PDA

View Full Version : ARTICLE: "NRA faces two crucial tests this week" ~ LA City Limit Gun Ban, etc


Danz la Nuit
02-07-2011, 11:34 PM
http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/nra-faces-two-crucial-tests-this-week

bwiese
02-07-2011, 11:52 PM
It's somewhat hilarious but sad that Charles is blaming the NRA for not fixing the disastrous situation that the sociopolitically unaware en masse UOC goons created by waving red flags under the noses of the soccer moms.

I will note that - as I and others had warned last year - new bills 'fixing' UOC would also have a lot of accompanying problems entirely separate from UOC since bad gun bills get a lotta crap glued on. We can only hope that they're vetoable because they're sure as hell gonna pass the legislature, nobody's rolling in on gurneys this year.

I doubt if the "coffee shop UOCers" - if we get transportation of guns restricted or other bad restrictions thrown in etc. in addition to a UOC ban - will be very welcome at many gun ranges or gunshops due to their naivete and screwups. We should bill them for the legal costs required to undo this crap and for 'opportunity costs' (time we have to spend fixing this crap when we could fix something else).

Bruce
02-08-2011, 12:07 AM
+1 Bill. UOC is pretty much a stunt for the show-offs among us. Yes UOCer's it's your "right". But you're screwing up everybody's rights with your silliness.

Blackhawk556
02-08-2011, 12:08 AM
^^^^ I take it someone doesn't open carry :-)

jdberger
02-08-2011, 1:02 AM
Mr Nichols is quick to point blame. A little slow to accept responsibility.

Jack L
02-08-2011, 6:13 AM
How many UOC people are genuine contributors to the NRA, Calguns, CRPA, SAF, and other dedicated organizations?

Havoc70
02-08-2011, 6:17 AM
How many UOC people are genuine contributors to the NRA, Calguns, CRPA, SAF, and other dedicated organizations?

I am. Then again, I stopped participating in en masse things a while ago.

dantodd
02-08-2011, 6:24 AM
What a horrible article.

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 7:49 AM
CNReporter was run off this forum when those of us who had some awareness called him.

CNReporter's postings (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/search.php?searchid=11919758)

jdberger
02-08-2011, 8:17 AM
He ran himself off, Gray.

He repeatedly insisted upon direct engagement with hoffmang, and when he got it and it didn't comport with his expectations, he declared us agh heretics and retreated to his mountaintop.

jnojr
02-08-2011, 8:21 AM
Well, everyone who hates UOC, surely you'll be glad to see a law passed, right? After all, it's a terrible idea, etc.

What is the point in having a "right" you're too afraid to exercise?

There isn't much about CA that I miss.

mdimeo
02-08-2011, 8:36 AM
Well, everyone who hates UOC, surely you'll be glad to see a law passed, right? After all, it's a terrible idea, etc.

What is the point in having a "right" you're too afraid to exercise?
.

Virtually nobody here "hates" UOC, and virtually nobody wants it banned (aside from a few who think it'll help strategically with shall-issue CCW).

However, it's been stated over and over that in-your-face UOC activism and large-group meetups are counterproductive. They were guaranteed to cause a harmful legislative backlash, and our rights are going to suffer as a result.

People have the right to do all kinds of very stupid things. Begging them to please top screwing things up for the rest of us is not the same as hating their rights.

wash
02-08-2011, 8:48 AM
It is absolutely a right to walk in to a black neighborhood in Oakland and yell "n*****".

You can do that if you want but you must expect some repercussions.

Strapping on an empty gun at Starbucks is quite similar.

For some reason UOCers either don't understand that or don't care and leave it up to NRA/CRPA/CGF to fix things.

If we lose UOC, everyone that strapped on an empty gun at the coffee shop (after NRA/CRPA/CGF told them it was a bad idea) has to take some of the blame.

NRA/CRPA/CGF/SAF are winning the battles that they choose to fight, now they are getting a stain on their record because some people are lacking a lot of common sense.

Thanks.

dantodd
02-08-2011, 8:53 AM
As has been pointed out before, a much as losing OC rights hurts it is the additional restrictions which are almost certain to be attached that will hurt all of us.

Ape
02-08-2011, 9:03 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how so many here love to blame those who excercise their right to carry as causing them some sort of discomfort? :rolleyes:

So in other words we should be quiet like good little sheep and do whatever the elite gunners think is right? Rather than standing up to the ignorant antis we should simply act like a beaten dog and cower in a corner I suppose. :rolleyes:

And so many of you blame get togethers for ruining your rights, correct?
Because somehow a group of people carrying in the open is somehow more detrimental than a single person doing it? Really???
Where did common sense run off too?

jdberger
02-08-2011, 9:15 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how so many here love to blame those who excercise their right to carry as causing them some sort of discomfort? :rolleyes:

So in other words we should be quiet like good little sheep and do whatever the elite gunners think is right? Rather than standing up to the ignorant antis we should simply act like a beaten dog and cower in a corner I suppose. :rolleyes:

And so many of you blame get togethers for ruining your rights, correct?
Because somehow a group of people carrying in the open is somehow more detrimental than a single person doing it? Really???
Where did common sense run off too?

When the group of people exercising their rights adds additional tasks to my already full plate - yes, they deserve a measure of blame. When laws they inspire require additional steps for me (and the rest of California gunowners) to get my handgun to my car in order to go target shooting - yes, they deserve a measure of blame.

The questions that really need to be posed is, "How is organized UOC HELPING the cause? Is organized UOC accomplishing something that can't be accomplished in another way?"

We realize that it's an exercise of political rights. However, we don't see how it's present exercise is beneficial at this time.

