PDA

View Full Version : Kamala Harris "Emergency Action" against UOC?


osokne
01-22-2011, 4:28 PM
This one registered a hard ping, on the old FUD-o-meter... I heard, today... that Kamala Harris is talking about enacting some kind of emergency law, (or whatever you call it), to prohibit UOC, throughout the state. Now, I know that the city of L.A. is considering something and they fellow I heard this from, might of had his info mixed up.

Supposedly she's saying that UOC puts citizens in danger and her excuse is to protect the citizens, from said danger.

What doesn't make sense, is that I thought a State Attorney General, didn't have that kind of authority. I could be wrong and if I am, someone please let me know. It sounded to me like it wouldn't even got voted on, by the folks in Sacramento and just be an edict, of sorts. Is that even legal?

DVSmith
01-22-2011, 4:35 PM
My first thought is that she may be asking the legislature to enact this as emergency legislation so that it goes into effect immediately upon being signed by the Governor. Normally legislation becomes effective the first of January after the end of the legislative session it is enacted in. IIRC.

klmmicro
01-22-2011, 4:37 PM
And so it begins.

bruss01
01-22-2011, 4:40 PM
If UOC is banned by law it just makes a stronger case for shall-issue CCW because it limits the options to legally bear arms. Heller/McDonald would force the anti's to limit their arguments to "you can still bear inside your home" or "you can bear in a locked container" which are arguments not likely to get a lot of sympathy in court.

I wouldn't sweat this one. If you lose UOC then you gain CCW which is pretty much what we really all wanted to begin with. Face it, if CA was shall-issue UOC, would we even HAVE a UOC movement? My case, she is rested.

1JimMarch
01-22-2011, 4:42 PM
It is ABSOLUTELY possible that the AG's office might suggest a particular law - gun related or otherwise. Happens all the time, in fact they usually suggest at least one such tweak per year.

Doing so on an emergency basis might be less common, but it's certainly plausible.

odysseus
01-22-2011, 4:45 PM
What's the emergency? Where is the danger in fact?

Not that anyone should be surprised by that possibly happening - but the emergency part would be interesting to justify.

CitaDeL
01-22-2011, 4:46 PM
Citation?

NightOwl
01-22-2011, 4:53 PM
I wouldn't sweat this one. If you lose UOC then you gain CCW which is pretty much what we really all wanted to begin with.

Speak for yourself. I'm not interested in having to get a permission slip to exercise a right, and am waiting for OC. I'm also not alone in my desire for OC.

CalBear
01-22-2011, 5:02 PM
No actions by Kamala Harris will be vile enough to surprise me. I knew exactly what we were getting with that woman. I cannot believe she was elected.

Mikeb
01-22-2011, 5:09 PM
Speak for yourself. I'm not interested in having to get a permission slip to exercise a right, and am waiting for OC. I'm also not alone in my desire for OC.


Here here... I agree
Mike

hoffmang
01-22-2011, 5:20 PM
AB 144 is the bill, Kamela's office will certainly support it, but it will not be enacted as emergency legislation. That would require more votes than they have. They have plenty of votes to pass it non emergency though.

-Gene

warbird
01-22-2011, 5:22 PM
Let's don't go getting in an uproar until she tries something to infringe even more on our second amendment rights. Who knows maybe we can get her into federal court or get something on the ballot to allow citizens to have "shall issue" without government approval as long as they are not convicted felons of certain crimes. Maybe we need a dumb arrogant lawyer to make our case for us from the other side.

gunsmith
01-22-2011, 5:23 PM
OC needs to be protected because when it isn't then people get in trouble for accidentally exposing their carry piece.

but I wish we could all focus on just getting CCW shall issue before getting OC back, simply because people are so scared of it. I am all for teaching people that guns are quote unquote normal & OK but people are dying because they cant carry.

OP, I'm sure your friend heard something from a friend or on the radio & I wouldn't worry unless you get official confirmation.

