PDA

View Full Version : Recent UOC events and 'Public Relations.'


Pages : [1] 2

lavgrunt
01-07-2010, 8:02 PM
It seems that the UOC movement is certainly getting a lot of attention these days, not only here on 'CalGuns' but in the 'real world' also.......Which begs the question, does UOC have a public relations problem more than anything else? I don't think that any of us would argue your 'right' to UOC within the law, but UOC is preaching to the choir here. The real challenge is to convince Mr & Mrs John Q. Citizen that UOC is perfectly legal and they have nothing to worry about. For the most part, Mr & Mrs 'C' sees someone with a gun, freaks out and calls the cops. The perception then becomes that guns really are bad and it can't be legal to just 'carry a gun wherever you want.......' Any PR person will tell you that reality means nothing, perception IS reality to the uninformed and uneducated. You can pass out all the flyers you want at a UOC event, it's the mass audience you need to get to turn perception into reality. I must admit, I think that most of the media reports I have seen and read on UOC have been fair. The attitude of many staunch UOC advocates seems to be, "Keep doing these events, let the public see they have nothing to worry about it, shove it in their face and they will have to accept it......I'm just exercising my rights and they will just have to deal with it !" No one likes to be force fed anything......and I know that if you try to make me accept something when I don't understand it and have been told my entire life that it's bad, I'll just resist even more.......Why wouldn't Mr & Mrs 'C' ?? Don't think for a second that if, god forbid, something REALLY BAD happened at a UOC event, you wouldn't see a lot of REALLY BAD s**t happen to the 2A rights of ALL of us and the public would rapidly turn against us, instead of just being clueless and apathetic.

The 'right people' have requested a stand down on UOC for the time being. This is to help preserve and regain the rights of ALL OF US. It's a decision based on strategy, not because they don't support UOC. If any more of my 2A rights takes a hit because some legislator saw a UOC event and thought "HMMMMM......There oughta be a law against that !!" I shall be extremely pissed...........

Here's another tid-bit to ponder; Cali Law Enforcement is becoming very well educated on the UOC movement and not in a positive way. My department in SoCal recently put out a training bulletin on UOC and specifically cited the LAPD event in San Pedro and an event in south OC involving the Sherrif's Department. It was very interesting to contrast the LE version of events at San Pedro and some of the posts here. As you might imagine, a very different take. When training bulletins use words such as 'confrontational' that's never a good thing. I will not be posting ANY of the bulletins for public view on this site as I am not authorized to do so......sorry, I know most of you will not be happy about that........
On the plus side, the bulletins also covered applicable case law, pertnint penal code sections, what officers can and/or can't do etc. It also mentioned that a UOC 'coordinator' was asked to make a courtesy call to the PD to let them know where and when they were going to do another event, just as an FYI so that when the 'man with a gun' calls started flooding in, the cops would know why. The UOCer refused to do so. Great way to get LE on our side..........Whether you like it or not, we are part of the public in 'public relations' too............

Bottom line, if you're gonna UOC, be careful as hell, continue to audio and/or tape record the event, look presentable and professional, give a courtesy call to the local PD and let 'em know what you are doing and invite them to come over and check it out. You will be amazed at how far this will get you in exercising your rights........It's the public at large who has to be won over, you are represnting all gun owners........make us proud.......

cmth
01-07-2010, 8:26 PM
I'm not going to analyze and respond to your whole post, but I have to address this point:

For the most part, Mr & Mrs 'C' sees someone with a gun, freaks out and calls the cops.

"For the most part", you are wrong. I've UOC'd many, many times in many different places, around many different people. I have NEVER had anyone freak out, or call in MWAG on me (that I am aware of). I've had a great deal of positive comments and inquiries from the public, and only a few that I perceived as somewhat negative or apprehensive. The only times that I have been e-checked (four times thus far) have been when officers on the street or at events have personally seen me. I've never had an officer e-checking me tell me he was responding to a call.

If you have ever cruised over to opencarry.org, you would see that there are almost weekly open carry events taking place all over the state, and it is the rare exception when an incident such as the San Pedro LAPD incident takes place. In fact it is becoming more and more rare, as police departments all over the state are becoming more educated about open carry, to have anything but an incidental "how ya doin?" encounter between police and UOCers.

I think that your view of UOC through the "Us vs. Them" mentality of a police officer has colored your perception of reality. The truth is much different than you imagine it to be.

wildhawker
01-07-2010, 8:31 PM
In lavgrunt's defense, the truth is probably much different than as set forth at OCDO also.

SteveH
01-07-2010, 8:34 PM
LE administrators are starting to use terms like "Legislative assistance." relating to UOC.

The UOC has a PR problem. You want to win over cops while open carrrying? Tell them you are carrying a gun for your protection and the protection of your family. You would like to be able to CCW but since you cant UOC is your best option right now. Cops understand that. They will walk away from that encounter thinking the UOC is one of the good guys and just trying to look out for himself and his own.

Or you can be confrontational. The cop will walk away thinking he just met a scum bag.

pullnshoot25
01-07-2010, 8:40 PM
Those bulletins are PRARable, right?

cmth
01-07-2010, 8:55 PM
LE administrators are starting to use terms like "Legislative assistance." relating to UOC.
It's not anyone's fault but theirs that they don't like citizens lawfully arming themselves. They don't want people carrying guns, so they try to get laws passed to ban it. Nothing that has not happened a thousand times before.


The UOC has a PR problem. You want to win over cops while open carrrying? Tell them you are carrying a gun for your protection and the protection of your family. You would like to be able to CCW but since you cant UOC is your best option right now. Cops understand that. They will walk away from that encounter thinking the UOC is one of the good guys and just trying to look out for himself and his own.
I'm not trying to win over anyone except for the public. The gun community often laments the fact that the public at large is not wholly supportive of gun rights, or tends to favor "common sense" gun laws. I believe that is entirely due to the fact that the public only perceives guns in the hands of cops and criminals. The regular sight of normal, everyday citizens carrying guns in a safe, lawful manner can only improve public perception of firearms owners and carriers. The gun that goes unseen is not going to change anyone's ideas about firearms in this state or this country.

And you make a huge assumption that I practice UOC because it's my only alternative to CCW. I have no interest in a CCW permit whatsoever. I have no desire to seek anyone's permission to carry a firearm for reasons that are my own and no-one else's.


Or you can be confrontational. The cop will walk away thinking he just met a scum bag.

Who's being confrontational? I've had nothing but positive encounters with officers thus far. They have shown me respect, and I have returned that respect. Isn't that how it should always be? I promise that it will continue to be that way until the other party decides otherwise.

pullnshoot25
01-07-2010, 8:55 PM
LE administrators are starting to use terms like "Legislative assistance." relating to UOC.

The UOC has a PR problem. You want to win over cops while open carrrying? Tell them you are carrying a gun for your protection and the protection of your family. You would like to be able to CCW but since you cant UOC is your best option right now. Cops understand that. They will walk away from that encounter thinking the UOC is one of the good guys and just trying to look out for himself and his own.

Or you can be confrontational. The cop will walk away thinking he just met a scum bag.

I have told nearly every one of them that.

Confrontational means that people are looking for a fight. I don't even want to talk to the cops, so what gives? These cops are conducting NON-OBLIGATORY (read: VOLUNTARY) checks on guns, the basis of which is a screaming BLATANT 4A violation and I can assure you that I am not begging for them to come over, even if there were pony rides involved.

We now have evidence of cops conspiring to suppress free speech, promote malicious prosecution and enforce laws that do not exist. Yet, you sit here and say that people like myself are being confrontational. I submit to you that these cops are looking for a fight. I have multiple pieces of evidence to show that I am right, too.

I dare say, whatever happened to the oath these officers took?

demnogis
01-07-2010, 9:07 PM
There's 3 sides to every story...

In lavgrunt's defense, the truth is probably much different than as set forth at OCDO also.

GrizzlyGuy
01-07-2010, 9:20 PM
There's 3 sides to every story...

Fortunately, one of the sides at San Pedro was Army's video recorder, so people can watch, listen (http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/?action=view&current=SanPedroillegaldetainmentbyLAPD.flv) and form their own opinions.

Ron-Solo
01-07-2010, 9:31 PM
LE administrators are starting to use terms like "Legislative assistance." relating to UOC.

The UOC has a PR problem. You want to win over cops while open carrrying? Tell them you are carrying a gun for your protection and the protection of your family. You would like to be able to CCW but since you cant UOC is your best option right now. Cops understand that. They will walk away from that encounter thinking the UOC is one of the good guys and just trying to look out for himself and his own.

Or you can be confrontational. The cop will walk away thinking he just met a scum bag.

A lot of truth here in my opinion.

mblat
01-07-2010, 9:32 PM
LE administrators are starting to use terms like "Legislative assistance." relating to UOC.

The UOC has a PR problem. You want to win over cops while open carrrying? Tell them you are carrying a gun for your protection and the protection of your family. You would like to be able to CCW but since you cant UOC is your best option right now. Cops understand that. They will walk away from that encounter thinking the UOC is one of the good guys and just trying to look out for himself and his own.

Or you can be confrontational. The cop will walk away thinking he just met a scum bag.

While I am not part of UOC movement, my guess would be that they have no intention what so ever to win over cops. And they also probably correct in that. Because most urban CA cops will not support carry in any form what so ever.
UOCers see themselves as part of civil right movement. No more, no less. No amount of criticism, however well intentioned, however prudent will not stop UOC movement. They are serve HIGHER purpose.
And as far as UOC being outlawed...... or school zone extended to 1500'..... I am not sure why this is used as an argument by people who oppose UOC. From point of view of opposition to UOC - what is the harm? They wouldn't do it anyway..... It is also unlikely that such prohibition would have any effect of future gun laws in California..... whatever way they will shape post-incorporation. So - people what to do it - what is the harm, really? Public perception? Oh, please.
How does public perception will help us to acquire shall-issue CCW or LOC? OR how could it possible hurt us? This purely court battle, the only shall-issue CCW will occur in CA is in totally undemocratic, federal court driven, "like it or not" fashion.

bwiese
01-07-2010, 9:34 PM
I'm not trying to win over anyone except for the public. otherwise.

Trust me, you're generally not.

You may have specific exceptions at specific times in specific areas, but 97% time you won't because you'll be scaring the soccer moms.

Some good self-analysis is needed here.

mblat
01-07-2010, 9:37 PM
Trust me, you're generally not.

You may have specific exceptions at specific times in specific areas, but 97% time you won't because you'll be scaring the soccer moms.

Some good self-analysis is needed here.

I agree.... on both side - pro- and against UOC movement. Who cares about public? If it would be up to the public here in CA semi-auto rifles would probably be outlawed, handguns definitely.
The only way we will get improved guns laws here is by shoving them down "public" throats via court systems. In that respect it isn't so much different from gay marriage today or desegregation in 60s......

Liberty1
01-07-2010, 9:40 PM
I've been mulling over an "Open letter to Law Enforcement" to bridge that communication and understanding gap with the rank and file who are generally more open to understanding self defense needs.

It would not just be OC and might not touch on any particular mode of carry but would convey the reasons people need RKBA. And would help paint us not as adversaries but as allied in wanting crime stopped and deterred for our improved safety AND for our communities officers.

I've stalled and procrastinated on starting the project and feel it's past due to play catch up with the Administrative Memos that have set a negative tone toward lawful citizen carry in general.

As a patrol officer I've often wished I could show up at a call and not find a battered and or traumatized victim but rather a self defense situation with the perp leaving empty handed or feet first! Some day.:)

Liberty1
01-07-2010, 9:43 PM
The only way we will get improved guns laws here is by shoving them down "public" throats via court systems. In that respect it isn't so much different from gay marriage today or desegregation in 60s......

It will be a multi pronged approach once Carry is a defined Right. VCDL (in Virginia) I believe is a good example of diplomacy and in your face tactics. But you need the courts and case law ON YOUR SIDE first.

But now is certainly not the time for the latter in CA.

mblat
01-07-2010, 9:49 PM
It will be a multi pronged approach once Carry is a defined Right. VCDL (in Virginia) I believe is a good example of diplomacy and in your face tactics. But you need the courts and case law ON YOUR SIDE first.

But now is certainly not the time for the latter.

Of cause..... but please...... what is the harm? Short of "public opinion" angle - which is total bull IMHO, because public in CA will NEVER be supportive of gun rights - it will be ambivalent at best. What is possible harm from UOC TODAY?

Extending "school zones" or complete prohibition? Who cares? We will have to sue for CCW and LOC and way or other....... Existence of UOC may actually hinder those efforts.

Somebody getting shot? While tragic to him and his family there is no detrimental effect to CCW movement. Actually an argument in favor of it.

So... what is the harm? Short of some egos being hurt by those bastard who don't listen to what they have been told?

Liberty1
01-07-2010, 9:52 PM
I'll PM...

Rusty_Rebar
01-07-2010, 10:07 PM
It seems that the equal rights movement is certainly getting a lot of attention these days, not only here on 'CalGuns' but in the 'real world' also.......Which begs the question, does the equal rights movement have a public relations problem more than anything else? I don't think that any of us would argue your 'right' to equality within the law, but the equal rights movement is preaching to the choir here. The real challenge is to convince Mr & Mrs John Q. Citizen that the equal rights movement is perfectly legal and they have nothing to worry about. For the most part, Mr & Mrs 'C' sees someone with a a different color skin trying to sit in the white only section of a restaurant, freaks out and calls the cops. The perception then becomes that equal rights really are bad and it can't be legal to just for people of different races to exert their rights Any PR person will tell you that reality means nothing, perception IS reality to the uninformed and uneducated. You can pass out all the flyers you want at an equal rights event, it's the mass audience you need to get to turn perception into reality. I must admit, I think that most of the media reports I have seen and read on equal rights have been fair. The attitude of many staunch equal rights advocates seems to be, "Keep doing these events, let the public see they have nothing to worry about it, shove it in their face and they will have to accept it......I'm just exercising my rights and they will just have to deal with it !" No one likes to be force fed anything......and I know that if you try to make me accept something when I don't understand it and have been told my entire life that it's bad, I'll just resist even more.......Why wouldn't Mr & Mrs 'C' ?? Don't think for a second that if, god forbid, something REALLY BAD happened at an equal rights event, you wouldn't see a lot of REALLY BAD s**t happen to the 14A rights of ALL of us and the public would rapidly turn against us, instead of just being clueless and apathetic.

yellowfin
01-07-2010, 10:08 PM
Of cause..... but please...... what is the harm? Short of "public opinion" angle - which is total bull IMHO, because public in CA will NEVER be supportive of gun rights - it will be ambivalent at best.I'm not so sure of that. Not within the next 10 years, sure. But 20? It depends on how far we can go with carry rights. Carry rights make gun ownership relevant for more people. Who in an urban area is interested in hunting or paper punching, seriously? It's an expensive, inconvenient, obscure hobby. To the contrary, keeping your wife or daughter from being a target for rape, robbery and kidnapping by buying her a nice G26 to keep under her coat or sweater when out after dark is something just about any husband or father can relate to. At that point it isn't some frivolous dangerous thing nobody they know does, it's what their next door neighbor, cousin, etc. does and if someone tries to take that away from them then they'll be IMMEDIATELY in their face to say "Hey jackass, you're not taking that away from MY wife/daughter, not in this lifetime!" Without right to carry, we absolutely do not have that advantage, it's still arguing for something people largely don't know. When it's available to them for a practical use they can really appreciate then the light will come on.

When we do, it's going to be hell to pay for ALL of these politicians of all stripes who have fought against it. The other side knows this full well which is why they fight so hard and set the tone we have to respond to.

cmth
01-07-2010, 10:19 PM
Trust me, you're generally not.

You may have specific exceptions at specific times in specific areas, but 97% time you won't because you'll be scaring the soccer moms.

Some good self-analysis is needed here.

You're more than welcome to come along with me any time that I UOC. I especially recommend the larger organized events. I would love nothing more than to show you just how wrong you are, but I suspect that you have no interest in challenging your preconceived misconceptions. I wish that I had a video recorder with me to show you just how many "soccer moms" with their kids in tow come up to me and tell me how great they think the open carry movement is. I really would like to see one of these fabled "running, screaming soccer moms" that people like you insist I will encounter while UOCing, but I've yet to.

The open carry phenomenon is not limited to the state of California; in fact it's not even the biggest front in the nationwide movement. It's even bigger in Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, and Utah, if you go by how many posts there are in each state's forum on OCDO. It's happening whether anyone here likes it or not. You can choose to be a part of it, if you want to, but you can't make it go away, and it's only getting bigger.

Normally I don't post quotes on discussion boards to support my argument, because I think it tends to be rather cheap and douche-y, but I think this one applies quite well:

In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned.
When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

-- Mark Twain

mblat
01-07-2010, 10:19 PM
I'm not so sure of that. Not within the next 10 years, sure. But 20?

20 years is a long time. There is old tale:
Man walks into a tavern with a donkey, opens a book and start reading it to donkey loudly. He is asked why he is doing this. He answers:
"This isn't a simple donkey, it is the Kings donkey. I promised the King that I teach this donkey to read in 10 years. If I won't be able to do so the king will behead me. For the mean time he will give me and the donkey food and shelter."
People around him starting to say that he is nuts, that he will lose his head. HE answers:
"Well... In 10 years, either I will die or the King will die or the donkey will die".


So..... don't worry what can happen in 20 years..... by that time donkey will be dead anyway....

yellowfin
01-07-2010, 10:25 PM
I do indeed hope the donkey party will be dead by that time, you're right. I REALLY hope we've substantially won by the time I'm 50 because I'm going to be a VERY worn out guy by then from all this roller coaster stuff.

mblat
01-07-2010, 10:37 PM
It will be a multi pronged approach once Carry is a defined Right. VCDL (in Virginia) I believe is a good example of diplomacy and in your face tactics. But you need the courts and case law ON YOUR SIDE first.

But now is certainly not the time for the latter in CA.

Outside of our PM conversation. Care to speculate when that could be? After all, if I understand it correctly, Heller didn't really defined what "bear" means. I understand that there was unexpected amount of references to a carry..... however..... based on pure letter of Heller..... there is right to "keep and bear", but while "keep" is indeed defined as "posses, to have", "bear" hasn't been formally defined. Theoretically, it still could mean "carry in military service" as some have argued. Am I wrong on this one? I hope I am.

MP301
01-07-2010, 10:37 PM
I've been mulling over an "Open letter to Law Enforcement" to bridge that communication and understanding gap with the rank and file who are generally more open to understanding self defense needs.

It would not just be OC and might not touch on any particular mode of carry but would convey the reasons people need RKBA. And would help paint us not as adversaries but as allied in wanting crime stopped and deterred for our improved safety AND for our communities officers.

I've stalled and procrastinated on starting the project and feel it's past due to play catch up with the Administrative Memos that have set a negative tone toward lawful citizen carry in general.

As a patrol officer I've often wished I could show up at a call and not find a battered and or traumatized victim but rather a self defense situation with the perp leaving empty handed or feet first! Some day.:)

Well, get on it pal! Your the best for the job..I do enjoy reading your posts...and this could not hurt...stop lagging already! :D

Theseus
01-07-2010, 11:30 PM
LE administrators are starting to use terms like "Legislative assistance." relating to UOC.

The UOC has a PR problem. You want to win over cops while open carrrying? Tell them you are carrying a gun for your protection and the protection of your family. You would like to be able to CCW but since you cant UOC is your best option right now. Cops understand that. They will walk away from that encounter thinking the UOC is one of the good guys and just trying to look out for himself and his own.

Or you can be confrontational. The cop will walk away thinking he just met a scum bag.

I told the cops I was carrying for self-defense. . . but in their police report they said that I said it was my "constitutional right" and that I was merely "exercising my right". In fact when they asked me if I was "exercising my right" I said "No."

I can tell from my later interactions and through testimony, I don't think any officer in that court room or that was dispatched to the call that day was against me. It is my belief they were forced by the management to take action against their personal desires.

This is a war against management, not against . . . forgive me if I get this wrong. . . rank-n-file officers.

lavgrunt
01-08-2010, 12:46 AM
This is a war against management, not against . . . forgive me if I get this wrong. . . rank-n-file officers.[/QUOTE]

......If you think this is a 'war' you're fighting, get some perspective.......I realize that your legal issues have probably made you hyper-sensitive......but a 'WAR' !!??.....Really ???

lavgrunt
01-08-2010, 12:47 AM
Those bulletins are PRARable, right?

.....Don't know for sure......I don't see why not......

pullnshoot25
01-08-2010, 12:49 AM
This is a war against management, not against . . . forgive me if I get this wrong. . . rank-n-file officers.

......If you think this is a 'war' you're fighting, get some perspective.......I realize that your legal issues have probably made you hyper-sensitive......but a 'WAR' !!??.....Really ???[/QUOTE]

It sure as **** isn't a baby shower!

Mulay El Raisuli
01-08-2010, 7:51 AM
Since the title of the post includes the word "events" I'd like to say that while I fully understand the desire to have them, I don't see a problem with calling the local LEA & letting them know that the event is going to happen.

Yes, you ARE exercising a Right. Yes, there's no requirement that you ask permission. Yes, there's no requirement to let them know you're coming. All of this is quite true.

BUT, I'm told the goal is to reach out to Walter & Winnifred Whitebread & let them know about the Right. If that really is the goal, wouldn't it be lots better if the Walter & Winnifred did NOT see loads of cops (ESP one with a drawn AR) & a chopper overhead? Wouldn't it help the cause a lot more if Walter & Winnifred saw the UOC group sitting & drinking their coffee with the cops just ignoring them? Comment has been made about soccer moms are really OK with UOC. But, what kind of event was that 'OKness' shown? Were there squads of cops & a chopper overhead at the time? Or was it mellow event?

And while we don't need the permission of the cops, & I certainly don't advocate seeking that, would it really be all that bad to let them know you're coming? Just so that they don't get hyper? Might that not lessen the urge on their part to seek "legislature assistance"? While it is fun to get 'in their face,' the goal (or so I'm told) is to achieve a positive goal. So, what would you rather have, the goal met, or fun?

While the guys at the lunch counters 50 years ago really are our forebears, we don't have to have hoses & dogs turned loose on us to archive our goals. We can get there with a lot less bother. IF, that is, the 2A is really the object of the exercise.


The Raisuli

ChuckBooty
01-08-2010, 7:57 AM
A couple of people have mentioned it but I think UOC'ers would go a LOOOONG way in the PR arena if they wouldn't dress like wild-eyed militia men when they're on TV.

guayuque
01-08-2010, 8:13 AM
Who's being confrontational? I've had nothing but positive encounters with officers thus far. They have shown me respect, and I have returned that respect. Isn't that how it should always be? I promise that it will continue to be that way until the other party decides otherwise.

IS your mind not open to the proposition that people see an UOC and become uncomfortable? Because, I think that is true as I have asked family, friends, etc., all of whom know my position on firearms and many agree it makes them edgy.

By ramming your right to UOC in their face you do not advance, in my opinion, the education process that is preferrable and a better CCW permit process that is also preferrable. I get your notion that this is a right and you will use it and eveyone bet get used to it - but that is the height of being confrontational.

paul0660
01-08-2010, 8:22 AM
And you make a huge assumption that I practice UOC because it's my only alternative to CCW. I have no interest in a CCW permit whatsoever. I have no desire to seek anyone's permission to carry a firearm for reasons that are my own and no-one else's.

Ok then, the movement is doomed. Cowboy on.

Theseus
01-08-2010, 9:04 AM
This is a war against management, not against . . . forgive me if I get this wrong. . . rank-n-file officers.

......If you think this is a 'war' you're fighting, get some perspective.......I realize that your legal issues have probably made you hyper-sensitive......but a 'WAR' !!??.....Really ???[/QUOTE]

Yes, really! Look at the definition and you will see I used it right. Not all wars involve vicious and bloody battles in the streets.

mblat
01-08-2010, 9:48 AM
This is a war against management, not against . . . forgive me if I get this wrong. . . rank-n-file officers.