Ape
02-08-2011, 9:26 AM
That's my point.....Blame is being laid in the wrong direction. Hit the nail on the head, not the side!
It would seem so many here would like to blame all of their problems with gun ownership on the heads of one segment of gun owners. Am I really the only person that sees the ridiculousness of this???

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 9:31 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how so many here love to blame those who excercise their right to carry as causing them some sort of discomfort? :rolleyes:

So in other words we should be quiet like good little sheep and do whatever the elite gunners think is right? Rather than standing up to the ignorant antis we should simply act like a beaten dog and cower in a corner I suppose. :rolleyes:

And so many of you blame get togethers for ruining your rights, correct?
Because somehow a group of people carrying in the open is somehow more detrimental than a single person doing it? Really???
Where did common sense run off too?

You don't really have a right to carry a paperweight. We repeatedly warned that calling UOC a right protected under the 2A would have devastating consequences for us. We saw that in the Peruta decision what happens when a judge is convinced by a governmental defendant thanks to the UOC movement that carrying an unloaded firearm is somehow functional.

Ape
02-08-2011, 9:40 AM
Again, assigning blame in the wrong arena seems awfully reminiscent of anti gunners blather. Ask yourself.......How in the world did the gun community become so easily swayed into fracturing and pointing fingers?

soopafly
02-08-2011, 9:44 AM
That's my point.....Blame is being laid in the wrong direction. Hit the nail on the head, not the side!
It would seem so many here would like to blame all of their problems with gun ownership on the heads of one segment of gun owners. Am I really the only person that sees the ridiculousness of this???
Sorry, but you are just not seeing the situation correctly. Have you lived here in CA for any length of time? The current political situation in the context of 2A rights is not gun owner friendly in the golden state. I don't think "blame all of their problems with gun ownership on the heads of one segment of gun owners" is what is being asserted. I absolutely believe that UOC is a right and *should* be exercised freely. However, I also understand the political climate here in CA and that the "big picture" is for complete and total victory for ALL 2A rights, and to achieve that goal in the most efficient manner. Getting side tracked to fight UOC legislation diverts precious resources and further extends that timeline for complete victory. I want to see total victory within my lifetime. I'm seeing the end game. And I want LOADED open carry.

kagekiri
02-08-2011, 9:52 AM
Again, assigning blame in the wrong arena seems awfully reminiscent of anti gunners blather. Ask yourself.......How in the world did the gun community become so easily swayed into fracturing and pointing fingers?

If they're UOCing to make a political statement, it's not a helpful one.

Sure, if they're doing it for self defense, go for it. But doing it to further gun awareness and politics isn't actually helping pro-gunners. It's riling up the antis for pretty much zero benefit and rather noticeable detriment (e.g., all these laws specifically crafted because they were UOCing).

Yeah, the person kicking the hornets' nest isn't actually directly harming anyone's rights, but pissing off hornets that go on to sting everyone else is hardly beneficial or well thought out behavior and definitely worth reprimanding. Yeah, we'll do our best to deal with the hornets while we're at it, because they're a bigger problem and the real end problem as well (which is what I assume you mean by "assigning the blame to where it's due"), but why not stop the silly kids from getting everyone into a bigger mess than we need to?

That's the problem: if anything, the ones continuing to UOC politically without any thought to the consequences are the ones who've splintered off from the rest of gun-owners. We want to pull the rug from under the antis with actually effective judicial rulings; annoying the antis into higher legislative activity is just wasted or even negative action, whether or not the UOCers are part of our "side."

scarville
02-08-2011, 9:54 AM
You don't really have a right to carry a paperweight. We repeatedly warned that calling UOC a right protected under the 2A would have devastating consequences for us. We saw that in the Peruta decision what happens when a judge is convinced by a governmental defendant thanks to the UOC movement that carrying an unloaded firearm is somehow functional.
I'm not even sure what you mean by the above. I realize you are a Lawyer and may not use words like "rights" the same way a dumb 'ol Engineer like me would so l'm trying to understand what you really mean.

Are you claiming that Open Carry is not a right? Just Unloaded Open Carry? Only Concealed Carry is a right? That all or some of the above are rights but is not tactically wise to scare the zombie bait by letting them know about it? Something else?

OC_Gunman
02-08-2011, 9:54 AM
Stop pretending to be unaware of the effect of your actions, UOCers. There's a reason you're not openly carrying unloaded, bullet-buttoned ARs slung over your shoulders - - you know that doing so is likely to provoke counter-productive reactions. Apply that same logic to UOC of handguns. Get it, numb-skulls?!

tonelar
02-08-2011, 9:56 AM
Again, assigning blame in the wrong arena seems awfully reminiscent of anti gunners blather. Ask yourself.......How in the world did the gun community become so easily swayed into fracturing and pointing fingers?

You really don't see how the pending legislation is a reaction to UOCers? You prolly think the Black Panthers had no influence on the banning of loaded open carry in CA either, right?

wash
02-08-2011, 9:56 AM
Being correct is not the same as being elite.

There really isn't any elite in gun rights activists, we all want the same rights for everyone, elitists want to keep certain privileges for their exclusive group. That just isn't a correct way to characterize any NRA/CRPA/CGF/SAF people who have been warning against practicing UOC.

Ape
02-08-2011, 9:57 AM
And I agree unifringed "loaded carry" should be a goal by any and all states. And I can understand wanting to fight one battle and winning before moving on to another. But this isn't the over all attitude displayed in threads such as these.
Time and time again I read nothing but assigned blame towards some supposed fool hearted renegades trying to exercise their gun rights under the laws.

