PDA

View Full Version : 2A Community Forum in Santa Barbara 2/17/2011


jdberger
01-26-2011, 10:21 AM
The Santa Barbara Chapter of the Coalition Against Gun Violence is having a Second Amendment Community Forum (http://www.sbcoalition.org/#) on February 17, 2011.

Faulkner Gallery
Santa Barbara Downtown Public Library
6:30 - 9:00 PM
Free and open to the public

Organized by:
The Coalition Against Gun Violence
Sponsored by:
American Association of University Women
Democratic Women of Santa Barbara County
League of Women Voters
Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee

This discussion by panel experts will clarify the ambiguities of the two recent Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment and elucidate future legal implications regarding gun control laws which may or may not be affected. The event will be moderated by former ... [sic](text was cut off).

It would be nice if we could get some Calgunners to attend. Perhaps they could ask "The Question".

Mr. [anti-gunner], you've said that you're in favor of reasonable regulations. Other than the regulations struck in Heller and McDonald can you tell us what regulations you consider unreasonable?

Remember, folks - if we're going to change the direction of the debate, we need to show up to events like this. Be passionate, articulate and polite. Make a good impression. Dress conservatively. Wear a collared shirt.

We are winning - but we could do better.

Get out there and represent the California Gun Owning Community!

Dreaded Claymore
01-26-2011, 10:49 AM
I probably won't be able to go, I'm in the Bay Area. And it's a shame, because I'm a clean-shaven (former) college student, and that might rattle them. All you Santa Barbara Calgunners had better show up! DO EET!

Californio
01-26-2011, 10:57 AM
They do this every time a mental case goes off. I attended the last one, after a an ex-female postal worker returned and shot her former colleagues in the Goleta USPS plant. They are just a bunch of 60's hippy academic carpetbaggers from New York and Chicago, mostly old women with nothing better to do. They never address the Mental Health System and LE, that fails to act. The Goleta woman was fired by USPS and got a pension for mental disability with a strange history of going down hill, she moved to New Mexico and bought a gun, practiced until she got good and came back to California to murder, just like the boy in Tucson, both shooters passed NICS checks because their mental issues had never been reported, just like Cho. Instead of addressing the Mental Health System, they want to ban all firearms as if that is going to keep the Mentally Ill from going off. Right before Goleta a UCSB Student drove an automobile into a campus block party and killed 4, he was never tried and is in an institution. No mention of banning cars or block parties from the hippies.

I have a lot on my plate but will try to attend.

KWA-S
01-26-2011, 2:50 PM
I'll see if I can make it and can bring some friends ;)

Which Way Out
02-09-2011, 8:00 AM
Dang, I will be shooting at Burro Canyon that day with some buddies from Canada. Talk about gun laws, just look at there's. I think I will be driving home after and if the timing is right I will be there.
Bill

jdberger
02-09-2011, 8:27 AM
Dang, I will be shooting at Burro Canyon that day with some buddies from Canada. Talk about gun laws, just look at there's. I think I will be driving home after and if the timing is right I will be there.
Bill

Thanks for the bump. Don't forget to ask THE QUESTION:

Mr. [anti-gunner], you've said that you're in favor of reasonable regulations. Other than the regulations struck in Heller and McDonald can you tell us what regulations you consider unreasonable?

fiddletown
02-09-2011, 9:08 AM
What would be good to have at a meeting like that would be a very well dialed-in lawyer, like a Don Kilmer or a Gene Volokh or a Chuck Michel. The panel of "experts" will most likely take a highly slanted view of the "ambiguities" of Heller and McDonald. It would be delightful to have someone who clearly qualifies as an expert himself to to be able to ask extremely pointed questions.

NotEnufGarage
02-09-2011, 9:52 AM
Anybody who does go, be sure to ask questions that would compare the 2nd Amendment to other parts of the Bill of Rights, ie. If providing proof of identity, taking a test and paying a fee (HSC) is acceptable in order to purchase a handgun, would you be in favor of requiring the same for voting on any fiscal issue in any election? If not, why not?