Ed_in_Sac
01-22-2011, 5:24 PM
Read this months American Rifleman. There are two excellent articles on the BO administration secretly negotiating the terms of a UN treaty that "could" adversely effect our gun rights.

btw, Gene i sent an email asking for help in becoming a contributor....no response yet.

osokne
01-22-2011, 5:38 PM
Hmm... Well, I guess I need to be clearer in my questions:

1. Has anyone else heard about his? (I can't find any corroborating info, anywhere)
2. Does she or does she not have this kind of power? (I read here on Calguns, that she does not)
3. Is such an edict even possible, under anything other than martial law?

This apparently has nothing to do with AB144.

The person I heard it from isn't my friend, rather a friend of a friend. I did, however, hear it from him, firsthand. I'm acquainted with him, but don't know him that well. In my limited exposure to him, I can say he's not given to exaggeration.

dustoff31
01-22-2011, 5:44 PM
Hmm... Well, I guess I need to be clearer in my questions:

1. Has anyone else heard about his? (I can't find any corroborating info, anywhere)
2. Does she or does she not have this kind of power? (I read here on Calguns, that she does not)
3. Is such an edict even possible, under anything other than martial law?

This apparently has nothing to do with AB144.

The person I heard it from isn't my friend, rather a friend of a friend. I did, however, hear it from him, firsthand. I'm acquainted with him, but don't know him that well. In my limited exposure to him, I can say he's not given to exaggeration.

Read through the thread again. All the answers are there. However, just to be clear, Harris can't enact jack squat on her own authority.

tiki
01-22-2011, 5:59 PM
OC needs to be protected because when it isn't then people get in trouble for accidentally exposing their carry piece.


I thought that it was already ruled that a partially concealed firearm is a concealed firearm.

dustoff31
01-22-2011, 6:10 PM
I thought that it was already ruled that a partially concealed firearm is a concealed firearm.

It was.

I have no idea where all the "showing" or "printing" paranoia comes from. It has absolutely no basis in CA law.

WokMaster1
01-22-2011, 6:12 PM
Gene, seems that she is eager to get to know you. Can't wait.;)

ro442173
01-22-2011, 6:16 PM
How the hell is she going to justify that? Has anyone one been killed as a result of UOC? What danger is she referring to?

NightOwl
01-22-2011, 6:20 PM
How the hell is she going to justify that? Has anyone one been killed as a result of UOC? What danger is she referring to?

It's dangerous to the antis that should people discover gun owners who carry are not all crazy mass murderers and blood won't flow in the streets when people do it. Just think how dangerous that is! It could completely destroy their control method, and they'd have to come up with something else entirely.

dunndeal
01-22-2011, 6:22 PM
And Chuck Michel and Alan Gura too.

ro442173
01-22-2011, 6:31 PM
It's dangerous to the antis that should people discover gun owners who carry are not all crazy mass murderers and blood won't flow in the streets when people do it. Just think how dangerous that is! It could completely destroy their control method, and they'd have to come up with something else entirely.

That's why it's good to take non-shooters to the range. If we all did that, more people would understand where we responsible gun owners are coming from.

NytWolf
01-22-2011, 6:47 PM
What's the emergency? Where is the danger in fact?

Not that anyone should be surprised by that possibly happening - but the emergency part would be interesting to justify.

My thoughts exactly!

As already stated above, the bill is AB 144, essentially a repeat of last year's defeated AB 1934.

Window_Seat
01-22-2011, 6:49 PM
I'm becoming less inclined to agree with forfeiting one form of carry in order to gain the ability to ask for a permission slip to exercise an individual right that is fundamental. I believe (and I could be wrong) that the original intention of OC was to be able to carry without having to go through the "mother may I exercise my individual right that is fundamental if I donate $50k to your campaign fund" arbitrary process.

Erik.

nicki
01-22-2011, 6:55 PM
For self defense, UOC has significant limitations.

That being said, it has become in reality a form of "Political Expression", kind of like "Flag Burning", only what it does is it pisses the hell out of what I call the AINO (American in Name Only) NASies (Nanny Authoritarian Statist Idiots).

