atheist, and so is my wife. A marriage is a commitment. Why does it have to involve religious beliefs?

artherd
11-07-2009, 10:10 PM
A massive UOC event in california will go over about as well as a Gay Pride rally in Church... in Alabama...

a1c
11-07-2009, 10:24 PM
Then unless you have a right to that license, marriage isn't a right.

Just because people call something a "right" doesn't mean it is. What matters is how it's governed. In particular, what matters is how often, when, and under what circumstances one can exercise the right unimpeded.

If it always (or even usually) requires the permission of the state, which is exactly what a license implies, then it by definition cannot be a right, for a right is precisely that which can be exercised without the prior permission of the state.


The founders of the country would laugh at what many seem to believe a "right" to be...

They've been long dead, so I wouldn't pretend to know what the Founders would or would not do. They're constantly being invoked by various sides, and it's always a cheap shot.

Which law book do you get your definition that a right doesn't require a license? All rights are limited in some way. You have freedom of speech, but can't yell "Fire!" in a theater. Freedom of religion, but no right to polygamy. Freedom of assembly, but it might require a permit in some places, or be downright prohibited. And so on.

locosway
11-07-2009, 10:35 PM
I'm an atheist, and so is my wife. A marriage is a commitment. Why does it have to involve religious beliefs?

Your commitment is one of faith. I use the term religion loosely here. Both of you share a common belief system which one could argue is your religion even if you're atheist.

I'm Agnostic and so is my wife. When I was married to her I was an Atheist. However, my vows were taken on faith. Perhaps I should say that marriage is a ceremony that doesn't have anything to do with the state.

hoffmang
11-07-2009, 11:01 PM
I love absolutists who don't really think about what rights mean.

The fourth amendment is exercised only when the state decides there isn't probable cause.

But for most types of speech, pure speech doesn't allow preconditions. However speech in public places often requires a permit. Selling some first amendment protected books requires a special content based permit.

Why do the absolutists not recognize how something can still be a right while having narrowly tailored regulations?

-Gene

kcbrown
11-07-2009, 11:04 PM
They've been long dead, so I wouldn't pretend to know what the Founders would or would not do. They're constantly being invoked by various sides, and it's always a cheap shot.

Which law book do you get your definition that a right doesn't require a license? All rights are limited in some way. You have freedom of speech, but can't yell "Fire!" in a theater. Freedom of religion, but no right to polygamy. Freedom of assembly, but it might require a permit in some places, or be downright prohibited. And so on.

You don't see the difference between those and marriage or driving?

The difference is this: speech doesn't usually require a permit, and most speech is completely (or nearly so) unfettered. Even in public, you can say nearly anything you wish to whomever you wish. Annoy enough of the people you're talking to, of course, and you may find yourself explaining yourself to the police or something.

But marriage, driving in public, and bearing arms in public all share one common and very, very important trait: they all require explicit permission of the state. That's what a license is, after all: permission from the state to do something.

How one can regard any of marriage, driving in public, or bearing arms in public as "rights" when they nearly always require the permission of the state for their exercise is quite beyond me. To do so strips the term "right" of its very essence. You may as well say that you have the "right" to build anything you want on public land, because you can indeed do so if you get permission.


So now you're left with the following problem: how do you reconcile the essential nature of a right with the requirement to get permission from the state in order to exercise it? If it always or even usually requires permission, then how can it be regarded as anything but a privilege? Under those circumstances, what substantive difference is there between a right and a privilege? I say there is none.

How can you simultaneously say that you have the right to keep and bear arms and that it's perfectly okay to require permission from the state before you can exercise them? How is that in any way different from the state of things here in California right now? Do we not require permission to keep and bear arms in California right now? What is it about the current situation that you object to when you assert that you have the right to keep and bear arms?


Make no mistake: I consider "shall issue" to be a huge improvement over "may issue", but I have no illusions that "shall issue" is the same thing as truly having the right to bear arms, because even "shall issue" permits are issued at the whim of the state, as evidenced by the fact that the state can deny the permit in practice.

Only when we are able to bear arms without, in general, any permits involved can we say that we truly have the right to bear them in practice.

dirtnap
11-07-2009, 11:08 PM
One is an overly tattooed, mullet wearing, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, meth freak that could not form a cogent thought if he had to.


.

Hey, I don't do meth!

kcbrown
11-07-2009, 11:08 PM
I love absolutists who don't really think about what rights mean.

The fourth amendment is exercised only when the state decides there isn't probable cause.

But for most types of speech, pure speech doesn't allow preconditions. However speech in public places often requires a permit. Selling some first amendment protected books requires a special content based permit.

Why do the absolutists not recognize how something can still be a right while having narrowly tailored regulations?


I do recognize that.

But how exactly is CCW in Texas (or most states, for that matter) a "narrowly tailored regulation"? It's about as far from that as it gets.

There is a difference between sometimes requiring a permit to exercise the right in question in some circumstances, and always requiring a permit to exercise the right in question in most circumstances.

I suppose I should just ask this straight up: what is the difference between a privilege and a right, if it isn't that a right can (or, at least, should) generally be exercised or exercisable without needing prior authorization?

kcbrown
11-07-2009, 11:19 PM
Ask yourself this: would you believe it to be a violation of your first amendment rights if the state required you to obtain a permit before speaking to anyone else in public, even if you intended to speak to only one person? Note that simply walking down the sidewalk while talking to someone else qualifies as "speaking to someone else in public", because you're speaking while in public.

I most certainly would consider the above to be a violation of my first amendment rights. If you would, too, then why wouldn't you consider it a violation of your second amendment rights when you substitute "bearing arms" for "speaking to anyone else" in the above?

artherd
11-07-2009, 11:22 PM
You may generally own a gun. You may generally transport it in public.

You may not generally carry it on your person loaded in public without a permit.

In a just world, you may apply for a permit to do so and reasonably obtain it if you're not a Felon.

artherd
11-07-2009, 11:23 PM
Think of guns as a megaphone. legal to own, legal to carry around and not use. When you start using it, you gotta get a(n) (easy to obtain, shlall-issue) permit.

This really isn't hard.

kcbrown
11-07-2009, 11:35 PM
You may generally own a gun. You may generally transport it in public.


I wasn't aware that "transport" and "bear" were the same thing as regards firearms...

ETA: I question whether one may, in practice, generally own a gun without getting permission in advance, considering that one may not purchase one without said permission (this is what the background check is). But California is the only place with which I have any familiarity with the transfer laws, so it may be true that in general, one may own a gun without prior permission. But for me to consider it a right to keep a firearm, one would have to in general be able to obtain and own a gun without prior permission.



You may not generally carry it on your person loaded in public without a permit.
A natural question that follows from the above is: does "bear arms" have any real meaning at all when the arms in question are unloaded?

What's the point of bearing arms if you cannot use them when the circumstances require it?

kcbrown
11-07-2009, 11:44 PM
Think of guns as a megaphone. legal to own, legal to carry around and not use. When you start using it, you gotta get a(n) (easy to obtain, shlall-issue) permit.


Maybe the permit should be for shooting the firearm in public, rather than merely carrying it. :D

nicki
11-07-2009, 11:59 PM
UOC event before Incorporation and some case to seriously limit so called gun free zones would be a serious mistake, our current elected officials would use this as an excuse for more restrictions.