I live in Colorado and have never lived in Cali, and I have the ability to OC (loaded) under Colorado laws. I also have had my CCW for many years now, and I choose to OC a couple of times a week because I can and to help enlighten the sheeple of the state. If I and people like me were to hide in our basements and simply hope to keep those rights then I firmly believe we'd lose those rights under Colorado law.
Should women have simply hidden in basements and hoped for voting laws to be changed? Should blacks have hidden and hoped for discrimination laws to change? It's no different in my eyes.

soopafly
02-08-2011, 9:57 AM
Stop pretending to be unaware of the effect of your actions, UOCers. There's a reason you're not openly carrying unloaded, bullet-buttoned ARs slung over your shoulders - - you know that doing so is likely to provoke counter-productive reactions. Apply that same logic to UOC of handguns. Get it, numb-skulls?!
I was trying to be more polite and less abrasive, but this pretty much sums it up, LOL:p

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 10:01 AM
I'm not even sure what you mean by the above. I realize you are a Lawyer and may not use words like "rights" the same way a dumb 'ol Engineer like me would so l'm trying to understand what you really mean.

Are you claiming that Open Carry is not a right? Just Unloaded Open Carry? Only Concealed Carry is a right? That all or some of the above are rights but is not tactically wise to scare the zombie bait by letting them know about it? Something else?

There is a right to carry a functional firearm. UOC is not functional firearms carry. Under the "time, place, and manner" restrictions that are common in first amendment jurisprudence. Place means they can restrict your carrying ability in certain places (schools and secured governmental buildings). Manner means they can require you to carry it openly or carry concealed, but they cannot prohibit it entirely.

UOC is not functional firearms carry as envisioned by our founding fathers and the Framers of the 14th amendment......

Wherryj
02-08-2011, 10:05 AM
He ran himself off, Gray.

He repeatedly insisted upon direct engagement with hoffmang, and when he got it and it didn't comport with his expectations, he declared us agh heretics and retreated to his mountaintop.

It seems rather sensible to retreat when "directly engaged" by Hoffmang...

soopafly
02-08-2011, 10:06 AM
And I agree unifringed "loaded carry" should be a goal by any and all states. And I can understand wanting to fight one battle and winning before moving on to another. But this isn't the over all attitude displayed in threads such as these.
Time and time again I read nothing but assigned blame towards some supposed fool hearted renegades trying to exercise their gun rights under the laws.

I live in Colorado and have never lived in Cali, and I have the ability to OC (loaded) under Colorado laws. I also have had my CCW for many years now, and I choose to OC a couple of times a week because I can and to help enlighten the sheeple of the state. If I and people like me were to hide in our basements and simply hope to keep those rights then I firmly believe we'd lose those rights under Colorado law.
Should women have simply hidden in basements and hoped for voting laws to be changed? Should blacks have hidden and hoped for discrimination laws to change? It's no different in my eyes.
Well, here it is, then. You need to realize that your 2A rights exist in a completely different political environment than us here in CA. I don't know if you are aware of this, but the CA Constitution DOES NOT have an RKBA clause. That's part of the problem here. Also, no one is telling UOC people to "hide in our basements". Just because UOC is being discouraged at this time, it does not mean "running and hiding" is encouraged. There are "other ways." More (politically) productive ways. In other worlds, we are merely saying there are more effective ways to regain our 2A rights in CA. And again...I WANT LOADED OPEN CARRY.

socalangler
02-08-2011, 10:09 AM
Stop pretending to be unaware of the effect of your actions, UOCers. There's a reason you're not openly carrying unloaded, bullet-buttoned ARs slung over your shoulders - - you know that doing so is likely to provoke counter-productive reactions. Apply that same logic to UOC of handguns. Get it, numb-skulls?!


Agree 100 %

Ape
02-08-2011, 10:10 AM
Stop pretending to be unaware of the effect of your actions, UOCers. There's a reason you're not openly carrying unloaded, bullet-buttoned ARs slung over your shoulders - - you know that doing so is likely to provoke counter-productive reactions. Apply that same logic to UOC of handguns. Get it, numb-skulls?!


I was trying to be more polite and less abrasive, but this pretty much sums it up, LOL:p

And there in lies my point!

Again I ask.....How is it that the antis were able to create fractures and finger pointing amongst 2A supporters?

Centurion_D
02-08-2011, 10:11 AM
I believe we all support the right to carry. The problem with UOC is that it can open up a can of worms and result in legislation that has a negative impact on all of us. As Bwiese and others have pointed out bad gun laws takes time and resources..AKA money..to over turn. With the Kalifornia leftest-elite anti gunners in control of this state we are facing a uphill battle. If the PRK was more evenly split with anti vs. pro gun politicals then I would be more comfortable with ppl UOCing but that is clearly not the case. All UOC is doing is adding more fuel to the anti 2A fire resulting in us burning more time and resources to keep at bay.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-08-2011, 10:16 AM
When the group of people exercising their rights adds additional tasks to my already full plate - yes, they deserve a measure of blame. When laws they inspire require additional steps for me (and the rest of California gunowners) to get my handgun to my car in order to go target shooting - yes, they deserve a measure of blame.

The questions that really need to be posed is, "How is organized UOC HELPING the cause? Is organized UOC accomplishing something that can't be accomplished in another way?"

We realize that it's an exercise of political rights. However, we don't see how it's present exercise is beneficial at this time.


The idea behind the UOC events is to take the issue to the general public & so get their support for gun rights in general. Does this help The Cause in general?

Well, people are talking about the issue. Not all of the talking is good, but to my GREAT surprise, not all of it is bad either. From my personal experience, there is a lot more support for The Cause from Joe Average than most gunnies think. Further, that support is actually growing.

And this is where the UOC events differ from lawsuits. Winning lawsuits is, of course, necessary, but they don't change minds. Not in wholesale lots they don't. If we're to ever get a 'Pro-2A mindset' in this state, minds will HAVE to be changed in wholesale lots.


It is absolutely a right to walk in to a black neighborhood in Oakland and yell "n*****".