Let's start referendums with handguns (they have a more immediate and possibly detrimental effect) and election to office with rifles and see how they squirm.

Californio
02-09-2011, 10:09 AM
Last meet they had was not an open forum, the audience does get to ask questions, its a sermon by a panel of lefty politico's preaching to old grey haired Eastern transplants. I plan to make it unless something comes up.

NotEnufGarage
02-09-2011, 11:34 AM
Last meet they had was not an open forum, the audience does get to ask questions, its a sermon by a panel of lefty politico's preaching to old grey haired Eastern transplants. I plan to make it unless something comes up.

That doesn't mean a well organized group of spectators couldn't voice their opinions when certain methods are discussed. Simple shouting of words like facist, nazi, socialist, elitist, liar, etc. can be very effective in making those discussing the methods look like the rights grabbers they are.

jdberger
02-09-2011, 11:49 AM
That doesn't mean a well organized group of spectators couldn't voice their opinions when certain methods are discussed. Simple shouting of words like facist, nazi, socialist, elitist, liar, etc. can be very effective in making those discussing the methods look like the rights grabbers they are.

No.

We don't shout.

We show up in collared shirts and shined shoes. We speak in even tones. We show respect.

Wanna know why?

Because by shouting you simply confirm their view of you as a neanderthal.

By introducing your argument with an epithet, you instantly debase your position.

By appearing to be a rabble, you alienate people who are on the fence.

No one likes the angry guy who shouts at traffic.

Wherryj
02-09-2011, 12:39 PM
No.

We don't shout.

We show up in collared shirts and shined shoes. We speak in even tones. We show respect.

Wanna know why?

Because by shouting you simply confirm their view of you as a neanderthal.

By introducing your argument with an epithet, you instantly debase your position.

By appearing to be a rabble, you alienate people who are on the fence.

No one likes the angry guy who shouts at traffic.

You know my old neighbor from San Jose? He was even known to jump on his bicycle to shout at and try to chase down drivers he felt were going "too fast".

Yeah, and surprisingly no one in the neighborhood liked him. I think that you have a point there.

CitaDeL
02-09-2011, 12:44 PM
No.

We don't shout.

We show up in collared shirts and shined shoes. We speak in even tones. We show respect.

Wanna know why?

Because by shouting you simply confirm their view of you as a neanderthal.

By introducing your argument with an epithet, you instantly debase your position.

By appearing to be a rabble, you alienate people who are on the fence.

No one likes the angry guy who shouts at traffic.


^ This.

ZombieTactics
02-09-2011, 1:23 PM
We don't shout.
Yes, that "give me liberty or give me death" stuff went out of fashion over a hundred years ago, along with most sensible notions about liberty, the Constitution, etc.

We show up in collared shirts and shined shoes. We speak in even tones. We show respect. Yes. No matter what, none of that dressing up like Indians and throwing tea overboard. We can't have that kind of thing anymore. We can't do a lot of things anymore, like practicing the most basic of our rights.

Because by shouting you simply confirm their view of you as a neanderthal. Because they always respond with dispassionate reason to facts and logic ... oh wait ...

By introducing your argument with an epithet, you instantly debase your position. Or perhaps making some people a bit less comfortable with the philosophical basis of their tyrannical views is called for now and then.

There is a time and place for everything. I don't like one-size-fits-all solutions. I am a human being, not a cog in the wheel to be managed by the expectations of others. I reserve the right to react appropriately as I see fit, so long as I harm none.

N6ATF
02-09-2011, 1:37 PM
You gotta be more discreet, or you get thrown out for "disturbing the peace" of the victim disarmers, and fined for exercising your 1A.

Maybe have a pico projector tucked in your coat on the seat next to you, and throw up a slideshow of "The Heroes of Gun Control" behind them. Or on the wall in front of them, so they are distracted by it while they passionately argue for criminal safety.
http://www.offensivestuff.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/896c.jpg

Stonewalker
02-09-2011, 1:48 PM
When doing outreach type events in a very anti-gun city it would be very silly shout deragotory words in the middle of a speech. They believe that everybody else believes like them and we are the anomalies.