The only reason they haven't done so at this point is because they have been distracted with the budget.

We have an unplanned UOC case that hopefully will be overtuned on appeal.

At this point, if we are to do anything, I would lean toward empty holsters or maybe load the holsters with bananas.

In West Hollywood or San Fran we could put something else in that would be inappropriate in many other parts of the state.

What I am looking forward to is the day we can LOC.

The reality is right now UOC is a political statement and if you are in an area that is politically hostile to gun rights, you can expect political persecution.

Most of us are supporting families, have things like jobs or businesses. We can't just sit in jail and burn time.

Nicki

hoffmang
11-08-2009, 12:59 AM
You need no permit to transport a firearm, to carry it in your home or business, etc.

Just as you need a permit to parade or protest in some jurisdictions (including on the National Mall) or a permit to sell some types of books, in some jurisdictions you need an equivalent permit to bear arms in public.

You have the right to sell books and peaceable demonstrate, right?

Again I ask, why don't people engage the rights that do require narrowly tailored shall issue permits?

Try selling a magazine with naked girls and stories in in it Alabama without a permit first and see how far you get. It's protected first amendment speech...

-Gene

kcbrown
11-08-2009, 1:56 AM
You need no permit to transport a firearm, to carry it in your home or business, etc.


I don't need a license to drive on private property, either.

Do I, therefore, have a right to drive simply because the only time I need a permit to do so is when I'm in public?



Just as you need a permit to parade or protest in some jurisdictions (including on the National Mall) or a permit to sell some types of books, in some jurisdictions you need an equivalent permit to bear arms in public.
Some jurisdictions. Some types of books. Not most jurisdictions or, more importantly, most types of books.


You have the right to sell books and peaceable demonstrate, right?
Do I?

If I have to have a permit to do so in most public circumstances then in practice, I do not have those rights. Or, alternatively, I have those rights and the law infringes upon them. Take your pick.



Again I ask, why don't people engage the rights that do require narrowly tailored shall issue permits?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking why they don't protest the fact that they're required to get permits?

If that's what you're asking, then I'm sure some of them have. In fact, I expect that the laws you refer to have already been challenged in court and found Constitutional (for reasons I don't necessarily agree with). If you're asking why they don't protest even after that, then ask why most people don't protest the many laws that can be regarded as an affront to the Constitution in one way or another. The answer is the same: the natural state of a human being appears to be that of a slave. The vast majority of people throughout history have lived under oppressive governments of one form or another, and most people live most of their lives taking orders from others. Even private enterprise, regarded by some as a symbol of freedom, is dictatorial in nature, mostly performed by people taking orders from their superiors upon penalty of losing something important to them: their ability to provide for themselves and their families.


Try selling a magazine with naked girls and stories in in it Alabama without a permit first and see how far you get. It's protected first amendment speech...
The specific speech in question is clearly not protected first amendment speech, because if it were truly protected then it could not legitimately be denied by the state.

Speech in general is considered protected because most of it cannot legitimately be denied by the state.


That apparently isn't true of the "right" to bear arms. Again, if you believe the right to bear arms is maintained even in the face of a law requiring a permit to do so in public, then would you have the same belief of the right to free speech if all speech (of any kind, to anyone) in public required a permit? Somehow I doubt it (though I clearly cannot speak for you).

So why (I presume) the difference in viewpoint on those two rights? They're both Constitutionally protected rights, yet one (RKBA) is considered so much less of a right than another (free speech) that it is considered acceptable to relegate it to the status of a privilege while calling it a "right".


If you would, please answer the question I posed previously about the difference between a right and a privilege. I'd very much like to know what the difference is, if any, from the modern legal point of view (and your own personal point of view as well).

The way I see it should be plain by now: any "right" which requires the assent of the state for it to be exercised is no right at all. How could it be? Unless, that is, one also argues that the state is infringing on the right in question by requiring its assent.

No, I say to you that a right is that which can be exercised (or which one should be able to exercise) despite the objections of the state.

kcbrown
11-08-2009, 2:33 AM
Perhaps I should make something clear:

There is a difference between something which is a right only in principle and something which is actually a right in practice. It is primarily the latter to which I've been referring.

There are many things which are rights in principle, among them being the right to free speech, RKBA, etc. All that means is that someone believes (or did believe, at one time) that one should be able to, in general, engage in those activities regardless of the laws the government may have in place. Which is another way of saying that said people believe or believed that laws prohibiting the activity in question are invalid on their face.

A right in practice is one that can actually be exercised by the general population with no interference from the state, even if the state might otherwise object to it. Many forms of speech are undoubtedly rights in practice. The very fact that this forum exists is no doubt an affront to the state, because we all know that the state would rather disarm the population. But this forum exists because speech in the general case is protected in practice.

RKBA is a currently a right primarily in principle right now. What we currently have in practice can hardly be regarded as a right, else we wouldn't even be here talking about how to secure it for ourselves and our posterity.

My point is that the right to bear arms would still in practice not be a right even with a "shall issue" CCW permit system in place, because the law itself, by requiring a permit, denies CCW (and thus, unless LOC is allowed by default, the right to bear arms) by default. Which is to say, you cannot CCW unless you've been given prior permission by the state. That is how a privilege like driving works. It's not how a right works, and to say otherwise is to render meaningless that which was intended to be a cornerstone of the country.

pullnshoot25
11-08-2009, 3:11 AM
Gee, funny how no pro-gun organization supports organized UOC? I mean, it's such a good idea and all, right? I'm just sayin'...

But it makes ya feel good, huh? And that's all that matters, right? It DOESN'T matter that many other gun-owners think you're reckless and impatient and your approach to "protecting your rights" is akin to bulls in china shops.

Yep, you and the Black Panthers will save the world.

Because it's YOUR right, right? Just go ahead and ignore the opinions of those who have been doing this for 10, 15, 20+ years. Go ahead, risk the efforts of those who work to organize gun-owners in PRODUCTIVE ways, craft court cases, bills in the legislature and other efforts that are careful not to present gun-owners as reactionary, thoughtless, "in your face" citizens.

After all, it's not like UOCers have anything ELSE they can do to help the Second Amendment - like join NRA Members' Councils or help CRPA - nope, let's just "strap one on" and freak people out - "...these are a few of our favorite things...".

Because we're excercising our rights. Oh, we're p-r-o-t-e-c-t-i-n-g them too. Uh-huh. Yeah.

Being a thoughtful shepherd goes a lot farther than being a boisterous chihuahua.

hoffmang
11-08-2009, 9:45 AM
I repeat a simple issue. Fundamental enumerated rights often require shall issue permits. Pure speech is a rarity - but many types of speech actually still require permits.

You can disagree with this personally. However, the courts have a very long legacy of not agreeing with you including the courts in very gun friendly Texas.

If you're speaking of a perfect world you suffer from the same time of unrealistic thinking that drives the anti-gunners to imagine a violence free world. In the real world, rights are very often subject to narrowly tailored exceptions.


PS. You don't have the right to drive - it is found nowhere in a state or federal constitution. It might exist a subordinate right to travel, but there the courts have a long history of saying that the right to travel doesn't guarantee any one method. I don't like that either, but its the reality we all have to operate in.

Is the right to keep and bear arms violated by the nearly universal restriction on not discharging a firearm in populous areas unless in fear of your life? I mean, that's an infringement. You should be able to shoot your gun anywhere, right?

