PDA

View Full Version : A question for UOCers.


Lone_Gunman
02-13-2010, 8:52 AM
I posted this in another thread but I want to ask it here.

I have a question. Why is it so damned important to gut the public to focus on our guns before California is forced to legally recognize our right to carry? Why can't the gun community manage to STFU for 5 more months rather than jumping up and down and yelling "I have a gun" over and over. If you are playing a game of strength and strategy is it smart to alert your opponent to your strageties before you have the strength to support them?The more our guns are in the focus of the media before incorporation the harder things are going to be after. Until we have the power of incorporation behind our offense we need to play defense on carry issues. IMHO

/RANT

Seriously. What is it? I'll admit when I first heard about UOC I was really interested but after some thought and research it is obviously not the way to go right now. Why do you continue to push when it could cost so much and benefit so little. There is a time for overt tactics and a time for strategy. Why can't you guys SSTFU (Strategically Shut The Freak Up)

CitaDeL
02-13-2010, 9:54 AM
1) Why is it so damned important to gut the public to focus on our guns before California is forced to legally recognize our right to carry?

2) Why can't the gun community manage to STFU for 5 more months rather than jumping up and down and yelling "I have a gun" over and over(?)

3) If you are playing a game of strength and strategy is it smart to alert your opponent to your strageties before you have the strength to support them?

4) Why do you continue to push when it could cost so much and benefit so little(?)

5)Why can't you guys SSTFU (Strategically Shut The Freak Up)


1) It isn't that important- however, the fuse on the issue was lit on the movement before all the pieces to restore the 2A in California were in place. It could be as easily argued - Why did you pro-gun Californians LET our rights be taken away?
2) While the open carry activists have guns, they are not necessarily of the 'gun community' that cannot seem to STFU. It is impossible to ignore, now that there have been more than a dozen newscasts broadcasting the legality of it all.
3) Gun owners will always be in the minority in the left leaning communities of California- If 2A advocates waited until there was enough strength of support to overcome our legislators, they would be extinct, having no sustainable reproductive populations.
4) Not all supporters are pushing- some have stood down- but others are being generated by the continued media attention. Not all of those who come on board are fully aware of the strategies or the consequences of their actions.
5) Again- If media has given you a forum by which you can state your case- would you regularly turn it down?

gbp
02-13-2010, 11:44 AM
Not Ready For Prime Time
When I state that I am solely referring to my opinion. In another thread I stated that I felt something bad would happen soon that would have devastating effects on us as a whole. One of the scenarios that plays on my mind is what would happen if the group was confronted by an organized group of people of differing mind-set. If i recall there was a thread that had mention of an opposition group bringing water balloons to one of these events in order to disrupt it. What would it take for that to escalate just slightly. What would be the outcome if just one person laid his hand on the grip during that confrontation and it was captured on film. The media would have a field day, the Brady Bunch would also, and WE would lose.

I am not saying that everyone in the OC movement is a 'hothead' nor am I saying that everyone in the movement can be manipulated by a antagonizing and confrontational crowd, but it doesn't take all, it only takes ONE.

When I review the various posts here and other places and the level of heated debate that takes place in a forum where everyone is essentially working for the same thing I find it hard to believe that this is not just a possibility but working it's way into becoming a reality.

Can any of you guarantee that this WILL NOT HAPPEN, can you guarantee that you have control over the mindset of the person next to you?

I'm just putting this out there for people to reflect upon before the next time.

if you have to flame away

dantodd
02-13-2010, 12:49 PM
I am not saying that everyone in the OC movement is a 'hothead' nor am I saying that everyone in the movement can be manipulated by a antagonizing and confrontational crowd, but it doesn't take all, it only takes ONE.

Can any of you guarantee that this WILL NOT HAPPEN, can you guarantee that you have control over the mindset of the person next to you?


How does this concern differ from the concerns of police chiefs and sheriffs around the state who worry that a simple traffic accident or verbal altercation would escalate if someone were to have a CCW?

yelohamr
02-13-2010, 2:14 PM
Being able to read the CA. Penal Code, I was UOCing a few years before I ever heard of CGN or OCDO.
I finished the police academy 40 years ago next Wednesday. After 28 years in LE, of one form or another, I get dressed everyday and to me, straping on my holster is like putting on my britches...its habit and 2nd nature and I don't notice it.
I go about my own business acting like everybody else and don't make a habit of letting people see my open carried firearm. If they notice fine, if they don't, even better.
I've never been the suspect in a MWAG call. If someone asks me why I'm armed, I tell them for self defense and I don't intend to be another senior citizen crime victim. I give them a business card directing them to OCDO, for more information and to read everything they can about UOC in CA.
The only LEO involved incident I had was at the Westfield Mall in Carlsbad. At one time I managed a cigar shop in that mall and knew that security could get squirrely. I left my gun locked in a gun safe in my car and only had 2 loaded mags and an empty holster. I checked with the security office about their policy on OC and found out weapons were not allowed. I told the security officer that if they get a call from Sears about an old guy with an empty holster, it will be me.
As my wife and I exited Sears, we were met by a Carlsbad police officer. Who did an "e" check of my empty holster and we both got a laugh, talked for a few minutes and went about our business.
The next day I sent an email to the officer's chief and commended the officer for his professionalism, even if it was a BS call from mall security.
Finally, unless you are an OSHA inspector checking for safety rails on my back, get off of it. Everyone who rants about UOC, makes my butt itch.

Farquaad
02-13-2010, 2:24 PM
:beatdeadhorse5:

Telperion
02-13-2010, 2:35 PM
The UOCers are now 4 for 5 for getting guns banned at private establishments. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results...

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 2:44 PM
It's heartening to read one of the few UOC success stories from someone who's obviously exercised the privilege for many years as an ex-LEO. Thanks for sharing.

Being able to read the CA. Penal Code, I was UOCing a few years before I ever heard of CGN or OCDO.
I finished the police academy 40 years ago next Wednesday. After 28 years in LE, of one form or another, I get dressed everyday and to me, straping on my holster is like putting on my britches...its habit and 2nd nature and I don't notice it.
I go about my own business acting like everybody else and don't make a habit of letting people see my open carried firearm. If they notice fine, if they don't, even better.
I've never been the suspect in a MWAG call. If someone asks me why I'm armed, I tell them for self defense and I don't intend to be another senior citizen crime victim. I give them a business card directing them to OCDO, for more information and to read everything they can about UOC in CA.
The only LEO involved incident I had was at the Westfield Mall in Carlsbad. At one time I managed a cigar shop in that mall and knew that security could get squirrely. I left my gun locked in a gun safe in my car and only had 2 loaded mags and an empty holster. I checked with the security office about their policy on OC and found out weapons were not allowed. I told the security officer that if they get a call from Sears about an old guy with an empty holster, it will be me.
As my wife and I exited Sears, we were met by a Carlsbad police officer. Who did an "e" check of my empty holster and we both got a laugh, talked for a few minutes and went about our business.
The next day I sent an email to the officer's chief and commended the officer for his professionalism, even if it was a BS call from mall security.
Finally, unless you are an OSHA inspector checking for safety rails on my back, get off of it. Everyone who rants about UOC, makes my butt itch.

yelohamr
02-13-2010, 2:47 PM
The UOCers are now 4 for 5 for getting guns banned at private establishments. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results...

I guess that means you can't carry in a place you haven't ever carried in before.

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 2:51 PM
I guess that means you can't carry in a place you haven't ever carried in before.

And soon it'll mean we won't be able to UOC or carry into our morning stop, or remain armed when we're out to dinner with our families.

Sounds like we're quickly winning over the hearts and minds of California.

yelohamr
02-13-2010, 2:55 PM
Keep up with the positive thoughts.

CitaDeL
02-13-2010, 2:58 PM
The UOCers are now 4 for 5 for getting guns banned at private establishments. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results...

Actually- we can thank the Brady Campaign for thugging private businesses into banning weapons. They have a pretty good track record against us, mainly because as gun owners we have failed to consolidate our efforts- too many factions and not enough fortitude to strip groups like the Bradys and LCAV of their power.

The Second Amendment will never live on in California if we live our lives in segregated enclaves dedicated to CCW, OLL, Hunting, Curio and Relic, or a "Shooting Hobby". Our lack of solidarity has empowered the opposition to splinter us like ice through rock.

You people who want to lay blame on open carry activists are the unwitting tools of the anti-gun left. If you should be angry with someone, it should be with the people responsible for letting incrementalism and division seperate us from our right to arm ourselves for our defense.

We must be united in the cause, whether or not we support open carry, OLL's, hunting weapons, curio and relics, or any other contraversial topic of firearms possession and carry.

IrishPirate
02-13-2010, 2:59 PM
i think that there has been some good attention that has come of it because those who didn't know how screwy our gun laws are here in PRK are starting to do some research about it and are arming themselves with knowledge and joining the fight against gun control.

However, UOC has definitely brought more than its share of bad press too.

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 3:03 PM
There are many means and opportunities to inform about gun laws; the fact that this was selected has everything to do with personal desires to have an exposed weapon in public. UOC, with few exceptions, has been an exercise in uncreative, unstrategic and wasteful acts.

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 3:04 PM
Keep up with the positive thoughts.

Unsupported positive thoughts are what brought us here. Keep clicking those red heels together.

gbp
02-13-2010, 3:46 PM
How does this concern differ from the concerns of police chiefs and sheriffs around the state who worry that a simple traffic accident or verbal altercation would escalate if someone were to have a CCW?

Not to be confrontational, but why don't you ask them in the le forum. i would think that their reply would be that individuals with ccw have undergone some sort of back ground check and that there is almost a sort of commrodity there (at least that is the way is it was when i had a ccw)

i am talking about the one individual and a bunch of 'civilians', - (for lack of a better word). Face it , we live in world of "perception". Not how you and I may perceive things but how others perceive them. We can go on and on all day long discussing rights wrong etc. etc. and throwing up "By God this is my god given right" but the perception is what it is and i can not see that this is effectively changing the situation at this time. Usually when someone says 'In your face M#$%@r F*&^$r' it gets met with a tad bit of resistance. I am not stating that there may not be a time for this. But not now

Again - It Only Takes One

Telperion
02-13-2010, 4:24 PM
Actually- we can thank the Brady Campaign for thugging private businesses into banning weapons. They have a pretty good track record against us, mainly because as gun owners we have failed to consolidate our efforts- too many factions and not enough fortitude to strip groups like the Bradys and LCAV of their power.

The Second Amendment will never live on in California if we live our lives in segregated enclaves dedicated to CCW, OLL, Hunting, Curio and Relic, or a "Shooting Hobby". Our lack of solidarity has empowered the opposition to splinter us like ice through rock.

Au contraire. The Bradys have had a horrible track record in the last 10 years. Shall-issue and other pro-gun laws have spread around the country. The Bradys got kicked in the balls in Heller and they're going to get faceplanted in McDonald. They've become marginalized and their message has become so shrill that they no longer connect with fence-sitters. They can only win when we give up unforced errors.

Moreover, OC is not actually needed as a "spark" to kindle some dying tradition -- the gun culture has been growing, not shrinking.

yelohamr
02-13-2010, 4:36 PM
Unsupported positive thoughts are what brought us here. Keep clicking those red heels together.

Just my opinion, but I don't think thats entirely true, but I'll see if my wife will loan me her red heels though.:)

-hanko
02-13-2010, 4:49 PM
The UOCers are now 4 for 5 for getting guns banned at private establishments. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results...
Even in states with uoc and ccw, establishments can prohibit carry on their property.

Nothing new.

-hanko

gbp
02-13-2010, 6:06 PM
Even in states with uoc and ccw, establishments can prohibit carry on their property.

Nothing new.

-hanko

of coarse they can
and your point is

gbp
02-13-2010, 6:13 PM
deleated

hoffmang
02-13-2010, 7:10 PM
Even in states with uoc and ccw, establishments can prohibit carry on their property.

Nothing new.


Correct. But what an establishment doesn't see can't hurt the rest of gunowners. If the store or its customers doesn't have the opportunity to freak out, then the sign doesn't get posted in the first place.

-Gene

Lone_Gunman
02-13-2010, 9:10 PM
You know what? I give up. You guys are gonna do what you're gonna do. My fear is UOC is going to do damage to the carry issue that can't be undone. If that is the case UOC will be a curse word around here for a long time. Much like Ruger was (and still is for some) after the AW ban.

yelohamr
02-13-2010, 9:53 PM
I posted this in another thread but I want to ask it here. ...

How many threads are you going to post this question? Until you get the answer you want, from everyone?
As often as UOC has been brought up in this forum, by now you should have realized that everyone is not going to agree with you. Instead of stirring up s**t in a troll-like manner, not that you are one and I doubt you are. But why bring it up again?

If you dislike UOC so much, why don't you have all of us banned from CGN. Then you can post about it without any argument.

Lone_Gunman
02-13-2010, 10:10 PM
Thanks for the kind words. I thought the question deserved it's own thread. I posted it in a related thread but didn't really get much of a response. I ask the question now because the UOC issue is heating up. If you think I'm trolling report the thread and let a Mod decide.

yelohamr
02-13-2010, 10:21 PM
If I thought you were trolling, I would have been more entertained. But I know you're not one.

kcbrown
02-13-2010, 11:22 PM
Correct. But what an establishment doesn't see can't hurt the rest of gunowners. If the store or its customers doesn't have the opportunity to freak out, then the sign doesn't get posted in the first place.


I believe the above to be quite oversimplistic.

Can you elaborate, then, on how such signs went up in Kansas before the UOC movement here in California gained a lot of attention? There are certainly a lot of signs there now, if some comments are to be believed. An example of someone noticing the plethora of such signs in Kansas is here: http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=378019. That thread also has some comments that should give you an idea of how pressure can and will be brought to bear on businesses to put up such signs.

While I believe the message that started that thread was posted after the UOC movement here in California gained a reasonable amount of attention, the signs apparently started going up almost immediately after the Kansas shall-issue CCW law passed. The news of the time commented on it, e.g.: http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2007/01/01/story4.html.

