PDA

View Full Version : UOC'ers get aggressive...


Pages : [1] 2

ChuckBooty
01-04-2010, 8:48 AM
Not sure if you guys have been following this saiga (I mean saga) but here's the run down.

1) A guy was arrested and charged with illegal CCW when he was UOC'ing in San Pedro (in Los Angeles county).

2) The coffee shop in San Pedro that called the cops was very hostile toward him as well.

3) The cowboys (using the term with affection) over at the UOC forums show up in force the next day. At the same coffee house all UOC'ing.

4) Right violations galore and hilarity ensued. And a police chopper too!

Here's the thread...can't WAIT for the video! (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/36014-1.html)

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=9412
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=9413
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=9414

Kestryll
01-04-2010, 9:00 AM
Brilliant...

Way to win public support and create a positive perception of gun owners...

Or not.

:rolleyes:

Spyder
01-04-2010, 9:03 AM
Yea, I can't see how that is possibly a GOOD pr move.

jdberger
01-04-2010, 9:03 AM
I dunno, Kes.

As much as I see UOC as detrimental to the cause at this stage in the game, it's important that the authorities and merchants are aware that rights aren't negotiable.

Of course, as I read more about this, I might change my opinion...

sfpcservice
01-04-2010, 9:07 AM
Isn't it the merchants right to refuse service to anyone? And what happens when insurance companies get wind of this and require business owners to eject armed patrons?

You catch more flys with honey.....

El Gato
01-04-2010, 9:14 AM
well the link was interesting...

383green
01-04-2010, 9:15 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

Fighting fire with gasoline is rarely a success-oriented approach.

Roadrunner
01-04-2010, 9:15 AM
I have no problem with UOC, especially in Urbania. But to become the antagonist and ruffle the feathers of the ignorant, is to cause them to withdraw further from UOC. In this case, I don't believe it is a teaching moment to promote UOC. Rather, it is a confrontational move that threatens the ignorant into taking more drastic measures against the antagonists. That in know way is good for gun owners in general.

pullnshoot25
01-04-2010, 9:15 AM
Isn't it the merchants right to refuse service to anyone? And what happens when insurance companies get wind of this and require business owners to eject armed patrons?

You catch more flys with honey.....

Actually, you catch more with vinegar. (http://site.cleanairgardening.com/info/youll-catch-more-flies-with%E2%80%A6vinegar.html)

It is a merchant's right to refuse service. However, that is not the bone of contention. Also, I cant think of instances where an insurance company would require a store owner to confront and eject an armed individual. While I have (oddly) found that store clerks are among the more bold members of society to confront an armed individual, I think requiring confrontation is just silly.

There are details left out of the San Pedro story that I have come to be privy to but unfortunately cannot divulge (at the moment) that negates a lot of the info that has been presented already.

The Director
01-04-2010, 9:17 AM
I was pretty pro UOC until I read this....it just seems too confrontational to advance the cause.

It's not that I'm not confrontational but there are ways of doing things.....and there are ways of doing things. If CGF issued a bulletin saying "carry today" I would do it...these guys seem half cocked.

Kestryll
01-04-2010, 9:18 AM
I dunno, Kes.

As much as I see UOC as detrimental to the cause at this stage in the game, it's important that the authorities and merchants are aware that rights aren't negotiable.

Of course, as I read more about this, I might change my opinion...

Showing up in force, armed, to impede business and intentionally violate the rules of a business because the merchant chose to exercise his rights within his business isn't making people aware.

It's acting like thugs and bullies and I guarantee you the media, the Brady's and the rest of the anti-gun crowd are NOT going to differentiate between OUC'ers and gun owners in general.

According to the Bradys we're all ignorant troglodytes pushing this poor business owner around because he dared to not want someone carrying a gun in HIS place of business.

And this was handed to them on a platter.

SJgunguy24
01-04-2010, 9:19 AM
Isn't it the merchants right to refuse service to anyone? And what happens when insurance companies get wind of this and require business owners to eject armed patrons?

You catch more flys with honey.....

It is but if they kicked out and called the police on a bunch of mothers with their kids or maybe a large group of gay rights activists the ACLU would be mobilized and the lawsuits would be flying in so fast their heads would spin.
Rights are rights period, too many like to pick and choose but the constitution doesn't work like that.

davescz
01-04-2010, 9:24 AM
I am sorry, but I must say we need to reduce the number of acronyms we use here, UOC,, CCW are all legal acronyms, cant we just say what they are? it is very confussing. can we stop the acronyms, and write in plain english?
Plain speaking makes more sense to folks that are not 100% up on the lingo. If we are to attract others to our cause, I think we need to drop the acronyms. It is almost as if we are congress writing a healthcare bill, where we dotn want folks to know what we are talking about.

it takes not much effort to write Open Carry, or Conceled carry, and that will make these posts much more readable. frankly I still need a double take on even the most common acronyms we use. maybe that is just me, but it will make writings more understandable.

Roadrunner
01-04-2010, 9:27 AM
It is but if they kicked out and called the police on a bunch of mothers with their kids or maybe a large group of gay rights activists the ACLU would be mobilized and the lawsuits would be flying in so fast their heads would spin.
Rights are rights period, too many like to pick and choose but the constitution doesn't work like that.

There is a time and place to change the world, and there is a time and place to exercise your rights. Demanding your rights and making enemies of people we want as friends is not the way to do things. Even mothers who wanted to breast feed their babies in public knew when it was the proper time and place to change how the public viewed that simple act. So, while it is constitutional, it may not be prudent. A better response would have been to just not spend your money there EVER.

SJgunguy24
01-04-2010, 9:38 AM
There is a time and place to change the world, and there is a time and place to exercise your rights. Demanding your rights and making enemies of people we want as friends is not the way to do things. Even mothers who wanted to breast feed their babies in public knew when it was the proper time and place to change how the public viewed that simple act. So, while it is constitutional, it may not be prudent. A better response would have been to just not spend your money there EVER.

I know what your saying and I agree with you, but I get so mad when people don't understand what a fundamental right the second amendment is.
Nothing in that document has any teeth unless you have a means to fight tyranny. We never get any backing from the "traditional civil rights organizations" when the second gives every person the means to stand on their own 2 feet.
When will the people wake up:banghead::banghead:

pullnshoot25
01-04-2010, 9:39 AM
I am sorry, but I must say we need to reduce the number of acronyms we use here, UOC,, CCW are all legal acronyms, cant we just say what they are? it is very confussing. can we stop the acronyms, and write in plain english?
Plain speaking makes more sense to folks that are not 100% up on the lingo. If we are to attract others to our cause, I think we need to drop the acronyms. It is almost as if we are congress writing a healthcare bill, where we dotn want folks to know what we are talking about.

it takes not much effort to write Open Carry, or Conceled carry, and that will make these posts much more readable. frankly I still need a double take on even the most common acronyms we use. maybe that is just me, but it will make writings more understandable.

You seem new and you will get used to it quickly :)

When one types responses to such threads as often as many of us do, a lot of time is saved by using acronyms.

There is an acronym list available. Just FYI (for your information :) )

-N8

The Director
01-04-2010, 9:43 AM
I know what your saying and I agree with you, but I get so mad when people don't understand what a fundamental right the second amendment is.
Nothing in that document has any teeth unless you have a means to fight tyranny. We never get any backing from the "traditional civil rights organizations" when the second gives every person the means to stand on their own 2 feet.
When will the people wake up:banghead::banghead:

Just curious....where are you fighting this "battle" from? Your location says Northern Mexico.

SJgunguy24
01-04-2010, 9:45 AM
Just curious....where are you fighting this "battle" from? Your location says Northern Mexico.

Read it again.

The Director
01-04-2010, 9:48 AM
Read it again.

Doh!

Sorry dude. :whistling::kest:

benelli shooter
01-04-2010, 9:50 AM
There is nothing wrong with the UOC aggressive approach. You actually NEED both approaches to win.

The UOC makes the more "mainstream" approach seem reasonable... give us our CCW rights and all this goes away.

I wouldn't criticize them too much. The way this war has been fought for years CLEARLY is not working. Time to mix it up.

"Please like me, please like me, please...." is not a strategy. They never will like us. They need to fear and respect us.

SJgunguy24
01-04-2010, 9:52 AM
Doh!

Sorry dude. :whistling::kest:

It's cool, i've been here for a while and know quite a few CGN members. I'm still catching greif from the wife for running the CGN/F booth fathers day weekend at the San Jose gunshow.

When I was working I rode Caltrain to work and I tried my darnest to get people to wake up and see the light.

ChuckBooty
01-04-2010, 9:56 AM
I'm not sure that there was/is any other way to "teach" the LAPD about UOC. On the bright side...the LAPD decided to waste a ton of man power and resources (a friggin HELICOPTER?!) to harass people who were exercising their rights as well as protesting an act of false arrest and malicious prosecution.

wildhawker
01-04-2010, 10:06 AM
Benelli, but how you're incorrect.

UOC is not, nor can it be, an Ohio-style "give us CCW and we go away" movement.

I don't understand how anyone here for more than a day can make the assertion that we're fighting as we always have. This tells me that a fundamental understanding of the coalition strategy is not present.

ke6guj
01-04-2010, 10:07 AM
I am sorry, but I must say we need to reduce the number of acronyms we use here, UOC,, CCW are all legal acronyms, cant we just say what they are? it is very confussing. can we stop the acronyms, and write in plain english?
Plain speaking makes more sense to folks that are not 100% up on the lingo. If we are to attract others to our cause, I think we need to drop the acronyms. It is almost as if we are congress writing a healthcare bill, where we dotn want folks to know what we are talking about.

it takes not much effort to write Open Carry, or Conceled carry, and that will make these posts much more readable. frankly I still need a double take on even the most common acronyms we use. maybe that is just me, but it will make writings more understandable.

acronyms have their purpose,

I'm not gonna type out the following all the time:
Unloaded Open Carry (the unloaded portion of that is important).
Carry Concealed Weapon
Off-List Lower
Curio & Relic
Handgun Safety Certificate

Part of the culture is that you just have to learn the "speak" so to say.

jdberger
01-04-2010, 10:07 AM
Showing up in force, armed, to impede business and intentionally violate the rules of a business because the merchant chose to exercise his rights within his business isn't making people aware.

It's acting like thugs and bullies and I guarantee you the media, the Brady's and the rest of the anti-gun crowd are NOT going to differentiate between OUC'ers and gun owners in general.

According to the Bradys we're all ignorant troglodytes pushing this poor business owner around because he dared to not want someone carrying a gun in HIS place of business.

And this was handed to them on a platter.

There is nothing wrong with the UOC aggressive approach. You actually NEED both approaches to win.

The UOC makes the more "mainstream" approach seem reasonable... give us our CCW rights and all this goes away.

I wouldn't criticize them too much. The way this war has been fought for years CLEARLY is not working. Time to mix it up.

"Please like me, please like me, please...." is not a strategy. They never will like us. They need to fear and respect us.

Agreed - I think that a push-pull approach is effective.

First, I don't think that there's anything we can do to win over the Brady's. So far, UOC doesn't seem to be on their radar. Universal background checks are. The Brady's are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming by the hair into the new century of gun rights.

Second, I'm not sure how the UOCers here "punished" the coffee shop owner. They didn't picket, they didn't protest. According to the linked thread, there wasn't any prohibitory signage, the UOCers weren't refused service nor were they asked to leave.

And not to thread-veer (too much) but the rights of merchants are subservient to other greater rights. For instance, the merchant couldn't refuse to serve women, could he? This meshes neatly with the NRA's push to prohibit employees from banning guns from their parking lots.

Sgt Raven
01-04-2010, 10:09 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

Fighting fire with gasoline is rarely a success-oriented approach.

You know you can put out a oil well fire with dynamite! :12: :hide:

fd15k
01-04-2010, 10:13 AM
LAPD needs to get used to it. Since we aren't getting our rights with popular support, it doesn't matter what impression it gives to the people.
So I say good job UOCers!

wash
01-04-2010, 10:14 AM
They never will like us. They need to fear and respect us.

That's an attitude that won't work either.

I'm OK with demanding the anti's to respect my rights but fear is not the right tool to use.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 10:16 AM
Fear of lawsuits is quite okay of a tool ;)

That's an attitude that won't work either.

I'm OK with demanding the anti's to respect my rights but fear is not the right tool to use.

benelli shooter
01-04-2010, 10:17 AM
Popular support means nothing to us because we will NEVER get it. So, stop trying.

We will win in the courts and by asserting our rights. The UOC guys are asserting their rights. They are not bad for doing that. They are brave.

Please like me, please like me, please like me...... Not my strategy.

wash
01-04-2010, 10:22 AM
They aren't really afraid of a lawsuit, they are afraid of loosing.

That's really fear of a judge, not us and I'm fine with them being afraid of a judge.

We can get public support for gun rights, even in CA. Don't give up on that.

Asmodai
01-04-2010, 10:43 AM
6th Street and Pacific, sweet. That is right down the hill from me. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I was at the Ontario Crossroads Gun Show and then to Bass Pro.

I have to agree, while I agree with UOC in principal, mobbing a business owner that doesn't want the distraction to his/her business - ESPECIALLY at 6th and Pacific in San Pedro is the height of uncoolness on the behalf of that particular UOC crowd.

Baiting the police in a public area is one thing, violating the decisions of a private business owner at his place of business is entirely another...

wildhawker
01-04-2010, 11:03 AM
Popular support means nothing to us because we will NEVER get it. So, stop trying.

We will win in the courts and by asserting our rights. The UOC guys are asserting their rights. They are not bad for doing that. They are brave.

Please like me, please like me, please like me...... Not my strategy.

What, exactly, is your strategy?

Your continued misstatement of the coalition's approach leaves me wondering if you're either unwilling to grasp the current strategy or simply incapable. If you are going to disagree on methodology, please do yourself the service of understanding what you disagree with.

m1aowner
01-04-2010, 11:06 AM
Ugh, it's hard for me to read through that forum. Hard to tell where posts begin and end. Bolder lines are needed.

Roadrunner
01-04-2010, 11:36 AM
I know what your saying and I agree with you, but I get so mad when people don't understand what a fundamental right the second amendment is.
Nothing in that document has any teeth unless you have a means to fight tyranny. We never get any backing from the "traditional civil rights organizations" when the second gives every person the means to stand on their own 2 feet.
When will the people wake up:banghead::banghead:

I would suggest using the civil rights movement as an example of how to act. Black people slowly gained their rights over a slow period of time. In fact, it took nearly 100 years after the civil war for blacks to have the support to hold the large rally's and protests that occurred in the 50's and 60's.

Right now, we have top notch people fighting in the courts for our freedom. Unfortunately, we also have people, well meaning as they may be, who, through these stunts, are passing ammunition to our enemies to use it against us. That is simply stupid, and it makes more work for those who are already working hard to fight for us.

Remember, we are fighting prejudices that the government created and has existed for at least 42 years. That's a whole generation of people who have accepted the lies propagated by the government, and NGO's like the Brady's, the VPC, LCAV and IANSA. The good thing is, the majority of the United States has, for the most part, rejected this disinformation and 80% of the country has right to carry laws that protect their citizens.

I am in no way suggesting that people not UOC, but my suggestion is to do it in a way that it doesn't shock the conscience of the people around the UOCer's. That means, if the owner of an establishment doesn't like it, drop some of your literature on the owner, if you have it, and leave. That includes the support group who isn't carrying. A large group leaving all at once could be a powerful message to the owner that those people will probably not spend money at their establishment ever again. Also, Uoc'ing in a public place, not near a school also prevents anyone from kicking you out. The police have been amply notified through their training bulletins, and we know what they've been told because we have the same bulletins. UOC'ing on their terms is really the only way to do it right now. Anything less is just intentionally causing trouble.

Decoligny
01-04-2010, 11:39 AM
6th Street and Pacific, sweet. That is right down the hill from me. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I was at the Ontario Crossroads Gun Show and then to Bass Pro.

I have to agree, while I agree with UOC in principal, mobbing a business owner that doesn't want the distraction to his/her business - ESPECIALLY at 6th and Pacific in San Pedro is the height of uncoolness on the behalf of that particular UOC crowd.

Baiting the police in a public area is one thing, violating the decisions of a private business owner at his place of business is entirely another...

From the OCDO thread: "We were not trespassed and we were not asked to disarm before going there by the owner. We were only asked to call and give him a heads up that we would be coming and UOCing."

The business owner had ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with the UOCers being there and bringing 30 people's worth of business to his establishment. It wasn't until AFTER the police made a public spectacle of what should have at the most been an e-check, that things went south on the part of A FEW PATRONS of the coffee shop.

GM4spd
01-04-2010, 11:41 AM
http://www.fototime.com/F3B80EB5172F75A/standard.jpg Pete

Roadrunner
01-04-2010, 11:47 AM
From the OCDO thread: "We were not trespassed and we were not asked to disarm before going there by the owner. We were only asked to call and give him a heads up that we would be coming and UOCing."

The business owner had ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with the UOCers being there and bringing 30 people's worth of business to his establishment. It wasn't until AFTER the police made a public spectacle of what should have at the most been an e-check, that things went south on the part of A FEW PATRONS of the coffee shop.

No surprise there, LAPD seems to be notorious for over reacting. So long as the owner is okay with it, then what LAPD does only makes them look more foolish. LAPD excels at looking foolish.

romeomikelima
01-04-2010, 11:49 AM
**********

Fjold
01-04-2010, 12:15 PM
I have no problem with the OC crowd doing this. My only issue is that they carry to protest their lost right to carry and then when they get violated again by being handcuffed, searched, et. al. they don't follow up and do anything about it.

OK so you wore your guns in San Pedro and got handcuffed. Are you going to do anything about that? (After all your rights were just violated)
When is the civil rights suit being filed? Who's your law firm?

Asmodai
01-04-2010, 12:21 PM
A POST FROM THE UOC WEBSITE THREAD


Don't loiter. Go into the coffee shop one at a time and let them toss you out. Then walk up and down in front of the store, without stopping or just pause in front. As long as you're moving, you aren't loitering. Might be a good idea to have someone away from the scene with a vid going.


Not sure if this was the "support" from the coffee shop owner you're mentioning/expecting. Seems as if some people knew they were going to get tossed out.

Plain and simple, a disruption of business for the owner. Not cool.

IMHO:

Yes, UOC is a right, but it's this kind of display that actually makes MORE work for the lawyers to do when fighting for our 2nd Amendment rights. It is a hell of lot easier for a Mayor or City Council to pass an Ordinance making the area a gun free zone than it is for some lawyers to get them to remove the ordinance, or gather hundreds of signatures from disgruntled gun owners and pass them along to the people in power. We're still trying to get silly shoot-from-the-hip Assault Weapon bans off the books that are 20 years old for chrissakes. Why startle the herd into making more silly decisions.

Make life easy for the legal eagles on our side and let them focus on key issues which will open the way for other battles.

Nodda Duma
01-04-2010, 12:35 PM
Baiting the police in a public area is one thing, violating the decisions of a private business owner at his place of business is entirely another...