You can do that if you want but you must expect some repercussions.

Strapping on an empty gun at Starbucks is quite similar.

For some reason UOCers either don't understand that or don't care and leave it up to NRA/CRPA/CGF to fix things.

If we lose UOC, everyone that strapped on an empty gun at the coffee shop (after NRA/CRPA/CGF told them it was a bad idea) has to take some of the blame.

NRA/CRPA/CGF/SAF are winning the battles that they choose to fight, now they are getting a stain on their record because some people are lacking a lot of common sense.

Thanks.


And that is where the difference of opinion lies. Not everyone is happy with the choices made. Throwing LOC under the bus simply isn't accepted by all gunnies, for instance. Asking them to meekly accept this is basically unreasonable.


The Raisuli

Ape
02-08-2011, 10:20 AM
The idea behind the UOC events is to take the issue to the general public & so get their support for gun rights in general. Does this help The Cause in general?

Well, people are talking about the issue. Not all of the talking is good, but to my GREAT surprise, not all of it is bad either. From my personal experience, there is a lot more support for The Cause from Joe Average than most gunnies think. Further, that support is actually growing.

And this is where the UOC events differ from lawsuits. Winning lawsuits is, of course, necessary, but they don't change minds. Not in wholesale lots they don't. If we're to ever get a 'Pro-2A mindset' in this state, minds will HAVE to be changed in wholesale lots.



And that is where the difference of opinion lies. Not everyone is happy with the choices made. Throwing LOC under the bus simply isn't accepted by all gunnies, for instance. Asking them to meekly accept this is basically unreasonable.


The Raisuli
Nice to hear some common sense thinking, thank you! :thumbsup:

Maestro Pistolero
02-08-2011, 10:23 AM
What was this thread about? We're rehashing the tired old debate, and not discussing the NRA's effort to beat this. The LA city council does not need our help demonizing LOC'rs.

Patrick-2
02-08-2011, 10:29 AM
I'm not even sure what you mean by the above. I realize you are a Lawyer and may not use words like "rights" the same way a dumb 'ol Engineer like me would so l'm trying to understand what you really mean.

Are you claiming that Open Carry is not a right? Just Unloaded Open Carry? Only Concealed Carry is a right? That all or some of the above are rights but is not tactically wise to scare the zombie bait by letting them know about it? Something else?

None of the above are recognized rights anywhere in California, under color of law in state or federal context. None. Nada. Zip.

Saying it is a right does not make it so. I continue to ask anyone to show where the right exists. Anyone?

The only thing that exists under CA law is an allowance to UOC. And anyone who thinks it was anything but an oversight by the overlords is mistaken. They would have gotten rid of it long ago had they suspected today's issue.

An allowance under law is not a "right", it is a gift of the legislature. A "right" is something that exists outside of law - the legislature is limited in what it can do to a right. Rights must be recognized to be protected. So while we can argue that a right to carry arms in public exists, it is clearly the case it is not yet recognized. People are working to make that happen.


Rather than re-argue all the same arguments about UOC again, let us run a little scenario for the Open Carry fans:

Scenario 1:

- UOC is outlawed in 2011 due to public backlash
- A federal court declares that "keep and bear" of a functional firearm is a fundamental right that extends outside your home

Outcome: Conceal Carry permits for all. No open carry in any form, anywhere in California.

Scenario 2:

- Play it cool and stop poking the tiger on public piers and in Sacramento
- A federal court declares that "keep and bear" of a functional firearm is a fundamental right that extends outside your home

Outcome: Your right to keep and bear almost surely includes Open Carry. Real Open Carry, not this abortion called "UOC" that is a joke to anyone not from California (sorry, has to be said).


The Supreme Court in Heller made it damn clear (using four case citations) that a legislature is free to choose the manner of carry. That means they can outlaw one or the other, but not both. "Constitutional Carry" does not exist in Heller. The Supreme Court shot it down, explicitly. There is not a single scholar in the law who argues it does. I don't like it, but them there are the facts.

Right now, due to legislative oversight, California has UOC. It's not a real form of carry because it is not a fully functioning firearm until loaded (again, per Heller, McDonald and several circuit cases).

So here's the deal: when the federal courts declare the ban on functional weapons illegal...you get to choose your own manner of carry. Open Carry is possible, but only if you don't get the legislature to ban it today.

If the CA legislature removes that option (UOC) today it will never be promoted to real open carry. The only one left on the table is Concealed Carry, and the Supreme Court will do nothing about OC so long as some mannerof carry (concealed) is allowed.

Is this sinking in yet?

Let's be more direct:

Piss of the legislature today: You will never Open Carry in California again. Even after SCOTUS rules RKBA is a protected right.

Keep your powder dry and be smart: Open Carry is likely grandfathered into the system and if played carefully stays that way. A strong federal decision might suck enough wind from the sails to let it stay, provided everyone plays nice. At that point, public carry would be a real "right", and this would help greatly.


Let's keep this real clear. I will say it again. If UOC "activists" piss of the public and the legislature, Open Carry will be erased from CA forever and there is nothing outside the ballot box you can do to get it back. SCOTUS will not give it to you.

You guys are killing yourselves. Open Carry in California is yours to lose. Don't mess it up and whine later. Nobody is throwing OC under the bus. Some people simply understand the long-term view on how to maintain it for all.

Yugo
02-08-2011, 10:29 AM
Ape is right but so are the rest of you....its like "glass half full or empty?" even though I have UOC I think we should focus on breaking it all down and being able to conceal loaded cause in the end this is what is right.
Just like Gray said; It needs to be functional whats the point of a paper weight?

jdberger
02-08-2011, 10:30 AM
<snip>

I live in Colorado and have never lived in Cali, and I have the ability to OC (loaded) under Colorado laws. I also have had my CCW for many years now, and I choose to OC a couple of times a week because I can and to help enlighten the sheeple of the state. If I and people like me were to hide in our basements and simply hope to keep those rights then I firmly believe we'd lose those rights under Colorado law.