While the rate that the signs went up may have been relatively slow at first, you must remember that it is Kansas, and not California. Here in California, with its strong anti-gun bias, I see no reason to believe that such signs wouldn't spread like wildfire. You can bet that the California government will play a large role in that, as will municipal governments. If they cannot pass laws "encouraging" businesses to put up such signs, they will at the very least advertise that businesses should do so. You can also expect the law enforcement agencies in various locales to take an active role in "encouraging" businesses to put those signs up.

All of that will happen in retaliation for California getting shall-issue CCW shoved down their throats. The LEAs will be most annoyed by that, as will the California legislature. There will be retaliation, and "no guns" signs will play a central role in it. To not expect such is astoundingly naive.


It then becomes a question of how much worse the UOCers can make it. Make no mistake, I agree that they can't do any real good with respect to "no guns" signs, but I'm not convinced, as you seem to be, that such signs would be rare post-incorporation sans the effects of the UOC movement. Instead, I expect they will be quite common at a minimum, even if the entire UOC movement had never existed. In fact, I can't see how it could possibly happen any other way here.

MP301
02-13-2010, 11:52 PM
You know what? I give up. You guys are gonna do what you're gonna do. My fear is UOC is going to do damage to the carry issue that can't be undone. If that is the case UOC will be a curse word around here for a long time. Much like Ruger was (and still is for some) after the AW ban.

I think I made this point (in a nicer way maybe :p) before. "They are going to do it whether we like it or not." Some are members here that disagree with waiting, but many more may not even know about CGN or CGF and therfore wont know that we are trying to get everyone to wait the first place.

So, with that in mind, what is plan B? Cant stop em and we cant disown em. Now what? Keep complaining or try some damage control?

What about CGN folks going to UOC events and getting more folks into CG? That way, maybe they can read up on things and decide forthemselves what to do?

I dunno, no easy answer, but the old saying about Hanging together or hanging seperately DOES apply here too....

We nit we try to make this whole disagreement contructive?

dantodd
02-14-2010, 12:04 AM
"They are going to do it whether we like it or not." Some are members here that disagree with waiting, but many more may not even know about CGN or CGF and therfore wont know that we are trying to get everyone to wait the first place.

So, with that in mind, what is plan B? Cant stop em and we cant disown em. Now what? Keep complaining or try some damage control?


+1

Pretending that telling people to not UOC will make the movement go away is like thinking we can make bad gun laws go away because we explain to the legislature that bad guys break the law anyway. It might make sense to you and me but it will not have the desired effect.

Decoligny
02-14-2010, 7:35 AM
I believe the above to be quite oversimplistic.

Can you elaborate, then, on how such signs went up in Kansas before the UOC movement here in California gained a lot of attention? There are certainly a lot of signs there now, if some comments are to be believed. An example of someone noticing the plethora of such signs in Kansas is here: http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=378019. That thread also has some comments that should give you an idea of how pressure can and will be brought to bear on businesses to put up such signs.

While I believe the message that started that thread was posted after the UOC movement here in California gained a reasonable amount of attention, the signs apparently started going up almost immediately after the Kansas shall-issue CCW law passed. The news of the time commented on it, e.g.: http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2007/01/01/story4.html.

While the rate that the signs went up may have been relatively slow at first, you must remember that it is Kansas, and not California. Here in California, with its strong anti-gun bias, I see no reason to believe that such signs wouldn't spread like wildfire. You can bet that the California government will play a large role in that, as will municipal governments. If they cannot pass laws "encouraging" businesses to put up such signs, they will at the very least advertise that businesses should do so. You can also expect the law enforcement agencies in various locales to take an active role in "encouraging" businesses to put those signs up.



Well that would be because of the evil "LOCers". You know, those guys who go into businesses with their "loaded" firearms exposed so everyone can see them and freak out. In States where LOC is allowed they would be the ones who the "CCW" crowd would be blaming for causing them not to be able to carry a "hidden" gun when the get their morning coffee, or not to be able to carry a "hidden" gun when they take their family out to dinner.

If and when LOC becomes legal in the non-rural portions of California, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will be taking the same heat as UOCers are right now, because some business owners will put up signs.

CitaDeL
02-14-2010, 7:50 AM
Now what? Keep complaining or try some damage control?

What about CGN folks going to UOC events and getting more folks into CG? That way, maybe they can read up on things and decide forthemselves what to do?

Its been suggested, but no action has been taken in that direction. Oaklander has planned a CGN/UOC BBQ summit, but I sense that there might be some reluctance on the part of Calgunners to attend publicized UOC meets as either an observer or to help reign in the activity and bring new membership to CGN.

wildhawker
02-14-2010, 9:03 AM
It was suggested, discussed and undesired by the UOC community. To be clear, adding members to CGN isn't even in the top ten considerations for working with UOC groups. Speaking only for myself, the ~4-6 hours I would lose to attending an UOC event truly does impact other productive tasks, most of which keep me busy until 2-3am every day anyway.

CitaDeL
02-14-2010, 9:44 AM
It was suggested, discussed and undesired by the UOC community. To be clear, adding members to CGN isn't even in the top ten considerations for working with UOC groups. Speaking only for myself, the ~4-6 hours I would lose to attending an UOC event truly does impact other productive tasks, most of which keep me busy until 2-3am every day anyway.

But reigning in the UOC'rs IS something that you and many CalGunners spend a considerable amount of time posting their complaints about. You cant have it both ways- complaining that these new people dont know what they are doing and at the same time doing nothing to contribute to their education.

Im sure that if you are too busy to help out on something as insignificant as herding UOC'rs into our camp, we could probably find someone among 35,000 members who could.

wildhawker
02-14-2010, 10:13 AM
I'm not saying that bringing them into the camp, so to speak, is insignificant. What I'm saying is that bringing them *here* isn't the primary concern; educating them on issues would be fine if they are willing to hear us out. Are they? As a member of both CGN and OCDO, along with some others, what has precluded those "in both tents" from reaching out to the new UOCers? If you want to help bridge the conversation, I'll work with you on this. However, for me or anyone to simply show up and attempt "conversion" is to ignore the cultural considerations.

N6ATF
02-14-2010, 11:35 PM
While the rate that the signs went up may have been relatively slow at first, you must remember that it is Kansas, and not California. Here in California, with its strong anti-gun bias, I see no reason to believe that such signs wouldn't spread like wildfire. You can bet that the California government will play a large role in that, as will municipal governments. If they cannot pass laws "encouraging" businesses to put up such signs, they will at the very least advertise that businesses should do so. You can also expect the law enforcement agencies in various locales to take an active role in "encouraging" businesses to put those signs up.

All of that will happen in retaliation for California getting shall-issue CCW shoved down their throats. The LEAs will be most annoyed by that, as will the California legislature. There will be retaliation, and "no guns" signs will play a central role in it. To not expect such is astoundingly naive.

I would not be surprised if the government requires 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.

pitchbaby
02-14-2010, 11:43 PM
I would not be surprised if the government requires 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.

I don't know of any business that could afford a 1 billion policy and not self insure. That is 1000 times the normal amount.

I am certain you mean 1 MILLION, but just want to be sure.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-15-2010, 2:13 AM
Correct. But what an establishment doesn't see can't hurt the rest of gunowners. If the store or its customers doesn't have the opportunity to freak out, then the sign doesn't get posted in the first place.

-Gene


Even considering a post Sykes victory, the mentality of the majority of CA's won't change to one of support for the RKBA. Business owners that are put off by guns can, and likely will, erect "no guns" signs. From that perspective, those that would like to OC will be in no better shape post Sykes than they are today.

Even if a business owner has a no gun policy, those that CCW have nothing to fear from a legal standpoint unless they expose their concealed weapons, are asked to leave, and refuse.

I can understand the desire to prevent the legislature from passing anti gun legislation that will be time consuming and costly for CGF and others to fight in court post Sykes, but the argument against current UOC as it pertains to the potential of "no guns" signs seems overstated to me.

OC4ME
02-15-2010, 4:39 AM
Not Ready For Prime Time
When I state that I am solely referring to my opinion. In another thread I stated that I felt something bad would happen soon that would have devastating effects on us as a whole. One of the scenarios that plays on my mind is what would happen if the group was confronted by an organized group of people of differing mind-set. If i recall there was a thread that had mention of an opposition group bringing water balloons to one of these events in order to disrupt it. What would it take for that to escalate just slightly. What would be the outcome if just one person laid his hand on the grip during that confrontation and it was captured on film. The media would have a field day, the Brady Bunch would also, and WE would lose.

I am not saying that everyone in the OC movement is a 'hothead' nor am I saying that everyone in the movement can be manipulated by a antagonizing and confrontational crowd, but it doesn't take all, it only takes ONE.

When I review the various posts here and other places and the level of heated debate that takes place in a forum where everyone is essentially working for the same thing I find it hard to believe that this is not just a possibility but working it's way into becoming a reality.

Can any of you guarantee that this WILL NOT HAPPEN, can you guarantee that you have control over the mindset of the person next to you?

I'm just putting this out there for people to reflect upon before the next time.

if you have to flame away

One: you can not guarantee that anyone with a weapon, concealed or open, will not "lay their hand on a grip" when they perceive a threat.

Two: yes you are saying that every UOC'er is a hot head since no one can determine which UOC'er is not a hot head.

Three: CCW folks are not by definition all level headed law abiding citizens.

Four: working within the system to get shall issue is the goal, however if UOC is the law then your argument should not be with UOC'ers but with LEA's that want to "prone you all out" because you openly carry.

CCW and UOC are two sides of the same coin. UOC'ers are willing (knowingly or not) to take the heat for shall issue CCW folks to prove their point that 2A is an individual right. That UOC is legal and that LE harassment in the name of public safety is a violation of a constitutional right. I would think that UOC'ers in general (based on comments at Cal Guns) think that their shall issue CCW brethren are treating them like the proverbial red headed step child.

Here in Missouri we have shall issue CCW by statute that is in direct contradiction of our state constitution. Go figure. ~70% of the state voted against changing the constitution to remove the no CCW clause. The legislature voted it into law against the will of the people. Go figure.

Get shall issue passed and then the vast majority of UOC'ers will do what you want them to do. Conceal and be quiet. Until then, maybe just maybe you should thank the UOC'ers who take the heat from LE for exercising their 2A right. While you work quietly to get shall issue passed.

N6ATF
02-15-2010, 9:04 AM
I don't know of any business that could afford a 1 billion policy and not self insure. That is 1000 times the normal amount.

I am certain you mean 1 MILLION, but just want to be sure.


(or some other absurd amount)

That's the point. The government would set it so high that businesses couldn't afford it, and would be forced to put up "no guns" signs to be allowed to stay in business.

hkusp9c
02-15-2010, 9:33 AM
:dupe:

Too many links to list

kermit315
02-15-2010, 9:42 AM
I would bet that it ends up being similar to Texas' 30.06 signs, whereas you can put it up, but if it doesnt meet minimum requirements, it has no force of law.

yelohamr
02-15-2010, 9:44 AM
When I LOC in AZ, I've seen signs in store windows that weapons are not allowed. It would be nothing to worry about. Protest with your wallet, like they do in AZ.

wildhawker
02-15-2010, 10:10 AM
I'm not sure what we should be thanking them for. Can you identify the product they've offered the market which has been accepted and adopted at a statistically relevant level?

One: you can not guarantee that anyone with a weapon, concealed or open, will not "lay their hand on a grip" when they perceive a threat.

Two: yes you are saying that every UOC'er is a hot head since no one can determine which UOC'er is not a hot head.

Three: CCW folks are not by definition all level headed law abiding citizens.

Four: working within the system to get shall issue is the goal, however if UOC is the law then your argument should not be with UOC'ers but with LEA's that want to "prone you all out" because you openly carry.

CCW and UOC are two sides of the same coin. UOC'ers are willing (knowingly or not) to take the heat for shall issue CCW folks to prove their point that 2A is an individual right. That UOC is legal and that LE harassment in the name of public safety is a violation of a constitutional right. I would think that UOC'ers in general (based on comments at Cal Guns) think that their shall issue CCW brethren are treating them like the proverbial red headed step child.

Here in Missouri we have shall issue CCW by statute that is in direct contradiction of our state constitution. Go figure. ~70% of the state voted against changing the constitution to remove the no CCW clause. The legislature voted it into law against the will of the people. Go figure.

Get shall issue passed and then the vast majority of UOC'ers will do what you want them to do. Conceal and be quiet. Until then, maybe just maybe you should thank the UOC'ers who take the heat from LE for exercising their 2A right. While you work quietly to get shall issue passed.

Merle
02-15-2010, 10:22 AM
I posted this in another thread but I want to ask it here.

I have a question. Why is it so damned important to gut the public to focus on our guns before California is forced to legally recognize our right to carry? Why can't the gun community manage to STFU for 5 more months rather than jumping up and down and yelling "I have a gun" over and over. If you are playing a game of strength and strategy is it smart to alert your opponent to your strageties before you have the strength to support them?The more our guns are in the focus of the media before incorporation the harder things are going to be after. Until we have the power of incorporation behind our offense we need to play defense on carry issues. IMHO


Seriously, what do you think is going to happen in 5 months? Is a magic fairy or Justice going to wave a wand and overturn each and every law pertaining to OC? Or is it more realistic a new set of challenges will need to be made in order to properly carry a sidearm?

It's been said before, there are many reasons to OC. A visual deterrent, a practical means of protection, letting people know that armed is not dangerous, and this being one of the few practical ways of carrying a sidearm in CA.

A decision does not change the laws in CA in 5 months, 6 months or 7 months. It may make for a nice X-Mas present, but look at the Heller decision: Has anything changed for a normal CA citizen TODAY because of it?

wildhawker
02-15-2010, 12:12 PM
A decision does not change the laws in CA in 5 months, 6 months or 7 months. It may make for a nice X-Mas present, but look at the Heller decision: Has anything changed for a normal CA citizen TODAY because of it?