-Gene

Mitch
11-08-2009, 10:06 AM
It's a religious event, no idea why the state even interferes...

Marriage is an economic arrangement, has been since the beginning of time.

The state is necessarily involved because of the necessity to adjudicate questions of property ownership and the paternity (and care) of children.

Mitch
11-08-2009, 10:09 AM
PS. You don't have the right to drive - it is found nowhere in a state or federal constitution.

While I agree with you about driving, that it is not listed anywhere as a right does not mean it isn't one. Constitutions don't grant rights, they contain language to protect existing rights.

An example already mentioned many pages ago is procreation, which is recognized as a fundamental right almost everywhere in the world, and which is not enumerated anywhere in the US Constitution.

hoffmang
11-08-2009, 10:15 AM
While I agree with you about driving, that it is not listed anywhere as a right does not mean it isn't one. Constitutions don't grant rights, they contain language to protect existing rights.

An example already mentioned many pages ago is procreation, which is recognized as a fundamental right almost everywhere in the world, and which is not enumerated anywhere in the US Constitution.

You don't have to sell me on unenumerated rights. As I said above, I don't fully agree with current jurisprudence on driving. In fact, I expect driving to find a lot more protection after McDonald incorporates via P or I.

-Gene

kcbrown
11-08-2009, 1:10 PM
I repeat a simple issue. Fundamental enumerated rights often require shall issue permits. Pure speech is a rarity - but many types of speech actually still require permits.

You can disagree with this personally. However, the courts have a very long legacy of not agreeing with you including the courts in very gun friendly Texas.


Then what exactly is the difference between a right and a privilege?

It sounds to me like there is no difference of substance at all.



If you're speaking of a perfect world you suffer from the same time of unrealistic thinking that drives the anti-gunners to imagine a violence free world. In the real world, rights are very often subject to narrowly tailored exceptions.
NARROWLY TAILORED EXCEPTIONS. Which means that by default you can exercise the right in question except under very specific circumstances.

Why would you believe that a permitting system that denies a right by default is somehow a "narrowly tailored exception"?



PS. You don't have the right to drive - it is found nowhere in a state or federal constitution. It might exist a subordinate right to travel, but there the courts have a long history of saying that the right to travel doesn't guarantee any one method. I don't like that either, but its the reality we all have to operate in.
Then PLEASE explain how it is any different in substance from bearing arms in jurisdictions where the only way to legally bear arms in public is by obtaining a permit first.



Is the right to keep and bear arms violated by the nearly universal restriction on not discharging a firearm in populous areas unless in fear of your life? I mean, that's an infringement. You should be able to shoot your gun anywhere, right?
That's a good question. I'd say by default you should be able to if you can meet a certain set of criteria that are situational in nature, e.g., you are shooting at a backstop sufficient to ensure that the risk to people and property is small enough to be in the noise, your shots are quiet enough that they do not disturb others, etc.

Really, I think what you're asking can be generalized to most anything. It appears to me that you (or, perhaps, the courts) are of the belief that we do not have the right to do anything unless it is explicitly enumerated somewhere. Such a belief obviously renders the 9th (and perhaps the 10th) amendment meaningless.

I happen to believe that, in the general case, people have, or should have, the right to do anything they wish provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others. One could, successfully I believe, argue that an action that places others at great risk of death or bodily harm is an infringement on the rights of those others, because it is then only by chance that they escape injury or death.

From what I've read, the founders of this country believed much more like I do than like you (and/or the courts) appear to.

kcbrown
11-08-2009, 1:14 PM
Marriage is an economic arrangement, has been since the beginning of time.

The state is necessarily involved because of the necessity to adjudicate questions of property ownership and the paternity (and care) of children.

Which means the state needs to be aware of the marriage. It does not imply that the state needs to agree with it, which is what a permit means.

wildhawker
11-08-2009, 1:43 PM
There are costs and logistical considerations associated to the administration of awareness, kc.

hoffmang
11-08-2009, 2:45 PM
Then what exactly is the difference between a right and a privilege?

It sounds to me like there is no difference of substance at all.


You don't need a permit to do it, but the moment you make a libelous statement you've violated the law. How is that free speech under your rights/privileges rubric?

The different between a right and a privilege is that the privilege's permitting system isn't subject to strict scrutiny. Carry license practices will be subject to strict scrutiny - and most carry licensing throughout the states will be found to meet the standard.

I again think you're being simplistic. Do you think that the state can make it a felony to carry in public while having a BAC over 1%? The state can't make it a felony to speak with a BAC of 1% or more. The right to arms is subtly different than the right to speak and your argument is weak if you don't take those issues into consideration when you're otherwise advocating an absolutist point of view.

Your view isn't held widely enough to be supported by even pro gun societies with strong RKBA's in their state constitutions.

-Gene

kcbrown
11-08-2009, 7:25 PM
You don't need a permit to do it, but the moment you make a libelous statement you've violated the law. How is that free speech under your rights/privileges rubric?


Well, under my specific rubric, if the libelous statement is false, then the law in question winds up striking a balance between free speech and the right to the truth. That is, the speech in question is of a damaging nature, which means it violates the rights of the target of the speech in question if it's false.

And in any case, the real question as I see it is: how can speech in the general case be a right in practice in the face of laws such as the one against libel? My answer is simple: the laws do not cover the majority of speech, and the majority of speech requires no permit, so speech as a general category is therefore a right in practice.


The different between a right and a privilege is that the privilege's permitting system isn't subject to strict scrutiny. Carry license practices will be subject to strict scrutiny - and most carry licensing throughout the states will be found to meet the standard.
How does licensed CCW meet the requirements of strict scrutiny? The Wikipedia article on strict scrutiny lays out the following requirements:


There must be a compelling governmental interest.
The law must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal
The law must be the least restrictive means to achieve the goal

It's not clear to me how CCW licensing passes the third requirement at all, nor is it clear how it can be considered "narrowly tailored" when it is a blanket prohibition on carrying with the exception of those who hold the issued license.

Obviously, we need to know the specific governmental interest involved here. It's not enough to say that the government has an interest in the public safety. The interest needs to be as specific as possible.


I again think you're being simplistic. Do you think that the state can make it a felony to carry in public while having a BAC over 1%?
No, but I think they can use the fact that someone had a BAC over 1% at the time they accidentally shot someone to raise the event from an accidental killing to negligent homicide.


The state can't make it a felony to speak with a BAC of 1% or more. The right to arms is subtly different than the right to speak and your argument is weak if you don't take those issues into consideration when you're otherwise advocating an absolutist point of view.
That's certainly true as far as it goes. However, I do not believe the difference between the right to arms and the right to speech is sufficient to warrant a blanket prohibition on carrying with the only exception being those whom the state has given permission to carry.


Your view isn't held widely enough to be supported by even pro gun societies with strong RKBA's in their state constitutions.
There was a time in this country when my view on the right to bear arms (or something very close to it) was held so widely that it was "normal". What specific external circumstances have changed to make that view no longer valid? Note that it's not enough to simply say that most people think that the act of bearing arms should be a licensed thing, because the very nature of a right is that it is intended to persist even in the face of popular opposition.

kcbrown
11-08-2009, 7:28 PM
There are costs and logistical considerations associated to the administration of awareness, kc.

