PDA

View Full Version : KTVU will talk about OC at 613pm Hurry!!


Ding126
02-12-2010, 6:13 PM
Hurry!!!!

Ding126
02-12-2010, 6:17 PM
Basically it said, The OC event last weekend at the Buckhorn was called a mistake by the restaurant owners

Ouch!

Centurion_D
02-12-2010, 6:18 PM
Yup...They said that the restaurant has a no guns policy. Not sure if the policy was in place before the event or after.

donstarr
02-12-2010, 6:40 PM
Next would be an "open carry" event with fixed blades. See if their "no weapons" policy, as quoted in the other Buckhorn thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=269467) extends to knives - then (if not denied service, of course) see if they supply such "weapons" to their diners.

curtisfong
02-12-2010, 9:21 PM
Does anybody honestly think that CA restaurants aren't going to ban guns one by one as soon as they become aware of UOC?

This is *California* folks.

dantodd
02-12-2010, 9:29 PM
Does anybody honestly think that CA restaurants aren't going to ban guns one by one as soon as they become aware of UOC?

This is *California* folks.

It doesn't require UOC. Whether OC of CC once we are legally permitted to provide for our own self-defense the Brady Bunch will be out there trying to get businesses to hang "no guns" signs. I wouldn't doubt it if SF and LA sent out free "no guns" signs with every business license and renewal.

The only way we will be able to provide for our self-defense in California is through the judiciary.

curtisfong
02-12-2010, 9:30 PM
The only way we will be able to provide for our self-defense in California is through the judiciary.

Sadly, this is reality. I agree.

My375hp302
02-12-2010, 10:42 PM
The only way we will be able to provide for our self-defense in California is through the judiciary.

X100000000

Trying to eat and drink our way to shall issue will just make our bellies fatter, and our dinner options smaller!

rhazbu01
02-12-2010, 11:06 PM
FYI, I recently went to Arden Hills, Minnesota on a business trip.... and the company I was visiting had a no gun policy. They asked all visitors to declare weapons in writing upon entering the facilities. It's happening everywhere, not just California....

Vinz
02-12-2010, 11:12 PM
more coverage on cbs 5 after the break.

the more outings just create more restrictions.


vinz

VW*Mike
02-12-2010, 11:32 PM
We should hold an empty holster protest. Then being unarmed, we should all band together and clog their tables and order bread and water and BS for an hour or so.

Buckeye Dan
02-12-2010, 11:38 PM
Does anybody honestly think that CA restaurants aren't going to ban guns one by one as soon as they become aware of UOC?

This is *California* folks.

Actually this is a bit of a concern for me. When other states challenge national companies and corporate policy is created...Places that were oblivious to their right to signage now know how to create the magical gun free zone with signage.

That never turns out good.

Thrasher416
02-13-2010, 2:36 AM
more coverage on cbs 5 after the break.

the more outings just create more restrictions.


vinz

Seriously people, I don't see how we are going to win anything other than bad press from these open carry meets. While we may educate say 20 or so fence sitters that open carriers are good-natured, kind, responsible people, the Media will send the message to thousands, or even millions of people that 2nd Amendment Extremists (tm) are brandishing loaded guns in Coffee shops, intimidating rational citizens and their children.

Is it so difficult to stop carrying your unloaded, exposed handgun until incorporation, when you can carry your LOADED HANDGUN CONCEALED?

At the rate businesses are banning weapons, will there be anywhere we can conceal carry once CA goes shall-issue?

:cuss:

Sorry to vent, I know OCers mean well and should be able to OC but I just don't see how it can do anything but hurt us.

pullnshoot25
02-13-2010, 2:56 AM
I am beginning to wonder where all these newb naysayers and trolls are coming from and why they decided to sign up on a gun board instead of some other place more suited to their talents, like a macrame or knitting board...

pullnshoot25
02-13-2010, 2:57 AM
Actually this is a bit of a concern for me. When other states challenge national companies and corporate policy is created...Places that were oblivious to their right to signage now know how to create the magical gun free zone with signage.

That never turns out good.

Signs hold no weight of law.

djbooya
02-13-2010, 3:08 AM
Signs hold no weight of law.

However, if the signs say something to the effect of "No guns allowed on this private property. You will be trespassing if you are carrying any firearm, regardless of it being concealed, loaded, unloaded, or in the open."

Then they can bust you for trespassing merely for possessing a firearm. Which in turn means there is some weight of law to that signage.

pullnshoot25
02-13-2010, 3:11 AM
However, if the signs say something to the effect of "No guns allowed on this private property. You will be trespassing if you are carrying any firearm, regardless of it being concealed, loaded, unloaded, or in the open."

