PDA

View Full Version : UOC events in the future?


dantodd
06-28-2010, 10:35 AM
Based on CGF's letter re: AB1394 and the incorporation of 2A today can we expect a more aggressive official stance by CGF?

I need to know if I should go out and buy a holster.

Pix Cool
06-28-2010, 10:38 AM
Open carry WAS legal in California, is NOW legal in California and will ALWAYS be legal in California.

The McDonald ruling just affirms this.

Go buy a holster. Just dont carry near any schools for the time being and dont be loaded (for the time being)

Lancear15
06-28-2010, 10:42 AM
UHHH no, do not UOC!

Wait for CCW, nothing has changed for us in CA...yet

Nordyke_v._King (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King)

dantodd
06-28-2010, 10:44 AM
Open carry WAS legal in California, is NOW legal in California and will ALWAYS be legal in California.

The McDonald ruling just affirms this.

Go buy a holster. Just dont carry near any schools for the time being and dont be loaded (for the time being)

I know that you are new here so please do a search on UOC. It has been a contentious issue within the forum for some time and those who are leading many of the lawsuits to reform CA gun laws have asked people to NOT UOC in California at this time. Further, there is a bill in front of the legislature right now that aims to outlaw open carry in CA. While it is possible that a legal challenge to that law might be successful it is also possible that it would fail and bringing up a bad case to challenge a law at the wrong time might just cement that bad law more firmly in place than if it were left sitting there until a better case, or judicial environment were in place.

Pix Cool
06-28-2010, 10:44 AM
UHHH no, do not UOC!

Wait for CCW, nothing has changed for us in CA...yet



well something HAS changed, its call a supreme court ruling !!!

in addition, open carry IS LEGAL in california. please stop with the nonsense against open carry.

stan
06-28-2010, 10:46 AM
Further, there is a bill in front of the legislature right now that aims to outlaw open carry in CA. While it is possible that a legal challenge to that law might be successful it is also possible that it would fail and bringing up a bad case to challenge a law at the wrong time might just cement that bad law more firmly in place than if it were left sitting there until a better case, or judicial environment were in place.

and that bill has not been made into law. so what the hell are you talking about? there is no case, good or bad, if someone UOCs in compliance with current law.

taperxz
06-28-2010, 10:52 AM
well something HAS changed, its call a supreme court ruling !!!

in addition, open carry IS LEGAL in california. please stop with the nonsense against open carry.

Back off a little there new guy. McDonald has no bearing currently on laws in CA. YET!!

pullnshoot25
06-28-2010, 10:52 AM
Chill out people. Geez.

Pix Cool
06-28-2010, 10:56 AM
Back off a little there new guy. McDonald has no bearing currently on laws in CA. YET!!

It doesnt need to have any bearing...yet. Open carry is LEGAL in California.

Dont tell me to back off on excercizing my rights.

Like I said before, please stop this nonsense against open carry. It is legal.

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 10:57 AM
well something HAS changed, its call a supreme court ruling !!!

in addition, open carry IS LEGAL in california. please stop with the nonsense against open carry.

Please educate yourself on the issues and relevant law before you or someone taking your advice goes to jail.

hoffmang
06-28-2010, 10:58 AM
UOC is certainly more useful but it is not at all clear that UOC is protected under the 2A simply due to the unloaded nature. Once you get there, the issue becomes whether the state can require a 12050 license. As much as many purists wish they couldn't that is not likely a winning argument in Federal court.

UOC, but balance the risks of assisting passage of AB-1934. Senate Aprops are the last major hurdle. If it dies there it looks much more promising for UOC generally.

-Gene

Pix Cool
06-28-2010, 10:58 AM
Please educate yourself on the issues and relevant law before you or someone taking your advice goes to jail.

I know the law. I open carry all the time. Its legal in California. Thanks for the advice though.

AndrewMendez
06-28-2010, 11:01 AM
Chill out people. Geez.

Please educate yourself on the issues and relevant law before you or someone taking your advice goes to jail.

Two of the smartest people about the subject.
IMO UOC will do nothing good for our cause. With the McDonald case finally being decided, I think this is a great time to focus on Shall Issue. This thread is going to go nowhere and quickly.

Pix Cool
06-28-2010, 11:01 AM
UOC, but balance the risks of assisting passage of AB-1934. Senate Aprops are the last major hurdle.
-Gene

You really think that if I abstain from open carry that the anti-gun lobby and politicians will abandon their bill and let me keep my rights ?

