PDA

View Full Version : Radical Unloaded Open Carry Ban press conference


Liberty1
04-23-2010, 12:26 PM
https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/1255

Given by Demorcrat Saldana, LCAV, Brady Bunch and the Cal. Police Chiefs Association...

enjoy the lies...

and a reporter who takes them to task for their 'statistics'!!! :)

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 12:33 PM
That Emeryville PD Chief is an idiot and a disgrace to his uniform and his oath of office. And then I wonder why I am increasingly viewing LE in CA as "the enemy"? Because with their backing of things like this they certainly aren't my friend. so if people who open carry are "immature" I guess that means so are those uniformed LEOs aye?

If CCW were shall-issue and readily accessible then none of this would be an issue.

Saldana is an idiot too......and obviously has no concept of what freedom and liberty is all about.

I have an idea if COPs in CA are so afriad for their safety: Lay off all the COPs to save the state money and let everyone take care of themselves. Because if I'm disarmed and hafta rely on them for protection then I'm not much safer then if there were no COPs at all.

So according to Saldana we need to prevent law-abiding people from carrying guns because the police had to protect the law-abiding carries from the gang-members in the area. doesnt the having of dangerous gang-members in the area support the need to carry?

I dont think I have ever been more disgusted and disappointed by "public servants" then I am right now! :(
I'm glad our legislators are so consumed with criminalizing lawful behavior by law abiding citizens rather then dealing with those who are already openly engaged in illegal activity.

And they even openly admitted that LE resources are stretched thin so their answer is to even further restrict a persons ability to defend themselves when LE is not available. NICE!!!!

and oh....scary.....a law-abiding citizen engaging in a legal activity OC'd within a block of HER house. Oh the horror......what about the possibly numerous criminals who have illegally CC'd in her vicinity before and she didn't even know about it. Ehh....who cares.....lets waste precious state resources on punishing law-abiding people for doing something that was legal.

Like they said......if no had started doing they wouldn't have cared (although that statement does support the reason Gene and others asked people to stand down for now)......so even though it was legal.....to actually do so would anger the elected royalty and have the right removed......so it was a right you never really had anyway.

gobler
04-23-2010, 12:34 PM
:cuss::cuss: What a load of utter crap! I love the stats that they pulled out of there fat behinds :mad: My head is spinning at the shear arrogance of the F*** whits. Ok time to calm down and head to my local gun store to peruse... Always puts me in a happy place to gun shop.

n2k
04-23-2010, 12:45 PM
What a load......

The the part about having to protect the OC'ers in SD from gang members...:puke:

ZombieTactics
04-23-2010, 12:47 PM
Fuming at the stupidity and arrogance of these people.

AEC1
04-23-2010, 1:09 PM
She is so full of it....

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 1:13 PM
I love the LE response is basically......let's just ban it so we dont have to deal with it.

Hey.....why don't we just pass a dawn to dusk curfew too so we dont have to worry about dealing with people in the dark either.

Havoc70
04-23-2010, 1:24 PM
I love how they showed the magazine concealed which case law (I believe) has established a concealed weapon violation, so their demonstration of a lawful activity was unlawful. Well, it would be if it was something other than snap caps in the magazine.

putput
04-23-2010, 1:26 PM
We have a case where people were going about their business in full compliance of the law and we had some gang bangers who didn’t like them on their turf so we had to have some cops do their jobs and protect the law abiding from the criminals so, we should limit the rights of the law abiding folks. That about sums up California gun ownership doesn’t it?

So does anyone have any of the sources for the stats? There were too many 500%'s in there...

jb7706
04-23-2010, 1:29 PM
I can't wait for Sykes.

m1aowner
04-23-2010, 1:30 PM
At what time in the video?

https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/1255

Given by Demorcrat Saldana, LCAV, Brady Bunch and the Cal. Police Chiefs Association...

enjoy the lies...

and a reporter who takes them to task for their 'statistics'!!! :)

chris10
04-23-2010, 1:35 PM
At what time in the video?

I think at 17:30. Someone asked about cherry picking statistics

2009_gunner
04-23-2010, 1:37 PM
I think there are some blatant lies about an open carry event in San Diego.

Around the 16:50 mark and at other earlier times, these "public servants" say the open carriers were being followed by gang members and that therefore the police had to follow and protect the open carriers.

I was present at an event where I and about a half-dozen other carriers (while we had 2nd Ammendment incorporation) were followed by Shelley Zimmerman and other officers in San Diego. They did this from the very start of our event, and at no time were we followed by gang members.

This is a complete fallacy.

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 1:37 PM
I loved the laughs and smirks when the reported asked about easing the CCW restrictions. There unstated response to that was "Oh yeah.....like we're ever gonna approve that!"..

So here is my question....they use the term "common sense gun laws" all the time. To me "common sense" would mean that which is most prevailent, likely to be encountered....or well....common.

So since the vast majority of the states in the US allow open carry or are at least shall-issue where open carry isn't allowed....that would make open carrying and shall-issue the "common" thing.....and all the crazy crap in CA the UNcommon thing would it not?

And if the stats in those states do not support increases in gun violence then wouldn't "common sense" dictate the law-abiding people carryin guns is not a safety threat?

I also liked how when the reporter asked why she ignored stats from other studies that didn't support her stance she basically almost said "Well I excluded those because they didn't support my conclusions."

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH This is just so f'in infuriating!!!!

BigDogatPlay
04-23-2010, 1:39 PM
Anyone consider properly producing a rebuttal video and YouTubing it?

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 1:43 PM
Anyone consider properly producing a rebuttal video and YouTubing it?


What REALLY needs to be included in a video like that is some input from LEOs, police chiefs and police chief and sheriffs associations in other states calling our CA CLEOs/associations out on their BS and stating they are just fear mongering and failing to uphold their oath of office to protect the constitution and the rights of their citizens to be free and provide for their own safety.

$P-Ritch$
04-23-2010, 1:45 PM
I'm sure someone's mentioned this before, but what's BC's deal with ALWAYS wearing those T-shirts not matter where they are. You'd think that you'd want to look somewhat professional for a news conference and wear a suit of some sort. Oh well, them looking silly doesn't bother me at all.

Hoologan
04-23-2010, 1:49 PM
I like how around 15:30 the bastard cannot come up with a single event in any state that OC has resulted in violence of any kind. What a crock.

cadurand
04-23-2010, 2:22 PM
The Chief there says us law abiding citizens are a threat just like the criminals.

Who does that leave as the good guys?

Poor guy, surrounded by nothing but threats.

Chester
04-23-2010, 2:46 PM
Wait a minute here...

As a very new gun owner, I have to share something which I recently learned that I otherwise didn't realize before I accepted the responsibility of owning an AR-15 and a Glock 22.

That is, that it seems to me at this point, lawful, gun owning citizens are more likely to be peaceful and not commit gun crimes BECAUSE they own or are otherwise carrying guns. As a free, lawful, gun owning citizen, I am aware of the added responsibility I've taken and also very aware of the steep consequences for misusing my guns in any way.

As a result, in an effort to
1. Remain a free man, and
2. Continue enjoying my right to bear arms
I've begun to think twice about even getting into a verbal argument with someone for no other reason than a fight could result in me being charged with a felony. Not to mention that even if I WERE to be carrying a firearm, for the 2 reasons I stated above, there's no way in hell I would even unholster it less my life was in immediate danger.

And while I wouldn't assume to speak for anyone other than myself, I wouldn't be surprised if every other lawful, gun owning/carrying citizen feels the same way.

In short, owning a firearm has made me more polite and a lot less likely to commit a crime. Where the hell are these people coming from?

Draankol
04-23-2010, 2:57 PM
what a crock of ****.

Guns are a threat, donut boy says. Okay, STFU and have another Krispy Kreme fat boy.

And now according to the other tub of ****, we're immature if we wan to carry a gun. Nice argument.