Should women have simply hidden in basements and hoped for voting laws to be changed? Should blacks have hidden and hoped for discrimination laws to change? It's no different in my eyes.

Ah. Until this I hadn't realized that you lived in CO, which a a completely different political environment than California.

We're hanging on by the skin of our teeth here on the Left Coast. We're fighting rearguard actions. We're trying to undo decades of damage to gun rights. It's slow going, tedious and grinding. Distractions divert resources.

Organized Unloaded Open Carry in urban areas (within CA) encourages legislators to frame up feel-good bills which have the potential impact of truly bolloxing up gun rights in California.

Colorado is a different animal, entirely. Back when I was young and spry I lived in a different state - one with a 2A clause in its Constitution. I OC'd all the time. In Banks, office buildings, restaurants, etc. I was stopped by police once. And the officer simply wanted to know why I decided to carry a 10mm.

Again, California is different.

This isn't a blame game. It's an impassioned plea to the organize UOCers to help us focus efforts on the line until a breakout can be acheived instead of forcing us to divert energy and resources.

Ape
02-08-2011, 10:37 AM
None of the above are recognized rights anywhere in California, under color of law in state or federal context. None. Nada. Zip.

Saying it is a right does not make it so. I continue to ask anyone to show where the right exists. Anyone?

The only thing that exists under CA law is an allowance to UOC. And anyone who thinks it was anything but an oversight by the overlords is mistaken. They would have gotten rid of it long ago had they suspected today's issue.

An allowance under law is not a "right", it is a gift of the legislature. A "right" is something that exists outside of law - the legislature is limited in what it can do to a right. Rights must be recognized to be protected. So while we can argue that a right to carry arms in public exists, it is clearly the case it is not yet recognized. People are working to make that happen.


Rather than re-argue all the same arguments about UOC again, let us run a little scenario for the Open Carry fans:

Scenario 1:

- UOC is outlawed in 2011 due to public backlash
- A federal court declares that "keep and bear" of a functional firearm is a fundamental right that extends outside your home

Outcome: Conceal Carry permits for all. No open carry in any form, anywhere in California.

Scenario 2:

- Play it cool and stop poking the tiger on public piers and in Sacramento
- A federal court declares that "keep and bear" of a functional firearm is a fundamental right that extends outside your home

Outcome: Your right to keep and bear almost surely includes Open Carry. Real Open Carry, not this abortion called "UOC" that is a joke to anyone not from California (sorry, has to be said).


The Supreme Court in Heller made it damn clear (using four case citations) that a legislature is free to choose the manner of carry. That means they can outlaw one or the other, but not both. "Constitutional Carry" does not exist in Heller. The Supreme Court shot it down, explicitly. There is not a single scholar in the law who argues it does. I don't like it, but them there are the facts.

Right now, due to legislative oversight, California has UOC. It's not a real form of carry because it is not a fully functioning firearm until loaded (again, per Heller, McDonald and several circuit cases).

So here's the deal: when the federal courts declare the ban on functional weapons illegal...you get to choose your own manner of carry. Open Carry is possible, but only if you don't get the legislature to ban it today.

If the CA legislature removes that option (UOC) today it will never be promoted to real open carry. The only one left on the table is Concealed Carry, and the Supreme Court will do nothing about OC so long as some mannerof carry (concealed) is allowed.

Is this sinking in yet?

Let's be more direct:

Piss of the legislature today: You will never Open Carry in California again. Even after SCOTUS rules RKBA is a protected right.

Keep your powder dry and be smart: Open Carry is likely grandfathered into the system and if played carefully stays that way. A strong federal decision might suck enough wind from the sails to let it stay, provided everyone plays nice. At that point, public carry would be a real "right", and this would help greatly.


Let's keep this real clear. I will say it again. If UOC "activists" piss of the public and the legislature, Open Carry will be erased from CA forever and there is nothing outside the ballot box you can do to get it back. SCOTUS will not give it to you.

You guys are killing yourselves. Open Carry in California is yours to lose. Don't mess it up and whine later. Nobody is throwing OC under the bus. Some people simply understand the long-term view on how to maintain it for all.

Wow......So you're actually advocating hiding in the basement in order to "hopefully" have the ability to OC? And at the same time you're teslling us that we should allow the loss of freedoms and liberty giving ability's in order to maintain some small faction there of???? :confused:
Not to mention this is all conjecture on your part as well.

How can you be sure concealed carry will be had by all if we simply roll over and let the big bad politicians scratch our bellys like good dogs?
Even if shall issue was supposedly made effective for all city's and counties in Cali, who's to say there wouldn't still be infringments on that ability levied with fees and red tape?

mblat
02-08-2011, 10:42 AM
Winning lawsuits is, of course, necessary, but they don't change minds.

Actually this is highly questinable statement. A LOT of people simply go with "courts says so, it must be true".

Ape
02-08-2011, 10:43 AM
Ah. Until this I hadn't realized that you lived in CO, which a a completely different political environment than California.

We're hanging on by the skin of our teeth here on the Left Coast. We're fighting rearguard actions. We're trying to undo decades of damage to gun rights. It's slow going, tedious and grinding. Distractions divert resources.

Organized Unloaded Open Carry in urban areas (within CA) encourages legislators to frame up feel-good bills which have the potential impact of truly bolloxing up gun rights in California.

Colorado is a different animal, entirely. Back when I was young and spry I lived in a different state - one with a 2A clause in its Constitution. I OC'd all the time. In Banks, office buildings, restaurants, etc. I was stopped by police once. And the officer simply wanted to know why I decided to carry a 10mm.

