PDA

View Full Version : OC, Just my thoughts


gbp
02-09-2010, 1:38 PM
It wont be long before DeLeon (or another) rises to take the task at hand.
just throwing it out there for civilized discussion, relocate or delete as you see fit

dantodd
02-09-2010, 1:53 PM
I am sure you are correct and I do not imagine there will be any coordinated effort to stop him. I would guess the most likely route would be trying to get some concessions in other areas as an amendment.

MudCamper
02-09-2010, 2:13 PM
Your point has been raised, many many many times already. In fact, given how much press OC has gotten lately, I think it is inevitable. Do we really need yet another thread to bash each other over the head with about this, yet again?

But dantodd, why would we just roll over and give up? That I don't understand.

wildhawker
02-09-2010, 2:15 PM
Your point has been raised, many many many times already. In fact, given how much press OC has gotten lately, I think it is inevitable. Do we really need yet another thread to bash each other over the head with about this, yet again?

But Dan, why would we just roll over and give up? That I don't understand.

Nope.

rkt88edmo
02-09-2010, 2:19 PM
It wont be long before DeLeon (or another) rises to take the task at hand.
just throwing it out there for civilized discussion, relocate or delete as you see fit

If that is all you have to add and you started a new thread to say it, well, you are doing something known as "trolling". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))

dantodd
02-09-2010, 2:32 PM
First of all RKT: I don't think this is a troll. It may be pretty well covered in other threads but I can see where the OP may feel the question gets short shrift when diluted in such expansive threads.


But dantodd, why would we just roll over and give up? That I don't understand.

First of all I believe that there is not sufficient political capital to stop such a bill. "The Right People" have also suggested that such a ban would withstand constitutional scrutiny, even post-incorporation. Finally, a full OC ban would do a couple of things that the leadership of CGF see as positive. Gene has made very eloquent arguments about the inadvisability of UOC and since many people have ignored those requests many of his concerns would be mitigated by a statutory restriction. The other is the recent development of no gun policies at Peet's and CPK. A ban would reduce the liklihood that others would follow suit.

MudCamper
02-09-2010, 2:41 PM
First of all I believe that there is not sufficient political capital to stop such a bill.

We should still fight. Why make it easy for the antis? Why be such a defeatist?

"The Right People" have also suggested that such a ban would withstand constitutional scrutiny, even post-incorporation.

Could. No reason to give up without a fight. We might win. Again, why set the bar so low. Doing that will only get a low result.

Finally, a full OC ban would do a couple of things that the leadership of CGF see as positive. Gene has made very eloquent arguments about the inadvisability of UOC and since many people have ignored those requests many of his concerns would be mitigated by a statutory restriction.

What you are saying here is that you think it will be a good thing that the legislature passes even more laws restricting the rights of firearms owners. Who's side are you on again?

dantodd
02-09-2010, 2:50 PM
We should still fight. Why make it easy for the antis? Why be such a defeatist?

To expend energy on a no-win battle is not an efficient use of our resources. If we can get an amendment onto a bill that is destined to pass anyway why not take that approach instead of an ill fated fight to kill the bill?


Could. No reason to give up without a fight. We might win. Again, why set the bar so low. Doing that will only get a low result.

Not could. Would, according to Alan Gura.



What you are saying here is that you think it will be a good thing that the legislature passes even more laws restricting the rights of firearms owners.
I never once said I believe it is a preferred outcome, only that it is legal and would make some of CGF's other goals more achievable.

The fact that you would ask that means that either you have not read any of my other posts here, in which case I would recommend doing so; or that you merely asking to bait me, in which case I won't rise to the bait.

wildhawker
02-09-2010, 2:53 PM
What you are saying here is that you think it will be a good thing that the legislature passes even more laws restricting the rights of firearms owners. Who's side are you on again?

Dan's comments are not without some merit.

MudCamper
02-09-2010, 2:55 PM
I never once said I believe it is a preferred outcome, only that it is legal and would make some of CGF's other goals more achievable.

Preferred does not equate to making ones goals more achievable? I think you are just playing semantics.