Costs can be recovered via taxes, just like they are with most other government functions.

What logistical considerations are necessary for the administration of awareness of marriage, other than maintenance of a record that says that the two people in question are married? Simple notification of the state that the people in question are married should be sufficient for that.

How is the permission of the state required for any of this?

hoffmang
11-08-2009, 9:33 PM
A license to carry in public is narrowly tailored because it makes sure that anyone exercising the right to bear arms is not in any of the prohibited categories. Remember that in states that are not California one can obtain a handgun without going through a NICS check. The Federal Constitution is 50 states + territories wide - not just California.

The least restrictive means to make sure that only the law abiding who understand the law on deadly force are carrying is to require background checks and training to all who pass same.

Your answer to my point about carrying under the influence showed that you're talking about your preferences and not about your distinction between a right and a privilege.

-Gene

kcbrown
11-09-2009, 12:18 AM
A license to carry in public is narrowly tailored because it makes sure that anyone exercising the right to bear arms is not in any of the prohibited categories. Remember that in states that are not California one can obtain a handgun without going through a NICS check. The Federal Constitution is 50 states + territories wide - not just California.

The least restrictive means to make sure that only the law abiding who understand the law on deadly force are carrying is to require background checks and training to all who pass same.


Perhaps, but what is the goal that is being pursued here? What is the government's specific interest in these things?

Leaving aside my disagreement with the notion that someone who has paid his dues is not entitled to ever be able to exercise his rights again, what specific interest does the government have in ensuring that law abiding people understand the law that said government does not have with respect to, say, speech in a crowded theater?


Your answer to my point about carrying under the influence showed that you're talking about your preferences and not about your distinction between a right and a privilege.
I fail to see how. Your question about carrying under the influence implies that it is or should be permissible to strip someone of their right to defend themselves if they have a BAC greater than 1%. My answer was crafted to avoid that implication.

A right is not something that should ever be taken away lightly. It should only be taken away when there is no other way to deal with the situation, and where the need to deal with the situation is the result of demonstrated and immediate danger to rights of others that exceed the right being restricted.

In this case, there is no need to restrict the rights of all people, since I proposed an alternative that is less restrictive and equally compelling.


My thinking is that the law generally has no business with what someone might do, only with what they actually do. The most heinous laws mankind has seen have been drawn up on the basis of what people might do, and we would do well to avoid that if at all possible. That way lies tyranny of the worst kind.


If you wish to ensure the people are familiar with the laws governing deadly force, the best way to do that may be to mandate it as part of the rest of the mandated school curricula. Would that not be less restrictive than giving the state the final say in whether or not someone may carry?

Please understand: I think the training and education that goes with getting a CCW permit is a very, very good thing, and I would personally prefer that anyone carrying have it. But I must distinguish between personal preferences such as that and actual rights. If you follow the logic of the founders, rights are conferred upon us by our creator -- they exist and, therefore, should be exercisable, whether or not the state wants them to. Establishing a permit system and requiring all who wish to exercise a right to acquire a permit first is one of the very things they fought against.

How can something possibly be an unalienable right if it is controlled nearly in its entirety by the state?

Mulay El Raisuli
11-09-2009, 4:58 AM
How can something possibly be an unalienable right if it is controlled nearly in its entirety by the state?


You're doing real well here. The above is an excellent example. That CGF disagrees with you troubles me just a bit.

The Raisuli

hoffmang
11-09-2009, 8:22 PM
How can something possibly be an unalienable right if it is controlled nearly in its entirety by the state?

You mean like the 4th Amendment and the 1st Amendment right to assemble or sell books?

Porn is protected 1A speech. Book stores that sell porn can be required by states and municipalities to get permits.

That's the background of a right. Ignore it at your intellectual purity with pragmatic peril.

States are likely going to be able to regulate carrying in public like they have for almost 150 years. You still haven't actually presented any counterfactuals to prove why Texas' prohibition on open carry while allowing shall issue concealed carry violates the right to keep and bear arms.

-Gene

kcbrown
11-09-2009, 11:09 PM
You mean like the 4th Amendment and the 1st Amendment right to assemble or sell books?


The right to sell books is a small part of the much larger right the 1st Amendment refers to: the right to free speech.

Taking your approach to its logical conclusion, one would conclude that if any part (no matter how small) of a right can legitimately be completely controlled by the state, then it is just as legitimate for the state to control the right in its entirety.

I reject that argument on its face.

The 4th amendment is a right that the people retain with respect to the government. It is not a right they exercise except with respect to the government (either directly or indirectly), so it is a non sequitur to argue about it in the context of whether or not the state should have any control over it: the right in question is a control on the government.



Porn is protected 1A speech. Book stores that sell porn can be required by states and municipalities to get permits.
Then how is porn protected speech? What about it, specifically, is protected? Surely it should be obvious that even if porn has some modicum of "protection" (whatever that's supposed to mean in the context of a system of government-issued permits), it clearly doesn't have nearly the same degree of protection in practice as, say, political speech, else political speech would surely be subject to the same degree of permit requirements as porn.



That's the background of a right. Ignore it at your intellectual purity with pragmatic peril.
I recognize the practical issues just fine. However, I believe the implementation we currently have is badly flawed and a vast distance from the intentions and expectations of those who drew up the principles upon which the country was founded.



States are likely going to be able to regulate carrying in public like they have for almost 150 years. You still haven't actually presented any counterfactuals to prove why Texas' prohibition on open carry while allowing shall issue concealed carry violates the right to keep and bear arms.
I thought I'd made my argument on that plainly obvious by now: the situation in Texas is a violation of the right to bear arms (I'm excluding the right to keep arms here since as far as I know there is no licensing requirement for it) because the right in question is completely controlled by the state. I submit that this flies directly in the face of the very meaning of a right, which is something that one may, generally (which means: not always, but usually), rightfully engage in despite the objections the state may have.

I think it comes down to what we each believe a right to be. I believe a right to be a far stronger thing than you appear to. You appear to see a right as nothing more than a judiciously regulated privilege. I dispute that view of rights as an affront to the very essence of what rights were intended to be: that which individuals can legitimately exercise without consent or even approval.

The purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the people and to arbitrate collisions of rights when they occur. Its purpose is most certainly NOT to decide who may or may not have any given right! (And yes, I recognize the need to at least temporarily strip someone of their rights if they have violated the rights of another to sufficient degree). When the government engages in the latter, rights become privileges, just like the right to bear arms has become a privilege in Texas, where one must get permission from the state to bear arms.

When one must always get permission from the state to exercise a right, that right is no longer a right in practice. Surely I'm not the only person here who sees this?


As for the argument that the states are likely to be able to regulate carrying in public the way they have for the past 150 years, surely nobody knows better than you that such an argument is irrelevant. Few of us would be here if the only time to push for something is when you're likely to get it. I fully recognize the fact that we need to push slowly for our right to bear arms in order to win, but my argument is that the push should not stop even if we get "shall issue" CCW. I don't think we should stop until the right to bear arms is truly a right as I describe it above. That can be accomplished a number of ways, one of which being to lift the restrictions on LOC so that anyone who wished could LOC in almost all public locations (clearly in Texas that would mean eliminating the ban on open carry).

Call me a radical if you wish, but keep in mind that the founders of the country appear to have been radicals of the same sort that I am.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-10-2009, 5:53 AM
You mean like the 4th Amendment and the 1st Amendment right to assemble or sell books?