Again, California is different.

This isn't a blame game. It's an impassioned plea to the organize UOCers to help us focus efforts on the line until a breakout can be acheived instead of forcing us to divert energy and resources.

And I understand and completely sympathize with the plight of California 2A supporters. It's one of the main reasons I'm a member here actually.
Colorado isn't all that far off from the attrocities to freedoms which Cali is embroiled in right now. Denver (and Boulder for that matter) is very left leaning and constantly reaching for infringments on RTKBA. Luckily (for now) Colorado state laws keep them at bay (for the most part).

But I still stand behind my views of not relinquishing one freedom in order to "hopefully" retain another. Nor do I imagine our founding fathers ever envisioned such nonsense either.

dantodd
02-08-2011, 10:47 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how so many here love to blame those who excercise their right to carry as causing them some sort of discomfort? :rolleyes:

First of all, as Gray said. There is no right to openly carry a firearm defined as such at this time. Most of the people who are most educated in this area and are leading the charge (i.e. deciding tactics and putting OUR money where their mouths are.) Tell me that there is likely to be found a right to bear arms outside the home but that the right can be regulated per time, manner and place (TMP.) Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that once we have that ruling it is much harder to take away a right than it is right now before such a right is defined.

So, if we get a court decision tomorrow that says we have a right to carry a gun outside the home with limited TMP restrictions the state will be held to a higher standard if they try to pass a new law restricting a currently permissible activity. In other words, if they want to curtail a pre-existing right they will likely have to prove that such a limitation serves an actual state interest and that it is is effective at serving said interest.

However; if we don't get that decision until after a ban on UOC is passed, which looks like the likely outcome as there is no direct carry case at SCOTUS or the 9th circuit yet. Then the state can enact the law under its state powers authority with little or no repercussions. (There ma be some serious 1A issues but let's stick to 2A for now.) So, if we are in a situation where the activity is already banned and TMP restrictions are said to be acceptable if reasonable then it is a much greater battle for us to recover those rights.

If the people who insisted on pushing the envelope had waited two or three years we might well be in a very different situation once the legislature got around to trying to ban a perfectly reasonable expression or 1A and 2A rights. Hell, in all likelihood instead of fighting a ban on all open carry we might even be fighting to get UOC opened up to include regular OC instead of even worrying about losing UOC.

This is not to say that an anti will somehow NOT try to infringe on the 2A but perhaps they would have been busy with other things so that our right to carry would be getting stronger rather than weaker.

So in other words we should be quiet like good little sheep and do whatever the elite gunners think is right? Rather than standing up to the ignorant antis we should simply act like a beaten dog and cower in a corner I suppose. :rolleyes:

No, you should have enough foresight to see that rubbing "the man's" nose in something is likely to get his attention and he will strike back. Knowing that you should have been able to figure out that rubbing his nose it it would be better done once UOC is protected rather then when it is "permitted."

And so many of you blame get togethers for ruining your rights, correct?
Because somehow a group of people carrying in the open is somehow more detrimental than a single person doing it? Really???

This is from the words of those introducing the bills, "The Right People" only warned us of what would happen, they didn't introduce the legislation.

Where did common sense run off too?

I don't know but I sure hope you find it soon. The gun rights groups need to work together. Just like the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement made much more headway when they coordinated their efforts and listened to the leadership we can and should emulate this successful model.

OC_Gunman
02-08-2011, 10:49 AM
If one thinks that UOC of handguns (or semi-auto rifles or lever-action shotguns or whatever firearm) will lead to a favorable change in the California public's perception of gun ownership rights, then one is being idealistic to the point of mental incompetence.

Changing minds is ultimately the most effective strategy, but for most Californians UOC has the opposite effect of what UOCers intend.

scarville
02-08-2011, 10:53 AM
There is a right to carry a functional firearm. UOC is not functional firearms carry. Under the "time, place, and manner" restrictions that are common in first amendment jurisprudence. Place means they can restrict your carrying ability in certain places (schools and secured governmental buildings). Manner means they can require you to carry it openly or carry concealed, but they cannot prohibit it entirely.

UOC is not functional firearms carry as envisioned by our founding fathers and the Framers of the 14th amendment......
Thank you. I better understand your meaning now.

Yugo
02-08-2011, 10:55 AM
+1 :cool2:

VHK
02-08-2011, 10:57 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how so many here love to blame those who excercise their right to carry as causing them some sort of discomfort? :rolleyes:

So in other words we should be quiet like good little sheep and do whatever the elite gunners think is right? Rather than standing up to the ignorant antis we should simply act like a beaten dog and cower in a corner I suppose. :rolleyes:

And so many of you blame get togethers for ruining your rights, correct?
Because somehow a group of people carrying in the open is somehow more detrimental than a single person doing it? Really???
Where did common sense run off too?

+1
Great point.

paul0660
02-08-2011, 10:59 AM
The Black Panthers exercised their right to carry loaded long guns in plain view...........how did that work out for everyone?

There are plenty of things to be learned from past excursions into the public view. Even conscientious UOCers, not merely interested in capturing LEO interactions on tape for their own brief fling with whiny fame, are screwing up the deal for everyone.

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 11:21 AM
And I understand and completely sympathize with the plight of California 2A supporters. It's one of the main reasons I'm a member here actually.
Colorado isn't all that far off from the attrocities to freedoms which Cali is embroiled in right now. Denver (and Boulder for that matter) is very left leaning and constantly reaching for infringments on RTKBA. Luckily (for now) Colorado state laws keep them at bay (for the most part).

But I still stand behind my views of not relinquishing one freedom in order to "hopefully" retain another. Nor do I imagine our founding fathers ever envisioned such nonsense either.