If they are so concerned about gangs, do something about that.... Oh yeah, they can't. EPIC FAIL...

pullnshoot25
04-23-2010, 3:10 PM
I can't listen to the audio right now but I will say that the police were INVITED to the damn event, even after they tried to get us to commit a felony by entering a lifeguard tower.

It would be nice for Detective JK Hudgins to come out and say a few words now.

pullnshoot25
04-23-2010, 3:22 PM
Also, a big shoutout to Shelley Zimmerman, for I am certain that she had a good deal to do with this proposed ban and the dispersal of FUD.

Gio
04-23-2010, 3:33 PM
So they have to assume everyone is intoxicated while driving because you never know if they are or not :rolleyes:

-Gio

zinfull
04-23-2010, 3:37 PM
Now I know how to be protected from the gangs in SD. Just open carry and I will have the police protection. No gun no police.

I going to have a cigar and port to get the taste of the dog and pony show out of my mouth.

jerry

Aleksandr Mravinsky
04-23-2010, 3:37 PM
"Can you tell if this gun is loaded?"

I don't need to. Guns are always loaded. Always.

ETA: Ugh. Just heard this part;

What I am concerned about is people who have no training, no accountability, displaying weapons publicly for no other purpose than to make some type of a, a public statement.

Honestly? I cannae say much for the training (though police are only required to practise twice a year, correct?), but I know that "citizens" have far more accountability than police officers. Not only that, but she says that she has a problem with not only the second, but the first amendment.

RRangel
04-23-2010, 3:57 PM
Assemblywoman Saldana cited every fraudulent statistic she could think of. I thought I heard her cite the debunked Kellerman study before the video stopped working. What does that tell you? There can be no question that she is ideologically bent.

People like her and her cohorts like the chief of Emeryville have no place near public office, as they are an affront to liberty no matter what subject they deal in. They are in fact a detriment to the very safety of the public.

LOW2000
04-23-2010, 4:07 PM
Its ironic when a chief is open carrying at a press conference to ban open carry. The attendants to that conference must have been 500% more likely to be the victims of a firearms incident.

Roadrunner
04-23-2010, 4:08 PM
Wow, I feel so much safer now that Saldana and her useful idiots are protecting me. :rolleyes:

sfpcservice
04-23-2010, 4:35 PM
Open carry was the ambush that got set off BEFORE the enemy was in the McDonald Kill zone.

twotap
04-23-2010, 4:40 PM
I love the LE response is basically......let's just ban it so we dont have to deal with it.

Hey.....why don't we just pass a dawn to dusk curfew too so we dont have to worry about dealing with people in the dark either.

That will probably be the next move.

BigDogatPlay
04-23-2010, 4:47 PM
what a crock of ****.

Guns are a threat, donut boy says. Okay, STFU and have another Krispy Kreme fat boy.

And now according to the other tub of ****, we're immature if we wan to carry a gun. Nice argument.

Not trying to start a fight but by replying in a reactionary, insulting and profane way, who is it, exactly, that looks immature?

We can defeat them, or at least hold them at bay with reason and fact. If we respond with emotion and invective, we are making their argument for them.

My $0.02.....

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 4:52 PM
The Chief there says us law abiding citizens are a threat just like the criminals.

Who does that leave as the good guys?

Poor guy, surrounded by nothing but threats.


I've been biting my tounge for days but after seeing this video today I just dont think I can any longer. So here it is, my personal opinion from hence forth is that CA LE as a whole are a bunch of little pooseys and I will continue to hold that opinion of them till I start seeing them have some balls and actually stand up for the rights of law abiding citizens.

You dont like being thought of as a poosey.....then start living the oath of the office you took! You dont want to uphold the oath the tax payers are paying you to uphold please turn in your badge forthwith!

COPs in just about every other state in this country are tough enough to deal with armed law-abiding citizens, and often with less back-up and less pay then most CA COPs. How do you think that makes you look? Quite honestly, especially in these times of tight budgets when resources are stretched to the max, the LE profession in CA should be ashamed of itself.

zinfull
04-23-2010, 5:02 PM
Please do not insult pooseys:43:

jerry

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 5:47 PM
Please do not insult pooseys:43:

jerry


I should only be insulting if it's not true. OTH if it is true....then it's just the sting of truth against fragile egos. :(

Gray Peterson
04-23-2010, 5:47 PM
what a crock of ****.

Guns are a threat, donut boy says. Okay, STFU and have another Krispy Kreme fat boy.

And now according to the other tub of ****, we're immature if we wan to carry a gun. Nice argument.

If they are so concerned about gangs, do something about that.... Oh yeah, they can't. EPIC FAIL...

btw, some of us are "donut boys". Don't use weight to attack the anti-gunners. Plenty of us are pretty rotund. :p

thebronze
04-23-2010, 5:53 PM
The amount of lies in this video is just astounding.

oops
04-23-2010, 6:11 PM
I've been biting my tounge for days but after seeing this video today I just dont think I can any longer. So here it is, my personal opinion from hence forth is that CA LE as a whole are a bunch of little pooseys and I will continue to hold that opinion of them till I start seeing them have some balls and actually stand up for the rights of law abiding citizens.

You dont like being thought of as a poosey.....then start living the oath of the office you took! You dont want to uphold the oath the tax payers are paying you to uphold please turn in your badge forthwith!

COPs in just about every other state in this country are tough enough to deal with armed law-abiding citizens, and often with less back-up and less pay then most CA COPs. How do you think that makes you look? Quite honestly, especially in these times of tight budgets when resources are stretched to the max, the LE profession in CA should be ashamed of itself.





I think that's uncalled for. LEO's don''t make the rules and just because the LEO's boss is anti 2nd doesn't mean he is. My boss is against guns, does that make me a contributor to the Brady campaign? :rolleyes:

woodey
04-23-2010, 6:21 PM
What a crock, I "feel" safe now. It's all about making LEO safe, they are the only ones that think they should have guns any ways.

f33dback
04-23-2010, 6:25 PM
If we want our point out there you need positive media coverage, that isn't cheap, you can pay for ad's out of pocket, challenge anti gun LEO's to a debate and ask the news to cover it, various ways to go about it.
As long as anti gun has a media voice and pro gun does not they will continue to erode our rights.
Now you know the previous administrations primary weapon, control of the media, you get that you run this country.

One other thing, having a negative attitude towards LEO's, or for that matter being rude to them and talking smack does nothing for the pro gun movement, if they are on our side we have a better/stronger/more convincing voice.
There are plenty of LEO's that are pro gun, lets not make it an "us and them" scenario.

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 6:27 PM
I think that's uncalled for. LEO's don''t make the rules and just because the LEO's boss is anti 2nd doesn't mean he is. My boss is against guns, does that make me a contributor to the Brady campaign? :rolleyes:


Do you take orders from your boss to disarm and punish law-abiding citizens for exercising their rights and get paid by the tax-payers to do it?

My point is as long as these CLEOs and the LE unions are supporting all of this crap and no one else in the profession has the balls to stand up and speak out against it then they are ALL culpable. Yes....I realize the profession is also a political one and speaking out could harm an individuals paycheck. But they swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Does that oath not mean anything? Or is it only mean something until the paycheck is on the line. You will put you life on the line but not your paycheck?

We hear all the time that the rank and file LEOs dont support most of this stuff.......but that's all hush-hush, hearsay stuff. If it's true then man up and live up to your oath and speak out in defense of the freedom and liberty of the citizens you swore to protect and who pay your salary.

If you just sit silently and follow the orders even though you believe they are wrong then you are no better then the gun-grabbers themselves, AND are a big poosey in my own personal opinion.

Nothing in this state with regard to guns and personal protection is going to change until the LE community starts to speak out against this stuff and support the good bills that are presented. And I cannot have respect for a comminity of public servants who do not respect and support their community and it's citizens.

mhho
04-23-2010, 6:33 PM
https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/1255

Given by Demorcrat Saldana, LCAV, Brady Bunch and the Cal. Police Chiefs Association...

enjoy the lies...