It's difficult to argue with someone who has failed to educate themselves at least to a basic comprehension of the core issues. I suggest you acquire a working understanding of the California constitution, the US Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court's selective incorporation doctrine and how RKBA figures into all these.

N6ATF
02-15-2010, 1:49 PM
I would bet that it ends up being similar to Texas' 30.06 signs, whereas you can put it up, but if it doesnt meet minimum requirements, it has no force of law.

Only thing is, despite the open carry in public ban, Texas can claim to be pro-2A.

I would bet that even a sign drawn in crayon by a 2-year-old would meet the standards to be set in CA. In other words, there will be no standards at all, to make it as easy as possible to end the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all who dare to stay alive.

Furthermore, I would not be surprised if the state mass produces millions of these http://postworthy.com/ContributorImages/No-guns-729109.gif on aluminum for every business not able to afford the $1 billion (or some other absurd amount) mandatory insurance policy for allowing guns.

mej16489
02-15-2010, 3:16 PM
Furthermore, I would not be surprised if the state mass produces millions of these
http://postworthy.com/ContributorImages/No-guns-729109.gif
on aluminum for every business not able to afford the $1 billion (or some other absurd amount) mandatory insurance policy for allowing guns.

No Berettas? :(

:)

Merle
02-15-2010, 3:20 PM
It's difficult to argue with someone who has failed to educate themselves at least to a basic comprehension of the core issues. I suggest you acquire a working understanding of the California constitution, the US Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court's selective incorporation doctrine and how RKBA figures into all these.

Oh are we arguing now? :)

I'd like to understand the supposition of why it's better to wait 5 months.

Whats that they say about ad hominem attacks? The last refuge of the... ?

If you don't feel like discussing it on a FORUM, then don't post, it's that easy.

wildhawker
02-15-2010, 3:30 PM
Merle, that wasn't an ad hominem attack- I was pointing out that your comments strongly suggest a lack of understanding that should first be remedied prior to continuing the discussion. 'Argument', as used in my post, refers to components of the debate itself and not an unstructured disagreement.

It's not about my desire not to discuss the issues, it's a desire that the debating parties come to the discussion at least somewhat aware of what they're discussing.

Merle
02-15-2010, 3:40 PM
So let me ask again... What changes in 5 months, such that a typical UOC'r in CA will see?

a. UOC will be the norm?
b. UOC will be legal?
c. UOC will be unnecessary?

Why is it so damned important to gut the public to focus on our guns before California is forced to legally recognize our right to carry? Why can't the gun community manage to STFU for 5 more months rather than jumping up and down and yelling "I have a gun" over and over.

What UOC'rs are doing (and the posting of "no guns" signs in businesses) will not materially change in 5 months. Business can still post their signs in 5, 6 and 7 months.

IF someone chooses to sue in order to LOC, this will not have changed in 5 months.

Hence:

a. No change compared to today.
b. No change compared to today.

I can only think "c. UOC will be unnecessary" if LOADED open carry becomes the legal. I do not see this changing in 5 months.

CCW will still not be a viable alternative either.

edit'd to add: I'll plead ignorance as my ~160 posts are well outweighed by others 4000+ :) I just like having interesting discussions even if the topic has a forgone conclusion.

Hopi
02-15-2010, 3:42 PM
Oh are we arguing now? :)

I'd like to understand the supposition of why it's better to wait 5 months.

Whats that they say about ad hominem attacks? The last refuge of the... ?

If you don't feel like discussing it on a FORUM, then don't post, it's that easy.

The information needed to be fluent on this topic is EVERYWHERE on this forum. It has been discussed ad nauseum.

When you post the following;
Seriously, what do you think is going to happen in 5 months? Is a magic fairy or Justice going to wave a wand and overturn each and every law pertaining to OC?

A decision does not change the laws in CA in 5 months, 6 months or 7 months. It may make for a nice X-Mas present, but look at the Heller decision: Has anything changed for a normal CA citizen TODAY because of it?

It's very clear that you're either ignorant on the topic, or being a combative troll. Either way, there isn't a need for ad hominem, your post speaks for itself in that regard.

The point is that you wouldn't be asking those questions if you were even remotely up to date on the issues. But I don't think they were questions, were they.

OC4ME
02-15-2010, 3:49 PM
I'm not sure what we should be thanking them for. Can you identify the product they've offered the market which has been accepted and adopted at a statistically relevant level?

...accepted, you disapprove of UOC'ers.

Theseus
02-15-2010, 3:53 PM
So let me ask again... What changes in 5 months, such that a typical UOC'r in CA will see?

a. UOC will be the norm?
b. UOC will be legal?
c. UOC will be unnecessary?



What UOC'rs are doing (and the posting of "no guns" signs in businesses) will not materially change in 5 months. Business can still post their signs in 5, 6 and 7 months.

IF someone chooses to sue in order to LOC, this will not have changed in 5 months.

Hence:

a. No change compared to today.
b. No change compared to today.

I can only think "c. UOC will be unnecessary" if LOADED open carry becomes the legal. I do not see this changing in 5 months.

CCW will still not be a viable alternative either.

edit'd to add: I'll plead ignorance as my ~160 posts are well outweighed by others 4000+ :) I just like having interesting discussions even if the topic has a forgone conclusion.
And he is saying that this question has been answered numerous times already.

What does obviously need to change is the fact of the negative impact that some of the current groups are creating.

It is sure to be expected some businesses will ban open carry, but as a response to our carrying there is a major issue and negatively reflects on us.

wildhawker
02-15-2010, 5:04 PM
OC4ME,

To be accurate, I disapprove of non-strategic utilization of UOC, especially prior to incorporation. There is much I admire about many in the UOC movement.

Lone_Gunman
02-15-2010, 7:02 PM
Merle-
The whole point is the SCOTUS hears the McDonald case next month. It is widely accepted that the SCOTUS will rule that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states. The SCOTUS decision will come out in July. From there the Sykes case, which challenges carry license issuance, will go forward. With the 2nd incorporated we will have the muscle to force shall issue CCW with Sykes. 5 months is VERY optimistic yes. The 5 months thing was basically the time frame for the SCOTUS decision to come out and Sykes to start moving ahead. The whole point was that once we get shall issue CCW it may be incumbered by no gun policies that would not be there had the UOCers ceased publicly carrying as requested.

dantodd
02-15-2010, 7:06 PM
Merle-
The whole point is the SCOTUS hears the McDonald case next month. It is widely accepted that the SCOTUS will rule that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states. The SCOTUS decision will come out in July. From there the Sykes case, which challenges carry license issuance, will go forward. With the 2nd incorporated we will have the muscle to force shall issue CCW with Sykes. 5 months is VERY optimistic yes. The 5 months thing was basically the time frame for the SCOTUS decision to come out and Sykes to start moving ahead. The whole point was that once we get shall issue CCW it may be incumbered by no gun policies that would not be there had the UOCers ceased publicly carrying as requested.

And if the UOCers started carrying post-Sykes the same "no gun policies" would end up going into effect. Delaying UOC will do nothing to change this only by completely eliminating OC in populated areas will anything be accomplished.

hoffmang
02-15-2010, 7:10 PM
And if the UOCers started carrying post-Sykes the same "no gun policies" would end up going into effect. Delaying UOC will do nothing to change this only by completely eliminating OC in populated areas will anything be accomplished.

Not true.

1. The legislature will have to deal with the fact that the McDonald decision is actually done and that will marginally move the debate against gun control. Also, we don't yet know what content will be in the McDonald decision, but I can safely say it's not going to hurt us and could help us on all forms of carry.

2. Violating rights after McDonald gives litigators leverage that they do not have today. This is especially true if one applied for a 12050 license, was denied, and then UOCed.

-Gene

kcbrown
02-15-2010, 7:37 PM
Not true.

1. The legislature will have to deal with the fact that the McDonald decision is actually done and that will marginally move the debate against gun control. Also, we don't yet know what content will be in the McDonald decision, but I can safely say it's not going to hurt us and could help us on all forms of carry.

2. Violating rights after McDonald gives litigators leverage that they do not have today. This is especially true if one applied for a 12050 license, was denied, and then UOCed.

-Gene

What has any of the above to do with "no guns" signs going up?

Nothing.

The "no guns" signs thing is a private business decision that will almost certainly be influenced by actions of the legislature and law enforcement agencies far more than they have been or will be influenced by the UOC movement.

The signs issue is independent of the timing of the UOC movement. If everyone were to start UOCing after we win McDonald those signs would go up at least as fast. And while I cannot prove it, I dare say those signs would go up very nearly as fast and become very nearly as widespread even if all OCers stood down until shall-issue CCW became a reality. The anti-gunners will pull every trick they can to ensure that.

Again, look at what happened in Kansas, which is positively pro gun in comparison to California, to see what happens simply as a result of getting shall-issue CCW. In the face of evidence such as that, on what basis can you argue that the UOC movement will make any real difference whatsoever?

dantodd
02-15-2010, 9:11 PM
And if the UOCers started carrying post-Sykes the same "no gun policies" would end up going into effect. Delaying UOC will do nothing to change this only by completely eliminating OC in populated areas will anything be accomplished.

Not true.

1. The legislature will have to deal with the fact that the McDonald decision is actually done and that will marginally move the debate against gun control. Also, we don't yet know what content will be in the McDonald decision, but I can safely say it's not going to hurt us and could help us on all forms of carry.

I am not sure how you are relating this to my statement that stores are no less likely to put up "no gun" signs pre or post Sykes. I will however say that I am fairly confident that since there are states with shall-issue who also have statutorily defined and enforced no-gun signs that our legislature would do the same.

Obviously we do not know the contents of McDonald. You have previously stated that McDonald is solely about incorporation and not about carry. You have roundly excoriated Maestro Pistolero and Mualy for pushing the potential for a carry decision associated with McDonald. Have you been hearing good things that have caused you to change your thoughts on this?

2. Violating rights after McDonald gives litigators leverage that they do not have today. This is especially true if one applied for a 12050 license, was denied, and then UOCed.

I am not sure to whom you are referring. Are you saying that, contrary to your previous statements that a "no-guns" sign might be illegal post-Sykes? If so, then what difference would it make if the sign goes up now or later?

Theseus
02-15-2010, 9:57 PM
Well, one thing I am sure of, if these signs keep going up there would be a huge business in doing business with carriers, both OC and CC.

hoffmang
02-15-2010, 10:06 PM
I'm simply saying that the environment changes radically after, yet again, it's national news that the Second Amendment is a real right that should be respected. Supreme Court decisions sway popular opinion in a way no protest ever can.
ne
-Ge

dantodd
02-15-2010, 10:09 PM
I'm simply saying that the environment changes radically after, yet again, it's national news that the Second Amendment is a real right that should be respected. Supreme Court decisions sway popular opinion in a way no protest ever can.
ne
-Ge

So are you saying that the general population of California will understand the difference between McDonald and Heller? And further that the expected result in McDonald would sway public opinion in California where Heller did not?

Theseus
02-15-2010, 10:31 PM
I'm simply saying that the environment changes radically after, yet again, it's national news that the Second Amendment is a real right that should be respected. Supreme Court decisions sway popular opinion in a way no protest ever can.
ne
-Ge

So are you saying that the general population of California will understand the difference between McDonald and Heller? And further that the expected result in McDonald would sway public opinion in California where Heller did not?

Gene's assessment does carry weight. Just look at how quick people accepted Heller once the SCOTUS decision was made public!

But I see what you are saying dantodd. I believe that there will be some that will not accept it and fight it tooth and nail, but there will be far more that accept the defeat and move on.

Pyrodyne
02-15-2010, 10:49 PM
Why hasn't this been brought up yet:

JInfVgfAX6o

UOC community service. Pickup trash, cleanup graffiti, etc. Who is going to come running up to stop you from doing something everyone wants? Who is going to cry "Evil" when you do the community a service? This looks like a better plan than "invading" businesses.

Edit: Note that schools will have a 1000' radius of rubbish buildup in the meantime... :D

wildhawker
02-15-2010, 10:57 PM
There's a real difference (socially, politically, legally) between a few thousand active gunnies' (substantiated) vocal hope for a real 2A in California and a SCOTUS decision saying the right is, indeed, incorporated as against all state and local governments. As Gene's mentioned in the past, "Supreme Court and Federal Court cases have a norming effect on attitudes about what is and is not Constitutional."

When people have an opportunity to be invested in a right (or leverage an entitlement), they generally do. As it stands, people in California have nothing to hang their hat on (that one's for you, Billy Jack). That same condition has supported the apathy of CA gun owners for generations - "we can't stop it, we're powerless, so we'll just ignore it and divest ourselves from the issue". When the right to carry means something and becomes accessible to a much larger segment of the voting/buying public, we'll see social pressures become market incentives. Not in all cases do I expect these pressures to work for us; we'll probably see businesses in more left-leaning urban areas take a more conservative approach to allowing armed consumers in their place of business. I do see a silver lining in these signs inasmuch that they may in fact increase the public's awareness of their (forthcoming, later supported by case law) right to arm themselves. All these things will dynamically shape the new culture of a California with RKBA.

wildhawker
02-15-2010, 11:01 PM
This has been brought up. Repeatedly. The issue is that many in the modern (active) UOC movement see no value in these types of efforts (or choose not to, or cannot, organize such events). I think the vast majority of OC proponents with tee shirts in the closet are much more aware and considerate of the socio-political and legal environment in which we all operate.

Why hasn't this been brought up yet:

JInfVgfAX6o

UOC community service. Pickup trash, cleanup graffiti, etc. Who is going to come running up to stop you from doing something everyone wants? Who is going to cry "Evil" when you do the community a service? This looks like a better plan than "invading" businesses.

Edit: Note that schools will have a 1000' radius of rubbish buildup in the meantime... :D

FreedomIsNotFree
02-15-2010, 11:02 PM
Why hasn't this been brought up yet:

JInfVgfAX6o

UOC community service. Pickup trash, cleanup graffiti, etc. Who is going to come running up to stop you from doing something everyone wants? Who is going to cry "Evil" when you do the community a service? This looks like a better plan than "invading" businesses.