Any type of carry, but especially Open Carry is a direct attack against their VD (Victim Disarmanent) agenda.

They want people dependent on government, fear motivates people to not only surrender their freedoms, but to actively push for controlling other people's freedoms.

Let's face it, if you are attacked and you draw a 1911 45cal pistol, you have instant effective defense, you don't need to dial 911 unless you DOUBLE TAP your attackers a few times.

If you don't need the government for self defense, you probably don't need the government for other things either and you could develop the mindset that maybe you want less government in your life.

Hell, you might actually want to pay less taxes and if that happens, how would they transfer your wealth into their pockets.

UOC represents a Cultural war and the issue is not just our 2nd amendment rights, but our first amendment rights as well.

Perhaps we need to revisit the UOC, maybe even consider a LOC civil rights lawsuit with a diverse cross section of plantiffs so that we can hit them from every civil right angle possible.

Since many businesses operate nationwide, we may be able to convince them to consider the "Starbucks model".

IMHO, the Brady Bunch is no better then the "KKK" which probably was trying to intimidate businesses after the passage of the civil rights act to not serve Blacks in the South.

Nicki

Apocalypsenerd
01-22-2011, 6:58 PM
I'm becoming less inclined to agree with forfeiting one form of carry in order to gain the ability to ask for a permission slip to exercise an individual right that is fundamental. I believe (and I could be wrong) that the original intention of OC was to be able to carry without having to go through the "mother may I exercise my individual right that is fundamental if I donate $50k to your campaign fund" arbitrary process.

Erik.

Agree

vincnet11
01-22-2011, 7:17 PM
Put this traitor in Jail!!! Abusing political power to take away a constitutional right.

CCWFacts
01-22-2011, 7:52 PM
What's the emergency? Where is the danger in fact?

So many people are getting killed while UOCing, and also UOCers are going on murderous rampages all the time. I never go into Starbucks anymore because it's like the wild west in there. Free wifi and overpriced burnt coffee isn't worth getting shot.

They also waste police resources because police respond with SWAT teams every time there's a UOC call. See this notorious incident for example:

OOoMksr_IeY

That's why it's an emergency.

(Oh and the new AG needs to be doing something about the fact that there is a gun rights movement in California.)

OleCuss
01-22-2011, 8:33 PM
You know? I'd really not be too defeatist about AB144. Yes, it might pass and the case can be made that California showed last year that there is no political cost to the Demorats from voting to destroy our rights.

But there is a little twist which may erode their confidence. Redistricting is coming around the corner and it may not result in districts which are as "safe" as they were in the past. This may throw the legislature to the right and to the left. You could end up with Democrats unsure that they will get re-elected if they vote anti-RKBA and you could get Republicans worried that a pro-RKBA stance could lose them their next election.

The political calculations are not yet complete and won't be until some time after the redistricting is done.

But this year is likely more dangerous than 2012 will be. The Democrats will figure that this year is a freebie since the voters tend not to remember what was done to them from year to year.

Net effect is that there is a glimmer of hope for stopping AB144. If they don't get it this year they are somewhat less likely to get it in 2012.

FWIW

mikeyluke
01-22-2011, 8:43 PM
WOW. That guy has stones. Good for him, good for us all.

tankerman
01-22-2011, 8:57 PM
Doing so on an emergency basis might be less common, but it's certainly plausible.
How so?
The AG doesn't create laws, the AG enforces laws.

dunndeal
01-22-2011, 9:05 PM
Is the guy in the clip Pullnshoot25 or did he just post it on You Tube?

locosway
01-22-2011, 9:11 PM
These UOC threads make me want to bash my head against a wall until I die.

Yes, please, take away our last gun right so in the future we can perhaps gain some other right. Brilliant...

UOC sucks, it's not LOC and it's not LCC. However, the way AB144 is written would make it a crime to be in public with an unloaded firearm that is NOT REGISTERED to you. I can think of a ways this could be bad, can you?

