PDA

View Full Version : another UOC news story ABC 7 SF 5 and 6pm news


Sgt Raven
01-30-2010, 5:06 PM
Well another news program has stories about UOC. Tonight ABC 7 KGO-TV had stories during their 5 and 6 pm news.

pullnshoot25
01-30-2010, 5:11 PM
It is online now already.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7248503

tombinghamthegreat
01-30-2010, 5:56 PM
I kinda like the UOC movement in the news.

Lone_Gunman
01-30-2010, 6:05 PM
Well UOC is getting all the attention they have been craving. Stand by for illogical panic driven legislation in 3...2...1...

GrizzlyGuy
01-30-2010, 6:07 PM
I kinda like the UOC movement in the news.

Me too. Go figure, I'm a hard-core libertarian. :)

Quote from the Brady lady:

This myth that these people are somehow, uh, superheroes that are out there, you know, uh, ready to take the bullet for you, they're just as likely to put a bullet IN you" :mad:

CenterX
01-30-2010, 6:21 PM
Well UOC is getting all the attention they have been craving. Stand by for illogical panic driven legislation in 3...2...1...

Yep! this is all that the Brady Bunch and fear mongers needed to promote their agendas. Folks interviewed are already stating that a gun in their presence is an invasion on their rights. Which one I'm not sure about and the news didn't elaborate.

Strange times where pot heads are getting more kudos than firearms owners.

But I am on the fringe when I say - all people should be allowed firearms, even pot heads! After all, why should they or anyone be left to become a helpless victim of violence?

GrizzlyGuy
01-30-2010, 6:32 PM
By the way, in case someone thinks this is a dupe, this is a different ABC TV report than the other one that happened in the last 24 hours. Here are the two ABC news reports:

Businesses Close Doors on Gun-toting Customers (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7247786) (the earlier one)

Open carry advocates test waters at Starbucks (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7248503) (the latest one)

A handful of coffee-drinking pro-2A folks in the Bay Area are now on TV more often than Obama! :D

Cos
01-30-2010, 6:57 PM
I'm so not going to Peet's anymore. Which makes me kinda sad, because it was my favorite coffee parlor unlike the Starbacks, which I'm not going to patronize big time!

camsoup
01-30-2010, 7:11 PM
This myth that these people are somehow, uh, superheroes that are out there, you know, uh, ready to take the bullet for you, they're just as likely to put a bullet IN you

It simply boggles my mind, how someone can think this.... the fact that she cant tell the difference between someone peaceably legally carrying, and someone who may try to put a bullet in you. It goes to show the uphill battle we have coming.

If she is ever in a situation where she is fearing for her life, I hope a law abiding gun toting citizen happens to be there to protect her....chances are they would get there faster than the police, :D

GrizzlyGuy
01-30-2010, 7:15 PM
It simply boggles my mind, how someone can think this.... the fact that she cant tell the difference between someone peaceably legally carrying, and someone who may try to put a bullet in you. It goes to show the uphill battle we have coming.

If she is ever in a situation where she is fearing for her life, I hope a law abiding gun toting citizen happens to be there to protect her....chances are they would get there faster than the police, :D

Yeah, and hopefully she doesn't have her Brady Campaign T-shirt on if that happens. The superhero gunnie might just use their superhero powers to duck and let the bad guy's round continue on down range. :rolleyes:

sfpcservice
01-30-2010, 7:50 PM
I give it two weeks before Starbucks bans customers carrying firearms in any way shape or form.

tombinghamthegreat
01-30-2010, 8:51 PM
I give it two weeks before Starbucks bans customers carrying firearms in any way shape or form.

:willy_nilly: two weeks

camsoup
01-30-2010, 9:31 PM
I give it two weeks before Starbucks bans customers carrying firearms in any way shape or form.


So they should get around to enacting a total ban.....sometime around august?? :D haha

pullnshoot25
01-30-2010, 11:59 PM
Posted by JJ on OCDO

My friend who is one of the managers at the Starbuck's in Antioch emailed me and asked if I had seen the news coverage regarding the meet-up there this morning.

I responded I had not, as I was at work, but emailed back and asked what the chances were that their corporate office would change their policy on UOC due to all the recent coverage. Below is the copy and pasted reply I received.

"My district manager rushed to my store & contacted all the corporate people... Current stance is that as long as it's legal (which it is) & as long as they do not disrupt Starbucks business (which they didn't), they are just normal customers and are welcome in our stores... PS... they were very friendly and respectful of all my partners and customers this morning. "

ldivinag
01-31-2010, 3:11 AM
It is online now already.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7248503


ha ha... i like starbucks' response...

which to me essentially told the brady bunch to go pound sand...


lol...

Mulay El Raisuli
01-31-2010, 4:23 AM
ha ha... i like starbucks' response...

which to me essentially told the brady bunch to go pound sand...


lol...


Yes. And its not like Starbucks hasn't seen this before. The Escondido group goes to Starbucks at least once a month. I think we can regard them as a friend.


The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
01-31-2010, 4:35 AM
Well UOC is getting all the attention they have been craving. Stand by for illogical panic driven legislation in 3...2...1...


As Gene pointed out, illogical panic driven legislation came our way IN SPITE of the stand down. Its just something inherent in the PRK legislature.