Edit: Note that schools will have a 1000' radius of rubbish buildup in the meantime... :D

It has been brought up, but unfortunately it hasn't been acted upon. In my opinion, efforts such as this should have been the outlet for OC activists.

dantodd
02-15-2010, 11:11 PM
Gene's assessment does carry weight. Just look at how quick people accepted Heller once the SCOTUS decision was made public!

But I see what you are saying dantodd. I believe that there will be some that will not accept it and fight it tooth and nail, but there will be far more that accept the defeat and move on.

Look around here. This is probably a fair cross-section of the general population other than the interest in guns. Even here many if not most people knew nothing about incorporation until they were educated. These are people directly impacted by the cases! I don't see McDonald making a huge difference in the public's perception of gun rights.

Now, Palmer may make a greater difference but as Gene has pointed out a number of times people do not view CCW the same way they view OC. Palmer and Sykes do not make any claims that one has a right to carry in any manner they choose. In fact, Gura makes exactly the opposite claim in Sykes; stating that "States retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns..." This is not a matter of Sykes being inapplicable to open carry, it specifically says the state can determine which manner of carry is appropriate and then asks for concealed. This is clearly stating that IF the courts rule in our favor the state is free to limit/ban open carry.

wildhawker
02-15-2010, 11:22 PM
Dan, this state has already effectively banned OC. Barring some other pressing legislative matter this spring, UOC may also be banned by fall. This state's legislature has elected CCW as the primary, and now almost exclusive, manner of carry for its citizens. In the spirit of anal sex, we might want to get a girl in the back seat before we start worrying about the difficulty of unclasping her bra.

dantodd
02-15-2010, 11:46 PM
Dan, this state has already effectively banned OC. Barring some other pressing legislative matter this spring, UOC may also be banned by fall. This state's legislature has elected CCW as the primary, and now almost exclusive, manner of carry for its citizens. In the spirit of anal sex, we might want to get a girl in the back seat before we start worrying about the difficulty of unclasping her bra.

I can't argue with any of that. My point was that nothing will change to make UOC somehow a good idea or non-destructive post-incorporation or post-Sykes etc. Any damage done, in terms of no-guns signs, will not be mitigated by incorporation or Sykes.

I don't see how, as Gene put it, "the environment changes radically after" McDonald for OC. It seems the statutory damage has been done with the recent re-write of 12050 and the only thing left is the civil issue of "no-guns" signs. If I am missing something I would very much like to know what!

wildhawker
02-16-2010, 12:07 AM
I'm not aware of any legal leverage we can apply to private property/businesses outside of those implications recently articulated by Don in a recent thread on the subject of UOC. It seems to me that we'll have a few more tools in the toolbox, and sometimes that makes you a more qualified contractor even if they are not applicable to the job before you. I see a lot of guys with big trucks and ladder racks who don't need or use them. In some games, perception is everything. Maybe I'm missing something myself, and I'll readily admit to such a possibility, but I think the downside is the net effects of poor salesmanship compounded by bad timing.

GM4spd
02-16-2010, 4:46 AM
http://www.fototime.com/F3B80EB5172F75A/standard.jpg

greasemonkey
02-16-2010, 5:29 AM
The only press I've seen about UOC events is very negative, I'm very involved in my local community (keep in mind a conservative ag industry) and people, knowing my involvement with target shooting and Calguns, constantly ask me why all those idiots keep screeming for attention like little kids. That is public perception and not my own words...coming from an ag industry, no less.

If The general public perception is negative and there are relatively few cases of people becoming more enlightened, accepting of firearms or interested in 2A, why keep trying the same thing expecting different results?

Pyrodyne
02-16-2010, 7:13 AM
The only press I've seen about UOC events is very negative, I'm very involved in my local community (keep in mind a conservative ag industry) and people, knowing my involvement with target shooting and Calguns, constantly ask me why all those idiots keep screeming for attention like little kids. That is public perception and not my own words...coming from an ag industry, no less.

I did post a video a few posts back. That group and a few others like it in NH are generally praised for helping clean up their neighborhoods. Would your people in the ag industry feel the same if the UOC events were centered around community service?

When I mention to people around town about the cherry creek cleanup, they have a positive reaction. When I also mention I intend to organize a graffiti cleanup in the general rose valley area, there is a very strong positive reaction. Some get pretty heated hearing about and seeing the mess up there.

Standing on a very strong initial positive reaction and adding the element of firearms to the equation doesn't instantly negate the fact that these people already appreciate what we are doing. A few people i've talked to don't even know that cherry creek is a target range, and when I tell them, their reaction going away is still smiles.

Mind you I am not planning a UOC event either, but in some people's eyes, a gun owner is making a difference in their community. Compare to handing out leaflets at a coffee shop.

GrizzlyGuy
02-16-2010, 7:42 AM
The only press I've seen about UOC events is very negative, I'm very involved in my local community (keep in mind a conservative ag industry) and people, knowing my involvement with target shooting and Calguns, constantly ask me why all those idiots keep screeming for attention like little kids. That is public perception and not my own words...coming from an ag industry, no less.

If The general public perception is negative and there are relatively few cases of people becoming more enlightened, accepting of firearms or interested in 2A, why keep trying the same thing expecting different results?

That's the same opinion I hear from the gun owners here and in the small pro-gun town where I grew up. They just tend to use more colorful expletives as perjoratives. ;)

And yes Pyrodyne, I think their reaction and the perception of the public at large would be completely different if the activists were doing some form of positive community service while incidentally carrying. But as Wildhawker said, this has been brought up many times in the past by many people. A few of mine are here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3599133&postcount=50) and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3801297#post3801297).

Theseus
02-16-2010, 8:55 AM
I have heard the same argument of "why do they need to show it off?" or "why do they want to draw attention to themselves?"

Most gun owners are conservative and desire just as much to not cause waves. The purpose and effect of the movement is to draw attention to an issue. It is the purpose of the movement. Hiding the exact instrument that we are supposed to be using to communicate our issue with would be counterproductive.

I am not sure why we don't do a litter pickup, I am betting it has something to do with a lack of understanding.

Can we literally park our cars on the side of the highway and pick up trash? Can you think of a park or area that might benefit from cleanups that aren't in very close proximity to a school that would make a notable enough impact?

N6ATF
02-16-2010, 9:48 AM
Looks like there might be a trash pickup after all. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=38300&forum_id=12&jump_to=657281

Look for it, the lede is buried.

OC4ME
02-16-2010, 9:49 AM
OC4ME,

To be accurate, I disapprove of non-strategic utilization of UOC, especially prior to incorporation (either OC in any manner is legal or it is not :confused:). There is much I admire about many in the UOC movement.

"I'm not sure what you should be admiring many of them for. Can you identify the product they've offered the market which has been accepted and adopted at a statistically relevant level?"

...either you accept exercising a right (UOC'ers) or you accept exercising a right when it is convenient for the collective (CGF).

Here in Missouri, I am 4 unrestricted OC by law abiding citizens. The last hurdle we have is a total state wide preemption of political subdivision firearms restrictions. The school thing, private business thing (whether customer or an employee) et al, are restrictions that will never go away. OC where it is legal/not discouraged.

I CCW until OC is the law of the land in MO (it is a money thing, sharks is spensive), cept when I'm huntin critters to put up for winter. Then I will have the burden that comes with exercising my RKBA, OC or CCW. If life's choices were only that tough.

CA has a tough row to hoe. I am on the CGF side of the equation, asking UOC'ers to "STFU", as some on this issue have stated, is working at cross purposes for UOC'ers and CGF. Not saying you want the UOC'ers to STFU, but that is what they hear and read. Folks natural tenancy is to remember the bad things folks say in general about a group and remember individual compliments. Folks are funny that way.

Hopi
02-16-2010, 9:54 AM
Looks like there might be a trash pickup after all. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=38300&forum_id=12&jump_to=657281

Look for it, the lede is buried.


There's a glimmer of hope that some of the groups are starting to put 2 and 2 together to get 4.

Glock22Fan
02-16-2010, 10:07 AM
1)
. . snip . .
5) Again- If media has given you a forum by which you can state your case- would you regularly turn it down?

I'm sure that if you organized a Nazi or KKK rally, the media would give you a forum, but I doubt that you would like what they say about you. Even if they reported you without comment, you probably wouldn't win many hearts and minds in the readership.

We should be able to open carry, but, despite what some oc'ers say, the general public don't like it. I don't think any explanation will sway most of them.

wildhawker
02-16-2010, 10:54 AM
UOC is not a right. California has no Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

<sigh>

This is not about convenience. This is about timing and approach and risk analysis and outcomes.

I am growing tired of debating people who don't take it upon themselves to educate themselves as to the current conditions.

"I'm not sure what you should be admiring many of them for. Can you identify the product they've offered the market which has been accepted and adopted at a statistically relevant level?"

...either you accept exercising a right (UOC'ers) or you accept exercising a right when it is convenient for the collective (CGF).

Here in Missouri, I am 4 unrestricted OC by law abiding citizens. The last hurdle we have is a total state wide preemption of political subdivision firearms restrictions. The school thing, private business thing (whether customer or an employee) et al, are restrictions that will never go away. OC where it is legal/not discouraged.

I CCW until OC is the law of the land in MO (it is a money thing, sharks is spensive), cept when I'm huntin critters to put up for winter. Then I will have the burden that comes with exercising my RKBA, OC or CCW. If life's choices were only that tough.

CA has a tough row to hoe. I am on the CGF side of the equation, asking UOC'ers to "STFU", as some on this issue have stated, is working at cross purposes for UOC'ers and CGF. Not saying you want the UOC'ers to STFU, but that is what they hear and read. Folks natural tenancy is to remember the bad things folks say in general about a group and remember individual compliments. Folks are funny that way.

kcbrown
02-16-2010, 11:48 AM
UOC is not a right. California has no Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

<sigh>

This is not about convenience. This is about timing and approach and risk analysis and outcomes.

I am growing tired of debating people who don't take it upon themselves to educate themselves as to the current conditions.

Well, let's talk a bit about risk analysis and outcomes.

I believe I am aware of the current conditions.

So suppose we win McDonald and Sykes, and get shall-issue CCW in the state. Further, suppose UOC remains legal at that time.

Someone UOCs and gets arrested. What arguments will you use in that court case that aren't available to you now?

You can't use the argument that they have the right to bear because the state will, after McDonald and Sykes, still have the right to dictate time, place, and manner restrictions, and CCW is the manner that we are supposing has been decided upon. Therefore, that UOC is still available in that situation is a luxury. One may have the right to bear but one doesn't necessarily have the right to bear in that way, even if it happens to be legal at that point in time.

And in that situation, the legislature will still be able to eliminate OC as a method of carry, and again you will have no recourse through the courts after the fact.


So what, exactly, will change for UOC after the fact that is in any way relevant to what is happening right now? How will OC of any form be any more protected after McDonald and Sykes than it is right now, under the assumption that the only protected means of carry will be CCW?

wildhawker
02-16-2010, 12:15 PM
LOC in CA has already been effectively killed for the time being, maybe permanently.

Possible outcomes for OC by L/UOC at this time:

* Modify 12050 to bar LOC via CCW (done)
* Civil-rights infringing encounters with LEOs with no 2A standing (often)
* Less-educated being nailed for 626.9 (done, more likely to come)
* Attention-seeking participants with lots of harsh press, creating a social/political obstacle to overcome when we *do* have a RKBA (done, more likely to come)
* Businesses installing no guns signs at breakneck speed entirely because of OC activity that has net negative returns (in process)
* Strong legislative possibility UOC & OC is banned outright due to press/LEAs (in process) (note: those who really need to UOC for defense are then screwed by... UOC; unaware gunnies arrested and charged)
* Strong legislative possibility that ammo/gun transport laws will become more restrictive; lack of education of this new law leads to unaware gunnies being arrested by upset of long-held status quo (in process)

626.9 stands for at least 3 more years. Best case- GFSZ challenged in Fed court in another state/circuit and ruled unconstitutional. Case reimported here, or appealed to SCOTUS and GFSZ ruled unconstitutional. For now, we have to consider 626.9 as a fixed element.

I'm sorry, what was the upside again?

kcbrown
02-16-2010, 12:41 PM
LOC in CA has already been effectively killed for the time being, maybe permanently.

Possible outcomes for OC by L/UOC at this time:

* Modify 12050 to bar LOC via CCW (done)
* Civil-rights infringing encounters with LEOs with no 2A standing (often)
* Less-educated being nailed for 626.9 (done, more likely to come)
* Attention-seeking participants with lots of harsh press, creating a social/political obstacle to overcome when we *do* have a RKBA (done, more likely to come)
* Businesses installing no guns signs at breakneck speed entirely because of OC activity that has net negative returns (in process)
* Strong legislative possibility UOC & OC is banned outright due to press/LEAs (in process) (note: those who really need to UOC for defense are then screwed by... UOC; unaware gunnies arrested and charged)
* Strong legislative possibility that ammo/gun transport laws will become more restrictive; lack of education of this new law leads to unaware gunnies being arrested by upset of long-held status quo (in process)

626.9 stands for at least 3 more years. Best case- GFSZ challenged in Fed court in another state/circuit and ruled unconstitutional. Case reimported here, or appealed to SCOTUS and GFSZ ruled unconstitutional. For now, we have to consider 626.9 as a fixed element.

I'm sorry, what was the upside again?

I'm not arguing that UOC has any upside (it can, but it has to be done exactly right).

But I see you and others consistently arguing (or appearing to argue) that UOC now will kill a bunch of things that UOC after McDonald and Sykes won't.

And that's a claim I'm quite skeptical of.

For instance, take the signs. Do you really think they wouldn't go up at a breakneck pace once shall-issue CCW gets shoved down the throats of the legislature? See Kansas as an example of signs going up in response to shall-issue CCW and nothing else, and then account for the fact that Kansas is positively pro-gun compared with California. And then add to that UOC events and such after McDonald and Sykes. What is your basis for claiming that UOC afterwards will be any less damaging than UOC before?

