PDA

View Full Version : AB1934 (open carry ban) is my fault!


Pages : [1] 2

MudCamper
04-19-2010, 8:53 AM
Blame me. I take full responsibility for scaring our idiotic pansy legislators into introducing this bill.

Now that that's out of the way, let's stop attacking and insulting our brethren CalGunners, and start doing something useful to help defeat this bad bill. Act now:

AB1934 info and status (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1934&sess=CUR&house=B)

Passed the Public Safety Committee:

- Chair Assemblyman Tom Ammiano – AYE
- Vice-Chair Assemblyman Curt Hagman – NO
- Assemblyman Jim Beall, Jr. – AYE
- Assemblyman Danny Gilmore – NO
- Assemblyman Jerry Hill – AYE
- Assemblyman Anthony Portantino – NOT VOTING
- Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner – AYE


CalNRA Action Page (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab1934&year=2010)

Contact your representative (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs/asm.shtml)

Know your legislators (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html)
Find your legislators (http://192.234.213.69/smapsearch/)

NRA-ILA Alert Page (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5727)

Havoc70
04-19-2010, 8:54 AM
No, MudCamper, it was MY fault! I am the lead organizer for the Vallejo area.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-19-2010, 9:10 AM
No! I'm Spartacus!

winnre
04-19-2010, 9:12 AM
I thought it was Bush's fault.

joeyriv
04-19-2010, 9:13 AM
No, it's MY fault. Mudcamper, thanks for the links above.

Nor-Cal
04-19-2010, 9:44 AM
I say we just move on do our part work together call, email etc do our part to preserve our right no more fellow calgun bashing.

hoffmang
04-19-2010, 9:45 AM
Oh, I thought someone was going to be serious about generating an anti-gun bill that everyone was told would be the outcome.

Apparently serious is not what those who wish to UOC are.

-Gene

Roadrunner
04-19-2010, 9:55 AM
Oo, Oo, :seeya: pick me, pick me, I want to be blamed for AB1934.

N6ATF
04-19-2010, 9:58 AM
I accept your confession of being a UOC-holocaust denier MudCamper, despite seeing no proof that you denied it would be banned in the first place.

Havoc70
04-19-2010, 9:59 AM
Gene:

If you read my threads, you will notice that I said UOC does indeed bear the burden of this legislation. It was inevitable. However, attacking us for refusing to stand down (as is being done by more than a few members here) when some of us weren't even on the forum is beyond ridiculous.

So yes, actually, when I say it is my fault, I am being mostly serious.

Do I regret it? No, I do not, because I believe in the long term it will lead to better days for gun owners. I will continue to educate people about responsible firearm owners, even if this bill passes.

And I will continue UOC because in Vallejo at least we have established a good relationship with the media, a fair amount of the populace and law enforcement.

MudCamper
04-19-2010, 10:13 AM
Oh, I thought someone was going to be serious about generating an anti-gun bill that everyone was told would be the outcome.

Apparently serious is not what those who wish to UOC are.

-Gene

I'm confused by this response Gene. You seem to be disingenuous. Or you think I am. Just because there's a light, friendly tone to this thread does not mean we are not serious. I am completely serious. While I personally never actually open carried in incorporated territory, I did help others figure out how to do so legally (http://www.californiaopencarry.org/), and encouraged it. And this resultant bill, if it passes, will not only kill carry in incorporated territory, but also in most of the unincorporated areas where I carry, so I have my own personal regrets on top of everything else.

And again, we all assumed this was coming. As I have said dozens of times, most UOCers here on CalGuns already honored your request to stop long ago. Why do you continue to be divisive?

Let me say it again. I greatly helped spread the information on how to legally open carry in California. As a result of that, our idiot legislature is trying to ban it. How can I be more clear? You asked for someone to man up and take the blame. Here I am. I am dead serious.

Again, let's stop the useless blame-game and fight together to stop this asinine bill.

Decoligny
04-19-2010, 10:54 AM
But I thought it was my fault.

I put together the user friendly version of the Open Carry Pamphlet that has spread across the length and breadth of California.

Downloaded almost 12,000 times so far. No telling how many hundreds of copies were printed from each download.

hollabillz
04-19-2010, 11:05 AM
No, MudCamper, it was MY fault! I am the lead organizer for the Vallejo area.

At least there's actual crime in Vallejo. Having another gun control bill so folks can open carry unloaded guns in Livermore, Cupertino, Walnut Creek just sucks. :(

Disclaimer: I'm not saying a constitutional, individual, supreme being given right should only apply to those where it's more necessary for self defense.

hollabillz
04-19-2010, 11:07 AM
But I thought it was my fault.

I put together the user friendly version of the Open Carry Pamphlet that has spread across the length and breadth of California.

Downloaded almost 12,000 times so far. No telling how many hundreds of copies were printed from each download.

Dunno, I keep one with my LUCC. :thumbsup:

Kestryll
04-19-2010, 11:09 AM
No, MudCamper, it was MY fault! I am the lead organizer for the Vallejo area.

No! I'm Spartacus!

No, it's MY fault. Mudcamper, thanks for the links above.

Oo, Oo, :seeya: pick me, pick me, I want to be blamed for AB1934.

But I thought it was my fault.

I put together the user friendly version of the Open Carry Pamphlet that has spread across the length and breadth of California.

Downloaded almost 12,000 times so far. No telling how many hundreds of copies were printed from each download.

I'm confused by this response Gene. You seem to be disingenuous. Or you think I am. Just because there's a light, friendly tone to this thread does not mean we are not serious. I am completely serious. While I personally never actually open carried in incorporated territory, I did help others figure out how to do so legally (http://www.californiaopencarry.org/), and encouraged it. And this resultant bill, if it passes, will not only kill carry in incorporated territory, but also in most of the unincorporated areas where I carry, so I have my own personal regrets on top of everything else.

And again, we all assumed this was coming. As I have said dozens of times, most UOCers here on CalGuns already honored your request to stop long ago. Why do you continue to be divisive?

Let me say it again. I greatly helped spread the information on how to legally open carry in California. As a result of that, our idiot legislature is trying to ban it. How can I be more clear? You asked for someone to man up and take the blame. Here I am. I am dead serious.

Again, let's stop the useless blame-game and fight together to stop this asinine bill.

Looking at the above posts I can't imagine why Gene would feel that this was anything other than a serious thread.. :rolleyes:

On a more serious note, regardless of intentions your original post does come across very much like the forced, faked and insincere 'accepting of responsibility' statements I gave as a kid. I never meant it at the time but I had to say it to make the situation go away.

You may well have meant what you said but the flippant tone and sarcastic responses by those who support the same cause do nothing to show that.

You can get tweaked over this response if you want but all I'm trying to do is point out why it's not been received as you apparently hoped it would be.

Havoc70
04-19-2010, 11:12 AM
Kestryll,

You didn't post my follow-up, just my initial. I do actually feel partially responsible for what happened, even if not directly. After all, Open Carriers brought this down. I cannot say I regret my doings, as it has led to a great relationship in Valleo with locals (mostly) and the police department.

So yes, I do shoulder a portion of the responsibility.

WatchMan
04-19-2010, 11:15 AM
No no no c'mon fellas! From a sideline perspective, I really don't care who did what, why and when. All I know is if this bickering continues, it is not in any way good for calguns!

Divided we fail....and if that happens to calguns, we are screwed out of the best hope for restoring our rights in this state....and then my depression will deepen exponentially. :willy_nilly:

Please don't continue down this slippery slope!

unusedusername
04-19-2010, 11:55 AM
I agree with WatchMan on this one. Gun owners not sticking together is what brought about the AW Bans on the Federal level in the first place.

We do need to stick together.

Whatever the cause, I think we all can agree at least that when this open carry ban passes it will at least make the suit to bring about shall-issue CCW that much easier.

audiophil2
04-19-2010, 11:57 AM
Why do CA gun owners infight? It's not only about UOC either but I'll stick to this topic.
In CA a few guys express their LEGAL right to UOC and other gun owners play blame games when dumb laws are suggested. The OC movement is countrywide yet gun owners in other states stick together for the most part.
I believe my opinion has a little more weight than others because a negligent discharge occurred at my local Walmart a few weeks ago by a moron OCier. If the stars were aligned differently my 4 year old, my wife, my mother in law/father in law, or I could have been shot dead due to an Open Carrier because we shop there several times a week. It took me all of 3 seconds to decide that my fears are outweighed by the rights of all Americans as well as knowing the fact that no law can regulate stupidity.
When the AZ media reported on the ND the libs crawled out from under their rocks and wanted guns laws tightened. Not one single gun owner said OCiers should stand down, get training, or do anything to restrict current laws. Only the gun grabbers made those suggestions.
Sure AZ is very pro 2A but it is not a given. Gun owners work every day ensuring bad laws are not written. There are plenty of new residents and snowbirds that are trying to turn AZ into another CA but the difference is that gun owners here stand together even when they disagree on other issues.
I think Mudcamper was sincere. He only wrote 4 short sentences and I do not pick up anything but a desire to unite gun owners. He has no power over what others type and their statements should have zero bearing on the intent of the original post.

MudCamper
04-19-2010, 12:45 PM
Looking at the above posts I can't imagine why Gene would feel that this was anything other than a serious thread.. :rolleyes:

On a more serious note, regardless of intentions your original post does come across very much like the forced, faked and insincere 'accepting of responsibility' statements I gave as a kid. I never meant it at the time but I had to say it to make the situation go away.

You may well have meant what you said but the flippant tone and sarcastic responses by those who support the same cause do nothing to show that.


I don't know what else to say. IMO if it can't be made light, the divide won't ever be healed. It appears that some people just don't know how to let things go, or don't want to. I think many just like having a scapegoat to blame. That's easier than actually doing something.

PolishMike
04-19-2010, 12:59 PM
I've stated this over and over - The only thing UOC can do AT THIS TIME is hurt. It is NOT a defensive strategy but a dick waving contest to see who can get the most attention. Well congrats guys, you've done it. I hope it feels good to **** over a ton of good people.

Vinz
04-19-2010, 1:01 PM
Gene:

If you read my threads, you will notice that I said UOC does indeed bear the burden of this legislation. It was inevitable. However, attacking us for refusing to stand down (as is being done by more than a few members here) when some of us weren't even on the forum is beyond ridiculous.

So yes, actually, when I say it is my fault, I am being mostly serious.

Do I regret it? No, I do not, because I believe in the long term it will lead to better days for gun owners. I will continue to educate people about responsible firearm owners, even if this bill passes.

And I will continue UOC because in Vallejo at least we have established a good relationship with the media, a fair amount of the populace and law enforcement.

Why do CA gun owners infight? It's not only about UOC either but I'll stick to this topic.
In CA a few guys express their LEGAL right to UOC and other gun owners play blame games when dumb laws are suggested. The OC movement is countrywide yet gun owners in other states stick together for the most part.
I believe my opinion has a little more weight than others because a negligent discharge occurred at my local Walmart a few weeks ago by a moron OCier. If the stars were aligned differently my 4 year old, my wife, my mother in law/father in law, or I could have been shot dead due to an Open Carrier because we shop there several times a week. It took me all of 3 seconds to decide that my fears are outweighed by the rights of all Americans as well as knowing the fact that no law can regulate stupidity.
When the AZ media reported on the ND the libs crawled out from under their rocks and wanted guns laws tightened. Not one single gun owner said OCiers should stand down, get training, or do anything to restrict current laws. Only the gun grabbers made those suggestions.
Sure AZ is very pro 2A but it is not a given. Gun owners work every day ensuring bad laws are not written. There are plenty of new residents and snowbirds that are trying to turn AZ into another CA but the difference is that gun owners here stand together even when they disagree on other issues.
I think Mudcamper was sincere. He only wrote 4 short sentences and I do not pick up anything but a desire to unite gun owners. He has no power over what others type and their statements should have zero bearing on the intent of the original post.

I have no idea why people can not grasp that legislaters and gun grabbers do not think the way we do.
They are a strong, well funded fighter that likes to counter punch. The original assult ban is a great example. They listed everything that was on a standard assult weapon. I always hear "why the hell would they ban that"? answer, because item was on the original assult weapon at the time.

Legislators and gun grabbers have no imagination, without ideas and theories they have no fight. Everytime a situation is overcome by us they will just counter punch.

Putting the idea of UOC out there was just at the wrong time. Could it have been more effective after the rulings later this year? We will never know now.

I find it odd that the media jumped all over the story and spread it cross country very fast. The media seems to only work that fast when the US gov is behind it. They only show what they want us to see. It was an ingeneous way for us to turn on each other. Just something to keep in the back of your mind.

I do believe they are now working to further keep us away from CCW.
Hope we all can move forward but only time will tell.


JMHO

Vinz

Midian
04-19-2010, 1:03 PM
CA legislation will pass this pig.

UOC is insulting as it is, but this of course will make it even worse. Are they trying to squeeze this through before the SCOTUS rules on the Chicago case?

quick draw mcgraw
04-19-2010, 1:08 PM
Regardless of responsibility, I think the likely banning of UOC should be a HUGE wake up call for ALL of us to unite with one very loud voice.

We must remember that we are clearly the underdogs in this war and that it is all to easy for the Anti's to paint us in an extremist light and scare the common folk with talk of machine gun toting, over caffinated whackos intimidating peace loving mothers and their stroller bound babies.

My hope is that the UOC 'issue' does help the cause for a shall issue CCW scenario, but it certainly hasn't helped with our public image overall.

That being said, it's time to stop pointing fingers, being Martyrs, or even just standing around saying "I told you so" and come together on one front.

A right not able to be exercised is not much of a right for sure, but a right lost for exercising it unpopularly is no right at all. 5, 10, or even 100 of us hanging out at Starbucks (armed or not) is not going to win any 2A victories.

I will trust that CGF and the other powers that be have their ducks in a row and will immediately fire the first shot the day after McDonald is decided. I would love to help argue in the court room or stand in front of the legislature and demand that they shove their unconstitutional laws, but I believe that I and most of us will best serve our cause to educate the masses on our 2A rights, spread the 'gospel of guns', be good ambassadors of the shooting sports, and donate $$ to the cause if at all possible.

History has taught us that even a small force when well organized and motivated can be extremely effective, but I would challenge anyone to show me an example of a disorganized gaggle accomplishing much of anything other than being overrun and wiped out.

The time is now people and our founding father's could not have said it any better: "Unite or Die"!!!

wash
04-19-2010, 1:12 PM
While CGF board members were preaching abstinence, you're condom broke.

Now we've got to hope that our lawyers can mix up some penecilin strong enough you're VD.

yelohamr
04-19-2010, 1:17 PM
In one of the UOC bashing threads a couple of months ago, I took the blame 1st., since I've been doing it since way before CGN was a byte on a hard drive.

This is one part of AB1934 that makes it legal to UOC and it makes no sense:

12037 (g) (12) The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by any person
while engaged in the act of making or attempting to make a lawful
arrest.

A lot of people around here need to lighten up. If I didn't have a sense of humor, I wouldn't put up with this crap. I consider anyone that hasn't open carried for at least 15 to 20 years is an amateur and I really don't care what they have to say.

On a side note, I think Gene should be banned for encouraging a hostile environment.:):rolleyes::)

Rivers
04-19-2010, 1:32 PM
I believe that the pleadings to not UOC since Heller came down were not that it wasn't legal. It was so avoid scaring the public and agitating the legislators who seem to be unable to pass enough anti-gun laws in CA. Something about lining up all your ducks in a row, then go shooting. But the UOC proponents simply wouldn't be patient while we have very strong pro-gun lawsuits just waiting for the MacDonald v. Chicago ruling to be announced. Maybe the UOC proponents should open their eyes and realize that their prideful selfishness hurt more than their own agenda.

UOC soiled the bed we all have to sleep in. No, I'm not happy if I roll over into your wet spot! Don't expect me to smile if I see you drinking more of your own coolaid before bedtime.

MudCamper
04-19-2010, 1:37 PM
I've stated this over and over - The only thing UOC can do AT THIS TIME is hurt. It is NOT a defensive strategy but a dick waving contest to see who can get the most attention. Well congrats guys, you've done it. I hope it feels good to **** over a ton of good people.

Speaking of **** waving contests, there's a thread about that over on OCDO, Minor argument turns into indecent exposure arrest (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/42494.html). Enjoy. And then write the Public Safety Committee members (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab1934&year=2010)!

Roadrunner
04-19-2010, 1:45 PM
I personally think that this UOC ban is going to blow up in the faces of the politicians. They're trying to flex their muscles and put gun owners in general in our place. For those of us that never UOCed, I don't think it's a huge deal. For those that do UOC, if this half baked attempt to put us under their thumb passes before McDonald, and I don't think it will, it's still not a big deal, because after McDonald, they will have to do something to satisfy the "bear" clause of "to keep and bear arms". So, I'll be patient, and wait, and then see the powerful legal minds on our side work their magic. So far, with people like Gene, Don, Alan, Chuck, et al, I don't think the government lawyers have a snowballs chance in hell of winning anything.

To the legal minds here, maybe you could bring in the third and fourth stringers like Gorski, so that you can train them in the ways of the Force. You know, they could be your padawan and you could be their masters. I have a feeling that there are some fun times ahead.

I mean, why so serious?

CCWFacts
04-19-2010, 1:49 PM
I've stated this over and over - The only thing UOC can do AT THIS TIME is hurt. It is NOT a defensive strategy but a dick waving contest to see who can get the most attention. Well congrats guys, you've done it. I hope it feels good to **** over a ton of good people.

That's basically my view of the whole. I've mostly refrained from posting in the UOC threads because I don't see my posts changing anything.

I do support the concept of LOC, in principle, but I oppose UOC at this time. One good reason for allowing LOC is so that people can't get charged for "wardrobe malfunctions", ie, when a concealment garment gets shifted around by a gust of wind, etc. Sounds unlikely but I believe it's a felony in some states and I wouldn't want to risk it. Too bad, the UOC movement has probably foreclosed any kind of OC in California, forever. The other bad side-effect is that the anti-UOC bill might have consequences for people making their normal trips to the range.

MudCamper
04-19-2010, 2:03 PM
All those that have taken the time to post in this thread or others how much they don't like UOC, how about you spend at least that much time sending a one-click opposing AB1934 (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo)?

Draankol
04-19-2010, 2:19 PM
My email to the Assembly, feel free to use and chop up if you wish:

Assembly Members,
I urge you to ban AB1934.

You are driving out the upright, tax paying citizens who are clinging to our few remaining constitutional rights for dear life. DO NOT PASS AB1934!!!

AB1934 is an affront to the constitution, an affront to law abiding citizens and is a disgusting display of government reaction to US citizens exercising their rights. The constitution’s second amendment demands that you ban AB1934, unless of course you wish to destroy the constitution, destroy our liberty and ultimately destroy America.

If AB1934 passes, you will only serve to further empower criminals and limit the safety of law abiding citizens who only seek to exercise their rights.

What is next, banning free speech? Banning freedom of religion? Forcing everyone to follow suit and vote for Obama like good little mindless slaves? Not in my lifetime. Not ever!

You should take this opportunity to finally take a stand a do something that is good for the people, good for law abiding citizens and good for the constitution.

Respectfully,


XXXX X XXXX

Maestro Pistolero
04-19-2010, 2:21 PM
This is only PROPOSED legislation. How about we stop spinning our wheels with I-told-you-sos, and slap down the person who is really responsible for the bill. I know it's CA, but the tide is turning, even here. Slap this thing down like a red-headed step child and the next stupid attempt to infringe will likely have McDonald as an additional obstacle.

I have never seen such a defeatist attitude on this forum like we are seeing about this bill. What's up? BEAT IT DOWN.

Mike61982
04-19-2010, 2:24 PM
I just called every person on the list and one of them told me that there no longer on the public saftey committe. I said i don't care i still urge a no vote. It's like these politcians don't care about what the public people want all they care about is sxrewing us even worse then what we already are...

quick draw mcgraw
04-19-2010, 2:29 PM
All those that have taken the time to post in this thread or others how much they don't like UOC, how about you spend at least that much time sending a one-click opposing AB1934 (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo)?

Great idea.

Here is a copy of my email-

I am opposed to AB1934.

While I do not participate in the so-called ‘Open Carry Movement’ I do believe in and support our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I also believe that prudence demands that my legislature carefully weigh this and any other matter before passing ‘knee jerk’ legislation banning legal activities. I agree with most people that the safety of the public is paramount (after all, I am part of the public), but I urge you to carefully weigh the facts and avoid unfounded paranoia to guarantee that you are in fact ensuring the safety of the public and not someone’s agenda driven perceived idea of public safety.

If you cannot guarantee my safety at all times then you must allow me the opportunity and the means by which to defend myself.

Thank you,

Todd Newburn

97F1504RAD
04-19-2010, 2:49 PM
Accepting blame or assigning blame at this point really is pointless. If I recall correctly the UOC folks refused to stand down when requested to do so knowing some more stupid legislation would come from it. But no they had to be stubborn and keep pushing things. Well you made your bed now sleep in it and shut up already.