It's called "othering". When you disagree with somebody or don't like them for some reason you attribute it to the fact that they are from a different camp than you are. I think it's human nature to do this and people from all political walks do this. It dehumanizes a person/problem/discussion and justifies hate.

The way to counter that is to first find common ground and then skillfully address logical fallacies. It's useless without common ground. I'm not sure how to establish common ground in a forum-type environment but I do know that shouting things that identify you as "us" and them as "them" will only work to hurt us.

d4v0s
02-09-2011, 2:24 PM
When doing outreach type events in a very anti-gun city it would be very silly shout deragotory words in the middle of a speech. They believe that everybody else believes like them and we are the anomalies.

It's called "othering". When you disagree with somebody or don't like them for some reason you attribute it to the fact that they are from a different camp than you are. I think it's human nature to do this and people from all political walks do this. It dehumanizes a person/problem/discussion and justifies hate.

The way to counter that is to first find common ground and then skillfully address logical fallacies. It's useless without common ground. I'm not sure how to establish common ground in a forum-type environment but I do know that shouting things that identify you as "us" and them as "them" will only work to hurt us.


Common ground can simply be the fact that we all want our children, wives, families to grow up in safe environments, where mentally ill people cant obtain firearms. The only major difference between us and them is they want to make the world better (supposedly) by removing everyones right to bear arms, While we would prefer to manifest our own destiny, take control of our own safety and not be reliant on a police force to save us.

Prohibition does not work, teaching our citizens to be responsible for their actions is most important imho

N6ATF
02-09-2011, 4:46 PM
They want to make the world a better place for criminals, and criminals alone. (They are themselves criminals, for waging a cold proxy civil war upon innocent people.)

NotEnufGarage
02-09-2011, 5:29 PM
No.

We don't shout.

We show up in collared shirts and shined shoes. We speak in even tones. We show respect.

Wanna know why?

Because by shouting you simply confirm their view of you as a neanderthal.

By introducing your argument with an epithet, you instantly debase your position.

By appearing to be a rabble, you alienate people who are on the fence.

No one likes the angry guy who shouts at traffic.


Joe Wilson's "You Lie" during last years SOTU speech was very effective in starting a national dialogue about the truthfulness of Obama's claims about healthcare, spending, the deficit, taxation, etc.

When a group puts on an event like this with only one point of view, it needs to be challenged, even if in subtle ways, such as Joe Wilson's. Any fence sitters in the audience need to know that the pablum being spewed from the lecturn is not the gospel truth. Granted, it'll probably be a gathering of the already indoctrinated, but who knows, a little challenge might just peel off one or two enough to make them question what they here.

Besides, being hauled out for disturbing the peace or whatever will take away from the amount of time they have to spew their drivel and put them on notice that we will not sit quietly while they attempt to further infringe on our rights. For that matter, it would go to show that not only are the opposed to 2A rights, but the don't have a lot of respect for 1A, either.

Now, if only an unbiased press existed to publicize such an outburst.

AJAX22
02-09-2011, 5:58 PM
Think the open carriers will show up?

Its a public venue.... I think its not in a school zone..

.....

To address the subject of disruption, please DO NOT SHOUT if you intend to represent our side.

If you feel MUST disrupt proceedings, please put on a 'guns are evil' t shirt or something and pull a false flag on the anti's.

You can always ask the REALLY important questions...

"Now that they have ruled that guns are a protected individual right, how do we keep them out of the hands of niggers?"

"Can we make them pass some sort of literacy test before we let them have a gun... you know like we did to the niggers back in the good days?"

"Is it legal to impose a tax that makes guns so expensive that the niggers, spic's and white trash can't afford them?"

"Can we limit the total number of guns that they are allowed to own to prevent them from buying a bunch and arming all the spic's in mexico?"

You can make them VERY uncomfortable if you endorse their side but from a racist/sexixt/and homophobic perspective (you know... the stuff they THINK but don't want the world to know that they believe)

N6ATF
02-09-2011, 6:55 PM
Mmmm... :)

glbtrottr
02-09-2011, 7:39 PM
Dear Chapter,

I wanted to pause for a moment and give consideration to bring light to a brutally violent crime that took place in March quite a few years ago.

Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro were upstairs in the townhouse they shared when they heard their roommate, Miriam Douglas, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

It is difficult to conceive a more brutal act committed by armed perpetrators, Marvin Kent and James Morse.

The police department of the District of Columbia failed to highlight the degree of urgency when the first call came in at 6:23AM, and again when dispatch opted not to send officers at 0642AM. The police officers in this case also failed to follow standard investigative police procedure.

These three victimized women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

The Court ruled that the Police were under no obligation to protect these women - or you, your daughters, your sisters, or me for that matter.

What a tragedy.

These women and many like them have been unable to defend themselves in the District of Columbia because of the Firearms Control Regulations Act , which restricted residents from owning handguns.

How would you suggest women like the aforementioned ladies protect themselves? Or would you suggest they simply submit to being victimized? The choices aren't many.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Firearm Control Regulations Act was unconstitutional, in what is known as a landmark decision known as "District of Columbia v Heller".

"Heller", which was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago, the largest US City with the most demanding gun control legislation in the nation, coincidentally also with the highest murder rate in a large metropolis. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

Now, women like Joan Taliaferro, Miriam Douglas and Carolyn Warren have an opportunity to defend themselves by being able to keep a firearm, a force equalizer in the home, if they so choose without being deemed criminal as law abiding citizens.

Gun control doesn't prevent gun violence - quite the opposite. After more than fifty years of "sensible gun-control laws," English criminals have more than three million illegal guns, twice as many as ten years ago.

Give women like Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro and Miriam Douglas a chance to not be victims anymore.

- - - - - -

Personalize it.
Appeal to their emotions.
Make them squirm with the stupidity of their choices.
Get them to think.
Let them see the impact of their actions within their own gender.

Dreaded Claymore
02-09-2011, 9:48 PM
Think the open carriers will show up?

Its a public venue.... I think its not in a school zone..

.....

To address the subject of disruption, please DO NOT SHOUT if you intend to represent our side.

If you feel MUST disrupt proceedings, please put on a 'guns are evil' t shirt or something and pull a false flag on the anti's.

You can always ask the REALLY important questions...


You can make them VERY uncomfortable if you endorse their side but from a racist/sexixt/and homophobic perspective (you know... the stuff they THINK but don't want the world to know that they believe)

If you're going for the racist angle, be sure to quote L. Ron Hubbard too, by saying "The trouble with China is, there are too many chinks there."

GOEX FFF
02-09-2011, 10:06 PM
Thanks for the bump. Don't forget to ask THE QUESTION:

Mr. [anti-gunner], you've said that you're in favor of reasonable regulations. Other than the regulations struck in Heller and McDonald can you tell us what regulations you consider unreasonable?

++++1

That is the Golden question for sure.
A video needs to be on Mr. Anti's face when they're asked.

wildhawker
02-09-2011, 10:48 PM
As a cautionary tale, see this post (http://volokh.com/2011/02/09/prosecution-of-students-who-disrupted-uc-irvine-speech-by-israeli-ambassador/) at VC in re disruption of a lawful meeting.

jdberger
02-10-2011, 7:50 AM
Joe Wilson's "You Lie" during last years SOTU speech was very effective in starting a national dialogue about the truthfulness of Obama's claims about healthcare, spending, the deficit, taxation, etc.

Different time, place, circumstance. Half your audience isn't going to be tacitly agreeing with you.

When a group puts on an event like this with only one point of view, it needs to be challenged, even if in subtle ways, such as Joe Wilson's. Any fence sitters in the audience need to know that the pablum being spewed from the lecturn is not the gospel truth. Granted, it'll probably be a gathering of the already indoctrinated, but who knows, a little challenge might just peel off one or two enough to make them question what they here.

Shouting ain't subtle.

You can more easily sway fence sitters by being approachable, reasonable and gentle.

Besides, being hauled out for disturbing the peace or whatever will take away from the amount of time they have to spew their drivel and put them on notice that we will not sit quietly while they attempt to further infringe on our rights. For that matter, it would go to show that not only are the opposed to 2A rights, but the don't have a lot of respect for 1A, either.