I never bought or shot an assault weapon but they still banned those.

I never had any high cap mags but they still banned those.

I never owned a .50 rifle but they still banned those.

The list goes on....

stan
06-28-2010, 11:02 AM
UOC, but balance the risks of assisting passage of AB-1934. Senate Aprops are the last major hurdle. If it dies there it looks much more promising for UOC generally.

-Gene


this sounds like "proceed, with caution"

BigDogatPlay
06-28-2010, 11:02 AM
Open carry WAS legal in California, is NOW legal in California and will ALWAYS be legal in California.

While your first two statements are correct, don't count on #3. I handicap it 8-5 odds that the Legislature will pass the OC ban currently before it, AB 1934, and even money at best that Governor Schwarzenegger would sign it.

My opinion, with all due respect, is that the continual forcing of OC within California is largely counterproductive to the larger fights we are waging, particularly in the court of public opinion which we have absolutely no sway over at present. The OC supporters are free to do what they want, but they should recognize that their actions, while gratifying in the near term, can have legislative consequences that reach much farther.

As I've said before Google the term "pyrrhic victory".

Of course with McDonald today, the elimination of OC with our current "may issue by CLEO fiat" system of CC license issuance would / could make Sykes as close to a fait accompli as one might ever get.

dantodd
06-28-2010, 11:02 AM
and that bill has not been made into law. so what the hell are you talking about? there is no case, good or bad, if someone UOCs in compliance with current law.

You are right the bill is not law, I thought that was obvious from my post. For future reference what part of my post caused you to think that I was unaware of this fact?

As for a case challenging the possible law. My intention in asking the question was if CGF thinks it is a good time to push back by holding large UOC events. It was not about individuals UOCing. My question was answered by Gene.

Kestryll
06-28-2010, 11:08 AM
Dont tell me to back off on excercizing my rights.


ETA:

Never mind, how about instead we just kick you to the curb for the ninth time 'rungunner/war mother/hans fisk/etc.'?

wash
06-28-2010, 11:09 AM
Where do you live?

UOC in the middle of nowhere in a ~shall issue county is no great trick.

UOC in an urban enviornment is much different.

The fact of the matter is that the average gun owner is not a gun rights activist and there have already been cases of gun owners hearing "UOC is legal" and then proceeding to break the GFSZ law or carrying loaded and getting arrested for that.

These negative outcomes hurt our chances of winning in the courts.

In my opinion, UOC is best done in organized groups in areas well clear of GFSZ's with a heavy slant toward educating gun owners so that they don't go out and get arrested for some silly law that we will be fighting in the future.

It's really a PR issue, not a legal issue and we do need to win the PR war because it helps us down the road.

stan
06-28-2010, 11:09 AM
You are right the bill is not law, I thought that was obvious from my post. For future reference what part of my post caused you to think that I was unaware of this fact?

in your post it seemed implied that the discussion at hand (UOC events) had the potential to be creating bad cases. that's what made me concerned with your post, you seemed to be saying not to UOC because it would cause some problem, as though it were either not legal or of debatable legality.

2009_gunner
06-28-2010, 11:12 AM
We could always start ORC (Open Replica Carry) to make the 1st Amendment point, and avoid GFSZ / partially concealed concerns.

dantodd
06-28-2010, 11:13 AM
in your post it seemed implied that the discussion at hand (UOC events) had the potential to be creating bad cases. that's what made me concerned with your post, you seemed to be saying not to UOC because it would cause some problem, as though it were either not legal or of debatable legality.

Wow! that is exactly the opposite of the question I was asking. Certainly a UOC event could cause bad caselaw if someone were arrested during said event but the question was if there is any value in holding responsible UOC events now that McDonald is out.

stan
06-28-2010, 11:15 AM
http://spikeville.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/boondock_1.jpg

get your holsters ready!

Liberty1
06-28-2010, 11:18 AM
lets please wait and see what happens in the Sen. committee...


And Dan, you don't have a holster??? How do you carry at home? M4gery on a sling I hope....

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2010, 11:24 AM
If you want to open carry because that is the only option available to you and you also live in the boonies, open carry away!

If you want to have high profile open carry events in liberal strongholds, again, don't be surprised when AB1394 comes out.