......If you think this is a 'war' you're fighting, get some perspective.......I realize that your legal issues have probably made you hyper-sensitive......but a 'WAR' !!??.....Really ???[/QUOTE]

What is wrong with the word WAR? We are dealing with people who is willing to use power of government to intimidate, attack and even put in jail people who go out of their way to follow THE LAW. Just because they do not like particular aspect of the LAW they suppose to protect.
Make no mistake - WAR it is. Because if it would be for CA police leadership we wouldn't have ANY firearms in our possession.

pullnshoot25
01-08-2010, 10:35 AM
A couple of people have mentioned it but I think UOC'ers would go a LOOOONG way in the PR arena if they wouldn't dress like wild-eyed militia men when they're on TV.

Who dressed like a militia man?

GrizzlyGuy
01-08-2010, 11:05 AM
What is wrong with the word WAR? We are dealing with people who is willing to use power of government to intimidate, attack and even put in jail people who go out of their way to follow THE LAW. Just because they do not like particular aspect of the LAW they suppose to protect.
Make no mistake - WAR it is. Because if it would be for CA police leadership we wouldn't have ANY firearms in our possession.

ETA: I think I'm really mostly speaking to cmth here, sorry mblat, I just re-read the thread and noticed you aren't currently a UOC-er and cmth is. My oops. :o
=================

I agree with you, in some of the UOC cases the police have overstepped their authority, infringed on 4A rights, and in some cases jailed people who were in full compliance with the law. Obviously not a good situation overall.

If you choose to call your efforts a "war", it might be worthwhile to reflect on how that war might best be won. You're David and the giant Goliath has all the power. I'd think you'd want better weapons or an ally or two to give you a better shot at the giant. The McDonald case and CGF's efforts promise to deliver better weapons. I suspect that the reason they are asking for a temporary stand-down is to keep you guys from becoming casualties by trying to fight the giant without them.

If you choose to disregard their request and fight the giant now, there may be an important group that could serve as an ally in some instances: the general public. In that sense, for now, you could be fighting a war of public opinion. The public doesn't form their opinion based on who is right (you are, obviously) but who appears to be right. If you can get is-right to coincide with appears-to-be-right, you'd be on a better track to gain an ally.

If you are going to fight the giant now, then how about doing it in a way like this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3599133&postcount=50) (that's just one silly idea, you guys can probably come up with much better ideas). If the general public sees the giant (the cops) come along and interfere with you doing something that virtually everyone thinks is good (supporting a charity), guess who's side they might come down on? YOURS. If that happens, David's back in the ball game, and the giant might be forced to retreat a bit.

Will that slay the giant? Nope. But later, when you do the same kind of thing and you have the new post-incorporation weapons... run giant run! :D

SteveH
01-08-2010, 11:17 AM
It's disturbing that some of you believe yourselves to be at "war" with the police.

yellowfin
01-08-2010, 11:20 AM
It's disturbing that some of you believe yourselves to be at "war" with the police.Even more disturbing that there are big city police chiefs and sheriffs who have made antagonism and aggression against gun owners a policy of theirs, whether we or you believe it or not.

mblat
01-08-2010, 11:25 AM
It's disturbing that some of you believe yourselves to be at "war" with the police.

Why? While not being personally part of this conflict I see it like this:
1. Police is the part of the government and Americans notoriously mistrusting of the government. Especially federal government.
2. It is good old American tradition to fight authority and ESPECIALLY police establishment. History is full of examples of such conflicts, movies and books glorify them. I would guess most Americans would associate themselves with "good criminal" first and with "good policeman" second.

SteveH
01-08-2010, 11:27 AM
Why? While not being personally part of this conflict I see it like this:
1. Police is the part of the government and Americans notoriously mistrusting of the government. Especially federal government.
2. It is good old American tradition to fight authority and ESPECIALLY police establishment. History is full of examples of such conflicts, movies and books glorify them. I would guess most Americans would associate themselves with "good criminal" first and with "good policeman" second.

Because "war" means diplomacy and politics (legislation) have failed and violence is the only remaining solution.

mblat
01-08-2010, 11:30 AM
Because "war" means diplomacy and politics (legislation) have failed and violence is the only remaining solution.

Not so. From Webster:



Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : variance, odds 3


besides:

violence was, is and will be applied to UOCers in CA for any conceivable future.

Kestryll
01-08-2010, 12:04 PM
Oaky this has to be said.

Anyone dense enough not to understand just how bad it is PR-wise and how much you're playing in to the hands of those who want to ban guns outright to say "We're at war with the cops" probably shouldn't be allowed to carry even a damn squirt gun in public!

Think with your brain for a minute and see if you can think of just how many ways that statement makes gun owners look like nut jobs and whackos.

Now try and think about how that same sound bite or quote is going to play out in the media to the Legislature and the public.

I try to not offend but this is one of the stupidest things I've seen posted in a LONG time.

mblat
01-08-2010, 12:15 PM
Oaky this has to be said.

Anyone dense enough not to understand just how bad it is PR-wise and how much you're playing in to the hands of those who want to ban guns outright to say "We're at war with the cops" probably shouldn't be allowed to carry even a damn squirt gun in public!

Think with your brain for a minute and see if you can think of just how many ways that statement makes gun owners look like nut jobs and whackos.

Now try and think about how that same sound bite or quote is going to play out in the media to the Legislature and the public.

I try to not offend but this is one of the stupidest things I've seen posted in a LONG time.

I am not offended, even if your post may be considered pretty offensive. Like I said before - I am not UOCer and have no dog in this fight......
but to paraphrase your post:

Think with your brain for a minute and try to come up with any way we can act to change opinions of California public and California Legislature. I think there are none.

I try to not offend, but you have you location as "Occupied Reseda, PRK". If you think that sounds any better that word "war" you as dense as we are.

No offense.

Kestryll
01-08-2010, 12:32 PM
Think with your brain for a minute and try to come up with any way we can act to change opinions of California public and California Legislature. I think there are none.

I try to not offend, but you have you location as "Occupied Reseda, PRK". If you think that sounds any better that word "war" you as dense as we are.

No offense.

Actually there are many and most are being actively pursued.

As for 'Occupied Reseda, PRK' let's take a look at both in context.

I list my location as 'Occupied Reseda, PRK' denoting the fact that here in Los Angeles County I am essentially in 'occupied territory' based on the total control of my City and County by anti-gunners.

Now, by comparison we have people announcing that their movement is 'at war' with local and State Law Enforcement.
Given the common concept of 'war', yes you can post whatever definition you like but here in reality everyone knows what that is going to represent to John and Jane Public and if you don't know then you're in the wrong game, do you really think you can compare my location to stating outright 'We are at war with the cops'?

Seriously??

wildhawker
01-08-2010, 12:43 PM
Let's not get so married to terms that incite negative reactions simply because they a) are accurate in definition or b) feel good or c) both; if the point is to use UOC as outreach then it would be advisable to move away from words like "war" and implications that we're "fighting the police" (a *very* powerful interest in politics at all levels, not to mention a largely-trusted institution by the general public).

You're working against the will of some very sophisticated folks on the other side, and also moving contrary to status quo. We must temper our emotions and present a clear, non-threatening message at all times. If we cannot, then we should remove ourselves from the public component and allow those that can to do so.

mblat
01-08-2010, 12:49 PM
Actually there are many and most are being actively pursued.

As for 'Occupied Reseda, PRK' let's take a look at both in context.

I list my location as 'Occupied Reseda, PRK' denoting the fact that here in Los Angeles County I am essentially in 'occupied territory' based on the total control of my City and County by anti-gunners.

Now, by comparison we have people announcing that their movement is 'at war' with local and State Law Enforcement.
Given the common concept of 'war', yes you can post whatever definition you like but here in reality everyone knows what that is going to represent to John and Jane Public and if you don't know then you're in the wrong game, do you really think you can compare my location to stating outright 'We are at war with the cops'?

Seriously??

<shrugs> I am far from arguing nuances of English with anybody. I think my language skills decent.... for an immigrant.
But to answer your question for me "Occuiped Reseda, PRK" means war fought and lost, but readiness for resistance, including armed resistance still here. May be it is my russian heritage with russian traditions of guerrilla warfare speaks..... I do not know. But in my book those two statements are indeed comparable. But I am willing to accept that they are not for an American with different historical background.
One more point. Me and "cmnt" (? - don't remember his handle), are just regular members here. Our statements can easily be cast aside as "fringe elements". You are "Head Janitor". You do not think you should be much more careful with your statements? And you do not think that because of that your statement is actually more controversial, simply considering who it is coming from?

navyinrwanda
01-08-2010, 1:25 PM
I have no interest in a CCW permit whatsoever. I have no desire to seek anyone's permission to carry a firearm for reasons that are my own and no-one else's.
You may never be able to legally carry a loaded firearm throughout California without a permit. And if in the future it does become possible, it'll likely be through the political process and not the courts.

How does declaring war with the police, government, et al, help achieve that goal?

lavgrunt
01-08-2010, 2:27 PM
It's disturbing that some of you believe yourselves to be at "war" with the police.

It's beynd disturbing actually......and strategically, extremely stupid. So which is it? You openly state that you are at 'war' with the police, yet are insulted when they show up with AR15s at a UOC event. You have no coherent, long term strategy, short of being in the public's face, no leadership, no organization except for a couple of small-time websites, no lobbyists, no attorneys and above all....no unity. And to top it all off.......You have now openly declared yourselves to be at 'war' with the police.....!!! And you don't think that's not 'confrontational' ???!!!

You don't have a chance in hell of success and you are going to drag all the rest of us down with you..............

cmth
01-08-2010, 2:45 PM
When did I say anything about a war with the police? Stop putting words in my mouth (or my posts). I have no beef with the police. Like I said previously, I've had nothing but respectful encounters with police officers while UOCing. It is not my wish for that relationship to change. If it does, it will not be due to anything that I have done. If I am fighting a war, it is for the minds of the people.

The public's view of firearms in society has become less favorable because the only exposure they have to them is on the 11 o'clock news when they see a story about a drive-by shooting or liquor store holdup. There is no possible way for the sight of a normal, law abiding citizen, visibly armed to harm the image of guns by the public at large. It may shock certain people at first, but as they become accustomed to it, they will find familiarity with it and perhaps even comfort in it. Why, may I ask, is that such a bad thing? The stated goal of the national open carry movement is to take back our rightful place in society by bringing our guns out of the closet.

Right now we are dealing with media fearmongers who are taking every opportunity to portray open carriers in a bad light, because they do not agree with our goals and they do not want us to succeed. That is the fight that I am fighting. It is a fight that will take a considerable amount of effort to win, with no help from any of you. The Revolutionary War was fought by less than 5% of the people, but all of us today enjoy the freedoms and liberties that they paid for with their sweat and blood. One day you will also enjoy the fruits of this struggle, and you will know who to thank for it.

I open carry because it is my right. I exercise my rights as I would exercise my muscles, lest they atrophy and become weak. Our rights have become weakened because nobody exercises them.

wildhawker
01-08-2010, 2:54 PM
One day you will also enjoy the fruits of this struggle, and you will know who to thank for it.

Yep (http://www.gurapossessky.com/), I (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/) sure (http://www.dklawoffice.com/) will (http://home.nra.org/#/home).

GrizzlyGuy
01-08-2010, 3:34 PM
Let's not get so married to terms that incite negative reactions simply because they a) are accurate in definition or b) feel good or c) both; if the point is to use UOC as outreach then it would be advisable to move away from words like "war" and implications that we're "fighting the police" (a *very* powerful interest in politics at all levels, not to mention a largely-trusted institution by the general public).

You're working against the will of some very sophisticated folks on the other side, and also moving contrary to status quo. We must temper our emotions and present a clear, non-threatening message at all times. If we cannot, then we should remove ourselves from the public component and allow those that can to do so.

Well said, Wildhawker.

The history of warfare and war-like metaphors, analogies and models are often used in business, sports, public relations and other fields as tools to facilitate strategy development. For example, many business leaders keep a copy of Sun Tzu's The Art of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War) as an inspirational desk reference. This article (The Art of War and Public Relations: Strategies For Successful Litigation) (http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Dec/28/231115.html) applies the teachings of Sun Tzu to public relations related to litigation, where the intent is for one side to be perceived in the best possible light, and the other side... not so much.

As Wildhawker said, law enforcement is an institution that is trusted and respected by the vast majority of the population. I can't imagine a public relations technique any worse than portraying ourselves as being "at war" with them.

OK, being "at war" with cute puppy dogs would be pretty darned bad as well. Worse? Probably not.

Asmodai
01-08-2010, 3:46 PM
Yep (http://www.gurapossessky.com/), I (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/) sure (http://www.dklawoffice.com/) will (http://home.nra.org/#/home).

Sweet.

demnogis
01-08-2010, 6:49 PM
bwiese,
I value your opinion but I wholeheartedly think you are wrong.

If you had gone to the Redlands Open market meet a few months ago, the Laguna Beach meet two months ago, the Huntington Beach meet last month and (hopefully) the Temecula meet this month, you might get an opportunity to see public reaction and positive LEO interaction.Trust me, you're generally not.

You may have specific exceptions at specific times in specific areas, but 97% time you won't because you'll be scaring the soccer moms.

Some good self-analysis is needed here.
These opinions keep coming forth and everyone seems to home in on the 1 event that everyone, involved or not, knew would gather the largest (to day) and negative LEO interaction. That response is why a few of us decided not to go. Still, the other events (or even the rare/few solo UOC encounters) that leave with positive/neutral LEO response or public interaction are ignored.

pullnshoot25
01-08-2010, 7:06 PM
Reading this thread is giving me a headache. Seriously, most of you guys are like a bunch of old codgers fighting for the last swig of moonshine.

Quit it already with the divisive comments, the childish bickering will solve nothing. Most of you guys aren't even totally seeing what is being posted and are responding to each other with the same old rhetoric, time and time again. In psychology, I believe that is called "stonewalling," the third or fourth horseman in a failing relationship and just like the name implies, IT DOES NOTHING FOR ANYONE!

Here is a revolutionary thought. Considering that there is a contingent of CGN/OCDO guys that are declining to stand down or wait until June/July, despite the pleadings and requests of many other members (self included), how about everyone quits *****ing and starts helping with the education process so that newer people are aware of the issues at hand and can act accordingly should they decide to carry or not? Pooling our energy into a more productive venue is FAR MORE BENEFICIAL than repetetive, incessant and oftentimes derogatory remarks and posts.

For starters, I have started an FAQ on the subject (see sig line) and I have had a few people contribute a few things here and there but there is still so much more that can be done (big thanks to GrizzlyGuy and all the other guys that have contributed thus far). Type up something for it! If you ever wanted to pretend you are a lawyer, now is your chance.

There are other projects that one can work on to keep idle minds and contentious hearts busy at this time. If you want something to do, then pony up.

Off to drive for the next few hours. When I get back, I hope (it may be a stretch) to see requests in my inbox for people that want to contribute to the OC FAQ.

GrizzlyGuy
01-08-2010, 7:52 PM
For starters, I have started an FAQ on the subject (see sig line) and I have had a few people contribute a few things here and there but there is still so much more that can be done (big thanks to GrizzlyGuy and all the other guys that have contributed thus far). Type up something for it! If you ever wanted to pretend you are a lawyer, now is your chance.

Cool! I didn't realize you had compiled it, good work. I'll go through it in the next few days and shoot you some feedback. Pretending to be a lawyer is fun stuff for a geek. :)

navyinrwanda
01-08-2010, 8:39 PM
Considering that there is a contingent of CGN/OCDO guys that are declining to stand down or wait until June/July, despite the pleadings and requests of many other members (self included), how about everyone quits *****ing and starts helping with the education process so that newer people are aware of the issues at hand and can act accordingly should they decide to carry or not?

For starters, I have started an FAQ on the subject (see sig line) and I have had a few people contribute a few things here and there but there is still so much more that can be done (big thanks to GrizzlyGuy and all the other guys that have contributed thus far). Type up something for it! If you ever wanted to pretend you are a lawyer, now is your chance.

Here are some suggestions for your FAQ (most certainly not legal advice):

Delete entirely: “2. It is the purest exercise of the 2nd Amendment right. In most states, no permit is required for those that choose to carry a firearm openly. Concealed carry is in most states, a "taxed privilege".”

The Second Amendment doesn't apply to California, so it can't be "exercised" here. And mentioning that other states don't require permits to open carry leads to the mistaken belief that a similar situation will develop in California.

Rewrite the second sentence: “6. It is a 1st amendment political statement. Its an effective way to generate interest among people in learning about their rights.”

This might be OK if it clearly stated that open carry was a way to generate interest in First Amendment rights. Without that provision, it's too easy to mistake open carry as a means to promote non-existent Second Amendment rights.

Change this sentence: “However, the reason that many people open carry in California is to increase the public's awareness of how backwards and anti-Constitutional that California's laws are and to inform law enforcement officers of the law.”

Open carry could increase public and law enforcement awareness of California's discriminatory concealed carry license system, since one could carry loaded and concealed except for this unequal treatment. But open carry can't do much to generate awareness of the handgun roster, or magazine capacity limitation, or semi-auto rifle ban.

Delete these sentences: “However, many officers do not take their oaths seriously and willingly commit egregious Constitutional violations against those that choose to openly carry. Many of these violations are covered in the Open Carry Training Videos (http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/06/newest-oc-videos.html) as well as some of the Internal Affairs complaints filed by various people against officers.”

This is unnecessarily provocative and confrontational. It has no place in an "educational" document. And if this is to be any more than your personal opinion, it shouldn't have links to your blog. This FAQ would serve its function better with a strong suggestion of cooperation towards law enforcement, along with reasons why such cooperation would further the underlying goals.

Verify these two sentences: “So- if someone calls 911 to report an armed person (ie; a man with a gun), and the police stop to investigate- the report is not adequate cause to conduct a pat down search. The possession of a firearm also does not provide probable cause to search, unless it can be established that the possession is otherwise unlawful.”

What is the basis for this assertion? Yes, an anonymous tip is not sufficient probable cause to conduct a stop and frisk of a person. However, once a police officer sees a gun in plain sight with his own eyes, a different standard applies.

Delete this sentence: “The police must demand an inspection to determine whether the firearm is loaded, for complying with a simple request means that you have chosen to waive your 4th Amendment rights.”

This is also unnecessarily provocative. Plus, has any qualified legal opinion been drafted supporting this position?

Delete this sentence: “Nope, that is a Georgian thing, at least for the time being.”

The topic is California gun laws, not British architecture and social history.

The entire document should have a prominent disclaimer that it's not professional legal advice and that no one should rely upon it as they make their own personal decisions about open carry. And since it's also almost entirely focused on aspects of the law, it really should have a concise explanation of the current status of the Second Amendment in California.

CitaDeL
01-08-2010, 9:03 PM
Here are some suggestions for your FAQ (most certainly not legal advice):

Thank you for your suggestions. If you want to contribute substantively, you are certainly welcome to, as this FAQ was not written by a solitary author, but by those who have had some experience in exposed carry and developed their knowledge through some practical experience.

The FAQ is clearly addressing the most common issues that outsiders bring up... You want legal advice? Seek an attorney.

lavgrunt
01-08-2010, 11:36 PM
Thank you for your suggestions. If you want to contribute substantively, you are certainly welcome to, as this FAQ was not written by a solitary author, but by those who have had some experience in exposed carry and developed their knowledge through some practical experience.

The FAQ is clearly addressing the most common issues that outsiders bring up... You want legal advice? Seek an attorney.

.......And that is the sound of a door being slammed shut in your face........

wildhawker
01-08-2010, 11:43 PM
Thank you for your suggestions. If you want to contribute substantively, you are certainly welcome to, as this FAQ was not written by a solitary author, but by those who have had some experience in exposed carry and developed their knowledge through some practical experience.

The FAQ is clearly addressing the most common issues that outsiders bring up... You want legal advice? Seek an attorney.

Those suggestions were entirely reasonable. An "UOC Manifesto" will not serve the purpose if it is to be, truly, a FAQ to assist in educating the public and newcomers to a balanced view of the UOC movement.

ETA: GrizzyGuy, I think many answers to your questions should be somewhat apparent at this point.

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.

pullnshoot25
01-09-2010, 12:44 AM
Here are some suggestions for your FAQ (most certainly not legal advice):

Delete entirely: “2. It is the purest exercise of the 2nd Amendment right. In most states, no permit is required for those that choose to carry a firearm openly. Concealed carry is in most states, a "taxed privilege".”

The Second Amendment doesn't apply to California, so it can't be "exercised" here. And mentioning that other states don't require permits to open carry leads to the mistaken belief that a similar situation will develop in California.

Rewrite the second sentence: “6. It is a 1st amendment political statement. Its an effective way to generate interest among people in learning about their rights.”

This might be OK if it clearly stated that open carry was a way to generate interest in First Amendment rights. Without that provision, it's too easy to mistake open carry as a means to promote non-existent Second Amendment rights.

Change this sentence: “However, the reason that many people open carry in California is to increase the public's awareness of how backwards and anti-Constitutional that California's laws are and to inform law enforcement officers of the law.”

Open carry could increase public and law enforcement awareness of California's discriminatory concealed carry license system, since one could carry loaded and concealed except for this unequal treatment. But open carry can't do much to generate awareness of the handgun roster, or magazine capacity limitation, or semi-auto rifle ban.

Delete these sentences: “However, many officers do not take their oaths seriously and willingly commit egregious Constitutional violations against those that choose to openly carry. Many of these violations are covered in the Open Carry Training Videos (http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/06/newest-oc-videos.html) as well as some of the Internal Affairs complaints filed by various people against officers.”

This is unnecessarily provocative and confrontational. It has no place in an "educational" document. And if this is to be any more than your personal opinion, it shouldn't have links to your blog. This FAQ would serve its function better with a strong suggestion of cooperation towards law enforcement, along with reasons why such cooperation would further the underlying goals.

Verify these two sentences: “So- if someone calls 911 to report an armed person (ie; a man with a gun), and the police stop to investigate- the report is not adequate cause to conduct a pat down search. The possession of a firearm also does not provide probable cause to search, unless it can be established that the possession is otherwise unlawful.”

What is the basis for this assertion? Yes, an anonymous tip is not sufficient probable cause to conduct a stop and frisk of a person. However, once a police officer sees a gun in plain sight with his own eyes, a different standard applies.

Delete this sentence: “The police must demand an inspection to determine whether the firearm is loaded, for complying with a simple request means that you have chosen to waive your 4th Amendment rights.”

This is also unnecessarily provocative. Plus, has any qualified legal opinion been drafted supporting this position?

Delete this sentence: “Nope, that is a Georgian thing, at least for the time being.”

The topic is California gun laws, not British architecture and social history.

The entire document should have a prominent disclaimer that it's not professional legal advice and that no one should rely upon it as they make their own personal decisions about open carry. And since it's also almost entirely focused on aspects of the law, it really should have a concise explanation of the current status of the Second Amendment in California.


Thanks for the suggestions. Now feel free to shoot me an email so I can add you to the editing party.

thedrickel
01-09-2010, 1:00 AM
War on Communism
War on Drugs
War on Terror
War on Civil Rights
War on Drickels

where does it end?

CitaDeL
01-09-2010, 8:36 AM
.......And that is the sound of a door being slammed shut in your face........

No one is closing doors on options... If that means what I take it to mean.


Those suggestions were entirely reasonable. An "UOC Manifesto" will not serve the purpose if it is to be, truly, a FAQ to assist in educating the public and newcomers to a balanced view of the UOC movement.