Why do you guys seem to think that the legislature will simply let all this go if only people wouldn't draw attention to OC and firearms in general, when that very same legislature passed AB 962 before all this attention? Hasn't it sunk in that the legislature is vehemently anti-gun, and that having shall-issue CCW shoved down their throats almost guarantees legislative retaliation?

Why wouldn't you expect the legislature to remove OC from the table entirely if only to retain maximum control over RKBA after McDonald and Sykes?

I find it amusing that some of you seem to regard the UOCers as being overly idealistic in light of the above.

OC4ME
02-16-2010, 2:44 PM
I find it simply amazing that folks can separate UOC, LOC and CCW. Carry is carry. The RKBA is separate from legally permitted to UOC or LOC. If LOC is legal. That whole life/liberty thing in CA's constitution is the wedge to get UOC, LOC and shall issue CCW. It sounds like your premise is that you will lose a right, in CA, that you do not currently have. Getting the US Constitution 2A as an individual right forced on those states without a RKBA clause is the goal. Ragging UOC'ers is not gunna affect McDonald. Bad press and nutty anti-gun pols will get your current laws tossed.

UOC is legal. RKBA in CA is not in your constitution. Giving UOC'ers flak for getting in the way of your non-existent right is illogical. If shall issue CCW becomes law at the expense of UOC or LOC. What is the harm? You get to carry and no body will know you're packing heat.

The angst towards UOC'ers is anti-productive, not counter productive.

You can not lose, RKBA, what you do not have. Shall issue will drive the UOC folks to CCW. Just cuz you gots a CCW does not mean you is a good citizen, let alone "educated" and all.

Don't make this personal. The law is what it is, let those who choose to UOC within the law UOC. If they break the law "life is tough....it's even tougher when you're stupid."

;)

curtisfong
02-16-2010, 2:49 PM
What is the harm?

There have been hundreds, if not thousands of messages dedicated to explaining the harm of using UOC as a PR effort. It has been explained ad nauseum. If you wish to debate the existence of harm, you need to address each and every post that has already explained the harm. You can't simply pretend those posts don't exist and that you haven't read them.

OC4ME
02-16-2010, 2:53 PM
There have been hundreds, if not thousands of messages dedicated to explaining the harm of using UOC as a PR effort. It has been explained ad nauseum. If you wish to debate the existence of harm, you need to address each and every post that has already explained the harm. You can't simply pretend those posts don't exist and that you haven't read them.

...I accept that you have decided that UOC is bad.

kermit315
02-16-2010, 2:53 PM
IMO, people are not separating carry. The fact of the matter is, there is no right to keep and bear arms in California. While UOC is legal right now, it can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. The 'prodding' being done by OC'ers is viewed as poking a lion with a stick. Until you have the fence of incorporation up to protect you, you shouldnt poke the lion with the stick.

The fear is that the lion is going to bite, the PC will get rewritten before incorporation happens, and OC of any kind will be a pipe dream. When that lion bites, and CCW becomes the only method of carry (presumably), they want as many places to be not off limits as possible. Turning places of business sour now will only make things harder later. If this (incorporation) werent on the horizon as it currently is, I personally think you would see more and more people OC'ing, attempting to raise awareness.

Again, this is all just my opinion, take it for what you want.

curtisfong
02-16-2010, 2:57 PM
...I accept that you have decided that UOC is bad.

I didn't say UOC was bad. Please reread my post.

OC4ME
02-16-2010, 3:03 PM
IMO, people are not separating carry....If this (incorporation) weren't on the horizon as it currently is, I personally think you would see more and more people OC'ing, attempting to raise awareness.

Again, this is all just my opinion, take it for what you want.

Of course the anti-UOC'ers are separating the methods of carry. UOC is bad for the incorporation effort regardless of the fact that UOC is legal. Your Life/Liberty clause is the wedge, as I have stated previously, to get some semblance of RKBA. It is the goal to have 2A declared an individual right then the LACK of a 2A clause is now a moot point.

The goal is 2A as an individual right, not a state RKBA. Ca's constitution is what it is. Until then you must guard the privileges that you have. Even the privilege to UOC. No one is forced to UOC. Those who choose to UOC should not be treated as that country cousin that you do not want to show up for Thanksgiving supper.

OC4ME
02-16-2010, 3:07 PM
I didn't say UOC was bad. Please reread my post.

..."harm of using UOC as a PR effort"...UOC is a PR effort whether intended or not by those who UOC. You cannot separate UOC into little segments where some UOC is good and other OUC is not so good. If UOC is legal, those who UOC are law abiding citizens exercising their RKBA in the only manner they have available to them.

gbp
02-16-2010, 3:45 PM
...I accept that you have decided that UOC is bad.

rather simplistic response


Originally Posted by curtisfong
I didn't say UOC was bad. Please reread my post.

..."harm of using UOC as a PR effort"...UOC is a PR effort whether intended or not by those who UOC. You cannot separate UOC into little segments where some UOC is good and other OUC is not so good. If UOC is legal, those who UOC are law abiding citizens exercising their RKBA in the only manner they have available to them.

precisely. it is a pr effort and many that are doing so are not really informed of the stakes at hand, but are only doing so on a whim and to gain some 15 minutes of fame. This has been hashed already and discussed that the oc movement does not have control over those tagging onto the sensation. In a way you have just responded to yourself and elaborated on the reasons some find fault with their actions

OC4ME
02-16-2010, 4:27 PM
rather simplistic response


Originally Posted by curtisfong
I didn't say UOC was bad. Please reread my post.

..."harm of using UOC as a PR effort"...UOC is a PR effort whether intended or not by those who UOC. You cannot separate UOC into little segments where some UOC is good and other OUC is not so good. If UOC is legal, those who UOC are law abiding citizens exercising their RKBA in the only manner they have available to them.

precisely. it is a pr effort and many that are doing so are not really informed of the stakes at hand, but are only doing so on a whim and to gain some 15 minutes of fame. This has been hashed already and discussed that the oc movement does not have control over those tagging onto the sensation. In a way you have just responded to yourself and elaborated on the reasons some find fault with their actions

"Some find fault" is the key to the anti-UOC folks. Others seem not to have a problem with the UOC'ers. I wonder if those who see no problem with UOC'ers are as ill informed on the stakes involved as those who are portrayed as ill informed UOC'ers? Tagging some measure of sensationalism to all UOC'ers is ill informed.

kermit315
02-16-2010, 5:01 PM
Of course the anti-UOC'ers are separating the methods of carry. UOC is bad for the incorporation effort regardless of the fact that UOC is legal. Your Life/Liberty clause is the wedge, as I have stated previously, to get some semblance of RKBA. It is the goal to have 2A declared an individual right then the LACK of a 2A clause is now a moot point.

The goal is 2A as an individual right, not a state RKBA. Ca's constitution is what it is. Until then you must guard the privileges that you have. Even the privilege to UOC. No one is forced to UOC. Those who choose to UOC should not be treated as that country cousin that you do not want to show up for Thanksgiving supper.

So, how is it that you guard a privilege that can be revoked at the swipe of a pen by throwing it in a bunch of liberals faces in a liberal state?

Also, while the goal is 2A as an individual right, with CA lacking a RKBA clause in their constitution, there realistically is no right at all right now. UOC'ing right now is poking a lion (legislature) without a fence (incorporated 2A) to protect you.

You are right, currently, UOC is legal. The problem is, the legislature is likely going to get tired of it being legal the more it comes in their face, and will make it illegal. And, there is no safety net to stop it. There are absolutely no protections. So, again, how is it that you guard a privilege that can be revoked at the swipe of a pen?

Theseus
02-16-2010, 6:43 PM
Also, while the goal is 2A as an individual right, with CA lacking a RKBA clause in their constitution, there realistically is no right at all right now. UOC'ing right now is poking a lion (legislature) without a fence (incorporated 2A) to protect you.

Well, the lion can only eat so many of us before it gets fat and full and we have the advantage. . .

dantodd
02-16-2010, 7:43 PM
Also, while the goal is 2A as an individual right, with CA lacking a RKBA clause in their constitution, there realistically is no right at all right now. UOC'ing right now is poking a lion (legislature) without a fence (incorporated 2A) to protect you.

in what way EXACTLY is incorporation a "fence" in this case?

KylaGWolf
02-16-2010, 11:02 PM
I posted this in another thread but I want to ask it here.

I have a question. Why is it so damned important to gut the public to focus on our guns before California is forced to legally recognize our right to carry? Why can't the gun community manage to STFU for 5 more months rather than jumping up and down and yelling "I have a gun" over and over. If you are playing a game of strength and strategy is it smart to alert your opponent to your strageties before you have the strength to support them?The more our guns are in the focus of the media before incorporation the harder things are going to be after. Until we have the power of incorporation behind our offense we need to play defense on carry issues. IMHO

/RANT

Seriously. What is it? I'll admit when I first heard about UOC I was really interested but after some thought and research it is obviously not the way to go right now. Why do you continue to push when it could cost so much and benefit so little. There is a time for overt tactics and a time for strategy. Why can't you guys SSTFU (Strategically Shut The Freak Up)

Don't lump all UOCers together. I don't UOC to get attention or just because I can. I carry because it is the closet thing I have to being able to defend myself in this state if I get into a situation is needed. I can load the magazine and fire faster than I can run. Then again I am disabled so running for me is not going to happen no matter how bad I want to and while yes on a day when my back and knee decide to play nice I can walk at a decent pace my knee has a habit of going haywire with no warning. Then again I stepped down from UOC as did most of us here in San Diego before the "right people" asked us to. The ones you see open carrying now are either not on CGN or just don't care.

N6ATF
02-16-2010, 11:28 PM
in what way EXACTLY is incorporation a "fence" in this case?

It isn't. Incorporation is nothing more than a 2-foot-tall picket fence with supports every 10 feet that CA.gov's foot soldiers will kick down, if not hop right over. There is nothing they think they can't do in their pursuit of getting as many people murdered, raped, maimed, and otherwise victimized as possible. It's going to take much more than 2 weeks, months, years, or maybe even decades to prove them wrong, and have their treasonous "citizenship" revoked, or put them in prison or on federal death row, under Article III, Section 3.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-17-2010, 7:41 AM
Seriously. What is it? I'll admit when I first heard about UOC I was really interested but after some thought and research it is obviously not the way to go right now. Why do you continue to push when it could cost so much and benefit so little. There is a time for overt tactics and a time for strategy. Why can't you guys SSTFU (Strategically Shut The Freak Up)


Because there's no real down side to it.

Worried that businesses will ban any sort of carry? Well, they'll do that anyway. We know this because we have seen this. Kansas, TX, AZ & other states all have businesses that banned carry. NONE of them did so in response to the PRK-only phenomenon of UOC.

Worried that UOC will be outlawed? It enjoys no protection now, true. But (for the reasons explained in the next paragraph) it won't have any protection after Incorporation either. So, what's the difference?

Worried that we won't get LOC post-Incorporation? Not a concern. LOC died (past tense) when the Right People made the decision to NOT go for the "low hanging fruit" of unrestricted LOC (which actually enjoys precedential support) & instead decided to make SI-CCW the Minimum Constitutional Standard. Given the quality of people making the effort, I expect they'll succeed. When a "Mother May I?" slip becomes the standard, there'll be no sense in seeking one for open carry (may as well go for CCW), & there's no chance that the PRK will issue one for open carry anyway (would scare people).

So, there's no real "cost" involved.

But what benefit comes from a UOC event?

As pointed out by someone, perceptions change once a thing is defined by SCOTUS as a Right. Heller did that. The UOC events build upon that & expand the knowledge to the general public & the MSM. This is working. The MSM is much less harsh when reporting the events. They're actually reporting in a balanced manner. This can only be good for the Right in general.

Even better, the overreaction by that one East Palo Alto detective is generating all sorts of publicity. None of it bad from my POV. And all of it because of UOC. This is the sort of thing that could not have been foreseen (and so weakens any & all claims of what "will happen" by anyone in regard to anything).

So, in addition to no downside, there's some noticeable good as well. And that is the answer to your question.


The Raisuli

OC4ME
02-17-2010, 8:43 AM
...if 2A as an individual right from SCOTU. Your state constitution will be moot on that issue. The state constitution can not trump US Constitution when it comes to a individual right.

CCW is explicitly prohibited in the Missouri Constitution. The pols passed a law that allows it. We even had a constitutional amendment vote, 70% said no to CCW. So why may you ask is the law still on the books? Cuz their is no political will to overturn the law. It isn't even discussed any more. Total state preemption over political subdivisions is our final goal now. I will hazard a guess that there is no great deal of political will to overturn UOC in Sacramento. You actually can have your cake and eat it too, from time to time.

The reason UOC is disliked, it is so little exercised. The more people get used to a MWG pushing a stroller down the street, the less political will that can be harvested to change current law. If you do not want to UOC, your choice. By not exercising the UOC privilege, the longer it will take for the general public's perception that a MWG is only bad when he is in the act of committing a crime.

The perception we want from the general public is apathy towards any form of OC. You can not get apathy if they never see a gun other than on cops.

The "crazy overzealous" UOC'ers are gunna mess it up for everybody is a little bit of "the sky is falling down" mentality. Not having hard evidence, I submit that the vast majority of UOC'ers are pushing a stroller down the street UOC'ers.

wildhawker
02-17-2010, 10:49 AM
Mulay, your "no downside" analysis lacks substance. Things can be passed to "address the UOC problem" which would impact all gun owners and will probably stand for at least a number of years, if not indefinitely, post McDonald.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-17-2010, 11:05 AM
Mulay, your "no downside" analysis lacks substance. Things can be passed to "address the UOC problem" which would impact all gun owners and will probably stand for at least a number of years, if not indefinitely, post McDonald.


Talk about a lack of substance! "Things" is all you got???? What "things" might that be?