For those of you who haven't read McDonald, not much changed. The Brady Campaign is still running this as a victory for their side because "reasonable restrictions are allowed". Do you have a right to open carry? Better yet, will the Supreme Court recognize your right to open carry years from now if you make it that far? It depends on who is on the Supreme Court.

Now do we push the California legislature to recognize our rights or be sued and lose? That seems like a more prudent form of action.

Seriously, the open carry debate is just tiresome. Who cares anymore? Open carry was simply 2009. Move on. Either do it or don't.

N6ATF
06-28-2010, 2:42 PM
If you want to have high profile open carry events in liberal strongholds, again, don't be surprised when AB1394 comes out.

Even if all gun owners in CA gathered together on national television tomorrow and killed themselves by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid, I would not be surprised if AB1394 came out anyway, AND all the other infringements awaiting rubber stamping. Victim disarmers won't stop until all law-abiding citizens in the U.S. are dead, penniless, or in prison.

demnogis
06-28-2010, 5:09 PM
No SCOTUS ruling will ever stop bad legislation in CA -- at least, not until the populace here become freedom-loving and respectful of the constitution in majority.

SCOTUS rulings like this just give us the ability to challenge (then repeal) said bad laws.

bigtoe416
06-28-2010, 5:33 PM
We could always start ORC (Open Replica Carry) to make the 1st Amendment point, and avoid GFSZ / partially concealed concerns.

Open carrying replica firearms is illegal:

12556. (a) No person may openly display or expose any imitation
firearm, as defined in Section 12550, in a public place.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 5:33 PM
Wow! that is exactly the opposite of the question I was asking. Certainly a UOC event could cause bad caselaw if someone were arrested during said event but the question was if there is any value in holding responsible UOC events now that McDonald is out.

I think the question right now - is whether or not there is such a thing as a 'responsible UOC event'. Haven't we been down that road? In light of McDonald - I think it makes it all the more difficult for such a 'responsible' event.

Fact is - this was just one small step. There are still key pieces of the puzzle that remain undecided. We don't need to go runnin around pissin anymore people off, getting anymore bad laws shoved in our direction, or doing anything that could potentially kill public support. We've already been down that road with UOC, and I don't see how continuing the same behavior is going to get us any kind of different result. Not UOC'ing might not get the law repealed, but UOC now is about as gracious as waving your junk in the other guy's face. You're just going to provoke a reaction from the legislature.

A legislature that has shown it has no problem reacting with overzealous unconstitutional legislation. Overzealous legislation that we now have to add on to the list of things to fight in court...

Are you SURE you want to go down that road, AGAIN?

command_liner
06-28-2010, 5:42 PM
Any rational analysis shows AB1394 can never become law. It is being
acted upon during the lock-out period of a Proclaimed Fiscal Emergency.
This sort of action is specifically, unambiguously and clearly prohibited the
California Constitution. This Constitutional Amendment is only 5 years
old. The official Voter Guide specifically describes the purpose, intent, and
meaning of the proposed change (now law) was to prohibit the Legislature
from acting on non-budget issues during a Proclaimed Fiscal Emergency.
The information presented to the voters, the text of the change, and the
result of the vote are all perfectly clear.

If AB1394 can become law in direct contradiction to the plain and obvious
meaning of the California Constitution, we no longer have a constitutional
republic. We will be governed by the rule of man, not the rule of law.
In that case, all bets are off.

thevic
06-28-2010, 5:51 PM
so the airsoft cops n robbers my 10 yr old neighbors do around the neighborhood is illegal? hah

2009_gunner
06-28-2010, 6:00 PM
wow... I never cease to be amazed by California laws.

I wonder if that type of law has ever been challenged.

Donny1
06-28-2010, 6:11 PM
ETA:

Never mind, how about instead we just kick you to the curb for the ninth time 'rungunner/war mother/hans fisk/etc.'?

Damn this guy is persistent!

Kestryll, Thanks for taking out the trash. How many IP's does this guy have anyway? If he's using friends computers this shouldn't last long, he can't have many.

CitaDeL
06-28-2010, 6:33 PM
Where do you live?

UOC in the middle of nowhere in a ~shall issue county is no great trick.

UOC in an urban enviornment is much different.

The fact of the matter is that the average gun owner is not a gun rights activist and there have already been cases of gun owners hearing "UOC is legal" and then proceeding to break the GFSZ law or carrying loaded and getting arrested for that.

These negative outcomes hurt our chances of winning in the courts.