Nate has opened the editing of the FAQ to most anyone who wanted to contribute. It seems to me, that if the OC FAQ is flawed and there is a genuine desire to correct or balance the document, there should be some concerted effort to work together on the project, rather than run roughshod over someone else's work on a public forum. If you all want to pitch in- great... but if this is just another opportunity to create division among gunnies (same team), I think there is a bigger problem than 'UOC public relations'.


Thanks for the suggestions. Now feel free to shoot me an email so I can add you to the editing party.


Here's hoping...

Old Timer
01-09-2010, 9:02 AM
"Well... In 10 years, either I will die or the King will die or the donkey will die".Or, maybe, just maybe, the donkey will learn to read. :)

N6ATF
01-10-2010, 2:20 AM
War on Communism
War on Drugs
War on Terror
War on Civil Rights
War on Drickels
+War on Law-Abiding Gun Owners

where does it end?

Fixed. And considering every government official is practically immune from being held personally civilly or criminally liable for their massive victim disarmament and subsequent murders, rapes, and maiming...

If just "war" is too over-broad and negative for some, be more specific:
Cold civil war on law-abiding gun owners, started and waged by the government many decades ago, and only recently in which we have started fighting back.

oaklander
01-10-2010, 2:46 AM
Open carry is "hot" right now:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=open+carry&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

1) The problem is that in California, once something makes the news, it's not too long until some legislator decides to outlaw it.

2) The "I exercise my rights because I can" argument also fails. It's not a right in California.

I would personally LOVE to LOADED open carry. And I think that may be possible in the future. If that isn't possible, then shall issue CCW will be possible. But these things are only possible if we play our cards right.

artherd
01-10-2010, 4:58 AM
Presently, for every soccer mom you win over in person, you alienate 10,000 when it hits the news.

And right now we have a legislative environment in which you can lose OC entirely if you so much as wiggle.

UOC as a whole can't even pony up enough money to defend one of it's own, let alone win any real PR wars.

After Incorporation, selected and engineered UOC events (involving lesbian women, not men - if you really want to win) become interesting.

Before, they are an unmitigated PR disaster and have already lead to draft legislation.

artherd
01-10-2010, 5:06 AM
Headline: "CONVICTED GUN CRIMINAL AND UOC LEADER DECLARES WAR ON POLICE"

Have any of you ever so much run for student body president? You're going to get slaughtered in the court of public opinion!

6172crew
01-10-2010, 8:12 AM
Talked with a few LE guys in LA area and as much as they like gun owners they think the UOC guys are going to screw things up for the rest of the CA gun owners.

Im cant speak for sure about every UOC guy or cop but the "they are at war with each other" statement is getting across to the LE guy at the station he works at.

This had to do with the San Pedro event, I didnt ask about any other ones that might have hapened in the area.

Stargazer
01-10-2010, 9:14 AM
And while we don't need the permission of the cops, & I certainly don't advocate seeking that, would it really be all that bad to let them know you're coming? Just so that they don't get hyper? Might that not lessen the urge on their part to seek "legislature assistance"? While it is fun to get 'in their face,' the goal (or so I'm told) is to achieve a positive goal. So, what would you rather have, the goal met, or fun?

I can't agree more with this post. If you are going to UOC, think about a positive outcome from your event, and what that really means. Does it mean a lot of people smiling at you, and congratulating you on having the guts to exercise your rights? Or does it mean people getting angry, lots of nervous cops around, and pissed off shop-owners? Then think about the best way to achieve that positive outcome.

Another thing worth mentioning is that there are people on this board who undeniably expanded the types of firearms available in CA in the recent years. These people are serving our community on a continuing basis to expand our RKBA. The way it has worked before required a lot of coordination, patience, and more patience. But the results were worth it. Even if someone is not into owning an AR or AK, they have to admit that in the great scheme of things, the OLL movement was a success for all RKBA in CA. So please have patience, let our leaders lead, and let's work together, not against each other.

Theseus
01-10-2010, 9:57 AM
So please have patience, let our leaders lead, and let's work together, not against each other.

That is right. . . you want us, a group of individuals to make room for and accept YOUR leaders as our own. Sorry, but as you can see, this is not going to happen.

Many (not all) of the OCDO crowd in California consider your leadership to be in direct opposition to their goals. They have no faith in your leaders.

I have stated before that I take Gene and the leadership at their word they won't stop until LOC is the law of the land in California, but I don't believe their strategy will achieve that goal in the manner many open carriers seek. As such I see no real harm in the open carriers fighting to get what they think they can get.

mblat
01-10-2010, 10:52 AM
That is right. . . you want us, a group of individuals to make room for and accept YOUR leaders as our own. Sorry, but as you can see, this is not going to happen.

Many (not all) of the OCDO crowd in California consider your leadership to be in direct opposition to their goals. They have no faith in your leaders.

I have stated before that I take Gene and the leadership at their word they won't stop until LOC is the law of the land in California, but I don't believe their strategy will achieve that goal in the manner many open carriers seek. As such I see no real harm in the open carriers fighting to get what they think they can get.

Really? Ok.... As you can see from this thread while I am not part of your movement, never the less I am supportive of your goals and even some of the methods and rhetoric.

So, please do tell, what is your PLAN? Please skip the whole thing about rights and public education and other nonsense. Public is sheep and no amount of education you can do will beat 45 second TV commercial by anti-gun police establishment you are at war with.

So... what is you real plan to accomplish your goal? What is your money structure? How much have your raised last year? Who is your lawyers?

I do not deny your right to do what you do. I also see how it can be a lot of fun. I would LOVE to see LOC in California. However, so far I failed to see coherent plan on your part on how to get there. That is why I decided against my participation in YOUR movement.
I see that plan on CFG part, even if it is SLOW one. What is yours?

Hopi
01-10-2010, 11:04 AM
That is right. . . you want us, a group of individuals to make room for and accept YOUR leaders as our own. Sorry, but as you can see, this is not going to happen.

Many (not all) of the OCDO crowd in California consider your leadership to be in direct opposition to their goals. They have no faith in your leaders.

I have stated before that I take Gene and the leadership at their word they won't stop until LOC is the law of the land in California, but I don't believe their strategy will achieve that goal in the manner many open carriers seek. As such I see no real harm in the open carriers fighting to get what they think they can get.

Hmmmmmmm..

-UOC despite warnings and requests not to do so....
-Post about how ''ll fight with or without you'
-Get arrested for UOC
-Accept $$ for legal defense from those that have requested you not engage in the activity
-Abrasively and recklessly continue to promote UOC
-Get convicted of UOC
-Lose gun rights
-Continue to promote UOC and challenge the council of CGN/CGF
-Ask people if you should sell valuables to pay for the unwise decision...



Did I miss anything?



I mean really.

N6ATF
01-10-2010, 11:36 AM
After Incorporation, selected and engineered UOC events (involving lesbian women, not men - if you really want to win) become interesting.[/b]

Good thing you clarified that. :p

Stargazer
01-10-2010, 11:42 AM
One thing is clear. The Calguns Foundation leadership and the UOC leadership needs to start talking. We MUST have a unified voice when it comes to public relations, legislative relations, and legal issues. It's ok, and even desirable, to have disagreements amongst ourselves, but to the outside, we must have a single voice.

As Ben Franklin said: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Theseus
01-10-2010, 12:10 PM
Hmmmmmmm..

-UOC despite warnings and requests not to do so....
-Post about how ''ll fight with or without you'
-Get arrested for UOC
-Accept $$ for legal defense from those that have requested you not engage in the activity
-Abrasively and recklessly continue to promote UOC
-Get convicted of UOC
-Lose gun rights
-Continue to promote UOC and challenge the council of CGN/CGF
-Ask people if you should sell valuables to pay for the unwise decision...



Did I miss anything?



I mean really.
You list those things as if they are wrong?

The only reason I even had a legal bill to start with is the "right people" convinced me to go with one of their lawyers. The legal defense fund was part of that convening.

I refuse to allow you, Calguns or anyone use that as a means to control me my actions or thoughts. And I won't even attempt to apologize for it.

You mistake my lack of submission to be a lack of gratitude. You are wrong. And you are taking attention away from the issues at hand and making this a personal issue.

I am not making this a personal issue. Why should you?

Davidk
01-10-2010, 12:13 PM
A couple of people have mentioned it but I think UOC'ers would go a LOOOONG way in the PR arena if they wouldn't dress like wild-eyed militia men when they're on TV.

I agree, I think we can learn from the medical marijuana movement. Instead of clean cut employees in lab coats dispensing there goods. They choose ti-dye and dreadlocks.

wildhawker
01-10-2010, 12:21 PM
Stargazer,

What, exactly, do you want everyone to talk about that we aren't discussing here? Further, we've seen (and heard) that UOC is a "leaderless" movement (of individuals)- who are the leaders?

If, as others claim, that UOC trusts not the strategy (or leaders) of the coalition, what strategy would they trust?

Theseus
01-10-2010, 12:34 PM
Stargazer,

What, exactly, do you want everyone to talk about that we aren't discussing here? Further, we've seen (and heard) that UOC is a "leaderless" movement (of individuals)- who are the leaders?

If, as others claim, that UOC trusts not the strategy (or leaders) of the coalition, what strategy would they trust?

We will not be able to stop all individual OC, which I agree is not helpful to the movement at this time, but we can organize and use events as a means to forward the movement with positive PR.

The major difference between OCDO and Calguns is that OCDO is still a grass-roots group. . . the only way I see leadership forming is through the group.

Hopi
01-10-2010, 12:38 PM
I am not making this a personal issue. Why should you?

What you're advocating impacts me personally. The unwise and reckless behavior of these rogue UOC advocates is jeopardizing and complicating the proven winning strategies from the desks of CGF/CGN....I am interested in winning, not becoming a martyr for a losing cause.

wildhawker
01-10-2010, 12:41 PM
Theseus, CGN is absolutely grassroots; it's what grassroots looks like when it's organized and has a plan.

mblat
01-10-2010, 1:46 PM
Theseus, CGN is absolutely grassroots; it's what grassroots looks like when it's organized and has a plan.

PLAN is keyword here, isn't it? While I LOVE UOC people in principal, I can't join them for this very reason:

they can't seem to articulate what their PLAN is.

artherd
01-11-2010, 2:09 AM
Many (not all) of the OCDO crowd in California consider your leadership to be in direct opposition to their goals. They have no faith in your leaders.

If the OCDO crowd is in direct opposition to my goals then they are against gun rights, specifically:

* Anti CCW & LOC for a select-fire suppressed MP5.

/thread.

oaklander
01-11-2010, 11:37 AM
The UOC movement is not doing well at all. There have been quit a few arrests, and at least one of them has resulted in a felony conviction.

The smartest people in the California gun movement think it's a bad idea right now. The people who ARE currently doing UOC are fringers.

How can ANYONE think it's a good idea??

Swiss
01-11-2010, 12:31 PM
Did that UOC group rally in Walnut Creek this last weekend, or was it called off?

This would be the same group that made local news with an event in Livermore, followed the next by a single turkey who wound up on camera getting checked by LEOs at gunpoint.

Old Timer
01-11-2010, 12:45 PM
The smartest people in the California gun movement think it's a bad idea right now.Hmmmm. I don't remember even being asked! :D:D

paul0660
01-11-2010, 12:51 PM
The UOC movement is not doing well at all. There have been quit a few arrests, and at least one of them has resulted in a felony conviction.

The smartest people in the California gun movement think it's a bad idea right now. The people who ARE currently doing UOC are fringers.

How can ANYONE think it's a good idea??

I agree. The SF Chronicle article on OC in the Bay Area was only valuable because it included the fact that many OC's would prefer to CCW, but cannot get permits. The comments section, which went on for hundreds of posts, repeatedly showed that many people are unaware of the difficulty of obtaining permits, and was actually the beginning of a good discussion of that subject with people with no previous knowledge of it. I would think that this, or the illogic of the school zone laws, should be the point of OC demonstrations, but it isn't.

The problem is, without the CCW or school zone angle, the movement has no point. Going out with your school zone map, submitting to any number of (e) checks, only reinforces the limitations on the 2A. Eventually someone is going to have their handgun stolen, because the "two seconds" it takes to load is an eon longer than a criminal with an already loaded gun, and that pretty gun on one's hip, although not worth the $500-$1000+ retail when fenced, is worth plenty.

The effort of OC's to be orderly, polite, and well dressed is also pointless, because if their point is to exercise the 2A, they are advocating the right of baggy pants young adults, smelly homeless folks, and (fill in the group you don't like) to do the same.

Theseus
01-11-2010, 1:00 PM
The UOC movement is not doing well at all. There have been quit a few arrests, and at least one of them has resulted in a felony conviction.

The smartest people in the California gun movement think it's a bad idea right now. The people who ARE currently doing UOC are fringers.

How can ANYONE think it's a good idea??

Although familiar with a person being charged with felony OC related charges, but not being convicted. If you have information I don't I would appreciate it.

Some of the groups do desire easier shall-issue permits. Others, and I would say a great deal more of them believe that loaded open carry should be permit-less.

wildhawker
01-11-2010, 1:12 PM
Permit-less LOC isn't going to happen in most of the US (including here). UOC works against LOC in CA.

oaklander
01-11-2010, 1:14 PM
My bad - I thought you had a conviction. . .

I personally know of several arrests - some of them did not make it to Calguns. . .

The point is that it is risky right now - I would MUCH rather loaded OC and/or CCW than UOC.

The risk vs. reward for UOC is just too great right now. . .

Although familiar with a person being charged with felony OC related charges, but not being convicted. If you have information I don't I would appreciate it.

Some of the groups do desire easier shall-issue permits. Others, and I would say a great deal more of them believe that loaded open carry should be permit-less.

pullnshoot25
01-11-2010, 2:50 PM
Permit-less LOC isn't going to happen in most of the US (including here). UOC works against LOC in CA.

Correction, most states are permit-less. However, quite a few states require a permit to carry in a vehicle.

navyinrwanda
01-11-2010, 3:07 PM
Permit-less LOC isn't going to happen in most of the US (including here). UOC works against LOC in CA.
Correction, most states are permit-less. However, quite a few states require a permit to carry in a vehicle.
As is being discussed in this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3614597#post3614597), it's not unlikely that the manner of carry and the details of any reasonable permit or licensing scheme would be left to local elected officials.

Unrestricted, unlicensed, and free (no cost) loaded open carry isn't likely in California. Unless the legislature decides to allow it.

wildhawker
01-11-2010, 3:44 PM
Look a bit farther into political probabilities and I would bet we see- generally- legislative bodies injecting themselves into the regulation of carry to the degree allowable as set by forthcoming precedent.

artherd
01-11-2010, 5:07 PM
UOC is not going to get society at large to hand you a bullet. If UOC-ers really think they will get permit-less LOC out of this - then they are even more disconnected with reality than I had feared.

Theseus
01-11-2010, 5:38 PM
My bad - I thought you had a conviction. . .

I personally know of several arrests - some of them did not make it to Calguns. . .

The point is that it is risky right now - I would MUCH rather loaded OC and/or CCW than UOC.

The risk vs. reward for UOC is just too great right now. . .

I was convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony. SO the mistake is understandable. . . But I was scared that someone else was made a victim.

Theseus
01-11-2010, 5:47 PM
UOC is not going to get society at large to hand you a bullet. If UOC-ers really think they will get permit-less LOC out of this - then they are even more disconnected with reality than I had feared.

Uh. . . OK. My mistake. I didn't know that you were the decider of what is real or not.

Believing it is a possibility makes us no more out of touch with reality than a christian believing in God.

wildhawker
01-11-2010, 6:03 PM
Uh. . . OK. My mistake. I didn't know that you were the decider of what is real or not.

Believing it is a possibility makes us no more out of touch with reality than a christian believing in God.

Well, since we're on the subject of religion and faith...

Substantially more evidence is available to support the existence of a supernatural being than that of UOC advancing LOC rights. If you wish to "believe in UOC" and hold it up as the god of your life, so be it- but drop all the nonsense about its usefulness in the legal sense.

CitaDeL
01-11-2010, 6:06 PM
UOC is not going to get society at large to hand you a bullet. If UOC-ers really think they will get permit-less LOC out of this - then they are even more disconnected with reality than I had feared.

While you are probably right about society not handing anyone a bullet, we already have permitless loaded open carry outside of incorporated areas. That is not the objective.

What the UOC contingent hopes to accomplish is to bring keep and bear to the debate around the water cooler and with the application of activism, use it as leverage agains issuing agencies that refuse to issue.

I would say that those UOC activists have been very sucessful in getting people to talk about the 2A and how screwy things are here in California. There have been 10 memos drafted, affirming the legalities so law enforcement arent as likely to overreact. The media so far has not been disasterous, even when LE does an (e) check during an interview. We have gunnies who thought exposed handguns were illegal, now looking over the penal code to discover what else they had wrong.

The activism we arent quite ready for yet. But when the time comes, we have some people in place with enough experience that it wont wind up being a clusterf*** the moment an organized protest occurs.

Theseus
01-11-2010, 7:21 PM
Well, since we're on the subject of religion and faith...

Substantially more evidence is available to support the existence of a supernatural being than that of UOC advancing LOC rights. If you wish to "believe in UOC" and hold it up as the god of your life, so be it- but drop all the nonsense about its usefulness in the legal sense.

Really? There is evidence to support the existence of a supernatural being?

And I can also argue that there is more evidence to support that more guns=less crime, but we don't believe that either? So because I believe something different than you I have less of a grip on reality?

navyinrwanda
01-11-2010, 7:47 PM
While you are probably right about society not handing anyone a bullet, we already have permitless loaded open carry outside of incorporated areas. That is not the objective.

What the UOC contingent hopes to accomplish is to bring keep and bear to the debate around the water cooler and with the application of activism, use it as leverage agains issuing agencies that refuse to issue.

It should be no surprise to anyone to know that litigation is already underway that will most likely turn California into a "shall issue" carry state. So it's hard to see how UOC activism could have anything but a negative effect on this litigation — judges watch the news, too.

This litigation will determine the degree to which a state or locality can regulate the carrying of weapons. While we can speculate about the details, it's likely that California will still be allowed to require a permit to carry a weapon — openly or concealed. The state will probably also be able to assess a truly reasonable fee for this permit, and place other requirements on permit holders (e.g., background checks, safe gun handling certification/training, etc.). These exact detail will likely be determined by elected state and local officials.

So, given that federal judges will decide whether or not we will have "shall issue" carry, and state and local politicians will determine the exact method of carry, it's still hard to understand how UOC activism will have anything other than a negative impact on the overall outcome.

What am I missing?

mblat
01-11-2010, 8:11 PM
Uh. . . OK. My mistake. I didn't know that you were the decider of what is real or not.

Believing it is a possibility makes us no more out of touch with reality than a christian believing in God.

Here we go. It is simply the RELIGION for this people. Now, really. Christians do not need PLAN because they have G.d.
You, however, do need a plan. I have noticed that you have been avoiding a question:

What is you plan to force changes in the law you desire?

wildhawker
01-11-2010, 8:23 PM
mblat, the only plan that seems to be present in the active segment of the UOC movement, unfortunately, is to incite whatever public and policy reaction that may come of UOC activities and hope that (somehow) it is a net positive effort for RKBA, generally.

Theseus
01-11-2010, 9:03 PM
Here we go. It is simply the RELIGION for this people. Now, really. Christians do not need PLAN because they have G.d.
You, however, do need a plan. I have noticed that you have been avoiding a question:

What is you plan to force changes in the law you desire?

It is their religion, so their belief in it makes them have more a grasp on reality than I do, because open carry is not a religion?

I am not avoiding the question, I am ignoring it. My plan is for me, and I don't feel the need to explain my plan to you or anyone else.

That, and that it isn't my place to determine the plan for the open carry movement.

wildhawker
01-11-2010, 9:22 PM
I am not avoiding the question, I am ignoring it. My plan is for me, and I don't feel the need to explain my plan to you or anyone else.

That, and that it isn't my place to determine the plan for the open carry movement.

Let's review:

"This is not beneficial and very likely harmful behavior for the time being."
"It is going to happen, so why don't you work with us?"
"Ok, we can offer strategic support but will not participate as we view this as per the above. If UOC is going to continue it should be executed in a very non-threatening manner with groups of diverse, highly-prepared and well-spoken enthusiasts."
"That's hard, we can't do it."
"If it can't be done right, it really shouldn't be done at all until we have 2A."
"It's our right; a right unexercised is a right lost."
"Exercising UOC now may destroy LOC for later. That is your goal, right?"
"Screw the legislature. We don't believe in a permitted-carry RKBA anyway."
"Ok... so what, then, is the plan to leverage UOC for permitless LOC?"
"It's none of your business."

With all due respect, Theseus, did your "plan" include being arrested, prosecuted, convicted and forfeiting your ability to own a firearm? If so, would you articulate how, exactly, this helps anyone (including you)?

Theseus
01-11-2010, 9:41 PM
Let's review:

"This is not beneficial and very likely harmful behavior for the time being."
"It is going to happen, so why don't you work with us?"
"Ok, we can offer strategic support but will not participate as we view this as per the above. If UOC is going to continue it should be executed in a very non-threatening manner with groups of diverse, highly-prepared and well-spoken enthusiasts."
"That's hard, we can't do it."
"If it can't be done right, it really shouldn't be done at all until we have 2A."
"It's our right; a right unexercised is a right lost."
"Exercising UOC now may destroy LOC for later. That is your goal, right?"
"Screw the legislature. We don't believe in a permitted-carry RKBA anyway."
"Ok... so what, then, is the plan to leverage UOC for permitless LOC?"
"It's none of your business."

With all due respect, Theseus, did your "plan" include being arrested, prosecuted, convicted and forfeiting your ability to own a firearm? If so, would you articulate how, exactly, this helps anyone (including you)?

With all due respect, whether it was part of my plan or not isn't as important as the fact that it happened.

I see no reason to share a plan with a group that is quite obviously intent to do nothing but criticize and condemn.

artherd
01-11-2010, 9:44 PM
Believing it is a possibility makes us no more out of touch with reality than a christian believing in God.

So what do you plan to do in court exactly? Cite Jesus?!?!

Look man, I like you, I really do. I contributed to your defense, several times.

But you're coming off like a lunatic here - to your own choir.

I am convinced the reason you refuse to share a plan is that you have none.

artherd
01-11-2010, 9:46 PM
What the UOC contingent hopes to accomplish is to bring keep and bear to the debate around the water cooler.

Well I know for a fact it's all over the water-cooler in the CA state Legislature...

Good work guys.

mblat
01-11-2010, 9:49 PM
It is their religion, so their belief in it makes them have more a grasp on reality than I do, because open carry is not a religion?

I am not avoiding the question, I am ignoring it. My plan is for me, and I don't feel the need to explain my plan to you or anyone else.

That is certainly a way to win support. :rolleyes:

That, and that it isn't my place to determine the plan for the open carry movement.

So you are saying there is no plan you are aware of? Again..... wonderful way to win supporters.

Ohhh well. While I wish you all luck you also didn't give you me any reason to join you.

wildhawker
01-11-2010, 10:02 PM
With all due respect, whether it was part of my plan or not isn't as important as the fact that it happened.

I see no reason to share a plan with a group that is quite obviously intent to do nothing but criticize and condemn.

That's a cop-out.

This community has supported you in many respects. It still does. (I do believe you used this community and its forums to plan your appeal collaboration effort (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=251493), did you not?). What you're telling me is that you trust us (and find us useful enough) to ask for money (for the defense of an action you knew could land you in trouble) and other forms of support but not with the details of your plan, whatever that might be?

We're intent on securing gun rights in California and throughout the US. Much advice has been posted here for the active UOCers to incorporate into the movement and improve the message and operations- or not, as has largely been the case. We'll *all* live with the results of both UOC and the legal/political/grassroots efforts of the coalition. If you don't like the thought of carry permits for CCW/LOC, you'll really enjoy the CCW-only permit that UOC may very well give us.