The infighting at this point really needs to stop and we need to stop talking about it and move on to trying to stop any and all gun legislation that is trying to get pushed through. I think at this time we have larger things to worry about in this state.

It really is to late to stop this so let's move on and maybe next time when someone is asked to stand down for the greater good of all they might want to listen. Let's all fight together not separately.

Do you really think at this point writing to them is going to help on this matter. They passed the ammo ban without blinking an eye and this will pass as well. I will however do my part and wrote even though I know it will do no good.

barthel
04-19-2010, 2:49 PM
Well written Quick Draw!

Purple K
04-19-2010, 2:54 PM
Ah yes! This is THE epic "I told you so". CalGuns BoD's and numerous members asked "not now". They pointed out that among other things the OC'ers don't have the resources to fight the aftermath. Now as predicted, the OC'ers expect CalGuns to come to the rescue with phone calls, E-mails, etc, etc, etc. Haste makes waste! The impatience of a select few now endanger what's been previously accomplished......

Rivers
04-19-2010, 3:28 PM
All those that have taken the time to post in this thread or others how much they don't like UOC, how about you spend at least that much time opposing AB1934?

You aren't listening. For those who did not participate in the UOC movement, the only reason why everyone else might become involved in this fight now is because the UOC proponents dragged us into it. It's not that we don't agree with the constitutional issues, it is that the UOC people refused to listen to the majority who foretold that this would backfire. And so it did. And the UOC'ers now ask for the majority to clean up the mess so it doesn't screw up the really big picture. That's pretty ballsy!

How about everyone who participated in a UOC event contribute $250 to hire a lobbyist to work the Sacramento battlefield? Put your money where your pride used to be. You've proven yourselves to be pretty unreliable allies.

97F1504RAD
04-19-2010, 3:37 PM
You aren't listening. For those who did not participate in the UOC movement, the only reason why everyone else might become involved in this fight now is because the UOC proponents dragged us into it. It's not that we don't agree with the constitutional issues, it is that the UOC people refused to listen to the majority who foretold that this would backfire. And so it did. And the UOC'ers now ask for the majority to clean up the mess so it doesn't screw up the really big picture. That's pretty ballsy!

How about everyone who participated in a UOC event contribute $250 to hire a lobbyist to work the Sacramento battlefield? Put your money where your pride used to be. You've proven yourselves to be pretty unreliable allies.

Good idea see my sig for where to send it.

Gryff
04-19-2010, 3:46 PM
Do I regret it? No, I do not, because I believe in the long term it will lead to better days for gun owners.

How do you figure? What's going to happen is that another right is going to be stripped away, and the only thing that will save us is McDonald. In the end, picking this fight will have done nothing for RKBA except turn moderates against us.

We must remember that we are clearly the underdogs in this war and that it is all to easy for the Anti's to paint us in an extremist light

Which is exactly the reason that you pick your fights carefully.

All those that have taken the time to post in this thread or others how much they don't like UOC, how about you spend at least that much time sending a one-click opposing AB1934 (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo)?

Already done that. Despite the fact that I find UOC immeasurably foolish, it is important to try to prevent distasteful repercussions. Your friend who starts a pointless brawl may be a moron, but you still have to stand with them during the fight. But they still deserved to be smacked in the back of the head for their stupidity.

Arondos
04-19-2010, 4:46 PM
I am fairly new here. Don't have a huge post count and I am lurk and just read more than I do anything. I will say I think ANY legislation that advances gun rights for citizens is a win. Way to much infighting here

1. It doesn't help me so I don't care, or better yet I will argue against it because it helps someone other than me.

How about help out your fellow firearms owners and support anything that advances gun owners rights whether it is good for you personally or not.

2. It isn't the ability to carry anything, anytime, anywhere so it isn't worth anything.

We need to win every encounter we can. Not lose the war because we want it all in one victory.

If my opinion bother someone, oh well. I was told once opinions are like ***holes, everybody has one and all but your own stink!

Rivers
04-19-2010, 4:59 PM
I am fairly new here. Don't have a huge post count and I am lurk and just read more than I do anything. I will say I think ANY legislation that advances gun rights for citizens is a win. Way to much infighting here

1. It doesn't help me so I don't care, or better yet I will argue against it because it helps someone other than me.

How about help out your fellow firearms owners and support anything that advances gun owners rights whether it is good for you personally or not.

2. It isn't the ability to carry anything, anytime, anywhere so it isn't worth anything.

We need to win every encounter we can. Not lose the war because we want it all in one victory.

If my opinion bother someone, oh well. I was told once opinions are like ***holes, everybody has one and all but your own stink!

The reason these posts have a bitter twist to them is because an activist minority went very public to promote a gun right, in a way that most here thought would be harmful AT THIS TIME. It isn't that we thought they were doing anything illegal or outside of our rights. It is that we have significant lawsuits already in the courts that are far more important to win than simply making a political point. So that has ruffled many feathers here.

Nevertheless, as this adverse proposed legislation might advance, the majority will still band together to fight it. Think of it like the Vietnam War. We didn't start it, we got dragged into it, had to make it our own, we had far too many casualties, and then we lost it as most predicted. Our current legislature in an accident waiting to happen. Giving them anything that they can turn into political momentum is nothing more than stupid. This was an avoidable battle that serves only to deplete the resources we need to win the WAR.

socalgunrunner
04-19-2010, 5:32 PM
Accepting blame or assigning blame at this point really is pointless. If I recall correctly the UOC folks refused to stand down when requested to do so knowing some more stupid legislation would come from it. But no they had to be stubborn and keep pushing things. Well you made your bed now sleep in it and shut up already.

The infighting at this point really needs to stop and we need to stop talking about it and move on to trying to stop any and all gun legislation that is trying to get pushed through. I think at this time we have larger things to worry about in this state.

It really is to late to stop this so let's move on and maybe next time when someone is asked to stand down for the greater good of all they might want to listen. Let's all fight together not separately.

Do you really think at this point writing to them is going to help on this matter. They passed the ammo ban without blinking an eye and this will pass as well. I will however do my part and wrote even though I know it will do no good.

Nice post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

big red
04-19-2010, 5:39 PM
Read the L.A. National Examiner gun rights article I posted and you will find a writer on your side meaning UOCer's. It was coming no matter which one of you did it. as for being dragged into it you could say the same thing about the battle for independence. One group of men fired the shot heard around the world and everyone else got dragged into it whether they liked it or not but the result is 200 plus years of relative freedom and more than the rest of the world could even dream about. Maybe it is time to load the muskets again so to speak and get the job done.

tombinghamthegreat
04-19-2010, 5:42 PM
This open carry movement is not something that started in CA, its more of a national movement such as the man who open carried a AR15 at a president rally in AZ...just so happens that CA legislature is reacting more negatively that most states.

hoffmang
04-19-2010, 7:38 PM
For all of the kumbaya, division makes us weaker points, let me ask this. What political behavior by gun owners is outside the tent?

Were modern gun owners wrong to go after Jim Zumbo? I mean he had his valid opinion and he had the right to express it and stand behind it. Why should he have to consider the rest of the gun movement?

My point here is simple. I want those who were proponents of UOC to learn from this. Whining about supposed attacks is not learning.

I do see some of the early guys wondering whether the pandora's box they opened was the right idea. That is what I'm asking for.

And do understand that my whopping salary of $0,000,000.00 for all of this does a whole lot to offset the fact that we're probably going to have to add another lawsuit onto the pile. More work and it will delay going after other things that are already on the books.

-Gene

Barkoff
04-19-2010, 7:43 PM
I'll tell you what really chaps my azz.

Last week when I called Ammiano's office I ended up in a low key argument with the hired help, which informed me I had no need for CCW, if I felt I needed a firearm for protection I could just open carry.

Rat bastards.

quick draw mcgraw
04-19-2010, 8:31 PM
For all of the kumbaya, division makes us weaker points, let me ask this. What political behavior by gun owners is outside the tent?

Were modern gun owners wrong to go after Jim Zumbo? I mean he had his valid opinion and he had the right to express it and stand behind it. Why should he have to consider the rest of the gun movement?

-Gene

I think we have to consider the entire gun movement because I believe the Anti's perceive all things guns as a single evil entity and the only way we will accomplish anything is to come together and fight as a unified force and for a common cause.



My point here is simple. I want those who were proponents of UOC to learn from this. Whining about supposed attacks is not learning.

I do see some of the early guys wondering whether the pandora's box they opened was the right idea. That is what I'm asking for.

-Gene

I agree completely, I think the backlash from the UOC 'experiment' may cause a lot of damage and be a painful lesson, but hopefully it will also be a catalyst to unite (for us, not just them).



And do understand that my whopping salary of $0,000,000.00 for all of this does a whole lot to offset the fact that we're probably going to have to add another lawsuit onto the pile. More work and it will delay going after other things that are already on the books.

-Gene

...and this is exactly why I believe division will make us weaker. We certainly don't need to step on our own Johnsons and waste precious time, money, and resources! This fight isn't about egos, bravado, or proving a point by legally shoving our guns down the public's throat, this is about regaining and maintaining our constitutional rights from an oppressive government and I think it's high time that it be taken seriously.

So no more douchebaggery please people!! I would very much like for my kids to be able to enjoy firearms when they are old enough and not just tell them about the good 'ol days when we were free!

:rant: off

thebronze
04-19-2010, 9:09 PM
I've stated this over and over - The only thing UOC can do AT THIS TIME is hurt. It is NOT a defensive strategy but a dick waving contest to see who can get the most attention. Well congrats guys, you've done it. I hope it feels good to **** over a ton of good people.


Thanks Open Carry'ers...

:90:

bradph
04-19-2010, 9:18 PM
I appreciate your efforts Mr. Hoffman. Thank you very, very much.

Hopefully this will be a learning experience for some folks.

Barkoff
04-19-2010, 9:34 PM
Someday we'll be thanking these open carry guys for the new law coming down the road, it's going to be the biggest unintended consequence for the anti-gun crowd.

Open carry was their number one cop out and excuse against CCW and denying CCW for personal protection.

I don't know anyone who wants to carry open, but many who would like a CCW, I say let them take it, now our 2nd amendment rights have really been violated.

"Keep and bear arms", they are about to take our last method of "bearing arms" away...it's going to bite them on the ***.

artherd
04-19-2010, 9:49 PM
Do I regret it? No, I do not, because I believe in the long term it will lead to better days for gun owners.

UOC-ers only achievement will be banning UOC (and probably LOC) for the rest of my lifetime.

If you'd waited a year we'd have be able to stop it in committee.



Next time join the winning team?

Toolbox X
04-19-2010, 10:01 PM
We have a state legislature that is completely against guns and has their re-elections rigged. That means we have to be really really smart about the way we approach and attack the anti-gun issues we face. Careful planning, staging, purposes and goals must be organized and implemented carefully, and the timing of everything is extremely important.

The OC movement was done in what was probably the dumbest way possible. We're just starting to see some of the damaging effects. There surely will be more to come. Those of us who have been patient and dilligent donators of our time, money (and more) are not pleased. We're p1ssed off and rightfully so.

A small group of people were warned not to do something because the timing wasn't right and it would backfire. But those people went ahead and did it anyway, and to no one's surprise it backfired. And now those people are preaching how we all need to come together and fight.

I think I'm going to finish being p1ssed off first before I start cleaning up your mess.

You can stop this call and email your reps s**t right now. It does absolutely nothing. There is zero way this bill will fail with the legislature and gov we have. If you really want to do something start by taking some real responsibiliy for what you've done. Admit you made a mistake and should have listened to the warnings. Send a check for $250 or $500 to the CGF so they can starting doing whatever damage control can be done at this point.

Mstrty
04-19-2010, 10:26 PM
What is all the hoopla about. Those that carried openly, You loose! Those of us that didnt and said it was a bad idea we are not OCing anyway so what do we care. We didnt OC before and have no intent on doing it in the future. This new law will not affect me or the other Californians cause Jerry Brown. He is coming and he will save us all. (cynical)

turbosbox
04-19-2010, 10:32 PM
...
A small group of people were warned not to do something because the timing wasn't right and it would backfire. But those people went ahead and did it anyway, and to no one's surprise it backfired. And now those people are preaching how we all need to come together and fight. .. If you really want to do something start by taking some real responsibility for what you've done... Send a check for $250 or $500 to the CGF so they can starting doing whatever damage control can be done at this point.
+1
Thanks to those here who do LOTS of work for gun rights. It isn't nice to have supposed pro gunnies dump all over their progress.
IIRC someone brought up that aspect, [when] this goes down the toilet, will the UOC folks man-up and pay for the fight against the backlash?
No surprise the answer is no. Just ask for forum posts and emails to save the day :nuts:
If I were king for the day I'd make them sell what they were carrying to the restaurants to pay for the legal fees to try to undo the damage.

corrupt
04-20-2010, 2:25 AM
+1
Thanks to those here who do LOTS of work for gun rights. It isn't nice to have supposed pro gunnies dump all over their progress.
IIRC someone brought up that aspect, [when] this goes down the toilet, will the UOC folks man-up and pay for the fight against the backlash?
No surprise the answer is no. Just ask for forum posts and emails to save the day :nuts:
If I were king for the day I'd make them sell what they were carrying to the restaurants to pay for the legal fees to try to undo the damage.

UOC being banned.. whodathunkit? Oh, right....

The events looked dumb anyway. It just came off as a bunch of privileged yuppies drinking their lattes while getting their kicks pretending to be a sophisticated gun fighting cowboy in a polo shirt. The only thing sillier would have been if you had the events in Beverly Hills or Malibu or you wore clown outfits. Hahaha. Clown outfits for the TV!! Don't let that frumpy clothing hang over your firearm or you might get arrrrrestedddddd.

ilikeguns
04-20-2010, 2:48 AM
this is damn stupid. If It was controversial to shoot on BLM land, and if we did so, it was possible we might lose the privilege to shoot on BLM land, I would still go and shoot on BLM land. Its the same with this UOC stuff. Do it and you might lose the right to do it? WTF?
For anyone here to get mad at one party or the other is damn stupid.
For you guys who UOC'd, good for you! For real. Its the anti's to blame and not you.

Sinixstar
04-20-2010, 2:58 AM
this is damn stupid. If It was controversial to shoot on BLM land, and if we did so, it was possible we might lose the privilege to shoot on BLM land, I would still go and shoot on BLM land. Its the same with this UOC stuff. Do it and you might lose the right to do it? WTF?
For anyone here to get mad at one party or the other is damn stupid.
For you guys who UOC'd, good for you! For real. Its the anti's to blame and not you.

I get where you're coming from - but again, it's political maneuvering. It's also not just a matter of doing it - but how you do it.

The UOC movement seemed to be hell bent on getting as much attention and as much of a reaction as they could. Well - guess what, they succeeded in getting a reaction.

So - congrats for them. They got exactly what they were going for. They sure showed those lawmaking bastards!

So um. Yay??

Toolbox X
04-20-2010, 4:17 AM
this is damn stupid. If It was controversial to shoot on BLM land, and if we did so, it was possible we might lose the privilege to shoot on BLM land, I would still go and shoot on BLM land. Its the same with this UOC stuff. Do it and you might lose the right to do it? WTF?
For anyone here to get mad at one party or the other is damn stupid.
For you guys who UOC'd, good for you! For real. Its the anti's to blame and not you.

Your attitude is exactly the problem. You don't listen to a damn thing anyone says.

If you are going to draw attention to something you need to have a goal and a plan. The OC people had neither. They were told repeatedly by the really smart people who actually fight these battles the right way that they needed to wait 6 months or a year until the correct people and court outcomes were in place.

However people like yourself told the smart people to screw off.

The goal isn't to win a single Open Carry battle. It's to win the Open Carry war. People like you thought it was so important to win a OC battle six to twelve months sooner than we were ready that you went ahead anyway. It looks like your actions have now lost the OC war.

What you fail at miserably is the difference between how hard it is to fight a proposed bill and how hard it is to undo a bill that has already been signed into law. It's night and day. (Think about the bill that banned assault weapons. What wouldn't we give to be fighting that as a proposed bill instead of a bill signed into law.) We told you that, but you didn't listen.

That thick skull of yours wouldn't listen to anyone or anything. No one was going to tell you not to exercise your right. Now you've f***ed everything up and you're crying to all of the people that warned you, asking us to clean up the huge mess you've created.

And you're wondering why we're mad?

It's like a parent who tells their 12 year old kid not to paint an oil painting in the living room because they will get paint all over the carpet and furniture, but the 12 year old does it anyway. We still love you, but g*d d**m you are an idiot for not listening to us in the first place. We knew what we were talking about. Now you've create a huge painful expensive mess that will do permanent or long term damage and divert our resources that were being used to work on other issues.

At this point the best thing to do is take responsibility for what you've done. Admit you screwed up. Learn from your mistake. Teach other people about your mistake so they can avoid making it in the first place. And donate whatever money and time you can to the people who are going to work on cleaning up your mess.

Sinixstar
04-20-2010, 4:40 AM
this is damn stupid. If It was controversial to shoot on BLM land, and if we did so, it was possible we might lose the privilege to shoot on BLM land, I would still go and shoot on BLM land. Its the same with this UOC stuff. Do it and you might lose the right to do it? WTF?
For anyone here to get mad at one party or the other is damn stupid.
For you guys who UOC'd, good for you! For real. Its the anti's to blame and not you.

Also - to use your analogy of shooting on BLM land.

What the OC movement did, was not just going shooting on BLM land. They shot on BLM land, and before they did it rallied as many people as they could to come with them, they called the local press, called the cops, and tried to make as big a spectacle and bring as much attention to the fact that they were shooting on BLM land as possible. See how that might be a problem? It's not just that they did it - it's that they shoved it in everybody's face that they were doing it.

If they would have just done it - but showed just a little bit of judgment and restraint in HOW they did it - there's a chance we wouldn't be where we are now. Perhaps some people made that effort - but not nearly enough.

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 4:45 AM
How about everyone who participated in a UOC event contribute $250 to hire a lobbyist to work the Sacramento battlefield? Put your money where your pride used to be. You've proven yourselves to be pretty unreliable allies.

See my signature.

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 4:52 AM
IIRC someone brought up that aspect, [when] this goes down the toilet, will the UOC folks man-up and pay for the fight against the backlash?
No surprise the answer is no.

I say to you also, read my signature. So your statement is patently false. Unless you think CGF can't put my $600 per year to good use? If that's the case, I'll withdraw my pledge.

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 4:57 AM
That thick skull of yours wouldn't listen to anyone or anything. No one was going to tell you not to exercise your right. Now you've f***ed everything up and you're crying to all of the people that warned you, asking us to clean up the huge mess you've created.

Please point to me one post I've made asking someone to clean up my mess? All these blanket statements from the self-proclaimed "smarter people" make me laugh. So enjoy your high horse, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I don't see you doing the same.

Sinixstar
04-20-2010, 5:11 AM
Please point to me one post I've made asking someone to clean up my mess? All these blanket statements from the self-proclaimed "smarter people" make me laugh. So enjoy your high horse, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I don't see you doing the same.

All this talk putting money where mouths are, standing up, etc etc - reminds me of "when keeping it real goes wrong". Ever see Chapelle show?

http://dumpalink.com/videos/Comedy-When-Keeping-it-Real-goes-Wrong-bcb2.html

tenpercentfirearms
04-20-2010, 5:39 AM
All this talk putting money where mouths are, standing up, etc etc - reminds me of "when keeping it real goes wrong". Ever see Chapelle show?

http://dumpalink.com/videos/Comedy-When-Keeping-it-Real-goes-Wrong-bcb2.html

LOL. Good one.

I have to echo the fact that we are now being asked to unite and come together to fight a bill that could have been avoided. Then again, now I just sound like a broken record. I will make my calls, I will keep donating money, and I will "stand united", but my conservative reps are still going to vote no and the rest of your liberal reps are going to vote yes and there will be a UOC ban.

Then maybe five or six years from now maybe we win an expensive court case and get it back. I will be concealed carrying that whole time, but what will you be doing? Discrete UOC was a very beneficial thing for so many people, but now, forget about it.

F-2_Challenger
04-20-2010, 5:50 AM
why wouldn't people want to do what they where told by individuals much smarter than them.

LB21
04-20-2010, 6:01 AM
Your attitude is exactly the problem. You don't listen to a damn thing anyone says.

If you are going to draw attention to something you need to have a goal and a plan. The OC people had neither. They were told repeatedly by the really smart people who actually fight these battles the right way that they needed to wait 6 months or a year until the correct people and court outcomes were in place.

However people like yourself told the smart people to screw off.

The goal isn't to win a single Open Carry battle. It's to win the Open Carry war. People like you thought it was so important to win a OC battle six to twelve months sooner than we were ready that you went ahead anyway. It looks like your actions have now lost the OC war.

What you fail at miserably is the difference between how hard it is to fight a proposed bill and how hard it is to undo a bill that has already been signed into law. It's night and day. (Think about the bill that banned assault weapons. What wouldn't we give to be fighting that as a proposed bill instead of a bill signed into law.) We told you that, but you didn't listen.

That thick skull of yours wouldn't listen to anyone or anything. No one was going to tell you not to exercise your right. Now you've f***ed everything up and you're crying to all of the people that warned you, asking us to clean up the huge mess you've created.