In my opinion, UOC is best done in organized groups in areas well clear of GFSZ's with a heavy slant toward educating gun owners so that they don't go out and get arrested for some silly law that we will be fighting in the future.

It's really a PR issue, not a legal issue and we do need to win the PR war because it helps us down the road.

If you own a gun and live in the State of California, you are a 'gun-rights activist' whether you want to be or not.

While there have been two media recorded incidents with uninformed individuals carrying in a school zone, this is not an epidemic that has threatened to rend asunder any of the advances that we have made in the past four years. These people have largely borne the burden of their mistakes and have provided an adequate cautionary tale to encourage others to be more careful.

I completely disagree with the assertion that open carry should only be practiced in organized groups. The problem with this is two-fold; first is that such groups have attracted the unwanted attention of the legislature-which would not have occured if individuals or small, discrete, brief gatherings were prefered. Second, the perception of a large group of gun-owners showing up as a matter of 'protest' does not help acclimate neutral observers to the presence of firearms- instead it makes gun ownership appear to be an unusual or odd behavior.

In order to acclimate neutral observers, individual open carry or open carry by family leaders (Mom's and Dad's) should conduct their activities where practicable. I believe we should forgo the mass carry events or carry events that are designed to attract attention altogether. We must make gun ownership a natural and instinctive habit, else we drive those neutral observers around us to the Brady Campaign's side.

unusedusername
06-28-2010, 7:19 PM
Like the other CGF bigwigs say:

Defeating AB-1934 in court after it passes: Very expensive

Making AB-1934 go away by staying out of the news until the behind-the-scenes people kill it: Really cheap

Spending the money on killing off the AW laws that we would have had to spend on fighting AB-1934: priceless

pullnshoot25
06-28-2010, 8:07 PM
There is just too much **** in this thread to address all at once. Holy crapballs, you guys are a real schismatic bunch.

If you are going to UOC, keep it moderately low-key and keep the media out of it. No one needs to be a media whore and start spreading some bastardized message to the feeble masses.

Also, I don't want people associating some of the weird UOC crap with myself, that is just plain lame.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 8:23 PM
If you own a gun and live in the State of California, you are a 'gun-rights activist' whether you want to be or not.

While there have been two media recorded incidents with uninformed individuals carrying in a school zone, this is not an epidemic that has threatened to rend asunder any of the advances that we have made in the past four years. These people have largely borne the burden of their mistakes and have provided an adequate cautionary tale to encourage others to be more careful.

I completely disagree with the assertion that open carry should only be practiced in organized groups. The problem with this is two-fold; first is that such groups have attracted the unwanted attention of the legislature-which would not have occured if individuals or small, discrete, brief gatherings were prefered. Second, the perception of a large group of gun-owners showing up as a matter of 'protest' does not help acclimate neutral observers to the presence of firearms- instead it makes gun ownership appear to be an unusual or odd behavior.

In order to acclimate neutral observers, individual open carry or open carry by family leaders (Mom's and Dad's) should conduct their activities where practicable. I believe we should forgo the mass carry events or carry events that are designed to attract attention altogether. We must make gun ownership a natural and instinctive habit, else we drive those neutral observers around us to the Brady Campaign's side.

Right.

The UOC effort was so successful the first time around, we just need to modify our tactics a little bit now that we have McDonald. That show those legislative bastards! :eek:

Really? Come on.

3B830
06-28-2010, 8:28 PM
If 1934 goes down we've got'em, and UOCers get to have fun spreading the desensitization state wide. If 1934 passes it's a minor set back and maybe gets shot down later via a 1st/2nd Amendment suit.

Bottom line is loaded carry in some form is coming to ALL of CA!!!! Baby steps.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 8:33 PM
If 1934 goes down we've got'em, and UOCers get to have fun spreading the desensitization state wide. If 1934 passes it's a minor set back and maybe gets shot down later via a 1st/2nd Amendment suit.

Bottom line is loaded carry in some form is coming to ALL of CA!!!! Baby steps.

UOC is like fighting to watch porn when you could be going to sorority house party.

It's like trying to get drunk off of Listerine when you've got a fully stocked bar in your basement.

UOC isn't even a compromise. It's a joke. It is irrelevant. The only place that people even consider UOC a viable option of any kind, for any purpose, is California.

If you fight for UOC - you are fighting for, and legitimizing, something that shouldn't even be a viable option for compromise.

STOP FIGHTING FOR SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE AN OPTION.
SCREW UOC. IT IS A LOSER ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT.