"Studies" have found that all of those people are idiots!

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 6:36 PM
One other thing, having a negative attitude towards LEO's, or for that matter being rude to them and talking smack does nothing for the pro gun movement, if they are on our side we have a better/stronger/more convincing voice.
There are plenty of LEO's that are pro gun, lets not make it an "us and them" scenario.


Why are LEOs entitled to be free from any negative comment anymore then any other public official is here?

My point with the negative comments is bascially to "call them out". If they are pro-gun, pro-2A then they need to start speaking out and using the "respect" of their position to help us out. As long as the pro-2A LEOs are silent then they are of no use to our cause. As long as the only LEO voice we and the rest of the public hear is from the anti-2A CLEOs/LEOs then it IS "us vs. them". How can you watch the comments of that Emeryville PD Chief and not see that right now....it basically IS "us vs. them"?

Until we call out the pro-2A LEOs and challenge them to speak out, the only voice the public at large is going to hear is that of the Anti's!

I dont want to think or finally feel the need to speak negatively of LE, I want to respect them and know that they respect me (us). But right now its really damn hard for me to do that. So prove me wrong LE! Show me what you're made of....because right now your leadership is making you guys look pretty damn bad! If you want the support of your community.....then support your community and it's citizens.

BigDogatPlay
04-23-2010, 6:40 PM
However, we are also sworn to uphold the law. Until the law changes if what you are doing is a crime, then a LEO may well pinch you for it. Whether the law is good or bad, right or wrong. Don't like the law, then get it changed. The rank and file LEO is, for all intents and purposes, in a Catch 22. That gets compounded by the complexity of California's gun laws, sometimes less than stellar training, individual misconceptions and biases, and the openly hostile political climate to firearms and legitimate sporting, recreational and personal protection uses of firearms in California.

There have been any number of the LE community who have spoken out... and some have paid a price for it. Some who post here, in fact. Typically those who do tend to be pretty modest about it, if for no other reason than its hard to take a big piece of credit simply for doing what is right.

The rank and file is not allowed to speak publicly on most issues. The CLEOs and administrators are. If you can't speak in your official capacity, then you have to speak as a private citizen and on that I agree. I've been doing that for at least a couple of decades myself, even more so since I got out of the business.

But don't say that nothing will change unless cops stick their necks out. That is a strawman.

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 6:52 PM
However, we are also sworn to uphold the law. Until the law changes if what you are doing is a crime, then a LEO may well pinch you for it. Whether the law is good or bad, right or wrong. Don't like the law, then get it changed. The rank and file LEO is, for all intents and purposes, in a Catch 22. That gets compounded by the complexity of California's gun laws, sometimes less than stellar training, individual misconceptions and biases, and the openly hostile political climate to firearms and legitimate sporting, recreational and personal protection uses of firearms in California.

There have been any number of the LE community who have spoken out... and some have paid a price for it. Some who post here, in fact. Typically those who do tend to be pretty modest about it, if for no other reason than its hard to take a big piece of credit simply for doing what is right.

The rank and file is not allowed to speak publicly on most issues. The CLEOs and administrators are. If you can't speak in your official capacity, then you have to speak as a private citizen and on that I agree. I've been doing that for at least a couple of decades myself, even more so since I got out of the business.

But don't say that nothing will change unless cops stick their necks out. That is a strawman.


I understand the catch22. But as long as the only voice the public hears is from the anti-2A CLEOs then that's what they're gonna believe. If the local LEOs can't speak out then perhaps we need to start recruiting some Pro-2A CLEOs from out of state to start counter-acting the crap the CLEOs in CA spout. Cuz the reality is when people see a CLEO in uniform at press conference spouting this crap...they're gonna believe it unless they hear someone of equal stature and experience offering a different perspective.

Fact is officers in other states handle their "officer safety" just fine in the presence of armed citizens. If CA LEOs can't do their job w/o requiring the surrender of rights from it's citizens then I hold that they are not fit for the job.

And dont forget...the constitution is the supreme law of that land.....so a law that is in violation of that is unenforceable. And there is always officer discretion too....with the exception of hand full of specific statutes which mandate arrest.....there is nothing requiring an officer to arrest anyone for anything.

f33dback
04-23-2010, 7:00 PM
Why are LEOs entitled to be free from any negative comment anymore then any other public official is here?


Negativity doesn't benefit anyone, simply point out why you feel they are wrong and give valid, informed observations with hard data to back it up.
If you go on TV and speak in a perceived negative tone/fashion about law enforcement it gets you no where, try to remember who will be watching and listening.
Just take a second and look at the reactions here to the video, you see how they lost credibility based on how they acted and what they said?
Now flip it around.

CitaDeL
04-23-2010, 7:07 PM
Anyone consider properly producing a rebuttal video and YouTubing it?

The proper response to a press conference is another press conference.

GrizzlyGuy
04-23-2010, 7:11 PM
Oy... In her how-fast-you-can-load video, did anyone else notice that the guy was already breaking the law prior to loading? The magazine was in his rear pocket, concealed. His mag well was empty. That's a 12025 violation right there thanks to People v. Hale.

So let me get this straight... criminals who are already engaged in criminal behavior can load their gun in about 2 seconds. And we're supposed to outlaw unloaded open carry to prevent... "clever" (dumb?) criminals? Who could and probably would have just as easily had it loaded to begin with? And maybe even carry the entire loaded gun concealed so as to avoid attention?!?

These flippin' antis are so far out there that it's getting harder and harder to follow their "logic"...

f33dback
04-23-2010, 7:14 PM
These flippin' antis are so far out there that it's getting harder and harder to follow their "logic"...

Not for the ignorant.

Havoc70
04-23-2010, 7:24 PM
Oy... In her how-fast-you-can-load video, did anyone else notice that the guy was already breaking the law prior to loading? The magazine was in his rear pocket, concealed. His mag well was empty. That's a 12025 violation right there thanks to People v. Hale.

So let me get this straight... criminals who are already engaged in criminal behavior can load their gun in about 2 seconds. And we're supposed to outlaw unloaded open carry to prevent... "clever" (dumb?) criminals? Who could and probably would have just as easily had it loaded to begin with? And maybe even carry the entire loaded gun concealed so as to avoid attention?!?

These flippin' antis are so far out there that it's getting harder and harder to follow their "logic"...

Yah, I mentioned that earlier. The only thing that kept it from being illegal was the fact there were snap caps in the mag and not ammunition. But yah, the ignorant will just go "wow, that was fast". I was flabbergasted at how calmly they just completely and utterly mangled the truth and situation. They kept such a straight face throughout it all, which means they actually believe their lies and that's the scary thing. They BELIEVE the ***** they say to their very core.

Roadrunner
04-23-2010, 7:30 PM
I'm just wondering, once McDonald is decided and we get incorporation, when do the Calguns gurus think it will be okay to start unloaded open carrying? I may do it just for spite.

f33dback
04-23-2010, 7:41 PM
I may do it just for spite.
What's that get you?

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 7:43 PM
Negativity doesn't benefit anyone, simply point out why you feel they are wrong and give valid, informed observations with hard data to back it up.
If you go on TV and speak in a perceived negative tone/fashion about law enforcement it gets you no where, try to remember who will be watching and listening.
Just take a second and look at the reactions here to the video, you see how they lost credibility based on how they acted and what they said?
Now flip it around.


I think I have done that. Negativity may not benefint anyone, but neither does silence from those in a better position to influence change.

The problem right now is the only voice really be heard is that of that anti's and the CLEOs and LE Unions that support this crap. Until persons of similar stature in the community/profession start to rebut this crap being spewed then we can battle in the courts forever to gain an inch for every mile we lose. The legislature works WAY faster then the courts. The can churn out crap laws 10 times faster then the courts can overturn them.