And you're wondering why we're mad?

It's like a parent who tells their 12 year old kid not to paint an oil painting in the living room because they will get paint all over the carpet and furniture, but the 12 year old does it anyway. We still love you, but g*d d**m you are an idiot for not listening to us in the first place. We knew what we were talking about. Now you've create a huge painful expensive mess that will do permanent or long term damage and divert our resources that were being used to work on other issues.

At this point the best thing to do is take responsibility for what you've done. Admit you screwed up. Learn from your mistake. Teach other people about your mistake so they can avoid making it in the first place. And donate whatever money and time you can to the people who are going to work on cleaning up your mess.

+1 on what toolbox said, took the words right out of my mouth.

tenpercentfirearms
04-20-2010, 6:02 AM
why wouldn't people want to do what they where told by individuals much smarter than them.

LOL. Good one. I accept that people are going to do what they want no matter what someone tells them. I just hope they accept the fact we told you so.

groats
04-20-2010, 6:06 AM
It's not the fault of the open carriers.
If you want to blame someone, blame yourself if you're too scared to carry openly without a crew to back you up.

In this state, we carry as we please, loaded. We carry whenever and wherever it is legal. Seldom does anyone get hassled, and even then, it's usually a simple "may I see your license?" from the police.

Why is that? Perhaps it's because we have fewer loony liberal nutcases here.
Or just maybe it's because people are getting accustomed to seeing guns that
ARE NOT being used to hold up 7-11's.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-20-2010, 7:04 AM
I personally think that this UOC ban is going to blow up in the faces of the politicians. They're trying to flex their muscles and put gun owners in general in our place. For those of us that never UOCed, I don't think it's a huge deal. For those that do UOC, if this half baked attempt to put us under their thumb passes before McDonald, and I don't think it will, it's still not a big deal, because after McDonald, they will have to do something to satisfy the "bear" clause of "to keep and bear arms". So, I'll be patient, and wait, and then see the powerful legal minds on our side work their magic. So far, with people like Gene, Don, Alan, Chuck, et al, I don't think the government lawyers have a snowballs chance in hell of winning anything.

To the legal minds here, maybe you could bring in the third and fourth stringers like Gorski, so that you can train them in the ways of the Force. You know, they could be your padawan and you could be their masters. I have a feeling that there are some fun times ahead.

I mean, why so serious?


Plus 1!


The Raisuli

Silverback
04-20-2010, 7:56 AM
This is only PROPOSED legislation. How about we stop spinning our wheels with I-told-you-sos, and slap down the person who is really responsible for the bill. I know it's CA, but the tide is turning, even here. Slap this thing down like a red-headed step child and the next stupid attempt to infringe will likely have McDonald as an additional obstacle.

I have never seen such a defeatist attitude on this forum like we are seeing about this bill. What's up? BEAT IT DOWN.

Was something said about a party at DOJ? Is AM dancing in her cubicle? Is there a former DOJ employee walking his new beat with a big grin on his face?

Sargent Carter: Pyle wipe that grin off your face. You are a Marine, get in line, march in step and shutup. Where is your rifle?

Pyle: But Sargent Carter..................................

Nuf Sed and Nuf Done. Let's get in line. We just earned a blood stripe for our pants. Move on, we are not dead.

kcbrown
04-20-2010, 8:17 AM
I agree that some of the OCers played this very badly. But that said...


What you fail at miserably is the difference between how hard it is to fight a proposed bill and how hard it is to undo a bill that has already been signed into law. It's night and day. (Think about the bill that banned assault weapons. What wouldn't we give to be fighting that as a proposed bill instead of a bill signed into law.) We told you that, but you didn't listen.


Uh huh. You mean like how easy it was to fight the proposed AB 962, and how as a result of us being able to fight it before it became law, it never passed? Oh, wait...

THE LEGISLATURE WILL PASS WHAT IT WANTS TO NO MATTER WHAT ITS CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS IS!!! There is absolutely no disincentive for them to do otherwise.

When will some of you people figure that out?



ETA:

AB 962 stands as an existence proof of what I've been saying about this, because it was illegal on its face out of the gate (it conflicts with federal law). Did that even so much as give the legislature pause? No (there was some "debate" about whether or not it would be Constitutional but I believe that was almost certainly just public grandstanding). What an amazing surprise! If the legislature is so willing to ignore the conflicts between proposed legislation and federal law, there is no real basis to argue that they won't similarly ignore conflicts between proposed legislation and the Constitution.

And so, whether AB 1934 was proposed and passed before McDonald or afterwards is entirely irrelevant. Because it would pass regardless, and we would have to fight it in the courts regardless. And so our ability to fight it in the courts is the same regardless (because we're not so stupid as to try to do so before McDonald is settled).

The only thing I can see that differs is whether or not some people get bitten by the law prior to McDonald. Those people are probably screwed.

MudCamper
04-20-2010, 8:25 AM
Accepting blame or assigning blame at this point really is pointless. If I recall correctly the UOC folks refused to stand down when requested to do so knowing some more stupid legislation would come from it. But no they had to be stubborn and keep pushing things. Well you made your bed now sleep in it and shut up already.

The infighting at this point really needs to stop and we need to stop talking about it and move on to trying to stop any and all gun legislation that is trying to get pushed through. I think at this time we have larger things to worry about in this state.

It really is to late to stop this so let's move on and maybe next time when someone is asked to stand down for the greater good of all they might want to listen. Let's all fight together not separately.

Do you really think at this point writing to them is going to help on this matter. They passed the ammo ban without blinking an eye and this will pass as well. I will however do my part and wrote even though I know it will do no good.

You aren't listening. For those who did not participate in the UOC movement, the only reason why everyone else might become involved in this fight now is because the UOC proponents dragged us into it. It's not that we don't agree with the constitutional issues, it is that the UOC people refused to listen to the majority who foretold that this would backfire. And so it did. And the UOC'ers now ask for the majority to clean up the mess so it doesn't screw up the really big picture. That's pretty ballsy!

How about everyone who participated in a UOC event contribute $250 to hire a lobbyist to work the Sacramento battlefield? Put your money where your pride used to be. You've proven yourselves to be pretty unreliable allies.

The reason these posts have a bitter twist to them is because an activist minority went very public to promote a gun right, in a way that most here thought would be harmful AT THIS TIME. It isn't that we thought they were doing anything illegal or outside of our rights. It is that we have significant lawsuits already in the courts that are far more important to win than simply making a political point. So that has ruffled many feathers here.

Nevertheless, as this adverse proposed legislation might advance, the majority will still band together to fight it. Think of it like the Vietnam War. We didn't start it, we got dragged into it, had to make it our own, we had far too many casualties, and then we lost it as most predicted. Our current legislature in an accident waiting to happen. Giving them anything that they can turn into political momentum is nothing more than stupid. This was an avoidable battle that serves only to deplete the resources we need to win the WAR.

Thanks Open Carry'ers...

:90:

UOC-ers only achievement will be banning UOC (and probably LOC) for the rest of my lifetime.

If you'd waited a year we'd have be able to stop it in committee.



Next time join the winning team?

For all of the kumbaya, division makes us weaker points, let me ask this. What political behavior by gun owners is outside the tent?

Were modern gun owners wrong to go after Jim Zumbo? I mean he had his valid opinion and he had the right to express it and stand behind it. Why should he have to consider the rest of the gun movement?

My point here is simple. I want those who were proponents of UOC to learn from this. Whining about supposed attacks is not learning.

I do see some of the early guys wondering whether the pandora's box they opened was the right idea. That is what I'm asking for.

And do understand that my whopping salary of $0,000,000.00 for all of this does a whole lot to offset the fact that we're probably going to have to add another lawsuit onto the pile. More work and it will delay going after other things that are already on the books.

-Gene

Would all you crybabies and blame-gamers stop blaming the 90% of CalGunner-UOCers who stopped UOCing when CGF asked them to long ago? Do you know how incredibly irritating it is to not only be on the receiving end of this pathetic crap, but to have played by the rules of those doing it? You people all deserve this far more than those brave souls who were actively fighting for your rights.

I extended an olive branch. I did, now, and I did months ago when the first stand-down request came. And this childish crap still doesn't stop. Pathetic.

Gene, you asked for a stand down. We did. You asked for this acceptance of responsibility. I offered it, and then you refuse to accept it. You continue to goad the idiotic minions. What is the point of trying to work with you?

N6ATF
04-20-2010, 8:28 AM
Blaming the victim of rape is never acceptable. It is always wrong, wrong, wrong.

Gun owners in CA are collectively victims of Constitutional (state and federal) rape. We need to stop blaming ourselves... for existing.

WatchMan
04-20-2010, 9:11 AM
Maybe this thread is exactly what is needed right now, eh? Bring it on! :43: Let's get it all out of our systems (both sides), and then maybe it will be easier for everyone to arrive on the same page and march forward constructively.

I don't think kumbaya is the mood, rather let's learn from this and once again start pulling the rope in the same direction. That is the concern, isn't it? That something like this, taken far enough, could jeopardize the sovereignty of calguns...then we're truly flocked.

So, let me know what I can do to help. I already have my monthly donations set up and typically send out the one-click emails (what a great invention that was).

glockman19
04-20-2010, 9:21 AM
Delete

Sinixstar
04-20-2010, 9:24 AM
I personally think that this UOC ban is going to blow up in the faces of the politicians. They're trying to flex their muscles and put gun owners in general in our place. For those of us that never UOCed, I don't think it's a huge deal. For those that do UOC, if this half baked attempt to put us under their thumb passes before McDonald, and I don't think it will, it's still not a big deal, because after McDonald, they will have to do something to satisfy the "bear" clause of "to keep and bear arms". So, I'll be patient, and wait, and then see the powerful legal minds on our side work their magic. So far, with people like Gene, Don, Alan, Chuck, et al, I don't think the government lawyers have a snowballs chance in hell of winning anything.


Fatal flaw in that arguement is all they would have to do is adopt a policy similar to NYC's for CCW. Even if you make it 'shall issue' - make the process so long, convoluted, expensive, and confusing as to deter most people from even being bothered. Now OC is illegal, and CCW is all but illegal.

factor in things like this: http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d31-Court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carriers and we're right back where we started,at best. If CA manages to toe the line just right - they could even get it to pass muster in court, and now that becomes the gold standard.

congratulations.

edit: here's the important part of that link i posted:

Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern "was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety."

mej16489
04-20-2010, 9:43 AM
Its being heard in comittee now.

Audio Here: http://192.234.214.75/ASM-126

turbosbox
04-20-2010, 9:50 AM
Its being heard in comittee now.

Audio Here: http://192.234.214.75/ASM-126

Thanks, good listening. Would be a good archive for learning purposes.

Edit: did he just say OC is overcompensating for a (small tool) ?!!

ZirconJohn
04-20-2010, 9:54 AM
LOL. Good one.

I have to echo the fact that we are now being asked to unite and come together to fight a bill that could have been avoided. Then again, now I just sound like a broken record. I will make my calls, I will keep donating money, and I will "stand united", but my conservative reps are still going to vote no and the rest of your liberal reps are going to vote yes and there will be a UOC ban.

Then maybe five or six years from now maybe we win an expensive court case and get it back. I will be concealed carrying that whole time, but what will you be doing? Discrete UOC was a very beneficial thing for so many people, but now, forget about it.

^^^ This just about sums up the whole UOC situation in a .22 shell case.

Very hilarious VID... and even better post!

You don't go thumbing your nose in people faces and not expect a backlash, or retaliation from opposing parties. And y'all know we have a lot of opposing parties in cubafornia.

It's like CCW... you get one, you carry and you keep your mouth shut. You don't see us calling NEWS, Radio, Law Enforcement and proclaim 'we CCW are packing and we, a whole bunch of us, are meeting at Starbucks for a cup... and we'll be PACKING CCW... come see concealed firearms...!!!' - No-no :no:

mej16489
04-20-2010, 10:00 AM
approved by the committee

thefinger
04-20-2010, 10:13 AM
I think Gene summed this whole thing up nicely in a post he made a few weeks ago. He explained that the anti-gunners are fighting us with a calculated strategy to eventually take away our 2A rights compeltely. We cannot battle them with "I refuse to back down on principle" attitude. We must be MORE calculating and use SUPERIOR STRATEGY to beat these guys.

Bottom line is that while the UOC crowd had/has good intentions, they fail to realize that this battle we are waging has real consequences. Throwing strategy to the wind and UOCing on principle has now resulted in some real-worl consequences that do not fit in with the superior strategy that Gene and The Right People have invented.

Everytime I see someone on here rant about how its their right to UOC I FACEPALM bigtime.

ZirconJohn
04-20-2010, 10:27 AM
I think Gene summed this whole thing up nicely in a post he made a few weeks ago. He explained that the anti-gunners are fighting us with a calculated strategy to eventually take away our 2A rights compeltely. We cannot battle them with "I refuse to back down on principle" attitude. We must be MORE calculating and use SUPERIOR STRATEGY to beat these guys.

Bottom line is that while the UOC crowd had/has good intentions, they fail to realize that this battle we are waging has real consequences. Throwing strategy to the wind and UOCing on principle has now resulted in some real-worl consequences that do not fit in with the superior strategy that Gene and The Right People have invented.

Everytime I see someone on here rant about how its their right to UOC I FACEPALM bigtime.

I juss gotta say... 'nice avatar...!' :yes:

quick draw mcgraw
04-20-2010, 12:07 PM
I think we can all agree that the UOC experiment, while perhaps well intended, was a terrible idea whose timing was even worse. And while those here who voiced their legitimate concerns against it and called for patience certainly have the right to cry foul and vent their frustrations on the UOC'ers I think the rest of us who were mainly on the sidelines watching should be cautious of riding Hoffman et all's coattails while claiming that "we also told you so" and realize that the more divisive we are the more they are going to keep kicking our @sses at the capitol!! If I were part of the Brady Bunch reading this thread I would be laughing my butt off thinking this disorganized bunch of yahoos will never accomplish anything.

So the UOC'ers screwed things up and it's most likely going to cost a lot of time and money to fix this. That sucks and I didn't cause it, but I too have to deal with its consequences. As such, I do like the idea of them stepping up to the plate with an extra donation to help with reparations and I challenge those UOC'ers to do exactly that. In fact I challenge myself and the rest of us to do exactly that.

But the bottom line folks, is that we ARE in fact all in this together fighting for the same 2A rights and if we don't stop all the bashing and whining soon and get our collective sh*t together the only thing that anyone in California will be able to carry will probably be as threatening as a banana!!

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 12:18 PM
As such, I do like the idea of them stepping up to the plate with an extra donation to help with reparations and I challenge those UOC'ers to do exactly that. In fact I challenge myself and the rest of us to do exactly that.

Read my sig. Within the first day of joining here, I contributed $100 to this site, $50 to CGF and then became a contributor.

I didn't do this out of guilt, or any feeling other than wanting to do my part.

I must impress on people that are so quick to bash us UOCers, a lot of us weren't here (I wasn't, and if I was, I would have stood down) because, well, UOCers view this place as hostile territory.

One of the UOCers last night saw me in my Calguns polo and told me I was brave to actually post here.

Most of the UOCers were operating under the assumption that we were doing something to help, we weren't out to f***ing piss on anybody. We weren't going, "AHAHAHAA, this will piss off those a-holes at Calguns! WOO HOO!"

So, while those that rail against UOC and be flaming d-bags that don't give a **** about anyone's feelings behind the great wall of internet anonymity, I will not stoop to that level.

quick draw mcgraw
04-20-2010, 12:55 PM
In my opinion: Let's not. The UOC advocates knew (or should have known, if they had done due diligence) what they were doing. They created this mess. Their actions were not "well intended", they were either stupid or malicious. The rest of the gun rights community is under no obligation to go help them clean up the mess.

In particular, "fighting together" with people who have a demonstrated track record of acting based on emotion and lack of understanding of the real issues is very dangerous. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

I would suggest the following: Let's ostracize the UOC advocates, and no longer consider them part of the gun rights community. Their actions have demonstrated that they are either not smart enough to be of any assistance, or that they are not interested in gun rights but in personal aggrandizement. Let's instead continue the fight for real gun rights issues; a few California-specific examples are the AWB, the handgun roster, and shall-issue CCWs; there are other examples. The antics of the UOC advocates have changed things so we have to throw UOC under the bus for now. That is regrettable, but the damage has been done.

I think it's safe to say that the UOC demonstrations were less about UOC and more about the 2nd Ammendment and social awareness of our right to keep and bear arms.

Damage may have been done, but when is it ever a good idea to cut off your nose in spite of your face??

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 1:03 PM
would suggest the following: Let's ostracize the UOC advocates, and no longer consider them part of the gun rights community. Their actions have demonstrated that they are either not smart enough to be of any assistance, or that they are not interested in gun rights but in personal aggrandizement. Let's instead continue the fight for real gun rights issues; a few California-specific examples are the AWB, the handgun roster, and shall-issue CCWs; there are other examples. The antics of the UOC advocates have changed things so we have to throw UOC under the bus for now. That is regrettable, but the damage has been done.


What, exactly, would this accomplish? But, hey, if it's made known by the powers that be that we're not welcome, so be it. I'll happily take the money I'm contributing to CGF and use it elsewhere. However, until the owners of this site and/or members of CGF say I'm not welcome because of my affiliation with UOC, I will continue to support CGN/CGF as much as I can.

My involvement with UOC has nothing to do with "personal aggrandizement", but instead a desire to exercise and educate people about the Second Amendment. However, you have obviously established your position and much like the anti's I doubt anything I say will sway you.

Gryff
04-20-2010, 1:05 PM
I would suggest the following: Let's ostracize the UOC advocates, and no longer consider them part of the gun rights community. Their actions have demonstrated that they are either not smart enough to be of any assistance, or that they are not interested in gun rights but in personal aggrandizement. Let's instead continue the fight for real gun rights issues; a few California-specific examples are the AWB, the handgun roster, and shall-issue CCWs; there are other examples. The antics of the UOC advocates have changed things so we have to throw UOC under the bus for now. That is regrettable, but the damage has been done.

No. There is nothing wrong with telling your friend that they are an idiot for picking a certain fight, but you still stand with them. You're friends for a reason.

The UOC crowd that didn't listen and provoked this are still fellow gun owners. Their actions may have been foolish, we all still have to stand together to protect our overall 2A rights. We need to oppose all erosions of our liberties, even those that try to ban the goofy stuff.

Sinixstar
04-20-2010, 1:16 PM
I must impress on people that are so quick to bash us UOCers, a lot of us weren't here (I wasn't, and if I was, I would have stood down) because, well, UOCers view this place as hostile territory.

One of the UOCers last night saw me in my Calguns polo and told me I was brave to actually post here.

Most of the UOCers were operating under the assumption that we were doing something to help, we weren't out to f***ing piss on anybody. We weren't going, "AHAHAHAA, this will piss off those a-holes at Calguns! WOO HOO!"

So, while those that rail against UOC and be flaming d-bags that don't give a **** about anyone's feelings behind the great wall of internet anonymity, I will not stoop to that level.


Since you were not here, I can see how you would only get one side of the story.

I remember when all this stuff was really getting going, and some of the first big press was starting to hit on it. I very distinctly remember some genuine enthusiasm for the UOC movement early on. A lot of calgunners were open/into the idea from what I remember. It was only after seeing the media debacles unfold, and being met with 'screw you i'm going to stand up for my rights like a man' responses when the tactic was questioned that it started getting hostile. it was around that time people started to think maybe this wasn't the best course of action given the current political climate. It pretty much all went downhill from there. This idea that CalGuns has been hostile to UOC from the start is kind of a myth. If you dig back into some of the old threads about it, you'll see what i mean.

If this were all an exercise of intellectual debate - i think it would be easier to just say water under the bridge and let it pass. Now that we're having this 'i told you so moment' - it's just a little hard to swallow.

TLDR : It's a lot more complex then you make it out to be. CalGuns as a whole at one point was generally much more supportive or at least neutral on UOC at one point.

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 1:22 PM
Since you were not here, I can see how you would only get one side of the story.

I remember when all this stuff was really getting going, and some of the first big press was starting to hit on it. I very distinctly remember some genuine enthusiasm for the UOC movement early on. A lot of calgunners were open/into the idea from what I remember. It was only after seeing the media debacles unfold, and being met with 'screw you i'm going to stand up for my rights like a man' responses when the tactic was questioned that it started getting hostile. it was around that time people started to think maybe this wasn't the best course of action given the current political climate. It pretty much all went downhill from there. This idea that CalGuns has been hostile to UOC from the start is kind of a myth. If you dig back into some of the old threads about it, you'll see what i mean.

If this were all an exercise of intellectual debate - i think it would be easier to just say water under the bridge and let it pass. Now that we're having this 'i told you so moment' - it's just a little hard to swallow.

TLDR : It's a lot more complex then you make it out to be. CalGuns as a whole at one point was generally much more supportive or at least neutral on UOC at one point.

Now, reading this, the current reaction makes a lot more sense. Speaking for myself, were I here, I would have not said anything like "I'm gonna be a man and do it anyway".