In fairness, I'll say that (in my eyes) it appears 2 groups of UOCers remain: those that oppose the strategy of the coalition (or, alternatively, distrust the strategy, or both the strategy and the coalition) and those who have not had much exposure to and understanding of it.

As I said before, if you wish to place your faith in UOC, feel free. Just do me a favor, please, and drop all of the melodramatic silliness; this isn't Broadway and I'm not here to watch a musical.

CitaDeL
01-11-2010, 10:17 PM
In fairness, I'll say that (in my eyes) it appears 2 groups of UOCers remain: those that oppose the strategy of the coalition (or, alternatively, distrust the strategy, or both the strategy and the coalition) and those who have not had much exposure to and understanding of it.

Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I don't see how I, or others from here and OCDO, who have agreed to stand down until incorporation fit into those two groups. If we are to be fair, recognition of the fact that there is a contingent that has been obedient to the request to curb our enthusiasm until after McDonald has been ruled upon is necessary.

Hopi
01-11-2010, 10:27 PM
Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I don't see how I, or others from here and OCDO, who have agreed to stand down until incorporation fit into those two groups. If we are to be fair, recognition of the fact that there is a contingent that has been obedient to the request to curb our enthusiasm until after McDonald has been ruled upon is necessary.

If you're 'standing down', can you simultaneously be an active UOC participant? I think that's the point.

Advocacy for UOC *at this time* is not productive. We all get the point that *some* people want to carry guns on their hips, fine. It just doesn't make sense to champion a behavior that, so far, has resulted in only negative, and perhaps unmeasurable and speculatively positive, outcomes.

For some here, those that have lost gun rights, what is the point of your advocacy? I mean, you're not even legally able to hold a gun in CA, what are the implications behind your advocacy? Connect the dots there.

obeygiant
01-11-2010, 10:29 PM
Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I don't see how I, or others from here and OCDO, who have agreed to stand down until incorporation fit into those two groups. If we are to be fair, recognition of the fact that there is a contingent that has been obedient to the request to curb our enthusiasm until after McDonald has been ruled upon is necessary.

I think you will find that the contingent that has honored the request to stand down for the time being will find a lot of support from the community at CGN, including myself.

Dr. Peter Venkman
01-11-2010, 10:32 PM
I've designed a new badge for the UOC movement:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/uk_wear_ing_your_heart_on_your_sleeve/img/4.jpg

Lets fight the power and secure our rights!

wildhawker
01-11-2010, 10:35 PM
Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I don't see how I, or others from here and OCDO, who have agreed to stand down until incorporation fit into those two groups. If we are to be fair, recognition of the fact that there is a contingent that has been obedient to the request to curb our enthusiasm until after McDonald has been ruled upon is necessary.

You're absolutely right- that was a typo on my part. My comments should have read:

"In fairness, I'll say that (in my eyes) it appears 2 groups of active UOCers remain: those that oppose the strategy of the coalition (or, alternatively, distrust the strategy, or both the strategy and the coalition) and those who have not had much exposure to and understanding of it."

I want to be clear on something. I'm not opposed to UOCers. I'm not opposed to grassroots activism. All, I think, anyone is asking for is an honest examination of the very real risks posed prior to incorporation. After that, you'll be seeing me around the state at organized/strategic UOC events quite a bit... Southwest is going to have to start a frequent flyer program for my 1911s.

Hopi
01-11-2010, 10:40 PM
After that, you'll be seeing me around the state at organized/strategic UOC events quite a bit... Southwest is going to have to start a frequent flyer program for my 1911s.

Right there with ya.....and reflecting on past PMs...I'm happy to see you post this.

Gray Peterson
01-11-2010, 10:52 PM
Why Theseus and the rest of the UOC'ers who have refused to stop UOCing (therefor putting a 74 year old guy at risk for felony charges for repeating something he saw on TV and risk him going to state prison, instead of sipping a cocktail in the beaches of Santa Cruz) think that somehow them poking a stick in the eye of the Legislature is an OK thing. There is no RKBA in this state, there is a near supermajority of anti-gunners in the Legislature. The only method of carry that can be done is via LTC, which is currently may-issue.

I don't understand why you ask for so much. I can open carry in Minnesota, Utah, and Indiana with my Utah firearms license without an issue. I would be PERFECTLY happy post-Sykes to get an LTC from a county in California to be able to carry statewide. I live in a state where you can OC on foot, but need a CPL in a vehicle. That CPL is shall-issue. Do you see me complaining about that law?

Minnesota, a state with no RKBA at all, but a good shall-issue permit to carry system, has had no hiccups to OC since the first year it was available. It is WIDELY well documented that it was "permit to carry", which included OC and CC. Cops in Minnesota are VERY well educated on the subject, and handle contacts with LOC's cordially.

Some of you who are involved in this little plan to "force UOC to the forefront" and somehow by some act of faith get permit less LOC are acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum because they can't go to Disney Land because their parents don't have the money to go this year without losing their home, which would destroy their ability to go to a place like that for many years due to foreclosure and bad credit.

Simply put, your "UOC activities" are threatening my future ability to LOC in the Castro District, legally, without problems or issues. Do you understand that you're putting that at risk? Do you care? Is it a situation where "If I can't permitless LOC, no one will be able to LOC at all"?

Because by doing what you're doing, that's exactly what you'll get post-Sykes: A Texas-style system where even printing will result in criminal charges. You really want the cops in this state to have the capability and capacity to arrest you for having a mere bulge on your side? Luckily the cops in Texas are generally reasonable and don't give a damn. Do you have the same feeling about LAPD or SFPD? Even after we get shall-issue just CCW, I just have this sneaking suspicion that some cops will do everything they can to bust CCW holders for "printing".

If that happens, and CCW holders are killed in such a system (given the anti-gun hysteria of California's law enforcement system which deals with gun carriers as "gang bangers" and not the law abiding, unlike the states surrounding it), the cops would be the bad guys, but so would you for creating the system that CGF leadership (Gene, Bill, Ben, wildhawker, Oaklander, etc) and others have been warning you would happen if OC gets totally banned in this state.

At least with permitted LOC the CGF leadership can lead the way to make sure training memos are issued widely and get it out there to make sure no innocent citizen gets killed because they reach for something in their pocket when they have guns drawn on them, just like the folks in GOCRA in Minnesota who widely educated the departments there about how to officially handle OC contacts with the minimum of intrusion.

Legislators will NEVER be held responsible for what they do except at the voting booth. Only people going to get sopped with the guilt is the cops that did the bad things, and the people who created the issue and problem in the first place.

artherd
01-11-2010, 11:00 PM
Simply put, your "UOC activities" are threatening my future ability to LOC in the Castro District, legally, without problems or issues. Do you understand that you're putting that at risk? Do you care? Is it a situation where "If I can't permitless LOC, no one will be able to LOC at all"?

I am starting to wonder...

And I am starting to wonder if some of the Must-UOC-NOW-ers aren't DOJ or Brady plants.

artherd
01-11-2010, 11:03 PM
Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I don't see how I, or others from here and OCDO, who have agreed to stand down until incorporation fit into those two groups.

Thank you.

pullnshoot25
01-11-2010, 11:20 PM
I am starting to wonder...

And I am starting to wonder if some of the Must-UOC-NOW-ers aren't DOJ or Brady plants.

Highly doubtful, as most OCers actually know the law. :)

wildhawker
01-11-2010, 11:22 PM
Highly doubtful, as most OCers actually know the law. :)

The devil can quote scripture, Nate.

Hopi
01-11-2010, 11:24 PM
Highly doubtful, as most OCers actually know the law. :)

That's the scary part. If they understood the law and how it works, a smart person would stand down post-haste.

Thanks to those smart ones that have. Genuinely.

hoffmang
01-11-2010, 11:33 PM
Theseus,

A public defender would have left you no chance on appeal. I'm somewhat tired of you insinuating that getting you represented by an actual firearms lawyer was somehow detrimental to your case. Your judge determined that the park bench in a parking lot open to the public was a public place under existing case law. A public defender wouldn't even have preserved the things your appealing on that you have some small chance of winning upon.

-Gene

pullnshoot25
01-11-2010, 11:48 PM
The devil can quote scripture, Nate.

Touche, good sir...

navyinrwanda
01-12-2010, 1:47 AM
“My plan is for me, and I don't feel the need to explain my plan to you or anyone else.”

“...it isn't my place to determine the plan for the open carry movement.”

“...whether it was part of my plan or not isn't as important as the fact that it happened.”

Spoken like a true anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist).

Mulay El Raisuli
01-12-2010, 7:05 AM
That's the scary part. If they understood the law and how it works, a smart person would stand down post-haste.

Thanks to those smart ones that have. Genuinely.


You're welcome.


The Raisuli

Asmodai
01-12-2010, 8:01 AM
But the Panthers cooked up this event as a publicity stunt.

Ostensibly, they were at the Capitol to protest -- get this! -- a Republican-sponsored gun control bill. The Assembly GOP caucus chairman, Don Mulford of Piedmont, was pushing legislation to ban the carrying of loaded firearms within any city.......

"We have a constitutional right to bear arms," the Panthers shouted as they roamed the Capitol. Panther co-founder Bobby Seale read a statement to reporters claiming that the bill was "aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless.".......

They said, 'We want to see our Assembly representatives.'

'Well, you can't do it this way.' 'How do you do it?' 'You need to go out and stand behind the gate. Then we can bring a member back.'

So they went back behind the gate.

Of course, nobody wanted to come out of the chamber to talk to them.....

Some state cops arrived and unloaded the Panthers' weapons. But no law had been broken. Soon afterward, the Legislature made it illegal to carry a firearm in the Capitol.

On their way out of town, a few Panthers were arrested by city cops for breaking a fish and game law: having a loaded gun in a car.

The Mulford bill passed, basically making it illegal to carry a loaded gun in public.

Again, not my favorite rag to quote: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/03/local/me-cap3

Bluntly pushing your "Rights" around in California and making people scared or angry = Slow erosion of your "Rights" no matter how "Right" you are or how "Right" you feel.

It takes patience and intelligent strategy to defeat the legislative beast that resides in Sacramento

Theseus
01-12-2010, 8:20 AM
Theseus,

A public defender would have left you no chance on appeal. I'm somewhat tired of you insinuating that getting you represented by an actual firearms lawyer was somehow detrimental to your case. Your judge determined that the park bench in a parking lot open to the public was a public place under existing case law. A public defender wouldn't even have preserved the things your appealing on that you have some small chance of winning upon.

-Gene

I think Bruce did a pretty good job on my case, a great job with what he had. My complaint is and will be with the attempt by people here to make me feel like they have the right to belittle me or control me because they donated some money to my defense fund. I think this is especially insulting since they are ignoring the point that I only chose a private lawyer because you and other "right people" thought it would be best for the community, and thus the only reason the defense fund was needed.

I have said before that I agree to wait for incorporation, but I can't stop many of the people intent on open carry so instead I will support them and do what I can by keeping them out of trouble.

If that makes me a lunatic then I am Daffy Duck going on one of my famous lunacy dances.

mblat
01-12-2010, 8:47 AM
I have said nowhere that my choosing a private lawyer hurt my case. What I have been saying is that I am tired of people are attacking me about going with a private lawyer and then accepting funds from the defense fund and not obeying their wishes in what seems to be ignoring the facts of the matter.

I think Bruce did a pretty good job on my case, a great job with what he had. My complaint is and will be with the attempt by people here to make me feel like they have the right to belittle me or control me because they donated some money to my defense fund.

I have said before that I agree to wait for incorporation, but I can't stop many of the people intent on open carry so instead I will support them and do what I can by keeping them out of trouble.

If that makes me a lunatic then I am Daffy Duck going on one of my famous lunacy dances.

No, if you indeed stop UOC until incorporation it makes you were reasonable one. As I always suspect from your posts on other subjects.
Those who didn't stop are indeed unreasonable.

And as far as people throw the fact that they donated to your case....... Oh, well. I find it tasteless. I agree they have no right to do so - I donated also and I do not think it obligates you or limits your behavior in any way.
But you need to give them a break. First of all they did help you. Second, and don't take it a wrong way, you can sound a little combative.

Theseus
01-12-2010, 9:00 AM
Second, and don't take it a wrong way, you can sound a little combative.

I do tend to get that way when I feel I am being attacked.

wildhawker
01-12-2010, 10:13 AM
Theseus, you're always the victim and never the product of your own doing.

Gray Peterson
01-12-2010, 10:15 AM
So Theseus, you suggest that we continually talk to and support those who won't listen to us anyway???

mej16489
01-12-2010, 10:23 AM
In fairness, I'll say that (in my eyes) it appears 2 groups of UOCers remain: those that oppose the strategy of the coalition (or, alternatively, distrust the strategy, or both the strategy and the coalition) and those who have not had much exposure to and understanding of it.


You're totally forgetting the 3rd group due to the vocality of the dissenters. The group that is inline with the CGF standdown on OC. Its Primarily made of the 'old-guard' OCers.

wildhawker
01-12-2010, 10:25 AM
You're totally forgetting the 3rd group due to the vocality of the dissenters. The group that is inline with the CGF standdown on OC. Its Primarily made of the 'old-guard' OCers.

No, I'm not. See Hopi's posts on the same subject.

Hopi
01-12-2010, 10:26 AM
And as far as people throw the fact that they donated to your case....... Oh, well. I find it tasteless.


If he had disclosed his intention to continue to promote activity that could likely result in others losing their gun rights, I bet the support would have been much different. That's the point.

He has a golden opportunity to help our fight for the 2a in CA by relaying the reality and consequences of his poor decision making. He is a walking example of just about every smart criticism warning against this type of behavior.

Instead of making lemonade with the lemons, he is throwing them at the people who stand to help the cause the most.

mej16489
01-12-2010, 10:27 AM
No, I'm not. See Hopi's posts on the same subject.


Ya, I knew I should have kept reading beofer posting...I usually do...Mea Culpa :)

N6ATF
01-12-2010, 10:29 AM
So Theseus, you suggest that we continually talk to and support those who won't listen to us anyway???

One could say the same about talking to ("educating") LEAs who have a pattern or practice of violating the 4A with impunity.

Theseus
01-12-2010, 12:21 PM
If he had disclosed his intention to continue to promote activity that could likely result in others losing their gun rights, I bet the support would have been much different. That's the point.

He has a golden opportunity to help our fight for the 2a in CA by relaying the reality and consequences of his poor decision making. He is a walking example of just about every smart criticism warning against this type of behavior.

Instead of making lemonade with the lemons, he is throwing them at the people who stand to help the cause the most.

I made no secret about my intentions, you can even read in the threads associated with the defense fund.

I have always and will always advocate for open carry. I think the confusion and hostility here is in the distinct difference in circumstances. Are you talking about:



Individual open carry before incorporation?
Group open carry before incorporation?
Individual open carry after incorporation?
Group open carry after incorporation?

Once you seperate them into these options you will likely find that I am in basic agreement with you. I believe that:



Individual open carry before incorporation is risky and ill-advised.
Group open carry before incorporation can be, if done properly, helpful for the purpose of public education.
Individual and group open carry after incorporation are both good and advisable as a meant to not only educate the public but have more teeth in protecting our members from the trampling of their rights.

With that said, what is the problem with me advocating open carry? We need to grow the ranks and get people prepared for carrying after incorporation. Now, I have and do advise against individual open carry, but will still promote and advise group meetings in appropriate venues. I can do nothing for people that choose to ignore that advisement other than assist them in an attempt to minimize their risk and detriment to the cause.

You try hanging me because I communicate to you what I understand from the "fringe" open carriers that choose to ignore your leaders. I have said it before and will say it again, I believe Gene when he says his end game is the same as mine and most open carriers. I don't believe that Gene or the foundation will intentionally throw open carry under the bus to get shall issue CCW and then ignore loaded open carry, but that trust is not shared by many of the "active" individual open carriers.

I do however believe that their strategy may not achieve that goal and as such I will work with the strategy that I think has the better chance of achieving the goals I desire. Just because I disagree on this one issue does not mean that I don't believe the Foundation and its leaders have not done any good for our gun rights in California. They have done good work and they have my appreciation for this. I will do what I can to support their efforts, provided I agree with their spirit and outcome. If I don't, I reserve the right as a free man to choose a group that will achieve the outcome in the spirit I desire.

Yes, the decision to go with private attorney was ultimately mine to make, and I am not sorry I did. The fact that I am now in debt for this choice is also my fault as it was my decision to make and that does not make me a victim, but being attacked for making that decision does make me a victim.

Hopi
01-12-2010, 12:34 PM
I made no secret about my intentions, you can even read in the threads associated with the defense fund.

I have always and will always advocate for open carry. I think the confusion and hostility here is in the distinct difference in circumstances. Are you talking about:



Individual open carry before incorporation?
Group open carry before incorporation?
Individual open carry after incorporation?
Group open carry after incorporation?

Once you seperate them into these options you will likely find that I am in basic agreement with you. I believe that:



Individual open carry before incorporation is risky and ill-advised.
Group open carry before incorporation can be, if done properly, helpful for the purpose of public education.
Individual and group open carry after incorporation are both good and advisable as a meant to not only educate the public but have more teeth in protecting our members from the trampling of their rights.

With that said, what is the problem with me advocating open carry? We need to grow the ranks and get people prepared for carrying after incorporation. Now, I have and do advise against individual open carry, but will still promote and advise group meetings in appropriate venues. I can do nothing for people that choose to ignore that advisement other than assist them in an attempt to minimize their risk and detriment to the cause.

You try hanging me because I communicate to you what I understand from the "fringe" open carriers that choose to ignore your leaders. I have said it before and will say it again, I believe Gene when he says his end game is the same as mine and most open carriers. I don't believe that Gene or the foundation will intentionally throw open carry under the bus to get shall issue CCW and then ignore loaded open carry, but that trust is not shared by many of the "active" individual open carriers.

I do however believe that their strategy may not achieve that goal and as such I will work with the strategy that I think has the better chance of achieving the goals I desire. Just because I disagree on this one issue does not mean that I don't believe the Foundation and its leaders have not done any good for our gun rights in California. They have done good work and they have my appreciation for this. I will do what I can to support their efforts, provided I agree with their spirit and outcome. If I don't, I reserve the right as a free man to choose a group that will achieve the outcome in the spirit I desire.

Yes, the decision to go with private attorney was ultimately mine to make, and I am not sorry I did. The fact that I am now in debt for this choice is also my fault as it was my decision to make and that does not make me a victim, but being attacked for making that decision does make me a victim.


Look, I respect your passion, I really do.

In the interest of avoiding redundancy, I will avoid parsing your post.

I will say that 'my leaders' as you pejoratively labeled the CGF have a track record of victory. You, not so much. The proof is in the pudding.


Final thought...... a lot of what you say seems to come from the playbook of Gorski. Take that for what it's worth.

wildhawker
01-12-2010, 12:58 PM
With that said, what is the problem with me advocating open carry? We need to grow the ranks and get people prepared for carrying after incorporation.

This, to me, highlights the current weakness in the UOC movement- a fundamental lack of understanding as to how an operation should be efficiently and effectively executed.

UOC is already bigger than it can handle. It has plenty of active members to do useful campaigning and, including those UOCers who've stood down temporarily and those of us waiting to participate until incorporation, have a tremendous pool of resources from which to draw.

Let me put it another way.

I have a goal: that goal is to build a bridge. If I am the manager of the project (and there must be one), I don't begin by placing help wanted ads and hiring ad hoc a large number of general labor employees. I first break the project down into smaller subcomponents and tasks, then assign the appropriate resources to them. These are then scheduled according to logic and reasonable estimates of risks and opportunities.

Once I have my schedule and list of resources needed (and have verified that my resources are available and within my budget), I begin procuring those resources (including human). The first people I gather are senior level field managers for the work subcomponents and their support staff, such as engineers and foremen. This core management team will begin to build operations teams (crews) and communicate to these new recruits the goals, expectations and safety protocols (boundaries) for the project, and - most importantly - their unique crews (typically task-specific).

Now that we have trained crews, let's go to work. That doesn't mean everybody runs for the door. That means that the crews gather those resources we previously created/procured and, with their leadership, move into the planned sequence of executing their specific goals. In the majority of instances this means that crews are phased into and out of the project; you cannot place concrete until the falsework and forms are up, no? And what would the project look like if we had 1000 general laborers (but few carpenters, pile drivers, electricians or masons), all at the same time? We would call that a cluster**** and, more than likely, a failed project in the making (although it would provide a disinterested observer with virtually limitless entertainment).

Let's roll along to the end of a specific task. It's done, looks great and everyone admires the fruits of their hard work. That's it, right? Nope. What wasn't accounted for in the original plan? What lessons were learned and what could we do more effectively the next time we have to do that task? It would be a shame to have all that experience simply walk away from the project without communicating it to the leaders so it may be employed in the execution of the next project.

What I'm trying to say is that the UOC movement has no plan, no leadership and it's building a failing project. If it wants to do something useful, it should take a step back and regroup... while it still can.

I don't believe that Gene or the foundation will intentionally throw open carry under the bus to get shall issue CCW and then ignore loaded open carry, but that trust is not shared by many of the "active" individual open carriers.

I have yet to hear how those distrusting of the coalition would expect to create a better outcome for gun owners. I hear a lot of talk and sniping from the nickel seats, that's about it.

Yes, the decision to go with private attorney was ultimately mine to make, and I am not sorry I did. The fact that I am now in debt for this choice is also my fault as it was my decision to make and that does not make me a victim, but being attacked for making that decision does make me a victim.

I haven't heard anyone attack you for utilizing a private attorney. What you're hearing is the roar of the vacuum created by the last of your credibility vacating the community.

mblat
01-12-2010, 1:31 PM
I have a goal: that goal is to build a bridge. If I am the manager of the project (and there must be one), I don't begin by placing help wanted ads and hiring ad hoc a large number of general labor employees. I first break the project down into smaller subcomponents and tasks, then assign the appropriate resources to them. These are then scheduled according to logic and reasonable estimates of risks and opportunities.

Once I have my schedule and list of resources needed (and have verified that my resources are available and within my budget), I begin procuring those resources (including human). The first people I gather are senior level field managers for the work subcomponents and their support staff, such as engineers and foremen. This core management team will begin to build operations teams (crews) and communicate to these new recruits the goals, expectations and safety protocols (boundaries) for the project, and - most importantly - their unique crews (typically task-specific).

Now that we have trained crews, let's go to work. That doesn't mean everybody runs for the door. That means that the crews gather those resources we previously created/procured and, with their leadership, move into the planned sequence of executing their specific goals. In the majority of instances this means that crews are phased into and out of the project; you cannot place concrete until the falsework and forms are up, no? And what would the project look like if we had 1000 general laborers (but few carpenters, pile drivers, electricians or masons), all at the same time? We would call that a cluster**** and, more than likely, a failed project in the making (although it would provide a disinterested observer with virtually limitless entertainment).

Let's roll along to the end of a specific task. It's done, looks great and everyone admires the fruits of their hard work. That's it, right? Nope. What wasn't accounted for in the original plan? What lessons were learned and what could we do more effectively the next time we have to do that task? It would be a shame to have all that experience simply walk away from the project without communicating it to the leaders so it may be employed in the execution of the next project.


Nearly perfect example from PMP prep. course.... :)

navyinrwanda
01-12-2010, 3:15 PM
I have said it before and will say it again, I believe Gene when he says his end game is the same as mine and most open carriers. I don't believe that Gene or the foundation will intentionally throw open carry under the bus to get shall issue CCW and then ignore loaded open carry, but that trust is not shared by many of the "active" individual open carriers.

I do however believe that their strategy may not achieve that goal and as such I will work with the strategy that I think has the better chance of achieving the goals I desire. Just because I disagree on this one issue does not mean that I don't believe the Foundation and its leaders have not done any good for our gun rights in California. They have done good work and they have my appreciation for this. I will do what I can to support their efforts, provided I agree with their spirit and outcome. If I don't, I reserve the right as a free man to choose a group that will achieve the outcome in the spirit I desire.
Maybe you could explain to us exactly what goal you feel the litigation underway by the Calguns Foundation may not achieve?