So, let's all jump on the bandwagon and hurrying to support AB144 so we can get CCW. In the mean time, have fun transporting your firearms.

zhyla
01-22-2011, 9:21 PM
However, the way AB144 is written would make it a crime to be in public with an unloaded firearm that is NOT REGISTERED to you. I can think of a ways this could be bad, can you?

I assume you're asking for reasons this is bad. An obvious example is the couple that owns two identical firearms with one registered to each of them and happens to unknowingly swap them prior to UOC'ing.

Also, currently there's no penalty for legally owning an unregistered pistol (correct me if I'm wrong). If you're doing something illegal then lack of registration hurts, but you're already a perp at that point :).

locosway
01-22-2011, 9:26 PM
I assume you're asking for reasons this is bad. An obvious example is the couple that owns two identical firearms with one registered to each of them and happens to unknowingly swap them prior to UOC'ing.

Also, currently there's no penalty for legally owning an unregistered pistol (correct me if I'm wrong). If you're doing something illegal then lack of registration hurts, but you're already a perp at that point :).

This is what I'm saying. I don't think half the people on these forums who comment even read the bills that are discussed. They skim the thread, get a general idea, and run with it. The problem is the devil is in the details. As you mentioned, two people who mix up their firearms could be in real trouble.

Any legislation that further hampers our rights, even our crappy rights, needs to be stopped. We can't sit back and hope for some later event to slowly unravel this nonsense. UOC sucks, yes, it's terrible, and it quite possibly should be avoided for political reasons at this time. However, people here can't let their emotion run their thoughts on this. I see it all the time, people bash the anti's because they run on emotion, and then they turn around and do the same damn thing.

N6ATF
01-22-2011, 9:27 PM
Is the guy in the clip Pullnshoot25 or did he just post it on You Tube?

His brother, elsensei.

jtmkinsd
01-22-2011, 9:31 PM
If UOC is banned by law it just makes a stronger case for shall-issue CCW because it limits the options to legally bear arms. Heller/McDonald would force the anti's to limit their arguments to "you can still bear inside your home" or "you can bear in a locked container" which are arguments not likely to get a lot of sympathy in court.

I wouldn't sweat this one. If you lose UOC then you gain CCW which is pretty much what we really all wanted to begin with. Face it, if CA was shall-issue UOC, would we even HAVE a UOC movement? My case, she is rested.

I don't think we want to lose one right to "gain" one we have to sign up for and pay money to exercise.

Lrchops
01-22-2011, 9:33 PM
Seems that the Government fears the people!!! With that fear they will do as Hitler did in Europe and ban guns so the people cannot rise against the ruling class. The left wing liberal government ignores "We the People"!!

jamesob
01-22-2011, 9:52 PM
harris can wipe her nasty azz with her own bill if she thinks she can create one.

Kid Stanislaus
01-22-2011, 10:04 PM
Speak for yourself. I'm not interested in having to get a permission slip to exercise a right, and am waiting for OC. I'm also not alone in my desire for OC.

I think you are part of a small minority.

locosway
01-22-2011, 10:06 PM
I think you are part of a small minority.

This is CA, not CO. We have Summer weather for most of the year. CCW is NOT practical for everyone all the time. We should be focusing on freeing CCW and LOC, and not just one or the other.

stitchnicklas
01-22-2011, 10:29 PM
1620.....

thats how many days i have left in california unless a situation for sooner departure arises..

BigFatGuy
01-22-2011, 11:14 PM
I thought that it was already ruled that a partially concealed firearm is a concealed firearm.

as I understand is, a partially concealed firearm is both "concealed" and "unconcealed", exposing the bearer to penalty regardless of the situation.

IOW, I have read that CCW's must be careful to never "flash" or "print" their piece, while OC'ers must be just as careful to never let their shirt cover any part of their pistol.

N6ATF
01-23-2011, 1:01 AM
I think you are part of a small minority.