I disagree with this. Few months ago, a mother back east was kicked out of a restaurant for nursing her baby. The next day, the restaurant was filled with nursing mothers, and the incident quickly made national headlines. The restaurant submitted an apology and I'm sure the manager got a good chewing out (if not fired) for the bad publicity.

The key difference is that nursing mothers are considered "good things," and people carrying guns (unloaded or not) are considered "bad things" by the majority of Californians.

-Jason

Asmodai
01-04-2010, 12:44 PM
I disagree with this. Few months ago, a mother back east was kicked out of a restaurant for nursing her baby. The next day, the restaurant was filled with nursing mothers, and the incident quickly made national headlines. The restaurant submitted an apology and I'm sure the manager got a good chewing out (if not fired) for the bad publicity.

The key difference is that nursing mothers are considered "good things," and people carrying guns (unloaded or not) are considered "bad things" by the majority of Californians.

-Jason


So the UOC'ers are trying to force private business owners to allow UOC on their property?

I thought the main purpose was to exercise their rights and "educate" LEOs not ram the issue down people who are essentially "non-combatants" in this fight...

AJAX22
01-04-2010, 12:47 PM
I think that having everyone meet up at a different venue to spend a lot of money over a short period of time (and then take photo's and submit them along with copies of the receipts to the management of the first venue) May have been a more productive way to handle this...

Or a straight up picket line of the business for a full day.

Yes you have the right to refuse service to anyone.... but that economic sword cuts both ways.

AJAX22
01-04-2010, 12:50 PM
So the UOC'ers are trying to force private business owners to allow UOC on their property?

I thought the main purpose was to exercise their rights and "educate" LEOs not ram the issue down people who are essentially "non-combatants" in this fight...

They made themselves combatants when they picked a side.

Neutral ground doesn't kick you out.

You can also 'educate' the businesses on the economic consequences of discriminating against a class of people.

If you picket them with a sign which states "XXXXX DESCRIMINATES" or "BOYCOTT XXXXX" it will hurt their business badly...

go for the pocketbook if you want someone to change their behavior.

SteveH
01-04-2010, 12:59 PM
Lucky LAPD didnt hook them for witness intimidation. Argue they showed up at the cofffee shop armed to pressure the witnesses to the earlier arrest to not testify.

Joe
01-04-2010, 1:03 PM
Brilliant...

Way to win public support and create a positive perception of gun owners...

Or not.

:rolleyes:

this

SteveH
01-04-2010, 1:04 PM
I heard a Police Sgt state, "We need some help from the legislature on this."



If new legislation is the goal, pre-incorporation we are on the right track.

Asmodai
01-04-2010, 1:08 PM
They made themselves combatants when they picked a side.

Neutral ground doesn't kick you out.

You can also 'educate' the businesses on the economic consequences of discriminating against a class of people.

If you picket them with a sign which states "XXXXX DESCRIMINATES" or "BOYCOTT XXXXX" it will hurt their business badly...

go for the pocketbook if you want someone to change their behavior.

Picking a smart business sense side of "I don't want ANY hassles on my private business property" is different from picking the side of Law Enforcement's which is DON'T CARRY AT ALL. In fact, the business owner isn't picking a side at all. Though he may certainly form an opinion after such an incident...

Again, I was unaware that the spirit of the UOC movement was about forcing private individuals to let UOC'ers do whatever they want on private property. Wow, was I confused...

But, if they want to force everyone pick sides, or interpret a business owner's desire for tranquility at his place of business as a "combative" stance, they'll find they're making more enemies than allies in the long run.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 1:10 PM
UOC is only useful as a tool of political self-expression. Should they ban it, nobody will really miss it.

I heard a Police Sgt state, "We need some help from the legislature on this."



If new legislation is the goal, pre-incorporation we are on the right track.

wildhawker
01-04-2010, 1:11 PM
AJAX, I'll have to disagree with your proffered model.

Gun owners likely make up a negligible volume of their sales; the PR that "gun rights nuts actively protest there" would likely do nothing but reinforce the negative stereotypes about gun owners generally. A business which discriminates against these "fear mongers" would likely be lauded by the LA press, police and community groups alike.

Further, I'll add that "gun people" by and large do not vote 'gun first', at the ballot box or with their pocketbooks. I'm sure you get the list of businesses, actors and others who are vocally anti-2A from NRA-ILA (and recently republished by CRPA); how many of these are "feeling the pinch" from being boycotted by the gun culture (assuming they have been at all)?

jdberger
01-04-2010, 1:21 PM
wildhawker,

replace "Gun owners" with "Catholics" (or the religon/race/ethnicity of your choice). Just because they can be discounted, economically, doesn't make their right any less important.

wildhawker
01-04-2010, 1:53 PM
Josh, my comments did not go to the value of the right but to the viability of leveraging economic warfare to further our cause. It's difficult enough to do when you're acting from and by part of the "hero class" (nurses, teachers, firefighters)- it will absolutely not work for gun owners in California.

technique
01-04-2010, 1:55 PM
I have no problem with the OC crowd doing this. My only issue is we that they seem to carry to protest their lost right to carry and then when they get violated again by being handcuffed, searched, et. al. they don't follow up and do anything about it.

OK so you wore your guns in San Pedro and got handcuffed. Are you going to do anything about that? (After all your rights were just violated)
When is the civil rights suit being filed? Who's your law firm?
Who is gathering/coordinating the depositions?

This.



Send in the minorities. Have your rights violated. Call the ACLU!

AEC1
01-04-2010, 1:55 PM
Seems my previous post here was deleted. I will say again. Good thing those crazy revolutionaries didnt wait to the courts to defend their rights back in 176, we would still be part of england. This is nothing compared to what our founders would have done. And perhaps what we should be doing.

jdberger
01-04-2010, 2:00 PM
Seems my previous post here was deleted. I will say again. Good thing those crazy revolutionaries didnt wait to the courts to defend their rights back in 176, we would still be part of england. This is nothing compared to what our founders would have done. And perhaps what we should be doing.

Can I be Sybil, here? (this - if you think it through - is an amazing pun)

The dramatic difference between your percieved history and the actual one was that the Revolutionaries in 1776 argued long and hard with England, it's Governors, it's Parlaiment and it's King before taking up arms.

In otherwords, they did go to the Courts, first.

AEC1
01-04-2010, 2:03 PM
Can I be Sybil, here? (this - if you think it through - is an amazing pun)

The dramatic difference between your percieved history and the actual one was that the Revolutionaries in 1776 argued long and hard with England, it's Governors, it's Parlaiment and it's King before taking up arms.

In otherwords, they did go to the Courts, first.

Sure but it was for a finite time. Many here seem to feel that is the only valid means. I say sure fight that fight, but as a warrior myself I know that if you have the means, manpower and willpower it is ALWAYS better to have a multi faceted front. Make them fight on many fronts.

AJAX22
01-04-2010, 2:04 PM
I wasn't putting it out there as an ideal model....

but it is one other way to channel the activism of those individuals towards a slightly more productive direction..

Its much harder to deal with motivated allies who don't see things the same as you do than it is to fight enemies.

Will to act is a powerfull force... you can't just tell it NO DON"T DO THIS... you won't be heard... you MAY be able to say why not go do this (nearly identical activity) instead?

dantodd
01-04-2010, 2:18 PM
Again, I was unaware that the spirit of the UOC movement was about forcing private individuals to let UOC'ers do whatever they want on private property. Wow, was I confused...

hmmm.... forcing coffee shops to accept customers they don't want. Civil Rights. boycotting and sending the "unwanted" into the coffee shop repeatedly....


Man... this sounds familiar....

Reminds me of something that happened in Woolworth's a long time ago....

http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/greensboro1.jpg


It's not the Black Panthers but perhaps it will get the point across. The only differences between those brave men and the UOC'ers descending on Long Beach are planning and legal support. This should be an ideal civil rights case even without incorporation (if it were planned properly) unless someone was breaking the law while UOC'ing this is straight up abuse of authority by police. The presence of a firearm does not establish reasonable suspicion to treat someone like a criminal.

benelli shooter
01-04-2010, 2:25 PM
The funniest part of this is that mere concept of UOC and CCW are actually violations of our rights!

You have the right to carry a loaded, concealed or unconcealed gun anywhere you want WITHOUT a government sponsored permit.

"... the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed."

(this means that they meant for you to bear them openly or concealed without the nanny state giving you their special extra blessing.)

dfletcher
01-04-2010, 2:32 PM
You know what would be interesting? An ADA covered person (wheelchair, service animal, that sort of thing) who would UOC - maybe not a fellow with a seeing eye dog, but damn close. I have to deal with ADA from time to time. If Jack Ruby rolled in doing UOC I'd tell the business owner "leave him alone" even if I didn't like guns.

Asmodai
01-04-2010, 2:50 PM
if you have the means, manpower and willpower it is ALWAYS better to have a multi faceted front. Make them fight on many fronts.

If we had the means, manpower and willpower to fight on multiple fronts, this thread would be non-existent and I'd be shooting an HK91 at Angeles Range.

If this branch of the UOC movement wants to start the proverbial "land war in Asia"...

This brand of UOC seems very dissimilar to the one I was reading about in Orange County, but then maybe I just misunderstood the entire philosophy behind it.

Oh well, count me as a casualty from the Pedro event, because my support just withered to nothing. BTW that is apathy, not taking a side.

OleCuss
01-04-2010, 2:55 PM
Let's win by choosing a loser strategy!!!

Let's see. . . I carry an unloaded weapon for personal defense into an area which doesn't want them, alienate the street cops who usually are on our side when it comes to their personal opinion about the wisdom of an armed population.

Just great! Tick off the cops, tick off the DA, tick off the area businesses, tick off the customers - and you'll still lose in court.

One thing I learned in the military is that if you don't want to get your butt kicked you do your best to choose the order of battle, the terrain, and the time at which the fighting starts. In this case I don't see how any of those desirable prerequisites was met.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 3:02 PM
LAPD is never on our side, neither is LA DA. OC and SD approaches won't work in LA.

Let's win by choosing a loser strategy!!!

Let's see. . . I carry an unloaded weapon for personal defense into an area which doesn't want them, alienate the street cops who usually are on our side when it comes to their personal opinion about the wisdom of an armed population.

Just great! Tick off the cops, tick off the DA, tick off the area businesses, tick off the customers - and you'll still lose in court.

One thing I learned in the military is that if you don't want to get your butt kicked you do your best to choose the order of battle, the terrain, and the time at which the fighting starts. In this case I don't see how any of those desirable prerequisites was met.

berto
01-04-2010, 3:05 PM
The funniest part of this is that mere concept of UOC and CCW are actually violations of our rights!

You have the right to carry a loaded, concealed or unconcealed gun anywhere you want WITHOUT a government sponsored permit.

"... the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed."

(this means that they meant for you to bear them openly or concealed without the nanny state giving you their special extra blessing.)


Try that line of defense in practice and see how much time it gets you sharing bunks with Bubba.

Asmodai
01-04-2010, 3:05 PM
hmmm.... forcing coffee shops to accept customers they don't want. Civil Rights. boycotting and sending the "unwanted" into the coffee shop repeatedly....


Man... this sounds familiar....

Reminds me of something that happened in Woolworth's a long time ago....

http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/greensboro1.jpg


It's not the Black Panthers but perhaps it will get the point across. The only differences between those brave men and the UOC'ers descending on Long Beach are planning and legal support. This should be an ideal civil rights case even without incorporation (if it were planned properly) unless someone was breaking the law while UOC'ing this is straight up abuse of authority by police. The presence of a firearm does not establish reasonable suspicion to treat someone like a criminal.




Dude. Come on... Don't even go there. It's insulting to an entire race of people who put up with real hatred and abuse at the hands of government and private individuals for hundreds of years.

Being denied entry to a 6th street Pedro coffee shop is not comparable to slavery and mistreatment of the black race at the hands of Europeans and Americans.

Likewise, forcing yourself where you're not wanted (because you're disruptive, not because people think you're inferior) to exercise a right OF WHICH YOU ALREADY HAVE AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT does not make you Rosa Parks not giving her seat to a white on the bus.


That's just ridiculous.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 3:09 PM
Maybe it came out as an insult. But didn't Federal government have to use the troops to enforce some rights violated by the states?

Dude. Come on... Don't even go there. It's insulting to an entire race of people who put up with real hatred and abuse at the hands of government and private individuals for hundreds of years.

Being denied entry to a 6th street Pedro coffee shop is not comparable to slavery and mistreatment of the black race at the hands of Europeans and Americans.

Likewise, forcing yourself where you're not wanted (because you're disruptive, not because people think you're inferior) to exercise a right OF WHICH YOU ALREADY HAVE AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT does not make you Rosa Parks not giving her seat to a white on the bus.


That's just ridiculous.

dchang0
01-04-2010, 3:12 PM
You catch more flys with honey.....

That only works with friendly or at most disinterested parties, not the enemy. Otherwise, we'd be able to sweet-talk Al Qaeda out of bombing us or the anti-gunners out of trampling our rights.

At some point, the only language they understand is force.

benelli shooter
01-04-2010, 3:14 PM
Try that line of defense in practice and see how much time it gets you sharing bunks with Bubba.

My rights are still my rights regardless of the policy of the police state. Your quote is telling. It shows that you have a victim mentality. You see yourself as a victim of Bubba and want to imply that I am one too.

Who is to say Bubba shouldn't be afraid of me?

6172crew
01-04-2010, 3:16 PM
The funniest part of this is that mere concept of UOC and CCW are actually violations of our rights!

You have the right to carry a loaded, concealed or unconcealed gun anywhere you want WITHOUT a government sponsored permit.

"... the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed."

(this means that they meant for you to bear them openly or concealed without the nanny state giving you their special extra blessing.)

The 9th has been back and forth on this and right now you don't have that right.

The Lawyers and others have a game plan, its been posted here before. My issue is there doesn't seem to be any plan on the UOC side other than they seem to be frustrated and want the 2nd now, not tomorrow now.

Only problem with that is they may end up costing other gun owners while they UOC. Kind of a Blue Falcon move if you ask me.:)

00BuckShot
01-04-2010, 3:20 PM
Agreed, most LAPD guys I know (and I know quite a few) could care less about your right to carry in their neck of the woods. Don't get me wrong, they think you shuold be able to have a gun, just not carry it through Watts.LAPD is never on our side, neither is LA DA. OC and SD approaches won't work in LA.

berto
01-04-2010, 3:25 PM
My rights are still my rights regardless of the policy of the police state. Your quote is telling. It shows that you have a victim mentality. You see yourself as a victim of Bubba and want to imply that I am one too.

Who is to say Bubba shouldn't be afraid of me?

I simply have no desire to meet Bubba or to figure out who should be afraid of whom.

You're right about your rights however you're likely not carrying unpapered and relying on a 2A claim to keep you out of the pokey, right?

pullnshoot25
01-04-2010, 3:25 PM
Let's win by choosing a loser strategy!!!

Let's see. . . I carry an unloaded weapon for personal defense into an area which doesn't want them, alienate the street cops who usually are on our side when it comes to their personal opinion about the wisdom of an armed population.

Just great! Tick off the cops, tick off the DA, tick off the area businesses, tick off the customers - and you'll still lose in court.

One thing I learned in the military is that if you don't want to get your butt kicked you do your best to choose the order of battle, the terrain, and the time at which the fighting starts. In this case I don't see how any of those desirable prerequisites was met.

Just me, but you are making a very grand assumption with that statement. I think there is a lot of talk but little walk on behalf of many cops when it comes to the 2A. Just personal experience.

Here is my overall take on this incident, take it for what you will.

While I feel that the response to the coffee shop is potentially a knee-jerk reaction on behalf of the OC population, (and without revealing too much, it was slightly misdirected) I personally don't think that the effects are all that far-reaching. LAPD acted in typical LAPD fashion (the usual bad or unfavorable) and the store got a lot of business from the cops and the OCers (good). It seems that only after the state-endorsed nannying occurred that several patrons decided to wig out, which I feel is not a reflection of the OC guys. LAPD knew this was going to happen and decided to over-react.

Now, I can't say what happened in the minds of the onlookers, but from what I have experienced down here in SD, I can say that many people were probably incredulous at the sight of officers molesting law-abiding citizens, especially if the onlookers are from Free States. The fact that some patrons got angsty post-interaction and chastised the OCers is strange to me, as I have never had that happen before (usually it is a much older store clerk that decides confront me by exclaiming "This isn't Texas!" or some other asinine statement, usually when I am leaving the store)

It looks as if this incident didn't make the news, which is good, as that means that there won't be some weird spins put on it.

Overall, I think that the damage done is relatively minimal. As said before though, this is just my personal opinion and I am certain that the practical wisdom of the "right people" will shine much brighter than my opinion in this matter.

dantodd
01-04-2010, 4:10 PM
Dude. Come on... Don't even go there. It's insulting to an entire race of people who put up with real hatred and abuse at the hands of government and private individuals for hundreds of years.

Being denied entry to a 6th street Pedro coffee shop is not comparable to slavery and mistreatment of the black race at the hands of Europeans and Americans.

Rights denied today are not justified, nor that denial made less offensive, by past wrongs.


Likewise, forcing yourself where you're not wanted (because you're disruptive, not because people think you're inferior) to exercise a right OF WHICH YOU ALREADY HAVE AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT does not make you Rosa Parks not giving her seat to a white on the bus.


That's just ridiculous.

A right which is not exercisable is no right at all. It is interesting to note that the men at the Woolworth's AND Rosa Parks had the 14th amendment protecting them yet they, to use your words, forced themselves where they're not wanted. And quite possibly not because the owner of the lunch counter or the bus driver has any problem with the them but simply because they were disruptive because people didn't want to be with them or near them. "It's not that I have any problem with black people (or guns) it's just that the rest of my customers don't like them so I will have to ask you to leave." hmmmm.... yes, I do see a similarity. If you don't give the second amendment the same level reverence you give the 14th amendment or the civil rights act then I would suggest it is you who are being ridiculous by not giving all of the Constitution equal footing.

nobody_special
01-04-2010, 4:17 PM
If there isn't a successful lawsuit against the LAPD for civil rights violations, then this entire effort will have been in vain.

Merle
01-04-2010, 4:21 PM
Rights denied today are not justified, nor that denial made less offensive, by past wrongs.



A right which is not exercisable is no right at all. It is interesting to note that the men at the Woolworth's AND Rosa Parks had the 14th amendment protecting them yet they, to use your words, forced themselves where they're not wanted. And quite possibly not because the owner of the lunch counter or the bus driver has any problem with the them but simply because they were disruptive because people didn't want to be with them or near them. "It's not that I have any problem with black people (or guns) it's just that the rest of my customers don't like them so I will have to ask you to leave." hmmmm.... yes, I do see a similarity. If you don't give the second amendment the same level reverence you give the 14th amendment or the civil rights act then I would suggest it is you who are being ridiculous by not giving all of the Constitution equal footing.