It would be helpful if you could be very specific; for example, more specific than just "loaded open carry" (if that is indeed your concern).

Theseus
01-12-2010, 3:46 PM
I have yet to hear how those distrusting of the coalition would expect to create a better outcome for gun owners. I hear a lot of talk and sniping from the nickel seats, that's about it.

I haven't heard anyone attack you for utilizing a private attorney. What you're hearing is the roar of the vacuum created by the last of your credibility vacating the community.

Sweet! No expectations then I can't let anyone down. Now if it goes wrong you have someone to blame by name.

See. . . I did provide something useful!

DedEye
01-12-2010, 4:48 PM
Sweet! No expectations then I can't let anyone down. Now if it goes wrong you have someone to blame by name.

You aren't Jesus. Playing the martyr is way beyond played out.

See. . . I did provide something useful!

No, you didn't.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/despair-poster-mistakes.jpg

cmth
01-12-2010, 7:13 PM
My question to the "right people" is simple: Do you support open carry?

I'm asking this question in the abstract; California's unique issues notwithstanding. This has nothing to do with UOC, LOC, incorporation, or any of that. I just want to know your feelings about open carry and the open carry movement. How do you feel about a regular citizen carrying a gun in the open? Would you prefer that people carry concealed, and if so, why? Are you aware of the grassroots, nationwide open carry movement and what its goals are? Are you supportive, or not? Is your opposition to open carry coming from a tactical or philosophical point of view?

If "bearing arms" is our fundamental, inalienable right, then is not open carry the pure embodiment of that right?

If there is to be any trust or understanding between the "right people" and the open carry contingent that is refusing to stand down until incorporation, there needs to be a clear and unequivocal statement one way or the other of just where everyone's loyalties lie. While it is obvious that there is a nearly universal hostility toward pre-incorporation UOC here, it is not entirely clear if that hostility also extends toward open carry in general.

How can those of us who believe in the right and the cause of open carry, have any trust in our self-appointed leaders if we are worried whether or not those same leaders will stab us in the back? How do we know that we will not be used as political tools and bargaining chips in some hidden agenda? There are certainly individuals and groups of open carriers who are using it as an act of intimidation in order to force a change in CCW issuance policy (How's it going, Escondido (http://www.escondido-open-carry.org/)?) who are not really interested in open carry. Most of us do not consider them our brethren, because they are not really interested in rights or a political movement. They just want to carry their guns and not offend anyone. Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry had some not-so-nice things to say about people like that.

Many here would like to see Tennessee-style carry, where there is simply a "gun carry permit" that is required to carry a firearm, and it's your choice on how to carry it. I do not see that as reasonable in the least. Why would I wish to trade an e-check for a permit check every time an officer sees me carrying a gun? A nod and a wave would suit me just fine (as it is in most other states). Everyone's best buddy, Alan Gura, seems to believe that permitting a right (which is a complete oxymoron in and of itself) is a reasonable compromise, and he said as much in his oral arguments for Heller. I have no use for appeasers and compromisers. He will singlehandedly be responsible for deleting "shall not be infringed" from the Second Amendment forever. If Gura is truly the best the "gun rights" community can come up with, then we have already lost.

I can't wait to apply for my church-attendance permit, or my forum-posting permit. Soon to be followed by my water-drinking and air-breathing permits. How does it go again? Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box...

Theseus
01-12-2010, 8:08 PM
My question to the "right people" is simple: Do you support open carry?

I'm asking this question in the abstract; California's unique issues notwithstanding. This has nothing to do with UOC, LOC, incorporation, or any of that. I just want to know your feelings about open carry and the open carry movement. How do you feel about a regular citizen carrying a gun in the open? Would you prefer that people carry concealed, and if so, why? Are you aware of the grassroots, nationwide open carry movement and what its goals are? Are you supportive, or not? Is your opposition to open carry coming from a tactical or philosophical point of view?

If "bearing arms" is our fundamental, inalienable right, then is not open carry the pure embodiment of that right?

If there is to be any trust or understanding between the "right people" and the open carry contingent that is refusing to stand down until incorporation, there needs to be a clear and unequivocal statement one way or the other of just where everyone's loyalties lie. While it is obvious that there is a nearly universal hostility toward pre-incorporation UOC here, it is not entirely clear if that hostility also extends toward open carry in general.

How can those of us who believe in the right and the cause of open carry, have any trust in our self-appointed leaders if we are worried whether or not those same leaders will stab us in the back? How do we know that we will not be used as political tools and bargaining chips in some hidden agenda? There are certainly individuals and groups of open carriers who are using it as an act of intimidation in order to force a change in CCW issuance policy (How's it going, Escondido (http://www.escondido-open-carry.org/)?) who are not really interested in open carry. Most of us do not consider them our brethren, because they are not really interested in rights or a political movement. They just want to carry their guns and not offend anyone. Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry had some not-so-nice things to say about people like that.

Many here would like to see Tennessee-style carry, where there is simply a "gun carry permit" that is required to carry a firearm, and it's your choice on how to carry it. I do not see that as reasonable in the least. Why would I wish to trade an e-check for a permit check every time an officer sees me carrying a gun? A nod and a wave would suit me just fine (as it is in most other states). Everyone's best buddy, Alan Gura, seems to believe that permitting a right (which is a complete oxymoron in and of itself) is a reasonable compromise, and he said as much in his oral arguments for Heller. I have no use for appeasers and compromisers. He will singlehandedly be responsible for deleting "shall not be infringed" from the Second Amendment forever. If Gura is truly the best the "gun rights" community can come up with, then we have already lost.

I can't wait to apply for my church-attendance permit, or my forum-posting permit. Soon to be followed by my water-drinking and air-breathing permits. How does it go again? Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box...

I can't answer for them, but in my communications with at least one of them I am firm in the belief that they all support open carry and are only condemning it pre-incorporation as a tactic and not as a disagreement with the general concept of open carry.

As I Have said above, I don't question their motives or their passion to the cause, merely whether their strategy will achieve what I desire.

But what do I know, I have no credibility here because I believe in open carry.

And I am not seriously acting the martyr, I am actually laughing at the ideas posted above. At this point I feel there is no logical course but to laugh at the lot of you. I have felt for some time that my stay here at Calguns was way worn out, now it is there in stone for me to see.

hoffmang
01-12-2010, 8:16 PM
Many here would like to see Tennessee-style carry, where there is simply a "gun carry permit" that is required to carry a firearm, and it's your choice on how to carry it. I do not see that as reasonable in the least. Why would I wish to trade an e-check for a permit check every time an officer sees me carrying a gun? A nod and a wave would suit me just fine (as it is in most other states). Everyone's best buddy, Alan Gura, seems to believe that permitting a right (which is a complete oxymoron in and of itself) is a reasonable compromise, and he said as much in his oral arguments for Heller. I have no use for appeasers and compromisers. He will singlehandedly be responsible for deleting "shall not be infringed" from the Second Amendment forever. If Gura is truly the best the "gun rights" community can come up with, then we have already lost.


You unwisely confuse what people want with what we can get. I want unlicensed LOC of a pair of FA MP-5's I bought at Costco 20 minutes ago.

Coming back to the reality, I support LOC and work very hard right now to get us as close to the above as we can. Know that 12031(e) checks are unconstitutional but that we need a win in McDonald to win that for example.

The only way we're going to get LOC is by not screwing up the permitting system before incorporation.

Tell me this. Texas is about the most pro gun state in the Union after Alaska and Vermont. Why can't gun owners get unlicensed open carry in Texas - or even licensed open carry in Texas?

If you can answer that, then maybe you have a point. However, we all have to operate in the actual political and legal world we operate in. Just like the people who thought we should get machine guns first, we're going to get carry by the skin of our teeth. We will get it but everyone needs to be prepared for us to lose cases that simply want permits on the way to final victory.

You can have an effective right to carry (and not just concealed which you'll need to think about) with a permit: for now, in California. We're at the beginning of the fight and over-reach right now could set us back 20 years. The African American civil rights movement didn't start with the right for black men to marry white women - it instead started with the right to not be segregated in bus terminals... Compared to that we're going to be moving to the core issues in time frames that make their decades turn into our years.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
01-12-2010, 8:24 PM
Many here would like to see Tennessee-style carry, where there is simply a "gun carry permit" that is required to carry a firearm, and it's your choice on how to carry it. I do not see that as reasonable in the least. Why would I wish to trade an e-check for a permit check every time an officer sees me carrying a gun? A nod and a wave would suit me just fine (as it is in most other states). Everyone's best buddy, Alan Gura, seems to believe that permitting a right (which is a complete oxymoron in and of itself) is a reasonable compromise, and he said as much in his oral arguments for Heller. I have no use for appeasers and compromisers. He will singlehandedly be responsible for deleting "shall not be infringed" from the Second Amendment forever. If Gura is truly the best the "gun rights" community can come up with, then we have already lost.

Please read the Heller decision before mouthing off about Gura.

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Do you know WHY he conceded the issue? This is because he can reargue it in a future case rather than having the issue smacked down by SCOTUS to where we could have mandatory registration of firearms nationwide and we can't do anything about it.

You make these statements with no knowledge of the backstory of the Parker case, or the reasons why he prefers surgical precision strike litigation. The less issues that you clog up in a court case why the reason WHY a license is even required on the first round of litigation, you preserve the argument against licensing it at all in a future case.

Do you understand that the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's went after places like law schools and stuff before they went after K-12 schooling in Brown v. Board of Education? Do you understand this is part and parcel the method they did to fix the massive amounts of legal segregation throughout the country? Do you know that this is how civil rights litigation, especially "new and upcoming" rights issues crop up, right?

Take great offense to this (not a huge fan of the "no offense" comment before saying something offensive), but if it wasn't for Alan Gura, we wouldn't even be having this argument at all. Your arguments for some sort of "Second Amendment Purity" is the kind of crap that Gary Gorski has pulled, trying to sue the entirety of the licensing system off the books and failing miserably because "he thinks he's right".

There are real life consequences for throwing hail mary pass litigation similar to what you seem to be proposing. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of stuff like this (http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-01-02/bay-area/17196342_1_kidnapping-suspects-richmond-police) happening. You'll have to forgive me, but getting my brothers and sisters in that particular community a fighting chance to get self defense considered good enough cause to get a license to carry is good enough for the moment for me. We can discuss the details of getting enough political support for striking down PC12031 and parts of PC 626.9, but we NEED to rebuild the gun rights culture in California first. Instead of 50,000 LTC's, we need 2 million LTC's within the first few years of post-Sykes license issuance.

Instead of throwing arrows at Gene (who supports unfettered OC as a matter of constitutional purity) and others in the Coalition, why don't you help us when Sykes is final for our side to rebuild the legal gun carrying culture in this state. 2 million LTC holders would be a VERY powerful voice and block that can be flexed to fix a LOT of problems with California gun law.

Instead of complaining and whining about not getting what you want, why don't you help the coalition by helping rebuild the culture of gun ownership here? Become an NRA certified instructor, so you can teach classes for the LTC's once good cause becomes court ordered shall-issue. Spread the word to your friends and family members once we have positive litigation go our way that they can buy guns and carry them. No hail mary pass will fix an issue like that, only hard work on your part will do this.

Are you willing to do the work, or are you just going to pound away on at a keyboard on your computer saying "How this person sucks" or "we're not getting enough for me to like it". Tough. You want to make unlicensed OC happen, work on it the right way so it will happen, instead of suggesting things that'll fail worse than the Titanic and take all chance of carry in any form with it.

obeygiant
01-12-2010, 8:46 PM
Gene & Gray, well said. Sticky Please!

1337vending
01-12-2010, 9:01 PM
You unwisely confuse what people want with what we can get. I want unlicensed LOC of a pair of FA MP-5's I bought at Costco 20 minutes ago.


Don't forget the 3-pack of Kirkland brand suppressors! :D

cmth
01-12-2010, 9:19 PM
Please read the Heller decision before mouthing off about Gura.

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

Open carry can be regulated via permit, straight from Gura's mouth. He even says that states may be allowed to ban one type of carry but must allow some form of carry, even if a permit is required (Texas style). He tries to argue that a shall issue permit is the same as a right, which is ludicrous on its face. He stated much the same here in this interview as he did on the floor of the Supreme Court while arguing Heller. So, please tell me how, exactly, am I wrong about Mr. Gura?

sreiter
01-12-2010, 9:27 PM
And right now we have a legislative environment in which you can lose OC entirely if you so much as wiggle.



huh???? what good is having the right to do something, if as soon as you do it, the right is taken away. IMO you already lost the right if the above statement is true

btw - i dont OC

hoffmang
01-12-2010, 9:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdZiwaNXNqc

Open carry can be regulated via permit, straight from Gura's mouth. He even says that states may be allowed to ban one type of carry but must allow some form of carry, even if a permit is required (Texas style). He tries to argue that a shall issue permit is the same as a right, which is ludicrous on its face. He stated much the same here in this interview as he did on the floor of the Supreme Court while arguing Heller. So, please tell me how, exactly, am I wrong about Mr. Gura?

I'll try again since you ignored me. If the 3rd most gun friendly state in the Union (Texas) has a right to keep and bear arms in their Constitution but yet require a permit to carry and will not allow open carry at all, why do you think the Federal Courts or California will adopt something more permissive?

"I'm not bothered by open carry," is the direct quote from Alan Gura. "The way the courts are going to come down on this ... you can carry a gun .. but the state can license that. Personally I don't have a problem with Open Carry .. and I understand why they do it. They want to normalize the idea that you can have guns!"

I'd suggest you stop trying to mislead from your own sources. The part in bold is key. He's not saying what he wants. He's saying what we're going to be able to get.

-Gene

hoffmang
01-12-2010, 9:30 PM
huh???? what good is having the right to do something, if as soon as you do it, the right is taken away. IMO you already lost the right if the above statement is true


artherd's comment is as to the period before we have Incorporation.

-Gene

cmth
01-12-2010, 10:00 PM
I'll try again since you ignored me. If the 3rd most gun friendly state in the Union (Texas) has a right to keep and bear arms in their Constitution but yet require a permit to carry and will not allow open carry at all, why do you think the Federal Courts or California will adopt something more permissive?

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
Texas State Constitution. They do not have the right to carry any way they want, as their Constitution states the legislature has the power to regulate the carrying of arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
United States Constitution. "...shall not be infringed."

"I'm not bothered by open carry," is the direct quote from Alan Gura. "The way the courts are going to come down on this ... you can carry a gun .. but the state can license that. Personally I don't have a problem with Open Carry .. and I understand why they do it. They want to normalize the idea that you can have guns!"

I'd suggest you stop trying to mislead from your own sources. The part in bold is key. He's not saying what he wants. He's saying what we're going to be able to get.

-Gene

You bolded the wrong part. I fixed it for you. I don't personally care what Alan Gura likes or dislikes, only what he believes is Constitutional, since he will be arguing the most important Second Amendment case in our country since the last one he argued. The language of the Second Amendment, the many speeches, writings, and arguments of the men who founded this nation, and the history of our right to bear arms in this country, do not coincide with what he believes is permissible under the Second Amendment. As I said before, Alan Gura will succeed in deleting "shall not be infringed" from the Second Amendment. This is unquestionable. The only purpose that could possibly be served by a system of licenses and permits to carry a firearm is to ultimately deny that right to the people, either to individuals, groups, or to everyone.

The moment that our right to arms was truly taken away was when the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, and Congress then had the power to deny the right to arms to certain individuals and classes of people. If they have the power to tell anyone they can't own or carry a gun, they have the power to tell everyone that they can't have a gun. In the 40+ years since that law was passed, everyone simply accepts it as a reasonable restriction on their rights. I don't accept any restriction on my rights. If the government believes that certain people are too violent to be trusted with a firearm, then those people should not be free members of society.

Permits are legal documents that are used to grant immunity to a person when the person is doing something that would otherwise be unlawful. Under Alan Gura's argument, carrying a gun would be, by default, a crime. Please read that sentence again if you don't understand it. I fail to see how this is permissible by the Second Amendment. I also fail to see how exercising a right can be criminally punished. Either it's a right, or it's not, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Any activity, which is by default a criminal act, and in which one must first obtain a permit to be granted immunity, is not a right, but a privilege. I will never accept a permit to exercise any of my rights, nor will I concede or surrender any of those rights to the state.

The moment that the simple act of carrying a firearm becomes a crime, in this state or any other state in which I reside, is the day that I will become a criminal. I pray for the souls of those who would attempt to deprive me of that right. If that makes me an extremist and a "cowboy", then I gladly accept the title.

sreiter
01-12-2010, 10:05 PM
i understand that gene - I'm simply saying asking what good is a right if you don't exercise because as soon as you do, it's taken away. To me, that's no right at all.

If driving a car had the same legal status as UOC, and if there was a very high probability that driving would be banned by law if people went around driving, then for all intents and purposes, it's as if it was already illegal.

Weren't many newly freed slave so scared of the repercussions of exercising the new found freedoms that they instead choose not to? Were they indeed free to enjoy the liberties that were the promise of emancipation?

I understand fully that there is a plan in place that the powers that be in this and other circles feel is the best course of action to achieve the end game.

Let me ask you, do you think the civil rights leaders of day had Rosa Parks in their game plan? Do you think that they thought that type of civil dis-obedience was best for their end game? Do you think they would have encouraged her to sit back and wait for their plan to take place, and after "X" trails she'll be able to sit where she wanted in on the bus?

Do you think there were many political leaders at the forefront of the interactions with the crown who believed i diplomacy and told the "rebel" just hold off on your revolutionary idea's..just wait..we will prevail in court, then you will be able to sell your tea with the crown interfering. Look we already have the magna carta

I certainly do see how some actions might be detrimental to the cause.

I also see that radical movements can and do advance causes.

Did PETA (yeah, i hate them to) effect change though courts, or by making statements?

More to the point, radical groups like earth first make less radical groups like PETA seem sane...and therefore more palatable to John Q

hoffmang
01-12-2010, 10:12 PM
I don't personally care what Alan Gura likes or dislikes, only what he believes is Constitutional, since he will be arguing the most important Second Amendment case in our country since the last one he argued.
It's not what he believes, its what the stare decisis says is going to be the case whether you like that or not. Ignore reality at your peril but first you better start reading all the state supreme court cases listed in Heller that say that the state can ban a mode of carry and then start looking at the state supreme court cases that show that states can ban carry all together - even under direct analogues of the 2A.

The moment that the simple act of carrying a firearm becomes a crime, in this state or any other state in which I reside, is the day that I will become a criminal. I pray for the souls of those who would attempt to deprive me of that right. If that makes me an extremist and a "cowboy", then I gladly accept the title.
Please go turn yourself in because loaded carry in any city in California is illegal without a permit and has been since the 1960's.

-Gene

hoffmang
01-12-2010, 10:12 PM
Did PETA (yeah, i hate them to) effect change though courts, or by making statements?

Uhh... What change did PETA effect? Larger chicken cages?

-Gene

hoffmang
01-12-2010, 10:19 PM
Texas State Constitution. They do not have the right to carry any way they want, as their Constitution states the legislature has the power to regulate the carrying of arms.


United States Constitution. "...shall not be infringed."


Constitutional protection is the minimum right. Texas, with one of the most gun friendly legislatures in America still chooses to ban open carry and all carry without a permit.

Why? Do you really think a Federal court is going to overrule the State of Texas on the issue of carry?

-Gene

sreiter
01-12-2010, 10:21 PM
Uhh... What change did PETA effect? Larger chicken cages?

-Gene

Umm, there are multitudes of companies who have changed their entire testing methods, use of lab animals, etc as a direct result. i don't know or care if actual laws have been enacted, but certainly, they have unquestionably have had MAJOR impacts to advance their cause.

How would you respond to my other arguments?

Gray Peterson
01-12-2010, 10:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdZiwaNXNqc

Open carry can be regulated via permit, straight from Gura's mouth. He even says that states may be allowed to ban one type of carry but must allow some form of carry, even if a permit is required (Texas style). He tries to argue that a shall issue permit is the same as a right, which is ludicrous on its face. He stated much the same here in this interview as he did on the floor of the Supreme Court while arguing Heller. So, please tell me how, exactly, am I wrong about Mr. Gura?

If you're going to post it, at least post the offending provisions.

"I believe, my own personal prediction, is that the way the courts are going to come down on this, is decide that the 2nd amendment gives you a right to carry a gun in public, there might a few exceptions here and there, but pretty much you can carry a gun, the state could license that, could make you go through a background check, maybe get some training, but pretty much at the end of the day it's going to have to be a shall-issue permit, and the state would be allowed to tell you whether or not to carry it open or concealed, but some way shape or form, they're going to have to allow people to carry guns in public.

Personally, I don't have a problem with open carry, I know some folks who do it on a more regular basis, and I understand why they do it. They also want to normalize the idea that you can have guns..."

He was giving his opinion as to the way the courts will flesh out the issue on a near term basis, and he is correct as a matter of what the courts will do in the near term. Every time a lawyer has gone for striking down an entire gun law like Gorski has (he's sued repeatedly to get the entirety of PC12050 struck down, whereas Gura is suing the licensing authority for not issuing on a shall-issue basis) has FAILED.

So what did he do wrong here? Why are you shooting the messenger? Even better question is: Why are you going for interracial marriage when we haven't even desegregated K-12 schools yet?

Theseus
01-12-2010, 10:25 PM
cmth, I think you are right, but in arguing with Gene all I see is that you are not quite getting the point he is making. In the section you bolded Alan was at that time not talking what he wanted, but what he believed would be the end result for the time being.

It is possible that we are stuck with some form of licensing for the time being. The great news is that with time more progress will be made. I am not sure as to the specifics, but I do understand Texas came very close to passing an open carry bill last session, and is expected to pass this year (2010).

I don't agree with it, Alan doesn't seem to agree with it, and Gene doesn't seem to agree with it, but it might be something we have to understand this and plan accordingly. That doesn't mean that we have to stop fighting.

hoffmang
01-12-2010, 10:27 PM
How would you respond to my other arguments?

The key issue you get wrong in your other arguments is the newly freed part. We aren't newly freed yet. "Shall not be infringed" only applies to the Federal Government. No FBI agent, BLM ranger, or ATF agent may infringe your right. CHP can arrest you, charge you and convict you of carrying a firearm, even unloaded, in a school zone.

Comparing Rosa Parks to UOC is wildly off base. Rosa Parks created sympathy -even in the judiciary. UOC keeps creating people convicted of violating GFSZs.

-Gene

cmth
01-12-2010, 10:29 PM
It's not what he believes, its what the stare decisis says is going to be the case whether you like that or not. Ignore reality at your peril but first you better start reading all the state supreme court cases listed in Heller that say that the state can ban a mode of carry and then start looking at the state supreme court cases that show that states can ban carry all together - even under direct analogues of the 2A.

If that is the case, Gene, then we are no longer a free people. All of the sacrifices that our forefathers have made to secure us the rights that we had were made in vain. We are living under a tyrannical regime that cannot be reasoned with or amended through the systems that have been provided for us to lawfully do so. If that is truly the case, what, then, are we left with for options? I can think of a few, but nobody really wants those. Or do they?

Please go turn yourself in because loaded carry in any city in California is illegal without a permit and has been since the 1960's.

-Gene
I can still carry a firearm and ammo, and I can load my weapon in about 2 seconds if need be. Though I would appreciate it if you took this issue as seriously as I do and stop playing semantics games.

lavgrunt
01-12-2010, 10:32 PM
How did we go from UOC 'Public Relations' to a debate about the legislative achievements of PETA !!??? WTF !!!???