The problem with this is that I don't need a permit to have some like-minded individuals come over & assemble for some reason. I may need a permit if we all march on a public street, but the permit is for blocking the public street, NOT for assembling. If we don't block traffic, we don't need a permit.

If its just me, even if I'm on a public sidewalk, I can carry a sign that says "The King is a fink" (or similar) w/o getting a 'mother may I' slip from ANY govt agency. Being able to do so is what exercising a Right means.



Porn is protected 1A speech. Book stores that sell porn can be required by states and municipalities to get permits.



This isn't far removed from the '2A as smut' article that appeared elsewhere. The main bulwark of that viewpoint is that porn is NOT protected speech, in that its not protected all that well. Is that what we want? Something that has the protection of smut? Or do we want something that is equal in importance to all of the provisions of the 1A, & the rest of the Constitution as well?



States are likely going to be able to regulate carrying in public like they have for almost 150 years. You still haven't actually presented any counterfactuals to prove why Texas' prohibition on open carry while allowing shall issue concealed carry violates the right to keep and bear arms.

-Gene



Yes, there have been many infringements on the 2A for the last 150 years. I thought the idea was to overturn those infringements & return the 2A to the Right it started out as.

As for counterfactuals, kcbrown has presented them. I'll add to that. The 4A applies to everyone at all times UNLESS the govt shows a specific reason in a specific circumstance as to why it shouldn't. Compare this to the prohibition on LOC in TX, which is not "narrowly tailored" in any way. Its a blanket prohibition in that NO ONE can do so w/o the 'mother may I' slip from the gov.

I'll add another; In the thread titled "Federal Lawsuit filed against Ohio town for Open Carry detention" Telperion pointed out that the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Ohio's RKBA clause protected open carry. More states have Ohio-style RKBA than Texas-style. SCOTUS seems to see this as well, judging from the dicta in Heller that restrictions were acceptable on concealed carry. By specifying "concealed," the logical conclusion is that restrictions on OPEN carry would not be.

The part that bothers me the most relates to the effort to regain unrestricted LOC in this state. You say that getting SI-CCW now isn't just about SI-CCW but will help the effort towards unrestricted LOC as well because you 'want' that too. From what I see in this thread (including Artherd's comment at post #48) I question how firmly you 'want' that. I 'want' Taco Tuesday for dinner tonight, but I'd be just as happy to have burgers. I don't 'want' tacos in the same way that I want the return of a Right granted me by my Creator (a Right that does NOT include asking for permission). It appears that you don't 'want' unrestricted LOC even as much as I want Taco Tuesday.

Which troubles me.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
11-10-2009, 5:55 AM
When one must always get permission from the state to exercise a right, that right is no longer a right in practice. Surely I'm not the only person here who sees this?


No, you're not. Keep it up, you're doing real well.

The Raisuli

wildhawker
11-10-2009, 7:32 AM
Mulay, you are projecting upon Gene and CGF your fear of and distaste for a possible outcome that is not ideal. I'd suggest we take a step back from the issue and recognize that what is being argued here is not necessarily his or CGF's preference.

As an aside, I'm curious as to what creator you place your faith in that advocates armed self defense.

CSACANNONEER
11-10-2009, 7:52 AM
It's a religious event, no idea why the state even interferes...

The same reason they interfere in any aspect of citizen's lives, $$$$$$.

GuyW
11-10-2009, 7:54 PM
As an aside, I'm curious as to what creator you place your faith in that advocates armed self defense.

The same as many of the Founders claimed?

.

wildhawker
11-10-2009, 8:26 PM
The same as many of the Founders claimed?

.

Sorry, should sentimental value be enough to support the argument?

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 2:54 AM
Sorry, should sentimental value be enough to support the argument?

Whether a creator of the type that the founders envisioned exists or not (and I expect there were differences, perhaps even substantial ones, between them on the specifics of such a creator), the notion of rights as they envisioned is valid because it has proven to be quite useful. If you cannot agree even with that, then a discussion on rights such as this is effectively done before it begins. Participants need to agree on basic principles such as that in order to have a meaningful discussion, else the discussion will eventually devolve into an argument about whose fundamental beliefs are "right". Such an argument tends to be religious in nature and therefore can't really go anywhere.

Vectrexer
11-11-2009, 3:00 AM
Mike, I mean this constructively, but it seems you're always shouting, up on your hind legs. You could convince folks a lot better with a calm, deliberative approach.

I SUPPORT THE SHOUT IN THIS CASE!

Mulay El Raisuli
11-11-2009, 5:59 AM
Mulay, you are projecting upon Gene and CGF your fear of and distaste for a possible outcome that is not ideal. I'd suggest we take a step back from the issue and recognize that what is being argued here is not necessarily his or CGF's preference.


I don't think I'm projecting at all. I'm seeing that Gene & Artherd are quite 'ambivalent' & accepting of the infringements that have been placed on the Right (at least as far as "unrestricted" goes) when it comes to the "and bear" part of the Right. Yet, kcbrown is correct, if I have to get a permission slip from the govt, at ALL times, in order to exercise a right, then it isn't a right. Its just something that I'm allowed to do.

This is my primary objection to the push for getting SI-CCW first. If the effort is successful (and if nothing further is done) then needing to obtain permission will become the Minimal Constitutional Standard. Which, as kcbrown points out, is not the way it was, not the way it should be, & is surely not what we should be working for. Yet, I'm seeing the Right compared to the use of a megaphone. Which is still flawed because if I'm standing on a sidewalk shouting (the equivalent of) "The king is a fink" I DON'T need a permit, no matter how "easy to obtain" it may be. Simply because HAVING to obtain one violates the basic nature of that Right.

The Right to keep & bear is no different. So, I am more than a bit distressed to hear people I respect echo the same arguments as the guy who compares the 2A with smut.


As an aside, I'm curious as to what creator you place your faith in that advocates armed self defense.


GuyW called it. I'm simply quoting the Declaration of Independence.

The Raisuli

hoffmang
11-11-2009, 3:35 PM
The problem with this is that I don't need a permit to have some like-minded individuals come over & assemble for some reason. I may need a permit if we all march on a public street, but the permit is for blocking the public street, NOT for assembling. If we don't block traffic, we don't need a permit.
That's a funny comparison that proves my point. If you want to open or concealed carry in the same place you invited like-minded individuals over, you can already do so without a permission slip from the government. The permit is not for blocking a public street - it's for e.g. assembling on the National Mall. If you want to carry out in public it's probably consititutional for state governments to require you pass non arbitrary or capricious training and background checking.


It appears that you don't 'want' unrestricted LOC even as much as I want Taco Tuesday.

I want to open carry SBR MP5s down Market Street in San Francisco. This is not about what I want - it's about what we can get and why.

For the uneducated person claiming that porn is not first amendment protected... Well, he needs to learn the difference between obscenity and porn. Claiming that the 2A can not be infringed in ways that the 1A is well accepted to be limited is a non serious argument.

-Gene

artherd
11-11-2009, 4:59 PM
The problem with this is that I don't need a permit to have some like-minded individuals come over & assemble for some reason. I may need a permit if we all march on a public street, but the permit is for blocking the public street, NOT for assembling. If we don't block traffic, we don't need a permit.