Damn skippy.

jas000
01-04-2010, 4:22 PM
It is interesting to note that the men at the Woolworth's AND Rosa Parks had the 14th amendment protecting them yet they, to use your words, forced themselves where they're not wanted. And quite possibly not because the owner of the lunch counter or the bus driver has any problem with the them but simply because they were disruptive because people didn't want to be with them or near them. "It's not that I have any problem with black people (or guns) it's just that the rest of my customers don't like them so I will have to ask you to leave." hmmmm.... yes, I do see a similarity.

I agree completely with this.

Also, from reading the opencarry thread, it seems as if some antigun virus spread through the coffee shop patrons - even one guy who originally seemed supportive of the UOC'ers ended up turning on them, seemingly going along with the crowd (?). Most sheeple aren't pro gun, but I'd take this outright hostility as an aberration.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 4:23 PM
Not really... A whole bunch of officers where distracted from their more important duties for no particular reason... Do that many more times, and they will be forced to review their policies.

If there isn't a successful lawsuit against the LAPD for civil rights violations, then this entire effort will have been in vain.

nobody_special
01-04-2010, 4:45 PM
Not really... A whole bunch of officers where distracted from their more important duties for no particular reason... Do that many more times, and they will be forced to review their policies.

No, they won't.

Kestryll
01-04-2010, 5:42 PM
Not really... A whole bunch of officers where distracted from their more important duties for no particular reason...

Oh yeah, an even BETTER way to win the public over, endanger them!:rolleyes:

And don't sing that same song to me about them realizing they will have to defend themselves.
Unless you've been completely disconnected from reality for a few decades we've all seen far too many disasters, natural and man made, where people died waiting for someone to come save them.

Endangering someone and then hoping he/she discovers the need and manner of defending themselves is about as backwards as it gets.
They won't learn and they won't thank you for the experience.

Show them and teach them FIRST then when your actions leave them exposed they will know what to do and remember who showed them.
They will have learned in practice and in practical.


Do that many more times, and they will be forced to review their policies.
You're right but not in the manner you's hope for.

Do that many more times and the CLEOs will call on the local politicians to do something, they'll call on the State politicians to do something and then you'll see UOC/OC outlawed State wide with the public supporting them against those 'scary people with guns who distracted the police while their house was being burglarized or they were being carjacked.

They won't know or care that the police can not be everywhere, all they'll know or care about is that the news said all the cops were over there dealing with you when they were victimized. It's your fault.

Reality 101.
It sucks but this is what we have to work with and where the playing field is at.
Ignoring it or hoping it will change or go away is not much better than playing for the other team.

CpuFixrMan
01-04-2010, 5:50 PM
They never will like us. They need to fear and respect us.

They already fear... they need to learn to NOT fear. Respect, that I can agree with.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 5:53 PM
Let them outlaw UOC if they have nothing else to do. UOC is not an objective, but a useful tool (and the only one currently available) to educate LE and population about Man With a Gun not always being a criminal. But should we get OC as a result of Incorporation, nobody can outlaw it, regardless of their feelings about it. Bottom line - we have nothing to loose at the moment.

You're right but not in the manner you's hope for.

Do that many more times and the CLEOs will call on the local politicians to do something, they'll call on the State politicians to do something and then you'll see UOC/OC outlawed State wide with the public supporting them against those 'scary people with guns who distracted the police while their house was being burglarized or they were being carjacked.

They won't know or care that the police can not be everywhere, all they'll know or care about is that the news said all the cops were over there dealing with you when they were victimized. It's your fault.

Reality 101.
It sucks but this is what we have to work with and where the playing field is at.
Ignoring it or hoping it will change or go away is not much better than playing for the other team.

HowardW56
01-04-2010, 5:59 PM
Brilliant...

Way to win public support and create a positive perception of gun owners...

Or not.

:rolleyes:

Lets see how long it takes LAPD to get a bill sponsored to outlaw UOC....

tyrist
01-04-2010, 6:08 PM
Lets see how long it takes LAPD to get a bill sponsored to outlaw UOC....

I am sure a municipal code forbidding the carrying of firearms on all city property could be done within days.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 6:12 PM
Does that include all public property, such as sidewalks ? And even if they can pull that off, how does it make things any worse than they are ?

I am sure a municipal code forbidding the carrying of firearms on all city property could be done within days.

Vinz
01-04-2010, 6:22 PM
LAPD needs to get used to it. Since we aren't getting our rights with popular support, it doesn't matter what impression it gives to the people.
So I say good job UOCers!
Let them outlaw UOC if they have nothing else to do. UOC is not an objective, but a useful tool (and the only one currently available) to educate LE and population about Man With a Gun not always being a criminal. But should we get OC as a result of Incorporation, nobody can outlaw it, regardless of their feelings about it. Bottom line - we have nothing to loose at the moment.


the problem is that it may not be an issue to get used to. It will most likely become another institution of an ordinance that will prohibit others from UOC'ing. Lets remember that without RKBA the state has the upper hand here.

I see it as too much too soon.
vinz

Kestryll
01-04-2010, 6:29 PM
And even if they can pull that off, how does it make things any worse than they are ?

How much do you think it will cost to fight each one of these codes in court?

Where does the money to do that come from?

I don't know about you but I'd rather spend my 2A dollars getting State wide CCW and LOC and abolishing the AW ban and the safe handgun roster.

Getting bogged down in municipal codes and wasted time, effort and money is not my idea of a winning plan.
In fact it's EXACTLY what the opposition would like to see happen.

The Director
01-04-2010, 6:47 PM
Doesn't one of the Right People have a dialog with the leaders of the UOC movement where they can basically have a come to Jesus meeting with them and explain the folly of their ways to them?????

Vinz
01-04-2010, 6:55 PM
Doesn't one of the Right People have a dialog with the leaders of the UOC movement where they can basically have a come to Jesus meeting with them and explain the folly of their ways to them?????

No, the problem is the basic feelings for ones rights over comes the legality of the actions expressed by the passionate.

i once felt the same way as the UOC'ers and it wasn't till it was spelled out for me that I relized it actually hurts the cause. Most tend to forget that CA doesn't recognise our rights to keep and bear arms.


vinz

fd15k
01-04-2010, 7:07 PM
What legalities and what rights are we talking about ? UOC is not a right, rather an act that is not prohibited by CA and municipal laws. Once we get the rights, it's a completely different discussion we are going to have.

Should the cities prohibit open loaded carry (when it becomes a right), we will deal with that like we've dealt with magazine bans on municipal levels, using state preemption. After all, that would not be the only municipal law we will have to handle.

Also why does everyone think we're dealing with a stupid opponent who can not think 2 steps ahead ? Yes, they can't think three steps, but when Chicago looses, that entire pyramid will fall one way or another.

Ultimately UOC doesn't matter, legal or illegal, and I don't see how it will affect our battle for getting things like CCW, or striking the roster. Protected by the constitution, our rights can not be infringed by state or municipal governments.

I remember there was that panic about school zones being extended as a result of UOC. Well, don't you think school zones have to go regardless of whether they are 1000 feet or 1500 feet ?

No, the problem is the basic feelings for ones rights over comes the legality of the actions expressed by the passionate.

i once felt the same way as the UOC'ers and it wasn't till it was spelled out for me that I relized it actually hurts the cause. Most tend to forget that CA doesn't recognise our rights to keep and bear arms.


vinz

Merle
01-04-2010, 7:13 PM
Let them outlaw UOC if they have nothing else to do. UOC is not an objective, but a useful tool (and the only one currently available) to educate LE and population about Man With a Gun not always being a criminal. But should we get OC as a result of Incorporation, nobody can outlaw it, regardless of their feelings about it. Bottom line - we have nothing to loose at the moment.

Pre- and post-incorporation, nothing stops the politicians fron enacting laws preventing OC. Look at Texas, OC is illegal.

Even if there was a clear cut RKBA in the CA constitution AND the 2A was incorporated via the BOR... NOTHING prevents the politicians fron enacting laws criminalizing the exercising of such rights.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 7:16 PM
But it was already established that 2A may not necessarily result in OC and CCW at the same time - as long as one of them is available, 2A is not violated.

State may still ban OC, making CCW a Shall Issue, and be fine with the 2A.

Pre- and post-incorporation, nothing stops the politicians fron enacting laws preventing OC. Look at Texas, OC is illegal.

Even if there was a clear cut RKBA in the CA constitution AND the 2A was incorporated via the BOR... NOTHING prevents the politicians fron enacting laws criminalizing the exercising of such rights.

artherd
01-04-2010, 7:18 PM
You know you can put out a oil well fire with dynamite! :12: :hide:

We don't have an oil well fire - and UOC-ers don't have dynamite.

(PS: It's actually RDX, PETN, or SYMTEX or another variant of an advanced de-sensitized modern high explosive. Trying to fight an oil well fire with actual dynamite will probably get you killed. So good analogy.)

artherd
01-04-2010, 7:23 PM
It's not the Black Panthers but perhaps it will get the point across.

You're aware that we can thank the Black Panthers and their OCing for PC12031(e) right?

fd15k
01-04-2010, 7:25 PM
And if it wasn't for Black Panthers, it could have been Pink Panthers. There would be a prohibition sooner or later, since nothing really prevented them from enacting one.

You're aware that we can thank the Black Panthers and their OCing for PC12031(e) right?

technique
01-04-2010, 7:28 PM
You're aware that we can thank the Black Panthers and their OCing for PC12031(e) right?


I wasn't aware the BP's wrote PC12031(e)...
To whom do we owe AB962? When its set in stone, who will be the scape goat?

Who do we blame for all these unconstitutional laws?

1JimMarch
01-04-2010, 7:53 PM
What legalities and what rights are we talking about ? UOC is not a right, rather an act that is not prohibited by CA and municipal laws. Once we get the rights, it's a completely different discussion we are going to have.

Guess what?

This is America.

YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING THAT ISN'T ILLEGAL AND DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY ELSE.

That's point one.

Point two is that gay rights went nowhere until the Stonewall Riots. Y'all don't even know what confrontational IS.

Damn.

artherd
01-04-2010, 7:55 PM
And if it wasn't for Black Panthers, it could have been Pink Panthers. There would be a prohibition sooner or later, since nothing really prevented them from enacting one.

What is the point you are trying to make?

dantodd
01-04-2010, 7:57 PM
You're aware that we can thank the Black Panthers and their OCing for PC12031(e) right?

yes

dantodd
01-04-2010, 7:59 PM
I am sure a municipal code forbidding the carrying of firearms on all city property could be done within days.

Actually they can't. Or rather, a municipal code doing so would be no more valid than a municipal code prohibiting inter-racial marriages. Even without incorporation and an active RKBA in CA the state does have a preemption law wrt firearms regulation.

383green
01-04-2010, 8:05 PM
We don't have an oil well fire - and UOC-ers don't have dynamite.

(PS: It's actually RDX, PETN, or SYMTEX or another variant of an advanced de-sensitized modern high explosive. Trying to fight an oil well fire with actual dynamite will probably get you killed. So good analogy.)

And in my original post that he replied to, I didn't specify dynamite as the attempted method of fire extinguishing, anyway. I specified gasoline. And the point still passed overhead at high altitude.

dantodd
01-04-2010, 8:14 PM
And in my original post that he replied to, I didn't specify dynamite as the attempted method of fire extinguishing, anyway. I specified gasoline. And the point still passed overhead at high altitude.

I don't know fd but I'm fairly certain the point was not missed but rather disputed.

artherd
01-04-2010, 8:15 PM
I wasn't aware the BP's wrote PC12031(e)...

They may as well have.

A Civil Rights war in the 21st century is a war of Public Relations. Anyone who doesn't realize that has not read their history. And will be doomed to repeat it.

KylaGWolf
01-04-2010, 8:28 PM
Isn't it the merchants right to refuse service to anyone? And what happens when insurance companies get wind of this and require business owners to eject armed patrons?

You catch more flys with honey.....

Yes a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. And they can even ask you to take the firearm out of their business. As to the whole thing with insurance companies I think that might be a bit out there.

Now I know there is the whole UOC is a bad thing. But keep in mind while yes I stood down I am one of those people that would UOC if it were not for the request to stand down. Furthermore I had stood down from open carrying before Gene asked. But also keep in mind I don't do it to be macho or in your face. Even UOC I still have a better chance to defend myself if something goes horribly wrong than I do of running away. I am also female and disabled.

Something else you all that are saying its bad and no good and bashing on the people that do open carry we are all fighting for the same dang thing. We all want our second amendment rights in this state. To carry, to own and to do all the other stuff. My view is I would like to have the choice of picking if I want to either LOC or CCW. Both methods have plus and minus issues to them. But for me it is more of which would be better any given day with my disability. When we bicker amongst ourselves all we do is give the anti gunnies giggle fits and we look to be fools.

383green
01-04-2010, 8:32 PM
Actually they can't. Or rather, a municipal code doing so would be no more valid than a municipal code prohibiting inter-racial marriages. Even without incorporation and an active RKBA in CA the state does have a preemption law wrt firearms regulation.

Even with state preemption, municipalities still pass and enforce gun laws, which we then need to spend time and money in court knocking down. Once we have incorporation, municipalities may still pass laws which are not only preempted but also unconstitutional, but we'll have a stronger argument to make to local legislators to keep them from passing the bad laws in the first place. So, why antagonize municipalities into passing bad laws now with confrontational tactics, when in just a few short months we expect to have incorporation which will give us a much more compelling argument against municipalities before they pass their bad laws? Why antagonize law enforcement and municipalities right now with a dubious effort to educate them about UOC, when we don't have any actual protected right to educate them about yet, and it's only a few more months before we expect to have a Supreme Court ruling which opens the door to fighting for LOC (or CCW)?

If we weren't making fast and real progress in the judicial system, then I would consider the UOC movement as perhaps the best available option here in CA. But now that we are probably mere months from incorporation, UOC is more likely to cause harm than good. It is tactically bad at this particular time, yet it's just a short time before similar tactics might be useful. The folks who can't wait a few short months for incorporation are being impatient and childish, and are risking snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead of working with the only folks who have a proven track record of making real progress on a very short timeframe both in CA and federally, they insist on charging off half-cocked on their own.

You don't win a war by dying for your beliefs; you win a war by making the other side die for their beliefs. That's just a fancy way of imploring people to use intelligent tactics rather than charging into battle without a solid plan and then impaling themselves on the enemy's pikes and bayonets. The UOC movement is effectively charging ahead with empty guns against an entrenched and well-supplied enemy, oblivious to the appeals from the so-called "right people" that there's an enemy flank that's about to run out of fuel, and we have a trainload of ammunition due in a short while.

technique
01-04-2010, 8:33 PM
They may as well have.

A Civil Rights war in the 21st century is a war of Public Relations. Anyone who doesn't realize that has not read their history. And will be doomed to repeat it.

Well, yes. But while the BPs were Oakland/SF based..the civil rights movement (on a similar scale) played out on a national level. I don't see any negatives here...

The State is the issue. The state (Ca) has a problem with people having rights.
They infringe on everyone, on all fronts.

How are you to have public relations with the state? In a court room?
Or in the public?

I don't see much of a CGs PR campaign other than a Gun shows...and thats a PR campaign with your own people.

How do gun owners in a mostly anti-gun state get good PR?
These guys are in the public...they aren't getting bad PR.

We have shall issue 100%...how do you explain guys that still refuse to PAY for permission to conceal, and open carry instead?

dantodd
01-04-2010, 8:36 PM
Even with state preemption, municipalities still pass and enforce gun laws, which we then need to spend time and money in court knocking down. Once we have incorporation, municipalities may still pass laws which are not only preempted but also unconstitutional, but we'll have a stronger argument to make to local legislators to keep them from passing the bad laws in the first place. So, why antagonize municipalities into passing bad laws now with confrontational tactics, when in just a few short months we expect to have incorporation which will give us a much more compelling argument against municipalities before they pass their bad laws? Why antagonize law enforcement and municipalities right now with a dubious effort to educate them about UOC, when we don't have any actual protected right to educate them about yet, and it's only a few more months before we expect to have a Supreme Court ruling which opens the door to fighting for LOC (or CCW)?

If we weren't making fast and real progress in the judicial system, then I would consider the UOC movement as perhaps the best available option here in CA. But now that we are probably mere months from incorporation, UOC is more likely to cause harm than good. It is tactically bad at this particular time, yet it's just a short time before similar tactics might be useful. The folks who can't wait a few short months for incorporation are being impatient and childish, and are risking snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead of working with the only folks who have a proven track record of making real progress on a very short timeframe both in CA and federally, they insist on charging off half-cocked on their own.

You don't win a war by dying for your beliefs; you win a war by making the other side die for their beliefs. That's just a fancy way of imploring people to use intelligent tactics rather than charging into battle without a solid plan and then impaling themselves on the enemy's pikes and bayonets. The UOC movement is effectively charging ahead with empty guns against an entrenched and well-supplied enemy, oblivious to the appeals from the so-called "right people" that there's an enemy flank that's about to run out of fuel, and we have a trainload of ammunition due in a short while.

All very good strategic reasoning. I was merely pointing out that the City Cannot pass a valid code regulating firearms. The fact that they may choose to pass an unconstitutional or otherwise invalid law is not specific to firearms.

Merle
01-04-2010, 8:40 PM
But it was already established that 2A may not necessarily result in OC and CCW at the same time - as long as one of them is available, 2A is not violated.

State may still ban OC, making CCW a Shall Issue, and be fine with the 2A.

And I think this is a critical problem. Even if CA enacts CCW "shall issue" it still deprives many people of the right to self defense, where OC would not.

E.g. CCW has residency requirements (up to a year). LOC does not.

383green
01-04-2010, 8:43 PM
All very good strategic reasoning. I was merely pointing out that the City Cannot pass a valid code regulating firearms. The fact that they may choose to pass an unconstitutional or otherwise invalid law is not specific to firearms.

Yes, cities will continue to pass bad laws even after incorporation, and we'll still need to fight them. My point is just that the UOCers who have not stood down while waiting for incorporation seem to proceed based on an attitude of "what harm can it do?", but their ears are closed to the explanations of how UOC can cause real harm right now, from people with a very demonstrable record of recent strategic and tactical success.

In a nutshell, the CGF faction has a track record, while the UOC faction has an arrest record (ignoring the partial overlap between those two factions). So, when CGF says "PLEASE quit UOCing for a brief while for strategic and tactical reasons", and a portion of the UOC faction refuses to do so, I get rather steamed they're risking MY 2ndA rights, which are so close to my grasp, and which I never thought I'd see in my lifetime just a few short years ago.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 8:44 PM
Yes, and what does it have to do with anything ? State of UOC today and tomorrow isn't connected to LOC after Incorporation.

And I think this is a critical problem. Even if CA enacts CCW "shall issue" it still deprives many people of the right to self defense, where OC would not.

E.g. CCW has residency requirements (up to a year). LOC does not.

RP1911
01-04-2010, 8:44 PM
Here's the video


http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/?action=view&current=SanPedroillegaldetainmentbyLAPD.flv

GuyW
01-04-2010, 8:46 PM
. . . I carry an unloaded weapon for personal defense into an area which doesn't want them, alienate the street cops who usually are on our side when it comes to their personal opinion about the wisdom of an armed population.


Wow! They're on our side until we actually exercise the right, huh? !