Then they can bust you for trespassing merely for possessing a firearm. Which in turn means there is some weight of law to that signage.

Code to support?

djbooya
02-13-2010, 4:25 AM
Code to support?

Found this:

There are three separate styles of signs and they all serve different purposes under the law and in deterring crime.

The first style of sign is meant for use on the property of a business. It allows the Police Department to enforce California Penal Code 602(k), trespassing, Sacramento City Code 9.16.140 which prohibits any person from remaining on the exterior business premises when the business is closed, including parking areas, and Sacramento City Code 9.08.030 which prohibits loitering with the intent to commit certain drug offenses.

The second style of sign is meant for use on the property of apartment complexes. It allows the Police Department to enforce California Penal Code 602(k), trespassing and Sacramento City Code 9.08.030 which prohibits loitering with the intent to commit certain drug offenses.

The third style of sign is meant for use on private property or residences. It allows the Police Department to enforce California Penal Code 602(k), trespassing and provides a warning to criminals to stay off the property.


From here:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_no_trespassing_signs_legal_in_California_apart ment_complexes

Which may or not be the right code..since I am no lawyer by any imaginative stretch...

Found this one:
http://www.shouselaw.com/trespass.html

Which sounds like there's several ways to get out of the trespassing charges though.

This is interesting:
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/602.1.html

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following persons:

(1) Any person engaged in lawful labor union activities that are permitted to be carried out on the property by state or federal law.
(2) Any person on the premises who is engaging in activities protected by the California Constitution or the United States Constitution.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to supersede the application of any other law.


So wouldn't RKBA / UOC preclude you from being asked to leave for exercising your 2A rights regardless of trespassing signs and even no gun allowed signs?

I'm not sure if 602.1 means it is part of 602 or not.

In fact, doesn't that mean if you are asked to leave and when asked for the reason they say "because you have a gun" you can politely reply with "I am exercising my 2A rights and like my 1A rights you can't ask me to leave because of it?"

Not sure, because again...I am no lawyer :(

Buckeye Dan
02-13-2010, 8:45 AM
Signs hold no weight of law.

They do in this state and other states. When you alert a company that exists in both California and Ohio and that company adopts an anti gun policy...The sign goes up and that is one less place we can legally carry here.

Starbucks could have easily backfired. Had they adopted a corporate policy then all Starbucks in states that have provisions for what we call gun buster signs would now be off limits.

Here is a sample of the signs we use here:
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa84/Catfish_Dan/gunbuster.jpg

We want as few of these as possible. Disobeying the sign is a civil trespass violation. If the property owner wishes he can press charges. That is why I cringe when the OC movement alienates companies that operate in more than one state. I think you guys would do well to adopt some Michigan or New Hampshire techniques.

They organize litter pickups in the parks or streets. They hold huge gatherings in public parks and have OC picnics. They meet at small local businesses that are sympathetic to the cause. This is a bonus for the owner in a couple of ways. If it draws media attention the owner gets free publicity. Criminals that take notice of these businesses now stay away from them. So you provide safety/security and free advertising for the owner.

We have open carry here in Ohio. Always have. We also have concealed carry. We use open carry protests on occasion in some of the larger cities. But these are generally organized events to educate the local police to the laws. There is a pending law suit against Cleveland right now. There are several mayors in those communities that like to ignore state preemption laws and continue to harass carriers and enforce old local laws. That is where OC has an impact.

In other smaller cities and even some of the local communities in the big cities OC is ignored for the most part. Depending on where you go it might even be the norm. I have a CHL and OC all the time. In fact the main reason I got a CHL was for vehicle carry benefits. If I am heading into a large chain like Walmart for instance I cover up. Our Walmart stores here have an "ask you to leave" policy if you OC but thankfully they do not post gunbuster signs so you can CCW in all of them at will.

Many companies welcome CHL holders. We offer them discretion by covering up as a courtesy so their hoplophobic customers don't make a fuss about it. The sign doesn't get put on the door. The hoplophobes are oblivious and everybody wins. But what you do there can impact us all on a national scale.

bulgron
02-13-2010, 8:55 AM
They organize litter pickups in the parks or streets. They hold huge gatherings in public parks and have OC picnics.

^^^^

This.

The UOCers current tactics are butt-stupid, and they're just hurting everyone else's gun rights.

I wish they'd grow a brain, or grow up, or something.

pullnshoot25
02-13-2010, 9:30 AM
Found this:


From here:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_no_trespassing_signs_legal_in_California_apart ment_complexes

Which may or not be the right code..since I am no lawyer by any imaginative stretch...

