PDA

View Full Version : Anyone here doing open carry in Lake Forrest tomorrow?


U5512
01-14-2011, 5:23 PM
http://www.ocregister.com/news/group-284245-guns-lake.html

Bill Carson
01-14-2011, 5:43 PM
Either the writer got the info from Deputy Richard Nelson wrong or he does not know what he is talking about. Time to set the writer and this officer straight.

SteveH
01-14-2011, 6:13 PM
Clearly its about political protest not self defense when its an oganized event with prior notification of the police. Looks like they will be okay though. They are at least 1001' from the closest elementary school.

ImPo
01-14-2011, 10:08 PM
Is this information correct? I'd like to check it out

YourHuckleberry
01-14-2011, 10:40 PM
by the way, it's Sunday, not tomorrow

the_quark
01-14-2011, 10:55 PM
And, just for the record, when I talk about "political open carry" being a bad idea for us right now, this kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about.

YourHuckleberry
01-14-2011, 11:31 PM
well, being as the majority here don't hang on your every word to know what point you elude to, care to elaborate?

JagerTroop
01-15-2011, 12:50 AM
And, just for the record, when I talk about "political open carry" being a bad idea for us right now, this kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about.

well, being as the majority here don't hang on your every word to know what point you elude to, care to elaborate?

I think it's obvious that "political open carry" means exercising your right to UOC for the purpose of exercising your right. It casts gun owners in a bad "psycho gun nut just trying to scare the liberal public" kind of light when it's done just to prove a point. This same behavior is what spawned this UOC bill. It was requested that everyone refrain from UOC, so that efforts can be focused on bigger and better things (like ccw). Alas, many people couldn't seem to get with the program, and BAM! AB 144.

What did you (uoc'ers) expect to happen?:confused:

locosway
01-15-2011, 1:04 AM
How many of these UOC people are on CGN? Out of those people, how many read all the posts about UOC on here?

You can say you warned all the UOC people all you want, but from my understanding most people here on CGN did stand down when asked to.

It may not be the right time to UOC, and it may have prompted new bills to be introduced, but that doesn't mean we should get mad at these people for exercising their rights.

Reading the article I'm even tempted to go down there and UOC just to see the LEO's try to check the registration on my unregistered gun.

ImPo
01-15-2011, 7:51 AM
I was thinking the same Locosway, however JagerTroop has a good point. The general public is rather stupid and rash, like it or not many of whom believe you to be a crazy gun nut when involved in these kind of events. That said, I may stop by unarmed to see how this event pans out.

Since this group notified the Sherriffs department, I'd bet LEO's will be on their best behavior. Beeing there's already media coverage, the last thing the Sherriffs department wants is a follow-up article about Officers violating constitutional rights.

On another note, Does anybody know anything about this group of 10?

CSACANNONEER
01-15-2011, 8:08 AM
Either the writer got the info from Deputy Richard Nelson wrong or he does not know what he is talking about. Time to set the writer and this officer straight.

The officer is clearly either uneducated or misinformed about gun laws in general. Notice that he said " We will also make sure all the guns are properly registered"? There is no legal requirement to have firearms registered in Ca. (except AWs & 50BMG rifles). So, what does "properly registered" even mean? Does the officer think that there are going to be a lot of RAWs at this event? Or, is it just another case of a poorly trained LEO trying to impress people with his lack of legal knowledge? He would have done far more for himself and his dept. if he had just kept his mouth shut. Besides the lack of registration requirements in Ca. He doesn't seem to understand that it would not be legal for him to do anything more than an e-check. If SNs are not visible during the e-check, it is not legal for an officer to uncover the SNs and run them. In other words, this officer just made a public anouncement that he intends to break the law. Will it come back to bite him?

The Shadow
01-15-2011, 8:54 AM
Interesting comments allegedly said by deputy Nelson.

"If they do it legally with their guns exposed – it's not against the law," Nelson said."

Nice to know that they have been educated.

"We will respond to any and all calls for service if residents have a concern."

Okay, and then what ?

"We will also make sure all the guns are properly registered."

And exactly how is he going to do that ? A bit of a bold statement there.