To be honest, no one I know in the UOC actually bashed calguns, the first time was last night when the guy said I was brave. I honestly didn't know the past history, and no one I knew bashed this site or the Foundation.

Thanks for the history lesson, it shed a lot of light on things.

Ding126
04-20-2010, 1:27 PM
Enough is enough !! Whats the NEW game plan...UOC in massive groups or Stand down?

Where are the Generals ...we need direction, we need a game plan.

Stop crying over spilled milk..whats done is done..lets move forward TOGETHER

( key word: TOGETHER ) as one.

97F1504RAD
04-20-2010, 1:57 PM
In my opinion: Let's not. The UOC advocates knew (or should have known, if they had done due diligence) what they were doing. They created this mess. Their actions were not "well intended", they were either stupid or malicious. The rest of the gun rights community is under no obligation to go help them clean up the mess.

In particular, "fighting together" with people who have a demonstrated track record of acting based on emotion and lack of understanding of the real issues is very dangerous. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

I would suggest the following: Let's ostracize the UOC advocates, and no longer consider them part of the gun rights community. Their actions have demonstrated that they are either not smart enough to be of any assistance, or that they are not interested in gun rights but in personal aggrandizement. Let's instead continue the fight for real gun rights issues; a few California-specific examples are the AWB, the handgun roster, and shall-issue CCWs; there are other examples. The antics of the UOC advocates have changed things so we have to throw UOC under the bus for now. That is regrettable, but the damage has been done.

That's a bit on the harsh side in my book. Yes like has already been said here a whole bunch of times, They did in fact create this mess themselves but to shun them and not make them feel welcome is wrong. We all need to stand TOGETHER regardless.

pullnshoot25
04-20-2010, 2:00 PM
For those of you that are chronologically deficient, you do realize that this bill was in motion long before the stand down and at a time when group events were seen as somewhat beneficial for educational purposes?

grammaton76
04-20-2010, 2:12 PM
For those of you that are chronologically deficient, you do realize that this bill was in motion long before the stand down and at a time when group events were seen as somewhat beneficial for educational purposes?

This is what I was actually going to get to once I got to the end of the thread.

CGF leadership DID tell us that group events of well-dressed individuals, etc, were ok while individual UOC was not. This was how we conducted the San Diego events until the total stand-down was requested AND PROVIDED.

We're not associated with the Escondido group that went gleefully brandishing for the reporters.

turbosbox
04-20-2010, 3:10 PM
For those of you that are chronologically deficient, you do realize that this bill was in motion long before the stand down and at a time when group events were seen as somewhat beneficial for educational purposes?

Either way, the arguments against OC today were "the armed groups being confrontational with the police, and escalating...it is only a matter of time before someone is hurt or killed", and also "scares the public".

The feminine sounding male leading the assembly sounded especially concerned with 2A rights, when he said something about 'doing it to make up for deficiencies in other areas'.

I'm all for jokes, but this is a serious topic being voted on being made illegal. Hearing it being decided on was very enlightening.

And there were "No" votes in there too, so no fair typecasting or calling them all a name.

Hearing the mostly one sided debate made me think "Todo we are not in Kansas anymore".

trevilli
04-20-2010, 3:51 PM
Jerry Hill is my Assembly rep. I'm pretty sure he voted "aye", but where can I find confirmation?

DiscoBayJoe
04-20-2010, 3:52 PM
I received this from Hagman:

Unfortunately, this bill passed the committee. The votes were as follows:

- Chair Assemblyman Tom Ammiano – AYE
- Vice-Chair Assemblyman Curt Hagman – NO
- Assemblyman Jim Beall, Jr. – AYE
- Assemblyman Danny Gilmore – NO
- Assemblyman Jerry Hill – AYE
- Assemblyman Anthony Portantino – NOT VOTING
- Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner – AYE

trevilli
04-20-2010, 4:04 PM
Thank you. I'm going to write Mr Hill a letter voicing my feelings for his vote. He also voted for the ammo ban.

7.62x54R
04-20-2010, 4:12 PM
Thread is full of fail on everyone's part. UOC, Pro gun, anti gun, Just all Fail. Here comes the state sticking it to everyone one less gun right....

Ding126
04-20-2010, 4:14 PM
Thank you. I'm going to write Mr Hill a letter voicing my feelings for his vote. He also voted for the ammo ban.

Are you surprised? What made you think he would vote otherwise?

trevilli
04-20-2010, 4:18 PM
I'm not surprised...I just feel despair.

camsoup
04-20-2010, 4:29 PM
I've stated this over and over - The only thing UOC can do AT THIS TIME is hurt. It is NOT a defensive strategy but a dick waving contest to see who can get the most attention. Well congrats guys, you've done it. I hope it feels good to **** over a ton of good people.

A ton of good people that wouldn't have carried anyways? But are complaining now because there is a bill proposed that says they cant???

guns_and_labs
04-20-2010, 4:33 PM
I think it's safe to say that the UOC demonstrations were less about UOC and more about the 2nd Ammendment and social awareness of our right to keep and bear arms.

Damage may have been done, but when is it ever a good idea to cut off your nose in spite of your face??

Demonstrating a right in such a way that deliberately shocks citizens and seemingly dares legislators to try to take away that right, is generally a bad tactic. Sacrificing limited resources to rescue UOC seems an even worse tactic, especially if it draws resources off of more potentially successful tactics.

Military strategy seems to teach that when a rogue unit gets in trouble for its failure to act consistently with the battle plan, you do not change the battle plan to try to rescue them. You may try to offer support, but only if it does not threaten the overall battle plan.

I'm glad some are taking responsibility for the consequences of the UOC actions gone awry. I'll try to lend some support, but I personally wouldn't want to harm my credibility or ability to support the overall goal of second amendment recognition.

And I still think wearing Oleg Volk's t-shirts to Starbucks would have been more influential.

calixt0
04-20-2010, 5:20 PM
Not to be an idiot but wouldn't this also affect our fine officers in blue. Are they not citizens? would they not be trying to make arrests?

quick draw mcgraw
04-20-2010, 5:21 PM
Demonstrating a right in such a way that deliberately shocks citizens and seemingly dares legislators to try to take away that right, is generally a bad tactic. Sacrificing limited resources to rescue UOC seems an even worse tactic, especially if it draws resources off of more potentially successful tactics.

Military strategy seems to teach that when a rogue unit gets in trouble for its failure to act consistently with the battle plan, you do not change the battle plan to try to rescue them. You may try to offer support, but only if it does not threaten the overall battle plan.

If a platoon of insubordinates gets a bridge blown up or a causes a key asset to be compromised would command not send in the Seabees to rebuild the bridge or reinforcements to retake the asset?

ZirconJohn
04-20-2010, 5:32 PM
A ton of good people that wouldn't have carried anyways? But are complaining now because there is a bill proposed that says they cant???

^^^ :willy_nilly: Woo-hoo, woo-hoo-hoo...

WHAT...??? Really...??? What...???

:popcorn:

Mmmm... hahahhaaaaaa...

grammaton76
04-20-2010, 5:58 PM
Not to be an idiot but wouldn't this also affect our fine officers in blue. Are they not citizens? would they not be trying to make arrests?

They can carry loaded, and the bill more or less says "if you can carry loaded you can carry unloaded too"

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 6:24 PM
Oh, I thought someone was going to be serious about generating an anti-gun bill that everyone was told would be the outcome.

Apparently serious is not what those who wish to UOC are.

-Gene

Gene no offense but that was very very unfair for you to say.Most of us here on Calguns stood down with open carry even BEFORE you asked us to and have respected the request. The problem is even if all of us here on Calguns stood down we have no control over what anyone does that is not a part of this board or decides that the advice given was not wise.

As to some others that have posted about the so called those that open carriers only do so because they have small parts is a low a and obnoxious shot. Not all that open carry do so because they have small parts. Some of us are doing so because it was the best chance of self protection if something would go wrong. I can load my weapon and shoot faster than I can run if anything goes wrong. Then again I am female and disabled.

Instead of people whining that so and so is to blame why not do all you can in fighting this stupid bill from ever becoming law in the first place. How about stop the freaking infighting and giving the anti-gunnies a floor show. Its amazing supposedly we are all for 2A rights here and yet it seems at times that people act worse than freaking three year olds passing blame.

While I am proud to be a member of the Calguns community it sometimes saddens me to see the infighting that happens. Now what I would have loved to have seen is someone from the Calguns Foundation show up at the Public Safety Committee and stand up for our rights even if they think that it is not as great as CCW. Here is the thing CCW is not always an option for everyone. I thought one of the lawsuits that Calguns has waiting would make it possible for one to choose if they want to open carry loaded or CCW. Yes I know that is on hold till after McDonald I would have still liked to have seen someone go in there and use the logic that has won so many other victories for the gunnies in this state turn around and stand up for this issue too. And no I am not saying you are doing nothing just that maybe something more should have been done regarding this bill.

The Nomadd
04-20-2010, 6:45 PM
Read my sig. Within the first day of joining here, I contributed $100 to this site, $50 to CGF and then became a contributor.

I didn't do this out of guilt, or any feeling other than wanting to do my part.

I must impress on people that are so quick to bash us UOCers, a lot of us weren't here (I wasn't, and if I was, I would have stood down) because, well, UOCers view this place as hostile territory.

One of the UOCers last night saw me in my Calguns polo and told me I was brave to actually post here.

Most of the UOCers were operating under the assumption that we were doing something to help, we weren't out to f***ing piss on anybody. We weren't going, "AHAHAHAA, this will piss off those a-holes at Calguns! WOO HOO!"

So, while those that rail against UOC and be flaming d-bags that don't give a **** about anyone's feelings behind the great wall of internet anonymity, I will not stoop to that level.

The only problem with that, is the stand-down WAS common knowledge over at OCDO. Cato for one, has been preaching that ad naseum for some time now, as well as a few others. No, the stand-down was well known and people chose to ignore it, often making snide comments about Calguns in the process and the usual "But it's my right!"
There's some great folk over there, but seriously... Some of the others are dumber than dirt.

Havoc70
04-20-2010, 7:00 PM
I really never went to OCDO, really. I read a couple of things, but it wasn't my home page. I first joined the UOC via a meetup then just stayed in Facebook and phone contact. If I had heard about it, I would have done it.

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 7:59 PM
Read my sig. Within the first day of joining here, I contributed $100 to this site, $50 to CGF and then became a contributor.

I didn't do this out of guilt, or any feeling other than wanting to do my part.

I must impress on people that are so quick to bash us UOCers, a lot of us weren't here (I wasn't, and if I was, I would have stood down) because, well, UOCers view this place as hostile territory.

One of the UOCers last night saw me in my Calguns polo and told me I was brave to actually post here.

Most of the UOCers were operating under the assumption that we were doing something to help, we weren't out to f***ing piss on anybody. We weren't going, "AHAHAHAA, this will piss off those a-holes at Calguns! WOO HOO!"

So, while those that rail against UOC and be flaming d-bags that don't give a **** about anyone's feelings behind the great wall of internet anonymity, I will not stoop to that level.

Havoc something I have learned in my time on being on Calguns there two very distinct camps when it comes to UOC. Those that do and those that hate it. Now me I fall under the like it and a bit different from the normal open carrier. But that being said I stood down even before we had been asked to. All I can say is thanks for doing all you can in helping Calguns and don't let those that are anti UOC scare you off. We need all the pro gunnies we can on this site.

I used to live up that way and know what kind of a cess pit that Vallejo can be. What is sad there are some pretty parts of Vallejo but the bad elements just make me not want to live there. Now I am in San Diego and can say we have our share of garbage here too. What is really sad is that with the legislators in office we can't expect a whole lot of positive in the way of 2 Amendment here in CA and even if McDonald becomes a win for us we are going to have to fight tooth and nail for every single gain in our rights.

jdberger
04-20-2010, 8:06 PM
Done.

Over with.

The UOC folks, miscalculated and there's going to be a price to pay - but let's make this work to our advantage.

How about leveraging the UOC organization to take out an anti-gun legislator?

Lori Saldana is serving her last term in the Assembly due to term limits. Apparently she was running for County Supervisor but dropped out of the race.

Anyone else? How about the guy who came up with the long-gun registration? Let's give his opponent some money? Do a little opposition research, mobilize, get out the vote.

We've 50,000 members. A fifth of them post every day. $5 from each of them is a $50,000 contribution to their campaign.

Saldana's top 5 campaign contributors kicked in $47.7K. That's COMBINED.

Think of what we can do if we put our minds to it. Think of what we can accomplish.

Punish our enemies.

Reward our friends.

Direct legislation.

Make guns in California the "third rail".

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 8:10 PM
Done.

Over with.

The UOC folks, miscalculated and there's going to be a price to pay - but let's make this work to our advantage.

How about leveraging the UOC organization to take out an anti-gun legislator?

Lori Saldana is serving her last term in the Assembly due to term limits. Apparently she was running for County Supervisor but dropped out of the race.

Anyone else? How about the guy who came up with the long-gun registration? Let's give his opponent some money? Do a little opposition research, mobilize, get out the vote.

We've 50,000 members. A fifth of them post every day. $5 from each of them is a $50,000 contribution to their campaign.

Saldana's top 5 campaign contributors kicked in $47.7K. That's COMBINED.

Think of what we can do if we put our minds to it. Think of what we can accomplish.

Punish our enemies.

Reward our friends.

Direct legislation.

Make guns in California the "third rail".

I plan on doing all I can to get her voted out of office not to just wait till she is termed out. BTW using the term take them out is a BAD CHOICE of wording.

Maestro Pistolero
04-20-2010, 8:12 PM
In my opinion: Let's not. The UOC advocates knew (or should have known, if they had done due diligence) what they were doing. They created this mess. Their actions were not "well intended", they were either stupid or malicious. The rest of the gun rights community is under no obligation to go help them clean up the mess.

In particular, "fighting together" with people who have a demonstrated track record of acting based on emotion and lack of understanding of the real issues is very dangerous. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

I would suggest the following: Let's ostracize the UOC advocates, and no longer consider them part of the gun rights community. Their actions have demonstrated that they are either not smart enough to be of any assistance, or that they are not interested in gun rights but in personal aggrandizement. Let's instead continue the fight for real gun rights issues; a few California-specific examples are the AWB, the handgun roster, and shall-issue CCWs; there are other examples. The antics of the UOC advocates have changed things so we have to throw UOC under the bus for now. That is regrettable, but the damage has been done.
What a terrible, bitter, counterproductive, defeatist, and disheartening post. We stand and fight together, for UOC, LOC, the roster, the AWB, all of it. Drive a wedge between our membership over this? My god. Please just stop.

This thing isn't even law yet. I have never before seen such negativity and pre-determination to fail in this community.

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 8:20 PM
In my opinion: Let's not. The UOC advocates knew (or should have known, if they had done due diligence) what they were doing. They created this mess. Their actions were not "well intended", they were either stupid or malicious. The rest of the gun rights community is under no obligation to go help them clean up the mess.

In particular, "fighting together" with people who have a demonstrated track record of acting based on emotion and lack of understanding of the real issues is very dangerous. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

I would suggest the following: Let's ostracize the UOC advocates, and no longer consider them part of the gun rights community. Their actions have demonstrated that they are either not smart enough to be of any assistance, or that they are not interested in gun rights but in personal aggrandizement. Let's instead continue the fight for real gun rights issues; a few California-specific examples are the AWB, the handgun roster, and shall-issue CCWs; there are other examples. The antics of the UOC advocates have changed things so we have to throw UOC under the bus for now. That is regrettable, but the damage has been done.

How about we cut those out of the gun community that are morons. Your post would qualify. Since you have no clue when it comes to why some people UOC. I have said it a million times so I guess one more won't hurt. NOT ALL that UOC do so to make a statement. Some of us do so because it is STILL the best chance of self defense. For you to say I am not interested in gun rights is moronic at best. Unless you have become a mind reader which I doubt seriously you would be wrong. And guess what the right to open carry is JUST AS IMPORTANT as the right to CCW. For some CCW is not a viable option and in some situations CCW just doesn't work. So why not fight for the right to be able to CHOOSE which one that the person wants to do instead of whining.

The Nomadd
04-20-2010, 8:22 PM
Done.

Over with.

The UOC folks, miscalculated and there's going to be a price to pay - but let's make this work to our advantage.

How about leveraging the UOC organization to take out an anti-gun legislator?

Lori Saldana is serving her last term in the Assembly due to term limits. Apparently she was running for County Supervisor but dropped out of the race.

Anyone else? How about the guy who came up with the long-gun registration? Let's give his opponent some money? Do a little opposition research, mobilize, get out the vote.

We've 50,000 members. A fifth of them post every day. $5 from each of them is a $50,000 contribution to their campaign.

Saldana's top 5 campaign contributors kicked in $47.7K. That's COMBINED.

Think of what we can do if we put our minds to it. Think of what we can accomplish.

Punish our enemies.

Reward our friends.

Direct legislation.

Make guns in California the "third rail".

Was running for County Supervisor? Thank the gods she dropped out if that was the case. The current bunch of idiots are bad enough.

hoffmang
04-20-2010, 8:30 PM
KylaGWolf,

My dismissive comments were to those posters early in this thread who were being unserious - Kestryll pointed out the issue quite clearly above.

I wish to remind everyone that the only gun organization (including OCDO) that's ever paid the bill to defend UOC or assist in raising money for UOC is CGF.

After we defended the Marine in 7/4/2008 we asked people to not UOC in urban areas. We said that group UOC was better but that that also wasn't the best idea - something I know I said on the phone to Pullnshoot and Grammy at the very least. Ever since one UOCer threatened Ed Worley at a private meeting and then invoked CGF as "going to defend" him, I've been saying that this would only lead to an unstoppable bill.

That it did. When this bill passes it will have really nasty consequences like our not being able to force EPA to train on UOC...

Think about it.

-Gene

artherd
04-20-2010, 8:35 PM
...we weren't out to f***ing piss on anybody. We weren't going, "AHAHAHAA, this will piss off those a-holes at Calguns! WOO HOO!"

Look, I'm with you guys. I'm of the personal opinion that you have an inalienable individual right to LOC a select-fire suppressed MP5.

You just went about securing it the wrong way, and it backfired.

I welcome you, and hope we can learn from this before 'next time'.

-Ben.

turbosbox
04-20-2010, 8:36 PM
...As to some others that have posted about the so called those that open carriers only do so because they have small parts is a low a and obnoxious shot. ...

Yes, it was tough to figure out who said it and why it was posted :rolleyes:
First you have to follow along with the events in the thread, and know what a quotation is...

Edit: maybe havoc's rendition will be more clear to you : http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=292684

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 8:36 PM
KylaGWolf,

My dismissive comments were to those posters early in this thread who were being unserious - Kestryll pointed out the issue quite clearly above.

I wish to remind everyone that the only gun organization (including OCDO) that's ever paid the bill to defend UOC or assist in raising money for UOC is CGF.

After we defended the Marine in 7/4/2008 we asked people to not UOC in urban areas. We said that group UOC was better but that that also wasn't the best idea - something I know I said on the phone to Pullnshoot and Grammy at the very least. Ever since one UOCer threatened Ed Worley at a private meeting and then invoked CGF as "going to defend" him, I've been saying that this would only lead to an unstoppable bill.

That it did. When this bill passes it will have really nasty consequences like our not being able to force EPA to train on UOC...

Think about it.

-Gene

Gene I understand it wasn't directed at me but I just get so frustrated in hearing the UOC guys are just screwing things up. I still hope we can defeat this from ever becoming a bill but I think it is going to take a LOT OF YELLING to do so. I plan on doing my share of it but then again my reason for open carrying isn't the same as others. Although at this rate I don't think any legislator at any level is going to listen to reason at this point.

artherd
04-20-2010, 8:39 PM
Enough is enough !! Whats the NEW game plan...UOC in massive groups or Stand down?

UOC is now a waste of time, not very relevant either way.

You are better off raising awareness of CGN/CGF/NRA/CRPA/SAF in the populace at large and making more money to donate to these orgs - who will be filing a ton of lawsuits in about 6 mos. That's what I'm busy doing.

-Ben.

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 8:43 PM
Artherd I tell everyone I can what a great board CGN is and to come join the fight. Although right now I can't donate any cash because I am struggling to find a job.

heyjak
04-20-2010, 9:53 PM
Thanks to all the "open carry" guys! You flipped the "turd" over and now we all have to eat it!

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 10:00 PM
Thanks to all the "open carry" guys! You flipped the "turd" over and now we all have to eat it!