Not true - you need a permit for the assembly unless you're in your home (where you can already LOC, today.).

It is passable under current law to require the same permit for CCW/LOC in public as it is to assemble in public.

Yes, there have been many infringements on the 2A for the last 150 years. I thought the idea was to overturn those infringements & return the 2A to the Right it started out as.

The idea is to go for what we realistically can achieve. You don't just push 'history eraser buttons' wholesale. That's not how this works.

It appears that you don't 'want' unrestricted LOC even as much as I want Taco Tuesday.

I'm aware that you're a single-issue voter on LOC.

You ought to be aware that I 'want' to be able to LOC a suppressed select-fire m4 in SF.

What I expect to GET in the next 5 years, is recognition of the 2nd and the 1st amendments as equals.

artherd
11-11-2009, 5:01 PM
I don't think I'm projecting at all. I'm seeing that Gene & Artherd are quite 'ambivalent' & accepting of the infringements that have been placed on the Right (at least as far as "unrestricted" goes) when it comes to the "and bear" part of the Right.

We are not Ambivalent, we simply understand areas of law you fail to comprehend entirely.

wildhawker
11-11-2009, 5:04 PM
If you cannot distinguish between a pragmatic approach to and understanding of probable outcomes vs personal preference there is really nothing worth discussing that will not lead to personal attacks. You can be as upset as you wish, but your anger shouldn't be directed at Gene, Ben or CGF.


I don't think I'm projecting at all. I'm seeing that Gene & Artherd are quite 'ambivalent' & accepting of the infringements that have been placed on the Right (at least as far as "unrestricted" goes) when it comes to the "and bear" part of the Right. Yet, kcbrown is correct, if I have to get a permission slip from the govt, at ALL times, in order to exercise a right, then it isn't a right. Its just something that I'm allowed to do.

This is my primary objection to the push for getting SI-CCW first. If the effort is successful (and if nothing further is done) then needing to obtain permission will become the Minimal Constitutional Standard. Which, as kcbrown points out, is not the way it was, not the way it should be, & is surely not what we should be working for. Yet, I'm seeing the Right compared to the use of a megaphone. Which is still flawed because if I'm standing on a sidewalk shouting (the equivalent of) "The king is a fink" I DON'T need a permit, no matter how "easy to obtain" it may be. Simply because HAVING to obtain one violates the basic nature of that Right.

The Right to keep & bear is no different. So, I am more than a bit distressed to hear people I respect echo the same arguments as the guy who compares the 2A with smut.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 5:40 PM
The idea is to go for what we realistically can achieve. You don't just push 'history eraser buttons' wholesale. That's not how this works.


I wholeheartedly agree with this. But at the same time, you shouldn't stop erasing just because you get something that falls within what apparently is the modern legal definition of a "right" (a definition that looks suspiciously like a judiciously-regulated privilege to me).



You ought to be aware that I 'want' to be able to LOC a suppressed select-fire m4 in SF.
But that's not the question. The question is, simply: do you believe you have the right to LOC a suppressed select-fire m4 in SF? Perhaps more importantly, do you believe you have that right even if the state disagrees?

ETA: Considering what you guys are doing, I will completely understand if you choose not to answer the above.


I believe the 2nd Amendment, as written by the authors of the Constitution, was intended to convey the message that you do have that right, and that you have it even if the state disagrees. I think if the founders had wanted to say "offer void where prohibited" they would have put language into the Constitution to that effect. They didn't (unless you think the 10th Amendment counts as that, which I concede is a possibility for most things but not likely for the other Amendments).

I don't think the founders ever envisioned an environment in which the states wouldn't have RKBA in their constitutions, else they would have dealt with that directly, since the historical context of them coming out of a shooting war where an armed population was essential for their victory makes it clear that RKBA was of supreme importance to them, second only to that of speech. I think the ordering of the amendments is intentional and not haphazard.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 5:53 PM
We are not Ambivalent, we simply understand areas of law you fail to comprehend entirely.

Except that law as it is today is the result of over 200 years worth of evolution.

You appear to be coming at the problem of rights as a matter of law. Considering what you guys do and what you're planning to do, that's sensible.

But I'm coming at it as a matter of principle, not of law. The law probably started with that principle as a foundation but has slowly evolved away from it since then. Sometimes a reminder of the underlying fundamental principles is in order so that the evolution of law may be directed back towards them.

wildhawker
11-11-2009, 6:04 PM
Which is useful in a detached and academic sense, though to suggest that CGF isn't aware of or sympathetic to the underlying principle is - I'm sure you'd agree - ludicrous.

Except that law as it is today is the result of over 200 years worth of evolution.

You appear to be coming at the problem of rights as a matter of law. Considering what you guys do and what you're planning to do, that's sensible.

But I'm coming at it as a matter of principle, not of law. The law probably started with that principle as a foundation but has slowly evolved away from it since then. Sometimes a reminder of the underlying fundamental principles is in order so that the evolution of law may be directed back towards them.

artherd
11-11-2009, 6:19 PM
You appear to be coming at the problem of rights as a matter of law. Considering what you guys do and what you're planning to do, that's sensible.

We live in a nation under law.

In the short term - we will fix the laws to obey themselves. (RKBA is equal to the first, this means CCW and OC with permit for a reg'd machinegun.) and we will be victorious.

In the LONG TERM - of course you and I have a RIGHT to Carry a select-fire suppressed weapon without a permit or permission or registration of any @#$&@*#$ kind.

But I'm not gonna blow $1m of your money tomorrow on some Gorski-witted permitless-LOC suit with 0 chance of winning. It is my job as your general not to lead you into an ambush - no matter how angry you are at the enemy.

But I'm coming at it as a matter of principle, not of law.

That's super cool, let me know how far you get with The Principle Foundation in today's courts :) (not mocking you - but making a point. the GOC are 'principle based' too and haven't done diddly for your rights!)

artherd
11-11-2009, 6:21 PM
Asking for absolutely no restrictions at all to 2A is like asking me to paint your house clear.

That's not how paint works...

Sgt Raven
11-11-2009, 8:15 PM
We are not Ambivalent, we simply understand areas of law you fail to comprehend entirely.

How is a shall issue CCW permit costing hundreds of dollars not the same as a poll tax for the privilege of voting? :eek: :confused:

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 8:52 PM
Which is useful in a detached and academic sense, though to suggest that CGF isn't aware of or sympathetic to the underlying principle is - I'm sure you'd agree - ludicrous.

I would certainly hope it's ludicrous!

It simply wasn't clear to me exactly where Gene was coming from in the preceding discussion, and frankly, I can see the wisdom of keeping certain things close to the chest.

Consider me sufficiently reassured.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-11-2009, 8:52 PM
http://courses.csusm.edu/hist347as/vc/vc40054.jpg

GREAT IDEA. WHERE DO I SIGN UP?

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 8:53 PM
Asking for absolutely no restrictions at all to 2A is like asking me to paint your house clear.

That's not how paint works...

How about a clearcoat of paint then?

Oh, and when can you come over and start? :D

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 8:56 PM
We live in a nation under law.

In the short term - we will fix the laws to obey themselves. (RKBA is equal to the first, this means CCW and OC with permit for a reg'd machinegun.) and we will be victorious.

In the LONG TERM - of course you and I have a RIGHT to Carry a select-fire suppressed weapon without a permit or permission or registration of any @#$&@*#$ kind.