Or, you could chain yourself to the doors.... :rolleyes: Please....

Now, if only an unbiased press existed to publicize such an outburst.

Now you're getting it.

jdberger
02-10-2011, 7:56 AM
Yes, that "give me liberty or give me death" stuff went out of fashion over a hundred years ago, along with most sensible notions about liberty, the Constitution, etc.

Impassioned speeches to supporters are completely different than presentations to opposition groups.

Yes. No matter what, none of that dressing up like Indians and throwing tea overboard. We can't have that kind of thing anymore. We can't do a lot of things anymore, like practicing the most basic of our rights.

Break the law, you're on your own. Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Ammo Box.... We're still at Soap.

Because they always respond with dispassionate reason to facts and logic ... oh wait ...

WE are not THEM.

Or perhaps making some people a bit less comfortable with the philosophical basis of their tyrannical views is called for now and then.

Yes. Wonderful. Can you do it without shouting, though?

There is a time and place for everything. I don't like one-size-fits-all solutions. I am a human being, not a cog in the wheel to be managed by the expectations of others. I reserve the right to react appropriately as I see fit, so long as I harm none.

Have at it, them. I assume that you're going to post video? I look forward to your after action report.

NotEnufGarage
02-10-2011, 8:05 AM
As a cautionary tale, see this post (http://volokh.com/2011/02/09/prosecution-of-students-who-disrupted-uc-irvine-speech-by-israeli-ambassador/) at VC in re disruption of a lawful meeting.

If a few cases of liberal wingnuts doing that to conservative speaker can be found where they weren't prosecuted, a good selective prosecution case could be made. There's gotta be hundreds of them.

jdberger
02-15-2011, 8:47 AM
BTT

This is coming up - it would nice to have at least one Calgunner there to give us an after action report.

southernsnowshoe
02-15-2011, 9:04 PM
They are just a bunch of 60's hippy academic carpetbaggers from New York and Chicago, mostly old women with nothing better to do.



Oh hell, that's funny :D

KWA-S
02-16-2011, 6:29 PM
Just remembered I'm supposed to give someone a ride to Camarillo at 5:00 tomorrow >.<

Someone tape it for those of us who couldn't make it?

LockJaw
02-16-2011, 8:51 PM
Dear Chapter,

I wanted to pause for a moment and give consideration to bring light to a brutally violent crime that took place in March quite a few years ago.

Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro were upstairs in the townhouse they shared when they heard their roommate, Miriam Douglas, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

It is difficult to conceive a more brutal act committed by armed perpetrators, Marvin Kent and James Morse.

The police department of the District of Columbia failed to highlight the degree of urgency when the first call came in at 6:23AM, and again when dispatch opted not to send officers at 0642AM. The police officers in this case also failed to follow standard investigative police procedure.

These three victimized women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

The Court ruled that the Police were under no obligation to protect these women - or you, your daughters, your sisters, or me for that matter.

What a tragedy.

These women and many like them have been unable to defend themselves in the District of Columbia because of the Firearms Control Regulations Act , which restricted residents from owning handguns.

How would you suggest women like the aforementioned ladies protect themselves? Or would you suggest they simply submit to being victimized? The choices aren't many.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Firearm Control Regulations Act was unconstitutional, in what is known as a landmark decision known as "District of Columbia v Heller".

"Heller", which was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago, the largest US City with the most demanding gun control legislation in the nation, coincidentally also with the highest murder rate in a large metropolis. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

Now, women like Joan Taliaferro, Miriam Douglas and Carolyn Warren have an opportunity to defend themselves by being able to keep a firearm, a force equalizer in the home, if they so choose without being deemed criminal as law abiding citizens.

Gun control doesn't prevent gun violence - quite the opposite. After more than fifty years of "sensible gun-control laws," English criminals have more than three million illegal guns, twice as many as ten years ago.

Give women like Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro and Miriam Douglas a chance to not be victims anymore.