Found this one:
http://www.shouselaw.com/trespass.html

Which sounds like there's several ways to get out of the trespassing charges though.

This is interesting:
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/602.1.html


So wouldn't RKBA / UOC preclude you from being asked to leave for exercising your 2A rights regardless of trespassing signs and even no gun allowed signs?

I'm not sure if 602.1 means it is part of 602 or not.

In fact, doesn't that mean if you are asked to leave and when asked for the reason they say "because you have a gun" you can politely reply with "I am exercising my 2A rights and like my 1A rights you can't ask me to leave because of it?"

Not sure, because again...I am no lawyer :(

In order to enforce 602, police have to be asked to enforce it. It is not de facto.

GunNutz
02-13-2010, 10:02 AM
Does anybody honestly think that CA restaurants aren't going to ban guns one by one as soon as they become aware of UOC?

This is *California* folks.

Where we will see them continue to accept UOC is at the large chains (like *Bux) who have interest in gun friendly states where there will be severe backlash for such actions.

CA only businesses may perceive a greater impact on revenue from allowing UOC, considering the political climate in the bay area, at least.

k1dude
02-13-2010, 10:06 AM
While I sympathize completely with the open carry movement, I wish we would exercise the right only if incorporation falls through somehow. Since we're on the very precipice of good things happening, I'd adopt a wait and see attitude until our most promising options have been eliminated. If all else fails, then we can push the agenda. Heck, if all else fails, I might join you all at events. Until then, I think we may just be hurting ourselves. I don't mean to insult anyone. It's just my opinion. And you know how the saying goes about opinions.

6172crew
02-13-2010, 10:30 AM
NV law says you have to have a sign on ALLdoors if you don't want people to have CCW while shopping, eating, etc. And of course no .gov buildings and your BAC has to be below 1.0;)

I wonder how long it will take CA to make a law saying a simple sign can prohibit firearms.:confused:

djbooya
02-13-2010, 10:39 AM
In order to enforce 602, police have to be asked to enforce it. It is not de facto.

Does that mean if you have to ask the police to enforce it that the sign has no weight in law?

GrizzlyGuy
02-13-2010, 10:42 AM
...I think you guys would do well to adopt some Michigan or New Hampshire techniques.

They organize litter pickups in the parks or streets. They hold huge gatherings in public parks and have OC picnics...

I agree, I posted this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3801297&postcount=5) before I had read this thread. :)

dantodd
02-13-2010, 11:27 AM
However, if the signs say something to the effect of "No guns allowed on this private property. You will be trespassing if you are carrying any firearm, regardless of it being concealed, loaded, unloaded, or in the open."

Then they can bust you for trespassing merely for possessing a firearm. Which in turn means there is some weight of law to that signage.

I believe you will find there is weight to being asked to leave directly. I am unaware of any weight to a "no guns" sign.

This is likely a temporary situation. I am confident that when California goes Shall Issue the legislature, will implement a "no guns sign" law that is as restrictive as they can get away with.

Personally I suspect they may fact, pass a law that is overly restrictive and have to be fought to being into line with current jurisprudence.

pullnshoot25
02-13-2010, 11:29 AM
Does that mean if you have to ask the police to enforce it that the sign has no weight in law?

Yes. Police cannot enforce private property laws unless asked. That was the issue with the New Mexico OC guy in the theatre.

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 11:40 AM
What was old is new again...

Flopper
02-13-2010, 5:07 PM
Does that mean if you have to ask the police to enforce it that the sign has no weight in law?

These signs are meaningless. No one knows if you're CCW'ing in one of those businesses unless you actually have to defend yourself, and if that's when they find out, so be it.

djbooya
02-13-2010, 5:16 PM
These signs are meaningless. No one knows if you're CCW'ing in one of those businesses unless you actually have to defend yourself, and if that's when they find out, so be it.

I was under the assumption that as law abiding citizens we follow the laws. Not just when they are convenient. Analogous to what you're saying:

SB23 is meaningless. No one knows if my AW is registered until I'm actually caught with it. So until I actually get confronted by law enforcement and that's when they find out, then so be it.

So, if you had a CCW would you not respect any of the laws associated with carrying because if you did your job "right" nobody would know? I guess you'd conceal carry when visiting any K-12 school as well even though you're not supposed to. Seems kind of hypocritical to only follow some firearm laws and not others.