But I'm not gonna blow $1m of your money tomorrow on some Gorski-witted permitless-LOC suit with 0 chance of winning. It is my job as your general not to lead you into an ambush - no matter how angry you are at the enemy.


And all this, more than anything else, eases my mind more than I can say.

I just wanted to be assured that we all really are on the same page, and I see now that we are.

Go get 'em! :43:



That's super cool, let me know how far you get with The Principle Foundation in today's courts :) (not mocking you - but making a point. the GOC are 'principle based' too and haven't done diddly for your rights!)

Yeah, the real world doesn't like direct solutions. They tend to be messy and fraught with complications. :(

Mulay El Raisuli
11-12-2009, 5:53 AM
That's a funny comparison that proves my point. If you want to open or concealed carry in the same place you invited like-minded individuals over, you can already do so without a permission slip from the government. The permit is not for blocking a public street - it's for e.g. assembling on the National Mall. If you want to carry out in public it's probably consititutional for state governments to require you pass non arbitrary or capricious training and background checking.


This pretty much doesn't follow what I said. I wasn't talking about 'carrying' (or the National Mall) in any way. I was talking about assembling. I "assemble" every Sunday morning with a couple of hundred like-minded individuals in a place that is not my home. None of us need any kind of permit to do so. None of us are subject to search as a result of this. None of us have to present ID as a result of this. This is just ONE example of of how a Right is exercised w/o a 'mother may I' slip.

The other obvious example is the other one I already gave & you didn't respond to; walking down the sidewalk with a megaphone shouting that "The King is a fink."


I want to open carry SBR MP5s down Market Street in San Francisco. This is not about what I want - it's about what we can get and why.


25 states already have unrestricted LOC. And this is why I don't see the effort as being all that 'out there.' Now, if I were proposing something new, something that didn't exist anywhere else in the present day, then I'd accept being compared with the Black Panthers (which was Venkman, not you). Add to this that our primary enemy (Brady) seems to be accepting of the concept as well. And then there's that footnote in Heller. All of which leads me to see that unrestricted LOC is a 'can get' in the Federal Courts (which will then deliver it here to the PRK).



For the uneducated person claiming that porn is not first amendment protected... Well, he needs to learn the difference between obscenity and porn. Claiming that the 2A can not be infringed in ways that the 1A is well accepted to be limited is a non serious argument.

-Gene


If I had done so, you'd have me.

Anyway, with the thought that one post is better than several, I'll try to address the other comments here.

Sgt. Raven; You ask a real good question. I wonder the same exact thing.

Artherd, it won't take a "Gorski-witted permitless-LOC suit." As Gene pointed out a few months ago, unrestricted LOC is actually the easier fight. Since I also believe in going for what we can get, & then building on that success, I fail to see the logic in passing on what we can get fairly easily (for the reasons mentioned above) to pick the harder fight.

Wildhawker: I am not not angry & have no intentions of responding with insults. I'm hoping this goes both ways.

The Raisuli

7x57
11-12-2009, 9:16 AM
But I'm not gonna blow $1m of your money tomorrow on some Gorski-witted permitless-LOC suit with 0 chance of winning. It is my job as your general not to lead you into an ambush - no matter how angry you are at the enemy.


I've been staying out of this, but it's bugging me. This is going to be a bit disjointed because I don't have time to compose an essay. But anyway....

The above is the essential point. If we tried to make gunnies happy, we'd have all chiefs and no indians. That's the way we lose. The way we win is to follow good strategy, and one of the basics is a conservative, game-theoretic approach that assumes skilled, determined opposition. Or, said more familiarly, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. One of the reasons NRA and CGF are successful and GOC is not is that the former take small incremental steps as the opportunities present themselves, but avoid overly risky gambles. They're willing to invade North Africa while others insist that we should cross the channel and drive for Berlin in 1942. Or, perhaps a better analogy, they're willing to island-hop across the Pacific and bypass the hard targets, and only take the good bets that are worth the risk.

And how do you carry out an island-hopping, pragmatic strategy? Someone has to be the general, and a lot of someones have to be soldiers. The NRA has good generals, good enough to have defended and preserved the gun culture long enough for thirty years of renewed 2A scholarship to have culminated in Heller. CGF has good generals, good enough to know how to take advantage of the new ball game Heller creates. Notice that the CGF board is overloaded with successful businessmen. Businessmen tend to have a professional skill in taking good bets and avoiding bad ones. The question is, are the rest of us willing to be soldiers, to follow the generals who have and who maintain a winning record, and to have the patience to take the vulnerable, strategic islands one by one and bypass the tough ones for a while, maybe even a generation? That's what we have to do.

Though we do it often enough, it's probably questionable from a strategic point of view to even be discussing everything we *should* get in an open forum read by our opponents. I'm a big-picture guy--I like that sort of thing. But notice that at the Nordyke II hearings, one of the judges asked Don Kilmer "what's the agenda here?" "Where does it end?" In the world we're in, the endgame is scary scary scary to anti-gun judges, and the more they think about it the less likely they are to rule in our favor on even the basics. Do you want that judge, and judges like him, to read about everything we think we should eventually get? I don't think so.

The winning strategy seems to involve emphasizing the targets which do most to preserve, support, and spread the positive gun culture. That's why carry laws are so important--they are what restores the means of self-defense to the cities where there is little hunting culture. Symbolically, the single most important right to regain would be to own whatever the current US Army infantry weapon is. But that's a loser, and pursuing it doesn't (yet!) spread the positive Anglo-American gun culture that makes every man responsible personally for upholding the law. The feel-good GOA/GOC strategy would be to go for the big prize and lose everything. The right thing is to take what's on the table and not fall into the trap.

So instead, we spread seed corn. Gura said "if you want your machine guns, take someone shooting." Properly understood, that seems to say everything. MGs are *impossible* now, but would not be impossible in a nation with enough shooters who have the experience to know that MG's are not magically evil and different.

Gura is telling us that spreading the gun culture turns the impossible into the possible. If you want the "impossible," then don't get upset that CGF isn't tilting at windmills. Be happy that they're taking what is on the table now, and go work harder to spread the gun culture so that in the future new things appear on the table. Each small victory in court or the legislature gives you new options in spreading the culture. And spreading the culture makes new small baby steps possible. It's a "virtuous cycle" (the opposite of a vicious cycle). It's a positive feedback process.

A final note: the more visible a person or group is, the more restrained they have to be. I've talked to enough California gun-rights leaders to know that most of them have views that would surprise (and please) the impatient people here. The only reason people don't know that is because the effective leaders are grown-ups, and know to keep their mouths shut when they should. If you are concerned that the generals don't have a sufficiently broad view of the 2A, don't quiz them about it in public! Calguns is public. Get involved enough to meet them, and talk to them privately. If you don't come across as a nut who can't keep his mouth shut either, you'll learn just what they think the end game *should* be. Then you'll understand that what they talk about in public and pursue in the legislature and the courts is all about the possible. That's their job. That's why we want them as generals. Their job is to realize the possible, and as Ben said to not lose the war in the process.