BFD - alienating THAT is no loss...

...with "friends" like those, who needs the Brady Bunch??

.

JaMail
01-04-2010, 8:46 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=255219&highlight=baen


read that book..

while i would never UOC since any arrest means my clearance could be revoked, and i cant risk my family for my own beliefs, i SUPPORT those that do UOC..

when will they get to the point where every bullet is taxed to support victims of gun violence?


i can see that happening any year now. dont think so? look at the asinine laws that have been passed so far.

Mr.CRC
01-04-2010, 8:51 PM
This.



Send in the minorities. Have your rights violated. Call the ACLU!

This hints at a fascinating possibility. Send in a group of minorities UOCing. When they wind up eating pavement, the ACLU will do what? The Rev. Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton?

This would put those folks in a quandry. Maybe just maybe the ACLU would wake up.

Just imagine a group of Pink Pistols UOCing in SF.

383green
01-04-2010, 8:52 PM
BFD - alienating THAT is no loss...

...with "friends" like those, who needs the Brady Bunch??


I agree... but let's alienate them after we have them over a barrel, instead of begging them to cause us to expend more money and effort before that.

technique
01-04-2010, 8:56 PM
Maybe just maybe the ACLU would wake up.



Contrary to popular belief, the ACLU has defended a few cases involving 2A.
If the CGF won't defend UOC at this time...Then maybe if played right the ACLU will.

Use the ACLU's time and money for 2A? Sounds good to me.

Merle
01-04-2010, 9:04 PM
Yes, and what does it have to do with anything ? State of UOC today and tomorrow isn't connected to LOC after Incorporation.

OC isn't legal in all states even the ones where CCW is (e.g. Texas). If CCW goes "shall issue", it's not a far step from criminalizing OC and those who prefer it.

As you have stated, the 2A doesn't guarantee OC nor CCW.

Hence, not supporting OC and those who support OC, even unloaded, removes another of the few ways citizens can defend themselves.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 9:06 PM
MAN! THIS IS PRICELESS!

Here's the video


http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/?action=view&current=SanPedroillegaldetainmentbyLAPD.flv

truthseeker
01-04-2010, 9:10 PM
My feelings on this whole thing is that I would have NO PROBLEM with ALL of the "Calguns Foundation Board Members" performing a "get together" at a coffee shop.

The problem I have is uninformed gun owners trying to carry unloaded without knowing the law (I am NOT saying that these guys did not know the law, it is obvious they did know the law).

The reason I think most of us are concerned is because we don't want to have to fight for something that could have been settled in other ways without having to fight some bad precedent that may or may not be set with people performing these "get togethers".

After seeing everything that Calguns has accomplished for gun rights, I am more inclined to follow there lead on issues such as these.

Yes, I know it is your RIGHT, but IMO I don't think it has come to the point yet that we need to start doing these get togethers.

bigcalidave
01-04-2010, 9:10 PM
Here's the video


http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/?action=view&current=SanPedroillegaldetainmentbyLAPD.flv

I really wish people would just use youtube !!!

fd15k
01-04-2010, 9:14 PM
I have stated that 2A guarantees "carry", but doesn't specify open or concealed. State of California, being forced to comply with the Constitution, may choose to allow CCW, and keep the LOC banned. Their decision on that matter absolutely has nothing to do with banning or not banning UOC now. And personally, I really doubt CA will allow LOC, just like Texas.

OC isn't legal in all states even the ones where CCW is (e.g. Texas). If CCW goes "shall issue", it's not a far step from criminalizing OC and those who prefer it.

As you have stated, the 2A doesn't guarantee OC nor CCW.

Hence, not supporting OC and those who support OC, even unloaded, removes another of the few ways citizens can defend themselves.

6172crew
01-04-2010, 9:18 PM
MAN! THIS IS PRICELESS!

Looks like something else to me.:chris:

deldgeetar
01-04-2010, 9:19 PM
I thought the guy in the video was reasonable and did a really nice job.

Is anyone else out there sick of officers spouting off incorrect information and then silencing those who correct them?:rolleyes: I swear, it happens in almost every one of these videos!

6172crew
01-04-2010, 9:19 PM
I have stated that 2A guarantees "carry", but doesn't specify open or concealed. State of California, being forced to comply with the Constitution, may choose to allow CCW, and keep the LOC banned. Their decision on that matter absolutely has nothing to do with banning or not banning UOC now. And personally, I really doubt CA will allow LOC, just like Texas.

Ive already said this once in this thread but here it is again, there is no 2nd in my state.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 9:21 PM
My bad - I haven't indicated future tense ;) When you and me get 2A, we may still not get LOC ;)

Ive already said this once in this thread but here it is again, there is no 2nd in my state.

6172crew
01-04-2010, 9:21 PM
I thought the guy in the video was reasonable and did a really nice job.

Is anyone else out there sick of officers spouting off incorrect information and then silencing those who correct them?:rolleyes: I swear, it happens in almost every one of these videos!

The other vid in Livermore was opposite, but they called before UOC which was a good idea imo.

6172crew
01-04-2010, 9:23 PM
My bad - I haven't indicated future tense ;) When you and me get 2A, we may still not get LOC ;)

Thats really the issue with CGF and the guys in the video, they just don't want to wait until July.:)

rmasold
01-04-2010, 9:25 PM
Very good work...

nick
01-04-2010, 9:48 PM
OC isn't legal in all states even the ones where CCW is (e.g. Texas). If CCW goes "shall issue", it's not a far step from criminalizing OC and those who prefer it.

As you have stated, the 2A doesn't guarantee OC nor CCW.

Hence, not supporting OC and those who support OC, even unloaded, removes another of the few ways citizens can defend themselves.

It does guarantee it, actually. The problem is that a bunch of intellectually dishonest people (which includes the Heller 5) pretend that guarantee doesn't exist, and quite plain words of the 2nd Amendment don't mean what a 1st-grader can recognize they mean.

Purple K
01-04-2010, 9:53 PM
Has any of this actually been in the print or TV media?

Merle
01-04-2010, 9:54 PM
I have stated that 2A guarantees "carry", but doesn't specify open or concealed. State of California, being forced to comply with the Constitution, may choose to allow CCW, and keep the LOC banned. Their decision on that matter absolutely has nothing to do with banning or not banning UOC now. And personally, I really doubt CA will allow LOC, just like Texas.

And this is where I'm torn:

Situation 1. LOC is banned and you must be a resident of the State to apply for and receive a CCW. How does CA preserve the 2A rights of non-resident visitors? You have the right to X, as long as you don't let anyone know you're a practioner of X.

Situation 2. OC is permitted but CCW's remain the same. You have the right to X, as long as you let everyone know.

By pushing for CCW and potentially going the Texas route, you can criminalize petty transactions (e.g. printing). Practice whatever rights you want, just don't want anyone know.

By pushing for OC, you pretty much brand any person practicing their 2A and remove (m)any tactical advantage(s) to self-defense.

I personally think OC is better for society than CCW. And because of this, believe supporting any who choose to OC is the right thing to do without negative adjectives or antagonistic behavior.

However, it's 24F outside and recognize the need for CCW's.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 9:58 PM
Leave alone tactical differences between LOC and CCW. Should the certain states choose CCW over LOC, they will also be forced to provide equal protection to ALL citizens, regardless of state of residence. That is unlike current policy to issue to CA residents only, CA will be forced to issue to non-residents, or simply to recognize out of state permits.

And this is where I'm torn:

Situation 1. LOC is banned and you must be a resident of the State to apply for and receive a CCW. How does CA preserve the 2A rights of non-resident visitors? You have the right to X, as long as you don't let anyone know you're a practioner of X.

Situation 2. OC is permitted but CCW's remain the same. You have the right to X, as long as you let everyone know.

By pushing for CCW and potentially going the Texas route, you can criminalize petty transactions (e.g. printing). Practice whatever rights you want, just don't want anyone know.

By pushing for OC, you pretty much brand any person practicing their 2A and remove (m)any tactical advantage(s) to self-defense.

I personally think OC is better for society than CCW. And because of this, believe supporting any who choose to OC is the right thing to do without negative adjectives or antagonistic behavior.

However, it's 24F outside and recognize the need for CCW's.

Gray Peterson
01-04-2010, 9:58 PM
You know what's shocking to me? These particular group of UOC'ers don't get it. You know, LOC, as in loaded OC, as in the most effective method of OCing there is? I know it's a fairy tale to some people but it's for real, and it's real for me every day up here in the Pacific Northwest. UOC is a very unique California creation, and post-Sykes it'll end up in the dust-bin of history as completely unnecessary.

I have stated that 2A guarantees "carry", but doesn't specify open or concealed. State of California, being forced to comply with the Constitution, may choose to allow CCW, and keep the LOC banned. Their decision on that matter absolutely has nothing to do with banning or not banning UOC now. And personally, I really doubt CA will allow LOC, just like Texas.

That's if you pre-suppose that LOC is banned. There's certain some argument back and forth about whether or not it is entirely banned in the manner that some people are saying that it is.

fd15k
01-04-2010, 10:05 PM
Have you seen that thread on the lawyer with CCW being held at gun point ? Even if the law regarding the either type of carry changes, LEOs will still be slow to recognize your rights. In fact, as you could have seen in the video, LEOs don't even care about non-2A related rights, such as 4A. So those UOC dudes are doing a useful thing after all, but you may of course disagree like many other forum members...

You know what's shocking to me? These particular group of UOC'ers don't get it. You know, LOC, as in loaded OC, as in the most effective method of OCing there is? I know it's a fairy tale to some people but it's for real, and it's real for me every day up here in the Pacific Northwest. UOC is a very unique California creation, and post-Sykes it'll end up in the dust-bin of history as completely unnecessary.

technique
01-04-2010, 10:10 PM
Have you seen that thread on the lawyer with CCW being held at gun point ? Even if the law regarding the either type of carry changes, LEOs will still be slow to recognize your rights. In fact, as you could have seen in the video, LEOs don't even care about non-2A related rights, such as 4A. So those UOC dudes are doing a useful thing after all, but you may of course disagree like many other forum members...

I think one of the most important things is:

A bunch of bystanders saw a group of citizens with guns.
They saw the police come and interact with those citizens.

They did not see a shootout.
They did not see an arrest.
They did not see guns confiscated.

They saw the citizens continue on with guns after police interaction.

Gray Peterson
01-04-2010, 10:13 PM
Have you seen that thread on the lawyer with CCW being held at gun point ? Even if the law regarding the either type of carry changes, LEOs will still be slow to recognize your rights. In fact, as you could have seen in the video, LEOs don't even care about non-2A related rights, such as 4A. So those UOC dudes are doing a useful thing after all, but you may of course disagree like many other forum members...

I'm very aware of that particular case, given that I've read the case reports and the district court decision as well. Yes, the First Circuit is wrong on the subject. They ignored Florida v. JL and again created a "firearms" exception to the 4th amendment. They also violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ignore his oral arguments about 2A. However, the lawyer was a moron by not bringing it up in the written briefs. He did not do his homework, and honestly, he did not have the detached judgment to realize that he's too angry at the situation and screwing up his own case.

If Don Kilmer had something like this happen to him, I do not think (LexArma has full permission to smack me on this if I'm wrong) he would litigate the case himself. He'd call up Alan Gura, Chuck Michel, or Jason Davis most likely. When you're the lawyer who got wronged 4A wise in this manner, you get into the mindset of "I'm right, these bastards are wrong" and you make mistakes, not much unlike certain other lawyers who litigate and keep missing stuff....*cough* Gorski *cough*

As ****ty as it is, First Circuit may have done gun owners a favor. By completely side-stepping 2A, they allowed another firearms-centric lawyer to litigate the issue clean, and also litigate further firearms issues. Hopefully this lawyer will take a hint and let someone more competent on 2A issues litigate it. This goes to show you: Even if you're a lawyer yourself, you'd be a fool to have yourself as a client.

Zhukov
01-04-2010, 10:17 PM
Except apparently the officer who "inspected" the firearms was reading the serials very loudly which appeared to clearly indicate someone or something was recording so they could run a check at another time.


The other vid in Livermore was opposite, but they called before UOC which was a good idea imo.

ChuckBooty
01-04-2010, 10:28 PM
Video of the event: (credit to 'Army' from UOC Forums)
http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/?action=view&current=SanPedroillegaldetainmentbyLAPD.flv

nick
01-04-2010, 10:29 PM
As ****ty as it is, First Circuit may have done gun owners a favor. By completely side-stepping 2A, they allowed another firearms-centric lawyer to litigate the issue clean, and also litigate further firearms issues. Hopefully this lawyer will take a hint and let someone more competent on 2A issues litigate it. This goes to show you: Even if you're a lawyer yourself, you'd be a fool to have yourself as a client.

Nah, he'll probably appeal :)

Gray Peterson
01-04-2010, 10:44 PM
Nah, he'll probably appeal :)

Well, after a 3-judge panel, the courts on higher level (en banc, SCOTUS) don't have to accept the case.

capntroy
01-04-2010, 11:19 PM
San Pedro - Where the debris meets the sea!:D

Mulay El Raisuli
01-05-2010, 6:22 AM
hmmm.... forcing coffee shops to accept customers they don't want. Civil Rights. boycotting and sending the "unwanted" into the coffee shop repeatedly....


Man... this sounds familiar....

Reminds me of something that happened in Woolworth's a long time ago....

http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/greensboro1.jpg


It's not the Black Panthers but perhaps it will get the point across. The only differences between those brave men and the UOC'ers descending on Long Beach are planning and legal support. This should be an ideal civil rights case even without incorporation (if it were planned properly) unless someone was breaking the law while UOC'ing this is straight up abuse of authority by police. The presence of a firearm does not establish reasonable suspicion to treat someone like a criminal.


While its true that they had a much tougher row to hoe, our forebears in the civil rights fight (which these gentleman rate as) finally caught on that the 'play nice' card doesn't really work. The 10A talks about "powers" being reserved to the people. Power is never received, it is taken. It was taken away from us. Now its time to take it back. And that's where the similarity & value to today comes into play. We aren't going to have our Rights handed to us, just as these gentlemen didn't have their Rights handed to them.

With that in mind though, forcing the issue today (via UOC events) might not be the best approach. We are literally mere months away from having (taking!) the 'baseball bat' that we'll need to bash their (gun grabbers) heads in (metaphorically speaking, of course!). I don't think it a terribly bad thing to wait just a little bit for the court fight to finish. To add to this, Gene has said that an opportunity to 'be bold' is coming. So, even though I HATE WAITING, I am doing just that. Because I don't want to nip at the heels of those opposing us, I want to deliver a blow that rips their throats out (again, metaphorically speaking). :)

As for what California "will allow," after Incorporation, it won't matter what Our Masters in Sacramento like or dislike. That's the value of Incorporation. Just as the crackers in the Deep South didn't want the gentlemen pictured above to eat at just any lunch counter, their wants counted for zero because the Federal courts stepped in & decided the issue. So it will be for us.

As for what that will be decided for the 2A (to repeat myself just a bit), I see unrestricted LOC as the Minimum Constitutional Standard. After that, a state can either have CCW or not. But if they do have CCW at all, it will be shall issue CCW. Because "Separate but Equal" was trashed a long time ago when it comes to civil rights. I also see reciprocity for CCW coming our way (as opposed to non-resident CCW) just because it works so well for driver's licenses.


The Raisuli

Flintlock Tom
01-05-2010, 9:34 AM
Showing up in force, armed, to impede business and intentionally violate the rules of a business because the merchant chose to exercise his rights within his business isn't making people aware.

It's acting like thugs and bullies and I guarantee you the media, the Brady's and the rest of the anti-gun crowd are NOT going to differentiate between OUC'ers and gun owners in general.
...

Take a step back, Kestryll, your bias is warping your perception.
"Showing up in force"? Four guys?
"To impede business"? Huh? They bought coffee.
"intentionally violate the rules of a business"? There were no anti-gun rules posted or verbalized.
"because the merchant chose to exercise his rights within his business"? No one associated with the business said anything.

Are you sure you read the right story?
Using hyperbole and twisting facts are tactics of leftists. Seems odd to find it here.

Liberty1
01-05-2010, 9:50 AM
Video of the event: (credit to 'Army' from UOC Forums)
http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/?action=view&current=SanPedroillegaldetainmentbyLAPD.flv

Lots of LAPD fail there [see People vs DeLong(Ca.) and Terry vs Ohio (US) among others]. But it is the same fail that would have happened after June too or even after Sykes etc...

And no, you don't get to detain individuals for NO CRIME just to see IF someone is a felon or their gun is stolen just because it might be absent RS per Terry. Well actually you do, unless someone or some organization sues to defend their rights.

Liberty1
01-05-2010, 10:05 AM
Doesn't one of the Right People have a dialog with the leaders of the UOC movement where they can basically have a come to Jesus meeting with them and explain the folly of their ways to them?????

There are no "leaders of the UOC". Most if not all of the original groups have stood down pending McDonald. Others who are newer don't agree with or haven't been introduced or don't understand the reason for that strategic move.

Kestryll
01-05-2010, 10:15 AM
Take a step back, Kestryll, your bias is warping your perception.
"Showing up in force"? Four guys?
"To impede business"? Huh? They bought coffee.
"intentionally violate the rules of a business"? There were no anti-gun rules posted or verbalized.
"because the merchant chose to exercise his rights within his business"? No one associated with the business said anything.

Are you sure you read the right story?
Using hyperbole and twisting facts are tactics of leftists. Seems odd to find it here.

Okay, you tell me.

How will or would this be presented to the public in the media?

If you think will be used to put any face on gun owners other than what I posted you may be right about warped perception but wrong on it's application.

As I mentioned in several other places in this thread, the ones you didn't address, this is the reality we live in.
You can hope for and plan any form of public response you want, the fact is nearly no one will hear about it or get information on it other than through the media. We all know what paragons of neutrality they are.

All this does is give fodder to those who want to restrict our freedoms.

Eckolaker
01-05-2010, 10:27 AM
Yes, Yes, continue to force the issue of needing a permit to carry a weapon.

/sigh

wildhawker
01-05-2010, 10:31 AM
Yes, Yes, continue to force the issue of needing a permit to carry a weapon.

/sigh

Could you please articulate how we should create an outcome that requires none?

Flintlock Tom
01-05-2010, 10:48 AM
Okay, you tell me.

How will or would this be presented to the public in the media?

If you think will be used to put any face on gun owners other than what I posted you may be right about warped perception but wrong on it's application.

As I mentioned in several other places in this thread, the ones you didn't address, this is the reality we live in.
You can hope for and plan any form of public response you want, the fact is nearly no one will hear about it or get information on it other than through the media. We all know what paragons of neutrality they are.

All this does is give fodder to those who want to restrict our freedoms.

You're right, that's exactly how I expect it to be mis-characterized by the media, but not by people who claim to be on the same side.

Theseus
01-05-2010, 10:51 AM
I still say open carry for all educated enough and willing enough.

I appreciate Calguns in many respects and what they are fighting for, but I still think that there are other methods to achieve a goal. One of the two will work.