We need people on the inside that can rebut this stuff and start to educate the community. People said they were UOCing in part to educate and these goons including a CLEO call them dangerous and immature. So for every individual that was educated in FTF encounters with a UOCer 1000 were just FUD stormed by the Emeryville Chief and those other goobers.

Do you get my drift? Us regular joes can scream and holler all we want and we will just be branded immature, looney, gun nuts......that is until someone of similar stature, another CLEO for example has the balls to stand up and debunk this stuff.

Hell we need to get people like Sheriff Mimms from Fresno and anyone of similar stance to stand up, have a press conference, speak out and start calling these goons out on there crap!

That's all I'm saying. And the fact that NO ONE from the inside of the LE profession seems willing to do that really concerns me and seriously diminishes my respect for LE as a whole.

There.....I told you why I feel the way I do....negative though it may be AND I've also offered positive solutions.

Whatmore can you ask? If people can't take criticism well.....they just need to grow up.

As for hard data? Point me to any press conference, or other media resource where CLEOs in this state are resisting this stuff? At best we only here silence form the ones who dont support it. That doesn't help anything.

MonsterMan
04-23-2010, 7:47 PM
I love that they say that in a time of a not enough law enforcement manpower and the fact that jails are letting out criminals early because of the states finances, they don't have time to deal with open carriers. Well if it is so crazy out there with criminals out running free and not enough cops to help the communities, then we need to be able to protect ourselves. But I guess we are fine as long as we stay home and defend ourselves there. :rolleyes:

CavTrooper
04-23-2010, 7:48 PM
I think that's uncalled for. LEO's don''t make the rules and just because the LEO's boss is anti 2nd doesn't mean he is. My boss is against guns, does that make me a contributor to the Brady campaign? :rolleyes:

"Just following orders" right...

BS.

turbosbox
04-23-2010, 7:50 PM
I don't think it makes sense to rebuke the workin' LEOs. If THEY come out with anti stuff, then comments towards them would make sense. I haven't see too many say they were anti gun, if anything I think the majority are pro gun. Come on, they can't speak publicly identifying themselves as LEO as pro. Or speaking for a political party etc either for that matter without jeopardizing their jobs.
The people to be disliked here are the elected folks. Why not work to get someone else elected. That seems painfully clear to me in California. I don't envy the job the LEO have and I have eaten my share of doughnuts too.

CavTrooper
04-23-2010, 7:52 PM
If we want our point out there you need positive media coverage, that isn't cheap, you can pay for ad's out of pocket, challenge anti gun LEO's to a debate and ask the news to cover it, various ways to go about it.
As long as anti gun has a media voice and pro gun does not they will continue to erode our rights.
Now you know the previous administrations primary weapon, control of the media, you get that you run this country.

One other thing, having a negative attitude towards LEO's, or for that matter being rude to them and talking smack does nothing for the pro gun movement, if they are on our side we have a better/stronger/more convincing voice.
There are plenty of LEO's that are pro gun, lets not make it an "us and them" scenario.

Please show me a LEO who is more "pro-gun" then he is "pro-employment".

BTW, one of those "pro-gun" LEOs, ya know, one of the "good guys" used to be a member of this forum. You might recogignize the name Tuason...yeah, thats your "pro-gun" LEOs right there.

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 7:52 PM
"Just following orders" right...

BS.

I remember some guys in a place called Neuremberg (sp?) trying that defense. It didn't work so well for them.


As for the "catch 22" defense......in all deep honest reality there are nearly no real catch 22's in life......just situations where one must choose between 2 difficult decisions. Or sometimes......choosing between doing the right thing and the easy thing. I've been in that spot a few times in life myself. I never regretted doing the right thing regardless of how hard it was.

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 7:55 PM
I don't think it makes sense to rebuke the workin' LEOs. If THEY come out with anti stuff, then comments towards them would make sense. I haven't see too many say they were anti gun, if anything I think the majority are pro gun. Come on, they can't speak publicly identifying themselves as LEO as pro. Or speaking for a political party etc either for that matter without jeopardizing their jobs.
The people to be disliked here are the elected folks. Why not work to get someone else elected. That seems painfully clear to me in California. I don't envy the job the LEO have and I have eaten my share of doughnuts too.

The only elected CLEOs are sheriffs. The Emeryville PD Chief is not an elected official. He is a public employee and a "workin' LEO". Why can he or any other CLEO speak out in a political manner and no one else can?

Couldn't "workin' pro-gun LEOs" form some kind of PAC or other organization that could speak for them collectively so that they wouldn't be speaking out as individuals. At least that would carry some weight if it was an organized group of LE professionals.

Look....Ii'm really trying here....I dont wanna have to dig on anyone. I just want some people whose opinions would carry a little more weight in the public forum to lend us a friggin' hand!

dark_ninja
04-23-2010, 7:58 PM
This is ****ing sickening! There is no articulate way to express how full of **** they are because it wouldn't even matter! Sick! Sick! Sick to the very core!

CavTrooper
04-23-2010, 7:59 PM
However, we are also sworn to uphold the law.

As for the "catch 22" defense......in all deep honest reality there are nearly no real catch 22's in life......just situations where one must choose between 2 difficult decisions.

That about sums it up, you are either a man of convictions or you are a hypocrite. You cannot profess to support the right the keep and bear arms and uphold the unconstitutional laws imposed on us by the state. Using the "its the law, change it" defense is horse sh*t. You, I, God and everybody know exactly what our founding fathers intended when they penned the 2A, just because we have scumbag politicians who choose to pervert and abuse our constitution does not make them correct.

f33dback
04-23-2010, 8:02 PM
Do you get my drift? Us regular joes can scream and holler all we want and we will just be branded immature, looney, gun nuts......that is until someone of similar stature, another CLEO for example has the balls to stand up and debunk this stuff.
.
You're preaching to the choir, and saying the same thing I did.

Please show me a LEO who is more "pro-gun" then he is "pro-employment".
What exactly are you expecting here? You want the LEO to throw himself on the sword for you? in this economy I think you can figure out for your self how loudly being employed speaks to people.

What are you willing to give up?

Go ahead and get yourself worked up, run around OC'ing and acting the fool (not you personally) and see what that gets you...the anti gun lobby is laughing.
Open carry was a bad idea from the get go, never mind your rights, just face the facts, the sheeple don't want to be exposed to reality, especially with their children around.

gobler
04-23-2010, 8:02 PM
I just have a question for the LEO's.
One of the first things you do upon graduation is to take an oath to defend the Constitution.
Why then would you make an arrest for what is clearly an Un-Constitutional law? It just boggles the mind on how Draconian the current PC is... :confused:

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 8:06 PM
What exactly are you expecting here? You want the LEO to throw himself on the sword for you? in this economy I think you can figure out for your self how loudly being employed speaks to people.
.



No....but I think there is SOMETHING more they could do then sit silently in the closet and anonymously profess to be pro-2A on an internet message board.

Their publicly expressed opinion, even if by means of some collective organization to speak for them would carry more weight in the minds of the uninformed/neutral public then anything the rest of us could do.

Not to mention living contrary to ones conscience and oath of service is poison to the soul.

f33dback
04-23-2010, 8:13 PM
No....but I think there is SOMETHING more they could do then sit silently in the closet and anonymously profess to be pro-2A on an internet message board.

Their publicly expressed opinion, even if by means of some collective organization to speak for them would carry more weight in the minds of the uninformed/neutral public then anything the rest of us could do.

Not to mention living contrary to ones conscience and oath of service is poison to the soul.

Hey I hear ya, I have to confess I am completely ignorant on what it's like to be a cop (LEO), simply have no idea what it's like.
Just saying I can understand a man with a family may not want to jeopardize his job.

Untamed1972
04-23-2010, 8:16 PM
Hey I hear ya, I have to confess I am completely ignorant on what it's like to be a cop (LEO), simply have no idea what it's like.
Just saying I can understand a man with a family may not want to jeopardize his job.