"We expect them to be peaceful and law abiding citizens."

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, so I'm interpreting this to mean, they are law abiding citizens and Nelson doesn't expect any problems. However, if I was pessimistic, I would think it meant, They had better be peaceful or else. But I won't go there.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 9:32 AM
well, being as the majority here don't hang on your every word to know what point you elude to, care to elaborate?

Well, as a Director of the organization many UOCers hope will bail them out if they miscalculate on school zones, I'd hope some of them would care a smidge about my opinion.

But, regardless, I've been involved in many UOC conversations on here in which I've said "I have no problem with UOC for personal protection if you feel it's necessary, I have a problem with political UOC" at this time. More than one person has responded along the lines of "What the heck is 'political' UOC?"

This is.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 9:34 AM
It may not be the right time to UOC, and it may have prompted new bills to be introduced, but that doesn't mean we should get mad at these people for exercising their rights.

"Mad" is a strong word. I'm frustrated at the people who are pushing this right now and making my [volunteer] job (to get us as many of our gun rights as possible back) harder.

And, I do thank everyone here who has stood down from these sorts of events at our urging, I appreciate it very much.

I popped in here more to comment to people I've debated in the past who've said they were unsure what "political" UOC was.

Glock22Fan
01-17-2011, 9:12 AM
well, being as the majority here don't hang on your every word to know what point you elude to, care to elaborate?

Well, I think that the majority completely understand his point and are mostly prepared to go along with his viewpoint but, sadly, there are a small bunch of people who are too ignorant or too shallow thinking (take your pick) to take heed of it.

Political UOC at this time is ridiculously counterproductive, causing attitudes to harden when they don't need to. Better by far to keep a low profile unless and until the 2nd is unassailable. It shouldn't take too long.

YourHuckleberry
01-17-2011, 11:18 AM
Well, I think that the majority completely understand his point and are mostly prepared to go along with his viewpoint but, sadly, there are a small bunch of people who are too ignorant or too shallow thinking (take your pick) to take heed of it.

Political UOC at this time is ridiculously counterproductive, causing attitudes to harden when they don't need to. Better by far to keep a low profile unless and until the 2nd is unassailable. It shouldn't take too long.

Once the point was articulated as oppose to eluded to, I can understand that.
And I certainly understand that tact is required in certain situations to avoid hostility on sensitive topics; but this just seems chicken ***** to me. Label it however you want, but I fail to see the harm in educating people while exercising a constitutional right. I don't see any other campaigns out there trying to educate the public like these guys. Sure there are the efforts of CalGunners and the like to change things and challenge unjust laws, but specific to face-to-face with the general public and educating them? I haven't seen it. All you have to do is read the comments in the article provided above to see that the majority are uninformed as to our rights and gun laws in general.
As for it being "ridiculously counterproductive", meh, again I don't see it. The far lefts ideas are pretty hardened already. The mass media spin on things like the Arizona tragedy are whats harmful and can possibly sway people who have not formed a concrete opinion, not so much this.
You can blame exercising rights on bringing it to the oppositions attention and thus introducing new legislature to stop it, but where does that end? How many rights do we stop exercising in fear that we'll face opposition before they have won? Succumbing to "keeping a low profile" is a little too much like conditional surrender IMO. A more hard-nose approach is my choice.

BTW, QUARK, I never said people didn't care about your opinion, I was just asking you to verbalize it instead of eluding to it. Thank you for your work.

N6ATF
01-17-2011, 11:28 AM
You can blame exercising rights on bringing it to the oppositions attention and thus introducing new legislature to stop it, but where does that end? How many rights do we stop exercising in fear that we'll face opposition before they have won? Succumbing to "keeping a low profile" is a little too much like conditional surrender IMO. A more hard-nose approach is my choice.

You can't even blame that. The mere fact that law-abiding have guns in CA AT ALL is enough for the tyranny to infringe upon us. Once they're done taking all our arms, then they'll finish off the other civil rights, since they will no longer have any armed resistance.

thrillhouse700
01-17-2011, 12:10 PM
I drove by it to get to Ralphs, It was very small and they had a few anti's across the street with signs. The patrons around them really didn't seem to mind (Aside from the anti's).