I still seriously doubt that any incorporation will change the OC issue until we have a "carry" case.

I have not read them in a while, but Sykes is the carry case and Pena is the roster case? Neither of them attack 12031, and until that happens you will have the OC crowd out trying to get their justice.

And, my opinion of the outing is not that they were protesting the shop owner as much they were the detention by the LAPD from the first incident. A business has the right, and we have the right to attempt educating them.

In one of my detentions it was the owner of the business that called. When done I explained to him my actions were legal and he was OK with that. . . said I could come back anytime.

Kestryll
01-05-2010, 11:49 AM
You're right, that's exactly how I expect it to be mis-characterized by the media, but not by people who claim to be on the same side.

So, just to make sure I have this straight.

You know that this is going to be portrayed as bad as it possibly can by the media and that the vast majority of the public will hear about it only through the media.
You know that the only effect this will have on public perception of gun owners and 2nd Amendment rights is negative at best and damaging at worst.

You not only know this, you expect it.

And you still not only think of this as a good thing but consider it a valid stratagem for advancing public perception of 2A rights.

I'd take offense to the 'claim to be on the same side' comment but with reasoning like that I'm not sure which side you're referring to.

ChuckBooty
01-05-2010, 12:50 PM
Is the argument against the UOC'ers that they shouldn't UOC because they might force California to pass a law against UOC'ing? If so...what's the difference? That's like saying everybody walk everywhere you go because we don't want a law saying you can't drive. You're STILL walking either way.

Glock22Fan
01-05-2010, 12:56 PM
Is the argument against the UOC'ers that they shouldn't UOC because they might force California to pass a law against UOC'ing? If so...what's the difference? That's like saying everybody walk everywhere you go because we don't want a law saying you can't drive. You're STILL walking either way.

Not entirely. The argument, as I understand it, is that the current pre-McDonald landscape is likely to see such a law being passed, whereas the post-McDonald landscape is far less likely to see a law being passed.

As it is much harder to overcome a law after it is passed, than never having passed it in the first place, it makes sense to keep quiet for now.

pullnshoot25
01-05-2010, 12:59 PM
Is the argument against the UOC'ers that they shouldn't UOC because they might force California to pass a law against UOC'ing? If so...what's the difference? That's like saying everybody walk everywhere you go because we don't want a law saying you can't drive. You're STILL walking either way.

Close.

The whole thing with "no OC" is because if a law is passed banning OC, then it could possibly be worded to prosecute people (ESPECIALLY those "not up to snuff" on the current legal scene) for simple transport of their weapons. This means that there will be money diverted to defend those stupid cases when the money could go toward more profitable ventures.

In addition, even if no one gets hung up on these laws, there will STILL be work involved in getting those laws removed.

Also, there is rumor (not entirely verified, but close) that a bill to ban even UOC and potentially cause the aforementioned problems has already been drafted and will be proposed during the next session.

zeleny
01-05-2010, 1:16 PM
Yes a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. And they can even ask you to take the firearm out of their business.Pursuant to the First Amendment, they can ask anyone anything they want. On the same grounds, any California resident who legitimately carries a firearm openly in order to exercise his rights to free expression, cannot be forced to leave private grounds open to the general public. I have successfully tested this proposition in several local jurisdictions ranging from San Diego to Santa Clara and Menlo Park. The controlling authority is Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins) and progeny, as described here (http://www.subrah.com/faq/).

GrizzlyGuy
01-05-2010, 1:20 PM
Not entirely. The argument, as I understand it, is that the current pre-McDonald landscape is likely to see such a law being passed, whereas the post-McDonald landscape is far less likely to see a law being passed.

As I understand the argument, you may have pointed out it's flaw: the likelihood of a no-OC law being passed post-incorporation actually isn't significantly lower than the likelihood of it being passed now, even if (as expected) CGF runs the table in all of it's current cases.

Our then-guaranteed right to bear arms can be satisfied via shall-issue CCW. Legislators will be free to make the same arguments as the LAPD officers in the video: visible guns scare citizens and critical LE resources are wasted in investigating these events. The anti-gun PR machine will spin a very persuasive argument in support of the legislature restricting OC ('Terrorists, gang-bangers and child molesters continue to prowl the streets as a result of rude, thoughtless and irresponsible gun nuts exercising their now-unnecessary "rights". Oh my, think of the children!') :rolleyes:

We'll be like Texas and the OC restrictions will be constitutionally sound, since they would be viewed as "reasonable" by the courts. Therefore, waiting to actively OC after incorporation doesn't significantly reduce that risk. OC will one day be restricted, regardless of what we do now, unless the legislature can be replaced.

bwiese
01-05-2010, 1:24 PM
There are other worries with UOC drama onset in certain areas, esp if new gun stores or shooting areas are opening up/renewing leases etc. These often require city/county permits with relevant politics.

It would be a shame for a shooting range to close or a new gunshop to not be zoned just because a coupla young guys wanna show their new unloaded guns.

navyinrwanda
01-05-2010, 2:14 PM
Yes, Yes, continue to force the issue of needing a permit to carry a weapon.
Could you please articulate how we should create an outcome that requires none?
You can't.

fd15k
01-05-2010, 3:39 PM
So you're suggesting to give up 4A for a possibility of a range or a gunstore opening up ? Especially in city of Los Angeles ? :)

There are other worries with UOC drama onset in certain areas, esp if new gun stores or shooting areas are opening up/renewing leases etc. These often require city/county permits with relevant politics.

It would be a shame for a shooting range to close or a new gunshop to not be zoned just because a coupla young guys wanna show their new unloaded guns.

Eckolaker
01-05-2010, 3:54 PM
Could you please articulate how we should create an outcome that requires none?

Sure, focus on upholding existing rights put forth by the Constitution and not trying to pull end-arounds through the Judicial system which is clearly in favor of the system.

My prediction, 5-4 votes across the board. Fixed rulings are always close calls.

When you put your faith in the system prepare to have that faith shattered.

pullnshoot25
01-05-2010, 4:00 PM
There are other worries with UOC drama onset in certain areas, esp if new gun stores or shooting areas are opening up/renewing leases etc. These often require city/county permits with relevant politics.

It would be a shame for a shooting range to close or a new gunshop to not be zoned just because a coupla young guys wanna show their new unloaded guns.

Rrright.

GrizzlyGuy
01-05-2010, 4:12 PM
There are other worries with UOC drama onset in certain areas, esp if new gun stores or shooting areas are opening up/renewing leases etc. These often require city/county permits with relevant politics.

It would be a shame for a shooting range to close or a new gunshop to not be zoned just because a coupla young guys wanna show their new unloaded guns.

Wouldn't the risk of that happening be about the same after incorporation and after CGF runs the table on all current cases? AFAIK we're not expecting reasonable local zoning laws to be impacted.

The risk of that happening might even be higher post-incorporation: the UOC stand-down would have ended, many other gun owners would know about the McDonald ruling and feel empowered to openly carry their firearms in public, so the volume of open carry instances would likely be higher. Meanwhile, without open carry activism and the possible change-hearts-and-minds upsides of that being in play, the composition and attitudes of local governments and police forces would remain unchanged. Their propensity to overact ('for the children!') would therefore remain unchanged.

More OC volume + same government attitude = more chance of range and gun shop closures AFTER incorporation

cbn620
01-05-2010, 5:52 PM
Honestly the parallel between this and the anti-segregation part of the Civil Rights Movement rings true for me, and I can't deny that. I can't deny that it's a fundamental right, and they are breaking no laws. It doesn't seem to me that the business owners have the right to do whatever they want. They bridge the gap between public and private, unfortunately. Haven't we had that discussion here before? Like "why can't a business owner walk around in his coffee shop with a loaded pistol in his hands?" If some of his rights on private property are circumvented because of the public status of his establishment, then aren't some of everyone's rights protected by that same public status? Isn't that the basis for why businesses can't discriminate against blacks?

May be a bad PR move, I can't be sure since I wasn't there... but it certainly doesn't seem to me they were doing anything technically wrong. I don't think this was a case of trespassing or business owners simply wanting the persons removed from their property, to be honest. Let's not fool ourselves, this was about guns or it would not be in the news. Do you think the police politely explained to the RP's that it is perfectly legal to have an unloaded pistol on a belt holster, carried openly? I'm sure if the cops told them that the situation would not have escalated. Do you think those who got handcuffed were being told they were going to be charged with "trespassing" or something in that vein?

hawk84
01-05-2010, 8:13 PM
You catch more flys with honey.....

actually, you catch more flies with vinegar....look it up.......

OHOD
01-05-2010, 8:29 PM
I am sorry, but I must say we need to reduce the number of acronyms we use here, UOC,, CCW are all legal acronyms, cant we just say what they are? it is very confussing. can we stop the acronyms, and write in plain english?
Plain speaking makes more sense to folks that are not 100% up on the lingo. If we are to attract others to our cause, I think we need to drop the acronyms. It is almost as if we are congress writing a healthcare bill, where we dotn want folks to know what we are talking about.

it takes not much effort to write Open Carry, or Conceled carry, and that will make these posts much more readable. frankly I still need a double take on even the most common acronyms we use. maybe that is just me, but it will make writings more understandable.

Pt. c SBO DC'd NGT p PO APAP, IV DC'd 2/2 S/Sx Ix Phl. RLE +CMST

Sorry, couldn't resist. :43:

383green
01-05-2010, 8:32 PM
actually, you catch more flies with vinegar....look it up.......

How about with rotting meat and a shop vac? :whistling:

hoffmang
01-05-2010, 8:52 PM
Only 5 months more... <sigh>

An important side note. 12031(e) is wholly unconstitutional. There is no lack of desire to by anyone at CGF to get that law struck. However, the very best way to do that is shortly after McDonald is decided...

The issue here is simple. UOC at this time runs a significant risk of making OC impossible post McDonald and thus limiting carry to 12050 licenses only.

The Civil Rights movement didn't go after miscegenation laws first.

-Gene

bwiese
01-05-2010, 9:19 PM
Rrright.

No ****. It's a worry in a specific place and I'm hoping that UOCers just happily bypass that area.

kcbrown
01-06-2010, 5:02 AM
The issue here is simple. UOC at this time runs a significant risk of making OC impossible post McDonald and thus limiting carry to 12050 licenses only.


I don't understand something here.

Doesn't the foregoing assume that, post-incorporation, the legislature will leave the carry laws alone and simply let them be struck down in the courts?

Isn't that a rather naive assumption?

Isn't it much more likely that the legislature will proactively pass laws to make life as difficult as possible for those who wish to carry at all?

If that is how it'll play out, then how do the actions of the UOCers right now have any effect whatsoever on what is to come?


I fail to see how incorporation will change the fact that the CA politicians hate the idea of an armed citizenry...

pullnshoot25
01-06-2010, 6:47 AM
I don't understand something here.

Doesn't the foregoing assume that, post-incorporation, the legislature will leave the carry laws alone and simply let them be struck down in the courts?

Isn't that a rather naive assumption?

Isn't it much more likely that the legislature will proactively pass laws to make life as difficult as possible for those who wish to carry at all?

If that is how it'll play out, then how do the actions of the UOCers right now have any effect whatsoever on what is to come?


I fail to see how incorporation will change the fact that the CA politicians hate the idea of an armed citizenry...

There is currently no license needed to OC. That can change.

kcbrown
01-06-2010, 6:55 AM
There is currently no license needed to OC. That can change.

I realize that. My question is: what in the world makes any of us believe that it won't change after incorporation, even if all UOCers stand down until then?

It's almost as if people (including Bill, Gene, etc.) think that the other side will just give everything up after incorporation, but I know our side is not that naive.

joelberg
01-06-2010, 6:56 AM
While I'm not planning on OC'ing any time soon, I believe we need a multi-pronged approach to winning this battle. Legislative/political AND civil disobedience/activism. I respect these guys for having the balls to do what I do not have the balls to try. I really can't wait until shall issue comes, but I don't see the positivity of dissing on these activists. I think we need both approaches simultaneously to win this battle.

Cheers to a successful event guys.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-06-2010, 7:00 AM
Could you please articulate how we should create an outcome that requires none?


In the legislature, such a thing cannot be done. But, it can (and I believe, will) come from SCOTUS. At least as far as unrestricted LOC goes.


The Raisuli

Asmodai
01-06-2010, 7:25 AM
Rights denied today are not justified, nor that denial made less offensive, by past wrongs.....A right which is not exercisable is no right at all.

The thing is, the right to UOC is not being denied. Every video I see results in people being released with weapons in holster, not being hosed down with water canons or lynched around the corner. Being allowed to walk away is proof that the right is being exercised.

This whole Pedro thing is a cop baiting stunt. It's one thing to make a point and a positive PR impact it's entirely another thing to come to LA from SF to have a laugh and video some justifiably nervous cops responding to citizens calling in about handguns being worn publicly (a right which few people are aware of - and scaring the sh** out of people is not the way to warm them to your cause)

Do we have a right to bear arms - yes - do all cops want us to exercise it - no - is that right - no - but to bait and make fun of men and women who deal with all the kooks on a daily basis by wearing firearms - which 8 times out of 10 are probably being used against them when they do see people with firearms is low class.

Do we have to call the LA Harbor Police Sergeant when we want to UOC at Sacred Grounds Coffee Shop? No, we don't have to. Is it a good idea if we want to have a PR event and educate people about UOC - yes.

The object was to get tossed out of the coffee shop and have nervous law enforcement arrive to "hassle" participants on video. It's a stunt, not anything to do with really forwarding the cause.

FastFinger
01-06-2010, 7:47 AM
I don't understand something here.

Doesn't the foregoing assume that, post-incorporation, the legislature will leave the carry laws alone and simply let them be struck down in the courts?

Isn't that a rather naive assumption?

Isn't it much more likely that the legislature will proactively pass laws to make life as difficult as possible for those who wish to carry at all?

If that is how it'll play out, then how do the actions of the UOCers right now have any effect whatsoever on what is to come?


I fail to see how incorporation will change the fact that the CA politicians hate the idea of an armed citizenry...


Not a lawyer, but I believe the thinking is that currently they can pass more laws pretty easily, laws that post inc that will need lawsuits to undo. More time and effort.

However post inc it will be much harder to pass those same laws because opposition will point out that they are blatantly in violation of 2a.

For example - currently there's no express right to drive while having a dead fish as a hood ornament, so it'd be relatively easy to outlaw that action. However if there was an constitutional amendment which mandates that states may not prohibit adorning cars with dead aquatic vertebrates it would be much more unlikely a state would pass such a law.

Glock22Fan
01-06-2010, 8:25 AM
Not a lawyer, but I believe the thinking is that currently they can pass more laws pretty easily, laws that post inc that will need lawsuits to undo. More time and effort.

However post inc it will be much harder to pass those same laws because opposition will point out that they are blatantly in violation of 2a.

For example - currently there's no express right to drive while having a dead fish as a hood ornament, so it'd be relatively easy to outlaw that action. However if there was an constitutional amendment which mandates that states may not prohibit adorning cars with dead aquatic vertebrates it would be much more unlikely a state would pass such a law.

Superb example - ROTFLMAO.

kcbrown
01-06-2010, 8:33 AM
Not a lawyer, but I believe the thinking is that currently they can pass more laws pretty easily, laws that post inc that will need lawsuits to undo. More time and effort.


Hmm...well, that's quite a bit different than the impression one would get. The impression one gets is that if UOCers screw things up they'll be doing so on a rather permanent basis.

The cost of overturning laws passed before incorporation will be borne largely by those who are convicted of the laws in question and who appeal their convictions.

I'd be much more concerned about some sort of permanent change to the legal landscape as a result of the UOCers' actions, and it is this which I question -- I fail to see how the actions of the UOCers will result in a change to the legal landscape that won't be attempted post incorporation anyway.

Since when do legislatures concern themselves about the Constitutionality of the laws they pass? There is no penalty against them for passing such laws, after all.

Army
01-06-2010, 8:37 AM
The thing is, the right to UOC is not being denied.
Being handcuffed, detained, and physically searched is as much a denial as any other action that infringes on my rights. Walking down the sidewalk is legal. Walking down the sidewalk while armed is also legal. Neither action allows for police intervention.


The object was to get tossed out of the coffee shop and have nervous law enforcement arrive to "hassle" participants on video. It's a stunt, not anything to do with really forwarding the cause.

The object was to meet at the coffee shop and drink coffee.

That is my video. That is me talking. Since you weren't there (and you others that seem to know just what we were doing), I find it very humorous that you speak as if you had all the facts of the day.

It was at least a 1/2 hour before the first patrolmen arrived. Before that, we bought coffee, listened to the live jazz band, educated many patrons of California gun laws, and until AFTER the police had taken off the handcuffs did we get any guff.

To clarify the fellow that acted upset; he was not the type you would let date your daughter. Scruffy, dirty, "homeless chic", as were more than few there. Most of the many patrons were regular citizens, and many had just attended the live theatre next door....and hardly gave us the time of day in their lack of concern about 5 armed men outside (we only went inside to buy coffee or soda, and went outside to enjoy them).

The first responding officers apparently had no problem with us, and asked if we could stick around while they took care of another call.

The owner of Sacred Grounds NEVER VOICED HIS DISMAY, OR ASKED ANY OF US TO LEAVE HIS BUSINESS OR PREMISES. Only after SGT Hamilton coached his response did he feel that maybe we could/should call him before we come there again. (if you watch the video, he says the exact words that SGT Hamilton asked me). Right then, he could have told LAPD and us that we were banned from his store....but didn't.

Likely because he had more business in 45 minutes than he had all week :D

Asmodai
01-06-2010, 8:49 AM
The object was to meet at the coffee shop and drink coffee.

That is my video. That is me talking. Since you weren't there (and you others that seem to know just what we were doing), I find it very humorous that you speak as if you had all the facts of the day.

Tit for your tat, you did post the video, so I was "there" as much as I could be. One usually doesn't come from SF to SP to have a cup of coffee (unless Sacred Grounds is really that good!), or I misheard you stating where you were from - perhaps that was the other guy. The tone I got from your interaction with the police was one of sarcasm.

I'm not disputing your right to do what you did, just your method. And PLEASE don't tell me you were there JUST for the coffee. The posts prior to the "coffee trip" on the open carry website regarding the meet up there tend to negate that as the sole purpose.

ALSO, NOT TRYING TO ANTAGONIZE YOU, JUST RELAYING MY PERCEPTION OF THE EVENT

ipser
01-06-2010, 9:05 AM
While I'm not planning on OC'ing any time soon, I believe we need a multi-pronged approach to winning this battle. Legislative/political AND civil disobedience/activism. I respect these guys for having the balls to do what I do not have the balls to try. I really can't wait until shall issue comes, but I don't see the positivity of dissing on these activists. I think we need both approaches simultaneously to win this battle.

When I first came across Calguns I had hopes that it might function as a networking point for the coordination of a multi-pronged strategy such as you describe. It certainly has that potential.

Unfortunately, the central committee is fixated on a legal strategy and wants to subordinate all else to it much as the NRA wants to subordinate everything to a lobbying strategy.

I have not doubt that they will make a positive contribution to the 2A cause but there will never be any sort of coordinated strategy here.