In any event, you can be quite sure that these "things" (if not prohibited by the federal courts) are being looked at by the PRK legislature anyway. Because that's what they do. So, cowering (aside from being unmanly) isn't going to prevent any of these "things" you fear anyway. Recent history tells us that.

That being the reality, we may as well push.


The Raisuli

kcbrown
02-17-2010, 11:48 AM
Mulay, your "no downside" analysis lacks substance. Things can be passed to "address the UOC problem" which would impact all gun owners and will probably stand for at least a number of years, if not indefinitely, post McDonald.

Okay, then answer me this one:

If it is possible, after McDonald and Sykes, to challenge a law in the courts that was passed post-McDonald/Sykes, why can't it be challenged just the same if it passed pre-McDonald/Sykes?

The basis of the challenge is identical in both situations. The only difference is when the law in question passed.

I've seen Gene mention the possibility of obtaining a preliminary injunction against bills if they're being considered post-Sykes, but how does that change the challenge from "almost sure to lose" to "almost sure to succeed"? That is, if you can succeed in obtaining such a preliminary injunction in the first place, what makes you believe you would fail a real challenge to the law itself if it had already been passed?

That doesn't sound like a make-or-break difference, it sounds like a difference in effort and expense. I don't think there are many here who would argue against the notion that it is desirable to take the least expensive path possible, but the way you guys are arguing, we will lose everything (including the ability to carry, concealed or otherwise, in most business establishments) but shall-issue CCW if the UOCers don't stop.

And that assertion, I believe, requires considerable substantiation which I have not yet seen.

wildhawker
02-17-2010, 12:41 PM
kcbrown, mulay,

Your arguments consistently exclude the sociopolitical modification that can be expected from a SCOTUS decision like McDonald almost assuredly presents. Further, it's frustrating to see this community act in such a selfish manner as to expect some organization (CGF, NRA, SAF etc.) to come behind and clean up everyone's mess.

The laws I mentioned as possibilities for this year are only floating to the top as a political response to concerned LEAs, LEOs, businesses and local governments who have expressed an interest in curbing the UOC phenomenon. Does that mean they could or would not be passed anyway? No, it does not. Does UOC en masse vastly increase the probabilities of introduction and passage (especially prior to our having any legal leverage)? Yes, it does.

This ongoing debate does nothing except absorb productive time better spent elsewhere. It's obvious that the lack of publicly provable certainty will continue to be exploited to continue the debate, and unproductive and non-strategic UOC activities. If you desire it to proceed, then I suggest you both invest similar energies into making it the least damaging activity possible.

It's unfortunate that the outcome of imprudent activism creates an uncomfortable bed in which we all must lie.

OC4ME
02-17-2010, 1:52 PM
kcbrown, mulay,

Your arguments consistently exclude the sociopolitical modification that can be expected from a SCOTUS decision like McDonald almost assuredly presents. Further, it's frustrating to see this community act in such a selfish manner as to expect some organization (CGF, NRA, SAF etc.) to come behind and clean up everyone's mess.

The laws I mentioned as possibilities for this year are only floating to the top as a political response to concerned LEAs, LEOs, businesses and local governments who have expressed an interest in curbing the UOC phenomenon. Does that mean they could or would not be passed anyway? No, it does not. Does UOC en masse vastly increase the probabilities of introduction and passage (especially prior to our having any legal leverage)? Yes, it does.

This ongoing debate does nothing except absorb productive time better spent elsewhere. It's obvious that the lack of publicly provable certainty will continue to be exploited to continue the debate, and unproductive and non-strategic UOC activities. If you desire it to proceed, then I suggest you both invest similar energies into making it the least damaging activity possible.

It's unfortunate that the outcome of imprudent activism creates an uncomfortable bed in which we all must lie.

Your premise is that Joe six-pack and six-packette will even know that we win in McDonald. That leap of logic is quite amazing. Experience here in Missouri post CCW in 2002 is that the vast majority of folks did not care whether CCW is the law. They really don't care if OC is the law. Bad press from MWG calls are for the most part the fault of LEO's not CCW'ers and OC'ers. Does getting "all proned out" remind you of anything? Overzealous LEO's fighting the non-existent UOC'ers are a threat to public safety problem.

If LEO's would learn the law, know the law and act reasonably under the law when responding to MWG calls the UOC'ers screwing everything up crowd would have nothing to complain about.

The problem is not UOC'ers it is LE and their illegal application of the UOC law. As time goes by here in Missouri, LEO's are coming around to the FACT that CCW and OC (where legal) IS LEGAL. We do not have a large crowd waiting to sue cops when they break the law. We just know the law, are respectfull when dealing with cops and life goes on.

It is a fact that many on CGF are anti-UOC'er, I get that. What I do not get is why you target the UOC'ers when the street LEO is the one that enables bad press reports, not UOC'ers. The instances of idiot UOC'ers show-boating are statistically small. Yet this CFG crowd sees all UOC'ers the same. One screws up, they are all screw ups.

Being here in Missouri, may be "I just don't get it". All I read is UOC'ers are bad, they are uneducated, poorly trained, show boaters who are going to screw everything up for all of the "Right People".

"Right People"?

wildhawker
02-17-2010, 2:35 PM
Maybe you should do a bit more research on the subject and parties involved. It's sad, really, that some remain blind to the intended future tactical use of UOC - that is, if it's still available when we need to use it.

N6ATF
02-17-2010, 3:09 PM
Your arguments consistently exclude the sociopolitical modification that can be expected from a SCOTUS decision like McDonald almost assuredly presents.

Hm, the first couple times I glanced over this, I read "sociopathic modification" - and wondered what it would take to get the sociopaths in CA.gov to modify their behavior, because it seems like as long as they can't be prosecuted out of office, let alone voted out, they will keep on doing what they're doing, despite any SCOTUS ruling(s) to the contrary.

OC4ME
02-17-2010, 3:23 PM
Maybe you should do a bit more research on the subject and parties involved. It's sad, really, that some remain blind to the intended future tactical use of UOC - that is, if it's still available when we need to use it.

The only research required is reading the law. Everything else is personal preferences. What you want vs. what you have. Your personal preferences are seemingly in opposition to what UOC'ers have.

As we say here in Missouri, "the law doesn't have to make sense, it is what it is."

After a while preaching to the choir leads to the choir being the only ones listening to your sermon.

yelohamr
02-17-2010, 3:58 PM
Trying to get either side of UOC to convert to the other side, falls under the anology of "Teaching pigs to dance. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig."

Speaking of pigs, 40 years ago today my academy class finished and we hit the streets.

kcbrown
02-17-2010, 5:30 PM
kcbrown, mulay,

Your arguments consistently exclude the sociopolitical modification that can be expected from a SCOTUS decision like McDonald almost assuredly presents.


Well, my arguments don't exclude them or ignore them. But they don't rely on them, either. Yours appear to.

Because if your arguments didn't rely on those other factors, then there would be a substantive argument that could be made for why a post-Sykes court case against the laws we're thinking of would be an almost certain loss if the laws in question were passed pre-McDonald while it would be an almost certain win if the laws in question were passed post-Sykes. And yet, I've seen no such arguments to date.



Further, it's frustrating to see this community act in such a selfish manner as to expect some organization (CGF, NRA, SAF etc.) to come behind and clean up everyone's mess.
Well, on this I certainly don't disagree.

Like I said, I agree that UOC right now almost certainly does nothing positive and exposes us to considerable risk. But my argument is that the same thing is true after Sykes.

For some reason, you and the others seem to believe that McDonald and Sykes will somehow magically cause the mildly anti-gun majority in California right now to suddenly be pro-gun afterwards. I'm sorry, but that's simply ludicrous on its face. People are anti-gun not because it's not an acknowledged right, but because they're afraid of guns. The Supreme Court cases will do absolutely nothing to change that.

Do you think everyone's mind in the South suddenly changed after the 14th Amendment was ratified? No? Then why do you believe that a similar change would happen in the minds of people as a result of the acknowledgment of the 2nd Amendment? The biases are the same. The fear is the same. The mindset is the same.


The laws I mentioned as possibilities for this year are only floating to the top as a political response to concerned LEAs, LEOs, businesses and local governments who have expressed an interest in curbing the UOC phenomenon.
Yes, that's true as far as it goes, but why in the world would you believe that they wouldn't float to the top as a result of shall-issue CCW being shoved down their throats by the judiciary? Do you really think they're going to take that lying down?



Does that mean they could or would not be passed anyway? No, it does not. Does UOC en masse vastly increase the probabilities of introduction and passage (especially prior to our having any legal leverage)? Yes, it does.
Well, that's really where we disagree. You argue that UOC makes a substantial difference with respect to the possibility of the passage of those laws. I argue it does not. I argue that those laws are almost certain to pass after incorporation, because legislatures and LEAs like those in California are not ones who will take a challenge to their power lightly. And make no mistake, the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment against the states is precisely that.



This ongoing debate does nothing except absorb productive time better spent elsewhere. It's obvious that the lack of publicly provable certainty will continue to be exploited to continue the debate, and unproductive and non-strategic UOC activities. If you desire it to proceed, then I suggest you both invest similar energies into making it the least damaging activity possible.
I'm not UOCing and don't intend to. Frankly, I don't really see the point of doing so. LOC, yes. UOC? No. And certainly not without a firm legal backstop that would make a successful defense in court a near certainty.

I don't believe we will ever have that legal backstop. Particularly if we get shall-issue CCW. Recall what I said about my cynicism.



It's unfortunate that the outcome of imprudent activism creates an uncomfortable bed in which we all must lie.That is most definitely true, but is it not something that all rights movements have had to deal with in one form or another?

Mulay El Raisuli
02-18-2010, 4:32 AM
kcbrown, mulay,

Your arguments consistently exclude the sociopolitical modification that can be expected from a SCOTUS decision like McDonald almost assuredly presents. Further, it's frustrating to see this community act in such a selfish manner as to expect some organization (CGF, NRA, SAF etc.) to come behind and clean up everyone's mess.


I haven't seen anything to show that UOCers have any such expectation. Maybe you could direct me to where you see that?

Isn't it real funny then that it is your arguments that exclude the "sociopolitical modification" that came from Heller, while it is the UOCers that do factor that in?

And isn't labeling efforts to be more inclusive as "selfish" somewhat odd?


The laws I mentioned as possibilities for this year are only floating to the top as a political response to concerned LEAs, LEOs, businesses and local governments who have expressed an interest in curbing the UOC phenomenon. Does that mean they could or would not be passed anyway? No, it does not. Does UOC en masse vastly increase the probabilities of introduction and passage (especially prior to our having any legal leverage)? Yes, it does.


Actually, given your claim that we won't have any real 'leverage' after McDonald anyway, it doesn't really matter when we do this. And what do you think that all those "concerned" people are going to do in response to the SI-CCW phenomenon that's coming their way?

And again, I see nothing that justifies the claim that our outreach "vastly" increases the odds of bad bills being passed. Especially given the change in attitude from the MSM, which is a reflection of the (positive) change in attitude of the general public. Which is a result of the UOC movement.


This ongoing debate does nothing except absorb productive time better spent elsewhere. It's obvious that the lack of publicly provable certainty will continue to be exploited to continue the debate, and unproductive and non-strategic UOC activities. If you desire it to proceed, then I suggest you both invest similar energies into making it the least damaging activity possible.


Its the lack of "publicly provable" anything from you that keeps this all in "the sky is falling" & "because I said so" categories. Because basically, you haven't moved beyond the "things" will go bad step. Also, I dispute that UOC events are non-productive. There is that noticeable change in attitude from the MSM. Which we didn't get from pulling the sheets over our heads.


It's unfortunate that the outcome of imprudent activism creates an uncomfortable bed in which we all must lie.


Reasoned, articulate outreach to the public is never imprudent. If nothing else, it reminds us (well, some of us) just who it is we do all of this for.


The Raisuli

OC4ME
02-18-2010, 7:27 AM
UOC'ers need to bide your time and wait for the courts to give all CA gun owners a firmer footing.

Post incorporation hypothetical call to LE...caller - "I think there is a man with a gun tucked under his shirt...I don't know for sure, but I think he has a gun."...LE - "well, open and concealed carry are the law of the land here in California, if this person starts shooting his gun give us a call..."

After incorporation why does anyone in the OC or CCW community care what the “public” thinks? Use the force of law to bludgeon them and LE into accepting that OC/CCW is here to stay. Being sensitive to the public at large after incorporation is a waste of time and effort. They will eventually get used to OC/CCW.

Whether a individual LEO understands the laws or not is not going to change their "how the law should be" mentality until enough lawsuits are filed by UOC'ers who take the slings and arrows of the post incorporation California.

Funny how UOC'ers are not wanted now because they will just screw up the whole strategery. After incorporation, we will need UOC'ers to take the hits so that we can start picking off all those unconstitutional CA PC's.

If SI CCW is enacted due to incorporation, OC may still be restricted by political subdivisions as it is here in Missouri. We are working for total preemption even though we have RKBA explicitly enumerated in the MO constitution.

21.750.2. No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

21.750.3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, RSMo, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243, RSMo.

It does not have to make sense, it is what it is. No law suit is going to get this changed. Only political action will change this contradictory language.

...and all you folks around here worried that you can't pop into a Micky D's cuz they don't like guns, get used to it. No matter what your strategery it ain't gunna change the fact that some folks ain't gunna let you through their door cuz you got a gun OC or CCW.

Merle
02-18-2010, 10:25 AM
UOC is not a right. California has no Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Where does this idea come from?

From the CA Constitution:

"ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land."

And we know the 2A includes the word "bear".

wildhawker
02-18-2010, 11:54 AM
I'm not going to debate this (again) any more than this post. The supremacy clause in the CA Constitution does not incorporate the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, against CA. CA courts have consistently ruled that CA laws are subservient to Federal laws and that a right to "arms" is neither incorporated against the state or found in the CA constitution. Please do some research on the subject so that you'll have a more accurate context by which to judge our current legal environment.