Look.....I support UOC, LOC, CCW etc......By any responsible, law abiding citizen, as does just about everybody else here.....We are not the ones who need convincing........Why kill the chicken for a one time meal when you can keep it alive and eat the eggs for a lifetime ???!!!........HMMMMMM, it made more sense in Cantonese.........You get the point..........

hoffmang
01-12-2010, 10:32 PM
If that is the case, Gene, then we are no longer a free people. All of the sacrifices that our forefathers have made to secure us the rights that we had were made in vain. We are living under a tyrannical regime that cannot be reasoned with or amended through the systems that have been provided for us to lawfully do so. If that is truly the case, what, then, are we left with for options? I can think of a few, but nobody really wants those. Or do they?


I can still carry a firearm and ammo, and I can load my weapon in about 2 seconds if need be. Though I would appreciate it if you took this issue as seriously as I do and stop playing semantics games.

You'd call for a revolution against tyranny because rights are absolute but you're ok with the state forcing you to carry unloaded in urban areas?

Are you serious?

-Gene

Gray Peterson
01-12-2010, 10:36 PM
i understand that gene - I'm simply saying asking what good is a right if you don't exercise because as soon as you do, it's taken away. To me, that's no right at all.


As purely academic as this is, you do have the right. However, given the governmental structure of the states and the US constitution, without the 14th amendment the states could run roughshod forever, murder you and your family with no trial and no way to petition the courts. After Slaughter-House, the states could and they did do such things.

Calguns, as well as Alan Gura, is trying to right a 135 year-old year old wrong and overturn a bad case that should have been left to the dustbin of history a century ago. Because of said 135 year old wrong, the 2nd amendment has not been applied to the states (Slaughter-House, Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller v. Texas). Effectively, neither you are i have the right to carry a firearm in any way for personal protection within the state of California. The Legislature could pass and the Governor and say "Mr. and Mrs. California, turn them all in" and there's no court in the state who would stop them, until McDonald rights this wrong under P&I or due process incorporation. Get it through your heads: You have no effective RKBA in the state of California at the present time.

The people that know the best about the barometer of the State Legislature (Coalition Leadership) had told people time and time again to stop UOCing or else something bad will happen that'll effect your ability to OC in any form. Now there's a legislative draft to do exactly just that and it's been talked about widely in Sacramento. When this was done in other states, they had the fact of their state constitutional provisions as a backup in case the Legislature went too far. California HAS NO STATE RKBA PROVISION.

cmth
01-12-2010, 11:02 PM
You'd call for a revolution against tyranny because rights are absolute but you're ok with the state forcing you to carry unloaded in urban areas?

Are you serious?

-Gene

I wouldn't call for a revolution, though I am more and more beginning to believe that one may be inevitable. I think that all forms of diplomacy must be exhausted before such an action would be morally justifiable. As for when, I have no clue, it all depends on how hard the tyrants push back when pushed.

My resignation to carrying an unloaded weapon is not because I think it is Constitutional or morally acceptable, because I don't. I carry that way because I do not wish to break the law, even though I disagree with it. I know how to pick my fights, and that is not one that I wish to engage in at present. Ask me again 6 months from now and I may have a different answer for you.

As for myself, I will not accept any permit to carry a firearm. As I can currently carry a firearm openly (though unloaded; a minor inconvenience) without the necessity of a permit, that is what I do. If, in the future, it becomes a crime to carry a firearm in any manner without a permit, then I will most likely carry concealed, and loaded, since by that point it makes no difference. I will be breaking the law, but a law which is morally and Constitutionally repugnant. I live in a county that is known for being fairly liberal in its issuance of CCW permits, but I choose not to apply for one. I think I have made it clear as to why.

I have no criminal record whatsoever, nothing so much as a speeding ticket. I have never violated anyone's rights by force or by fraud. I am by nature a law abiding citizen, insofar as I can reasonably be. That level of reason will be tested when I am required to ask permission to exercise my right, something I cannot do. I believe in the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property, and the means by which to secure those rights. I believe in the doctrine of non-initiation of force. I will not initiate force against another, but I will meet force with force. These are my beliefs and I will take them with me to the grave.

hoffmang
01-12-2010, 11:13 PM
It troubles me that you worry more about getting a permit than the effectiveness of your ability to defend yourself. You're making compromises based on what is realistic but yet you refuse to see that the people you malign are operating in that same framework.

If UOCers will simply pause until after the last week of June 2010, we could easily end up in a California that allows LOC or CCW w/ a permit and UOC remains viable (though viable is pretty crappy with GFSZs that will likely survive.)

Why don't you just carry loaded and open this weekend and be Rosa Parks?

-Gene

Gray Peterson
01-12-2010, 11:16 PM
It is possible that we are stuck with some form of licensing for the time being. The great news is that with time more progress will be made. I am not sure as to the specifics, but I do understand Texas came very close to passing an open carry bill last session, and is expected to pass this year (2010).

This is an utter falsehood. The bill wasn't even introduced, and the Legislature in Texas is biannual in odd years. There is no legislation until 2011, and in fact there's a lot of bad blood because the OC situation skunked getting carry in Texas universities and colleges similar to Utah.

You know what is more important to me if I had to choose between legalizing OC and getting Utah-style college carry? I would have chosen college carry in 2009 and OC in 2011. Because they pushed too hard for OC, it skunked the college carry legalization and preemption. I'm sorry, I'm not going to sacrifice protecting the lives of college students in this country just so one can OC in a place where OC hasn't been legal in over 100 years.....

sreiter
01-12-2010, 11:28 PM
The key issue you get wrong in your other arguments is the newly freed part. We aren't newly freed yet. "Shall not be infringed" only applies to the Federal Government. No FBI agent, BLM ranger, or ATF agent may infringe your right. CHP can arrest you, charge you and convict you of carrying a firearm, even unloaded, in a school zone.

Comparing Rosa Parks to UOC is wildly off base. Rosa Parks created sympathy -even in the judiciary. UOC keeps creating people convicted of violating GFSZs.

-Gene

We aren't free yet? So you are stating ALL open carry is illegal?? While there are restrictions, just as you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater, it is NOT illegal to carry in place NOT prohibited. However, you are in fact advocating people give up their right until such time as you think its ok to exercise that right. That's akin to "give up your right to privacy until the gov thinks we're safe from terrorists". Not to mention you skirted the issue. Fear , harassment, and intimidation is part and parcel tactics employed by the Gub'ment to get us to "voluntarily" give up our rights, just as the KKK intimidated southern blacks not to vote, etc.


We also weren't free from England either. Did our forefather continually lobby the courts, praying for relief, or did they act? The Stamp act was repealed due to petition, however, a short time later, the townshend acts were implemented. Even though minor provisions were repealed, the colonists had enough and thus was the impetuous to rebellion and freedom.

Rosa parks was arrested and CONVICTED. You aren't remotely addressing the issue/argument I presented (lawyer/politician stock in trade).

The question I asked, and that wasn't answered is: Do you think that they thought that type of civil dis-obedience was best for their end game? Do you think they would have encouraged her to sit back and wait for their plan to take place, and after "X" trails she'll be able to sit where she wanted in on the bus?

artherd
01-12-2010, 11:30 PM
My question to the "right people" is simple: Do you support open carry?

I believe I have a right to drive a tank around naked while ****ing a sheep if I want to. I'm not kidding, and I will keep fighting until we can.

That said, we're not getting that any time soon. We have a real world to work with, a world that infringes the 1A with parade permits.

Everyone's best buddy, Alan Gura, seems to believe that permitting a right (which is a complete oxymoron in and of itself) is a reasonable compromise, and he said as much in his oral arguments for Heller. I have no use for appeasers and compromisers. He will singlehandedly be responsible for deleting "shall not be infringed" from the Second Amendment forever. If Gura is truly the best the "gun rights" community can come up with, then we have already lost.

Gura is a personal friend and the best chance this country has had for Civil Rights in the last 50 years.

I dare say he's done more for RKBA this week than the entire nationwide OC movement will do in the rest of their lives. And yes, we're aware of it and in some states it makes sense, we're nominally a part of it.

If you want to throw an Individual Right under the bus so you can chase some dream of polishing your shotgun in a mall, then go for it.

I'm going to win, 1 by 1, in order, and get all of our rights back. Including OC.

sreiter
01-12-2010, 11:33 PM
As purely academic as this is, you do have the right. However, given the governmental structure of the states and the US constitution, without the 14th amendment the states could run roughshod forever, murder you and your family with no trial and no way to petition the courts. After Slaughter-House, the states could and they did do such things.

Calguns, as well as Alan Gura, is trying to right a 135 year-old year old wrong and overturn a bad case that should have been left to the dustbin of history a century ago. Because of said 135 year old wrong, the 2nd amendment has not been applied to the states (Slaughter-House, Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller v. Texas). Effectively, neither you are i have the right to carry a firearm in any way for personal protection within the state of California. The Legislature could pass and the Governor and say "Mr. and Mrs. California, turn them all in" and there's no court in the state who would stop them, until McDonald rights this wrong under P&I or due process incorporation. Get it through your heads: You have no effective RKBA in the state of California at the present time.

The people that know the best about the barometer of the State Legislature (Coalition Leadership) had told people time and time again to stop UOCing or else something bad will happen that'll effect your ability to OC in any form. Now there's a legislative draft to do exactly just that and it's been talked about widely in Sacramento. When this was done in other states, they had the fact of their state constitutional provisions as a backup in case the Legislature went too far. California HAS NO STATE RKBA PROVISION.

Not only do i applaud their efforts, but i also have, and will continue to financially support their efforts.

And you are correct. Most of my arguments are academic. However, i believe my arguments hold water. I dont OC, but like the cliche' goes, i support their right to do it.

sreiter
01-12-2010, 11:35 PM
I believe I have a right to drive a tank around naked while ****ing a sheep if I want to. I'm not kidding, and I will keep fighting until we can.



Where do i sign up? This is a cause i believe we can all get behind!!! Pun Intended

artherd
01-12-2010, 11:39 PM
Let me ask you, do you think the civil rights leaders of day had Rosa Parks in their game plan? Do you think that they thought that type of civil dis-obedience was best for their end game? Do you think they would have encouraged her to sit back and wait for their plan to take place, and after "X" trails she'll be able to sit where she wanted in on the bus?

Rosa Parks was the secretary for the local NAACP. So you tell me...

artherd
01-12-2010, 11:43 PM
You guys realize that we're a couple of virgins arguing over wether it's best to have sex with a blonde or a brunette right?

And that CGF and Gura aren't virgins after all, right?

wildhawker
01-12-2010, 11:47 PM
I believe I have a right to drive a tank around naked while ****ing a sheep if I want to. I'm not kidding, and I will keep fighting until we can.

I do believe that Ben will fight until he can **** a sheep while driving a (suppressed) tank naked...

:43:

hoffmang
01-12-2010, 11:50 PM
The question I asked, and that wasn't answered is: Do you think that they thought that type of civil dis-obedience was best for their end game? Do you think they would have encouraged her to sit back and wait for their plan to take place, and after "X" trails she'll be able to sit where she wanted in on the bus?

Rosa Parks didn't marry a white man in 1910 either. The civil rights movement very actively suppressed it's own internal extremists. Ever heard of the Deacons for Defense and Justice? There is a reason.

Since you have this right to keep and bear arms today, go out there carrying a loaded open carried firearm in public in a city. Go prove we're free before July 1 2010. We'll send cookies to your cell and help arrange for you to sell off your firearms when you're convicted.

However, CGF may have very specific needs of UOC in a post McDonald environment. It would be a shame attributable to extremism if that wasn't an option.

-Gene

sreiter
01-12-2010, 11:59 PM
Rosa Parks was the secretary for the local NAACP. So you tell me...

I wasn't there. However, Eight months earlier, Claudette Colvin, 15, refused to give up her seat and was arrested. Black activists met with this girl to determine if she would make a good test case but it was decided that a more "upstanding" candidate was necessary to withstand the scrutiny of the courts and the press. And then in October, a young woman named Mary Louise Smith was arrested; N.A.A.C.P. leaders rejected her too as their vehicle, looking for someone more able to withstand media scrutiny. Smith paid the fine and was released.

Seems to me it she wasn't part of the plan. While being in attendance of others talking about a good case, she got the idea.

She took it upon herself to act, and she turned out to be a good (the right) kinda of person they were willing to defend. She came along and got in trouble, so they took the case and try to challenge.

There's no evidence she was told to do anything. Sure, there was talk of how to challenge. But it might not have been there and then.

King declared in that sonorous, ringing voice millions the world over would soon thrill to: "There comes a time that people get tired." I can hear the same anguished cries of the UOC leaders

The UOC people could just as easily have the same type "when the right case is here, we pounce" strategy. ......

ok, i'm reaching, i was ignorantly unaware Rosa was so heavily involved with the civil rights movement.

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 12:04 AM
Why do people claiming an absolute right to bear arms keep their handguns unloaded when open carrying? Go right ahead and be the test case today!

Or maybe the world isn't as black and white as sreiter or cmth make it out to be.

Please go be convicted right now since there is no time to lose exercising your right to bear a functional firearm in urban areas.

Otherwise I guess you're just afraid of sacrifice.

-Gene

sreiter
01-13-2010, 12:08 AM
Since you have this right to keep and bear arms today, go out there carrying a loaded open carried firearm in public in a city.

-Gene

Assuming facts not in evidence. I never claimed loaded open carry is a right we enjoy.

Again, I understand what you are saying. You feel they will hurt us by doing something %100 legal (assuming they stay within the confines of NOT doing something strictly prohibited). Is it for the greater good to "stand down", maybe. Probably. There still seems something morally wrong about it.

Here's the thing. What after July 1 2010? Does the CGF give its blessing to UOC? Do they start defending UOC? Or do they stand down until other cases are won?

Just because i personally feel it's for the greater good they dont act, doesnt mean they should listen to me.

sreiter
01-13-2010, 12:10 AM
Why do people claiming an absolute right to bear arms keep their handguns unloaded when open carrying? Go right ahead and be the test case today!

Or maybe the world isn't as black and white as sreiter or cmth make it out to be.

Please go be convicted right now since there is no time to lose exercising your right to bear a functional firearm in urban areas.

Otherwise I guess you're just afraid of sacrifice.

-Gene

Gene - again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never claimed it to be a absolute right. I'm stating that it is NOT illegal given a certain set of criteria, parameters, and confines. i believe many UOC'ers act within those parameters/confines and are within their rights to do so under current Ca. law.

Are you claiming its absolutely illegal ?

Gray Peterson
01-13-2010, 12:12 AM
Rosa Parks was chosen and she did accept.

From Wikipedia:

Black activists had begun to build a case to challenge state bus segregation laws around the arrest of a 15-year-old girl, Claudette Colvin, a student at Booker T. Washington High School in Montgomery. On March 2, 1955, Colvin was handcuffed, arrested and forcibly removed from a public bus when she refused to give up her seat to a white man. She claimed that her constitutional rights were being violated. At the time, Colvin was active in the NAACP Youth Council, a group to which Parks served as Advisor.


Parks was raising money for Colvin's defense, but when E.D. Nixon learned that Colvin was pregnant, it was decided that Colvin was an unsuitable symbol for their cause. Soon after her arrest she had conceived a child with a much older married man, a moral transgression that scandalized the deeply religious black community. Strategists believed that the segregationist white press would use Colvin's pregnancy to undermine any boycott. The NAACP also had considered, but rejected, earlier protesters deemed unable or unsuitable to withstand the pressures of cross-examination in a legal challenge to racial segregation laws. Colvin was also known to engage in verbal outbursts and cursing.[10] Many of the legal charges against Colvin were dropped. A boycott didn't materialize from the Colvin case, and legal strategists continued to seek a complainant beyond reproach.[11]

That person was Rosa Parks.

sreiter
01-13-2010, 12:17 AM
good night all

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 12:20 AM
Here's the thing. What after July 1 2010? Does the CGF give its blessing to UOC? Do they start defending UOC? Or do they stand down until other cases are won?

Just because i personally feel it's for the greater good they dont act, doesnt mean they should listen to me.
You should look back at what CGF asked after Nordyke was won. I would also point out that CGF is the only entity in California to ever defend UOC. It isn't my fault you've never cared to look through the history well documented on this site. The reason they should be open to the legislative and political reality is that they are actively risking the outcome that they profess to desire. If all open carry is banned it's going to be a much longer road to permitless open carry.

What CGF said after Nordyke was that group UOC with as many non white males as possible was the best strategy and that individual UOC had pitfalls beyond GFSZ (lack of witnesses, etc.)

At that point we were not yet willing to defend but we expect that to change over time. In a post McDonald world, all sorts of challenges to police behavior as it stands today become available.

If Loaded Open Carry isn't a right today, UOC also isn't a right today. What then is the point of UOCing? Driving down the highway backwards is permitted by law too.

-Gene

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 12:23 AM
i believe many UOC'ers act within those parameters/confines and are within their rights to do so under current Ca. law.

They have no right to do it. They are permitted by the good grace of the CA legislature to do it because, so far, that legislature hasn't gotten around to prohibiting it fully.

-Gene

sreiter
01-13-2010, 12:30 AM
Im confused, I thought if you weren't prohibited to do something, you were within your right to do. Before LSD was a controlled substance, you we're well within your rights to do it. Isn't everything that is not specifically legislated against legal?

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 12:37 AM
Im confused, I thought if you we're prohibited to do something, you were within your right to do. Before LSD was a controlled substance, you we're well within your rights to do it. Isn't everything that is not specifically legislated against legal?

You're not confused, you're simply ducking the point.

There are a hosts of reasons why drawing attention to unloaded open carry isn't very beneficial over the next 5 months. Those reasons are primarily backed up by the fact that there is no judicially enforceable right to carry a firearm even remotely recognized in this state or in the 9th Circuit (yet.)

If its not for self defense (locked unloaded concealed carry works just fine) and its not to exercise a right then why take the risk of losing open carry loaded post incorporation by UOCing before July?

-Gene

oaklander
01-13-2010, 12:37 AM
Now you are splitting hairs. Go back to bed.

Im confused, I thought if you we're prohibited to do something, you were within your right to do. Before LSD was a controlled substance, you we're well within your rights to do it. Isn't everything that is not specifically legislated against legal?

sreiter
01-13-2010, 12:39 AM
You should look back at what CGF asked after Nordyke was won. I would also point out that CGF is the only entity in California to ever defend UOC. It isn't my fault you've never cared to look through the history well documented on this site. The reason they should be open to the legislative and political reality is that they are actively risking the outcome that they profess to desire. If all open carry is banned it's going to be a much longer road to permitless open carry.

What CGF said after Nordyke was that group UOC with as many non white males as possible was the best strategy and that individual UOC had pitfalls beyond GFSZ (lack of witnesses, etc.)

At that point we were not yet willing to defend but we expect that to change over time. In a post McDonald world, all sorts of challenges to police behavior as it stands today become available.

If Loaded Open Carry isn't a right today, UOC also isn't a right today. What then is the point of UOCing? Driving down the highway backwards is permitted by law too.

-Gene

I'm not coming down on CGF for what they choose or dont choose to fight for. please dont get that impression. I have contributed a few times in the past and will in the future. I havent contributed to UOC...whatever. I have no dog in that fight, and really dont care about UOC at all. I really dont care if you guys ever defend them. thats just how it seems you're coming off. Like hey, jsut wait till we do "X", then we're with you all the way.

My point is you make it sound like you'll be all for them doing their thing after 7/1/2010 but I sorta feel like there are many other things you feel is more pressing and will again ask them to stand down.

I followed the Nordyke thing closely here. I dont remember anything in particular re: UOC, but as a general rule, I cant recall a time when you ever said "ok, perfect time...UOC all you want. Nordyke is in VICTORY!!!!"


"If Loaded Open Carry isn't a right today, UOC also isn't a right today."

Huh? Thats like saying if sheep sex isnt a right, neither is unmarried sex a right.

I'm pretty sure both sheep sex and loaded open carry are specifically legislatively prohibited (although arthreid would be more a source on the exactly legalities of sheep sex...i'm with you man!!!)

cmth
01-13-2010, 12:40 AM
Gene prefers a system of government where all of your lawful activities are spelled out for you, and everything else is prohibited. It'll be the end to "loopholes" (aka rights)! It has been said that the people often get the government that they deserve, and whomever said that couldn't have been more right.

N6ATF
01-13-2010, 12:44 AM
The civil rights movement very actively suppressed it's own internal extremists. Ever heard of the Deacons for Defense and Justice? There is a reason.

Yes, I have. We can thank Dr. Condoleezza Rice (and her father) for that. Otherwise, maybe we wouldn't have in the past few decades.

Driving down the highway backwards is permitted by law too.

Technically, yes. But most of those who do are likely to be charged with VC 23103. (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23103.htm)

Watch your (re)butt(als), Gene.

N6ATF
01-13-2010, 12:45 AM
Gene prefers a system of government where all of your lawful activities are spelled out for you, and everything else is prohibited.

I often hear that describes the UCMJ.

sreiter
01-13-2010, 12:46 AM
You're not confused, you're simply ducking the point.

There are a hosts of reasons why drawing attention to unloaded open carry isn't very beneficial over the next 5 months. Those reasons are primarily backed up by the fact that there is no judicially enforceable right to carry a firearm even remotely recognized in this state or in the 9th Circuit (yet.)

If its not for self defense (locked unloaded concealed carry works just fine) and its not to exercise a right then why take the risk of losing open carry loaded post incorporation by UOCing before July?

-Gene

i'm not ducking the point at all. I agree 100% with your rational for not doing it and your above point. My points are all still valid as to whether or the are legally able to do what they do within a narrow scope.

I get that just because it was legal for the panthers to go into the state house strapped, it doesnt mean it was a good idea.

I think UOC, done correctly (and i'm not saying they do it correctly) could be a good thing.

Lastly I'm saying sometimes revolutionary ideas and action sometimes get results.

Wasnt the Stonewall riots the beginning of the gay rights movement?

oaklander
01-13-2010, 12:48 AM
They had a friendly press. We do not.

Wasnt the Stonewall riots the beginning of the gay rights movement?

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 12:50 AM
Gene prefers a system of government where all of your lawful activities are spelled out for you, and everything else is prohibited. It'll be the end to "loopholes" (aka rights)! It has been said that the people often get the government that they deserve, and whomever said that couldn't have been more right.

Apparently you do too.

Why don't you loaded open carry this weekend? It's your right after all.

-Gene

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 12:52 AM
Lastly I'm saying sometimes revolutionary ideas and action sometimes get results.

Never (http://bit.ly/4xEo6E) thought (http://bit.ly/5ebd96) of (http://bit.ly/8JhGZa) that (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness).

-Gene

sreiter
01-13-2010, 12:52 AM
Gene prefers a system of government where all of your lawful activities are spelled out for you, and everything else is prohibited. It'll be the end to "loopholes" (aka rights)! It has been said that the people often get the government that they deserve, and whomever said that couldn't have been more right.

I dont believe thats true - Gene is a GOOD man who is smart as hell and i'm glad as hell he has chosen to take up this fight for us all.I glad he's on our side (again, i'm not on the UOC side per se')

i believe he is presenting his arguments here the way a lawyer would/does. he's presentation his case in a way so that he wins. If he knows a answer to a question would be bad for his case, he doesnt answer it, but instead, gives a totally irrelevant answer to the question, but one that supports his case. he also twists your words, or embellish to his own end.

Cant fault him. Someone once said "if you aint cheatin', you aint tryin' "

sreiter
01-13-2010, 12:54 AM
Never (http://bit.ly/4xEo6E) thought (http://bit.ly/5ebd96) of (http://bit.ly/8JhGZa) that (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness).

-Gene

Seriously...i am laughing like a lunatic and everyone is asleep....touche'

i concede......

sreiter
01-13-2010, 12:56 AM
good night all..seriously this time ;o)

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 12:58 AM
Yes, I have. We can thank Dr. Condoleezza Rice (and her father) for that. Otherwise, maybe we wouldn't have in the past few decades.