The best that can be hoped for is that each faction will pursue it's own vision and strengths and that the squabling is kept to a civil minimum. Even that may be hoping for too much.

ChuckBooty
01-06-2010, 9:36 AM
When I first came across Calguns I had hopes that it might function as a networking point for the coordination of a multi-pronged strategy such as you describe. It certainly has that potential.

Unfortunately, the central committee is fixated on a legal strategy and wants to subordinate all else to it much as the NRA wants to subordinate everything to a lobbying strategy.

I have not doubt that they will make a positive contribution to the 2A cause but there will never be any sort of coordinated strategy here.

The best that can be hoped for is that each faction will pursue it's own vision and strengths and that the squabling is kept to a civil minimum. Even that may be hoping for too much.

True...but the multi-prong strategy only works if all the prongs are on the same fork, not just eating the same food. CGF has some tricks up their sleeve in courts and are afraid that the UOC'ers are going to force the hand of the legislatures to act before these court cases can be adjudicated. In this event, the legislatures act could then create a road block in court where previously there was none.

Kestryll
01-06-2010, 9:37 AM
I realize that. My question is: what in the world makes any of us believe that it won't change after incorporation, even if all UOCers stand down until then?
Right now California does not have a 2nd Amendment equivalent in our State Constitution.
This means that prior to Incorporation of the Heller ruling we do NOT have a right to keep and bear arms in California.

Yes, I know it's an inherent right but here in the reality of State law it's not recognized.

Once the Heller ruling is Incorporated under the 14th Amendment our RKBA in California will be secured by the 2nd Amendment of the National Constitution.

Once that occurs many laws that would now pass will not even make it to a vote as they will be deemed unconstitutional.
Any laws that do pass that violate the 2nd can then be challenged in court on the solid groundwork of a SCOTUS ruling affirming and applying the 2nd to California.

It's almost as if people (including Bill, Gene, etc.) think that the other side will just give everything up after incorporation, but I know our side is not that naive.
It's not a case of thinking the other side will just give up.
It's more a case of knowing that once Incorporation is in place the solid legal footing to prevent or overturn many of the existing or potentially proposed laws will be in place and in our favor where prior to Incorporation it was in the favor of the State.




I don't understand something here.

Doesn't the foregoing assume that, post-incorporation, the legislature will leave the carry laws alone and simply let them be struck down in the courts?
They'll have no choice but to leave them alone or at least to take a much more limited hand in them.
The RKBA will be the law of California under the Federal Constitution which takes much of it out of the State's hands.

Isn't that a rather naive assumption?
No, it's an application of legal structure.

Isn't it much more likely that the legislature will proactively pass laws to make life as difficult as possible for those who wish to carry at all?
They might try to but many of the Bills of that nature can be prevented prior to becoming law simply by challenging the Bill's Constitutionality prior to it ever being voted on.

If that is how it'll play out, then how do the actions of the UOCers right now have any effect whatsoever on what is to come?
Right now those Constitutional protections do not exist, this means that prior to Incorporation the Legislature CAN pass laws that ban it and other forms of carriage.

While it is likely these laws can be overturned after Incorporation it will be a loss of time, money and effort to do so. All of which can be better spent working on removing other bad laws like the AWB.


I fail to see how incorporation will change the fact that the CA politicians hate the idea of an armed citizenry...
It won't change their feelings but it will severely limit and in some cases remove their ability to act on that hate.

ipser
01-06-2010, 9:41 AM
True...but the multi-prong strategy only works if all the prongs are on the same fork, not just eating the same food. CGF has some tricks up their sleeve in courts and are afraid that the UOC'ers are going to force the hand of the legislatures to act before these court cases can be adjudicated. In this event, the legislatures act could then create a road block in court where previously there was none.

It would be good if the prongs could be organized into a fork but from what I've seen here and elsewhere (over several decades) that will never happen because each prong thinks that they should be the fork and everyone else is an idiot disrupting their carefully laid out plans.

So forget the fork metaphor or even dining philosophers. That would require a level of leadership that is just not present in the 2A movement.

MudCamper
01-06-2010, 9:46 AM
So forget the fork metaphor or even dining philosophers. That would require a level of leadership that is just not present in the 2A movement.

There's some good leadership. The problem with the 2A crowd (and a strength) is that it's members tend to be fiercely independently minded folks. Herding cats...

ipser
01-06-2010, 9:51 AM
There's some good leadership. The problem with the 2A crowd (and a strength) is that it's members tend to be fiercely independently minded folks. Herding cats...

Absolutely. Where's our Charlton Moses Heston who will herd the cats to the promised land. In the mean time, the various prongs will occassionally interfere with one another's strategy.

kcbrown
01-06-2010, 10:22 AM
It's not a case of thinking the other side will just give up.
It's more a case of knowing that once Incorporation is in place the solid legal footing to prevent or overturn many of the existing or potentially proposed laws will be in place and in our favor where prior to Incorporation it was in the favor of the State.


But how in the world is that even relevant? If a law is already on the books and is Unconstitutional, doesn't that imply that it can be challenged in court?

Why does it matter whether the law is passed before incorporation or after?

The way it's being presented, one would think that the timing of when a law is passed will affect its Constitutionality, and I'm very skeptical of that. If it doesn't affect its Constitutionality then how is the timing relevant at all except perhaps for the amount of money involved in defeating it?



It won't change their feelings but it will severely limit and in some cases remove their ability to act on that hate.Limit and remove it how? As I said, legislatures can and will enact Unconstitutional laws at their whim. There is no downside for them. All that happens is that it gets struck down in court later on, but in the meantime it costs money and time for those who get caught by the bad legislation. The legislators don't care about the costs to the state because that is just recovered via taxes anyway.

GrizzlyGuy
01-06-2010, 10:34 AM
But how in the world is that even relevant? If a law is already on the books and is Unconstitutional, doesn't that imply that it can be challenged in court?

Why does it matter whether the law is passed before incorporation or after?

The way it's being presented, one would think that the timing of when a law is passed will affect its Constitutionality, and I'm very skeptical of that. If it doesn't affect its Constitutionality then how is the timing relevant at all except perhaps for the amount of money involved in defeating it?

Limit and remove it how? As I said, legislatures can and will enact Unconstitutional laws at their whim. There is no downside for them. All that happens is that it gets struck down in court later on, but in the meantime it costs money and time for those who get caught by the bad legislation. The legislators don't care about the costs to the state because that is just recovered via taxes anyway.

Add me to the skeptics club, KC. We just witnessed:

1) The state legislature pass a law (AB 962) with illegal aspects since federal pre-emption already existed. I'm confident that CGF will succeed in whacking it, but that will take time and money.

2) The Congress is about to pass Obamacare which is clearly unconstitutional for a number of reasons, had a constitutional challenge mounted against it in the Senate, and still passed. Once Obama (a constitutional law scholar) signs the unified bill into law, it will be the law of the land until expensive and time-consuming constitutional challenges can be mounted against it.

I think that the widespread faith in 2A incorporation significantly changing the ballgame for us is mostly wishful thinking that ignores the reality of the political climate in this state.

Booshanky
01-06-2010, 10:42 AM
That's funny, I used to live right around the corner from there. I'd get coffee at sacred grounds all the time.

Racefiend
01-06-2010, 10:48 AM
But how in the world is that even relevant? If a law is already on the books and is Unconstitutional, doesn't that imply that it can be challenged in court?

Why does it matter whether the law is passed before incorporation or after?

The way it's being presented, one would think that the timing of when a law is passed will affect its Constitutionality, and I'm very skeptical of that. If it doesn't affect its Constitutionality then how is the timing relevant at all except perhaps for the amount of money involved in defeating it?

You are correct, it's about the amount of money AND TIME. Lets say you have case X. The legislature passes law Y, which severly hinders case X. Now you have to spend extra time and money to kill law Y so that you can get on with case X (and don't forget, you may lose case X if you can't take care of law Y before it's decision time on case X). Now, if for example, we say an average case takes 2yrs, you've now made case X take 4 years instead of 2, as you have to do case Y first, then do case X (or appeal case X if you lost due to law Y). Also, NRA/Calguns/SAF does not have unlimited resources (mapower/money). If it's using it's resources to take care of new legislation that is hindering current/proposed cases, it has to wait for those resources to become available to fight the existing laws we really want to take down.

We'd like to see CA gun laws go down in our lifetime :)

Limit and remove it how? As I said, legislatures can and will enact Unconstitutional laws at their whim. There is no downside for them. All that happens is that it gets struck down in court later on, but in the meantime it costs money and time for those who get caught by the bad legislation. The legislators don't care about the costs to the state because that is just recovered via taxes anyway.

The unconstitutionality of a law is another tool to block it's passage. It may not always work (in essence, votes are nothing more than opinions), but at least you have another argument before it's voted on to persuade legislators. Also, laws have a time period before they are enacted. You can take the law to court on constututional grounds before it ever takes effect (ex:AB962).

Without incorporation, you have one less argument to dissuade legislators on passing a law, and you don't have the legal recourse to strike it down before it takes effect.

wildhawker
01-06-2010, 11:06 AM
This is an entirely accurate assessment, and I thank you for making this post.

We're blessed with fantastic new core leadership and a substantial base of motivated gunnie/activists; this is new territory for 2A/RKBA. We've never had the communication tools as we do now or the ability to collaborate remotely as is present here and elsewhere. Historically, the closest thing to it was the MC program; however, we're blazing a new trail here and it's important to recognize the inherent qualities of our culture. They cannot be dismissed and will not evolve in a single generation.

-Brandon

There's some good leadership. The problem with the 2A crowd (and a strength) is that it's members tend to be fiercely independently minded folks. Herding cats...

wildhawker
01-06-2010, 11:18 AM
ipser, what you may not have recognized (or have elected not to) is that Calguns *is* a networking point for the coordination of a multi-pronged strategy.

The strategy that has been publicly discussed is quite farther-reaching than your comments suggest; I have a feeling that there is a fundamental distrust of certain comments and people which has caused some members to ignore the direct and indirect implications of the strategy. We will use the legal system to gain ground but it will be through grassroots that the territory is occupied. Keep in mind also that both of these create political pressure which can also be strategically applied.

I look forward to proving your prediction that "there will never be any sort of coordinated strategy here" false. I can assure you that we have a substantial number of volunteers ready and willing to mobilize in various capacities. Further, there are numerous project in various stages of planning and production which will be made public and organized into campaigns as is prudent.

I tend to think you're correct about each faction doing what it will in spite of the others; one can only hope that any damage caused by one can be mitigated by another.

When I first came across Calguns I had hopes that it might function as a networking point for the coordination of a multi-pronged strategy such as you describe. It certainly has that potential.

Unfortunately, the central committee is fixated on a legal strategy and wants to subordinate all else to it much as the NRA wants to subordinate everything to a lobbying strategy.

I have not doubt that they will make a positive contribution to the 2A cause but there will never be any sort of coordinated strategy here.

The best that can be hoped for is that each faction will pursue it's own vision and strengths and that the squabling is kept to a civil minimum. Even that may be hoping for too much.

Booshanky
01-06-2010, 11:26 AM
I haven't had a chance to read through this whole thread so this may be beating a dead horse, but I thought what that officer was saying was fairly reasonable. If you're going to be OC'ing in a place that's going to be sending out 20 cops and a helicopter, it's probably not a bad idea to call them up beforehand and say "hey, just FYI we're going to be doing this". And make sure to do it often, once a week or so. Eventually it'll be no big deal.

Unfortunately some areas tend to be more freaked out by firearms than others. The only way around that is time and exposure.

ipser
01-06-2010, 11:37 AM
ipser, what you may not have recognized (or have elected not to) is that Calguns *is* a networking point for the coordination of a multi-pronged strategy.
The potential is clearly there. As for execution, that's yet to be seen as even you seem to implicitly concede further below.

The strategy that has been publicly discussed is quite farther-reaching than your comments suggest; I have a feeling that there is a fundamental distrust of certain comments and people which has caused some members to ignore the direct and indirect implications of the strategy. We will use the legal system to gain ground but it will be through grassroots that the territory is occupied. Keep in mind also that both of these create political pressure which can also be strategically applied.
From what I've seen, Calguns is a great forum for legal advice and discussion. If I had a legal question or problem, this is where I'd come. But as for a grand strategy, I've yet to see it even adequately appreciated.

I look forward to proving your prediction that "there will never be any sort of coordinated strategy here" false. I can assure you that we have a substantial number of volunteers ready and willing to mobilize in various capacities. Further, there are numerous project in various stages of planning and production which will be made public and organized into campaigns as is prudent.
I, too, hope that I will be proven wrong on this. In the mean time, I'll continue to appreciate the efforts of others following various strategies irrespective of whose feathers get ruffled in the process.

I tend to think you're correct about each faction doing what it will in spite of the others; one can only hope that any damage caused by one can be mitigated by another.
And the opportunities not pursued by one are pursued by another.

Eckolaker
01-06-2010, 11:44 AM
Add me to the skeptics club, KC. We just witnessed:

1) The state legislature pass a law (AB 962) with illegal aspects since federal pre-emption already existed. I'm confident that CGF will succeed in whacking it, but that will take time and money.

2) The Congress is about to pass Obamacare which is clearly unconstitutional for a number of reasons, had a constitutional challenge mounted against it in the Senate, and still passed. Once Obama (a constitutional law scholar) signs the unified bill into law, it will be the law of the land until expensive and time-consuming constitutional challenges can be mounted against it.

I think that the widespread faith in 2A incorporation significantly changing the ballgame for us is mostly wishful thinking that ignores the reality of the political climate in this state.

Very well said.

When incorporation back fires, what is plan B?

6172crew
01-06-2010, 11:51 AM
When I first came across Calguns I had hopes that it might function as a networking point for the coordination of a multi-pronged strategy such as you describe. It certainly has that potential.

Unfortunately, the central committee is fixated on a legal strategy and wants to subordinate all else to it much as the NRA wants to subordinate everything to a lobbying strategy.

I have not doubt that they will make a positive contribution to the 2A cause but there will never be any sort of coordinated strategy here.The best that can be hoped for is that each faction will pursue it's own vision and strengths and that the squabling is kept to a civil minimum. Even that may be hoping for too much.

Just goes to show you that if you that you have the "What did you do for me yesterday". How many CGs meets have you been to? Did you go to any of the court hearings as of late? Were you here when GCs set of a fund for one of our members who as in LA county jail?

Sorry but your wrong...in more ways than one.

6172crew
01-06-2010, 11:56 AM
Very well said.

When incorporation back fires, what is plan B?

Why would you take what he said and not take what CGF says? CGF says it is going to cost more and be alot harder to fight bad laws without a 2nd ammendment.

All the UOC carry guys have to do is wait, its the rest of us who will have to pay up later if they are wrong.

If CGF is wrong you had only to wait 5 months.

Who here think that is too uch to ask?

rynando
01-06-2010, 12:12 PM
According to the Bradys we're all ignorant troglodytes pushing this poor business owner around because he dared to not want someone carrying a gun in HIS place of business.

We're "ignorant troglodytes" to the Bradys and their kind regardless of what we do. They're never going to like us.

And this was handed to them on a platter.

The Brady's platter is full . . . people get shot and killed in this state every day in way more newsworthy crimes. I doubt much hay will be made here.

R

kcbrown
01-06-2010, 3:17 PM
Why would you take what he said and not take what CGF says? CGF says it is going to cost more and be alot harder to fight bad laws without a 2nd ammendment.


If that's what they're saying, then that fact is irrelevant.

If bad laws get passed before incorporation, then we just wait until incorporation before challenging them. Anyone stupid enough to try to challenge those laws before incorporation should be left to fend for themselves.

The claim appears to be that those bad laws won't be passed after incorporation. Because whether they get passed before or after is irrelevant: they'll have to be challenged all the same.

I'm skeptical of the claim that said bad laws won't be passed after incorporation. I think they will be and that they'll have to be challenged and struck down in the courts. Worse, I fully expect the legislature to keep passing those laws even after previous versions have been struck down. And why wouldn't they? They haven't a thing to lose by doing so.



All the UOC carry guys have to do is wait, its the rest of us who will have to pay up later if they are wrong.
Pay up how?

The only way we really save anything is if the bad laws in question aren't passed at all after incorporation. How likely do you really think that is?



If CGF is wrong you had only to wait 5 months.

Who here think that is too uch to ask?This is the crux of the matter. It doesn't hurt to wait a few more months until we have incorporation, just in case.

What the UOCers are doing is potentially eliminating a low-probability case. Which means that, in the end, all they're doing is lowering the probability that a low-probability event (non-passage of bad gun laws post-incorporation) will happen. But it's still a low-probability event either way.


I agree that what the UOCers are doing may pose some risk to the overall strategy, but I'm not at all convinced that the risk in question is nearly as high as has been implied.

But then, I'm not a lawyer so I haven't a clue what kinds of legal options are available in one scenario (no bad laws passed before incorporation) that aren't in the other (bad laws passed before incorporation).

zeleny
01-06-2010, 3:23 PM
True, but the general public needs to be aware of the following limitations to Pruneyard. First, it only applies in California and a small number of other states, not federally or even in the majority of states. Second, it only applies to a small number of locations, that being multi-tenant complexes that are open to the general public (not in condo association shared areas that are not open to the general public, nor in single-tenant locations, famously not in Costco parking lots). Third, it can easily be limited, in particular to exclude activities that create an annoyance to customers or employees, and guns fit that description. Fourth, it is on the verge of being overturned (which can be done by the California supreme court without help from the US supreme court, since it is based on the California constitution), with its last test being a very close 4-to-3 decision.Well said throughout.Conservatives (such as the majority of the US supreme court, and the strengthening minority of the California supreme court) have long considered Pruneyard to be a thorn in their side, and would love to overturn it. It would be quite possible that using Pruneyard to carry guns in public might convince the four progressive justices on the California supreme court to switch to the other side, and also oppose Pruneyard, and then it's gone.In other words, unpopular exercise of a Constitutional right is likely to cause its revocation. The likelihoods of repression are as may be, but taking them as grounds for self-censorship strikes me as undignified.

bulgron
01-06-2010, 4:07 PM
If the UOCers push this thing hard enough that the legislature passes a bill banning unloaded open carry, I wonder if it's possible that somewhere down the road we could find ourselves in a situation where the courts say your right to openly carry a gun in public is protected, but only if it's loaded.

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

GrizzlyGuy
01-06-2010, 4:10 PM
Why would you take what he said and not take what CGF says? CGF says it is going to cost more and be alot harder to fight bad laws without a 2nd ammendment.

All the UOC carry guys have to do is wait, its the rest of us who will have to pay up later if they are wrong.

If CGF is wrong you had only to wait 5 months.

Who here think that is too uch to ask?

MANY, apparently. See the various UOC threads or visit this forum (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/). People can wish that not to be true, but it is nevertheless true. The world has changed, the genie is out of the bottle, and the genie isn't going back in. A new reality now exists.