Thrasher416
02-14-2010, 1:09 AM
I am beginning to wonder where all these newb naysayers and trolls are coming from and why they decided to sign up on a gun board instead of some other place more suited to their talents, like a macrame or knitting board... I'll admit I was too harsh in my last post, I didn't mean to troll but hearing all these businesses changing policy because of open carry events and getting bad press is really frustrating me.

While I sympathize completely with the open carry movement, I wish we would exercise the right only if incorporation falls through somehow. Since we're on the very precipice of good things happening, I'd adopt a wait and see attitude until our most promising options have been eliminated. If all else fails, then we can push the agenda. Heck, if all else fails, I might join you all at events. Until then, I think we may just be hurting ourselves. I don't mean to insult anyone. It's just my opinion. And you know how the saying goes about opinions.

K1dude said what I meant to say in a more subtle way. However, I do think we should open carry even if we get incorporation (which I am pretty sure we will).

My two concerns with UOC is that (for the time being) the only reason we can legally UOC is because there is no law prohibiting it. Remember how quick the ban on LOC passed? I am concerned that if we get the attention of the legislators, they will waste no time passing a bill banning UOC statewide (at least until Incorporation, so this may not be a big deal).

My second concern is that after incorporation applies to California and we get Shall-issue CCW, we will see more NO FIREARMS signs in business windows because of OC.

I do believe we have a right to UOC and am glad that there are a lot of people in this state that want to exercise it. However, until Incorporation comes around our freedoms can still be denied by politicians. I know OCers are going to keep up the fight and am glad to hear it, its just that this is a political game we're playing, which is why I think we should stay on the down low until Incorporation takes hold.

ZirconJohn
02-14-2010, 1:24 AM
These signs are meaningless. No one knows if you're CCW'ing in one of those businesses unless you actually have to defend yourself, and if that's when they find out, so be it.

FWIW... UOC will only provoke more business' to display notice of 'NO FIREARMS' signs... a quid pro quo of sorts. I.E. you display your gun, we display our sign.

However, with the event of possible CCW Shall Issue State wide, conceal carry = non provocation of 'NO FIREARMS' signs.

Get it...!?!

dantodd
02-14-2010, 1:27 AM
However, with the event of possible CCW Shall Issue State wide, conceal carry = non provocation of 'NO FIREARMS' signs.

Get it...!?!

Just like not opening any FFLs in Oakland will keep them from passing bad anti-ffl laws?

ZirconJohn
02-14-2010, 3:32 PM
Just like not opening any FFLs in Oakland will keep them from passing bad anti-ffl laws?

No; more like fuel for the fire, sort of like if you wear it UOC the signs will come! However, if you work toward CCW and win... if you wear it CCW, who will know...(?)

Now make whatever counterpoint you like, this is my opinion on it and obviously you have yours. Know this, I am not one to rock a boat... and that's all I'm saying.

N6ATF
02-15-2010, 12:24 AM
No; more like fuel for the fire, sort of like if you wear it UOC the signs will come! However, if you work toward CCW and win... if you wear it CCW, who will know...(?)

The government, which will require all businesses that don't display "No Guns" signs to have a $1 billion (or some other absurd amount) insurance policy. In other words, ban guns, or they will shut you down.

Nothing is beyond these traitors. NOTHING.

Maestro Pistolero
02-15-2010, 6:08 AM
So it's a public place if they want to enforce a school-zone law, but it's a private place if they want to enforce a business-owners firearms policy. How convenient. I wish I could have my cake , and eat it, too.

Merle
02-15-2010, 11:47 AM
FWIW... UOC will only provoke more business' to display notice of 'NO FIREARMS' signs... a quid pro quo of sorts. I.E. you display your gun, we display our sign.

However, with the event of possible CCW Shall Issue State wide, conceal carry = non provocation of 'NO FIREARMS' signs.

Get it...!?!

No, I don't.

Do you mean OC or UOC? If OC becomes legal, are you claiming that only UOC will cause the signs to come out? If so, that's nonsense. People UOC now because it's one of the few legal ways of carrying a weapon available to them.

Even if you had a Shall-Issue CCW right in CA, CCW is not viable all the time. It gets hot (I used to live in Sacramento) and if you enjoy the outdoors (I mountain bike and hike the Sierras) then an OC holster is much easier to deal with than trying to find the right pair of pants and shirt.

Plus, places like TX where OC is illegal, if the wind catches your shirt/jacket or if your gun becomes exposed - you're now OC'ng. Which puts us back at square one.

The way I see it, many people want OC first then CCW. As OC works not only for residents, but for EVERYONE in the state. A CCW has too many restrictions (e.g. resident of the county for XXX days) even if "self defense" was good enough cause.