No not all the open carry "guys". First off I was at the event that Saldana was ranting about. Although I was not open carrying at that event I have done so other times. Oh and we stood down even before Gene had asked. But I think that the recent media attention got Saldana all stirred up again and well now we have to fight this from happening. But right now it would do us more good to all fight together than point fingers saying you did this and you did that.

heyjak
04-20-2010, 10:10 PM
Agreed, we all need to stick together! How about listening to those "in the know" (Gene, et al) and follow their advice , instead of "jumping the gun" and stirring up interest in the wrong arenas?:mad:

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 10:22 PM
Agreed, we all need to stick together! How about listening to those "in the know" (Gene, et al) and follow their advice , instead of "jumping the gun" and stirring up interest in the wrong arenas?:mad:

Um WE DID listen to them heck we even had stood down before it was asked of us. But I digress. And not all that open carry did it for a political statement of OH LOOK AT ME. Some of us have done it as the best chance at self defense since my sheriff seems to think that self defense is NOT a good reason for a CCW permit. When I was attacked by a classmate. I called down to the SO office to find out exactly what I needed to do to get one. I was told point blank don't even bother it will not be approved.

heyjak
04-20-2010, 10:37 PM
So you think that going ahead with "open carry" will get you a permit?

KylaGWolf
04-20-2010, 10:40 PM
So you think that going ahead with "open carry" will get you a permit?

BTW I am a disabled female...and I can't get a permit here for squat. So my best chance of self defense at this point is UOC although I am not doing so because I had agreed to stand down even if it galls me to do so.
Do I honestly think so no. I have a feeling that even IF we get shall issue in this state they are going to basically hamstring it with restrictions.

demnogis
04-20-2010, 10:55 PM
Gene,

You're dismissing those of us who have stepped up and contributed. Don't make the mistake of saying "only". We know CGF has stepped forth in more than one occasion (and there are those of us who have been very grateful), but to say we didn't help pay the bill is untrue. Sure there aren't 50,000 if us with open wallets, but there sure are more than none.

Regardless of us exercising what little amount of the right was left, the legislature in CA is hostile to rights and liberty. They know even post-McDonald and post-reincorporation it is still a lengthy uphill battle.

There is no silver bullet.

I also must insist to stop "placing the blame" on other 2A supporters and drop it squarely on our legislature and organizations hellbent on stripping Our rights. CGN continues to allow a wedge to be slammed between our groups. Open Carry is not an organized foundation, so stop treating the few of us that come here like we can convince the other thousands there to do what you say. We've also asked nicely, but people are people.

A final note... Aside from this one unnamed person, I haven't ever, once, heard someone invoke CGF as their savior for Open Carrying; It's been loudly broadcast far and wide in the last year that CGN denounces all open carry and that CGF will only, maybe, come to the aid of LOC when all specific conditions are met.

Nobody on OCDO has placed that burden of expectation on CGF. But many, many of us do praise and stand behind the legwork that CGF is doing.

Gene, CGF does great work. Don't let CGN slam the door in the face of the rest of us who also give a crap about the full 2A.

KylaGWolf,

My dismissive comments were to those posters early in this thread who were being unserious - Kestryll pointed out the issue quite clearly above.

I wish to remind everyone that the only gun organization (including OCDO) that's ever paid the bill to defend UOC or assist in raising money for UOC is CGF.

After we defended the Marine in 7/4/2008 we asked people to not UOC in urban areas. We said that group UOC was better but that that also wasn't the best idea - something I know I said on the phone to Pullnshoot and Grammy at the very least. Ever since one UOCer threatened Ed Worley at a private meeting and then invoked CGF as "going to defend" him, I've been saying that this would only lead to an unstoppable bill.

That it did. When this bill passes it will have really nasty consequences like our not being able to force EPA to train on UOC...

Think about it.

-Gene

N6ATF
04-20-2010, 11:26 PM
That it did. When this bill passes it will have really nasty consequences like our not being able to force EPA to train on UOC...

Think about it.

I think EPA PD will continue to gleefully employ and defend would-be summary executioners, and when they no longer have one form of the perverted RKBA to threaten to execute their subjects for, they'll move on to the next... having guns in the home (no witnesses, yay!). When you need to "force EPA" to train on warrantless shoot-on-sight raids... it's past time for training... it's time for Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 and 241 citizen's arrests, if the FBI refuses to go after the capital federal criminals.

If you don't want to live under the Sword of Damocles for being a law-abiding gun owner, move the hell out of EPA and stay out of any city or unincorporated area that has a mutual aid agreement with EPA PD.

tenpercentfirearms
04-21-2010, 5:48 AM
Alright, this thing has run its course. Did UOC events aimed at putting our rights in the face of the people probably motivate anti-rights legislators to suddenly do something about it? Yes. Note that despite having UOC on the books for years, it was only with this latest activist use of it that suddenly we have an issue.

However, now it is done. No amount of "told you so" or "look what you did now" is going to change it. Everyone's opinions have been heard.

Now we all have to suck it up and fight this thing. I expect the UOC crowd to learn something from this. Despite having rights, you still must exercise caution in using them. As is clearly evident there are enemies of liberty in this world who will assault your rights. If we didn't have a conservative Supreme Court right now, how screwed would we be?

The reality is that our rights are not as protected as we would like. We should exercise caution in using these rights if we don't want them abused.

Quietly and low key UOC wasn't hurting anyone. People were exercising their rights. Carrying to political rallies and into the heart of the enemy provoked the beast. Now we have to fight her. So let's do it.

Let this be a lesson to us all. You can just as easily lose your rights if you don't use caution in exercising them. Especially here in California. If we lose UOC, how many people that actually relied on it for protection are going to be screwed for how long before we might get it back? And there is no guarantee that we will gain anything either.

That was our mistake. We must look at the bigger picture. We all failed. Let's learn from it and move on now. We need to end the blame game. We know what happened. Let's move on and fight another battle.

Havoc70
04-21-2010, 6:48 AM
KylaGWolf,

My dismissive comments were to those posters early in this thread who were being unserious - Kestryll pointed out the issue quite clearly above.

-Gene

I realize my first post in this thread was flippant, but hopefully my subsequent posts have enabled you to realize I am serious in supporting CGF and taking some of the blame.

Stealth
04-21-2010, 6:58 AM
Focus on what can be done to stop this bill. Let's worry about blame another time and thread.

turbosbox
04-21-2010, 7:45 AM
No, now is not the time to "come together" and drop everything to fight this bill.

It is time to add this one onto the pile of things to be fixed, and prioritize.

I think the anti ammo bill takes higher priority, and concealed carry, OLL and AW and handgun list. I would rather see the .50cal be restored also before open carry. I have to leave it up to Gene et al. to decide which is most efficient to work on first and in what priority. I'm certainly not smart on legal proceedings and how to fix these problems.
Everyone might have a little different set of priorities, but supporting Calguns and NRA will work to get us there.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2010, 8:32 AM
Alright, this thing has run its course. Did UOC events aimed at putting our rights in the face of the people probably motivate anti-rights legislators to suddenly do something about it? Yes. Note that despite having UOC on the books for years, it was only with this latest activist use of it that suddenly we have an issue.

However, now it is done. No amount of "told you so" or "look what you did now" is going to change it. Everyone's opinions have been heard.

Now we all have to suck it up and fight this thing. I expect the UOC crowd to learn something from this. Despite having rights, you still must exercise caution in using them. As is clearly evident there are enemies of liberty in this world who will assault your rights. If we didn't have a conservative Supreme Court right now, how screwed would we be?

The reality is that our rights are not as protected as we would like. We should exercise caution in using these rights if we don't want them abused.

Quietly and low key UOC wasn't hurting anyone. People were exercising their rights. Carrying to political rallies and into the heart of the enemy provoked the beast. Now we have to fight her. So let's do it.

Let this be a lesson to us all. You can just as easily lose your rights if you don't use caution in exercising them. Especially here in California. If we lose UOC, how many people that actually relied on it for protection are going to be screwed for how long before we might get it back? And there is no guarantee that we will gain anything either.

That was our mistake. We must look at the bigger picture. We all failed. Let's learn from it and move on now. We need to end the blame game. We know what happened. Let's move on and fight another battle.

Very well put.

Decoligny
04-21-2010, 9:11 AM
No, now is not the time to "come together" and drop everything to fight this bill.

It is time to add this one onto the pile of things to be fixed, and prioritize.

I think the anti ammo bill takes higher priority, and concealed carry, OLL and AW and handgun list. I would rather see the .50cal be restored also before open carry. I have to leave it up to Gene et al. to decide which is most efficient to work on first and in what priority. I'm certainly not smart on legal proceedings and how to fix these problems.
Everyone might have a little different set of priorities, but supporting Calguns and NRA will work to get us there.

But now is not the time to sit with your thumb fully encased by your sphincter and do nothing while another piece of anti-gun legislation goes through uncontested.

Regardless of what anti-gun legislation is being put forth, or what caused the anti-gun legislation, it needs to be opposed by all gun owners/2A advocates.

I am not talking about long drawn out court cases, or massive fund drives, I am talking about taking the time to write and send an e-mail, or make a phone call.

If this law actually passes, then put it in the pile, set the priorities, and work to overthrow the existing gun laws in whatever order is deemed best by those who are in the know. If Open Carry is last on the list, so be it. But if we don't at least speak up BEFORE it passes, we are by our own silence consenting to the rule of tyranny.

Untamed1972
04-21-2010, 9:44 AM
I also must insist to stop "placing the blame" on other 2A supporters and drop it squarely on our legislature and organizations hellbent on stripping Our rights.


Blaming the actions of our perverted, gun-grabbing, rights hating legislators on open-carriers is akin to blaming an abused child for provoking their abusive parents into beating them.

N6ATF
04-21-2010, 10:10 AM
Or a woman wearing an elegant dress for being raped. Hat tip to marshaul.

Gryff
04-21-2010, 10:20 AM
Or a woman wearing an elegant dress for being raped. Hat tip to marshaul.

I think of it as more akin to wearing a bikini into a biker bar. She didn't deserve to be raped, but she should have known better.

Untamed1972
04-21-2010, 10:23 AM
I can understand where Gene and some other's are coming from when it comes to this just creating more work for them that would likely have been easier had they been able to pick the battlefield on their terms which is why I'm sure they kept asking everyone to stand down. I'd prolly feel the same way if people had just made my job harder too.

But I think it would be much more productive to focus that anger on the legislators.

This still goes back to a question I've long had and asked here many times.....the break down in our system seems to be that our law-makers have the ability to pass new laws at an exponentially greater rate then they can be fought in the courts. It feels like shoveling sand against the tide at times. What is the solution to that? Heck....we have municipalities knowingly thumbing their nose and state preemptions laws and doing what they want anyway. Some say "well vote them out of office", but it seems there needs to be something with more teeth in it. As long as these folks are not held personally accontable for acting in such fashions, there is no disincentive for them to pull this crap. Because the cost of lawsuits just gets footed by the tax-payers anyway.

My feeling is that CA, even after favorable SCOTUS decisions, will just keep making laws to strip our rights even though they know they will lose eventually because they know the law will still hold effect till it can be struck down. Just look at DC and the crap they've pulled following Heller, you can be CA will do the same thing if not worse.

N6ATF
04-21-2010, 10:37 AM
I think of it as more akin to wearing a bikini into a biker bar. She didn't deserve to be raped, but she should have known better.

Keep digging that pit of inhumanity.

Blaming the victim of rape is never acceptable. It is always wrong, wrong, wrong.

It's @#$%ing disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Take your rationalizations, your justifications, and your bull@#$% and shove it all up your ***.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=42142&forum_id=12&jump_to=733444

Untamed1972
04-21-2010, 10:59 AM
I think of it as more akin to wearing a bikini into a biker bar. She didn't deserve to be raped, but she should have known better.

And the abused kid should have known better then to accidentally do something to trigger a beating from his drunken parent right?


I swear some of people are really suffering from "battered citizen syndrome". Take that fight to where it belongs......because beating up on eachother only further serves the anti's agenda.

Start thinking like a free citizen instead of a subject to the elected royalty.

Toolbox X
04-21-2010, 1:33 PM
And the abused kid should have known better then to accidentally do something to trigger a beating from his drunken parent right?

More like provoking the sleeping bear to come out of the cave before your friends with guns are setup and ready to shoot it. Then being surprised when the bear eats you. A little patience, planning and strategy would have made a huge difference.

Untamed1972
04-21-2010, 1:44 PM
More like provoking the sleeping bear to come out of the cave before your friends with guns are setup and ready to shoot it. Then being surprised when the bear eats you. A little patience, planning and strategy would have made a huge difference.


But again......we are talking about law-abiding people who were engaged in a completely lawful activity.

I swear sometimes being on this MB is like listening in on a battered womens support group.


I get the strategy angle and all.....but my point is don't blame the abused......blame the abusers.

What is the point of having something be lawful/legal if the actual practice of the codified legal activity will result the law-makers making it illegal?

That's like saying you have a legal right to freedom of speech until you actually start speaking out. so even though it's legal to speak out don't do it because you might anger the elected royalty and they will them make it illegal. If the mere practice of a legal activity will cause it to be outlawed then it really was never available to you anyway.

HondaMasterTech
04-21-2010, 3:14 PM
Will this legislation make open carry in the National Forest illegal? From what I understand the National Forest lets you do what you want as long as you follow the laws of the state your are in.

artherd
04-21-2010, 4:01 PM
And the abused kid should have known better then to accidentally do something to trigger a beating from his drunken parent right?

This is more like the kid knowing a beating is coming, calling the cops, then going into the house right away instead of waiting 5 min for them to show up because he has a right to use the front door.

Also the kid gets the rest of his class beat up too.

MudCamper
04-21-2010, 4:06 PM
Will this legislation make open carry in the National Forest illegal? From what I understand the National Forest lets you do what you want as long as you follow the laws of the state your are in.

State law still applies in NF, BLM, and NP.

Much of the NF and BLM lands are no shooting areas, like on roads, or within 150 yards of any building, campsite, or developed area. This triggers 12031 which currently means UOC only in these areas.

If this bill passes, you will no longer be able to carry at all in these areas. For all practical purposes it kills carry in the NF and BLM because you won't be able to carry in most of the areas you'll find yourself in most of the time. Yes, you still will be able to carry loaded, out in the middle of nowhere.

This bill also kills carry in all of the National Parks in California (that we just gained).

Maestro Pistolero
04-21-2010, 4:42 PM
WillWould this legislation make open carry in the National Forest illegal?

IT HASN"T BEEN PASSED YET!

wildhawker
04-21-2010, 5:23 PM
Are you asserting that it won't? If so, what force of politics will counteract the momentum and support this bill has?

WillWould this legislation make open carry in the National Forest illegal?

IT HASN"T BEEN PASSED YET!

HondaMasterTech
04-21-2010, 5:31 PM
WillWould this legislation make open carry in the National Forest illegal?

IT HASN"T BEEN PASSED YET!

Really? I thought it had. :rolleyes:

So, WOULD it?

HondaMasterTech
04-21-2010, 5:35 PM
... snip....
If this bill passes, you will no longer be able to carry at all in these areas. For all practical purposes it kills carry in the NF and BLM because you won't be able to carry in most of the areas you'll find yourself in most of the time. Yes, you still will be able to carry loaded, out in the middle of nowhere.



How is anywhere in the National Forest not in the middle of nowhere? I don't exactly understand your answer.

GrizzlyGuy
04-21-2010, 7:40 PM
How is anywhere in the National Forest not in the middle of nowhere? I don't exactly understand your answer.

You can camp virtually anywhere in a National Forest, including in the middle of nowhere. If you are within 150 yards of such a campsite, whether you know it or not, discharge is prohibited per the federal forest service regulations (http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title36/36-2.0.1.1.18.1.29.12.html). That triggers the "prohibited area" language in 12031 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12031.html), and you cannot carry a firearm loaded (now) or a handgun loaded or unloaded (after this bill passes and is signed into law).

HondaMasterTech
04-21-2010, 9:51 PM
Why can a person not carry a firearm loaded now? Are you stating that meaning within the restricted area ( 150 yard etc ) or in the National Forest period? If I can't roam around the National Forest with the ability to protect myself and my family from various things that might want to eat me or play with me that's stupid.

Mendo223
04-22-2010, 12:55 AM
UOC really makes gun owners look bad to the liberals, mostly because the antis are all ignorant sheeple who see some white guy on the news with open carry and a cowboy hat, and they automatically assume all gun owners are the same. You can yell at a liberal until you are red in the face about rights, the safety of UOC, how UOC may stop crime, but at the end of they day the still will think we are all right wing loonies.

at the same time this infighting looks extremely childish, and the way the mods responded seems to be wrong.

we need to unite in killing this legislation. we more political awareness on votes, polls, and emails to the right people.

we should make a bunch of stickies telling visitors who to vote for in november to oust these anti gun SOBs...

JDay
04-22-2010, 1:29 AM
What I don't get is why all the people complaining about this bill are people who don't UOC in the first place. They also don't realize that this will pretty much guarantee we get shall issue after McDonald v. Chicago is decided favorably.

marshaul
04-22-2010, 4:00 AM
I also must insist to stop "placing the blame" on other 2A supporters and drop it squarely on our legislature and organizations hellbent on stripping Our rights. CGN continues to allow a wedge to be slammed between our groups. Open Carry is not an organized foundation, so stop treating the few of us that come here like we can convince the other thousands there to do what you say. We've also asked nicely, but people are people.

+∞

Needs to be said.

tenpercentfirearms
04-22-2010, 5:29 AM
I thought this thread was done. There are no guarantees. Those of you who think this is going to get us anywhere have no way to predict the future. We still don't know what kind of "reasonable" restrictions the Supreme Court is going to "allow". There is nothing that says we are going to get shall issue out of this.

Further, everyone keeps talking about how this is dividing us. This isn't dividing anyone. All of us are still committed to taking it to the antis just as much as we ever were. Despite the possibility that we might have some new restrictions on how we can carry our firearms, I am not going to stop doing what I do in regards to the 2nd Amendment. I am not going to stop anything.

There is no wedge.

Everyone just needs to step away from the keyboard and move on. This bill sucks, but it isn't the end of the world. We have to fight it now. So yeah, there it is, let's move on. UOCers know they screwed the pooch. Get over it. People are going to blame the UOCers. Get over it. Everyone should now be over all of this and moving on.

We have work to do.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-22-2010, 7:17 AM
Are you asserting that it won't? If so, what force of politics will counteract the momentum and support this bill has?


Well, the whole point of the events was to raise awareness, etc among the populace. This has worked. It can no longer be said that 'everyone' freaks at the sight of citizens with guns on their hips. It can't even be said that the majority of people do so. The reason the movement is growing is because more & more people are coming over to our side. Which leads me to....

"Force of politics" is NUMBERS. If OLLs owners were few & scattered, then rolling them all up would be a piece of cake for the grabbers, wouldn't it? But the numbers of those with them put a stop to the grabber's efforts, didn't it? So it is with UOC. The events haven't put an unnecessary chore before you. They've presented an opportunity to flex our muscles.


That's like saying you have a legal right to freedom of speech until you actually start speaking out. so even though it's legal to speak out don't do it because you might anger the elected royalty and they will them make it illegal. If the mere practice of a legal activity will cause it to be outlawed then it really was never available to you anyway.


Simple & true.


This is more like the kid knowing a beating is coming, calling the cops, then going into the house right away instead of waiting 5 min for them to show up because he has a right to use the front door.

Also the kid gets the rest of his class beat up too.


Which is still blaming the victim. Which is still wrong.


Yes, my first response in this thread was flippant. But, that has changed. So let continue to be serious & point out again that the CGF approach to open carry wouldn't have given us open carry in any event. Open Carry in the PRK (as a right) will only happen if SCOTUS makes it the Minimal Constitutional Standard.

Also, the CGF approach to UOC was flawed also. It was like King Canute commanding the tide to not come in. The command to stop worked with me, Kyla G & others here, but had zero effect on the vast majority of UOCers (because they're not here). Instead of working to somehow take advantage of this predictable event, they kept repeating the command for the tide to stop. Which it didn't. And now they want to blame the tide instead of taking advantage of it.

Their call, of course. But I say that we should grab our surfboards, shout KOWABUNGA!!! & ride the tide.


The Raisuli

MudCamper
04-22-2010, 8:06 AM
How is anywhere in the National Forest not in the middle of nowhere? I don't exactly understand your answer.

The bill will ban carry in "prohibited areas of unincorporated territory". This is defined as anywhere shooting is prohibited. In the National Forests and BLM that is on any roads, or within 150 yards of any building, campsite, or developed area. So if you are within those areas you cannot carry. I go to the National Forest a lot. But most of my time there fits into that category, even though I may be miles from anyone. If you are hiking, you likely get out of prohibited areas, but otherwise you typically do not.

TWoods450
04-22-2010, 8:11 AM
in the bill is
(j) For purposes of Section 12023, a firearm shall be deemed to be
"loaded" whenever both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition
capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate
possession of the same person.

I'm not a lawyer or politician, but this seems to say if you have a gun AND Ammo the gun is by default loaded... WTF?! I hope I'm reading this wrong. I know there is outstanding case law that says different but with this going into effect AFTER the prior case the previous case would have no effect on future rulings correct?

Also in reading this bill it looks like the transportation firearm have been modified to only allow transport directly to and from specific locations, including residence, gun shop, gun show, range, camping ground, etc.

FLIGHT762
04-22-2010, 8:54 AM
in the bill is


I'm not a lawyer or politician, but this seems to say if you have a gun AND Ammo the gun is by default loaded... WTF?! I hope I'm reading this wrong. I know there is outstanding case law that says different but with this going into effect AFTER the prior case the previous case would have no effect on future rulings correct?