DVSmith
01-17-2011, 2:17 PM
More UOC drama, oh goodie!

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/01/lake_forest_gun_demonstration.php

http://lakeforest-ca.patch.com/articles/gun-demonstration-outside-corner-bakery-draws-protesters-police

Glock22Fan
01-17-2011, 4:44 PM
[QUOTE=YourHuckleberry;5635038]Once the point was articulated as oppose to eluded to, I can understand that.
QUOTE]

Do you really mean elude? I really think that you mean to use "allude." Still, I'm not really surprised.


eludingpresent participle of e·lude (Verb)

1. Evade or escape from (a danger, enemy, or pursuer), typically in a skillful or cunning way: "he managed to elude his pursuer".
2. (of an idea or fact) Fail to be grasped or remembered by (someone). More » (http://www.google.com/dictionary?q=elude&langpair=en|en&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rO80TZ-UGsqs8Aafq9naCA&ved=0CBUQmwMoAA)
Merriam-Webster (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eluding&sa=X&ei=rO80TZ-UGsqs8Aafq9naCA&ved=0CBYQmwMoAQ&usg=AFQjCNEO8zi-667yKqieBurwPJUa-l3obQ) - The Free Dictionary (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eluding&sa=X&ei=rO80TZ-UGsqs8Aafq9naCA&ved=0CBcQmwMoAg&usg=AFQjCNEr22gMpQzVqwkFJOmEFYIMObQdEw)



Search Results



eluding - definition of eluding by the Free Online Dictionary ... (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eluding) linkscanner://safe.gif/ (javascript:void(0))

tr.v. e·lud·ed, e·lud·ing, e·ludes. 1. To evade or escape from, as by daring, cleverness, or skill: The suspect continues to elude the police. ...

YourHuckleberry
01-17-2011, 7:32 PM
Wow. Okay, allude. better? Any other english lessons for me oh wise one?

locosway
01-17-2011, 7:35 PM
Wow. Okay, allude. better? Any other english lessons for me oh wise one?

Yeah, it's English, not english.. :P

YourHuckleberry
01-17-2011, 8:23 PM
:thumbsup:

Jack L
01-18-2011, 6:26 AM
After UOC is banned in CA, will that make it easier to get a CCW because it is the only choice to carry? The sheriff in SD stated UOC is there to exercise so he did not need to give out CCW's in his court argument.

locosway
01-18-2011, 6:27 AM
After UOC is banned in CA, will that make it easier to get a CCW because it is the only choice to carry? The sheriff in SD stated UOC is there to exercise so he did not need to give out CCW's in his court argument.

That's what it looks like now, however there's really no telling what will happen in CA.

CitaDeL
01-18-2011, 6:45 AM
After UOC is banned in CA, will that make it easier to get a CCW because it is the only choice to carry? The sheriff in SD stated UOC is there to exercise so he did not need to give out CCW's in his court argument.

You really think so?

What makes you think that after banning UOC the Sheriff (or more accurately, the courts) wont say that he doesnt need to issue because there is always LUCC? The only practical difference between them is the locked case.

hgreen
01-18-2011, 6:51 AM
After UOC is banned in CA, will that make it easier to get a CCW because it is the only choice to carry? The sheriff in SD stated UOC is there to exercise so he did not need to give out CCW's in his court argument.

And how many years will this legal challenge take? During that time how many hundreds of thousands of law abiding gun owners in CA that live in NON ISSUE counties will have virtually no option to be armed?

Sounds like a marvelous plan.

locosway
01-18-2011, 6:52 AM
And how many years will this legal challenge take? During that time how many hundreds of thousands of law abiding gun owners in CA that live in NON ISSUE counties will have virtually no option to be armed?

Sounds like a marvelous plan.

Two weeks.

GrizzlyGuy
01-18-2011, 7:22 AM
More UOC drama, oh goodie!