The fact that you would ask that means that either you have not read any of my other posts here, in which case I would recommend doing so; or that you merely asking to bait me, in which case I won't rise to the bait.

You've already baited me. This is why I hate these OC bashing threads. I have a simple enough solution, one more name added to the ignore list.

MudCamper
02-09-2010, 2:56 PM
Dan's comments are not without some merit.

That's right, Wildhawker, just throw gasoline on the fire. Two names.

dantodd
02-09-2010, 2:57 PM
You've already baited me. This is why I hate these OC bashing threads. I have a simple enough solution, one more name added to the ignore list.

pretty thin skin for someone with that relatively more hardened nickname. And FWIW, I have seen zero OC bashing here.

MudCamper
02-09-2010, 2:58 PM
Isn't this just dandy:

Sorry wildhawker is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

Really annoying.

wildhawker
02-09-2010, 3:09 PM
Mud, relax alright? I'm not trying to add fuel, simply commenting as to the potential upside of a very real legislative risk.

GrizzlyGuy
02-09-2010, 3:21 PM
It wont be long before DeLeon (or another) rises to take the task at hand.
just throwing it out there for civilized discussion, relocate or delete as you see fit

When (not if) DeLeon and the CA legislature gets around to banning open carry in CA, I'll be happy if we can manage to get an amendment in there that preserves open carry of long guns in unincorporated territory. If open carry of handguns can also be preserved in unincorporated territory, I'll be ecstatic, but I don't see that happening. Open carry in urban/incorporated areas? Fuhget about it, not going to happen, enjoy it while you can.

This isn't a bash on OC activism, this is simply an inevitable event due to the fact that CA is, and will continue to be, controlled by progressives. If OC isn't the trigger, then shall-issue CCW from the Sykes win will be the trigger - triggering the legislature to decide between concealed or open carry. They won't choose the all-of-the-above option (they're progressives).

In case someone wants to argue that the legislature can't choose one or the other, argue with Gene or Peruta's federal judge (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3642145&postcount=11):

The 19th and early 20th century state supreme court cases make it pretty clear that a state can ban one mode of carry as long as the other mode of carry is available for self defense. The Peruta motion ruling in the other thread spells that out quite well.

-Gene

Grakken
02-09-2010, 3:47 PM
Mud, relax alright? I'm not trying to add fuel, simply commenting as to the potential upside of a very real legislative risk.

+1. If a well known lawyer (Don Kilmer, aka Lex ???) on a leading firearms case in California, is asking for help (ie not to UOC right now), why are we doing it? of all people I'd think he'd be near the top on advice to take from this site.

I don't UOC, i also don't have a problem with anyone who does so. More power to you. However, UOCing is already legal as far as I know, so there is nothing to gain right now by UOCing. the only outcome i see is that some politician gets a wild hair and makes it his mission to outlaw it, which of course will be challenged (but will take our $$$ to fight, not to mention years to overturn). I just think it is a pivotal time in 2A exposure. By UOCing, you are taunting the anti's or presenting a threat to them. Not to mention scaring most sheeple. Right now, it would be much easier to win in court than to win "hearts and minds" at least in California. Why risk opening up further litigation when we might not have too?

I do see some of the pro-UOC movement side of this, or at least I think I do. I just don't think it is a prudent course of action at this time.

If you are a UOCer, don't take offense. just how I see the current state of affairs.

gbp
02-09-2010, 4:26 PM
If that is all you have to add and you started a new thread to say it, well, you are doing something known as "trolling". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))

sorry if you think thats what this is, Been a member here for 4 years, hardly the time to start trolling without a fish in sight, i am really wanting to know what others thoughts are . yes it has been discussed but not in a thread of its own. it is one of my fears that this will grow until it becomes another front to fight,
deleat it if you wish

MudCamper
02-10-2010, 8:45 AM
Mud, relax alright? I'm not trying to add fuel, simply commenting as to the potential upside of a very real legislative risk.

My apologies to both wildhawker and dantodd.

I guess the recent LEO commentary on OC (http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d10-Palo-Alto-cop-Shoot-a-gun-owner-get-2-weeks-off) has my blood pressure running a little higher than it's usual boiling point.