You'll never be able to tell on CGN, because this is hostile territory for pro-OCers, and increasingly, pro-Constitutional Carriers (who think states that don't tax the hell out of the right to keep and bear arms, making it a privilege poor people can't afford, are doing the only morally acceptable thing). There's only a few of us here who :banghead:

hoffmang
01-23-2011, 1:21 AM
You'll never be able to tell on CGN, because this is hostile territory for pro-OCers, and increasingly, pro-Constitutional Carriers (who think states that don't tax the hell out of the right to keep and bear arms, making it a privilege poor people can't afford, are doing the only morally acceptable thing). There's only a few of us here who :banghead:

You confuse two things. Not everything that is good policy is also constitutionally protected. I'm a big fan of modified Vermont carry, but I don't think it's wider scope is necessarily what is protected by the Constitution.

Just like I like California's anti SLAPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) law for speech lawsuits that California has adopted, I don't think it's the minimum necessary public policy required constitutionally to protect the freedom of speech.

-Gene

N6ATF
01-23-2011, 1:37 AM
Whatever. Please stop sticking your foot in the civil gun rights movement's collective mouth with this Eeyore stuff. If there's nothing noble to say, it is best to not say anything at all, unless you want to be quoted by the victim disarmament side. See Levy, re: magazine capacity.

It's one thing for Gura to put in his briefs that he's not seeking certain types relief at this time, it's another to create a PR disaster by effectively saying "we're not going to succeed in completely and totally securing civil rights, because our ideals aren't worth crap."

This post was not made under the influence of any substance.

wildhawker
01-23-2011, 1:43 AM
Exactly. Some continue to conflate the argument against the probability of constitutional protection for <x> for preference. I'm not sure if it is that they cannot grasp the difference, of if projecting their frustration on others in their camp (the vast majority of whom, I suspect, agree with the challenger's policy preferences) is easier than actually doing something productive.

-Brandon

ETA: There is a certain necessity to predicting, and then understanding your opponents' arguments. Some consider that treasonous, while others view it as prudence and due diligence.


You confuse two things. Not everything that is good policy is also constitutionally protected. I'm a big fan of modified Vermont carry, but I don't think it's wider scope is necessarily what is protected by the Constitution.

Just like I like California's anti SLAPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) law for speech lawsuits that California has adopted, I don't think it's the minimum necessary public policy required constitutionally to protect the freedom of speech.

-Gene

N6ATF
01-23-2011, 1:49 AM
ETA: There is a certain necessity to predicting, and then understanding your opponents' arguments. Some consider that treasonous, while others view it as prudence and due diligence.

Then do it in private, loose lips. Don't feed the victim disarmers quotes that they can hold up to say "Hey, look, the gun nuts are admitting our 'reasonable regulations' (infringements) will hold up in court!"

wildhawker
01-23-2011, 1:58 AM
Then do it in private, loose lips. Don't feed the victim disarmers quotes that they can hold up to say "Hey, look, the gun nuts are admitting our 'reasonable regulations' (infringements) will hold up in court!"

There is no estoppel to statements some random guy (me) makes on the internetz.

If you want total opsec on carry, then a) shut down CGN and other forums where the issues are discussed, and b) cease UOC participation.

Note that both have substantial downside.

Please give us some credit for understanding what we can discuss, and what we can't, and when to do both. I think you've seen where we shut down conversations based on tactical or strategic risk. The bottom line is that the USSC will not be basing its decisions on our discussion here. Truth will win out, or it won't. If you think that the 'other side' isn't capable (at least in some instances) of also predicting and understanding our arguments (and developing counters) then you are not working in reality and are very likely to remain frustrated.

Wrangler John
01-23-2011, 4:35 AM
You know? I'd really not be too defeatist about AB144. Yes, it might pass and the case can be made that California showed last year that there is no political cost to the Demorats from voting to destroy our rights.

But there is a little twist which may erode their confidence. Redistricting is coming around the corner and it may not result in districts which are as "safe" as they were in the past. This may throw the legislature to the right and to the left. You could end up with Democrats unsure that they will get re-elected if they vote anti-RKBA and you could get Republicans worried that a pro-RKBA stance could lose them their next election.

The political calculations are not yet complete and won't be until some time after the redistricting is done.