Yes...I can sympathize with anyone not wanting to risk his job/family. But when your job is subjecting people to immoral/unconstitutiona laws.....it takes on a bit of a different spin for me.

And what real incentive is there for them to risk anything.....they're are not subject to the laws the way the rest of us are. So even though they may think this stuff is wrong....that can alway fall back on "well at least I got mine." If they were suddenly stripped of all those special perks I can bet you there would be a TON more speaking out.

turbosbox
04-23-2010, 8:19 PM
The only elected CLEOs are sheriffs. The Emeryville PD Chief is not an elected official. He is a public employee and a "workin' LEO". Why can he or any other CLEO speak out in a political manner and no one else can?

Couldn't "workin' pro-gun LEOs" form some kind of PAC or other organization that could speak for them collectively so that they wouldn't be speaking out as individuals. At least that would carry some weight if it was an organized group of LE professionals....!

Well, please excuse me if I'm ignorant here, but I thought the Chiefs were somewhat elected by virtue of being promoted to that position by an elected official? And of course the sheriffs as you pointed out.

As for their union public affairs persons not having a pro statement, that is a disappointment I agree. But again most likely heavily influenced by the elected folks and job security.

We really need to get a new set of people elected. It hurts the brain to read or hear what these folks say most of them.

No....but I think there is SOMETHING more they could do then sit silently in the closet and anonymously profess to be pro-2A on an internet message board.
I don't think there is much besides what we can do. Vote for someone else, contribute to pro organizations, support campaigns, contact elected folks on issues being considered...
Well, sure speak out in uniform and lose their job, but I know you aren't expecting them to do that.

addiction
04-23-2010, 8:20 PM
"this is an unregulated behaviour at this time" WTF? there is so much regulation around carrying and owning a gun, and it leads to what other "unregulated behaviour" is there that they will find a need to regulate!!!!

I guess if there is a behaviour that remains "unregulated" in the USA, the goverment will be there to make sure they find it and "regulate" it, what ever it is.

f33dback
04-23-2010, 8:21 PM
Yes...I can sympathize with anyone not wanting to risk his job/family. But when your job is subjecting people to immoral/unconstitutiona laws.....it takes on a bit of a different spin for me.

And what real incentive is there for them to risk anything.....they're are not subject to the laws the way the rest of us are. So even though they may think this stuff is wrong....that can alway fall back on "well at least I got mine."

Sure, in fact it may even benefit them to reduce the number of firearms on the street.
I don't find anything immoral about anti gun laws, I do think they are unrealistic and unconstitutional.
In effect the laws are removing my right to protect myself, but what if we had no gun laws, and we could all walk around with fully automatic assault weapons...how would that work out?

What if the only requirement for a CCW was a psych exam, how many of you would apply =)

What we need is a realistic balance, Arizona came to this conclusion, California should as well.

turbosbox
04-23-2010, 8:28 PM
... but what if we had no gun laws, and we could all walk around with fully automatic assault weapons...how would that work out?


Well I get your point, but if you really look at that idea, some countries have that, and it works out fine. Unless they get into the depths of a religious civil war or ethnic cleansing sort of thing. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world are allowed and do have a select fire AK47 in their house.


What if the only requirement for a CCW was a psych exam, how many of you would apply =)
As long as it didn't come with the requirement we took a polygraph of what we thought of our elected officials at this point.

f33dback
04-23-2010, 8:33 PM
Yes and Sweden is an excellent example, but for some reason this country is so F'ed up we could not be expected to behave the same.
As I have advocated in a previous post *everyone* 18 years old should have to do 2 years in the military, if they do 4 they get a paid education, the only out for that would be the obvious mentally deficient and physically incapable.
To many self indulgent, zero personal responsibility punks out there, lets have boot camp snap them out of it.

I work for a education support company, so many of the teens to 20 somethings are so inarticulate and stupid it scares the crap out of me.

Oh yeah, I feel that way because apparently modern parents can't be bothered with actually raising their children.

Roadrunner
04-23-2010, 8:42 PM
What's that get you?

Monetarily, nothing. Physically, nothing. But it does help my resolve to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. An oath I still take serious.

jdberger
04-23-2010, 8:44 PM
What a load......

The the part about having to protect the OC'ers in SD from gang members...:puke:

sounds worthy of a PRAR.....

CitaDeL
04-23-2010, 8:48 PM
sounds worthy of a PRAR.....

Are you volunteering?

jdberger
04-23-2010, 8:52 PM
Being pretty opposed to UOC from the beginning, and having referred to it as "the death of us" at the first Nordyke 'win' celebration....

no.

However, having a pretty strong dislike of Ken James (Emeryville CoP) and a revulsive hatred of John Lovell - maybe.

However, as a mea culpa, I'm gonna give one of the UOC folks a chance to do it first.

;)

f33dback
04-23-2010, 8:53 PM
sounds worthy of a PRAR.....
WHat's a PRAR, it isn't in the acronym list.

2009_gunner
04-23-2010, 8:59 PM
sounds worthy of a PRAR.....

I called Lori Saldana's San Diego office today to ask when and where open carriers were followed by gang members and had to be protected by police.

The aide who I spoke to said it was an event in Mission Beach. He was not positive on the date, but thought it was in March, 2009. I've looked through PNS25's blog, and I'm guessing the aide was referring to the February 28, 2009 Mission Beach gathering (I wasn't there).

http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/02/third-san-diego-open-carry-meet.html

Does *anyone* who was there remember seeing anyone remotely resembling a gang member following the group, and necessitating police protection??

I would be nice to get police logs for that event, as well.

raycm2
04-23-2010, 9:03 PM
FWIW, I just sent the following:


Assemblymember Saldana:
I just watched your press conference on AB1934. I apologize for the late response but I was out of the country when the press conference took place. Firstly, I agree that open carry can create situations that may be wrongly interpreted. While I quarrel with your statistics on gun ownership and violence, from your statements and answers to questions during the press conference I conclude that you would support a bill that ensures that any person carrying a gun is properly trained and that the gun is not visible to the general public. That means that permitted concealed carry would meet your personal requirements for 'responsible' gun ownership and use. One of the bill supporters at your press conference used the example of Florida as a state that does not allow open carry; Florida does, however, have one of the most open concealed carry laws in the United States. Am I wrong in thinking that you would support a statewide 'Shall Issue' policy on concealed carry permits provided that the permit holder has demonstrated training and practice in responsible use of the weapon?

N6ATF
04-23-2010, 9:05 PM
The only gang that was following them was the largest street gang in America, who are led by regional chiefs who want all law-abiding citizens disarmed.

ProlificARProspect
04-23-2010, 9:09 PM
This shouldn't turn into a us against them thread....especially in our forum. I have met more than a dozen LEO's in the field, range and in Stations around SC that are very PRO RKBA and Calgunners. All we can ask is that our fellow Brothers in the LEO community put pressure on the CA Chief's of Police Association to stop supporting this. We can't blame individual LEO's for what rouge Union Reps are doing.... Unless they took a vote as a Organized Union to Support this unconstitutional law.



This video is full of BS Lies.... Saldana, LCAV, Brady Campaign, Cal. Police Chiefs Association, have no cred in my book... it's scary to think these are our California reprensentatives at work.



`

glockman19
04-23-2010, 9:10 PM
Unbelieveable.:eek:

jdberger
04-23-2010, 9:11 PM
We have a case where people were going about their business in full compliance of the law and we had some gang bangers who didn’t like them on their turf so we had to have some cops do their jobs and protect the law abiding from the criminals so, we should limit the rights of the law abiding folks. That about sums up California gun ownership doesn’t it?

So does anyone have any of the sources for the stats? There were too many 500%'s in there...

You can find the stats in the LCAV model laws on their site. LCAV.org or something like that.