Which is why he doesn't have a problem with us starting up again. Of course, I think his actual words were something like 'You can't do any more harm, so go ahead!'

Still, the reasons for us to hold off no longer exist & so there's no reason why we should.


The Raisuli

artherd
01-31-2010, 6:10 AM
Well UOC is getting all the attention they have been craving. Stand by for illogical panic driven legislation in 3...2...1...

Meh, we already lost LOC thanks to the OC'ers. There's not too much you can do anymore, so have at it and bring bail money.

If you get UOC banned too I really don't care.

cdtx2001
01-31-2010, 6:26 AM
Well UOC is getting all the attention they have been craving. Stand by for illogical panic driven legislation in 3...2...1...

That's something I fear as well. Get your foil hats on and see if this conspiracy theory works for you...

The media has been antigun for quite a while. Suddenly, there's a lot of coverage on UOC, some of it pretty good. Whether good or bad coverage, the masses of people out there fear guns in any form thanks to years of demonizing by the media and antigun groups. A movement will come about to ban UOC with the same kind of FUD that was used to ban LOC.

CitaDeL
01-31-2010, 8:16 AM
Meh, we already lost LOC thanks to the OC'ers. There's not too much you can do anymore, so have at it and bring bail money.

If you get UOC banned too I really don't care.

I think this not factual, based on these ommissions.

1) Legislators are responsible for changing the penal code.
2) Those who were licensed to carry loaded and exposed in their county and chose to carry loaded and exposed outside their county drew legislative attention.
3) Those who have been carrying without the privilege of a license were not the cause of the legislation that altered the 12031 exemption wording.
4) LOC is still legal in unincorporated areas and areas where discharge is not prohibited.

While I agree that UOC can attract similar negative legislative attention, I think its important to put the blame where it belongs and not to overstate the limitations that have been put into place.

Maestro Pistolero
01-31-2010, 9:51 AM
Just posted the following on the ABC affiliate's site:


In Response To: Open carry advocates test waters at Starbucks

1/31/10 1:40 PM EST
The hand wringing and drama by the Brady campaign is sad, if not just laughable. I've been carrying with a concealed license for twenty-plus years, first in CA, and I now live in Nevada, where open LOADED carry is as common as a hat. Police and citizens don't even blink when the citizen in the grocery line has a pistol on his/her hip. <br/><br/>NO ONE WITH ILL-INTENT is going to run their errands with a gun on their hip. A criminal is going to hide it.

The fear of these anti-gun extremists is completely irrational. Guns are by definition dangerous. But we all drive down the road with our cars pointing at each other at combined speeds of 70 -100 MPH everyday, never once thinking we are trusting complete strangers with our lives. We may not agree with these open-carriers, but we can trust them, as they obviously have nothing to hide.

ChrisO
01-31-2010, 10:44 AM
So it's UOC's fault we lost LOC? :rolleyes: Why is that?

pullnshoot25
01-31-2010, 3:34 PM
So it's UOC's fault we lost LOC? :rolleyes: Why is that?

Not necessarily UOC, but a combination of UOC and persons authorized under 12050 to LOC in their home county that decided to carry outside the bounds of their license.

I regret the fact that I may have been involved in this debacle, as we may only have CCW left once the smoke clears...

CitaDeL
01-31-2010, 4:20 PM
I regret the fact that I may have been involved in this debacle, as we may only have CCW left once the smoke clears...

You should not feel regret for doing what is your natural right. But, if you do feel regret, you should remember that you were not the first, or the most culpable in the movement.

dantodd
01-31-2010, 4:37 PM
I think this not factual, based on these ommissions.

1) Legislators are responsible for changing the penal code.
2) Those who were licensed to carry loaded and exposed in their county and chose to carry loaded and exposed outside their county drew legislative attention.
3) Those who have been carrying without the privilege of a license were not the cause of the legislation that altered the 12031 exemption wording.
4) LOC is still legal in unincorporated areas and areas where discharge is not prohibited.

While I agree that UOC can attract similar negative legislative attention, I think its important to put the blame where it belongs and not to overstate the limitations that have been put into place.

Additionally. When SCOTUS rules on "bear" in Palmer it will either allow the state to choose CC or OC or it will not allow the states to choose which one. If it allows the state to choose the EXACT same sort of legislation would have been passed post-incorporation if someone were OCing with a CCW license. If the courts DO NOT permit the state to choose the manner of carry then the law will fall regardless of the temporary change. In fact, Sykes is going to require a re-write of 12031 and 12050 anyway so if SCOTUS says the states must permit the citizen to choose manner of carry the legislature will simply address that in the re-write process.

Maestro Pistolero
01-31-2010, 5:09 PM
as we may only have CCW left once the smoke clears...I am not so sure that some form of unlicensed loaded carry might survive, or be resurrected. Unloaded carry is useless according to Heller, because it is not functional until loaded. There is no other enumerated right for which a license can be required in order to exercise it. CCW licensing has a long history of permissibility, as does unlicensed LOC in many, many jurisdictions. Depending on the scrutiny applied, it seems to me that there may need to be some form of unlicensed carry available to (not otherwise prohibited) individuals. If I'm right, and CCW continues to require licensing, that leaves only LOC to meet the criteria that applies to every other enumerated right.