Also in reading this bill it looks like the transportation firearm have been modified to only allow transport directly to and from specific locations, including residence, gun shop, gun show, range, camping ground, etc.


If this is true, we'll have to keep the ammunition and firearm separated while transporting. This "immediate possession"(within reach, in a separate container, locked container, not in the passenger compartment) is ambiguous and needs clarification. This can be interpreted several ways.

I don't want this bill to pass, but if it does, there needs to be better clarification. If it is up to LEO's, there will be many different interpretations as to how the ammunition can be legally carried.

Another headache for law abiding gun owners.

Decoligny
04-22-2010, 9:01 AM
in the bill is


I'm not a lawyer or politician, but this seems to say if you have a gun AND Ammo the gun is by default loaded... WTF?! I hope I'm reading this wrong. I know there is outstanding case law that says different but with this going into effect AFTER the prior case the previous case would have no effect on future rulings correct?

Also in reading this bill it looks like the transportation firearm have been modified to only allow transport directly to and from specific locations, including residence, gun shop, gun show, range, camping ground, etc.

Case Law is used to further clarify the meaning of an existing law. If they change the law, then the previous Case Law no longer applies.

GrizzlyGuy
04-22-2010, 9:02 AM
Why can a person not carry a firearm loaded now? Are you stating that meaning within the restricted area ( 150 yard etc ) or in the National Forest period? If I can't roam around the National Forest with the ability to protect myself and my family from various things that might want to eat me or play with me that's stupid.

You can carry loaded in a National Forest now, and after this bill is signed into law, if you are not in an area of the National Forest where discharge is prohibited. Being within 150 yards of a campsite is only one of the situations when discharge is prohibited. There are more, read the forest service regulations (http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title36/36-2.0.1.1.18.1.29.12.html) or MudCamper's excellent Firearms in Forests and Parks thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457) for more info.

A real-life example: One day I rode my ATV out to one of my favorite long-range shooting spots in the National Forest. I unpacked my gear and was about ready to start the real long hike out across the real big meadow to put up my target a real long way away.

It occurred to me that I hadn't yet checked for campsites on this particular day, other than the usual eyeball scan as I rode in. I hiked through the trees in a circular "search pattern" and found one in the trees within 150 yards of where I was going to shoot. No one was there, just their gear, but it was obviously a current campsite.

This meant that I had to pack back up and move. Had I loaded the rifle I would have been violating 12031. Had I fired, I would have been violating both 12031 and their forest service regulations (and maybe even some state statute related to discharge, dunno).

wildhawker
04-22-2010, 9:20 AM
Mulay, if your numbers are relevant then you can positively assert the OC community can have some effect on this bill's passage?

At least we're beginning to acknowledge that we do not have any real carry (or 2A) rights at present.

There's a difference between justifying the abuse by blaming the victim and a victim being accountable for voluntary actions which exacerbate the abuse. Can anyone find me a shelter which recommends the abused mouth off to the abuser in front of his friends (one of which happens to be Sheriff Jim Bob, who was co-captain of the football team and the town hero)?

It's perplexing to sock away money and a bus ride to freedom for the great escape only to telegraph your intentions while mocking the guy with a bad temper and a Louisville slugger.

BigJim_610
04-22-2010, 9:22 AM
And everyone knows if this bill gets to the gov's desk he will sign it just like the ammo bill.

Maestro Pistolero
04-22-2010, 9:53 AM
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Are you asserting that it won't? If so, what force of politics will counteract the momentum and support this bill has?No. What I'm saying is I have never before seen CGNrs roll over and play dead, or simply acquiesce to legislation that is only proposed. The dialog here often sounds as if this is a foregone conclusion. Maybe it is, but thank God we didn't take that same defeatist approach with OLLs, and other BS legislation. What has happened here?

wildhawker
04-22-2010, 10:25 AM
An entirely different dynamic and issue from OLLs. Why make inaccurate comparisons?

CGN members can and should take action; there are even supported vehicles to get involved. Note that everyone isn't busting down the door to do real work. There's a lot of truth to the saying that it's 1% that does 100% of the work.

MudCamper
04-22-2010, 10:40 AM
in the bill is


I'm not a lawyer or politician, but this seems to say if you have a gun AND Ammo the gun is by default loaded... WTF?! I hope I'm reading this wrong. I know there is outstanding case law that says different but with this going into effect AFTER the prior case the previous case would have no effect on future rulings correct?

NO. Read what you cited. It says, "For purposes of Section 12023". That means what it says. For purposes of 12023 possessing ammo and a firearm equals a loaded firearm. This has always been the case. 12023 is carrying with the intent to commit a felony. This has NOTHING to do with us (unless you are planning to commit a felony? Are you?)

Also in reading this bill it looks like the transportation firearm have been modified to only allow transport directly to and from specific locations, including residence, gun shop, gun show, range, camping ground, etc.

I do not share this opinion. The transport exemption confusion for concealed handguns have not been changed.

Falstaff
04-22-2010, 12:03 PM
It's actually the Black Panther's fault! They ruined the LOC for us in what was it, 68?

For those that arent aware, the Black Panther's (a fraternal organization similar to the Women's Christian Temperance Society..) Marched into the state capitol bearing loaded arms...

You think the white UOC'ers scared the politburo? Black people marching on the capitol with loaded guns scared the crap outta them! I betcha the LOC ban was one of the fastest enacted pieces of legislation in state history.....

bomb_on_bus
04-22-2010, 6:36 PM
i wonder if it had to do with anything about all the UOC going on at starbucks which if i remember right is a sanctuary of liberal ideals......................I wonder how long it took at those cafinated freedom haters to call up their local representatives to get this bill drawn up and then pass a committee vote.


its like being the first kid owning an ipod on the block who then goes out and shows it off to everyone............. then loose it when all those kids gang up and take it from you. funny how politics can be compaired to childish antics.

pullnshoot25
04-22-2010, 7:42 PM
It's actually the Black Panther's fault! They ruined the LOC for us in what was it, 68?

For those that arent aware, the Black Panther's (a fraternal organization similar to the Women's Christian Temperance Society..) Marched into the state capitol bearing loaded arms...

You think the white UOC'ers scared the politburo? Black people marching on the capitol with loaded guns scared the crap outta them! I betcha the LOC ban was one of the fastest enacted pieces of legislation in state history.....

You have to be ****ing kidding me.

Your cerebellar cogs need some Kroil.

trashman
04-22-2010, 8:04 PM
The events haven't put an unnecessary chore before you. They've presented an opportunity to flex our muscles.


The smarter thing was to not pick a fight over UOC because the gains in 'awareness' can't outweigh the cost in the present. Those of use who saw the reality in Sacramento understood this, and said so, to no avail. But if I recall the endless debates about the topic, you simply refused to acknowledge a downside. Sounds like you still don't.

But whatever -- blah, blah, blah, - UOC will be dead in CA soon, and with that will come some new restrictions in Natl Forests and BLM. I accepted the fact when you and others continued to cheerlead the UOC folks on months and months ago. There was an awful lot of gleeful "hey we can't stop this now, it's bigger than just us" in discussions about UOC.

What worries me now is the potentially toxic crossover, nationally, into non-RKBA topics in this country. I know how strongly folks feel about Obama, and his policies, but folks: bringing guns to political debates not related to RKBA is going to really hurt us.

--Neill

N6ATF
04-22-2010, 9:03 PM
The reality in Sacramento is that they are on a lifelong quest to completely disarm law-abiding people, and if you think they will stop at your front door, you're in for a rude awakening.

trashman
04-22-2010, 9:16 PM
The reality in Sacramento is that they are on a lifelong quest to completely disarm law-abiding people, and if you think they will not stop at your front door, you're in for a rude awakening.

That doesn't really change anything, though, does it?

--Neill

wildhawker
04-22-2010, 9:18 PM
The reality in Sacramento is that they are on a lifelong quest to completely disarm law-abiding people, and if you think they will stop at your front door, you're in for a rude awakening.

Of course, which is why you mitigate exposure and strike from higher ground when the advantage is yours.

Edited as requested.

nn3453
04-22-2010, 9:50 PM
The smarter thing was to not pick a fight over UOC because the gains in 'awareness' can't outweigh the cost in the present. Those of use who saw the reality in Sacramento understood this, and said so, to no avail. But if I recall the endless debates about the topic, you simply refused to acknowledge a downside. Sounds like you still don't.

But whatever -- blah, blah, blah, - UOC will be dead in CA soon, and with that will come some new restrictions in Natl Forests and BLM. I accepted the fact when you and others continued to cheerlead the UOC folks on months and months ago. There was an awful lot of gleeful "hey we can't stop this now, it's bigger than just us" in discussions about UOC.

What worries me now is the potentially toxic crossover, nationally, into non-RKBA topics in this country. I know how strongly folks feel about Obama, and his policies, but folks: bringing guns to political debates not related to RKBA is going to really hurt us.

--Neill

Couldn't agree more.

N6ATF
04-22-2010, 11:53 PM
That doesn't really change anything, though, does it?

--Neill

Of course, which is why you mitigate exposure and strike from higher ground when the advantage is yours.

Can you guys reset my quote? The word 'not' made it in there by accident. :kest:

Mulay El Raisuli
04-23-2010, 7:23 AM
Mulay, if your numbers are relevant then you can positively assert the OC community can have some effect on this bill's passage?


"Positively" assert? No, I can't "positively" do so. I don't have a crystal ball. What makes you think I do? But, when Starbucks looked at the issue, they made a decision to go with the 2A. NOT because they're great supporters of the Const., but as a business decision. Because their look at the numbers told them that they'd get more customers that way. When you were doing your King Canute impression, did you look at the numbers? Did CGF? WHY are you so very sure that this is a losing issue?

Clarification please: are you asking if the "UOC community" should take up the effort?


At least we're beginning to acknowledge that we do not have any real carry (or 2A) rights at present.


Its not a "beginning" for me as I have always acknowledged this. Which is why I favor that efforts be made to get us this.


There's a difference between justifying the abuse by blaming the victim and a victim being accountable for voluntary actions which exacerbate the abuse. Can anyone find me a shelter which recommends the abused mouth off to the abuser in front of his friends (one of which happens to be Sheriff Jim Bob, who was co-captain of the football team and the town hero)?


Actually, there isn't. Its still a matter of do you knuckle under to a bully, or do you stand up for yourself?


It's perplexing to sock away money and a bus ride to freedom for the great escape only to telegraph your intentions while mocking the guy with a bad temper and a Louisville slugger.


If that were the intent of the UOC events, you'd (maybe) have something. But (again) the intent of the UOC events was to raise awareness. Which (also, again) has succeeded.


No. What I'm saying is I have never before seen CGNrs roll over and play dead, or simply acquiesce to legislation that is only proposed. The dialog here often sounds as if this is a foregone conclusion. Maybe it is, but thank God we didn't take that same defeatist approach with OLLs, and other BS legislation. What has happened here?


That's what I keep wondering. There really isn't a difference between this & the OLL issue. I'm going to suggest the heresy that maybe unrestricted LOC isn't really desired?


The smarter thing was to not pick a fight over UOC because the gains in 'awareness' can't outweigh the cost in the present. Those of use who saw the reality in Sacramento understood this, and said so, to no avail. But if I recall the endless debates about the topic, you simply refused to acknowledge a downside. Sounds like you still don't.


Your recall is flawed. Do I realize that there could be a downside? Sure. I never said anything to the contrary (unless you have an example of where I did). But, things won't change as long as we allow the current "reality" to go unchallenged. Which matters to ALL aspects of the fight. For no matter what 2A issue you're going to fight for in the PRK, noise about the Const., etc just ain't gonna carry a lot of weight. Pointing to numbers might. And the UOC events have changed the numbers.


But whatever -- blah, blah, blah, - UOC will be dead in CA soon, and with that will come some new restrictions in Natl Forests and BLM. I accepted the fact when you and others continued to cheerlead the UOC folks on months and months ago. There was an awful lot of gleeful "hey we can't stop this now, it's bigger than just us" in discussions about UOC.


You mischaracterize things. What I pointed out was that the events were going to happen anyway, & that since that was (and is) realty, imitating King Canute wasn't really a positive approach. It still isn't.


What worries me now is the potentially toxic crossover, nationally, into non-RKBA topics in this country. I know how strongly folks feel about Obama, and his policies, but folks: bringing guns to political debates not related to RKBA is going to really hurt us.--Neill


And if I had suggested that bringing guns to non-RKBA political events was a good idea, your criticism would be well aimed. But, as it happens, I never suggested or supported that either, so it isn't.


The reality in Sacramento is that they are on a lifelong quest to completely disarm law-abiding people, and if you think they will stop at your front door, you're in for a rude awakening.


This IS reality. And since this IS reality, building a wedge between gunnies only plays into the grabbers hands. So, why are so many here so very happy to build that wedge?


The Raisuli

TatankaGap
04-23-2010, 8:17 AM
Oh, I thought someone was going to be serious about generating an anti-gun bill that everyone was told would be the outcome.

Apparently serious is not what those who wish to UOC are.

-Gene

Same could have been said when those Negro counter sitters were mucking things up for all those anti-Jim Crow laws - got uppity and just went out an exercised their rights. The nerve!

All that exercising of rights brought attention to the oppression and led to back and forth in the legislature that is ultimately resolved in the courts (then, Brown v Bd of Ed; now, McDonald v Chicago) -

Telling people to not UOC for fear of more unconstitutional laws is like telling people to not speak out on their First Amendment rights for fear of laws censoring them -

Meanwhile, if all those counter-sitters had honored a 'stand down', they'd still be at the 'back of the bus...." -

Maybe instead of griping, y'all can get a grip. :rolleyes:

That's why they call it 'The Struggle' for Civil Rights - cause it ain't easy -

In the case of 2A Civil Rights, there's never been a more powerful political base than right now - with Governor's races and Sheriffs and DAs races everywhere this year, how can CalGunners fail to make this an election year issue?

Gryff
04-23-2010, 8:32 AM
This IS reality. And since this IS reality, building a wedge between gunnies only plays into the grabbers hands. So, why are so many here so very happy to build that wedge?

The question is, "Who created the wedge?" The told-you-so crowd (like me) who are chiming in here, or the UOC crowd who a) didn't listen to good advice, or b) were just too naive/selfish/stubborn/whatever to not think it through before poking a stick in the bear's eye?

I think the UOCers described above (which does not include those who did listen and stood down in the name of the bigger picture), need to just say "Mea culpa," take the hit they rightfully deserve, and then expect the rest of us to get over it.

Liberty1
04-23-2010, 8:37 AM
I would suggest the following: Let's ostracize the UOC advocates, and no longer consider them part of the gun rights community. Their actions have demonstrated that they are either not smart enough to be of any assistance, or that they are not interested in gun rights but in personal aggrandizement. Let's instead continue the fight for real gun rights issues; a few California-specific examples are the AWB, the handgun roster, and shall-issue CCWs; there are other examples. The antics of the UOC advocates have changed things so we have to throw UOC under the bus for now. That is regrettable, but the damage has been done.


OLL advocacy results in long arm registration bill...

I think us hunters need to ostracize the OLL advocates, and no longer consider them part of the gun rights community for bring this down on us. Their actions have demonstrated that they are either not smart enough to be of any assistance, or that they are not interested in gun rights but in personal aggrandizement. After all normal rifles have the same ability without the 'evil' look & unneeded high cap magazines, which scares the public and has no real self defense or sporting purpose...

see where this attitude takes us...
:rolleyes:

Liberty1
04-23-2010, 8:53 AM
The question is, "Who created the wedge?"

Free access to information and communication created the wedge. Those of us who started this UOC did so before "Heller" (Parker at the time) was commonly known to exist.

By the time Gene had convinced most of us to stand down the information was out there and starting to get press (last summer). Although many attempted to stop this "snow ball effect" it was already on it's way down a steep hill.

Many who gravitated to UOC over the past 6 months have had little or no information on the 'stand down' and little connection to CGN/CGF. Some who did come here were hit with vitriol and not persuasion by others and any message which had meaning was missed, not comprehended, or rejected.

UOC is also a low tech, decentralized movement with undetermined leadership if any with greatly varying levels of political savines; very hard to control and limit.

Liberty1
04-23-2010, 8:58 AM
need to just say "Mea culpa," take the hit they rightfully deserve, and then expect the rest of us to get over it.

"They" are not on CGN generally. The "I told you" crowd is pissing on "the choir". :p

Gryff
04-23-2010, 9:03 AM
Free access to information and communication created the wedge. Those of us who started this UOC did so before "Heller" (Parker at the time) was commonly known to exist.

By the time Gene had convinced most of us to stand down the information was out there and starting to get press (last summer). Although many attempted to stop this "snow ball effect" it was already on it's way down a steep hill.

Many who gravitated to UOC over the past 6 months have had little or no information on the 'stand down' and little connection to CGN/CGF. Some who did come here were hit with vitriol and not persuasion by others and any message which had meaning was missed, not comprehended, or rejected.

UOC is also a low tech, decentralized movement with undetermined leadership if any with greatly varying levels of political savines; very hard to control and limit.

Interesting then how they arranged for 60-80 of them to get together in Walnut Creek several weeks back.

Maestro Pistolero
04-23-2010, 9:04 AM
The apparent willingness to accept this bill without a fight is weak and spineless. Publicly talking about acquiescing to it in advance of it being law only encourages the people propagating it. Snap out of it, folks! This is calguns, is it not?

Liberty1
04-23-2010, 9:12 AM
Interesting then how they arranged for 60-80 of them to get together in Walnut Creek several weeks back.

In addition to the web there was pre-event media (afaik). Many people were showing up for the first time. And there are now more web meet up sites then just CGN & OCDO. If we were to cast stones I could pick out less then half a dozen individuals who were contacted via PM (not here) but did not agree with the message. That is the consequence of the spread of information. Not everyone will agree and it can't be controlled. It is a double edge sword.

Can a lesson be learned? Yes, but again there will be others who come later who will exercise what will then be legal.

What we need is to channel the tremendous energy possessed by those inclined to UOC into a productive activity which appeals to their (mine too) activist interests.

N6ATF
04-23-2010, 9:34 AM
Interesting then how they arranged for 60-80 of them to get together in Walnut Creek several weeks back.

No more than a dozen people have ever gotten together for the purpose of civil rights advocacy before the internet. :nono:

http://www.ncpc.gov/Images/Album_AmericasFrontYard/AFY/images/AFY_Mall_jpg.jpg

kcbrown
04-23-2010, 10:07 AM
The question is, "Who created the wedge?" The told-you-so crowd (like me) who are chiming in here, or the UOC crowd who a) didn't listen to good advice, or b) were just too naive/selfish/stubborn/whatever to not think it through before poking a stick in the bear's eye?


I and (apparently) some others are skeptical of that "good advice". As I asked before (multiple times, actually) without anyone giving any compelling answers (original here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4157279&postcount=115)): OK, so please answer me this one: how is it that you cannot challenge this law in court once McDonald has been decided whereas you could challenge the very same law in court if only it had been passed after McDonald?

How does the timing of passage make any difference whatsoever to the efficacy of the arguments used when the timing of the challenge is the same?

Or are you assuming that the CA legislature wouldn't bother passing such legislation after McDonald? If so, see above.

I have never seen a good answer to this question. Every time I ask it, it is ignored, or someone says "oh, we'll just get a preliminary injunction against it" as if doing that doesn't require getting judicial buy-in on exactly the same arguments as would getting it struck down in the first place...


All of which is to say, how is this a difference of substance and not simply of expense?
In the face of the above, I see no compelling reason to believe that UOC after McDonald would be any safer than UOC before McDonald. The same law would be passed, and the same law would have to be challenged. The "preliminary injunction" thing is the only real difference, and nobody has been able to explain why the arguments used to argue for such an injunction would not be equally effective in front of the same judges when used to argue that the law should be struck down.

And as a result, the same people who are b*tching how the UOCers ruined open carry now would be b*tching in exactly the same way if the law we see before us today were instead proposed after McDonald.


I'm all for buying time, but if the gurus here are going to insist that they need the UOCers to stand down for a period of time, they should at least be completely truthful about how much time they really need them to stand down for: years, not months.

N6ATF
04-23-2010, 10:22 AM
Or decades, not years. Upcoming legislation: LUCC ban. We already know the 4A can be violated without any real consequence, if the victim is a law-abiding gun owner. :toetap05:

KylaGWolf
04-23-2010, 11:41 AM
It's actually the Black Panther's fault! They ruined the LOC for us in what was it, 68?

For those that arent aware, the Black Panther's (a fraternal organization similar to the Women's Christian Temperance Society..) Marched into the state capitol bearing loaded arms...

You think the white UOC'ers scared the politburo? Black people marching on the capitol with loaded guns scared the crap outta them! I betcha the LOC ban was one of the fastest enacted pieces of legislation in state history.....

No the LEGISLATORS ruined open carry in 68. Their excuse was the black panthers.

KylaGWolf
04-23-2010, 11:56 AM
The question is, "Who created the wedge?" The told-you-so crowd (like me) who are chiming in here, or the UOC crowd who a) didn't listen to good advice, or b) were just too naive/selfish/stubborn/whatever to not think it through before poking a stick in the bear's eye?