Actually they did.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

UOC is a light and transient cause. It is an abomination and it is not a civil right. The problem is, of course, is that the process of banning UOC will cause is problems with other forms of gun transportation.

Ape
02-08-2011, 11:33 AM
First of all, as Gray said. There is no right to openly carry a firearm defined as such at this time. Most of the people who are most educated in this area and are leading the charge (i.e. deciding tactics and putting OUR money where their mouths are.) Tell me that there is likely to be found a right to bear arms outside the home but that the right can be regulated per time, manner and place (TMP.) Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that once we have that ruling it is much harder to take away a right than it is right now before such a right is defined.

So, if we get a court decision tomorrow that says we have a right to carry a gun outside the home with limited TMP restrictions the state will be held to a higher standard if they try to pass a new law restricting a currently permissible activity. In other words, if they want to curtail a pre-existing right they will likely have to prove that such a limitation serves an actual state interest and that it is is effective at serving said interest.

However; if we don't get that decision until after a ban on UOC is passed, which looks like the likely outcome as there is no direct carry case at SCOTUS or the 9th circuit yet. Then the state can enact the law under its state powers authority with little or no repercussions. (There ma be some serious 1A issues but let's stick to 2A for now.) So, if we are in a situation where the activity is already banned and TMP restrictions are said to be acceptable if reasonable then it is a much greater battle for us to recover those rights.

If the people who insisted on pushing the envelope had waited two or three years we might well be in a very different situation once the legislature got around to trying to ban a perfectly reasonable expression or 1A and 2A rights. Hell, in all likelihood instead of fighting a ban on all open carry we might even be fighting to get UOC opened up to include regular OC instead of even worrying about losing UOC.

This is not to say that an anti will somehow NOT try to infringe on the 2A but perhaps they would have been busy with other things so that our right to carry would be getting stronger rather than weaker.



No, you should have enough foresight to see that rubbing "the man's" nose in something is likely to get his attention and he will strike back. Knowing that you should have been able to figure out that rubbing his nose it it would be better done once UOC is protected rather then when it is "permitted."



This is from the words of those introducing the bills, "The Right People" only warned us of what would happen, they didn't introduce the legislation.



I don't know but I sure hope you find it soon. The gun rights groups need to work together. Just like the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement made much more headway when they coordinated their efforts and listened to the leadership we can and should emulate this successful model.

So indirectly looking down your nose at those who try to organize their efforts is somehow construed as "rubbing the mans nose in it". Is that because you feel some sort of self indignation towards OCers? Or is it perhaps the result of conditioning by non stop rhteoric and lawsuits from "the man"? Because I have to admit that it sure seems to me that many people here come accross as conditioned to not ruffle the feathers of the powers that be.
All I'm asking is 1: Why is that....And 2: Is that really the intent of our founding fathers ideals towards freedoms?
Should we be relinquishing one freedom in order to "possibly" hold onto others?

Thomas Jefferson

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.

Glock22Fan
02-08-2011, 11:33 AM
And there in lies my point!

Again I ask.....How is it that the antis were able to create fractures and finger pointing amongst 2A supporters?

By being totally stoopid in the face of totally unwilling to listen to reasoned argument, perhaps?

Why pretend that you know what's right for California when you live in Colorado? Different ships, diferent long splices.

Ape
02-08-2011, 11:47 AM
By being totally stoopid in the face of totally unwilling to listen to reasoned argument, perhaps?

Why pretend that you know what's right for California when you live in Arizona? Different ships, diferent long splices.

WOW?!?! Am I to assume that was vaguely disguised attack on OCers in genral? Or just me?
Once again, my point proven I guess? :confused:
Fracturing and pointing fingers is displacing the real issue IMO.
The issue at hand isn't how legal gun owners choose to carry. The issue is why are we (anywhere in the nation!) allowing the anti gunners to force us to squabble amongst each other and willing give up freedoms in order to posiibly obtain others?

wash
02-08-2011, 11:52 AM
All the UOC activists fail to realize that their abstract strategy of "get guns out in public to make people aware of the issue" is doomed to failure.

How does that translate to LOC?

If you are relying on a voter initiative, that's pretty dumb. If you are relying on convincing legislators to change the carry laws, that is pretty dumb.

How is this supposed to work?

We already know how it can go wrong.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-08-2011, 11:53 AM
Wow......So you're actually advocating hiding in the basement in order to "hopefully" have the ability to OC? And at the same time you're teslling us that we should allow the loss of freedoms and liberty giving ability's in order to maintain some small faction there of???? :confused:
Not to mention this is all conjecture on your part as well.

How can you be sure concealed carry will be had by all if we simply roll over and let the big bad politicians scratch our bellys like good dogs?
Even if shall issue was supposedly made effective for all city's and counties in Cali, who's to say there wouldn't still be infringments on that ability levied with fees and red tape?


Thank you for the kind words earlier. As for this, excellent points. For the reality is, even if we were to cower, the pols in Sacto would still try to ban any & all forms of "and bear." Its just what they do.


If one thinks that UOC of handguns (or semi-auto rifles or lever-action shotguns or whatever firearm) will lead to a favorable change in the California public's perception of gun ownership rights, then one is being idealistic to the point of mental incompetence.

Changing minds is ultimately the most effective strategy, but for most Californians UOC has the opposite effect of what UOCers intend.


I'm willing to debate this. I'll start by asking if you have any personal experience with the UOC events? IOW, have you actually seen people react with revulsion (or whatever) as a result?

Then I'll ask what method you would choose to change the perception of the Right?

I'll say that I have been to a couple of events. Carrying. I know of one guy who reacted by running to the cops. Just one (that's including all events). Mostly, we were ignored. Some people were surprised by our presence. Many asked what it was all about. A question we were all happy to answer. Reactions from those who asked were universally positive and/or supportive. I had a great time at all of them.