In the mean time, it is OUR job to make the impossible possible, by changing the culture. Interpret Gura's dictum broadly: If you want your right/weapon/behavior that is impossible now, don't ask the lobbyists and lawyers to lose the war by trying for the impossible. If they're any good, they'll refuse your disastrous proposal, just as Ben said. That's their job. Instead, go do your job and spread the gun culture so that it becomes possible. When they judge it to be possible, you can be certain that they will seize the opportunity. In the mean time, let them do their job and secure what is already possible.

7x57

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 10:04 AM
50,000 doing it in one day would probably result in hundreds of arrests. If it were possible to mobilize that many gun enthusiasts to UOC, my guess is a lot of them would not be aware of the intricacies involved to make sure they were doing it legally.

GFSZ, can't conceal a loaded mag, etc. The cops would have a field day rounding up the strayers and the uninformed. And there would be your media coverage. A bunch of gunnies rose up to exercise and demonstrate their rights, and went near a school or concealed something or mouthed off to a cop during an (e) check and Bada-Bing! Evil people with their evil guns.

I like the idea of taking action, but I also agree withthe Right People about laying low until we get incorporation.

Um, I'm 99.9% sure you CAN conceal a loaded mag.

Sgt Raven
11-12-2009, 10:14 AM
I just don't want to be the frog in a pot of water slowly heating up, cause that doesn't end up good for us. I'm a Patton kind of guy, "L'audace, l'audace. Toujours l'audace!".

GrizzlyGuy
11-12-2009, 10:16 AM
Um, I'm 99.9% sure you CAN conceal a loaded mag.

It's iffy thanks to People v. Hale. See this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=110316).

7x57
11-12-2009, 4:39 PM
I just don't want to be the frog in a pot of water slowly heating up, cause that doesn't end up good for us. I'm a Patton kind of guy, "L'audace, l'audace. Toujours l'audace!".

Ever wonder why Patton started the war as Bradley's superior and ended it as his subordinate? It's because as a strategist, he still acted like a tank commander. It's good for a tank commander to be aggressive. But someone has to outrank him who can keep him on a leash until it's time to let the wolverine out of the cage.

Patton was a great tank commander, but he wasn't a grown-up. Someone has to be the grown-up and command at the top.

7x57

hoffmang
11-12-2009, 5:14 PM
We used Patton as a diversion on D-Day...

-Gene

CitaDeL
11-12-2009, 5:20 PM
We used Patton as a diversion on D-Day...

-Gene

So there was an appropriate time, place, and reason to utilize Patton.

hoffmang
11-12-2009, 7:48 PM
So there was an appropriate time, place, and reason to utilize Patton.

Yes. Patton was subject to time place and manner restrictions :D .

-Gene

CitaDeL
11-12-2009, 7:54 PM
Yes. Patton was subject to time place and manner restrictions :D .

-Gene

{Forehead slap}

wildhawker
11-12-2009, 8:02 PM
Yes. Patton was subject to time place and manner restrictions :D .

-Gene

Sigline!

7x57
11-12-2009, 9:14 PM
Yes. Patton was subject to time place and manner restrictions :D .


Indeed. And some other kind of restriction...what was it...surely it'll come to me...

{Forehead slap}

Yes! That's it. He was also subject to slapping restrictions. :D :D

<prepares to run>

7x57

Mulay El Raisuli
11-13-2009, 5:10 AM
Gura is telling us that spreading the gun culture turns the impossible into the possible. If you want the "impossible," then don't get upset that CGF isn't tilting at windmills. Be happy that they're taking what is on the table now, and go work harder to spread the gun culture so that in the future new things appear on the table. Each small victory in court or the legislature gives you new options in spreading the culture. And spreading the culture makes new small baby steps possible. It's a "virtuous cycle" (the opposite of a vicious cycle). It's a positive feedback process.

7x57


I agree that spreading is called for. What (partly) puts me in conflict with my generals is that I see unrestricted LOC as a great way to do that. Maybe even the best way to do so here in the PRK.

The Raisuli

Liberty1
11-13-2009, 7:07 AM
...I don't have time to compose an essay. But anyway....


7x57


...:rofl2:

Librarian
11-13-2009, 7:12 AM
Yes! That's it. He was also subject to slapping restrictions. :D :D

<prepares to run>

7x57

I don't think SLAP suits were available in 1944. SlapSTICK suits, OTOH ...

7x57
11-13-2009, 8:21 AM
...:rofl2:

While I suppose my wording was funny, I didn't mean I don't have time to write an essay-length post. I meant that once I had down what I basically wanted to say in stream-of-consciousness mode I wouldn't have time, as usual, to go back over it and re-write multiple times until it has the coherence and unity of a well-composed essay.

"I write at length because I lack the time to write briefly." :D

The fact is that I often save a copy of long posts like that so that I have a rough draft against the day that I actually need to write a real essay. In fact, I don't think I did save that one, but I will do so now.

7x57

wildhawker
11-13-2009, 8:33 AM
I agree that spreading is called for. What (partly) puts me in conflict with my generals is that I see unrestricted LOC as a great way to do that. Maybe even the best way to do so here in the PRK.

The Raisuli

Timing is everything, and then there's that saying about "location, location, location."

While we're waiting just a short while longer, help us grow and build up the gun owner community here in CA.

GrizzlyGuy
11-13-2009, 8:58 AM
Timing is everything, and then there's that saying about "location, location, location."

While we're waiting just a short while longer, help us grow and build up the gun owner community here in CA.

While waiting for UOC activities to be resumed, there are other opportunities for liberty-minded activists. Check out this Transporting weapons through internal checkpoints thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3354923&postcount=102) for example. The brave AZ OC-er that carried his AR-15 to the Obama rally is part of a group that is working to protect 4A and 5A rights as well. Bucky_G is getting hassled at similar checkpoints here in CA.

pullnshoot25
11-13-2009, 9:23 AM
Timing is everything, and then there's that saying about "location, location, location."

While we're waiting just a short while longer, help us grow and build up the gun owner community here in CA.

Can do! (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=240575)

wildhawker
11-13-2009, 9:27 AM
OCing an AR at a POTUS rally isn't the type of activity I was advocating, Grizzly.

There are many productive outlets available to liberty and RKBA-minded Californians that respect the current socio-political realities of the state and its subset regions.


While waiting for UOC activities to be resumed, there are other opportunities for liberty-minded activists. Check out this Transporting weapons through internal checkpoints thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3354923&postcount=102) for example. The brave AZ OC-er that carried his AR-15 to the Obama rally is part of a group that is working to protect 4A and 5A rights as well. Bucky_G is getting hassled at similar checkpoints here in CA.

wildhawker
11-13-2009, 9:28 AM
Can do! (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=240575)

^ EXACTLY. Nice work.

GrizzlyGuy
11-13-2009, 3:37 PM
OCing an AR at a POTUS rally isn't the type of activity I was advocating, Grizzly.

There are many productive outlets available to liberty and RKBA-minded Californians that respect the current socio-political realities of the state and its subset regions.

I wasn't advocating that either, I mentioned the POTUS/AR-15 guy as an aside.

I was pointing out that there are lots of opportunities for pro-liberty activism in areas other than the 2A. The checkpoint thread I linked to (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=238704&page=12) is an example: it is not unusual (and getting more common) for Americans, including gun owners like Bucky_G, to have their 4A and 5A rights violated by the people manning checkpoints. That will happen less frequently when activism leads to a better understanding of the law by the people manning checkpoints, in much the same way that UOC activism has improved the understanding of LEAs with regard to OC.