But this year is likely more dangerous than 2012 will be. The Democrats will figure that this year is a freebie since the voters tend not to remember what was done to them from year to year.

Net effect is that there is a glimmer of hope for stopping AB144. If they don't get it this year they are somewhat less likely to get it in 2012.

FWIW

Yes redistricting, it may help. But didn't our esteemed citizens vote for an open primary system with passage of Proposition 14? One where the two top vote-getters meet in a runoff election? Under the law, political parties are forbidden from nominating candidates, and candidates may choose whether or not to have their party affiliation listed on the ballot. Any voter from any party may vote for any candidate on the ballot. The top two candidates in any election may both be from the same party because of Prop 14. Your choice, regardless of redistricting may boil down to two Democrats, or two Republicans, with either candidate chosen by the other party. Prop 14 was IMO a scheme to overcome redistricting. If Prop 14 survives court challenges, we may find ourselves with a new breed of "moderate" politicians - read Democrats and nothing but Democrats and RINOcrats.

OleCuss
01-23-2011, 6:20 AM
Yes redistricting, it may help. But didn't our esteemed citizens vote for an open primary system with passage of Proposition 14? One where the two top vote-getters meet in a runoff election? Under the law, political parties are forbidden from nominating candidates, and candidates may choose whether or not to have their party affiliation listed on the ballot. Any voter from any party may vote for any candidate on the ballot. The top two candidates in any election may both be from the same party because of Prop 14. Your choice, regardless of redistricting may boil down to two Democrats, or two Republicans, with either candidate chosen by the other party. Prop 14 was IMO a scheme to overcome redistricting. If Prop 14 survives court challenges, we may find ourselves with a new breed of "moderate" politicians - read Democrats and nothing but Democrats and RINOcrats.

No argument with you on that.

But until things are sorted out in re-districting many really won't know how things are going to play in the "primaries" either. Oh, those from a place like SF will be pretty sure that they'll still be running in a fascist-loving district and their voting will be unchanged - but there will be a few who will have to wonder if they might end up in a district where the pro-RKBA vote might just make the difference between re-election and defeat.

My point is that the politics are a bit unsettled at this time and it is not entirely clear how that will affect votes - could cause even more virulent anti-RKBA or somewhat less virulent anti-RKBA voting. That means that despite last year's voting AB144 is not a sure thing (although I still think it'll likely pass).

Even if AB144 is enacted it is not all bad. As some have noted that would mean CCW would become virtually "Shall Issue" - and for reasons which locosway alluded to that will eventually lead to LOC in California.

N6ATF
01-23-2011, 4:09 PM
There is no estoppel to statements some random guy (me) makes on the internetz.

We're not talking about judicial estoppel, and you know it. You also know you are not just a random guy on the internet. Imagine the Brady Campaign's secretary/director effectively saying the NRA is correct. About anything. Insane!

If you want total opsec on carry, then a) shut down CGN and other forums where the issues are discussed, and b) cease UOC participation.

Note that both have substantial downside.

So you can't discuss these things off CGN over phone/email/instant messenger/in person? CGN is the only place that future victim disarmament movement quotes can be discussed? That's a departure from your previous statement that you discuss plenty of things in private amongst lawyers/fellow board members.

Not sure what the substantial downside to ceasing UOC participation is... even if I UOCed in the first place.

Please give us some credit for understanding what we can discuss, and what we can't, and when to do both. I think you've seen where we shut down conversations based on tactical or strategic risk.

You see no tactical or strategic risk that the Brady Campaign/VPC/MAIG/etc... will quote statements such as yours and/or CGFs?

The bottom line is that the USSC will not be basing its decisions on our discussion here.

Again you bring up court decisions when you know this is about the court of public opinion (like I said earlier), not the court of law.

Truth will win out, or it won't. If you think that the 'other side' isn't capable (at least in some instances) of also predicting and understanding our arguments (and developing counters) then you are not working in reality and are very likely to remain frustrated.