The stats are sourced from recipients of Joyce Foundation money, discredited studies and (apparently) soothsayers and witchdoctors.

POLICESTATE
04-23-2010, 9:13 PM
I love the LE response is basically......let's just ban it so we dont have to deal with it.

Hey.....why don't we just pass a dawn to dusk curfew too so we dont have to worry about dealing with people in the dark either.

And after that it will be "let's just put everyone in camps so we don't have to worry about them moving around and causing problems"

dsmoot
04-23-2010, 9:19 PM
This is from PNS's blog, does anyone see any gang members between them and the police? I sure don't :shrug:

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/CG%20OC%20MEET%202-28-09/SDOC_Priceless.jpg

Eat Dirt
04-23-2010, 9:21 PM
Fuming at the stupidity and arrogance of these people.

What a LOAD of BULL !!!!!!!!!!!!
500 % . ...........This
500 % .............That


Come on .Did they get Jay Leno's writers to write this stuff
And where did they get Captian Kangaroo.??

otteray
04-23-2010, 9:32 PM
While I don't think UOC is a good strategy right now, I have to laugh at the cartoonish character who kept referring to the protests and carry events as "a fad" or "like telephone booth stuffing."
He comes across as a phony elitist and a stupid, lying, creepy man. He should be working as a carnival barker.
Really though, they all came across like that.

spddrcr
04-23-2010, 9:40 PM
I cant believe the hypocrissy and lies that were given as facts at that conference. my LIBERAL wife could not believe it.

As far as the regular LEO's in CA go,it has become an us vs them type of mentality in the area i live in and sadly the LEO's have become a part of them. I travel all over the U.S. for my photography jobs i do and in just about every state i have been to including when i was in NYC the officers were approachable and friendly and basically like one of my friends who i didnt see to often. the NYC officers actually took me and a couple friends out on the town on a friday night so we could see what it was like. But where i live when you see the police you learn to walk on eggshells so as to not draw attention to yourself. I have never been in serious trouble in my 36 years of life but even when the police are at my house taking a report after a home invasion they talked to me like i had done something to desearve this and that i had no buissness owning handguns even though i can and have outshot several of them at our local range and make it a habit to shoot at least 2 matches a month and practice weekly.

the police in the bay area and particulary concord and the surrounding area are more corrupt then anywhere else i have ever lived, just for the record the concord police department has been sued by female officers several times over the last 5 years with the most recent happening right now, millions have been paid out and several of the officers are currently still working there and are involved in the newest lawsuit which will net them millions more. they have closed our substations and stopped responding to the gang problems in our neighborhoods yet at the same time they are telling us we dont have a right to protect ourselves and our families unless we are attacked in our houses.

enough is enough, If i had the ability to become a LEO right now at this point in time in my life i would just so i could try to stop this sort of garbage from happening and maybe bring a little bit of dignity back to the police here in my town but as it is it seems the cops here are more concerned with sueing the city then stopping criminals.

spddrcr
04-23-2010, 9:42 PM
While I don't think UOC is a good strategy right now, I have to laugh at the cartoonish character who kept referring to the protests and carry events as "a fad" or "like telephone booth stuffing."
He comes across as a phony elitist and a stupid, lying, creepy man. He should be working as a carnival barker.
Really though, they all came across like that.

you mean the lobbyist they had there:rolleyes:

soopafly
04-23-2010, 9:56 PM
Am I the only one that wanted to punch my computer screen when John Lovell was spewing his drivel!?!?! What condescending elitist:mad: I would like to say sooo much more, but that would probably earn me a temp ban and give the anti's some juicy quotes for their anti-CGN crusade.:rolleyes:

The Cable Guy
04-23-2010, 10:07 PM
The only people more inane are those who actually believe this pile of crap.

jdberger
04-23-2010, 10:19 PM
Errr....John Lovell....:puke:

John Lovell, Polluter....

Wilmington (Delaware) News Journal: "The DuPont Company showed its clout by winning passage of a favorable hazardous waste resolution at the National Governor's Association in Louisville, Kentucky. The victory was masterminded by DuPont lobbyist John Lovell, who obtained the favorable resolution over the opposition of Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt, who chaired the Governor's Association hazardous materials committee. Longtime observers of the NGA events reported that it was the first time they can remember the Governor's overriding the wishes of one of their own committee chairs."

Arrogant *****....

big red
04-23-2010, 10:29 PM
F33dback, I wholeheartedly agree with you but right now your talking to people who are upset and venting. A calm, cool, and collected response with relevent facts is what is needed. Giving reporters like Karen Massi, who is monority and female, a good sound bite and story is critical to getting the meesage across. The next step is to shut up and vote come November. All the ranting and raving will not do any good except to scare off the critical fence sitters and if you need tor ant and rave do it on a site like this and vote in November. Go into Saldana's district and get her voted out. Concentrate on the top dozen anti-gun leglislators regardless of party and get them booted. Help oppoents of teh police chief boot him. He is obviously looking to curry someone favor doing all of these appearances. Attack him at home and get him recalled. Do whine about it do something.

KylaGWolf
04-23-2010, 10:35 PM
I've been biting my tounge for days but after seeing this video today I just dont think I can any longer. So here it is, my personal opinion from hence forth is that CA LE as a whole are a bunch of little pooseys and I will continue to hold that opinion of them till I start seeing them have some balls and actually stand up for the rights of law abiding citizens.

You dont like being thought of as a poosey.....then start living the oath of the office you took! You dont want to uphold the oath the tax payers are paying you to uphold please turn in your badge forthwith!

COPs in just about every other state in this country are tough enough to deal with armed law-abiding citizens, and often with less back-up and less pay then most CA COPs. How do you think that makes you look? Quite honestly, especially in these times of tight budgets when resources are stretched to the max, the LE profession in CA should be ashamed of itself.

There are probably more pro 2A cops than anti so please watch the attitude.

After watching this video I can only way wow. Where in the hell does she get those figures 500 times more likely to die from a homicide if you have a gun. More likely to become a victim of domestic violence. Guys if you think that she is going to stop if she manages to get this passed you are delusional. This woman needs to be voted out of office like YESTERDAY.

jdberger
04-23-2010, 10:40 PM
She's termed out and isn't running for another office in the future.

Probably why she thinks she can pull this off without consequences.

Doheny
04-23-2010, 10:43 PM
This is from PNS's blog, does anyone see any gang members between them and the police? I sure don't :shrug:

I was thinking while watching that video that someone should request a copy of the police report from the supposed incident and see what it says about gang members, etc.

M198
04-23-2010, 10:49 PM
"500% more likely to be shot when a gun is around". My question is this, how the hell do people get shot when guns aren't around? Slingshots? Bow and arrows? The bird on the freeway?

mroels
04-23-2010, 11:19 PM
Slightly OT and might've been asked before but how is this bill going to affect carrying at designated shooting areas on BLM land? Can we no longer holster a weapon when shooting out there?

taloft
04-23-2010, 11:23 PM
The UOC law has been on the books since the 60's. Everything was fine and everybody was happy until people actually tried to exercise their rights under the law. Once people dared to do what was legal, suddenly it became a major public safety issue. How dare they do something legal!:rolleyes: Only in California is it possible to have a perfectly legal activity become a Major Public Safety Issue because some State hoplophobes are uncomfortable with the serfs exercising their freedom. The truth is they don't like to be reminded of where their power really comes from.

500%, really? How many crime victims have resulted from UOC? How many officers have been hurt in the line of duty while dealing with a UOC call? What's that? Zero? Yeah, that's what I though. I'd bet the Brady flunky gave her all those false stats right before the news conference. If even half of them were true, pro gun states would be awash with blood. Anyone else notice that the BS stats she was spewing are supposedly related to firearms ownership in the home? Rather odd topic considering she is addressing open carry in public. The two don't relate, unless you're anti gun and trying to promote an agenda. Also, it might be too transparent to pass off BS stats regarding UOC by the law abiding. Even the morons would clue in to the fact that there were no facts regarding UOCing since no one has done a study of it.