My assessment of why that happened is here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3598529&postcount=44), and my suggestion for how to respond to this new reality is here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3599133#post3599133). Wildhawker hints that a similar idea may already be on the CGF shelf here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3599188&postcount=55). Could it be time to grab it off the shelf and deploy it earlier than originally desired?

Analogy: a parade has suddenly appeared in front of CGF's window. They didn't plan for the parade to happen until much later, and wish that parade wasn't there right now, but it is real and not an illusion. More and more enthusiastic people are joining the parade every day. CGF's options:

1) Jump in front of (or at least walk along side of) the parade and help mentor/guide/lead it to maximize benefits and minimize risk.

2) Follow the parade.

3) Do nothing, adhere to the original strategy with no tactical changes, keep fingers crossed, and hope no harm comes from the parade's enthusiastic activities in the next five months.

OFF THE TABLE OPTION: Yell "Stop!" at the parade goers, or plead with them to stop, and expect them all to actually stop parading and go home.

Not to go Godwin, but there was once a guy who had (in conjunction with his generals) developed a pretty darned good strategy and plan for conquering the guys to his east. Everything went well, but then the reality on the ground changed. Rather than adapt, he refused to budge from his original plan, denied his generals the ability to make even a tactical retreat, and... ended up pushing non-existent armies around on his grand-plan board right up to the time he died.

He was obviously a bad guy, but nobody wants to see history repeat with the good guys losing instead. Reality IS, it must be dealt with, no matter how uncomfortable, surprising or disconcerting it may be.

MudCamper
01-06-2010, 5:36 PM
MANY, apparently. See the various UOC threads or visit this forum (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/). People can wish that not to be true, but it is nevertheless true. The world has changed, the genie is out of the bottle, and the genie isn't going back in. A new reality now exists.

Every time a new newspaper article comes out about UOC or another TV news spot runs, we see a whole bunch of new members join up on OCDO. On COCDO the site traffic increased by 10 fold for several days after each TV news story ran. The anti-2A press is actually creating more open carriers.

If the UOCers push this thing hard enough that the legislature passes a bill banning unloaded open carry

My question at this point is, if the CA legislature passed such a law in record time (before June), would it not take effect until 2011? And if we win 2A incorporation in June of 2010, would it be possible to block the new law on constitutional grounds before it goes into effect?

RP1911
01-06-2010, 5:43 PM
They can do an urgency bill which becomes law upon passage if not vetoed by the Governor. However, it requires aye votes by 2/3 of both Senate and Assembly.

zeleny
01-06-2010, 6:16 PM
I concede that point, but ask to consider the following. "Rights" are never absolute (in spite of everything a whole bunch of absolutists on all sides claim), but are a social convention, and as such a function of the values of the society. And since societies contain a multitude of individuals and viewpoints, the rule of law is distilled from the view of the overwhelming majority of the member. As an example: In some societies, eating humans (for nutrition, or for religious ceremonies) was considered acceptable, and humans were even bred and kept for this purpose. Today in a western society, it is so inacceptable and taboo that is has given rise to humor/horror of the "soylent green" variety. The overwhelming majority of us does not want to be eaten (other than as an exclamation in pornographic movies), and this causes cannibalism to be outlawed. This extreme example shows that what some societies consider to be their right, others consider abhorrent. There might still be a very small antropophagous minority in our society, but the strong conviction and large number of the opposing side makes that irrelevant.

Now what happens is that certain applications of rights are very much in the center of societal consensus. For example, speaking one's mind on issues of legislation in a forum such as this is a core application of the first amendment, and as such exercising that right is unlikely to harm that right, rather on the contrary. On the other hand, other free speech (such as discussing detailed plans for the assassination of the president, or advocating for erotic acts of the NAMBLA variety) is on the fringe of free speech rights, so much so that the free speech right has had exceptions carved out so this form of speech is no longer legal. Sometimes, rights are so unpopular with the majority that insisting on exercising them, in particular if done with no purpose other than to advocate for those unpopular rights, is likely to cause society to redefine the scope, and remove those rights.

So, I have to (grudgingly?) agree with the following modified version of your statement:

Unpopular exercise of a fringe case of a Constitutional right, in particular if done for no useful purpose, is indeed likely to cause its revocation. This sentence probably summarizes the CGF's position on OC.Thanks for your thoughtful response. Please note that discussing detailed plans for the assassination of the president is a crime only in the context of making or plotting an actual threat or attempting or conspiring to execute it, as distinct from, say, plotting a movie about a fictional assassination (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365246-president-bush-assassinated-in-new-tv-docudrama.do). On the other hand, advocating homosexual paedophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association) short of engaging therein is perfectly legal. This last case makes my point, inasmuch as the rights most worth defending are those that are so unpopular with the majority that insisting on exercising them is likely to cause their removal. Protecting the right to the most appalling expression makes for the difference between freedom for all and selfish regard for the like-minded.

hoffmang
01-06-2010, 8:25 PM
Analogy: a parade has suddenly appeared in front of CGF's window.

One UOC'er has lost his gun rights and been convicted. Another will also. A third probably will not be convicted, but he's going to be out real money, a bunch of grief, and a lot of his time.

UOC activities can not be leveraged while there is no incorporation since there is no right to enforce. Further, causing mass hysteria will only succeed in getting laws detrimental to the carry outcomes passed. What is most likely to happen is that open carry will be fully and completely banned by UOC activity and we'll only be able to CCW.

If that's what you want, carry on UOCing at this time.

-Gene

zeleny
01-06-2010, 8:52 PM
If [you believe the Party line and] that's what you want, carry on UOCing at this time.Fixed that for you.

Vinz
01-06-2010, 9:00 PM
I haven't had a chance to read through this whole thread so this may be beating a dead horse, but I thought what that officer was saying was fairly reasonable. If you're going to be OC'ing in a place that's going to be sending out 20 cops and a helicopter, it's probably not a bad idea to call them up beforehand and say "hey, just FYI we're going to be doing this". And make sure to do it often, once a week or so. Eventually it'll be no big deal.

Unfortunately some areas tend to be more freaked out by firearms than others. The only way around that is time and exposure.

I was talking with a few outsiders and it seems one fear amonst law enforcment and the public is the fear of a crrime being commited by a person OC and no call was made because firearms becoming the a common place in public.


vinz

hoffmang
01-06-2010, 9:22 PM
Fixed that for you.

Content free contradiction remains your specialty.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
01-06-2010, 10:04 PM
Fixed that for you.

So, do you have a solution to the conundrum?

zeleny
01-06-2010, 10:55 PM
So, do you have a solution to the conundrum?Think for yourself regardless of the Party line.

Gray Peterson
01-06-2010, 11:02 PM
Think for yourself regardless of the Party line.

And what is the "Party line"?

wildhawker
01-06-2010, 11:25 PM
And what is the "Party line"?

It's whatever he perceives to be in conflict with his own worldview that is expressed by more than one person.

zeleny
01-06-2010, 11:25 PM
And what is the "Party line"?See above (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3601726#post3601726).

zeleny
01-06-2010, 11:29 PM
It's whatever he perceives to be in conflict with his own worldview that is expressed by more than one person.Cute but dumb. A Party line is an opinion held in concert by a mutual admiration society sworn to deprecate all non-joiners.

IrishPirate
01-06-2010, 11:42 PM
Right about now someone will post the photo of the black panthers in the statehouse circa 1967...

who would do that?.....
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j260/cookie5_12/gun%20stuff/Seattle_Panthers4.jpg
:D:D:D

seriously....i can see why the next-day protesters would get upset, and how they would want to make a point....but it's the hot headedness, not the message, that ended up getting accross to the cops, anti's, and store owners. That was a serious step backwards for us. I'll be the first to admit that when i first heard about UOC I wanted to run outside and walk around the block with my unloaded gun on my hip, just because I could. I didn't do it because i'm in a school zone, but just feeling that i had the power to shove that in the faces of the anti's really made me feel good. Now that i've done a little more research and had the good talk with many calgunners, i'm glad i never did. I think it will be much more beneficial to the gun owning community as a whole to wait until we get incorporation. that way when someone gets arrested for it, we can have the media on our side that their rights were violated. it's a shame that those guys haven't found Calguns yet.....otherwise i doubt they would have been there.

hoffmang
01-06-2010, 11:45 PM
Cute but dumb. A Party line is an opinion held in concert by a mutual admiration society sworn to deprecate all non-joiners.
Still more content free disagreement.

I sometimes think you're simply annoyed that you can get no one to join you on your not firearms related windmill tilt.

-Gene

Sinixstar
01-06-2010, 11:56 PM
I was talking with a few outsiders and it seems one fear amonst law enforcment and the public is the fear of a crrime being commited by a person OC and no call was made because firearms becoming the a common place in public.


vinz

That's a pretty big leap of logic there. I would think there's a huge difference between being accustomed to seeing someone with a gun on their hip, and seeing someone with a gun on in their hand pointed at somebody's head.

I OC'd all the time when I lived in NV, and saw many other people who did as well. It was no big deal to see someone carrying there. Yet somehow I think I would still be able to distinguish somebody OC'ing from someone robbing a liquor store. I dunno - maybe that's just me. I R T3h Sm4rtiez.

wildhawker
01-07-2010, 12:00 AM
Cute but dumb. A Party line is an opinion held in concert by a mutual admiration society sworn to deprecate all non-joiners.

Now that we have that cleared up... are we discussing something or is this the "I Disagree With the CGF Conspiracy" party line section?

zeleny
01-07-2010, 12:11 AM
Still more content free disagreement.

I sometimes think you're simply annoyed that you can get no one to join you on your not firearms related windmill tilt.Thank you for thinking sometimes. It's a fine habit. Consider doing it more often.

hoffmang
01-07-2010, 12:15 AM
Thank you for thinking sometimes. It's a fine habit. Consider doing it more often.

Posting content instead of vapid troll like responses would be a better habit for you. You are now at three content free posts in response to me.

Please explain, using facts, why UOC is a good idea at this time.

-Gene

Vinz
01-07-2010, 12:23 AM
That's a pretty big leap of logic there. I would think there's a huge difference between being accustomed to seeing someone with a gun on their hip, and seeing someone with a gun on in their hand pointed at somebody's head.

I OC'd all the time when I lived in NV, and saw many other people who did as well. It was no big deal to see someone carrying there. Yet somehow I think I would still be able to distinguish somebody OC'ing from someone robbing a liquor store. I dunno - maybe that's just me. I R T3h Sm4rtiez.

though it might seem like a big leap but it is surprisingly a common thought, these are the concerns that I have heard.

At what point does the act turn into action? Do we wait for the seemingly friendly UOC to draw his weapon to create harm? Lets remember it only takes 2 seconds to load and charge a handgun and even less than that to pull a loaded gun and engage in a crime. Criminals don't care about laws.

Do we think only law abiding citizens are going to use OC?
How would one know? Can't investigate if its a stolen gun. Can't find out if the carrier is a felon. I am only asking questions cause everyone else seems to ignore the other concerns.

Remember its the what if's that will nail us everytime.

I am still waiting to see what happens when we do have an Oakland UOC meet up. 98th and Edes is my old stomping ground and it would be an interesting meet site.



vinz

zeleny
01-07-2010, 3:56 AM
Please explain, using facts, why UOC is a good idea at this time.Human responses aren't, and can't be, ruled by facts. Faced with peaceful exercise of a Constitutional right, reasonable people are more likely to acknowledge it than attempt to infringe it in response to an imaginary threat. Whereas it behooves anyone self-identified as a proponent of rights to abstain from curtailing their exercise through promotion of herd behavior.

kcbrown
01-07-2010, 6:05 AM
I think it will be much more beneficial to the gun owning community as a whole to wait until we get incorporation. that way when someone gets arrested for it, we can have the media on our side that their rights were violated.


What in the world makes you think the media will suddenly be on our side post-incorporation??? That seems to me an incredibly naive position to take.

Understand this: post-incorporation, nobody is going to immediately change their beliefs or position. Their actions will not change, either. The only thing that will change is our ability to challenge 2A-violating laws in court, and that's all.

But for some things, that will be sufficient.


Don't confuse legal victory with social victory. They're not the same thing at all.

Kestryll
01-07-2010, 7:04 AM
Cute but dumb.

Thank you for thinking sometimes. It's a fine habit. Consider doing it more often.

Well, I see we've moved from real discussion to childish insults and derogatory comments.

Congratulations, now you're REALLY a 'non-joiner'.

Maybe when you grow up and learn how to discuss and debate above the Jr. High Schoolyard level you can try again.

Gray Peterson
01-07-2010, 7:19 AM
Wasn't this guy banned once before for doing the same thing, Kes?

Kestryll
01-07-2010, 7:34 AM
Wasn't this guy banned once before for doing the same thing, Kes?

I try to give second chances but sometimes it just doesn't work.

GrizzlyGuy
01-07-2010, 7:44 AM
One UOC'er has lost his gun rights and been convicted. Another will also. A third probably will not be convicted, but he's going to be out real money, a bunch of grief, and a lot of his time.

UOC activities can not be leveraged while there is no incorporation since there is no right to enforce. Further, causing mass hysteria will only succeed in getting laws detrimental to the carry outcomes passed. What is most likely to happen is that open carry will be fully and completely banned by UOC activity and we'll only be able to CCW.

If that's what you want, carry on UOCing at this time.


I understand your position and strategy Gene, and I'm not challenging it. I am simply observing that there is a small and growing group of activists pursuing UOC now, and they aren't going to stop. Those activities pose a risk to your strategy.

Wouldn't it be better if they (the ones not willing to stop) could somehow be persuaded to conduct their activities in ways that are less provocative to LE, and project a more positive public image (e.g. a walk-a-thon benefiting a popular charity held outside the urban areas)? That would lower the probability of "mass hysteria" occurring. Even if we stipulate that 'no good can come from UOC at this time' for the sake of argument, wouldn't that at least make it less bad?

I'm not suggesting changing your strategy. I'm only suggesting a minor tactical adjustment so as to minimize the risks to your strategy.

ipser
01-07-2010, 8:46 AM
I understand your position and strategy Gene, and I'm not challenging it. I am simply observing that there is a small and growing group of activists pursuing UOC now, and they aren't going to stop. Those activities pose a risk to your strategy.

Wouldn't it be better if they (the ones not willing to stop) could somehow be persuaded to conduct their activities in ways that are less provocative to LE, and project a more positive public image (e.g. a walk-a-thon benefiting a popular charity held outside the urban areas)? That would lower the probability of "mass hysteria" occurring. Even if we stipulate that 'no good can come from UOC at this time' for the sake of argument, wouldn't that at least make it less bad?

I'm not suggesting changing your strategy. I'm only suggesting a minor tactical adjustment so as to minimize the risks to your strategy.

GrizzlyGuy, you're making a key, but subtle point that bears closer examination.

While it's all well and good to demand proof or evidence of others before we are persuaded, it's naive to forget that they are quite capable of acting on their own beliefs without anyone's permission here. Any strategy that fails to take that into account is not a good strategy and anyone who pursues such a strategy won't engender much confidence.

wildhawker
01-07-2010, 9:46 AM
Ipser, I'll repost 2 comments from another thread due to their relevance here.

A number of people have suggested that, if UOC activism is to continue pending 2A incorporation, it be performed in a manner more conducive to mitigating exposure and fostering some goodwill in the communities. Note that we've not seen this sort of strategic operation by the currently-active UOC group because they are either a) incapable or b) uninterested.

For all the talk of "don't tell me 'no', give me options" there is no evidence to suggest that the active UOC camp has any intention of doing anything other than what they wish to do. You're absolutely correct, people can act free of permission and a basis in logic and reason; I must ask, however, if "irrational and arrogant" is how we should wish our cause to be viewed (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3602504&postcount=72). Further, this sort of activity flies in the face of the UOC camps proferred justification for maintaining their participation: outreach to the common citizen and modification of the currently-negative perception of gun owners. Do you at your core feel that we're witnessing such as the result of planned militant actions designed not to bridge the chasm but highlight its presence?

LEAs, citizens and policymakers do not distinguish between the various subsects of "gun people"- we either are "one of them [gun nuts]" or not.


Those are all great questions, Wildhawker. Let me rephrase them slightly so as to hopefully take into account the reality on the ground (as you alluded to in your comment):

1. Given that these activities will continue, how can they be conducted so as to get the best possible publicity? (or least harmful depending on a person's perspective)

2. Given that these activities will continue, how can they be structured to maximize and leverage gains in political capital while minimizing the chances of legal violations occurring?

3. Hold that thought...



Most of the UOC activities have been in urban areas with population, LEAs and media that are not predisposed to enthusiastically accept the message being conveyed by the activists, or for LEAs to respect their 4A rights. In the San Pedro instance (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=255863), that particular urban area is even more challenging. Through no fault of Army and the other activists there, LAPD overreacted, caused understandable anxiety for the nearby non-participating citizens (helicopter hovering, streets blocked, many LEOs = understandable anxiety), and setup the conditions that could have led to a negative outcome in terms of publicity.

So... given that UOC activities will continue, can they continue in a way that answers the above questions? I think so. One possibility:

Organize a UOC walk-a-thon that benefits a noncontroversial charity that is supported by the majority of Californians: veterans assistance, cancer research, SPCA, etc.

Conduct the walk-a-thon on a well-traveled and pedestrian-safe highway outside the "hostile" urban areas. We obviously want it to be a safe location, and well-traveled means greater exposure to more average people whizzing by. Those people would see a peaceful walk for a good cause, by people who are only incidentally carrying firearms.

Choose media that are most likely to do fair and balanced reporting, and alert them in advance.

Choose one or two activists to be public ambassadors and spokesmen to both the media and law enforcement (should LE show up). Prior to the event, develop talking points and hold a conference call where these spokesmen are challenged with difficult questions and practice their responses. This is much like how politicians prepare for debates.

Consider doing the walk-a-thon with rifles (not black ones, just the tame looking ones) instead of handguns, since people walking down highways with rifles is not uncommon in some areas. Thanks to propaganda from the Brady Bunch and other antis, I also think people are more likely to associate "handgun" with "bad guy".

Designate a walk-a-thon safety officer (like a RSO) who inspects and assures that all firearms are being lawfully carried, traffic laws and other laws are respected, etc.

OPTIONAL: Inform LE in advance that the walk-a-thon will occur, so that they will have an opportunity to plan their response (if any) accordingly. I say "optional" because I'm not sure if the activists would accept this idea, and there may be regions outside of urban areas where it may not be necessary (not all LE agencies dispatch a helicopter, dozens of officers, and block streets).

I could go on, but see Oak's graph. :D

You may not believe that an event like this would produce positive results or that it is desirable at this time. But given that OC events will continue regardless, wouldn't you agree that conducting them in this way would at least minimize risk to CGF's strategy?

You've offered some reasonable suggestions not unlike what Gene has in the past. If UOC is going to continue, it should predominantly include non-skinhead non-white males.

I completely agree with this strategy and feel that, if UOC activists are going to maintain participation while we wait for McDonald/Palmer/Sykes, they should be wise enough to consider such.