2A will be incorporated by the McDonald decision. Period. Until then, we have no RKBA in CA.

Where does this idea come from?

From the CA Constitution:

"ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land."

And we know the 2A includes the word "bear".

dantodd
02-18-2010, 12:15 PM
Where does this idea come from?

From the CA Constitution:

"ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land."

And we know the 2A includes the word "bear".

And on top of what Brandon said. UOC is NOT likely to be protected per se by the 2A. Bear mean bear only it does not mean "bear in any way you like."

Merle
02-18-2010, 12:31 PM
I'm not going to debate this (again) any more than this post... Please do some research on the subject so that you'll have a more accurate context by which to judge our current legal environment.

Your choice. But if you're questioned on something being stated as 'fact', I would there would be more than "go read some more".

The supremacy clause in the CA Constitution does not incorporate the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, against CA.

It should by a reading of it. Maybe someone else can explain or provide a link?

CA courts have consistently ruled that CA laws are subservient to Federal laws and that a right to "arms" is neither incorporated against the state or found in the CA constitution.

CA courts have been found wrong before, and will be found wrong again. A court ruling should not remove rights (without cause, such as from criminals). Because the court says there's no RKBA (or any other rights from the BoR) in CA, does not make it 'true'.

By that logic, do we suddenly get the "right" ONLY if the SCOTUS agrees to the argument that the 2A is incorporated against the states? Are our rights only valid after a lengthy court case, and in the interim, they are suspended or non-existent?

I can agree with "CA courts do not recognize the RKBA in CA" or "members of the LEO profession does not recognize the RKBA in CA" but fail to see how there is NO RKBA in CA. Especially when the CA constitution refers to the US constitution and it's there.

When I travel from NV through CA, do I suddenly "lose" my RKBA crossing temporarily over the border? Or because CA is not my final destination, I am protected in a "legal bubble" (which I forgot the term) and retain my RKBA?

2A will be incorporated by the McDonald decision. Period. Until then, we have no RKBA in CA.

I obviously disagree. I do not believe a court creates the RKBA. These rights existed prior to CA being a State, and the creation of CA did not remove the RKBA, especially since it is inalienable.

A court ruling did not remove the RKBA, it chose to not recognize it.

Merle
02-18-2010, 12:40 PM
And on top of what Brandon said. UOC is NOT likely to be protected per se by the 2A. Bear mean bear only it does not mean "bear in any way you like."

In what reading of the founding fathers creation and ratification of the 2A is OC (including UOC) not protected?

I would agree with the "in any way you like" portion as I cannot "bear" a weapon "in a rude or threatening manner" (brandishing). But why wouldn't carrying a side arm in a holster or slung on my back would *not* be protected by the 2A?

When the word "bear" was written, what did you think it meant?

Why create a complex system for carrying: CC for handguns, and OC for long guns, except if you're fishing and/or hunting then you can LOC a handgun?

Why not simply assume "bear" in the common being "open" and address the exceptions for concealed for weapons such as dirks, daggers, and handguns?

dantodd
02-18-2010, 12:48 PM
In what reading of the founding fathers creation and ratification of the 2A is OC (including UOC) not protected?

I would agree with the "in any way you like" portion as I cannot "bear" a weapon "in a rude or threatening manner" (brandishing). But why wouldn't carrying a side arm in a holster or slung on my back would *not* be protected by the 2A?

When the word "bear" was written, what did you think it meant?

Why create a complex system for carrying: CC for handguns, and OC for long guns, except if you're fishing and/or hunting then you can LOC a handgun?

Why not simply assume "bear" in the common being "open" and address the exceptions for concealed for weapons such as dirks, daggers, and handguns?

I made no mention of the original meaning. I was merely explaining the way the courts have have ruled and how they have suggested they will rule in future cases. If we were only talking about what I'd like to see happen or what I would do if I were King then the answers would be very different.

Theseus
02-18-2010, 1:01 PM
And on top of what Brandon said. UOC is NOT likely to be protected per se by the 2A. Bear mean bear only it does not mean "bear in any way you like."

I disagree. . . In my reading of Heller the SCOTUS was pretty clear that the fundamental bear meant by the framers was that of open carry.

IIRC, here is what I got from Heller.



The minimum right to bear is open carry.
The right to keep and bear is not unlimited (i.e. felons, mentally ill, and in select sensitive places.)
The government can ban one form of carry as long as the other is available to all without infringement or discrimination less the above mentioned excluded persons.

I admit we may have to accept the fact that concealed carry is the way most states will go. I myself truly don't care which form as much as the requirements. If concealed carry is the only means available it, to me, must be unlicensed.

I will never accept having the only means require a license or permit. If you are legal to buy a concealable firearm then you should have the choice to carry or not, concealed or not.

dantodd
02-18-2010, 1:07 PM
And on top of what Brandon said. UOC is NOT likely to be protected per se by the 2A. Bear mean bear only it does not mean "bear in any way you like."

I disagree. . . In my reading of Heller the SCOTUS was pretty clear that the fundamental bear meant by the framers was that of open carry.

IIRC, here is what I got from Heller.



The minimum right to bear is open carry.
The right to keep and bear is not unlimited (i.e. felons, mentally ill, and in select sensitive places.)
The government can ban one form of carry as long as the other is available to all without infringement or discrimination less the above mentioned excluded persons.

I admit we may have to accept the fact that concealed carry is the way most states will go. I myself truly don't care which form as much as the requirements. If concealed carry is the only means available it, to me, must be unlicensed.

I will never accept having the only means require a license or permit. If you are legal to buy a concealable firearm then you should have the choice to carry or not, concealed or not.

I'm not sure what you disagree with, you basically posted a longer version of what I said. I suspect we are in complete agreement. Although I am less adamant about cc being unlicensed by necessity.

wildhawker
02-18-2010, 1:14 PM
Your choice. But if you're questioned on something being stated as 'fact', I would there would be more than "go read some more".

While I'm not sure I fully understand your response, it's difficult to debate with those who refuse to inform themselves of the issues.

It should by a reading of it. Maybe someone else can explain or provide a link?

The US and CA supremacy clauses only compel the state courts to follow SCOTUS in interpreting and applying the US constitution to state laws. Neither instruct incorporation. When we have a SCOTUS-level decision applying 2A as against the states via 14A, then the 2A must be recognized as a constitutional right in all Federal and state courts.

CA courts have been found wrong before, and will be found wrong again. A court ruling should not remove rights (without cause, such as from criminals). Because the court says there's no RKBA (or any other rights from the BoR) in CA, does not make it 'true'.

Indeed, CA courts have been wrong, but so have all courts. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Legally, the fact that 2A is not found in the CA constitution and the Federal 2A has not been incorporated as against the states does make it true that we have no RKBA in CA.

By that logic, do we suddenly get the "right" ONLY if the SCOTUS agrees to the argument that the 2A is incorporated against the states? Are our rights only valid after a lengthy court case, and in the interim, they are suspended or non-existent?

That is correct.

I can agree with "CA courts do not recognize the RKBA in CA" or "members of the LEO profession does not recognize the RKBA in CA" but fail to see how there is NO RKBA in CA. Especially when the CA constitution refers to the US constitution and it's there.

See above. Further, keep in mind that until Heller, the 2A was interpreted as a collective militia-based right to arms (see Miller).

When I travel from NV through CA, do I suddenly "lose" my RKBA crossing temporarily over the border? Or because CA is not my final destination, I am protected in a "legal bubble" (which I forgot the term) and retain my RKBA?

When you travel into CA you must conform to the laws of the state. Your Nevada RKBA does not travel with you, nor does your CA right to medical marijuana travel with you to any other state.

There are limited exceptions for non-CA compliant weapons (safe passage) but these are extraordinarily tenuous and very likely to fail you if they were to be relied upon in a criminal defense.

I obviously disagree. I do not believe a court creates the RKBA. These rights existed prior to CA being a State, and the creation of CA did not remove the RKBA, especially since it is inalienable.

A court ruling did not remove the RKBA, it chose to not recognize it.

I appreciate your disagreement, but your wishful interpretation of the US and CA constitutions does not make you correct.



Principles of preemption have been articulated by numerous courts. " 'The
supremacy clause of article VI of the United States Constitution grants Congress the
power to preempt state law. State law that conflicts with a federal statute is " 'without
effect.' " [Citations.] It is equally well established that "[c]onsideration of issues arising
under the Supremacy Clause 'start[s] with the assumption that the historic police powers
of the States [are] not to be superseded by . . . Federal Act unless that [is] the clear and
manifest purpose of Congress.' " [Citation.] Thus, " ' "[t]he purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone" '
" of pre-emption analysis." [Citation.]' " (Jevne v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 935, 949.)

The California Supreme court has identified "four species of federal preemption:
express, conflict, obstacle, and field. [Citation.] [] First, express preemption arises
when Congress 'define[s] explicitly the extent to which its enactments pre-empt state law.
[Citation.] Pre-emption fundamentally is a question of congressional intent, [citation],
and when Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory language, the
courts' task is an easy one.' [Citations.] Second, conflict preemption will be found when
simultaneous compliance with both state and federal directives is impossible. [Citations.]
Third, obstacle preemption arises when ' "under the circumstances of [a] particular case,
[the challenged state law] stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of
the full purposes and objectives of Congress." ' [Citations.] Finally, field preemption,
i.e., 'Congress' intent to pre-empt all state law in a particular area,' applies 'where the
scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to make reasonable the
inference that Congress "left no room" for supplementary state regulation.' [Citations.]"
(Viva! Internat. Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007)
41 Cal.4th 929, 935-936, fn. omitted (Viva!).)

Theseus
02-18-2010, 1:20 PM
I'm not sure what you disagree with, you basically posted a longer version of what I said. I suspect we are in complete agreement. Although I am less adamant about cc being unlicensed by necessity.

He said he didn't believe OC would be protected. . . I disagree with that. Open carry is the most basic fundamental aspect of the 2A.

dantodd
02-18-2010, 1:22 PM
He said he didn't believe OC would be protected. . . I disagree with that. Open carry is the most basic fundamental aspect of the 2A.

Then what did you mean by this:

The government can ban one form of carry as long as the other is available to all without infringement or discrimination less the above mentioned excluded persons.

If this doesn't mean that he courts feel that a state can choose CC or OC what does it mean to you?

Merle
02-18-2010, 1:23 PM
I made no mention of the original meaning. I was merely explaining the way the courts have have ruled and how they have suggested they will rule in future cases. If we were only talking about what I'd like to see happen or what I would do if I were King then the answers would be very different.

Okay, I can recognize and agree with that.


I will never accept having the only means require a license or permit. If you are legal to buy a concealable firearm then you should have the choice to carry or not, concealed or not.

I agree. In NV, OC all you want. IF you want to CC, get a permit. Even non-residents can apply for and receive a permit to CC.

However, when I visit CA, even with a "shall issue" CCW, unless the residency requirements are stricken, I will be unable to legally carry concealed, leaving only UOC as the alternative.

And for many people *today*, if the residency requirements were removed, they'd be happy. Simply apply to a "shall issue" county and receive your permit.

kcbrown
02-18-2010, 1:27 PM
He said he didn't believe OC would be protected. . . I disagree with that. Open carry is the most basic fundamental aspect of the 2A.

Except you also said:




The government can ban one form of carry as long as the other is available to all without infringement or discrimination less the above mentioned excluded persons.

If CA gets shall-issue CCW, they can ban open carry. So there is most certainly no guarantee that open carry will be protected. In fact, I believe it's a near certainty that it won't be.

And so I reiterate my original question, that nobody has answered meaningfully: how is UOC or OC of any kind any less damaging after Sykes than before in light of the above?

dantodd
02-18-2010, 1:31 PM
Actually this may be one avenue toward OC in CA post-Sykes.

If we get a strong enough ruling in Palmer and/or Sykes there may have to be an unlicensed carry option. I suspect that the CA legislature might be more willing to create unlicensed Open Carry with a licensed Concealed Carry option even if that license is shall-issue. Of course if there is too much OC drama that might not be the case.

wildhawker
02-18-2010, 1:57 PM
I agree. In NV, OC all you want. IF you want to CC, get a permit. Even non-residents can apply for and receive a permit to CC.

However, when I visit CA, even with a "shall issue" CCW, unless the residency requirements are stricken, I will be unable to legally carry concealed, leaving only UOC as the alternative.

And for many people *today*, if the residency requirements were removed, they'd be happy. Simply apply to a "shall issue" county and receive your permit.

I would love to see a constitutionally-guaranteed right to both OC and CC, with CC being SI, but it's at best implausible.

Sykes actually makes an argument as to the residency requirement, as does the Peruta case. There is at least one other active case re right to travel and residency for CCW applications in Federal court. I expect that SI will mean SI to anyone not otherwise prohibited.

OC4ME
02-18-2010, 1:58 PM
Circular firing squad with UOC'ers in the middle. The bottom line, 2a gives a right bear arms, the states get to decide how you bear arms. CA has given their citizens a legal option to bear arms. Some folks don't like that. If CA gets incorporation, I see many on this site willing to throw the UOC'ers under the bus of LE to strike down CA PC'c. Keep them quiet now, turn them loose later. Folks here who are "stand down" folks will unlikely be the ones after incorporation to test the law. Why not? Cuz UOC'ers will do it for you. Will CGF line up with money to help these poor uneducated folks or will they, as they do now, parrot the "they should have read the law" mantra? Even when the law states that UOC is legal. Here in Missouri, we have this motto, "show me". UOC and lead by example to strike down unconstitutional CA PC's.

Yeah, yeah...easy for me to say, I live in MO.

Theseus
02-18-2010, 1:59 PM
Except you also said:

If CA gets shall-issue CCW, they can ban open carry. So there is most certainly no guarantee that open carry will be protected. In fact, I believe it's a near certainty that it won't be.

And so I reiterate my original question, that nobody has answered meaningfully: how is UOC or OC of any kind any less damaging after Sykes than before in light of the above?