N6ATF
06-28-2010, 8:34 PM
There is just too much **** in this thread to address all at once. Holy crapballs, you guys are a real schismatic bunch.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs105.snc3/15301_10150162996700212_733635211_12117314_2441444 _n.jpg

NOOO! IT HATH BEEN SUMMONED!

Making AB-1934 go away by staying out of the news until the behind-the-scenes people kill it: Really cheap


:confused: What people would those be? Are FBI civil rights division agents going to round up all the CA.gov Democrats for RICO 1983 before they can pass it through the full Senate?

Even if all gun owners in CA gathered together on national television tomorrow and killed themselves by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid, I would not be surprised if AB1394 came out anyway, AND all the other infringements awaiting rubber stamping. Victim disarmers won't stop until all law-abiding citizens in the U.S. are dead, penniless, or in prison.

Liberty1
06-28-2010, 8:44 PM
UOC is like fighting to watch porn when you could be going to sorority house party.

It's like trying to get drunk off of Listerine when you've got a fully stocked bar in your basement.

UOC isn't even a compromise. It's a joke. It is irrelevant. The only place that people even consider UOC a viable option of any kind, for any purpose, is California.

If you fight for UOC - you are fighting for, and legitimizing, something that shouldn't even be a viable option for compromise.

STOP FIGHTING FOR SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE AN OPTION.
SCREW UOC. IT IS A LOSER ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT.

UOC is the 'unlicensed' carry option which appeals to a segment of us who do not agree with surrendering other rights (4th A, 5th A, and personal privacy) and paying a tax (fee every 2 years) just to get to carry. I agree it is not the core right of loaded carry for self defense. But for those holdout jurisdictions which throw up roadblocks for loaded licensed carry (on the road to unlicensed carry if possible) it can be a 1st A. tool if it survives this legislative session.

CA urban Open Carry should and will again hopefully be LOC like it is in a MAJORITY of these united States (porn :rolleyes: indeed, we can't get into the sorority house party as they won't give out the door passes).

YoungGun2
06-28-2010, 8:56 PM
You really think that if I abstain from open carry that the anti-gun lobby and politicians will abandon their bill and let me keep my rights ?

I never bought or shot an assault weapon but they still banned those.

I never had any high cap mags but they still banned those.

I never owned a .50 rifle but they still banned those.

The list goes on....

Your heart is in the right place. I'll give you some advice that was given to me here some time back that did not make much sense to me then. Until I really started to pay attention to what was really going on. Big picture kind of stuff!!

A young bull and an old bull were standing on top of a hill overlooking a herd of cows.

The young bull says, “Why don’t we run down there and **** a couple of cows?”

The old bull replies, “Lets walk down and **** them all!!”

CitaDeL
06-28-2010, 9:07 PM
A young bull and an old bull were standing on top of a hill overlooking a herd of cows.

The young bull says, “Why don’t we run down there and **** a couple of cows?”

The old bull replies, “Lets walk down and **** them all!!”


One question for you;

Are you and I the Bulls, or the Cows?

I ask this, because over the past 40 years, it hasnt been the State legislature that has been getting ****ed.

lavgrunt
06-28-2010, 9:17 PM
You really think that if I abstain from open carry that the anti-gun lobby and politicians will abandon their bill and let me keep my rights ?

I never bought or shot an assault weapon but they still banned those.

I never had any high cap mags but they still banned those.

I never owned a .50 rifle but they still banned those.

The list goes on....



UH-OH !!!.........A newb callin' out Gene-AKA: YODA..........I did that once when I was a wee-CalGunner..........

............Once

PsychGuy274
06-28-2010, 10:56 PM
If you are going to UOC, keep it moderately low-key and keep the media out of it. No one needs to be a media whore and start spreading some bastardized message to the feeble masses.


I am going to say this with all the love and respect in the world, but my urge to call people out is just too great when you say that sentence and then have your avatar be you in a magazine :D

I apologize, it was just too funny to pass up :rolleyes:

Respect

wash
06-29-2010, 11:13 AM
Beside his leather pants, pullnshoot25 presents a good image for the open carry movement.

If everyone were like him (except the pants), I would have no problem with people UOC'ing any time (legally, not in school zones or with school administration permission).

The problem is when average Joe sees UOC and decides to try it without knowing the law or considering the consequences.