My play would be to have a couple of pleasant, smiling, well dressed ladies at the entrance handing out the above story on folded handbills. Most people would likely take these with them into the meeting feeling they were programs for the nights event. It's a public building right? Should be legal and non confrontational.
If this fails have a faux code pink brigade at the ready and give them a dose of their own medicine. :D

Zomgie
02-16-2011, 10:30 PM
Hmm. I have some meetings planned for tomorrow evening. Hopefully I can attend this and ask some unreasonable questions :chris:

Don29palms
02-17-2011, 8:56 PM
Did anyone go? What happened?

Californio
02-19-2011, 4:51 PM
Well Brain Hall, presiding Judge of the Santa Barbara Superior Court. I guess he doesn't recognize Heller or McDonald because he is still is in the camp that the 2nd 1. individuals can only bear arms in the context of a state-sponsored militia or 2. individuals can bear arms for self defense, which is way to broad and interpretation.

Richard Solomon, a former law professor at Southwestern University and an ACLU board member since 2000. Still has the "collectivist" view. Mr. Solomon believes the 2nd is "irrelevant" in todays society.

So apparently none of the panel and Officers of the Court respect the ruling of the High Court and live in their own Social Utopia.

N6ATF
02-19-2011, 5:23 PM
We all live in a criminals utopia. We need at least a dozen more court rulings against victim disarmament here in CA to even start on the path to becoming a law-abiding utopia.

Zhukov
02-19-2011, 9:50 PM
I'm curious - Can a judge's personal views, such as stating the Heller/McDonald rulings don't matter, come back to haunt him or be used against him in court? (To force recusal or anything to that extent?)

jdberger
02-21-2011, 8:23 PM
Not really. We recognize that judges are human and that they bring their own personal prejudices with them onto the bench. There's quite an industry in vetting judges for litigation.

Judges SHOULDN'T discuss litigation pending before their court, though...

jdberger
02-21-2011, 8:24 PM
Well Brain Hall, presiding Judge of the Santa Barbara Superior Court. I guess he doesn't recognize Heller or McDonald because he is still is in the camp that the 2nd 1. individuals can only bear arms in the context of a state-sponsored militia or 2. individuals can bear arms for self defense, which is way to broad and interpretation.

Richard Solomon, a former law professor at Southwestern University and an ACLU board member since 2000. Still has the "collectivist" view. Mr. Solomon believes the 2nd is "irrelevant" in todays society.

So apparently none of the panel and Officers of the Court respect the ruling of the High Court and live in their own Social Utopia.

Thanks for going. Were people allowed to ask questions?

marpatpippi
02-28-2011, 7:40 AM
I don't always read the forums...only found out about this after the fact (saw it in the paper and thought, I wish I could have been there).

I would love to volunteer to be the below lady at future events. Keep me in mind and email me at marpatpippi@gmail.com if you could use a female presence at a public forum.

My play would be to have a couple of pleasant, smiling, well dressed ladies at the entrance handing out the above story on folded handbills. Most people would likely take these with them into the meeting feeling they were programs for the nights event. It's a public building right? Should be legal and non confrontational.
If this fails have a faux code pink brigade at the ready and give them a dose of their own medicine. :D

jdberger
03-10-2011, 2:09 PM
Some local press about the event. (http://www.newspress.tv/main.jsp?category=News&id=949) Video at the link.

Panel Discusses The Right to Bear Arms
2011-02-18

On Thursday evening 'The Coalition Against Gun Violence' met at The Faulkner Gallery to discuss two recent Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment and their legal implications in relation to California's gun-control laws. A panel of experts comprised of Judge Bryan Hill, UCSB professor of sociology Beth Schneider and former law professor Richard Solomon gave each a presentation that focused on the history of the 2nd Amendment and the recent Superior Court decisions. After the presentations a QandA was opened to the public in which topics like the Gun Safety Bill, Open Carry and other concerns regarding gun control were brought up.

Additional pics are here. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Coalition-Against-Gun-Violence-CAGV-A-Santa-Barbara-County-Coalition/181569591880241?sk=wall&closeTheater=1#!/album.php?aid=33488&id=181569591880241&fbid=183443031692897)