PDA

View Full Version : Predictably, OC is backfiring


paul0660
01-29-2010, 11:06 AM
I know this has been discussed before, but now it is on the "front page" of the SF Chron:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=56281&tsp=1

sfpcservice
01-29-2010, 11:26 AM
Looks like a boycott of Peet's Coffee and Tea is in order. I liked that place too. Bummer.

chickenfried
01-29-2010, 11:30 AM
backfiring? I don't see the point to UOC. But all this angst over it is funny. If they had not UOC, they'd still be able to UOC at those locations. I guess that's a backfire :confused:.

Super Spy
01-29-2010, 11:31 AM
If this keeps up all my favorite coffee places will be on the boycott list.......I can't wait for shall issue.....

tyrist
01-29-2010, 11:33 AM
It's only a matter of time before carrying an unlocked firearm will be a misdemeanor school zone or not. The more attention the OC movement attracts the greater the probability of new laws being passed in the legislature.

Toolbox X
01-29-2010, 11:42 AM
Meh.

The Cable Guy
01-29-2010, 11:46 AM
It's only a matter of time before carrying an unlocked firearm will be a misdemeanor school zone or not. The more attention the OC movement attracts the greater the probability of new laws being passed in the legislature.

I don't see how this would happen. OC'ers are not breaking the law, they are not threatening people, or anything remotely negative. Why would legislation be passed against guns, when there is clearly no increase or threat of gun violence? (Of course this is CA, so logic goes out the window, I guess you're right.)

DedEye
01-29-2010, 11:48 AM
I don't see how this would happen. OC'ers are not breaking the law, they are not threatening people, or anything remotely negative. Why would legislation be passed against guns, when there is clearly no increase or threat of gun violence? (Of course this is CA, so logic goes out the window, I guess you're right.)

No ****, Sherlock, that's why tryist is suggesting that a law would be passed so that their actions WOULD be breaking the law.

You answered your own question. Logic doesn't factor into this.

It would be nice if people didn't decide to go full retard with OC until it was actually defensible under the 2nd Amendment (read: after McDonald).

Besides, isn't this a :dupe:?

davescz
01-29-2010, 11:56 AM
so if we dont exercise our rights, we wont loose them????

could be if we all did it, it would become acceptable.

we need not only open carry protests we need sit ins, and pickets, we need to shut them down. we need to attend every county, city and state meeting we can and demand our rights.

we must not give in. we must respect private property when owner does not want us, but we must never back down on our rights.

we should take note of who supports bans on open carry, and run a campaign to vote them out

bulgron
01-29-2010, 12:04 PM
I don't see how this would happen. OC'ers are not breaking the law, they are not threatening people, or anything remotely negative. Why would legislation be passed against guns, when there is clearly no increase or threat of gun violence? (Of course this is CA, so logic goes out the window, I guess you're right.)

Exactly. All you have to do is look at the makeup and attitude of the politicians in Sacramento to know how things are going to end for open carry in this state.

The good news is, the more they make open carry illegal, the stronger our case for shall-issue CCW laws.

What I'm wondering is, if open carry is completely illegal, then can they really have a permit system for CCW? I mean, the state will have spoken with regards to how they want us to exercise our right to bear arms....

Roadrunner
01-29-2010, 12:06 PM
Actually, I thought the response of some of the people there was positive. You had the one woman and that wank from the Brady's, make negative comments, but the two guys present seemed pretty open to the concept. The only people who seem to be blowing it out of proportion are the cops that treat UOCers like criminals, the liberal media who are trying to convince the public that we must all be afraid of guns in public, and the business owners who are buying into the evil guns propaganda. One of those guys had it right when he observed the mixed message that we are being given. He cites we are told that we have a right to bear arms, but we are prevented from carrying them. I think UOC is educating people and the more UOCers expose themselves to the public, the more the public will see how rational and normal UOCers are.

DedEye
01-29-2010, 12:07 PM
so if we dont exercise our rights, we wont loose them????

First off, it's "lose."

"Loose" describes screws. As in "Open carriers have a screw loose if they think that they have a right under the 2nd Amendment in California."

If you'll reference the above sentence, you'll see my second point:

You cannot exercise a right you don't have. Currently, there is no 2nd Amendment in California.

Yes, I agree with the majority of posters here that rights are inalienable and not up to governments to grant, but I also live in the Real World and understand how the judicial system works (more or less). Until the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states, you have no right to lose. It was lost long ago, and is only now on the precipice of returning.

Please don't **** that up.*



*That was not specific to you, but directed at anyone that doesn't understand how important it is to be patient.

could be if we all did it, it would become acceptable.

Or the more likely outcome that it would just be criminalized.

we need not only open carry protests we need sit ins, and pickets, we need to shut them down. we need to attend every county, city and state meeting we can and demand our rights.

Go back to the 60's, hippie.*

Sit ins, protests and pickets aren't the most effective avenue to reclaiming our rights. Demanding rights back from people who couldn't care less isn't the way to get them back. Forcing the return of our rights judicially is the most effective course of action.

Education of the public in a non-threatening and non-confrontational manner will help as well, and as much as many here would like to believe UOC falls into this category, it doesn't.

*I'm kidding.

we must not give in. we must respect private property when owner does not want us, but we must never back down on our rights.

we should take note of who supports bans on open carry, and run a campaign to vote them out

This is something we should pay broader attention to in general: support candidates who support us, not exclusively open carry.

Doheny
01-29-2010, 12:08 PM
Besides, isn't this a :dupe:?

Yes it is: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=262224&highlight=peets

.

DedEye
01-29-2010, 12:09 PM
The good news is, the more they make open carry illegal, the stronger our case for shall-issue CCW laws.

Or an option that would have been much nicer: win the case for shall issue CCW through an avenue such as, I don't know, Sykes, then pushed for loaded open carry afterwards. The two didn't have to be mutually exclusive.

What I'm wondering is, if open carry is completely illegal, then can they really have a permit system for CCW? I mean, the state will have spoken with regards to how they want us to exercise our right to bear arms....

Are you suggesting that you think the state would favor a permitless CCW system similar to Vermont?

gtturborex
01-29-2010, 12:28 PM
I thought the LEO wasn't allowed to look for the SN on the weapon? It seems to me that he searched for it and read it allowed to remember so he could look it up later.

corrupt
01-29-2010, 12:33 PM
If the "UOC movement" really wanted to stir up something politically they would band together a group of people who comprise the "racial minority" in say a place like Richmond, organize a UOC event with them in a park where they would say that gun legislation is racist because rich white politicians don't want or need guns where they live, but when the poor and defenseless need defense where they can't get it, it's illegal.

Something like that could really turn a lot of opinions I think. Instead of a bunch of yuppies (no offense but that's what people see on the news) in the suburbs making a stink, it would be a community of people who are trying to defend their families against thugs without the adequate back-up of police. Lots of people already carry illegally anyway in crap areas, because the cops aren't gonna save your ***.

Kestryll
01-29-2010, 12:35 PM
Or an option that would have been much nicer: win the case for shall issue CCW through an avenue such as, I don't know, Sykes, then pushed for loaded open carry afterwards. The two didn't have to be mutually exclusive.
No they did not, it's sad really that they have become so.


Besides, isn't this a :dupe:?
Yes, it is.