Did any of them ever consider having police trainers from pro gun states come and train our LEO's in how to deal with a packing public? When I go to AZ. the LEO's don't even look at me twice. They don't care that I'm carrying a loaded gun on my hip. As long as it stays on my hip, they're happy campers. Seems to work quite well for all concerned.;)

I really, really want to get my hands on a copy of the press info. packet they were handing out. I'd love to shred every supposed fact in it and resubmit it to the members of the press that were present for this travesty of a news conference.

f33dback
04-24-2010, 1:18 AM
F33dback, I wholeheartedly agree with you but right now your talking to people who are upset and venting. A calm, cool, and collected response with relevent facts is what is needed.

Which is what my point is.

adamsreeftank
04-24-2010, 1:19 AM
Those people are 500% full of crap.

CitaDeL
04-24-2010, 6:17 AM
The UOC law has been on the books since the 60's. Everything was fine and everybody was happy until people actually tried to exercise their rights under the law. Once people dared to do what was legal, suddenly it became a major public safety issue. How dare they do something legal!:rolleyes: Only in California is it possible to have a perfectly legal activity become a Major Public Safety Issue because some State hoplophobes are uncomfortable with the serfs exercising their freedom. The truth is they don't like to be reminded of where their power really comes from.


FUD. There is no UOC law. Never has been. Carrying an unloaded weapon in a holster has been legal in most areas since before the state of California existed.

But you are otherwise correct- The legislature took no action until the people asserted themselves-which shows you that this is about controlling and oppressing people, not about public safety. Because if it were a public safety issue, the legislature had plenty of time to develop laws in the past century.

One should wonder, why is it that the Mulford Act (12031PC) stops short of a complete ban on carry? Why didnt they also ban UOC in one fall swoop? And 12025- Why didnt the legislature use their tortured logic to eliminate the definition in 12025 (f) and allow any weapon other than one carried in the hand, be considered concealed- making a weapon in a holster 'concealed'? I believe all of these things are a nod towards the Constitution- they didnt enact a complete ban, because they felt they couldnt in their interpretation of the 2A at the time. Unfortunately, interpretations have changed.

SanPedroShooter
04-24-2010, 6:32 AM
After reading all the comments, i dont even want to watch the video. It will just piss me off even more. I dont understand the issue with uoc, has anyone been hurt? Had there gun stolen etc..? why do we need another law now? What about all the criminals that carry already? Shouldnt that be more of a priority? For some reason this whole issue has me more depressed than any other. even the mail order ammo ban.
I think because it shows the mindset of the opposition so clearly.
Dont they realize that this could make criminals out of regular people, people whos only crime, as far as i can tell, is following the exisiting laws and making police departments learn how to do their jobs properly? The open carriers i've seen look pretty harmless. Only in California can they become public enemy number one.

BobB35
04-24-2010, 6:45 AM
That Emeryville PD Chief is an idiot and a disgrace to his uniform and his oath of office. And then I wonder why I am increasingly viewing LE in CA as "the enemy"? Because with their backing of things like this they certainly aren't my friend. so if people who open carry are "immature" I guess that means so are those uniformed LEOs aye?

If CCW were shall-issue and readily accessible then none of this would be an issue.

Saldana is an idiot too......and obviously has no concept of what freedom and liberty is all about.

I have an idea if COPs in CA are so afriad for their safety: Lay off all the COPs to save the state money and let everyone take care of themselves. Because if I'm disarmed and hafta rely on them for protection then I'm not much safer then if there were no COPs at all.

So according to Saldana we need to prevent law-abiding people from carrying guns because the police had to protect the law-abiding carries from the gang-members in the area. doesnt the having of dangerous gang-members in the area support the need to carry?

I dont think I have ever been more disgusted and disappointed by "public servants" then I am right now! :(
I'm glad our legislators are so consumed with criminalizing lawful behavior by law abiding citizens rather then dealing with those who are already openly engaged in illegal activity.

And they even openly admitted that LE resources are stretched thin so their answer is to even further restrict a persons ability to defend themselves when LE is not available. NICE!!!!

and oh....scary.....a law-abiding citizen engaging in a legal activity OC'd within a block of HER house. Oh the horror......what about the possibly numerous criminals who have illegally CC'd in her vicinity before and she didn't even know about it. Ehh....who cares.....lets waste precious state resources on punishing law-abiding people for doing something that was legal.

Like they said......if no had started doing they wouldn't have cared (although that statement does support the reason Gene and others asked people to stand down for now)......so even though it was legal.....to actually do so would anger the elected royalty and have the right removed......so it was a right you never really had anyway.

Exactly, as long as these type of people are the chiefs and running the chiefs organization, what the rank and file think doesn't matter... Unfortunately violating the Constitution is not a problem for the Dems in CA so they will keep on keeping on...

BobB35
04-24-2010, 6:53 AM
However, we are also sworn to uphold the law. Until the law changes if what you are doing is a crime, then a LEO may well pinch you for it. Whether the law is good or bad, right or wrong. Don't like the law, then get it changed. The rank and file LEO is, for all intents and purposes, in a Catch 22. That gets compounded by the complexity of California's gun laws, sometimes less than stellar training, individual misconceptions and biases, and the openly hostile political climate to firearms and legitimate sporting, recreational and personal protection uses of firearms in California.

There have been any number of the LE community who have spoken out... and some have paid a price for it. Some who post here, in fact. Typically those who do tend to be pretty modest about it, if for no other reason than its hard to take a big piece of credit simply for doing what is right.

The rank and file is not allowed to speak publicly on most issues. The CLEOs and administrators are. If you can't speak in your official capacity, then you have to speak as a private citizen and on that I agree. I've been doing that for at least a couple of decades myself, even more so since I got out of the business.

But don't say that nothing will change unless cops stick their necks out. That is a strawman.

LEOs have VERY BROAD DISCRETION on what laws they "uphold". Heck they even get to make some up to "uphold". Give me a break.

I can remember conversation on this very board from LEOs and Military about how if the order ever came down to confiscate firearms they would disobey and never do it. I remember being called every name in the book, because I said "NO, LEOs and military will follow orders". Well you just proved my point. LEO for the most part don't know or care about the Constitution or the laws....they will do what they are told...don't blame them, just wish people would stop expecting LEOs to do the right thing...they won't.

command_liner
04-24-2010, 6:57 AM
WRT the "fad" argument.

People have been openly carrying firearms here in what is now the US
for something like 300 years.

Organized local full-time police forces are 100 years old, perhaps 120 in
a few places. Police are a fad. Especially faddish is the militarized
anti-gun police force, a concept that has grown up in the last 40 years.

WRT the "follow orders" argument, there is a serious issue. There are
too many laws for police to understand. No human can be held responsible
for knowing the laws of the US because the laws are WAY to complex. The
issue foretold by John Madison in Federalist 62 has come to pass.

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."

How can a police officer know the laws? He cannot. So of course he will
follow orders. He cannot think through the legal maze because the maze
is so complex. On surveying the whole legal scene, the single most
important thing that can happen to change this is for a few dozen cops to
be imprisoned for violating civil rights laws. When the local beat cop,
and sergeant and captain get thrown in jail because they could not possibly
understand the law and then made an arbitrary, illegal arrest, cops will stop
and think a bit.

tenpercentfirearms
04-24-2010, 6:59 AM
I would have loved to have been there and asked, "Do you really want us to believe that gang members were following well armed citizens and really were seeking to rob these citizens of their firearms? Like, seriously, you really want us to believe that happened? What do the police do to protect themselves from this same threat since the police actually open carry every day? Wouldn't in theory gang members seek to steal these firearms from police as well? Or are you just making all of this up to scare us?"