Theseus
06-29-2010, 11:26 AM
I didn't even bother reading this all. But I am honestly torn on open carry. But I think my worry has been more the kind of people that it has been attracting. Even though I got popped, but the time I had I had already stopped open carrying per the request of Calguns and the anticipated Nordyke case.

Calm down. Open carry if you must, but lose the attitude, it will do nothing good for us.

pullnshoot25
06-29-2010, 11:48 AM
I never invited the media though. Plus, I know to pick my battles.

hoffmang
06-29-2010, 9:41 PM
UH-OH !!!.........A newb callin' out Gene-AKA: YODA..........I did that once when I was a wee-CalGunner..........

............Once

Heh. He got banned before I could gore him...

-Gene

hoffmang
06-29-2010, 9:45 PM
Open carrying replica firearms is illegal:

12556. (a) No person may openly display or expose any imitation
firearm, as defined in Section 12550, in a public place.

Except that many imitation firearms are exempted as follows:


(d)Subdivision (a) shall not apply to the following, when the imitation firearm is:

(13)A device where the entire exterior surface of the device is white, bright red, bright orange, bright yellow, bright green, bright blue, bright pink, or bright purple, either singly or as the predominant color in combination with other colors in any pattern, or where the entire device is constructed of transparent or translucent materials which permits unmistakable observation of the device's complete contents. Merely having an orange tip as provided in federal law and regulations does not satisfy this requirement. The entire surface must be colored or transparent or translucent.

OC these: http://www.jurekbrothers.com/images/Links_Icons/Blue_Gun.jpg

-Gene

KylaGWolf
06-29-2010, 10:23 PM
well something HAS changed, its call a supreme court ruling !!!

in addition, open carry IS LEGAL in california. please stop with the nonsense against open carry.

UNLOADED Open Carry is legal at least for the moment although there is a movement to have that banned. Why push the issue since this is going to committee in the next week and will have a chance of failing there unless people get stupid and slap the bears in the nose just because they think that while YES we got our 2 A rights that does not mean all the laws on the books go poof in the blink of an eye. And before any of the pro open carriers get all whiny keep in mind I am an open carrier just one that is giving things time to at least settle to see what happens with that stupid AB 1934 before I go out and maybe make things worse.

Liberty1
06-29-2010, 10:42 PM
I am going to say this with all the love and respect in the world, but my urge to call people out is just too great when you say that sentence and then have your avatar be you in a magazine :D

I apologize, it was just too funny to pass up :rolleyes:

Respect

:rofl2: :owned: :notworthy: :smilielol5:

somebody capture that avatar before he changes it!!

Meplat
06-29-2010, 11:17 PM
You really think that if I abstain from open carry that the anti-gun lobby and politicians will abandon their bill and let me keep my rights ?



No, but if you continue to frighten the sheeple you will boost the odds that they wont.

I OC several times a year while I am hunting. If you have to OC do it in the boonies, and do it loaded. Just don't frighten the sheeple.

Meplat
06-30-2010, 12:22 PM
I am going to say this with all the love and respect in the world, but my urge to call people out is just too great when you say that sentence and then have your avatar be you in a magazine :D

I apologize, it was just too funny to pass up :rolleyes:

Respect

We love ya PullnShoot but::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::owned:

unusedusername
06-30-2010, 1:04 PM
:confused: What people would those be? Are FBI civil rights division agents going to round up all the CA.gov Democrats for RICO 1983 before they can pass it through the full Senate?

Behind-the-scenes people are also known as lobbyists. I know for sure that Calguns has a few of them, the CRPA has one, and the NRA has a bunch of them.

These are the people that eat lunch with the state assembly people and senators. They get to know them and actually *gasp* have a significant input on the way that the legislators vote.

This is the "real" way to change the votes of currently elected legislators. The only down side to it is that the process just plain does not work if all the workings of it are made transparent.

This is the stuff that happens when Calguns/CRPA/NRA says to stand-down on a subject, it means that they are close to being able to change something through a lobbyist and we gotta keep a low-profile until it goes though.

Of course, the chance that the open-carry ban will be killed before it is passed is extremely slim, but pushing the subject won't help the chances to kill it.

pullnshoot25
06-30-2010, 2:09 PM
We love ya PullnShoot but::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::owned:

Allow me to lay out my defense...

I never went out and asked any of the media to come to any of my events, follow me around, publish my stories, etc. In fact, I have actually declined multiple interviews. The Reader story was actually pretty controlled and she only got the interview because she agreed to go shooting with me.