The civil rights movement was long over in 2000 when Dr. Rice created such publicity. That counsels thinking a bit more about my point before you think you've refuted it.

-Gene

wildhawker
01-13-2010, 1:01 AM
I think UOC, done correctly (and i'm not saying they do it correctly) could be a good thing.

Add "timing" to your equation and we're in agreement.

Lastly I'm saying sometimes revolutionary ideas and action sometimes get results.

Are we back to reliance upon dumb luck to advance the gun agenda in *California*? I'd rather take my chances in Vegas.

More often than not revolutionary movements lead to mass casualties and conditions worse than before they began (hint: most are not equipped to take on the establishment; the active UOC movements does not display the organization, aptitude and strategic vision necessary to realize the potential of the act).

I'd be curious to review statistics and demographics of the UOC "movement" in California since, say, 2000.

Sinixstar
01-13-2010, 1:01 AM
This seems to be a rather hot topic lately...

All I can really say is that different people have different ideas about how best to get their point across. Does it really matter? Probably not as much as we'd like to think.

The gun rights issue is something that's been debated for at least as long as I've been alive. If you don't have a firm opinion by now, you never will. With that said - the way I see it people fall into 1 of 3 categories.

a) strongly pro gun rights
b) strongly anti gun rights
c) don't really care

My experience has been, it's rare for people to shift between these groups. If you're pro gun - you're pro gun, period. If you're anti-gun, you're anti-gun, period. You'll occasionally get people who are 'anti' who get introduced to guns and get into it. These people largely tend to fall in category C - but just have a tendency to be anti-gun just because it sounds like it's keeping people safe. End of the day, they're not going to make gun issues something they vote on. That makes them to some extent irrelevant.

Now - with all that being said, I don't think the OC movement really helps or hurts to any large extent. Why? Because if a pro-gunner sees this, he might grit his teeth at the bad press, but he gets it. A pro gunner isn't going to join the brady bunch over it. Same thing with an anti-gunner. They're already against us. Seeing someone OC isn't going to make them MORE against us.

As far as public image is concerned though - I think it's a wash. The people who are going to make gun issues something they cast a vote over - by and large are already firmly in one camp or another.

There is some nuance to all of this. Could it have unintended consequences? Surely. Somebody OC's in the wrong place at the wrong time, turns into a giant circus - or maybe a nightmare scenario goes down and somebody gets hurt - you will see some new laws coming down banning it. That sucks.
If an anti sees an OC piece on the news, they might get motivated to donate some money or write some letters. That sucks. But at the end of the day, it's still us on one side, them on the other, and a lot of people in between too wrapped up in downloading the new Jonas Brothers ring tone to give a rat's ***.

DedEye
01-13-2010, 1:11 AM
Cmth, do you have a driver's license?

Dr. Peter Venkman
01-13-2010, 1:16 AM
Cmth, do you have a driver's license?

lol

N6ATF
01-13-2010, 1:25 AM
The civil rights movement very actively suppressed it's own internal extremists. Ever heard of the Deacons for Defense and Justice? There is a reason.

The civil rights movement was long over in 2000 when Dr. Rice created such publicity. That counsels thinking a bit more about my point before you think you've refuted it.

-Gene

Forgot to mention the "reason" foreclosed those who weren't alive and able to meaningfully communicate at the time from answering the question in the way you wanted it to be answered.

They were still talked about these days because apparently they were something to be proud of, and not shamed and suppressed out of history for all time. Whatever happened to...

“History is written by the victors.” -Winston Churchill

Is it safe to say dying in 2000 and having your daughter be so powerful (and alive) was a minor victory for the DD&J?

artherd
01-13-2010, 2:28 AM
I followed the Nordyke thing closely here. I dont remember anything in particular re: UOC, but as a general rule, I cant recall a time when you ever said "ok, perfect time...UOC all you want. Nordyke is in VICTORY!!!!"

You're aware that Nordyke is stayed pending McDonald right?

I think UOC, done correctly (and i'm not saying they do it correctly) could be a good thing.
Add at the appropriate time with strategy - I agree. (For CCW. UOC will likely always hurt LOC in this state, that's why it needs to be managed.)

Lastly I'm saying sometimes revolutionary ideas and action sometimes get results.

YES - when backed up by strategy. When we did OLLs it looked haphazard. What you did not see was the years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get to the point I could go public. Everything was calculated, make no mistake about that.


a) strongly pro gun rights
b) strongly anti gun rights
c) don't really care

... I don't think the OC movement really helps or hurts to any large extent. Why? Because if a pro-gunner sees this, he might grit his teeth at the bad press, but he gets it. A pro gunner isn't going to join the brady bunch over it. Same thing with an anti-gunner. They're already against us. Seeing someone OC isn't going to make them MORE against us.

As far as public image is concerned though - I think it's a wash.

You're wrong. By far the bulk of California is in group C and is ready to be swayed either way.

And running around with a BIG SCARY GUN on your hip - before you take these people to the range - is a perfect way to turn them anti.


But what do I know - I've only been in PR for a decade and a half.

Sinixstar
01-13-2010, 2:47 AM
I don't for a minute disagree that the vast majority of people out there fall into group C.

I do contend the idea that they're "ready to be swayed either way".
You think a big scary gun on somebody's hip on the news is going to sway these people? Really? What with the laundry list of school shootings, gang violence, courthouse shootings, etc etc etc - the UOC movement is going to make these mindless drones suddenly snap out of it?

Maybe you've been in PR for a decade and a half - maybe that means you know something I don't know. But if people haven't made a decision by now - do you really think they're ever going to? This is a debate that has been raging for decades, with points and evidence to back up positions being shouted from the highest mountain tops on both sides. News stories, commentary, editorials, and opinions a plenty everywhere you look (if you choose to look). And yet a majority of people still don't care.

Yet again - somehow some dude UOCing is going to bring the whole lot of 'em running to the Brady bunch.

sorry - don't see it.

Again - I think the more likely outcome is that it lights a fire under the rear ends of people who DO care. Those people get motivated to push for legislation to ban OC all together, donate money to their cause, write letters, and push legislators to fight us even harder.

Old Timer
01-13-2010, 6:48 AM
Best to have sex with a blonde or a brunette?The correct answer is YES! :D:D

Mulay El Raisuli
01-13-2010, 7:27 AM
Constitutional protection is the minimum right. Texas, with one of the most gun friendly legislatures in America still chooses to ban open carry and all carry without a permit.

Why? Do you really think a Federal court is going to overrule the State of Texas on the issue of carry?

-Gene


And Texas is wrong about that. So, yes, I not only think the Federal Courts are going to overrule Texas on this, I expect it to happen.

Yes, groundwork has to be laid first, strategy has to be followed, etc., etc., etc. But the whole point of McDonald so the Federal Courts DO have the authority to overrule unconstitutional laws like this one.


The Raisuli

sreiter
01-13-2010, 8:20 AM
You're aware that Nordyke is stayed pending McDonald right?




And how long was Nordyke around before mcDonald was granted cert? Wasn't manna falling from the heavens after the 9th granted us incorporation(before en banc was asked for). I dont remember (and please correct me if I'm wrong) anyone advocating UOC except the UOC'ers.


And running around with a BIG SCARY GUN on your hip - before you take these people to the range - is a perfect way to turn them anti.


But what do I know - I've only been in PR for a decade and a half.

Its been my experience, as sinixster has pointed out, that anti's are anti's. You'll never get them to a range.

A racist isn't going to change if you invite them out soul, or kosher food.
Long hair was worn in the 60 in the chagrin of the crew cut establishment.
Rock music was played to the horror of the 50's era parents.

How's your PR campaign to show the softer gentler side of "AW's" here in Cali going ?

i can make the exact same argument to you re: black rifles.

For those among us who choose to go the bullet button route [Gene's words] "They have no right to do it. They are permitted by the good grace of the CA legislature to do it because, so far, that legislature hasn't gotten around to prohibiting it fully"

You dont think the gov wants to take away "AW's" more then UOC?
It would be quite interesting if instead of saying dont UOC until we have cases on our side, people would have been saying dont bullet button until we have mcDonald in the bag.

You think any amount of PR will ever bring the gen pop to thinking all our toys are great?

Hunt
01-13-2010, 8:58 AM
the OP is unfortunately under the influence of a Government School Elementary Education where in that stage of the Statist programming he has been brainwashed to believe in the infallibility of the State. Furthermore, his comments demonstrate the effect of the Supremecy of Police doctrine and immunity of priviledged class phenomenon taught in these Government Schools. In summary, his entire post is a*s backwards. There is supposed to be only one function of the State and it's armed troops, and that is to protect the Civil Liberties of the individual as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. So ponder this, who is the aggressor in the OP, the cops or the citizens?




excuse me while I call my local PD and tell them I am about to purchase some property, I hope they allow me.

obeygiant
01-13-2010, 10:26 AM
Cmth, do you have a driver's license?

I was going to ask the exact same thing but then again that is probably acceptable as it is not a given right under the constitution. On the other hand if the 2A were to read
A well regulated roadway, being necessary to the free movement of the people between the states, the right to operate a carriage and use these roadways shall not be infringed
I would suspect that the tyrannical government that requires a drivers license would find no support with cmth.

Theseus
01-13-2010, 10:58 AM
I was going to ask the exact same thing but then again that is probably acceptable as it is not a given right under the constitution. On the other hand if the 2A were to read

I would suspect that the tyrannical government that requires a drivers license would find no support with cmth.

I have always equated driving with the right to freedom of movement. I could be wrong, but aren't we supposed to be free men going to and from wherever we basically desire with the right to not be impeded by our government? I know that is a subject for a seperate thread. . . but since it was brought up several times. . .

obeygiant
01-13-2010, 11:13 AM
I have always equated driving with the right to freedom of movement. I could be wrong, but aren't we supposed to be free men going to and from wherever we basically desire with the right to not be impeded by our government? I know that is a subject for a seperate thread. . . but since it was brought up several times. . .

Agreed it is a topic for a separate thread as my post and DedEye's were addressing the acceptability of a permit for enumerated/un-enumerated rights.

ETA:
not that i disagree with your premise.

wildhawker
01-13-2010, 11:19 AM
I have always equated driving with the right to freedom of movement. I could be wrong, but aren't we supposed to be free men going to and from wherever we basically desire with the right to not be impeded by our government? I know that is a subject for a seperate thread. . . but since it was brought up several times. . .

You can. Grab a nice pair of shoes and have at it.

ETA: Assuming right to travel is considered under strict scrutiny, do you think we'll see permitless pilots?

GrizzlyGuy
01-13-2010, 11:30 AM
ETA: Assuming right to travel is considered under strict scrutiny, do you think we'll see permitless pilots?

I'd be all for it. My pilot's license is restricted to gliders, but hey, stick-and-rudder is stick-and-rudder, right? ;)

Theseus
01-13-2010, 11:34 AM
Sorry I derailed the thread. I am a bad boy and deserve to be spanked.

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 8:15 PM
And how long was Nordyke around before mcDonald was granted cert? Wasn't manna falling from the heavens after the 9th granted us incorporation(before en banc was asked for). I dont remember (and please correct me if I'm wrong) anyone advocating UOC except the UOC'ers.


Well, I certainly made it clear enough that other people understood that careful UOC after Nordyke was OK: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2450475

-Gene

Shotgun Man
01-13-2010, 8:27 PM
Theseus,

A public defender would have left you no chance on appeal. I'm somewhat tired of you insinuating that getting you represented by an actual firearms lawyer was somehow detrimental to your case. Your judge determined that the park bench in a parking lot open to the public was a public place under existing case law. A public defender wouldn't even have preserved the things your appealing on that you have some small chance of winning upon.

-Gene

There are highly capable public defenders as well as marginally competent ones (as in any other profession).

Theseus's trial did not sound overly complex. Strictly speaking, it was not even a second amendment case. An idealistic, driven, first-year public defender would likely have done an excellent job.

The public place issue would not be a hard issue to recognize or preserve for appeal. BTW, did Theseus's lawyer spot that issue all by himself or was he tipped off by the pro-gun legal community? Given the interest that Theseus's case has generated, I imagine someone (even Theseus) would have tipped off the pd if he failed to recognize it.

I heard that Theseus's lawyer waived his opening statement. If this is true, that certainly would cause me to question his judgment, but I recognize he may have had a valid tactical reason to do so, although I cannot think of one.

Respectfully, Gene, I don't think you should be be maligning an entire subset of criminal defense lawyers. As a respected board member, your words can do real harm by perpetrating a falsehood and miseducating the laity.

sreiter
01-13-2010, 8:40 PM
Well, I certainly made it clear enough that other people understood that careful UOC after Nordyke was OK: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2450475

-Gene

Dude, why, oh why, are your prodding me?? Sorry, but i have to respond. Are you really saying the BEST evidence you can find OF YOURSELF giving a resounding endorsement of UOC post Norkyde is a post OF SOMEONE ELSE SAYING IIRC....

Objection, Hearsay! Lacks foundation!!! Sustained!, counselor you'll have to do better that to convince the jury. It is duly noted you tried to sneak that one by by presenting it as "See, everyone noticed I said....." even thought you dont have the original source the poster (who questions himself as to whether or not he actual remembers reading what he thinks he did) is referring to

Kestryll
01-13-2010, 8:48 PM
Dude, why, oh why, are your prodding me??

I could ask the same of you....

bubbapug1
01-13-2010, 9:04 PM
Trust me, you're generally not.

You may have specific exceptions at specific times in specific areas, but 97% time you won't because you'll be scaring the soccer moms.



I agree 100% with that statement. I think many people are inherintly afraid of guns, conditioned to be that way from TV news of gun violence, etc. And than you throw an UOC'er in their face with a kill or be killed T shirt and things are going to get ugly....

I think UOC has a valid point, but with the wrong people interacting with the public, its certainly going to backfire. Why push it? Why not have an ID on ones person? Why add just that much more fuel to the fire? Police are just doing CYA...imagine if they DIDN'T check out a guy carrying a gun with no ID and he turned out to be a mental patient or prison escapee and proceeded to blast 20 people in a coffee shop...no problems with negligence there...ha ha ha...the lawyers would line up from LA to NY to try to get that case from the victims families...

I get the point, I just think it needs to be done in a very controlled group manner to get folks used to it.

And eventually someone will try to pass a law making it illegal as it will wake sleeping dogs...

wildhawker
01-13-2010, 9:26 PM
sreiter, please review these representative posts before proceeding to make further asinine comments.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2348249&highlight=carry#post2348249
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2824283&highlight=carry#post2824283
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2159748&postcount=1
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3203209&highlight=carry#post3203209
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3044375&highlight=carry#post3044375
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3041185&highlight=carry#post3041185
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3039145&highlight=carry#post3039145
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2927755&highlight=carry#post2927755

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 9:29 PM
Are you really saying the BEST evidence you can find OF YOURSELF giving a resounding endorsement of UOC post Norkyde is a post OF SOMEONE ELSE SAYING IIRC....

No. It was the second link on CGN Google Search and I find it a waste of time to prove something that I know I said.

I thank Wildhawker for finding my first post Nordyke post that shows that I tipped my hat immediately to careful UOC.

Care to apologize?

-Gene

oaklander
01-13-2010, 9:45 PM
ETA: what follows is a personal comment - and does not reflect CGF position:

Bill has explained the difference between black rifles and UOC before, but I will go ahead and take the liberty of explaining the difference for you.

Basically - I'm not PUBLICALLY waving my "penis" around at the local coffee house (or laundromat) trying to make a point.

Unless you are a shooter already, or LE, you simply DO NOT KNOW ABOUT BLACK RIFLES BEING LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA. It's below the RADAR.

It's that way on purpose. I could easily pitch the whole OLL thing to the press, and get at least a dozen stories in major publications. I don't do that, since it is not productive.

ETA: the ONLY time OLLs are mentioned in the press are when we want them to be. The only time we are quoted is when we know there's a story running, and we come in to do damage-control. We are NOT seeking PR for OLLs at this time.

How's your PR campaign to show the softer gentler side of "AW's" here in Cali going ?

i can make the exact same argument to you re: black rifles.

For those among us who choose to go the bullet button route [Gene's words] "They have no right to do it. They are permitted by the good grace of the CA legislature to do it because, so far, that legislature hasn't gotten around to prohibiting it fully"

You dont think the gov wants to take away "AW's" more then UOC?
It would be quite interesting if instead of saying dont UOC until we have cases on our side, people would have been saying dont bullet button until we have mcDonald in the bag.

You think any amount of PR will ever bring the gen pop to thinking all our toys are great?

Theseus
01-13-2010, 9:58 PM
Bill has explained the difference between black rifles and UOC before, but I will go ahead and take the liberty of explaining the difference for you.

Basically - I'm not PUBLICALLY waving my "penis" around at the local coffee house (or laundromat) trying to make a point.

I assure you that I would have scared many more people than the one that called on me had I been waving my penis around the laundromat.

But kidding aside, suggesting that a holstered handgun is the same as waving a penis is something I would have never thought someone like you would suggest.

oaklander
01-13-2010, 10:04 PM
Again, this is just me talking - not CGF.

:D

You don't see the similarity? How many women UOC (or OC in legal states)?

I assure you that I would have scared many more people than the one that called on me had I been waving my penis around the laundromat.

But kidding aside, suggesting that a holstered handgun is the same as waving a penis is something I would have never thought someone like you would suggest.

Hopi
01-13-2010, 10:05 PM
We are NOT seeking PR for our egos at this time.


+1...





;)

obeygiant
01-13-2010, 10:20 PM
sreiter, please review these representative posts before proceeding to make further asinine comments.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2348249&highlight=carry#post2348249
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2824283&highlight=carry#post2824283
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2159748&postcount=1
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3203209&highlight=carry#post3203209
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3044375&highlight=carry#post3044375
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3041185&highlight=carry#post3041185
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3039145&highlight=carry#post3039145
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2927755&highlight=carry#post2927755

To that i would add the following:

07-25-2008, 03:27 PM
As stated above - for the good of fellow gun owners - please wait at least till 8/31/08 and preferably until after the opinion in Nordyke is issued.

-Gene

04-20-2009, 11:36 AM
THE SECOND AMENDMENT WON TODAY!

My phone is ringing off the hook and we're starting to try to pull together what to do tonight.

Here is the situation:

1. The Second Amendment applies to all states, counties and cities in the 9th Circuit including California.

2. We "lost." It sucks for Don and the Nordykes in the short term. However! We control the appeals process! We get to choose to petition for Cert with SCOTUS. It's too soon to have a prediction on what happens but I can tell you this. We don't have to worry about the antis trying to stall the application of an Incorporated Fundamental Right To Keep and Bear Arms!

Please only unloaded open carry in groups. Let's bring these challenges in the right order.

Second order immediate effects:

1. I'll be making sure OAL is aware of this on the petitions we have pending there.

2. Most every anti-gun bill in Sacramento now faces real constitutional arguments against it for the first time in 20 years. Think about writing letters again on these issues!

PARTY! Just please don't drink and drive tonight!

-Gene

If you need more I have a whole page of quotes on this subject.

Theseus
01-13-2010, 10:25 PM
Again, this is just me talking - not CGF.

:D

You don't see the similarity? How many women UOC (or OC in legal states)?

Is that to suggest that the ones that do are pre-op?

I can tell you why the women I know don't do it. . . Most are Asian and adverse to creating waves. Apparently it is a culture thing. None of them have anything against guns and have gone with me at least once to shoot.

Of the other ones I am actually surprised that most of them were single women that lived alone in areas like Pasadena, some scary neighborhoods, but were scared to death of the idea of guns. But how is either of those issues the fault of the open carry movement?

I know that minorities would be better for the open carry cause in moving the public, but with the level of brainwashing that many minorities have experienced what are we to do but continue to try and educate and attempt to counter the brainwashing?

sreiter
01-13-2010, 10:52 PM
Care to apologize?

-Gene

For? Please review my initial assertion(s)



And how long was Nordyke around before mcDonald was granted cert? Wasn't manna falling from the heavens after the 9th granted us incorporation(before en banc was asked for). I dont remember (and please correct me if I'm wrong) anyone advocating UOC except the UOC'ers.



so you want an apology because I didnt remember 1 post/ 1 comment where you said it was ok (not advocating it mind you) ?

you need a better research assistant. Have you read the links. Some take no position at all, some say wait until various cases are won, most are in this vein (from his link)



I've come to is that I think it is juvenile and short sighted to go for Open Carry

UOCing today in Urban California is about as productive to the advancement of firearms rights as a parade of gay men in assless chaps through downtown Salt Lake City is to the cause of gay marriage in Utah.

I personally don't care to support things that are at best of no value
-Gene

there is one link to one quote where you state open carry in groups is ok. However, I'm pretty sure that was covered when i said


I followed the Nordyke thing closely here. I dont remember anything in particular re: UOC, but as a general rule, I cant recall a time when you ever said "ok, perfect time...UOC all you want. Nordyke is in VICTORY!!!!"


Ok, someone found one post, amongst 1000's. Maybe i missed it, or maybe my memory is refresh. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

lastly, everything I posted re: your hearsay post is 100% accurate. it all would have been thrown out for have zero evidentiary value

wildhawker
01-13-2010, 11:20 PM
Pretty consistent to me...

4/20/09
Please only unloaded open carry in groups. Let's bring these challenges in the right order.


7/25/09
Do this in reverse, and we'll all hang separately. Remember that it took 100 years after the end of slavery for black people to stop being lynched. The patience we're asking for is very, very short in comparison. Also note that I'm certainly not saying no UOC. I'm saying no lone UOC and that it would be far, far better politically if the group UOC wasn't a bunch of normal white males.

8/15/09
When 2 more cases are complete (Incorporation, Carry) - one way or the other - UOC's political operating environment changes radically toward it being a useful tool in the tool chest.

9/9/09
After we get Incorporation either via NRA/McDonald or Nordyke, we'll have a tool called the Federal courts to use to invalidate unconstitutional rules. Once we win Sykes we'll have federal court precedent that a right to carry is protected.

9/9/09
At Incorporation group UOC that stays clear of GFSZs is fine again though I still think we should be careful with it as it tends to begat more bad legislation and I'd rather roll back laws from where they stand - not from a further anti-gun position. After Sykes... Well, read the Penal Code and think about what a license pursuant to 12050 will really allow you to do.

9/9/09
I want to make sure that people understand what CGF's position is because its not like we're asking for some open ended stand down.

1. Until incorporation no UOC. Just don't do it. LUCC or LOC where legal is fine. If you want to stage a protest, stage a protest and use obviously non gun guns...

2. After incorporation, pre "carry is a right", group UOC but be cautious - especially about GFSZs. We're now in a world where reasonable men can disagree about the effectiveness of UOC and its upsides and downsides. Absolute worst case time to getting to stage 2 is June 30, 2010 - less than 10 months from today.

3. After carry is a right (Sykes or Palmer final.) Individual UOC - go right ahead. But you may be able to do something even better... Worst case on this - 24-36 months.

-Gene

9/10/09
Looks to be legal. Have we found our answer? I'd totally carry a fake gun as part of a concerted effort, if the minds at CGF think it'll have either a positive or neutral effect.
This works.
This would be legal. And it would definitely highlight the stupidity of California Gun laws.

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/banana-holster-20080506-124002.jpg

And so does this.

Large group events like that make a lot of sense. When we marched in the San Francisco Pride Parade we carried empty holsters. Add in some good signage and you have an excellent way to bring the right kind of attention to the Second Amendment in California.

-Gene

10/12/09
I would respectfully ask folks not to unloaded open carry in urban California areas until McDonald v. Chicago is decided in late June 2010.