Being such a blabbermouth is out of character for any of you "right people". Stop doing the victim disarmers' "jobs" for them. It doesn't matter whether you think they can come up with your arguments on their own. Would you all also clean bathrooms (you didn't soil) for janitors and let them make all the money for doing nothing?

themandylion
01-23-2011, 6:39 PM
How the hell is she going to justify that? Has anyone one been killed as a result of UOC? What danger is she referring to?

We are dealing with evil individuals. Reason and right mean nothing to them. Power over you is their only motivation.

hoffmang
01-23-2011, 6:45 PM
Then do it in private, loose lips. Don't feed the victim disarmers quotes that they can hold up to say "Hey, look, the gun nuts are admitting our 'reasonable regulations' (infringements) will hold up in court!"

The only person whose opinion matters is Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Please recall that no anti gunner on the planet thinks the right to bear arms exists outside of the home and then explain how I'm helping them.

If you can make an argument that keeps Justice Kennedy and maybe CJ Roberts for your position then be my guest. Any argument that can't keep them is a non starter.

Further, the 1A took a while to get as expansive as it is. Let me give you a hint. Securing some right to carry loaded firearms in public is step 1. When there are more than 25 modified vermont carry states and Florida and Texas will not throw you in jail for exposing your firearm when CCWing, then you have a chance to keep 5 judges for the broader right you want.

-Gene

themandylion
01-23-2011, 6:47 PM
I think you are part of a small minority.

One who is right outweighs an entire army of those who are wrong.

I am among this "tiny minority" of "gun nuts" who believe the 2nd Amendment says what it means and means what it says:

"shall not be infringed"

NOT some Soviet / Orwellian doublethink of "may be infringed if a court says so."

I don't support any restrictions on the right to keep & bear arms. If a felon shouldn't have a gun, that felon should be locked up. If a real nut (like Loughner) shouldn't have a gun, he needs to be in a straight jacket.

Carry anywhere, loaded or unloaded, open or concealed, while on a peaceable journey and/or engaged in not unlawful (malum in se) activities. Period. That's what the Constitution endorses, and anyone who holds office that argues against that violates their oath of office.

1911su16b870
01-23-2011, 7:44 PM
...They also waste police resources... See this notorious incident for example:

OOoMksr_IeY



Irony...an UOC-er calls the pd non-emergency line to report himself...

Proof that an UOC-er wasted a few minutes of police resources! :D

gunsmith
01-23-2011, 8:42 PM
It was.

I have no idea where all the "showing" or "printing" paranoia comes from. It has absolutely no basis in CA law.

I was actually thinking of Texas and Florida, I thought CA might be the same way. thanks for the heads up.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-24-2011, 11:27 AM
Speak for yourself. I'm not interested in having to get a permission slip to exercise a right, and am waiting for OC. I'm also not alone in my desire for OC.


That's the fact, Jack.


I'm becoming less inclined to agree with forfeiting one form of carry in order to gain the ability to ask for a permission slip to exercise an individual right that is fundamental. I believe (and I could be wrong) that the original intention of OC was to be able to carry without having to go through the "mother may I exercise my individual right that is fundamental if I donate $50k to your campaign fund" arbitrary process.

Erik.


Agree completely.


For self defense, UOC has significant limitations.

That being said, it has become in reality a form of "Political Expression", kind of like "Flag Burning", only what it does is it pisses the hell out of what I call the AINO (American in Name Only) NASies (Nanny Authoritarian Statist Idiots).

Any type of carry, but especially Open Carry is a direct attack against their VD (Victim Disarmanent) agenda.

They want people dependent on government, fear motivates people to not only surrender their freedoms, but to actively push for controlling other people's freedoms.

Let's face it, if you are attacked and you draw a 1911 45cal pistol, you have instant effective defense, you don't need to dial 911 unless you DOUBLE TAP your attackers a few times.

If you don't need the government for self defense, you probably don't need the government for other things either and you could develop the mindset that maybe you want less government in your life.

Hell, you might actually want to pay less taxes and if that happens, how would they transfer your wealth into their pockets.

UOC represents a Cultural war and the issue is not just our 2nd amendment rights, but our first amendment rights as well.