Yes I did. I still predict that the SCOTUS will protect open carry as the fundamental right, but that they may allow a state to ban open carry IF they allow concealed carry to be as available as open carry.

wildhawker
02-18-2010, 2:18 PM
Your assumptions are flawed and inflammatory.

When we tactically use UOC in the future, *we* will be participating. Further, are you implying that the UOCers who participate today are unwitting, mindless drones and would be unwilling to document and record instances of civil rights violations through their activities? Indeed, most are already doing just that (documenting). Who is shortchanging the UOC community again?

The fact that we'll have grounds to pursue these violations is in no way selectively "throwing them under the bus" at a later date. I think all people would agree that forcing LEAs to adopt appropriate training and response procedures is a *good thing*.

After Incorporation, the defense of UOC may change. I think it's pretty safe to say that CGF's policy of not defending UOCers currently are that a) there are too many unwinnable/resource draining cases as it stands and b) as an incentive to wait until we can use it. However, don't think that CGF is washing their hands of the community. They are some very competent people and equally aware that a good opportunity must be taken when it presents.

Easy to say, since you're obviously unaware of the strategy and how it will be executed. If you go back and read any number of threads on the topic some pretty pointed implications are available. Most of the time you really don't even need to read between the lines.

Circular firing squad with UOC'ers in the middle. The bottom line, 2a gives a right bear arms, the states get to decide how you bear arms. CA has given their citizens a legal option to bear arms. Some folks don't like that. If CA gets incorporation, I see many on this site willing to throw the UOC'ers under the bus of LE to strike down CA PC'c. Keep them quiet now, turn them loose later. Folks here who are "stand down" folks will unlikely be the ones after incorporation to test the law. Why not? Cuz UOC'ers will do it for you. Will CGF line up with money to help these poor uneducated folks or will they, as they do now, parrot the "they should have read the law" mantra? Even when the law states that UOC is legal. Here in Missouri, we have this motto, "show me". UOC and lead by example to strike down unconstitutional CA PC's.

Yeah, yeah...easy for me to say, I live in MO.

N6ATF
02-18-2010, 2:18 PM
Yes I did. I still predict that the SCOTUS will protect open carry as the fundamental right, but that they may allow a state to ban open carry IF they allow concealed carry to be as available as open carry.

But since open carry as fundamental right to bear isn't going to be in front of SCOTUS if Sykes (or any other case I know of?) is appealed all the way, it's not like they're going to rule in favor of the .gov that concealed should be effectively banned and strike down 12031, 626.9, etc... to make up for it, when they're not even at issue in the case.

Theseus
02-18-2010, 2:37 PM
But since open carry as fundamental right to bear isn't going to be in front of SCOTUS if Sykes (or any other case I know of?) is appealed all the way, it's not like they're going to rule in favor of the .gov that concealed should be effectively banned and strike down 12031, 626.9, etc... to make up for it, when they're not even at issue in the case.

The SCOTUS will not be able to resolve the Sykes case without asking the question of open carry vs. concealed, licensed vs. unlicensed since they already suggested in Heller that they would need to.

You also have to understand they always before looked at the issue without the "individual right" interpretation. This invites them to look at the other rulings that allowed them to ban one form of carry using whatever form of scrutiny they determine is required for gun-rights cases.

OC4ME
02-18-2010, 3:16 PM
Your assumptions are flawed and inflammatory.

When we tactically use UOC in the future, *we* will be participating. Further, are you implying that the UOCers who participate today are unwitting, mindless drones and would be unwilling to document and record instances of civil rights violations through their activities? Indeed, most are already doing just that (documenting). Who is shortchanging the UOC community again?

The fact that we'll have grounds to pursue these violations is in no way selectively "throwing them under the bus" at a later date. I think all people would agree that forcing LEAs to adopt appropriate training and response procedures is a *good thing*.

After Incorporation, the defense of UOC may change. I think it's pretty safe to say that CGF's policy of not defending UOCers currently are that a) there are too many unwinnable/resource draining cases as it stands and b) as an incentive to wait until we can use it. However, don't think that CGF is washing their hands of the community. They are some very competent people and equally aware that a good opportunity must be taken when it presents.

Easy to say, since you're obviously unaware of the strategy and how it will be executed. If you go back and read any number of threads on the topic some pretty pointed implications are available. Most of the time you really don't even need to read between the lines.

Inflammatory? Odd that anti-UOC'ers would use the term inflammatory based on the comments on this site aimed towards UOC'ers.

Tactically use UOC, if UOC is legal now and after incorporation, why would you not UOC or best case LOC anywhere, not just in selected locations or circumstances?

UOC'ers are not mindless drones, I contend that the vast majority know what is legal. The majority of voices on this site contend that the UOC'ers are mindless in their application of UOC in contradiction of the strategery as espoused by CGF.

If LEA's don't get the law now, no amount of training is going to get them to follow the law later. Only law suits will do that when LEO's realize the cost of doing business as usual is too high for politicians. That is a form of training that will bear solid results in the shortest amount of time. LEO's losing their job because they violate the law is a powerful incentive, more so than policy training.

Comments by CGF's are shortchanging UOC'ers. I didn't make those comments, you and others on this site have.

The strategery has been made quite clear, wait until McDonald is decided, the other cases decided, then figure out what to do next. Well, those UOC'ers are exercising a "right" to UOC now and many here think that is bad. The "Right People" think it is bad for the strategery. So by definition UOC is bad now and the not so tactical use of UOC in the future is also bad.

Your position has been very well articulated. The facts are there for all to see, if they choose to read them. I only hear caution regardless of the outcome. UOC is bad for the CA gun rights movement. UOC'ers are doing more harm than good. Post incorporation they still need to show restraint. I read a great many comments on what UOC'ers should or should not do. What I don't read is a great deal of support now or in the future for UOC'ers.

By the way, I paraphrased a comment made by Gene regarding the TV interview of David Julian back in November. "The fact that we'll have grounds to pursue these violations is in no way selectively "throwing them under the bus" at a later date." His one through seven list. UOC'ers will be the ones to document LE abuses. Will you be one of the UOC'ers to support the strategery to get those unconstitutional CA PC's stricken from the books.

As I said, show me. I am patient. I'll wait for the courts to go your way. The UOC'ers are not waiting. That is what bugs the "stand down" crowd here on CGF. Talking and walking are two different things. When the pass is clear, your enemies are in retreat, now is not the time to pause and contemplate your next move. That is what I read when "tactical use of UOC/LOC" is advocated.

I am on your side. UOC is the law, use it at your own risk. But don't knock those who use it today, they really aren't mindless drones. I betcha they can read the law too.

P.S. I didn't make any assumptions. I read what was stated, find few friends of UOC'ers regardless of circumstances and decided to throw in with the current law abiding citizens. LEA's are your problem not UOC'ers.

dantodd
02-18-2010, 3:58 PM
The SCOTUS will not be able to resolve the Sykes case without asking the question of open carry vs. concealed, licensed vs. unlicensed since they already suggested in Heller that they would need to.

You also have to understand they always before looked at the issue without the "individual right" interpretation. This invites them to look at the other rulings that allowed them to ban one form of carry using whatever form of scrutiny they determine is required for gun-rights cases.

Since OC is illegal in California the State can't argue that OC is a viable option for people who do not meet the sheriff's good cause definition. We are specifically claiming that CC is the preferred method and that the state has the right to choose one or the other. So, who is going to argue that OC must also be protected? No one. It may be possible to make such an argument, especially if a permit has associated costs that might take it out of the reach of some people. One could sue for a non-licensed carry option for those who cannot afford a CCW permit. However no one has stepped up to suggest that such a lawsuit will ever happen. In fact, many have argued that OC is bad for people who carry concealed because it will cause more "no gun" signs to be put up. Do you really think that CGF is going to fund a lawsuit to gain OC rights post-Sykes?

wildhawker
02-18-2010, 4:04 PM
Since OC is illegal in California the State can't argue that OC is a viable option for people who do not meet the sheriff's good cause definition. We are specifically claiming that CC is the preferred method and that the state has the right to choose one or the other. So, who is going to argue that OC must also be protected? No one. It may be possible to make such an argument, especially if a permit has associated costs that might take it out of the reach of some people. One could sue for a non-licensed carry option for those who cannot afford a CCW permit. However no one has stepped up to suggest that such a lawsuit will ever happen. In fact, many have argued that OC is bad for people who carry concealed because it will cause more "no gun" signs to be put up. Do you really think that CGF is going to fund a lawsuit to gain OC rights post-Sykes?

Sykes/Palmer is about securing the core right to Bear. Future cases will undoubtedly flesh out this right. Do you think that, given a SCOTUS-level decision that people have a right to bear, a costly permit, training and other fees/requirements are sustainable to a low-income disabled person who resides hours from access to same? First one foot, then the other.

OC4ME
02-18-2010, 4:22 PM
Since OC is illegal in California the State can't argue that OC is a viable option for people who do not meet the sheriff's good cause definition. We are specifically claiming that CC is the preferred method and that the state has the right to choose one or the other. So, who is going to argue that OC must also be protected? No one. It may be possible to make such an argument, especially if a permit has associated costs that might take it out of the reach of some people. One could sue for a non-licensed carry option for those who cannot afford a CCW permit. However no one has stepped up to suggest that such a lawsuit will ever happen. In fact, many have argued that OC is bad for people who carry concealed because it will cause more "no gun" signs to be put up. Do you really think that CGF is going to fund a lawsuit to gain OC rights post-Sykes?

I agree, SI CCW must be the ultimate goal in the near term. In Missouri we have a right to bear arms. SI CCW is the law. OC is legal with political subdivisions restricting OC. We do not make a distinction between LOC or UOC. If OC is legal LOC is legal.

Our legislative goal is total preemption over political subdivision OC restrictions. Once that is complete, unrestricted OC (less designated locations, bars, churches, schools et al) will be the law of the land. Missouri will be as close to AK and VT as you can get.

Signs to exclude any form of carry is a fact of life. There are not enough carriers in Missouri to make any meaningful change to private business attitudes towards carriers. We just vote with our wallet. I look forward to being able to visit my family in California while CCW.

gbp
02-18-2010, 4:49 PM
Circular firing squad with UOC'ers in the middle. The bottom line, 2a gives a right bear arms, the states get to decide how you bear arms. CA has given their citizens a legal option to bear arms. Some folks don't like that. If CA gets incorporation, I see many on this site willing to throw the UOC'ers under the bus of LE to strike down CA PC'c. Keep them quiet now, turn them loose later. Folks here who are "stand down" folks will unlikely be the ones after incorporation to test the law. Why not? Cuz UOC'ers will do it for you. Will CGF line up with money to help these poor uneducated folks or will they, as they do now, parrot the "they should have read the law" mantra? Even when the law states that UOC is legal. Here in Missouri, we have this motto, "show me". UOC and lead by example to strike down unconstitutional CA PC's.

Yeah, yeah...easy for me to say, I live in MO.

There you go again, I don't believe anyone (at least not me) is throwing them under the buss, You keep responding with too simplistic answerers and missing the overall picture. If the climate is right do it. but not too cool to go skinny dipping in the snow (and no, i don't need to hear a lot of rhetoric about this analogy) you get the picture (maybe)

OC4ME
02-18-2010, 5:21 PM
There you go again, I don't believe anyone (at least not me) is throwing them under the buss, You keep responding with too simplistic answerers and missing the overall picture. If the climate is right do it. but not too cool to go skinny dipping in the snow (and no, i don't need to hear a lot of rhetoric about this analogy) you get the picture (maybe)

OK, how about this. I did not say that UOC'ers were to be thrown under the bus. Although those are my words.

From KTVU David Julian Thread:

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

So, this is how it goes. Either UOC'ers are bad and need to be more discrete. Or they will be useful tools for the CGF strategery post incorporation.

"If the climate is right do it. but not too cool to go skinny dipping in the snow (and no, i don't need to hear a lot of rhetoric about this analogy) you get the picture (maybe)"...and, don't piss down my back and then tell me it's raining. The words of anti-UOC'ers are everywhere on this site. Stand down, going to screw it up for everybody, SSTFU, they just don't get the strategery.

You may believe that your view is reasonable, your view apparently is not resonating with the UOC crowd. You know, the "white males under 30 carrying firearms in public" crowd. The only ones apparently, willing to get "standing" in court for you folks, whether they know it or not.



;)

Theseus
02-18-2010, 5:47 PM
Since OC is illegal in California the State can't argue that OC is a viable option for people who do not meet the sheriff's good cause definition. We are specifically claiming that CC is the preferred method and that the state has the right to choose one or the other. So, who is going to argue that OC must also be protected? No one. It may be possible to make such an argument, especially if a permit has associated costs that might take it out of the reach of some people. One could sue for a non-licensed carry option for those who cannot afford a CCW permit. However no one has stepped up to suggest that such a lawsuit will ever happen. In fact, many have argued that OC is bad for people who carry concealed because it will cause more "no gun" signs to be put up. Do you really think that CGF is going to fund a lawsuit to gain OC rights post-Sykes?
And OC is not illegal in California!

Yes. I have the word of the board members that it is their end-game, and I believe them.

I believe they will keep trying. Whether they will get it is another issue, but I do believe they will try.

But what you ignore here is the incorporation factor. Once we have incorporation and the SCOTUS says whether OC or CC is the basic fundamental right and must be unlicensed/available to all but the prohibited then the State of California will have to abide.

OC4ME
02-18-2010, 6:02 PM
And OC is not illegal in California!

Yes. I have the word of the board members that it is their end-game, and I believe them.

I believe they will keep trying. Whether they will get it is another issue, but I do believe they will try.

But what you ignore here is the incorporation factor. Once we have incorporation and the SCOTUS says whether OC or CC is the basic fundamental right and must be unlicensed/available to all but the prohibited then the State of California will have to abide.

Carry is the goal, OC or CCW what is the difference? I think that CCW is a better option due to the less invasive nature of "what they don't know can't get them all wee weed up." Besides, CCW will keep conceal holster sales high.

;)