It is a good own anyways ;)

grammaton76
06-30-2010, 6:02 PM
Allow me to lay out my defense...

I never went out and asked any of the media to come to any of my events, follow me around, publish my stories, etc. In fact, I have actually declined multiple interviews. The Reader story was actually pretty controlled and she only got the interview because she agreed to go shooting with me.

It is a good own anyways ;)

...and you ditched her to try and get in good with those two blonde chicks, while I handled the actual instruction... :p

pullnshoot25
06-30-2010, 6:22 PM
...and you ditched her to try and get in good with those two blonde chicks, while I handled the actual instruction... :p

Yeah, sorry about that. I do have a thing for Virginian/Georgian girls though!

Theseus
06-30-2010, 6:30 PM
To: PNS

"I like your pants. Why don't you take off your pants?"

- Now, a beer for the person that knows what movie that is from!

:cheers2:

grammaton76
06-30-2010, 6:35 PM
Yeah, sorry about that. I do have a thing for Virginian/Georgian girls though!

No harm done, I just like ensuring you don't live it down. ;)

Oh yeah, anything ever come of those chicks?

targetarcher
06-30-2010, 10:27 PM
No harm done, I just like ensuring you don't live it down. ;)

Oh yeah, anything ever come of those chicks?

Now now, we both know he's a good Catholic boy; what are you suggesting? :D

N6ATF
06-30-2010, 10:54 PM
Behind-the-scenes people are also known as lobbyists. I know for sure that Calguns has a few of them, the CRPA has one, and the NRA has a bunch of them.

These are the people that eat lunch with the state assembly people and senators. They get to know them and actually *gasp* have a significant input on the way that the legislators vote.

This is the "real" way to change the votes of currently elected legislators. The only down side to it is that the process just plain does not work if all the workings of it are made transparent.

This is the stuff that happens when Calguns/CRPA/NRA says to stand-down on a subject, it means that they are close to being able to change something through a lobbyist and we gotta keep a low-profile until it goes though.

Of course, the chance that the open-carry ban will be killed before it is passed is extremely slim, but pushing the subject won't help the chances to kill it.

AFAIK, victim disarming traitors require more than a lunch and a chat to vote in favor of law-abiding citizens. Possibly a gigantic bribe could sway them to vote against criminals.

pullnshoot25
06-30-2010, 11:33 PM
No harm done, I just like ensuring you don't live it down. ;)

Oh yeah, anything ever come of those chicks?

Not much to live down, they were smoking hot! ;)

Nothing came of them. I was hoping the one in the black shirt would call me but alas, not a ring. BALLS!

stix213
07-01-2010, 8:17 AM
Problem I have with UOC'ing, is firstly it isn't very useful for self defense. So, we shouldn't allow ourselves to settle for it. The McDonald & Heller cases found that you have the right to have a handgun for self defense... but you can't defend yourself with an unloaded firearm, so its arguable that these cases don't back up claims you have the right to UOC, and further case law is needed to establish that (there is a difference between it being legal today and a "right" to do it).

Secondly, seeing people UOC'ing in a local safeway is actually scaring the crap out of some people who might otherwise vote on the side of gun owners, making the practice counter productive to the overall cause. People who understand the rights of gun owners for self defense, who aren't intimidated that people own guns for protection, aren't necessarily happy to have it flaunted in their face as they try to decide between regular and honey-oat Cheerios.

pullnshoot25
07-01-2010, 10:12 AM
Six213, I fell asleep before finishing your post. Good job on providing the HORSE TO BLUDGEON THE PROVERBIAL DEAD HORSE REPEATEDLY!

Check general gun discussions for a new oc event of you guys are up for it.

pullnshoot25
07-01-2010, 10:14 AM
Whoops, made a massive typo on the last exclamatory sentence. On phone, no editing, whoops.

demnogis
07-01-2010, 12:37 PM
By all means, if you want to host or partake in a UOC/LOC (where legal) event, please do!

Just expect the following:
- CGN Verbal backlash
- No endorsement
- Possible LEO harassment
- Possible no-shows
- Possible large group of freedom loving individuals.

Steyrlp10
07-01-2010, 12:44 PM
I'm not debating either side, but wanted to let anyone who has an interest in the UOC topic know that there's going to be an informal Calgunner get-together on July 10. Havoc has his post in the Solano County Group with the location if you want to attend.