Perhaps we need to revisit the UOC, maybe even consider a LOC civil rights lawsuit with a diverse cross section of plantiffs so that we can hit them from every civil right angle possible.

Since many businesses operate nationwide, we may be able to convince them to consider the "Starbucks model".

IMHO, the Brady Bunch is no better then the "KKK" which probably was trying to intimidate businesses after the passage of the civil rights act to not serve Blacks in the South.

Nicki


And Nicki sends it thru the goalposts again.


The Raisuli

wash
01-24-2011, 11:42 AM
There are two things here, what we should have and what we can reasonably expect to get.

CGF knows that in the courts we can get virtual shall issue CCW if we keep pressing the sheriffs.

CGF also knows that we will lose UOC if people keep pissing off the antis by carrying at Starbucks.

LOC is not something that is going to happen overnight. The idea that California can get constitutional carry with our current state legislature is absurd.

They are trying to fix that one step at a time.

Losing UOC for a really silly reason is going to make the process harder and that is what the antis want.

J.D.Allen
01-24-2011, 11:51 AM
I think you are part of a small minority.

There may be a lot more of us than you think.

bruss01
01-24-2011, 4:36 PM
If UOC is banned by law it just makes a stronger case for shall-issue CCW because it limits the options to legally bear arms. Heller/McDonald would force the anti's to limit their arguments to "you can still bear inside your home" or "you can bear in a locked container" which are arguments not likely to get a lot of sympathy in court.

I wouldn't sweat this one. If you lose UOC then you gain CCW which is pretty much what we really all wanted to begin with. Face it, if CA was shall-issue UOC, would we even HAVE a UOC movement? My case, she is rested.


I don't think we want to lose one right to "gain" one we have to sign up for and pay money to exercise.

If you thought I was saying I was in favor of UOC being banned then you read me wrong.

I should have been more EXPLICIT in my comment and spelled it all out with no leeway for misunderstanding.

So let me clarify:

If UOC is banned it would SUCK! It would be VERY BAD! I would be VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT THAT.

However: The SILVER LINING to that UGLY BLACK CLOUD OF UOC BAN-NESS is that people who DO want a CCW permit will have a LITTLE MORE ammo in court to get at least SOME RIGHT to carry.

Now I hope you are clear on my position. In a perfect world NO we should not need permission, or a permit, or a fee, or mandatory training or any of that. Maybe that world exists in an alternate universe somewhere. Do you really think that you are going to get that situation in this state in any reasonably soon (decade or two) time frame? In this reality? While I can agree in priciple the pragmatist in me says that however much we would like that to happen, the odds of it are right up there with pig's flying. As in, piloting jumbo passenger jets. And also I question that going completely commando (no train-no permit- no background check- no nuttin') is what we really want... I have a feeling that might lead to some situations that we'll wish hadn't happened and we could find ourselves worse off than we are now. I'm really amused at people who want it ALL and they want it RIGHT NOW. Go back and look at the civil rights movement. That should provide ample proof that even when you are 100% right it still takes decades to change deeply ingrained cultural biases. The key is to take baby steps, keep making them, and keep them going in the same direction. Patience IS a virtue! Yes, we may suffer some indignities on the road there but Rome wasn't built in a day and lasting 2nd Amendment freedom won't be either. If you want to go for the whole enchilada right now, go look up Gorski, he's probably looking for another "test case". Or better yet, DON'T, and let the pro's handle this in the strategically prudent manner, instead of getting all bent about having to "grovel" to be able to carry. Man up, act like a civilized member of society, and participate in the process however much it grates against your idealist perogatives. Unless you've got some disqualifying fault which would keep you from getting the permit, in which case, now I get why you'd be torqued about having to "get permission".

As I said, yes it may be disappointing but don't go losing sleep over this one. In my mind losing a half-right and gaining a 3/4 one in the bargain is a good deal. Go to any state where people have shall-issue CCW. Take a poll. How many of them have any interest in open-carrying an unloaded firearm? Ask them that and they will think you are nuts. That's the point I was making.