I think the UOCers described above (which does not include those who did listen and stood down in the name of the bigger picture), need to just say "Mea culpa," take the hit they rightfully deserve, and then expect the rest of us to get over it.

Gryff and some would say those that are so anti UOC that they take every chance they can to whine and complain. Others would say it is UOC that is doing all the growling on the issue.

Now the way I look at it BOTH SIDES have done their fair share of driving the wedge. Not all that UOC disregarded the stand down. Not all UOC did so to make a political statement either but that seems to get lost in all the damn finger pointing by both sides. While I know there may never be a "happy we all agree moment" between both sides I sure as hell wish that both sides would grow the hell up and act like the adults they claim to be. No matter how many times those of us that stood down asked for others to do so we were told point blank NO and FU and worse.

As much as I love Calguns and helping fight the fight there are times I come on here and feel like I have walked in to romper room when there is all the bickering like a bunch of three year-olds.

Yes I will admit that maybe UOC did cause some problems. And yes I will take my fair share of the blame...even if I didn't carry nearly as much as I wanted to due to well its a bit hard to do when in a dress without looking really funky. :) But I also have to agree there may be more to it than UOC alone. We all know that our state legislators seem to think those of us here in California are brainless and can't figure out how to defend ourselves and want us to be sheep to rely on them to protect us.

So even if those that think that UOC or even LOC is not the best option why not fight for all the rights we can. While yes I think CCW is a good thing it is not always the best option for me. I want the choice to choose for each situation which is better for me. Why not fight getting rid of the anti-2a legislators out of office. I do my share of that by working with Calguns and being a member of the NRA. I also make sure to talk to my friends and family to do the same in getting the word out.

KylaGWolf
04-23-2010, 12:00 PM
Interesting then how they arranged for 60-80 of them to get together in Walnut Creek several weeks back.

Those were not people from CGN more than likely they were from OCDO and well over there they seem to think the stand down request was stupid and should be ignored. Thing is even though many of us that go to both sites said stand down and were told FU and many other things. Because of that I pretty much decided to stay away from there and spend my time on CGN where I could at least attempt to help 2A rights in this state.

marshaul
04-23-2010, 1:04 PM
There's a difference between justifying the abuse by blaming the victim and a victim being accountable for voluntary actions which exacerbate the abuse.

You are so full of it.

So, if some guy is talking **** to a gun carrier, and the carrier decides to shoot the ****-talker. Is the second guy going to be held accountable for talking ****?

You can't get any more ridiculous than your post just did.

What if someone decides they don't like some guy's hair style, and they decide to kill him for that? Should we hold the victim accountable for having hair which exacerbated the desire to kill?

What if two gays are holding hands in San Francisco, and a couple of Muslims come by and beat them to death? Should we hold the gays accountable for incurring righteous wrath in the muslims?

Someone out there is likely to take murderous offense at just about anything. Let's start holding the victims accountable!!!!

The discouraging part is that you probably don't see how absurd your position is. You're probably going to try to come up with more examples of innocent children assaulted by schoolyard bullies after they refused to sufficiently acquiesce to the bullies' will, thinking you're providing examples of behavior which ought to be criticized on the grounds of the violent response it incurred. :rolleyes:

wildhawker
04-23-2010, 1:28 PM
If you're dead, does it matter if you're right?

You completely misunderstood what I wrote with regard to victimization and outcomes.

One must be aware and accepting of real life transactional byproducts regardless if they are morally supportable/desirable or not.

Do you really think I'm making a case for violence and suppression of rights?

There's an important contextual difference between an openly gay couple in the cultural environment of San Francisco and an openly gay couple flying into Theran and proceeding to march through the streets wearing assless chaps and make out at red lights. Note that I would argue all of the above parties are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... but I would venture a guess that, in reality, only 2 of the 4 survive. That's not acceptable to me, but it is the world in which we live.

We ignore reality at our peril.

-Brandon

You are so full of it.

So, if some guy is talking **** to a gun carrier, and the carrier decides to shoot the ****-talker. Is the second guy going to be held accountable for talking ****?

You can't get any more ridiculous than your post just did.

What if someone decides they don't like some guy's hair style, and they decide to kill him for that? Should we hold the victim accountable for having hair which exacerbated the desire to kill?

What if two gays are holding hands in San Francisco, and a couple of Muslims come by and beat them to death? Should we hold the gays accountable for incurring righteous wrath in the muslims?

Someone out there is likely to take murderous offense at just about anything. Let's start holding the victims accountable!!!!

The discouraging part is that you probably don't see how absurd your position is. You're probably going to try to come up with more examples of innocent children assaulted by schoolyard bullies after they refused to sufficiently acquiesce to the bullies' will, thinking you're providing examples of behavior which ought to be criticized on the grounds of the violent response it incurred. :rolleyes:

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 2:05 PM
I and (apparently) some others are skeptical of that "good advice". As I asked before (multiple times, actually) without anyone giving any compelling answers (original here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4157279&postcount=115)): OK, so please answer me this one: how is it that you cannot challenge this law in court once McDonald has been decided whereas you could challenge the very same law in court if only it had been passed after McDonald?

How does the timing of passage make any difference whatsoever to the efficacy of the arguments used when the timing of the challenge is the same?

Or are you assuming that the CA legislature wouldn't bother passing such legislation after McDonald? If so, see above.

I have never seen a good answer to this question. Every time I ask it, it is ignored, or someone says "oh, we'll just get a preliminary injunction against it" as if doing that doesn't require getting judicial buy-in on exactly the same arguments as would getting it struck down in the first place...


All of which is to say, how is this a difference of substance and not simply of expense?
In the face of the above, I see no compelling reason to believe that UOC after McDonald would be any safer than UOC before McDonald. The same law would be passed, and the same law would have to be challenged. The "preliminary injunction" thing is the only real difference, and nobody has been able to explain why the arguments used to argue for such an injunction would not be equally effective in front of the same judges when used to argue that the law should be struck down.

And as a result, the same people who are b*tching how the UOCers ruined open carry now would be b*tching in exactly the same way if the law we see before us today were instead proposed after McDonald.


I'm all for buying time, but if the gurus here are going to insist that they need the UOCers to stand down for a period of time, they should at least be completely truthful about how much time they really need them to stand down for: years, not months.


I would say that one difference would that if the passes NOW, then you cannot carry UNTIL the law is successfully struck down. After McD an injuction could be sought with would allow people to still carry WHILE the law was being challenged in court.

Other then that....yes the fight would still be the same.....but if this law passes that means everyone is restricted until it can be struck down which could take years.

kcbrown
04-23-2010, 2:50 PM
I would say that one difference would that if the passes NOW, then you cannot carry UNTIL the law is successfully struck down. After McD an injuction could be sought with would allow people to still carry WHILE the law was being challenged in court.

Other then that....yes the fight would still be the same.....but if this law passes that means everyone is restricted until it can be struck down which could take years.

So a motion for a preliminary injunction can be filed and be considered immediately in a federal court whereas suing in the very same federal court to have the very same law overturned after the fact could take years?

Can one not file a motion for a preliminary injunction against an already-passed law? If the precedent favors 2A, aren't the chances that such an injunction would be granted about the same as they would be for a preliminary injunction against a law that hasn't even been passed yet?

How does one even obtain standing to file a motion for a preliminary injunction against a law that hasn't been passed yet?

Mulay El Raisuli
04-24-2010, 6:47 AM
"They" are not on CGN generally. The "I told you" crowd is pissing on "the choir". :p


Which is making me feel all warm & fuzzy.


What we need is to channel the tremendous energy possessed by those inclined to UOC into a productive activity which appeals to their (mine too) activist interests.


That would have been nice. Instead of what has been done.


The question is, "Who created the wedge?" The told-you-so crowd (like me) who are chiming in here, or the UOC crowd who a) didn't listen to good advice, or b) were just too naive/selfish/stubborn/whatever to not think it through before poking a stick in the bear's eye?

I think the UOCers described above (which does not include those who did listen and stood down in the name of the bigger picture), need to just say "Mea culpa," take the hit they rightfully deserve, and then expect the rest of us to get over it.


The problem here is that it presumes that the advice given was actually good. It ignores all the good things that the UOC events have brought us. Finally (and again) sitting back, saying "I told you so" & doing nothing accomplishes nothing good. IOW, it was known that these events were going to happen. Actions could have been taken (by CGF) to either ameliorate the harm or to even accomplish/build upon them to do even more good. Instead, we got King Canute.

Not helpful.


The Raisuli

Experimentalist
04-24-2010, 8:46 AM
... but thank God we didn't take that same defeatist approach with OLLs, and other BS legislation. What has happened here?

Nothing changed.

The same smart people who sized up the laws on OLLs, took a look at UOC and decided it was a bad idea.

Now stay with me, here's where it gets tricky. The "right people" employ a number of complicated concepts. One of them is called "strategy".

Say it with me: Strah-tuh-gee. Good! You get a cookie.

It's really not hard if you stop and listen for a moment. But like spoiled, retarded children the UOC'ers went off on their own path. And when what was predicted finally came to pass.... well, the retarded children acted as retarded children will.

Perhaps the rest of us shouldn't be so upset with the UOC crowd. After all, you don't scorn a retarded child because of his condition. You do your best to work with him, to teach him what you can, and wipe up his messes when he can't control himself in public. It isn't pretty, but he's my brother.

N6ATF
04-24-2010, 10:51 AM
If UOC led to AB1934
Then OLLs led to AB1810

Strah-duh-gee?

More like, try to defend yourself in any way in CA and the .gov will infringe upon it.

tommygunr
04-24-2010, 1:03 PM
Someday we'll be thanking these open carry guys for the new law coming down the road, it's going to be the biggest unintended consequence for the anti-gun crowd.

Open carry was their number one cop out and excuse against CCW and denying CCW for personal protection.

I don't know anyone who wants to carry open, but many who would like a CCW, I say let them take it, now our 2nd amendment rights have really been violated.

"Keep and bear arms", they are about to take our last method of "bearing arms" away...it's going to bite them on the ***.

I was thinking the same thing . It's a INFRINGEMENT of the right to bear arms.

wildhawker
04-24-2010, 1:15 PM
It's not a foregone conclusion that registration fails a constitutional challenge.

We have Saldana saying that her bill was in response to UOC (near her home, in her district) among other info. Your arguments strongly imply a continued lack of responsibility.

KylaGWolf
04-24-2010, 2:21 PM
Wildhawker although after watching the video of her little speech there are so many falsehoods it wouldn't be hard to take her down in the press. But I won't do this unless I get the go ahead. :)

Maestro Pistolero
04-24-2010, 5:57 PM
Take her down, already.

hoffmang
04-24-2010, 7:38 PM
Meanwhile, if all those counter-sitters had honored a 'stand down', they'd still be at the 'back of the bus...." -

Maybe instead of griping, y'all can get a grip. :rolleyes:

That's why they call it 'The Struggle' for Civil Rights - cause it ain't easy -You should go do some research into the civil rights movement. They specifically asked folks to stand down to make sure that they had the right people in the right places at the right times. The bus rider was very specifcallly chosen...

If UOC led to AB1934
Then OLLs led to AB1810

Strah-duh-gee?

More like, try to defend yourself in any way in CA and the .gov will infringe upon it.Do you have any evidence for that? I have only rumors, but the Sacramento rumor is that the long gun registration was retaliation for gun rights getting press regarding Starbucks UOC.

Strahdugee must be what you call it when you pull it out of your sphincter.

-Gene

N6ATF
04-24-2010, 8:28 PM
Perhaps one or more of these was UOCed: http://www.glossover.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/glock17.jpg
None of these, nor their relatives, were UOCed: http://world.guns.ru/sniper/dsr1-308-3.jpg

When Noreen Evans comes up with a ban on LUCC, are you going to deflect that blame upon UOCers too?

All 2A-compliant "loopholes" we comply with will be closed, and you can't blame everything on UOC.

MSO4MATT
04-24-2010, 9:44 PM
Can someone tell me how this will not evolve into a RKBA title fight between CGF and the NRA vs. California. There is huge CCW discrimination going on in this state. The numbers do not lie. If you're politically connected you get a CCW. If you live or work in a bad part of town and make 50K a year, no CCW. The only access left to RKBA was UOC. So, if UOC is gone how does this not get dragged into court exposing all the numbers and the Sheriffs' political patty cake. Elevating one group of citizens rights over another is pure tyranny and I would think that a UOC ban coupled with this discrimination would be the catalyst for the RKBA court fight of the century.

Please help me understand...

hoffmang
04-24-2010, 10:17 PM
Perhaps one or more of these was UOCed: http://www.glossover.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/glock17.jpg
None of these, nor their relatives, were UOCed: http://world.guns.ru/sniper/dsr1-308-3.jpg

When Noreen Evans comes up with a ban on LUCC, are you going to deflect that blame upon UOCers too?

All 2A-compliant "loopholes" we comply with will be closed, and you can't blame everything on UOC.

So what you're actually saying is that you have no evidence. That's a much shorter post and I recommend you try it.

-Gene

trashman
04-24-2010, 10:26 PM
When Noreen Evans comes up with a ban on LUCC, are you going to deflect that blame upon UOCers too?

Well, since nobody would know about LUCC since it's concealed....yeah, I'd have to say the not-neutral PR brought about by the UOC events would probably be to blame if it's outlawed.

Gene advocated LUCC as a practical low-key way to provide a legal means for self-defense carry for folks who don't have a CCW. It's a shame more UOC folks didn't adopt it.

--Neill

mike_schwartz@mail.com
04-24-2010, 10:30 PM
More going out and joining committees…less posting on message boards so people who agree with you now know you like guns.

More rolling up your sleeves and getting involved in the fight and actually doing something…less telling others what they should be doing.

More effective action…less ineffective wheel-spinning.

More educating the general public including kids and non-gun owners on every aspect of our passion…less arguing with people who are also pro-gun over nuance.

More gun agenda…less personal agenda.

More do….less talk.

More supporting every kind of gun person…less bashing gun people by other gun people.

More NRA, NRA Members’ Council, Friends of the NRA, CRPA, and calguns…less of your complaints.

wildhawker
04-24-2010, 10:40 PM
Mike, I just love how those who cause work ask those who are working to work more.

N6ATF
04-24-2010, 11:02 PM
So what you're actually saying is that you have no evidence. That's a much shorter post and I recommend you try it.

-Gene

I made a sarcastic joke or two. You said you had rumors... the only person that needs to provide evidence that UOC of handguns screwed rifles is you.

Or do you expect me to give an amateur master class on my comedic process? Do you also expect David Blaine to reveal the secrets of every magic trick he does?

Well, since nobody would know about LUCC since it's concealed....yeah, I'd have to say the not-neutral PR brought about by the UOC events would probably be to blame if it's outlawed.

Gene advocated LUCC as a practical low-key way to provide a legal means for self-defense carry for folks who don't have a CCW. It's a shame more UOC folks didn't adopt it.

--Neill

Yes, because no politician nor LEO visits CGN, ever. :rolleyes: They know exactly what LUCC is, and it's going down.

It's a shame this is a public forum; loose fingers sink ships.

neuron
04-24-2010, 11:31 PM
I agree with WatchMan on this one. Gun owners not sticking together is what brought about the AW Bans on the Federal level in the first place.

We do need to stick together...

Amen to that. "Divide and conquer" is the strategy of the Antis. We just want to ban evil guns used by criminals; we don't want to ban your guns....

Well, we've been down that path before, as the Reverend Niemoller famously stated in regard to the Nazi's use of this strategy. Eventually they will come after you, and there won't be anyone to defend you.:mad:

artherd
04-25-2010, 2:27 AM
It can no longer be said that 'everyone' freaks at the sight of citizens with guns on their hips. It can't even be said that the majority of people do so. The reason the mov

They introduced emergency legislation to crush it - it most definitely freaks everyone out. The people you've reached are unfortunately a rounding error. Face it. You did it wrong.

If OLLs owners were few & scattered, then rolling them all up would be a piece of cake for the grabbers, wouldn't it? But the numbers of those with them put a stop to the grabber's efforts, didn't it?

You think that was an accident? I put my finances, reputation and assets on the line and faced 219 Felony county just to get OLL numbers blown through the roof (as I knew there was potential to do).

UOC has no money no plan and no brains.

Cali-Shooter
04-25-2010, 3:05 AM
More like, try to defend yourself in any way in CA and the .gov will infringe upon it.

F**king hell, this state keeps managing to outdo itself over and over in being an insane asylum of stupidity run by elitist libtards with no regard to constitutional rights of the people, as well as basic human rights even.
The majority of counties are anti-CCW, which might not be too bad if Open Carry would remain legal, even if it was UOC-better than nothing. But, the way things look, if 1934 passes for good, citizen gun owners become criminals for daring to shoot back at armed lunatic(s) who might rampage in a public place. So, since it would no longer be legal to open carry (and chances are that most gun owners in the PRK don't have a CCW), your options would be to have a means to defend yourself by carrying a firearm anyways, and break the stupid law, or, be an "upstanding law-abiding citizen, by California standards" and be totally defenseless against any random armed madmen who might rampage, and your choices would be:

Attempt to run, get shot, die.
Attempt to call the cops, get shot, die.
Call the cops, get shot while on the phone, die.
Call the cops, get shot while waiting the minutes that seem like hours, get shot, die.
Attempt to Hide, get shot, die.
Hide/take cover somewhere, gunman walks up to you, you get shot, die.
Attempt to run, call the cops, and hide, get shot, die.

But at least you died not breaking any laws, RIGHT?

GM4spd
04-25-2010, 3:22 AM
They introduced emergency legislation to crush it - it most definitely freaks everyone out. The people you've reached are unfortunately a rounding error. Face it. You did it wrong.



You think that was an accident? I put my *** on the line and faced 219 Felony county just to get OLL numbers blown through the roof (as I knew there was potential to do).

UOC has no money no plan and no brains.

Great points. My sentiments,also, this whole thing (UOC)is a clustertruck .
Pete

Havoc70
04-25-2010, 4:45 AM
So in this thread, people who UOC have been called "stupid" and "retarded". Even though it has been said by myself and others, "yah, we screwed up".

I am neither stupid nor retarded. It amazes me that such self-proclaimed people who are so much smarter than me continue to insult us, even after we've said we're sorry and yes we screwed up.

I wish everyone here the best, but I have better things to do with my time and money than contribute either to people who would just as soon piss on me.

So, yah, I'm done here and I withdraw my pledge to contribute $50 monthly to CGF.

socal2310
04-25-2010, 5:44 AM
Does it really matter who is to blame at this point? It was (or ought to have been) apparent to everyone that UOC was an in-your-face challenge to California's unreasonable restrictions upon our God-given rights. Someone who really only wanted to carry a gun for self defense would have been better served by simply violating the law and taking their chances or adopting LUCC.

I think it is now abundantly clear to all involved how counter-productive in your face challenges are in this state (if they were unwilling to learn from the example of the Black Panthers) and most UOC advocates I've seen on this thread have acknowledged that fact.

Most of those who have consented to eat crow chose to wash it down with a liberal dose of facetiousness. I can't really blame them, crow is less than satisfying fare.

I doubt anyone who has acknowledged their error is going to prove to be a continuing problem for CGF efforts. Those who are looking at this thread and silently stewing about some of the more stinging rebukes may be.

Ryan

trashman
04-25-2010, 6:46 AM
Yes, because no politician nor LEO visits CGN, ever. :rolleyes: They know exactly what LUCC is, and it's going down.

It's a shame this is a public forum; loose fingers sink ships.

You missed my point. If LUCC had been followed in favor of UOC, John Q. Public would never have any idea who was LUCCing at Starbucks. Starbucks wouldn't have been asked for comment on LUCC because there wouldn't be any "shocking-to-soccer-moms" footage on the local nightly news - since even if you could identify who was LUCCing the video footage would just look like a bunch of people with briefcases...

Without the drama, the Legislature wouldn't be getting angry phone calls from constituents. Without the drama, LUCC, long gun registration, and god knows what else wouldn't be on the Legislature's radar.

As I said earlier I'm worried the list of unintended consequences is going to keep growing.

--Neill

trashman
04-25-2010, 6:49 AM
So in this thread, people who UOC have been called "stupid" and "retarded". Even though it has been said by myself and others, "yah, we screwed up".

I am neither stupid nor retarded. It amazes me that such self-proclaimed people who are so much smarter than me continue to insult us, even after we've said we're sorry and yes we screwed up.

I haven't followed every post in this thread because there is a lot of that noise - and you are right folks need to treat each other with a little civility. And a lot of UOC folks have stepped up to discuss this like reasonable folks.

My first reaction to the original post, though, was that it was pretty flippant. This is Calguns, after all...sarcasm here is generally guaranteed to start a food fight.

--Neill

N6ATF
04-25-2010, 7:43 AM
You missed my point. If LUCC had been followed in favor of UOC, John Q. Public would never have any idea who was LUCCing at Starbucks. Starbucks wouldn't have been asked for comment on LUCC because there wouldn't be any "shocking-to-soccer-moms" footage on the local nightly news - since even if you could identify who was LUCCing the video footage would just look like a bunch of people with briefcases...