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/01/lake_forest_gun_demonstration.php

http://lakeforest-ca.patch.com/articles/gun-demonstration-outside-corner-bakery-draws-protesters-police

Kudos to Deputy Nelson for his statements here:

Nelson said that while the demonstration presented an inconvenience because it drew police resources away from other activities, he had no problem with the open-carry cause and he appreciated that Burke had told him about it beforehand.

"It's a Second Amendment right; I'll die for it," Nelson said. "It's what we do, we defend the Constitution."

Maybe if the UOC folks contact him in private and explain the unconstitutionality of the e-checks and (especially) the unconsitutionality of searching for and running serial numbers so as to verify the guns are registered, he can try and convince his bosses not to do this again in the future.

Jack L
01-18-2011, 7:27 AM
Kudos to Deputy Nelson for his statements here:



Maybe if the UOC folks contact him in private and explain the unconstitutionality of the e-checks and (especially) the unconsitutionality of searching for and running serial numbers so as to verify the guns are registered, he can try and convince his bosses not to do this again in the future.

Diplomacy is always worth a try. It's cheaper and faster.

thrillhouse700
01-18-2011, 7:56 AM
"If that thing in Arizona had happened here, who do you think would be protecting 'em?" he said, before pointing to the open-carry group and then the Brady Campaign protesters. "Those guys, or those guys?"

Although bad timing for UOC rallies, you have to admit that is a pretty solid argument..... Brady's are taught to wait for the police no matter how long it takes.

Cali-Shooter
01-18-2011, 8:00 AM
Good luck to you guys who will be partaking. Bring lots of video cameras and microphones/audio recorders.

CitaDeL
01-18-2011, 9:10 AM
Good luck to you guys who will be partaking. Bring lots of video cameras and microphones/audio recorders.

Uhm... the 'tommorrow' that is indicated on the post title was actually the 15th,... three days ago. It was recorded by participants as well as media.

N6ATF
01-18-2011, 11:35 PM
Kudos to Deputy Nelson for his statements here:

Maybe if the UOC folks contact him in private and explain the unconstitutionality of the e-checks and (especially) the unconsitutionality of searching for and running serial numbers so as to verify the guns are registered, he can try and convince his bosses not to do this again in the future.

Shouldn't take him dying to defend the Constitution... just a federal prosecutor willing to put away his traitor bosses.

packnrat
01-19-2011, 6:46 AM
i am not of the open carry group, but i never hear about any of this till after the event.
would be interesting to see it go down from the side lines...for now.
like supporting the/a store that supports lawful action while watching the event.

.

TheKlawMan
01-19-2011, 9:34 PM
Kudos to Deputy Nelson for his statements here:



Maybe if the UOC folks contact him in private and explain the unconstitutionality of the e-checks and (especially) the unconsitutionality of searching for and running serial numbers so as to verify the guns are registered, he can try and convince his bosses not to do this again in the future.

What make you think e-checks are unconstitutional? I admit I am unfamilar with the issue but would think it may be permissable IF the officer had probable cause to believe it was necessary to inspect the weapon. I don't know if that existed here, given that he was informed in advance of the event and that weapons would be unloaded. I would think a John Doe warrant should have been obtained from a judge to do a search. If they did have probable cause to inspect, then the serial numbers would be in plain view. The deal is it is all politics and the OCSD had to do something to look good. They didn't care if any evidence would have been suppresed, had someone turned out to be carring a loaded weapon, because they weren't there expecting to prosecute anyone.

locosway
01-19-2011, 9:43 PM
What make you think e-checks are unconstitutional? I admit I am unfamilar with the issue but would think it may be permissable IF the officer had probable cause to believe it was necessary to inspect the weapon. I don't know if that existed here, given that he was informed in advance of the event and that weapons would be unloaded. I would think a John Doe warrant should have been obtained from a judge to do a search. If they did have probable cause to inspect, then the serial numbers would be in plain view. The deal is it is all politics and the OCSD had to do something to look good. They didn't care if any evidence would have been suppresed, had someone turned out to be carring a loaded weapon, because they weren't there expecting to prosecute anyone.

This has been talked about numerous times. No other right is subject to such a check, thus is unconstitutional. Especially since these checks are done without PC or RAS, and they often lead to other rights violations. E check, todays gateway drug to rights violations.