-Gene

For? Please review my initial assertion(s)

so you want an apology because I didnt remember 1 post/ 1 comment where you said it was ok (not advocating it mind you) ?

you need a better research assistant. Have you read the links. Some take no position at all, some say wait until various cases are won, most are in this vein (from his link)

there is one link to one quote where you state open carry in groups is ok. However, I'm pretty sure that was covered when i said

Ok, someone found one post, amongst 1000's. Maybe i missed it, or maybe my memory is refresh. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

lastly, everything I posted re: your hearsay post is 100% accurate. it all would have been thrown out for have zero evidentiary value

obeygiant
01-13-2010, 11:25 PM
so you want an apology because I didnt remember 1 post/ 1 comment where you said it was ok (not advocating it mind you) ?


12/4/2008
It's not time yet (wait a little longer for Nordyke) but being arrested for refusing a loaded check is going to be very valuable to the march of gun deregulation in California.

-Gene

03-12-2009, 11:39 PM


Gene, how does a favorable ruling on Nordyke prevent introduction/passing of legislation that would ban OC? In DC they are still trying to stifle the 2A as much as they can (eg, using the CA roster) and letting the courts figure it out. It seems to me that Heller+Nordyke gives us the the ammo to shoot down these types of laws, but doesn't really prevent them from being passed.

When Nordyke is final (aka, it has passed en-banc and is either SCOTUS ruled on or denied Cert or not appealed) then we are free and able to launch court challenges on existing and new laws in California that are unique to California. If a new anti-UOC bill was passed in the next 6 months, we could do nothing about it for up to two years if Nordyke goes all the way to SCOTUS.

Once Nordyke is final, you are correct - we have lots of tools in the toolbox. That's not where we are today nor is it clear how long Nordyke will take to become final.

-Gene

03-12-2009
It has come to my attention that there are quite a few folks in California that either didn't read, or didn't hear the official position of The Calguns Foundation on Unloaded Open Carry.

As we've said in the past, we did support one case where a US Marine was arrested for UOC on the Fourth of July. We've gotten that case to be a non-prosecute, but he still faces potential municipal charges. At that time we made it clear that we do not believe that UOC is strategically valuable at this time. As such, CGF would not support the defense of anyone arrested or charged with unloaded open carry related charges.

That remains the case today. We have offered limited and specific types of support to Theseus as he is about to face a jury trial he may lose. He partially followed our advice and had some money on hand to defend himself but it is clearly not going to be enough and he didn't keep as much as we recommend. We have and continue to facilitate donations directly to his counsel for those inclined to help him offset his expenses, but we will not spend general CGF operating funds to defend Theseus.

Our reasons for this are two fold.

1. If you truly need to carry for self defense and can't get a CCW, we recommend the quite legal and just as effective "poor man's CCW." A case with a 3 dial lock and an unloaded pistol with magazine or speedloaders inside works just about as well as UOC.

2. UOC before we can begin real "carry" court cases can only hurt gun owners who don't UOC. The legislature is very likely to change the law to stop you guys from UOCing and there isn't much we can do about it until we can bring "carry" cases in court post Nordyke finality (not just the 3 judge panel's opinion.)

It saddens me to not be more supportive as I love the spirit and devotion to gun rights that you UOC'ers present. That said I don't see anything good coming from UOC yet. Once we're able to get in gear on the legal challenge front, UOC may become a quite valuable resource to the pro-gun movement, but it remains premature right now.

I'll also grant an exception to some of what I write above. Well organized group open carrying like the event that occurred in San Diego are probably safe enough, worthwhile, and have some educational value.

However, if you as an individual choose to UOC you must have $10,000.00 you are fine with kissing goodbye! If you do not and you get arrested, I know I'm not going to have much sympathy for you and I can tell you that CGF will only be able to lend you process and moral support - not funds.

I'd ask all the other CGF board members to chime in as I want everyone to understand that this is a widely held concern and position of those of us working very hard to retake the RKBA.

-Gene

obeygiant
01-13-2010, 11:26 PM
and this

07-25-2009, 12:23 PM
I've explained before that there is a reason for the order of operations here.

We can get shall issue CCW if we attack that first (and say some things in that attack that OC proponents will not like - I'm warning you.) Once we secure shall issue CCW there is a specific way in which we can likely decriminalize LOC as well. I too don't want to be in the Texas situation of being cited for OC when I have a CCW too. That will also mean we'll head after GFSZ's too but those are certainly not the first cases you want to bring.

If we went in the other order, then I worry simply that LOC will end up being prohibited by every mall and restaurant in California. Just look at what is happening in Arizona and Tenessee for goodness sake. Bars are posting "no guns" signs even after both states started allowing CCW carriers in. Don't for a moment think that if LOC is our only choice, that we will not suffer the effect of having gun haters outnumber us 3:2 and have that make the private sector make it virtually impossible to carry.

LCAV and Brady would enjoy us attempting to get the equivalent ruling to Pruneyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins) on guns. Here's a hint - it will not happen. We'll have a mooted right to LOC - basically useless...

I've open carried before in places where it is legal and the public support ratio is more like 1:1. It is nicer and easier than CCW. Personally I want to walk down Market Street in San Francisco with an AR on my back and a Sig on my hip and a s**t eating grin on my face.

Do this in reverse, and we'll all hang separately. Remember that it took 100 years after the end of slavery for black people to stop being lynched. The patience we're asking for is very, very short in comparison. Also note that I'm certainly not saying no UOC. I'm saying no lone UOC and that it would be far, far better politically if the group UOC wasn't a bunch of normal white males.

-Gene
07-30-2009

All,

I haven't spoken to anyone so this is no one's policy or thought but mine. However, now that there is no Second Amendment right in California until Nordyke is reissued or the Supreme Court issues an opinion in one of the Chicago Cases, we should not be UOCing at all.

I'd prefer to not fully explain why as it's a bit late, but the basic issues is that there now is not a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. As such, the ability to use the Federal courts to protect UOC'ers is diminished until either a new Nordyke opinion or June of 2010.

I know there are other reasons that some have asked to hold off, but this is a major issue and I really hope that folks will understand why I say this. I'm not trying to start a flame thread here. Importantly, the worst likely case is that UOCers should wait for the Supremes in June of 2010.

-Gene

08-15-2009, 10:31 PM

It would be good to remember that we are all on the same side. What is politically expedient to CGF may have little relevance to some of the posters on this forum.

You are confusing politically expedient with politically wise. I need you to explain to me how not supporting UOC helps CGF beyond helping all gun owners maintain and advance their rights. I know I think that a major difference between the opinion your espousing and the one I've come to is that I think it is juvenile and short sighted to go for Open Carry first in CALIFORNIA before we get 1. Incorporation. 2. The Right to Bear Arms - both recognized in the 9th Circuit.

I find it short sighted to understand that absent Incorporation, the only protections UOCers have is the Federal Courts. Absent that, they're going to have bad things like those happening to Theseus. If Theseus looses too largely then it's not clear business owners aren't violating the GFSZ at their own establishments.

Dan, will you UOC? If so not why would you support/lead/encourage others to do something that you yourself would not do.

UOCing today in Urban California is about as productive to the advancement of firearms rights as a parade of gay men in assless chaps through downtown Salt Lake City is to the cause of gay marriage in Utah.

Tell me what UOC in urban California can do for the advancement of the right to keep and bear arms in California?

"Defending yourself" is a silly response when LUCC is available at no risk to the rest of gun owners. Thinking that a couple of usually white usually young men carrying unloaded guns will change opinions in California as strongly as future Federal and Supreme Court cases is also politically naive.

When 2 more cases are complete (Incorporation, Carry) - one way or the other - UOC's political operating environment changes radically toward it being a useful tool in the tool chest. The Civil Rights movement went after interstate bussing first because they knew they could win it and they knew it would be Federal. UOC incidents will start in State criminal courts and the State courts will continue to refuse to take the 2A seriously until required to by Federal Courts. I can point you to three horrible State Appellate decisions after Heller that don't include Theseus' problems.

-Gene

09-09-2009, 11:53 PM

I want to make sure that people understand what CGF's position is because its not like we're asking for some open ended stand down.

1. Until incorporation no UOC. Just don't do it. LUCC or LOC where legal is fine. If you want to stage a protest, stage a protest and use obviously non gun guns...

2. After incorporation, pre "carry is a right", group UOC but be cautious - especially about GFSZs. We're now in a world where reasonable men can disagree about the effectiveness of UOC and its upsides and downsides. Absolute worst case time to getting to stage 2 is June 30, 2010 - less than 10 months from today.

3. After carry is a right (Sykes or Palmer final.) Individual UOC - go right ahead. But you may be able to do something even better... Worst case on this - 24-36 months.

-Gene

09-09-2009, 05:07 PM


So let me ask you this. Say you win Nordyke, say you win Sykes, and Pena and any another case you want to cite. What will be your position when those rights have unconstitutional laws written that infringe upon them?
After we get Incorporation either via NRA/McDonald or Nordyke, we'll have a tool called the Federal courts to use to invalidate unconstitutional rules. Once we win Sykes we'll have federal court precedent that a right to carry is protected.

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

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

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

-Gene

09-10-2009, 06:01 PM



Looks to be legal. Have we found our answer? I'd totally carry a fake gun as part of a concerted effort, if the minds at CGF think it'll have either a positive or neutral effect.
This works.

This would be legal. And it would definitely highlight the stupidity of California Gun laws.

And so does this.

Large group events like that make a lot of sense. When we marched in the San Francisco Pride Parade we carried empty holsters. Add in some good signage and you have an excellent way to bring the right kind of attention to the Second Amendment in California.

-Gene

10-12-2009, 10:58 PM
I would respectfully ask folks not to unloaded open carry in urban California areas until McDonald v. Chicago is decided in late June 2010.

-Gene

obeygiant
01-13-2010, 11:26 PM
and this

11-22-2009, 09:58 PM

Some background that apparently ipser is unwilling to go read.

1. UOC is one of the factors behind the current proposed extension of the size of the GFSZ.

2. Draft legislation exists in Sacramento today to ban the practice of UOC. That legislation is likely to have unintended consequences that will lead the vast majority of California gun owners to do innocent things that will be deemed crimes should a new bill pass. Please note that anti-gun legislation can easily pass in CA - see AB-962.

3. CGF relaxed our stand down request after Nordyke but before it went en-banc. We still asked for people to refrain from individual UOC for a host of reasons, but at least when we had a 2A for 100 days, we had the tools to offset many of the very clear downside risks that come with UOC in urban areas.

4. If #2 passes too quickly and before we can get a result in Sykes, we may lose an ability to LOC w/ a permit. I don't care to go fully into this, but a victory in Sykes is about Carry, not just Concealed Carry. If you want to understand my point I suggest you speak offline with someone in the know. Sykes and Palmer are the next major step in the Alan Gura invasion. Seeing as how is about to be 2 for 2, please help us help him be 3 for 3 and prove that bear means carry in public and in private.

5. Public opinion in urban California is really against white males under 30 carrying firearms in public. If you want to make a "changing hearts and minds" argument for UOC then you need folks who are not white, male, straight, and non disabled. If you get your girlfriend to Open Carry or your gay friends, you'll have a chance to make the public opinion argument. Part of the problem with the KTVU report is the stunning lack of diversity of the crew at Starbucks. It certainly doesn't reflect the average reader/poster here on CGN.

6. UOC has helped on a couple of points. Getting LEA's to understand the definition of loaded alone is valuable.

7. CGF has a very particular need of UOC post incorporation. There are some blatantly unconstitutional sections of the CA PC that effect every gun owner (not just UOCers) but UOCers are in an unique position to obtain standing to challenge those.

8. Personally, I will not ask other Calguns.net members or gun owners to do something I personally will not do (yet.) It's not from a lack of boldness and if you doubt that I have some letters you should read. I've LOC'ed in other states and I sorely want to in California. Note that I said LOC. I get nothing from UOC that I can't get from an empty holster and a locked container holding an unloaded gun concealed in a bag. I've actually marched in the Gay Pride Parade in SF wearing a Calguns.net shirt holding up the Pink Pistols banner and wearing my empty holster. It makes the point just as well.

-Gene

11-23-2009, 12:21 PM


Your points 1-7 are all organized around a legal strategy. That seems to be your main focus judging from this and other posts.

Uhm... Gun owners who wish to carry in public are a minority in California and will remain that way for quite some time. Keeping new bad laws from passing is hardly a legal strategy. Do you think that black people got their kids into integrated schools in the south in the 1960's by just marching around a little more?

It's my impression that you don't need to ask anyone to do anything. There are UOCers who are chomping at the bit, in some cases (e.g. the OP) they are ignoring the above legal advice and going ahead.
You ignore my point. You claimed you had knowledge that CGF would continue to oppose UOC.

I don't agree that wearing an empty holster in a march is equivalent to OC at a Calguns organized event. (Wearing an empty holster on a college campus, maybe.)

I walked down Market Street in San Francisco at a gay pride event. I claim that's even more impactful and makes the point even better than UOC in urban areas.

Tell me why you should go forward with your public relations strategy in the face of 1 and 2 and absent any protections from the courts? Do you have some non white male folks to do the UOCing?

-Gene

11-23-2009, 02:21 PM
After Incorporation and for tactical reasons, after Sykes or Palmer are final, then I'll be happy to hold LOC events in San Francisco.

Is that plain enough for you?

The reason this is a legal issue is that the right to carry arms in public is a right that only a minority support. Even in states where shall issue carry permits are the norm, not more than 5% of the population perform the simple steps to get one. Minorities can generally only turn to the courts for support.

The open carry movement is an excellent idea to desensitize the public to the law abiding carrying firearms but for now its only wise in states that have a right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions. The reason for that is that when the inevitable arrest or police harassment occurs, the OCer has leverage. Here in California the UOCer has been convicted, lest I need to remind you of that issue.

-Gene

pullnshoot25
01-13-2010, 11:29 PM
All this talk of penises being whipped out is giving me fundraising ideas. That and I am getting flashbacks of Heathers

wildhawker
01-13-2010, 11:34 PM
Fundraisers are supposed to attract people and raise money. I'm not sure what you'll raise at such an event as you may be considering, but I doubt it can be exchanged for goods or services. ;)

oaklander
01-13-2010, 11:40 PM
LOL - FTW!

:D

It's not an EPIC CGN thread until we start talking about penises!!!!

All this talk of penises being whipped out is giving me fundraising ideas. That and I am getting flashbacks of Heathers

CalNRA
01-13-2010, 11:47 PM
*slowly back out of the room*

As you were, gents.

DedEye
01-13-2010, 11:47 PM
All this talk of penises being whipped out is giving me fundraising ideas. That and I am getting flashbacks of Heathers

NO! Bad Nate! :nono:

Haven't you had enough encounters with law enforcement regarding your interactions with women? ;)

lavgrunt
01-14-2010, 12:52 AM
the OP is unfortunately under the influence of a Government School Elementary Education where in that stage of the Statist programming he has been brainwashed to believe in the infallibility of the State. Furthermore, his comments demonstrate the effect of the Supremecy of Police doctrine and immunity of priviledged class phenomenon taught in these Government Schools. In summary, his entire post is a*s backwards. There is supposed to be only one function of the State and it's armed troops, and that is to protect the Civil Liberties of the individual as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. So ponder this, who is the aggressor in the OP, the cops or the citizens?




excuse me while I call my local PD and tell them I am about to purchase some property, I hope they allow me.

......Let me guess.....you got a ticket you don't think you deserved? You're car got towed? What a joke...........

How about keeping this thread on topic and laying off the personal attacks ??!!.........

N6ATF
01-14-2010, 1:09 AM
Basically - I'm not PUBLICALLY waving my "penis" around at the local coffee house (or laundromat) trying to make a point.
.

Good that you are privately keeping it steady on point then. This thread is worthwhile WITHOUT pics... of your "gun" holster.

But could use some pictures of the public "penis" holsters that make it impossible to wave the "penises" around.

sreiter
01-14-2010, 8:07 AM
Pretty consistent to me...



i didnt say he wasn't consistently asking people NOT to open carry until a number of other cases were won first (what every one of your quotes say).

Theseus
01-14-2010, 9:56 AM
Good that you are privately keeping it steady on point then. This thread is worthwhile WITHOUT pics... of your "gun" holster.

But could use some pictures of the public "penis" holsters that make it impossible to wave the "penises" around.

NOooooooooo!!!!!

Oh HELL NO!!! Not just 'No' but 'Damn Skippy HELL NO!!!'

That is about Oaklanders style though. . . isn't it?

......I feel so sick and dirty now. :puke:

oaklander
01-14-2010, 11:41 AM
I have the effect on some people. See my dating thread in off-topic.

:p

Seriously, this whole UOC issue is just driving me crazy! It's like the white elephant in the living room that nobody will talk about. What f-ing use is an unloaded gun? Do UOC'ers simply lack common sense? The whole UOC movement just reeks of FAIL.

Most people are too polite to come out and say it, but UOC is basically just a bunch of fat white guys meeting in clean suburban coffee shops and trying to be cool.

Then they get some press, and boast about how they are "fighting for gun rights," "educating the public," etc..

No, they are simply stroking themselves. The public is either neutral about UOC, or thinks it is stupid. Read the comments on any UOC published article. The press writes about UOC for the same reason they write about horrific car accidents. People like to read about FAIL.

Loaded carry has its purpose. CCW has its purpose. UOC *might* have a specific purpose after incorporation. But right now, it's beyond stupid.

......I feel so sick and dirty now. :puke:

oaklander
01-14-2010, 12:18 PM
Didn't mean to kill the thread. It's entertaining to watch the .05 percent of Calgunners who actually support UOC try to make it make sense.

pullnshoot25
01-14-2010, 12:46 PM
I have the effect on some people. See my dating thread in off-topic.

:p

Seriously, this whole UOC issue is just driving me crazy! It's like the white elephant in the living room that nobody will talk about. What f-ing use is an unloaded gun? Do UOC'ers simply lack common sense? The whole UOC movement just reeks of FAIL.

Most people are too polite to come out and say it, but UOC is basically just a bunch of fat white guys meeting in clean suburban coffee shops and trying to be cool.

Then they get some press, and boast about how they are "fighting for gun rights," "educating the public," etc..

No, they are simply stroking themselves. The public is either neutral about UOC, or thinks it is stupid. Read the comments on any UOC published article. The press writes about UOC for the same reason they write about horrific car accidents. People like to read about FAIL.

Loaded carry has its purpose. CCW has its purpose. UOC *might* have a specific purpose after incorporation. But right now, it's beyond stupid.

UOC is not the white elephant in the room. In fact, it is quite often talked about. Notice that a lot of the threads here in 2A are about open carry and associated issues? That must be people not talking about it.

Educating the public has been a pretty big component. Educating police officers on the most basic of Constitutional rights has been a pretty good focus as well. You should have heard the Lt in IA at SDPD that I talked with last night, it was actually a good conversation.

I also feel that bringing people into the Calguns fold and getting them interested in their rights has been a pretty good thing as well. I have no data to prove a correlation between UOC publications and increased membership but maybe someone out there has some numbers for us. I can definitely say that there are a lot more people interested in their rights. In fact, I am possibly going to educate a great many more people tonight.

I feel that the articles on UOC have actually been pretty neutral and FAR better written than most articles on "evil black rifles." Take that for what you will.

You seem willfully misunderstand and make very broad generalizations about a topic and a whole sect of people for the purpose of self-edification, or "stroking" as you call it. What is even funnier is that for about 99.9% of my OC stuff I coordinated with higher-ups at Calguns, sought permission/blessings, etc, yet you continuously attack the OCers as a whole. While the mantra for OC has since turned face, the fact remains is that I and many others have worked and cooperated with Calguns. You should at least recognize that fact in your scurrilous remarks.

oaklander
01-14-2010, 1:10 PM
PnS - I'm not talking about you - I respect what you are doing for RATIONAL UOC, and I like the fact that you are coordinating with the overall strategy of CGF, etc..

Again, these are my PERSONAL views. I personally think UOC is stupid - but if people are going to do it - at least do it like you are doing - calm, rational, working within the system, etc... It's a free country, and I respect that some people think UOC is a good idea. I don't share that view, but at least, some of those people like you are doing it the right way.

What I'm referring to in my previous post are fringers, like the San Pedro group, and the Livermore group.

Someone is going to get shot, at some point, by an overzealous LE.

ETA: also - UOC'ers need to not take things so personal. I'm not calling you out, and if I joke about Theseus, I'm trying to do it in good humor. Please divorce my opinion about UOC from my opinion of you. I actually respect that you are willing to stand up for what you believe in. I just disagree with the method. Finally, we need to be able to argue about this stuff in a robust manner, and not get all "hurt" when someone says something that is strong or disagreeable. Nothing is so sacred that it can't be criticized. You and I have met, and you know that I am a reasonable person and harbor no ill will towards you or anyone else, for that matter. I just want to make that clear.

pullnshoot25
01-14-2010, 5:37 PM
PnS - I'm not talking about you - I respect what you are doing for RATIONAL UOC, and I like the fact that you are coordinating with the overall strategy of CGF, etc..

Again, these are my PERSONAL views. I personally think UOC is stupid - but if people are going to do it - at least do it like you are doing - calm, rational, working within the system, etc... It's a free country, and I respect that some people think UOC is a good idea. I don't share that view, but at least, some of those people like you are doing it the right way.

What I'm referring to in my previous post are fringers, like the San Pedro group, and the Livermore group.

Someone is going to get shot, at some point, by an overzealous LE.

ETA: also - UOC'ers need to not take things so personal. I'm not calling you out, and if I joke about Theseus, I'm trying to do it in good humor. Please divorce my opinion about UOC from my opinion of you. I actually respect that you are willing to stand up for what you believe in. I just disagree with the method. Finally, we need to be able to argue about this stuff in a robust manner, and not get all "hurt" when someone says something that is strong or disagreeable. Nothing is so sacred that it can't be criticized. You and I have met, and you know that I am a reasonable person and harbor no ill will towards you or anyone else, for that matter. I just want to make that clear.

Fair enough, I apologize for the misinterpretation and for taking offense.

On the whole "overzealous LE" note, I got this in my inbox (email and Google Voice) today.

To whom it may concern,
My name is Kiet Do, reporter for CBS5 News. I'm doing a story tonight
about an announcement from the San Mateo Co. Sheriffs Office advises
citizens to NOT carry unloaded and unconcealed firearms, saying it can
lead to deadly consequences. We'd like some opinions and perspective
on this from a gun rights advocate. Would you be interested in an
on-camera interview? The story will air tonight at 10pm and 11pm. I'm
based in San Jose, and we can be anywhere in the Bay Area in about an
hour or so. Thanks for your consideration.

Kiet Do
Reporter
CBS5 News
408-500-2357 cell

Theseus
01-14-2010, 6:08 PM
Fair enough, I apologize for the misinterpretation and for taking offense.

On the whole "overzealous LE" note, I got this in my inbox (email and Google Voice) today.

To whom it may concern,
My name is Kiet Do, reporter for CBS5 News. I'm doing a story tonight
about an announcement from the San Mateo Co. Sheriffs Office advises
citizens to NOT carry unloaded and unconcealed firearms, saying it can
lead to deadly consequences. We'd like some opinions and perspective
on this from a gun rights advocate. Would you be interested in an
on-camera interview? The story will air tonight at 10pm and 11pm. I'm
based in San Jose, and we can be anywhere in the Bay Area in about an
hour or so. Thanks for your consideration.

Kiet Do
Reporter
CBS5 News
408-500-2357 cell

Great, so now they are basically threatening to shoot open carriers. That can't be good for them.

leelaw
01-14-2010, 6:47 PM
Great, so now they are basically threatening to shoot open carriers. That can't be good for them.

Could you highlight the part that threatens UOCers? I'm sensing some warping of what seems to be pretty plain language here. Just because someone says "if you don't wear a seatbelt you could be seriously injured in a car accident" doesn't mean "if you don't wear a seatbelt, I'm going to hit you with my car" and to warp it to that meaning is quite a stretch (not to mention an interpretation of an interpretation of a supposed letter).