Without the drama, the Legislature wouldn't be getting angry phone calls from constituents. Without the drama, LUCC, long gun registration, and god knows what else wouldn't be on the Legislature's radar.

As I said earlier I'm worried the list of unintended consequences is going to keep growing.

--Neill

And you missed mine, again. I give up. /unsubscribe from this thread

tenpercentfirearms
04-25-2010, 8:18 AM
Beating up the UOCers is getting pretty old and yesterday. Just let it go. It is time to move on.

The last I knew Havoc70 had come around. Now he is pissed?

How much more is it going to help us to keep telling off the UOC people? They get it. Move on. Let them have a little dignity as they realize they screwed up their fun fest. It is time to move on.

trashman
04-25-2010, 8:40 AM
Beating up the UOCers is getting pretty old and yesterday. Just let it go. It is time to move on.

The last I knew Havoc70 had come around. Now he is pissed?

How much more is it going to help us to keep telling off the UOC people? They get it. Move on. Let them have a little dignity as they realize they screwed up their fun fest. It is time to move on.

You are of course right, Wes.

The reality is that different parts of gunny community are variously in the 'Denial' or 'Anger' or 'Depression' stage of the grief process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model). My guess is there are going to be a few more convulsions like this thread before everybody arrives at 'acceptance'.

--Neill

turbosbox
04-25-2010, 8:40 AM
How much more is it going to help us to keep telling off the UOC people? They One or two get it, the rest never will. Move on. Let them have a little dignity as they realize they screwed up their fun fest. It is time to move on.

You are of course right, Wes.

The reality is that different parts of gunny community are variously in the 'Denial' or 'Anger' or 'Depression' stage of the grief process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model). My guess is there are going to be a few more convulsions like this thread before everybody arrives at 'acceptance'. they will never grow beyond this.

--Neill



Fixed for you.

Havoc70
04-25-2010, 8:53 AM
Beating up the UOCers is getting pretty old and yesterday. Just let it go. It is time to move on.

The last I knew Havoc70 had come around. Now he is pissed?

How much more is it going to help us to keep telling off the UOC people? They get it. Move on. Let them have a little dignity as they realize they screwed up their fun fest. It is time to move on.

I really don't know for sure if I really am to that point of actually being gone, having taken some time to cool off, but I am going to give it serious thought.

The rank and file I don't mind being pissed off. However, with it being CG leaders such as Gene and Ben (even after Ben said it was water under the bridge earlier), still doling out the universal UOC insults I really don't see the point in putting money in one of their hands while they punch me with the other, metaphorically speaking.

Either it really is water under the bridge or it isn't.

trashman
04-25-2010, 9:11 AM
Fixed for you.

I think that's a little unfair to everybody...I certainly count myself as part of the group that is moving from 'bargaining' to 'depression' on this issue ...

At some point everybody will be 'accepting' of all this, if only because UOC will likely be made illegal. My guess is that only at that point in time will the community be able to come back together.

--Neill

WokMaster1
04-25-2010, 9:14 AM
I agree with Wes. Can the leaders on all camps come to the table & put a game plan together, PLEASE? This kind of arguments lead to nothing but division amongst us. We should not walk into the trap the antis want us to. It is the same old trap, we know what it is & what it looks like & what it smells like. Let's not fall for that zhit again.

Let's refocus our efforts. Forward!!!!:)

iRIGHTi
04-25-2010, 9:25 AM
Is it June yet? ;)

Maestro Pistolero
04-25-2010, 9:36 AM
Let's refocus our efforts. Forward!!!!Yes. And I will continue to do what I can from a contribution standpoint. It ain't much but it's all I can do.
I haven't even lived in CA in ten years, but I realize it is a battleground state. I am so repulsed by the nanny mindset of the leadership, it literally makes me ill to think about it too much. I dislike the quality of life in NV, but I love the liberty.

PLEASE no more infighting. Just please bite your tongues. The enemy is among us, and nothing will embolden them more. You think UOC lacked strategy, well so does this public bickering with our own members. It's POINTLESS and DIVISIVE. Donation inbound and let's PLEASE beat this bill.

marshaul
04-25-2010, 12:28 PM
They introduced emergency legislation to crush it - it most definitely freaks everyone out. The people you've reached are unfortunately a rounding error. Face it. You did it wrong.

They = the legislature ≠ everyone

Face it, you have an extremely hard time when it comes to the applicable extent of your inferences.

Sinixstar
04-25-2010, 12:50 PM
You should go do some research into the civil rights movement. They specifically asked folks to stand down to make sure that they had the right people in the right places at the right times. The bus rider was very specifcallly chosen...

Do you have any evidence for that? I have only rumors, but the Sacramento rumor is that the long gun registration was retaliation for gun rights getting press regarding Starbucks UOC.

Strahdugee must be what you call it when you pull it out of your sphincter.

-Gene

the original person picked out for the bus stunt was actually a 15 year old girl. They nixed her at the last minute because she ended up getting pregnant. The original thought was if you had a young girl - it would be harder to call her a rabble rouser or an agitator or anything else. How can you put that on a poor young innocent teenager? Then she got preggo and she wasn't such a young, innocent little girl anymore.

It was only after that Rosa Parks was selected. A lot of people assume it was a random act of independence, but it was actually a very carefully designed plan.

Sinixstar
04-25-2010, 12:54 PM
Yes. And I will continue to do what I can from a contribution standpoint. It ain't much but it's all I can do.
I haven't even lived in CA in ten years, but I realize it is a battleground state. I am so repulsed by the nanny mindset of the leadership, it literally makes me ill to think about it too much. I dislike the quality of life in NV, but I love the liberty.

PLEASE no more infighting. Just please bite your tongues. The enemy is among us, and nothing will embolden them more. You think UOC lacked strategy, well so does this public bickering with our own members. It's POINTLESS and DIVISIVE. Donation inbound and let's PLEASE beat this bill.


I would disagree. The infighting can actually be a good thing. As long as at the end of the day everybody gets on the same page, and the infighting leads to a resolution of sorts.

To tie this more to the bigger picture - it's why the democrats tend to have short-lived stints of power. Democrats do their infighting publicly, and the elected officials are too childish a lot of times to temper their own interests with the bigger picture. They get a little bit of power and it goes to their heads.
Where as republicans tend to do their fighting behind closed doors, and get on the same page before putting their message out to the public. It creates a much more unified front.
(Bear in mind, I say these things as a life-long registered democrat)

I look at it the same way here. I would rather see some infighting and some discussion on the issue in places like this - where it's largely out of the public eye - then have say the NRA and GOA duking it out with press releases or something (i know they don't do that, just using it as an example).

turbosbox
04-25-2010, 12:59 PM
I really don't know for sure if I really am to that point of actually being gone, having taken some time to cool off, but I am going to give it serious thought.

The rank and file I don't mind being pissed off. However, with it being CG leaders such as Gene and Ben (even after Ben said it was water under the bridge earlier), still doling out the universal UOC insults I really don't see the point in putting money in one of their hands while they punch me with the other, metaphorically speaking.

Either it really is water under the bridge or it isn't.

I think you were one of the few who expressed sincerely that this wasn't a good idea because it didn't turn out as hoped.
Speaking for myself I'd say, sure, let's regroup and press forward.
The greatest frustration are those who still insist these things were or are a good idea, and somehow we are further ahead now. We really can't regroup with those folks, because they still aren't thinking as team players.
Much of the anger isn't against the concept of OC, or individuals, it's about not being team players, and not owning up to losing one inning for us.

artherd
04-25-2010, 1:32 PM
They = the legislature ≠ everyone

Face it, you have an extremely hard time when it comes to the applicable extent of your inferences.

Next time please just let the people who know how to do PR - do the PR.

Havoc70
04-25-2010, 1:46 PM
So after a phone call with pullnshoot and a PM from Ben, things are cool. Read the sig, the pledge is back and increased!

Mulay El Raisuli
04-25-2010, 1:58 PM
They introduced emergency legislation to crush it - it most definitely freaks everyone out. The people you've reached are unfortunately a rounding error. Face it. You did it wrong.


Non sequiter. The type of (silly, stupid & unconstitutional) legislation proposed proves nothing as to the numbers of people for or against it.

The facts however, they do show something. They show that even Liberal papers & TV stations are presenting balanced & factual reports on the events. The decision of Starbucks to stand up to the Bradys is also significant. All of which shows that yes, the events are indeed changing minds.

I did it wrong? Me? Two things (factual things) to be mentioned here. The first is that I didn't. When asked, I stood down. The second thing is that what I did do was to stand (down) off on the side & point out that these things were going to happen anyway. Maybe that should be said again for emphasis?

These things were going to happen anyway.

Anyway, since these things were going to happen anyway, you had a choice: Sit & do nothing (except dump on those who took your advice to stand down). Or, you could have given some thought as to the proper way to handle something

that was going to happen anyway.

The first approach imitates King Canute (yes, I really do like that analogy. Have ever since I first heard the story in school when I was a child. I guess they don't use that one anymore) & so accomplishes nothing. The other, if nothing else, gives you at least a chance to make the best of something

that was going to happen anyway.

The choice was made to imitate King Canute. Well, I'm sorry your little sand castle got knocked over. But that sorrow doesn't extend to me being willing to take the blame for that either. Since I was, after all, standing (down) on the side pointing out

that these things are going to happen anyway.

Maybe you should have done something a bit more productive that commanding the tide to not come in? Maybe you could have, I don't know, maybe diverted the tide away from your little sand castle?


You think that was an accident? I put my *** on the line and faced 219 Felony county just to get OLL numbers blown through the roof (as I knew there was potential to do).


"Accident"? Did I use the word "accident"? I don't recall doing so. You didn't quote me saying that. So, I'm guessing the word "accident" wasn't used by me.

I'm quite sure that you put a great deal on the line. I have nothing but respect & admiration for all that you have done & will do. But, what I (actually did) say was that having large numbers of people added to the computation was an advantage for you. And that you could have used the numbers of people brought around on the matter (by the UOC events) to accomplish something useful.


UOC has no money no plan and no brains.


And the people who claim to have money, brains & a plan got together & decided that the best response was to just watch the incoming tide knock over your sand castle & then dump on your own choir? THIS is what money, brains & a plan leads to????

In any event, there was a plan (a strategy) for these things (that, btw, were going to happen anyway). It wasn't your plan, but a plan there was & a plan there is. Actually, there's a couple of plans. But, you clearly don't care about that so I don't see any value in (again) pointing that out.

Instead, I'll point out what makes you comments so especially galling to me. My most cherished goal is unrestricted LOC. For a lot of reasons, I think that's next best thing to shoot for. You've decided to throw that under the bus. As unhappy as I am about that, "Join or die" is still seen by me as good strategy (because I really did pay attention in American History back in school) & so I still stood down. And what is my reward? 'If you don't have money, shut up' from Gene. I'm 'brainless,' from you, & generally dumped on by lots of others.

GOSH! I'm all warm & fuzzy. Thanks a heap.

In spite of that, I'm still going to stay "joined" here because this is still the best place to advance the cause. I don't know that I'd rate as good a place as it was, but its still better than anywhere else on the 'net & I believe that it could (maybe) be worlds better. Like it used to be.


The Raisuli

Havoc70
04-25-2010, 2:12 PM
Instead, I'll point out what makes you comments so especially galling to me. My most cherished goal is unrestricted LOC. For a lot of reasons, I think that's next best thing to shoot for. You've decided to throw that under the bus. As unhappy as I am about that, "Join or die" is still seen by me as good strategy (because I really did pay attention in American History back in school) & so I still stood down. And what is my reward? 'If you don't have money, shut up' from Gene. I'm 'brainless,' from you, & generally dumped on by lots of others.

This is pretty much where I was/am at. However, I am going to stand and fight as long as I can. Like you said, this is the best place for it. But, really and truly, it's getting old.

Experimentalist
04-25-2010, 3:07 PM
I would like to clarify that my frustrations were vented towards the few who refused, and continue to refuse, to listen to reason. It was not my intention to paint all UOC'ers with a broad brush.

But, really and truly, it's getting old.

Agreed. Onward and upward.

marshaul
04-25-2010, 4:21 PM
Next time please just let the people who know how to do PR - do the PR.

The other point you keep missing -- it wasn't up to me.

In all likelihood, it wasn't up to anybody who was actually aware of your opinion, as most of us stopped UOCing some time ago.

Like I said before, UOC was banned simply because it hadn't yet been banned. Someone was inevitably going to "discover it", let the cat out of the bag. Information cannot be hidden once it has been disseminated. That was all that was needed to encourage some Californians to UOC (regardless of what was said or not said on Calguns.net and OCDO), and that was all that was needed to compel the legislature to ban it.

marshaul
04-25-2010, 4:30 PM
The facts however, they do show something. They show that even Liberal papers & TV stations are presenting balanced & factual reports on the events. The decision of Starbucks to stand up to the Bradys is also significant. All of which shows that yes, the events are indeed changing minds.
This is undeniable, especially from a national perspective.


I did it wrong? Me? Two things (factual things) to be mentioned here. The first is that I didn't. When asked, I stood down. The second thing is that what I did do was to stand (down) off on the side & point out that these things were going to happen anyway. Maybe that should be said again for emphasis?
It should be said again, until all are satisfied that the discussion is complete.


These things were going to happen anyway.
Exactly. This was inevitable, and within no single person's power to control.


Maybe you should have done something a bit more productive that commanding the tide to not come in? Maybe you could have, I don't know, maybe diverted the tide away from your little sand castle?
Maybe that wasn't within anyone's power, and so we get the blame because we're a convenient whipping boy, and it makes them feel good in their impotency.


Instead, I'll point out what makes you comments so especially galling to me. My most cherished goal is unrestricted LOC. For a lot of reasons, I think that's next best thing to shoot for. You've decided to throw that under the bus. As unhappy as I am about that, "Join or die" is still seen by me as good strategy (because I really did pay attention in American History back in school) & so I still stood down. And what is my reward? 'If you don't have money, shut up' from Gene. I'm 'brainless,' from you, & generally dumped on by lots of others.

GOSH! I'm all warm & fuzzy. Thanks a heap.

In spite of that, I'm still going to stay "joined" here because this is still the best place to advance the cause. I don't know that I'd rate as good a place as it was, but its still better than anywhere else on the 'net & I believe that it could (maybe) be worlds better. Like it used to be.


The Raisuli
Couldn't have said it better myself. And, it really is getting old. Not the discussion, but the dumping.

Edit: Sorry, two posts in a row.

Maestro Pistolero
04-25-2010, 5:21 PM
I would disagree. The infighting can actually be a good thing. As long as at the end of the day everybody gets on the same page, and the infighting leads to a resolution of sorts.

To tie this more to the bigger picture - it's why the democrats tend to have short-lived stints of power. Democrats do their infighting publicly, and the elected officials are too childish a lot of times to temper their own interests with the bigger picture.I don't know how, but I think you misunderstood my post. I am also saying don't air dirty laundry in public. By all means, disagree; have the debate, but don't give anyone the satisfaction of thinking they are driving a wedge. It's just not smart.

BTW, since Gene, et al, is overwhelmed and unpaid, maybe we should get a fund going to do something about that. And if it's not money he needs personally, maybe it's affording some qualified help. As important as this work is, we ought to provide plenty of resources.

How about it Gene, what kind of help do you need?

FIGHT IT. We have all the time in the world for the blame game later.

HondaMasterTech
04-25-2010, 6:14 PM
The bill will ban carry in "prohibited areas of unincorporated territory". This is defined as anywhere shooting is prohibited. In the National Forests and BLM that is on any roads, or within 150 yards of any building, campsite, or developed area. So if you are within those areas you cannot carry. I go to the National Forest a lot. But most of my time there fits into that category, even though I may be miles from anyone. If you are hiking, you likely get out of prohibited areas, but otherwise you typically do not.

That's weak. How the hell are you supposed to get to non-prohibited areas without carrying your gun? This legislature is so screwed up. Morons!!!!

hoffmang
04-25-2010, 11:24 PM
How about it Gene, what kind of help do you need?

FIGHT IT. We have all the time in the world for the blame game later.

Now that LOC will be two lawsuits away (UOC, then the strike of permitted LOC), LOC is going to have to move down the stack in importance.

This isn't about funds - it is about time. You don't like this message, but banning UOC may be constitutional as well.

-Gene

Sinixstar
04-25-2010, 11:43 PM
Now that LOC will be two lawsuits away (UOC, then the strike of permitted LOC), LOC is going to have to move down the stack in importance.

This isn't about funds - it is about time. You don't like this message, but banning UOC may be constitutional as well.

-Gene

Would it be possible to combine the two through the courts - making no distinction between UOC and LOC - and just going for OC in general?

Seems like UOC is kind of a waste of time in general. I mean, why fight for something that is a non issue in 49 of 50 states. CA is the only place where the distinction was made in the first place. Why fight to have a paperweight?

artherd
04-26-2010, 12:11 AM
My most cherished goal is unrestricted LOC. For a lot of reasons, I think that's next best thing to shoot for. You've decided to throw that under the bus.

Actually - we had that. If the UOC-ers simply did nothing - like we asked (at huge cost to our time and pocketbooks - do you have any idea how many phone calls and emails Gene and others?)

Let me restate that. we had statewide LOC sewn up but then the OC-ers pissed off the wrong legislator and got it banned during the last 6 months that ban could constitutionally happen.

This isn't really the time for finger pointing - this IS the time to band together and work on the rights we can still save. LOC/UOC got moved to the very end of the list (from the front btw) because of these bills.

artherd
04-26-2010, 12:13 AM
The other point you keep missing -- it wasn't up to me.

In all likelihood, it wasn't up to anybody who was actually aware of your opinion, as most of us stopped UOCing some time ago.

Like I said before, UOC was banned simply because it hadn't yet been banned. Someone was inevitably going to "discover it", let the cat out of the bag. Information cannot be hidden once it has been disseminated. That was all that was needed to encourage some Californians to UOC (regardless of what was said or not said on Calguns.net and OCDO), and that was all that was needed to compel the legislature to ban it.

We didn't need to hide it indefinitely. We needed another 6 months and their ability to ban it would be gone for good. That's it.

marshaul
04-26-2010, 4:46 AM
Now that LOC will be two lawsuits away (UOC, then the strike of permitted LOC), LOC is going to have to move down the stack in importance.

This isn't about funds - it is about time. You don't like this message, but banning UOC may be constitutional as well.

-Gene
Couldn't a single lawsuit accomplish this? Once the 2nd amendment is incorporated, that ought to be enough to argue "Look, the second amendment right to carry a loaded handgun for self-defense does exist in California (point to rural LOC, which remains legal), but it's arbitrarily denied to persons based on where they live". Incorporation should give standing to make this argument as the activity in question will be arguably a function of an enumerated constitutional right.

Really, not that much different from one of the arguments used in favor of shall-issue permitting.

Can't we just skip over unloaded open carry? It's not like anybody wants it anyway.

marshaul
04-26-2010, 4:50 AM
We didn't need to hide it indefinitely. We needed another 6 months and their ability to ban it would be gone for good. That's it.

I appreciate that, but there's nothing anyone on this forum could have done.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-26-2010, 10:07 AM
This is pretty much where I was/am at. However, I am going to stand and fight as long as I can. Like you said, this is the best place for it. But, really and truly, it's getting old.


It sure the **** is!


Couldn't a single lawsuit accomplish this? Once the 2nd amendment is incorporated, that ought to be enough to argue "Look, the second amendment right to carry a loaded handgun for self-defense does exist in California (point to rural LOC, which remains legal), but it's arbitrarily denied to persons based on where they live". Incorporation should give standing to make this argument as the activity in question will be arguably a function of an enumerated constitutional right.

Really, not that much different from one of the arguments used in favor of shall-issue permitting.

Can't we just skip over unloaded open carry? It's not like anybody wants it anyway.


That's my thinking. Also, thanks for everything else you said up above.


Actually - we had that. If the UOC-ers simply did nothing - like we asked (at huge cost to our time and pocketbooks - do you have any idea how many phone calls and emails Gene and others?)

Let me restate that. we had statewide LOC sewn up but then the OC-ers pissed off the wrong legislator and got it banned during the last 6 months that ban could constitutionally happen.


That wasn't the message I got. I saw no sign that LOC was coming to community near me. Still don't see why doing this now is worse than doing this 6 months from now.

And you're still using the wrong tense: It isn't banned yet.


This isn't really the time for finger pointing - this IS the time to band together and work on the rights we can still save. LOC/UOC got moved to the very end of the list (from the front btw) because of these bills.


Does this mean that I won't be dumped on anymore?


The Raisuli

turbosbox
04-26-2010, 10:24 AM
I appreciate that, but there's nothing anyone on this forum could have done.

Trolling for more fingerpointing and blame, then others to be upset and say enuf fingerpointing and blame. :rolleyes:

All I got to say, is I trust Gene, Ben, Paul to do the right things. They have been already.
I find NRA's fundraising bothersome if not offensive. So my future $ there will go to Calguns to work these things.