That said, I've witnessed no movement to such a position which tells me that they either refuse to acknowledge the realities of their own movement or they cannot organize such a diverse event in a context less likely to cause damage and more likely to foster some goodwill. Further, I expect that we'll not see it as the primary form of UOC expression until after incorporation and through Calguns events. It's fair to say that my skepticism of UOCs practical value is based more on the historically-consistent approach by the UOC movement than UOC itself.

ipser
01-07-2010, 10:13 AM
Ipser, I'll repost 2 comments from another thread due to their relevance here.
Thanks for the repost, it is relevant and I hadn't seen that particular discussion, though I'd seen some less complete versions of the same.

A number of people have suggested that, if UOC activism is to continue pending 2A incorporation, it be performed in a manner more conducive to mitigating exposure and fostering some goodwill in the communities. Note that we've not seen this sort of strategic operation by the currently-active UOC group because they are either a) incapable or b) uninterested.

For all the talk of "don't tell me 'no', give me options" there is no evidence to suggest that the active UOC camp has any intention of doing anything other than what they wish to do.
Frankly, I am skeptical of this claim.

You're absolutely correct, people can act free of permission and a basis in logic and reason; I must ask, however, if "irrational and arrogant" is how we should wish our cause to be viewed (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3602504&postcount=72).
But I can appreciate why the UOC movement doesn't pay attention to the Calguns complaints and demands given this.

You think they are arrogant idiots who won't listen to reason and you are surprised that they won't listen to you?

Further, this sort of activity flies in the face of the UOC camps proferred justification for maintaining their participation: outreach to the common citizen and modification of the currently-negative perception of gun owners. Do you at your core feel that we're witnessing such as the result of planned militant actions designed not to bridge the chasm but highlight its presence?

LEAs, citizens and policymakers do not distinguish between the various subsects of "gun people"- we either are "one of them [gun nuts]" or not.
From what I've seen described and on video, I see some events that appear positive and others that make me cringe (e.g. the original event of this thread).

If the question you are asking is "isn't the UOC movement hoplessly detrimential ot the RKBA cause" I don't see that. I remain comfortably seated on the fence for reasons that we have discussed here and in the past.

If the question is what can Calguns do the mitigate the downside risk and consequences of the UOC movement it's not at all clear that the current approach is best. And that's the issue that GrizzlyGuy raised (and which I have raised in the past).

Asmodai
01-07-2010, 11:39 AM
Wouldn't it be better if they (the ones not willing to stop) could somehow be persuaded to conduct their activities in ways that are less provocative to LE, and project a more positive public image (e.g. a walk-a-thon benefiting a popular charity held outside the urban areas)? That would lower the probability of "mass hysteria" occurring. Even if we stipulate that 'no good can come from UOC at this time' for the sake of argument, wouldn't that at least make it less bad?

I'm not suggesting changing your strategy. I'm only suggesting a minor tactical adjustment so as to minimize the risks to your strategy.

Well said sir.

My problem is while I recognize the right to UOC, the intellectual dishonesty of some individuals performing UOC "stunts" bothers me. Some do it to exercise their right and educate people which is laudable and not what I would label a stunt, others perform it purely for spectacle and to antagonize law enforcement under the guise of exercising their "right" and "educating the public" and that only harms multiple pro gun-related causes. EDITED [Both displays are touching tender spots right now, which is why the "cease and desist" plea was voiced]

Then to drape some of these activities with a "civil rights movement" cloak, while video taglines or forum posts mock "look at stupid sergeant so-and-so putting my 1911 magazine in backwards" or "see officer X display his total lack of knowledge of UOC laws while he illegally detains me - ha ha" is the height of absurdity. If they think that is persecution, they have another thing coming...

I agree with the principle, not with some of the activity related to it.

People really have far too much time on their hands these days. We need a really big meteor strike or a good old fashioned plague to keep everyone occupied...

Merle
01-07-2010, 12:49 PM
I read this and get a nagging thought of the UOC methods being used are similar to the ones used by black people. In many of the replies, the acronym UOC is interchangeable with black.

One is a fundamental right and the other is a civil right. I don't think the marches held off, nor were blacks less activist as they waited for the cases to wind through the court system. I would hazard to guess that the activism and growing non-black support helped swayed the courts and their judgements.

When you see the picture of armed men on the capital steps, do people see the guns, or black men first? There are armed officers present but the black man stands out and appears more menacing, especially armed.

Asking people to stand down, as they recognize their rights being violated daily, in hopes an appropriate outcome from the courts is coming goes against human nature and history.

Asmodai
01-07-2010, 1:18 PM
Asking people to stand down, as they recognize their rights being violated daily, in hopes an appropriate outcome from the courts is coming goes against human nature and history.

And there's the heart of the matter. No ones rights are being violated. Everyone gets sent along their merry way after the fact. No lynchings, no water cannons, no dogs - maybe a police helicopter at $700 per hour in San Pedro...

Exercising an existing right of which no one is familiar with and causes alarm to many who are not in the know will result in detainment and assessment. It is obvious that many UOCers expect this and hope to be on the receiving end of it. They get a kick from it. This is not the way to reaquaint the general public with this seldom used right.

Again, comparing something that ALREADY is a Right (but little known or understood) that a few people have decided to rally around recently - to the Black Civil Rights Movement is ridiculous and insulting. It shows a typical 21st century lack of understanding of the real suffering and toil behind many REAL causes in recent history. And please don't lecture me on how Blacks had the 14th Amendment at the time blah blah blah. It is not the same no matter how important people want to make this particular 2nd Amendment spin off cause.

hoffmang
01-07-2010, 4:26 PM
I understand your position and strategy Gene, and I'm not challenging it. I am simply observing that there is a small and growing group of activists pursuing UOC now, and they aren't going to stop. Those activities pose a risk to your strategy.


It's not a risk to "my strategy." It is a risk to your gun rights.

-Gene

lavgrunt
01-07-2010, 5:51 PM
And there's the heart of the matter. No ones rights are being violated. Everyone gets sent along their merry way after the fact. No lynchings, no water cannons, no dogs - maybe a police helicopter at $700 per hour in San Pedro...

Exercising an existing right of which no one is familiar with and causes alarm to many who are not in the know will result in detainment and assessment. It is obvious that many UOCers expect this and hope to be on the receiving end of it. They get a kick from it. This is not the way to reaquaint the general public with this seldom used right.

Again, comparing something that ALREADY is a Right (but little known or understood) that a few people have decided to rally around recently - to the Black Civil Rights Movement is ridiculous and insulting. It shows a typical 21st century lack of understanding of the real suffering and toil behind many REAL causes in recent history. And please don't lecture me on how Blacks had the 14th Amendment at the time blah blah blah. It is not the same no matter how important people want to make this particular 2nd Amendment spin off cause.

Very, very well said......++++1,000,000 !!!!

HowardW56
01-07-2010, 6:03 PM
Thank you for thinking sometimes. It's a fine habit. Consider doing it more often.

↑ Who is this guy? ↑

wildhawker
01-07-2010, 6:24 PM
↑ Who is this guy? ↑


I like to refer to him as "the artist formerly known as Zeleny".

http://www.subrah.com/subrah-iyar/
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/

wildhawker
01-07-2010, 6:30 PM
And there's the heart of the matter. No ones rights are being violated.

While I may disagree with the strategy of UOC activists, their rights are most certainly being violated in some documented circumstances (and, I expect, many that have not been).

It's quite appalling to me that we'd attempt to make excuses for what have been in some cases egregious behavior on the part of the law enforcement officers and their respective agencies.

HowardW56
01-07-2010, 6:35 PM
I like to refer to him as "the artist formerly known as Zeleny".

http://www.subrah.com/subrah-iyar/
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/

:rofl2:

Theseus
01-07-2010, 10:16 PM
And there's the heart of the matter. No ones rights are being violated. Everyone gets sent along their merry way after the fact. No lynchings, no water cannons, no dogs - maybe a police helicopter at $700 per hour in San Pedro...

Exercising an existing right of which no one is familiar with and causes alarm to many who are not in the know will result in detainment and assessment. It is obvious that many UOCers expect this and hope to be on the receiving end of it. They get a kick from it. This is not the way to reaquaint the general public with this seldom used right.

Again, comparing something that ALREADY is a Right (but little known or understood) that a few people have decided to rally around recently - to the Black Civil Rights Movement is ridiculous and insulting. It shows a typical 21st century lack of understanding of the real suffering and toil behind many REAL causes in recent history. And please don't lecture me on how Blacks had the 14th Amendment at the time blah blah blah. It is not the same no matter how important people want to make this particular 2nd Amendment spin off cause.

I can tell you now that I neither desired or got a kick from police interaction. I agree they could have better things to do with their time and efforts and would rather they spend their time doing that. If I could open carry with no issues criminal or government I would be happier than a turd in a punch bowl.

Is OC exactly like the civil rights movement, not quite. We are not lynched and hung from trees from consorting with white women or sitting at a whites only establishment. To believe they are completely the same is ridiculous I agree. But to say that our fight for rights is not the same in the fact that it is just that, a fight for recognition of our right, then I agree.

But I ask you one question. . . How many gun laws that we have now were not originally designed as a means to prevent blacks and/or other minorities from owning, possessing, and using firearms? And the answer is few.

lavgrunt
01-07-2010, 11:34 PM
↑ Who is this guy? ↑


........Tool

Asmodai
01-08-2010, 4:25 AM
I can tell you now that I neither desired or got a kick from police interaction. I agree they could have better things to do with their time and efforts and would rather they spend their time doing that. If I could open carry with no issues criminal or government I would be happier than a turd in a punch bowl.

More power to you then. Like I said, there are two types of UOCer out there. If you are the one who doesn't jump with glee when you cause a huge ruckus, I'm with you brother!

It's quite appalling to me that we'd attempt to make excuses for what have been in some cases egregious behavior on the part of the law enforcement officers and their respective agencies.

Hey, go through life kicking enough dogs, a few are bound to bite you back despite the fact they are supposed to be man's best friend.

GrizzlyGuy
01-08-2010, 5:35 AM
It's not a risk to "my strategy." It is a risk to your gun rights.

I know, but if your strategy can be smoothly and successfully implemented without it being compromised by events that arenít under your or my direct control, the gun rights of all Californians will be better secured. Unfortunately Iím not one of the aforementioned influential and respected folks (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3603920#post3603920) who might be able to use their credibility and skills of negotiation and persuasion to potentially avoid a deleterious, human-caused event.

Besides, I'm hopefully just a short-timer in these parts (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3605691#post3605691). :p

Hey, go through life kicking enough dogs, a few are bound to bite you back despite the fact they are supposed to be man's best friend.

Claimed! (see my new signature). :D

wildhawker
01-08-2010, 9:49 AM
Hey, go through life kicking enough dogs, a few are bound to bite you back despite the fact they are supposed to be man's best friend.

I'm having a difficult time with comparing someone peacefully carrying a sidearm (within their rights) to someone kicking dogs.

I'd prefer that the LEA's train on carry (open and concealed) and respect our rights all on their own; if they can't, I'm sure a friendly Federal judge will help them to understand the importance of it.

greg36f
01-08-2010, 10:06 AM
It's not a risk to "my strategy." It is a risk to your gun rights.

-Gene


This whole shall we "UOC right now or not" kinda reminds me of the "daddy bull and the Jr bull" story.

Daddy bull and Jr. bull are standing on a hill looking down of a bunch of female cows. Young bull says, "Dad, lets run down there and get us one". Dad says, "Hey son, how about we walk on down there and get us all of them"......

I see Gene as the wise old daddy bull (No offense intended Gene:)) .

I would rather walk down and get it all.

I don't think that it is as much "fun", as running down and creating a ruckus though and from what I can see, a lot of guys "enjoy the ruckus".

Asmodai
01-08-2010, 11:44 AM
I'm having a difficult time with comparing someone peacefully carrying a sidearm (within their rights) to someone kicking dogs.

I'd prefer that the LEA's train on carry (open and concealed) and respect our rights all on their own; if they can't, I'm sure a friendly Federal judge will help them to understand the importance of it.

As important as the UOC right seems to be to some people, on the big list of PR and Civil Rights priorities for government agencies to learn how to deal with, it's probably at the bottom, or not on there at all.

Call it kicking dogs, poking the bear, whatever - that's what this all boils down to when most UOCers know their encounters with Law Enforcement are going to be tense because the knowledge and experience isn't there yet. If people want to run into dark caves on their property yelling and waving flashlights around, I can't feel sorry for them when a bear or mountain lion attacks them. Likewise, pretending to be surprised and upset that one's "rights" are being violated when they force encounters with untrained law enforcement personnel doesn't garner any sympathy from me either, whether people are within their "rights" or not.

Why do UOCers have to engineer tense confrontations to express their 2nd Amendment rights? The few PD training memos that have been issued by departments after encounters with UOCers were the product of this twisted effort of "public education". It would have been easier for a group of UOCers to go to the local Police Department and hand out literature to educate the local PD first.

"We don't have to!" The cry rings out, "It's our right!" Yep. But you can swing your "Right" around like a bat and upset law enforcement and the nearby public who have no clue what is going on (see Livermore UOC article where the general public compares UOCers to "cowboys & indians" - hey presto! Awesome PR guys!!) and make no friends in any corner OR You can truly make an effort to educate law enforcement and the public and have friendly encounters on the street.

I don't see this second part happening - it's called community outreach by some. Strapping on a sidearm and walking out the door into an unaware community does nothing but allow a person to brutishly assert a "right". Nothing positive will result from that.

Sure, in some Fantasy World someone will find a friendly Federal Judge to persuade all the myriad branches of law enforcement in California to speedily train tens of thousands of officers and deputies immediately on this little used "right" to make sure that the hundred or less UOC encounters per year go flawlessly each and every time......

Yeah......


So to me, until UOCers take some real ownership in educating LE and the public on their own and in the community they plan to UOC in - and not through scaring the crap out of people or traveling to other places where they don't live to cause a ruckus....it is kicking dogs.

[My regards to any UOC group that has made a PR effort - these comments do not apply to you]

artherd
01-08-2010, 7:20 PM
UOC, like black people at the front of the bus, has it's stragtigic time and place to advance the cause of civil rights.

It is not yet here or now.

Today, it will get you convicted (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=142379&highlight=theseus).

We're asking for 5 months people. 5.

hoffmang
01-08-2010, 7:50 PM
I see Gene as the wise old daddy bull (No offense intended Gene:)) .


I've often been accused of wanting all the women... :devil2:

-Gene

pullnshoot25
01-09-2010, 8:47 AM
OK Asmodai, you are just a hair this side of a socialist or at least a mental incompetent Let's analyze everything here, shall we?


As important as the UOC right seems to be to some people, on the big list of PR and Civil Rights priorities for government agencies to learn how to deal with, it's probably at the bottom, or not on there at all.

All rights are important, not just the ones you think are important (you liked Clinton, right?). They swore to uphold the law and the Constitution, not butcher it. Not my fault if PDs are hiring people like yourself.

Call it kicking dogs, poking the bear, whatever - that's what this all boils down to when most UOCers know their encounters with Law Enforcement are going to be tense because the knowledge and experience isn't there yet. If people want to run into dark caves on their property yelling and waving flashlights around, I can't feel sorry for them when a bear or mountain lion attacks them. Likewise, pretending to be surprised and upset that one's "rights" are being violated when they force encounters with untrained law enforcement personnel doesn't garner any sympathy from me either, whether people are within their "rights" or not.

The basic case law has been on the books for the last 40 years, are you honestly going to tell me that cops haven't had ample time to learn the basic premises of the law and Constitution they swore to uphold? Really?

Also, I don't know it is going to be tense. I honestly feel that I should be left alone, especially since I am not doing anything to provoke anyone.

Why do UOCers have to engineer tense confrontations to express their 2nd Amendment rights? The few PD training memos that have been issued by departments after encounters with UOCers were the product of this twisted effort of "public education". It would have been easier for a group of UOCers to go to the local Police Department and hand out literature to educate the local PD first.

Actually, most memos have been handed out because of a few willfully ignorant cops decided to play "Let's see who can break the most laws in the least amount of time"

BTW, WE DO HAND OUT LITERATURE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS. Even though cops should know this stuff already, even in its most BASIC of forms, we still take the time to give them a refresher. This is yet more evidence to the fact that you haven't the faintest idea of which you speak on.

"We don't have to!" The cry rings out, "It's our right!" Yep. But you can swing your "Right" around like a bat and upset law enforcement and the nearby public who have no clue what is going on (see Livermore UOC article where the general public compares UOCers to "cowboys & indians" - hey presto! Awesome PR guys!!) and make no friends in any corner OR You can truly make an effort to educate law enforcement and the public and have friendly encounters on the street.

Nothing new, that will always be the case. Remember, to DHS, you are a right-wing extremist. People always have a label for other people, particularly those that go against the grain or are conveniently labeled as government enemies. Remember well the plight and stories of the 170,000,000 people murdered by your beloved government agents.

I don't see this second part happening - it's called community outreach by some. Strapping on a sidearm and walking out the door into an unaware community does nothing but allow a person to brutishly assert a "right". Nothing positive will result from that.

Actually, a lot of positive things happen from it. I don't publish all of it because there are so many instances and it would take forever to articulate, but I have stopped and talked with all sorts of people about their rights, gun laws, etc. I am certain that in the process, I have converted a great many people.

Also, WTF is it with you and using words of force? "Brutishly"? Seriously? We are normal guys, not Huns. Save your emphatic outbursts for the Democratic committee or some local playhouse.

Sure, in some Fantasy World someone will find a friendly Federal Judge to persuade all the myriad branches of law enforcement in California to speedily train tens of thousands of officers and deputies immediately on this little used "right" to make sure that the hundred or less UOC encounters per year go flawlessly each and every time......

How about them knowing what they should have known for the last 40-50 years in regards to the 1/4/5A? Just because the OC stuff is published and brought up to the forefront doesn't mean that other people aren't being subjectively oppressed in similar manners. If anything, OC has exposed the true nature of a great many law enforcement entities.

Yeah......


So to me, until UOCers take some real ownership in educating LE and the public on their own and in the community they plan to UOC in - and not through scaring the crap out of people or traveling to other places where they don't live to cause a ruckus....it is kicking dogs.

Hey, assclown, we already do!

My regards to any UOC group that has made a PR effort - these comments do not apply to you


Should have made that exception BEFORE I went through this post. But, since I am already here, I will note that, with few exceptions, great strides have been made to educate the public. That is a lot more than can be said for police officers.

Off to study some biochemistry.

Theseus
01-09-2010, 6:49 PM
Why do UOCers have to engineer tense confrontations to express their 2nd Amendment rights? The few PD training memos that have been issued by departments after encounters with UOCers were the product of this twisted effort of "public education". It would have been easier for a group of UOCers to go to the local Police Department and hand out literature to educate the local PD first.

Are you really still talking?

We OCers' are doing something that is completely legal. How are we the ones engineering tense confrontations? Thing about this seriously for a moment and you know that the some police in these situations are the ones causing the tense confrontations.

At this point it is clear that the departments are aware of open carry and are aware how to educate and train their dispatch like they do in other states. The fact that they still choose to not make the necessary adaptations and changes tells me they will continue the train of abuses until they get smacked down.