Mulay El Raisuli
04-24-2010, 8:18 AM
I also liked how when the reporter asked why she ignored stats from other studies that didn't support her stance she basically almost said "Well I excluded those because they didn't support my conclusions."

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH This is just so f'in infuriating!!!!


At least she was honest about that. I also liked how they all admitted to being Collaborators. O, that we could treat them as Collaborators of old were treated.


FWIW, I just sent the following:


Assemblymember Saldana:
I just watched your press conference on AB1934. I apologize for the late response but I was out of the country when the press conference took place. Firstly, I agree that open carry can create situations that may be wrongly interpreted. While I quarrel with your statistics on gun ownership and violence, from your statements and answers to questions during the press conference I conclude that you would support a bill that ensures that any person carrying a gun is properly trained and that the gun is not visible to the general public. That means that permitted concealed carry would meet your personal requirements for 'responsible' gun ownership and use. One of the bill supporters at your press conference used the example of Florida as a state that does not allow open carry; Florida does, however, have one of the most open concealed carry laws in the United States. Am I wrong in thinking that you would support a statewide 'Shall Issue' policy on concealed carry permits provided that the permit holder has demonstrated training and practice in responsible use of the weapon?


PERFECT!!!!! Of course, she'll send bovine scatology back at you, but this is the perfect way to hold her feet to the fire.


Wait a minute here...

As a very new gun owner, I have to share something which I recently learned that I otherwise didn't realize before I accepted the responsibility of owning an AR-15 and a Glock 22.

That is, that it seems to me at this point, lawful, gun owning citizens are more likely to be peaceful and not commit gun crimes BECAUSE they own or are otherwise carrying guns. As a free, lawful, gun owning citizen, I am aware of the added responsibility I've taken and also very aware of the steep consequences for misusing my guns in any way.

As a result, in an effort to
1. Remain a free man, and
2. Continue enjoying my right to bear arms
I've begun to think twice about even getting into a verbal argument with someone for no other reason than a fight could result in me being charged with a felony. Not to mention that even if I WERE to be carrying a firearm, for the 2 reasons I stated above, there's no way in hell I would even unholster it less my life was in immediate danger.

And while I wouldn't assume to speak for anyone other than myself, I wouldn't be surprised if every other lawful, gun owning/carrying citizen feels the same way.

In short, owning a firearm has made me more polite and a lot less likely to commit a crime. Where the hell are these people coming from?


First, welcome to the gunnie community.

Second, those people are coming from a weird & wondrous place that no rational person wants to visit.

Third, here's a link to a tract written by Eric S. Raymond,

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

a fairly bright guy. In it, he basically distills what you've discovered in a way that can be better shared with your friends & neighbors.

Enjoy.


The Raisuli

MonsterMan
04-24-2010, 9:00 AM
You guys are trying to make sense of this situation. You can not. What you need to realize is that they want to disarm you and they will do Anything they can to do it. Even lie to the public.

Untamed1972
04-24-2010, 9:30 AM
There are probably more pro 2A cops than anti so please watch the attitude.

But as long as they sit in silence and follow the orders without speaking out against them.....then they are choosing to be the henchmen of the anti's, plain and simple. If you're not against them....then you're for them. When you put on the uniform and the badge there is no neutral ground.

As for my attitude....that's really my business. When a CLEO is gonna go on camera, in his uniform and represt himself as a spokesmen for CA LE....then CA LE is gonna get the flack until someone in LE has the balls to stand up and rebut him and call him out for his lies.

CitaDeL
04-24-2010, 10:04 AM
The proper response to a press conference is another press conference.

Does anyone at all want to rebut or support this assertion? Just curious.

Doheny
04-24-2010, 11:24 AM
Does anyone at all want to rebut or support this assertion? Just curious.

Sure, let us know when and where you're hosting it.

In reality, such things (dueling press conferences) become p*ssing contests.

Mikeb
04-24-2010, 11:35 AM
I'm thinking I should write Ms Saldano and ask here to sponsor A bill that would make it illegal to speak out side your house or private property. We all treasure the right of free speech, but people speaking in public has created horrible consequences. It has cause fights, riots, and confrontations. Certainly there are already laws that forbid yelling fire in a theatre, and ban "fighting words", but yet the carnage goes on. In Oakland recently we saw a case that illustrates this point. A man said something to two guys that had just sucker punched his son and he was killed. We must stop this threat. Forbidding speech out side the home would make our streets safer . Also banning speech in public buildings, especially the State Capitol would stop a lot of bickering and disturbing behavior that is making our state an unpleasant place. This idea would make us safer and save money, time and energy spent on policing but most of all do it for the children.
what do ya' think
Mike

N6ATF
04-24-2010, 12:40 PM
Does anyone at all want to rebut or support this assertion? Just curious.

I think it's pointless to have a press conference unless some major action has been taken. So, if we can get together a judge, prosecutor and LEO or a Sheriff that will actually abide by their oath to support and defend the Constitution, to announce that Saldana and her cadre have had arrest warrants issued/executed for treason, fraud, perjury under oath, and civil rights violations under color of law...

KylaGWolf
04-24-2010, 1:51 PM
This is from PNS's blog, does anyone see any gang members between them and the police? I sure don't :shrug:

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/CG%20OC%20MEET%202-28-09/SDOC_Priceless.jpg

I was at that event and the closet we saw that could have constituted gang members was when we stopped to watch the low riders do their thing. And I can also say had their been any gang members Zimmerman and her posse sure as hell would have been dealing with them instead of following us on the six mile hike that a few of us took.

N6ATF
04-24-2010, 1:55 PM
If Zimmerman is the one who tipped off Saldana, I have no doubt she would have turned a blind eye to criminals in favor of victims' rights violations and disarmament.

KylaGWolf
04-24-2010, 2:15 PM
Does anyone at all want to rebut or support this assertion? Just curious.

Trust me I am working on that one.

KylaGWolf
04-24-2010, 2:16 PM
If Zimmerman is the one who tipped off Saldana, I have no doubt she would have turned a blind eye to criminals in favor of victims' rights violations and disarmament.

Shes not that stupid....she would have stopped them and made a big deal to the press about it see how we diverted crime and how bad open carry is. She wouldn't have been covert in the least.

tlillard23
04-24-2010, 2:25 PM
I could only listen to the first 30 seconds.... Her "facts" are worded in a manner to make me think they are all partial truths.

N6ATF
04-24-2010, 3:17 PM
Shes not that stupid....she would have stopped them and made a big deal to the press about it see how we diverted crime and how bad open carry is. She wouldn't have been covert in the least.

Diverted? In this scenario, wouldn't it be 'attracted'?

Librarian
04-24-2010, 4:21 PM
FWIW, I just sent the following:


Assemblymember Saldana:
I just watched your press conference on AB1934. I apologize for the late response but I was out of the country when the press conference took place. Firstly, I agree that open carry can create situations that may be wrongly interpreted. While I quarrel with your statistics on gun ownership and violence, from your statements and answers to questions during the press conference I conclude that you would support a bill that ensures that any person carrying a gun is properly trained and that the gun is not visible to the general public. That means that permitted concealed carry would meet your personal requirements for 'responsible' gun ownership and use. One of the bill supporters at your press conference used the example of Florida as a state that does not allow open carry; Florida does, however, have one of the most open concealed carry laws in the United States. Am I wrong in thinking that you would support a statewide 'Shall Issue' policy on concealed carry permits provided that the permit holder has demonstrated training and practice in responsible use of the weapon?

Nicely done.

Of course, actually thinking through a position would cause an anti's head to explode; you have just harshed their mellow. They therefore will have a minor attack of the vapors before wishing your inquiry out of existence.

Maestro Pistolero
04-24-2010, 5:46 PM
I, too, could not stomach it past the first ten minutes. Argh. Is there anything I can do to work against this? UOC may be a ghost of the actual right, but it's all we have at this time. I hate to lose ground so close to incorporation. These people make me physically ill.