My conclusion is that it is NOT Them The People that have a problem with UOC. Its our legislators. People who (as noted above) will try to ban any & all forms of "and bear" no matter what we do. Which means that we risk nothing. Which is why I don't see a downside to the events.


Actually this is highly questinable statement. A LOT of people simply go with "courts says so, it must be true".


Not entirely. It may have been 'legal' for blacks to sit at lunch counters, but it took butts in seats to make it actually acceptable. Similarly, the courts can rule in our favor all day long, but we won't have a change in basic attitude until we have 'butts in seats' (at Starbucks, etc) too.


The Raisuli

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 12:00 PM
The victim disarmers didn't pass the LOC ban so we would squabble, they passed it so we (the Black Panthers defending against indefensible police brutality and murder) would be victimized. Once they pass the UOC ban, an inevitability as they are victim disarmers, more people will be victimized. Then before SCOTUS rules on the absolute maximum infringements allowable on the right to bear (5-10 years out), they will move on to making CCWs unobtainium unless you bribe your sheriff with regular max campaign contributions. At some point they will turn to shutting down CGN and RCC as well, as daring to organize against the tyrannical government makes every single law-abiding gun owner an enemy of the State.

wash
02-08-2011, 12:00 PM
Any "fracture" is caused by people who do UOC activism.

We had solidarity and then you decided to go do your own thing.

It wasn't the antis that did it, it was you.

I don't know what you expect to gain with arguing, we won't let you dictate a loosing strategy to get you back on our side.

I have a prediction: any lawsuit in response to a UOC ban is going to be considered too delayed and too slow by UOC activists, they are only going to whine and complain about it.

Glock22Fan
02-08-2011, 12:09 PM
WOW?!?! Am I to assume that was vaguely disguised attack on OCers in genral? Or just me?
Once again, my point proven I guess? :confused:
Fracturing and pointing fingers is displacing the real issue IMO.
The issue at hand isn't how legal gun owners choose to carry. The issue is why are we (anywhere in the nation!) allowing the anti gunners to force us to squabble amongst each other and willing give up freedoms in order to posiibly obtain others?

You make it plain in this and in another thread I've just read that you have no idea what is going on in California, so your uninformed opinion doesn't really matter to me.

Any "fracture" is caused by people who do UOC activism.

We had solidarity and then you decided to go do your own thing.

It wasn't the antis that did it, it was you.

I don't know what you expect to gain with arguing, we won't let you dictate a loosing strategy to get you back on our side.

I have a prediction: any lawsuit in response to a UOC ban is going to be considered too delayed and too slow by UOC activists, they are only going to whine and complain about it.

Exactly.

Ape
02-08-2011, 12:10 PM
Any "fracture" is caused by people who do UOC activism.

We had solidarity and then you decided to go do your own thing.

It wasn't the antis that did it, it was you.

I don't know what you expect to gain with arguing, we won't let you dictate a loosing strategy to get you back on our side.

I have a prediction: any lawsuit in response to a UOC ban is going to be considered too delayed and too slow by UOC activists, they are only going to whine and complain about it.

Once again.........WOW?!?!?! :confused:
So much fail I can't even begin to process it.

Ape
02-08-2011, 12:12 PM
You make it plain in this and in another thread I've just read that you have no idea what is going on in California, so your uninformed opinion doesn't really matter to me.
Atta way to enthrall the mass to unite. :rolleyes:

How many times does it need to be said.....Finger pointing and bickering ISN'T the issue at it's core here.

bwiese
02-08-2011, 12:20 PM
Atta way to enthrall the mass to unite. :rolleyes:

How many times does it need to be said.....Finger pointing and bickering ISN'T the issue at it's core here.


We need to win.

And the Green Bay Packers don't need the Special Olympics guys for 'special teams'.

Every corporation, organization, etc. tries to get its A-team together and not let it be affected by the low performers.

The poltico-legal knowledge of the "in-your-face UOCers" is very limited. They also have hurt things for the 'practcial UOCers' who occasionally use UOC as a limited attempt at a self-defense solution.

And yes, for every person who sees UOCers in person and "doesn't mind" or "gets the message", 1000X more see it on TV news and in newspapers where whatever positive message was conveyable has been warped out of existence.

Look, Gene and I and Kestryll and a ton of others here would like every decent person running around with the gun of their choice concealed or displayed, LOADED. That end can be gotten to by *not* UOCing en masse with bad PR. UOC is very likely to pass given the emotionalism- no matter who and what lobbysts do what , when - and carry a bunch of bad baggage as tacked onto the bill that screws LOTS OF OTHER GUNNIES IN CA.

En masse UOC would only be wise if the CA legislative situation were reversed, and that we lost some weak/antigun Republicans to boot.

aklover_91
02-08-2011, 12:21 PM
I don't really care what the reason is, but carrying an unloaded firearm is a silly thing to do.

Openly carrying an unloaded firearm is an even sillier thing to do.

jdberger
02-08-2011, 12:28 PM
WOW?!?! Am I to assume that was vaguely disguised attack on OCers in genral? Or just me?
Once again, my point proven I guess? :confused:
Fracturing and pointing fingers is displacing the real issue IMO.
The issue at hand isn't how legal gun owners choose to carry. The issue is why are we (anywhere in the nation!) allowing the anti gunners to force us to squabble amongst each other and willing give up freedoms in order to posiibly obtain others?

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/demotivators/wisdomdemotivationalposter.jpg


.

BigDogatPlay
02-08-2011, 12:29 PM
I'm not entirely sure which makes my head hurt more.... the ongoing program by some UOC'ers to play "Look At Meeeeeeeee!!!!" -- with the predictable unintended results we're seeing now, of course -- or the continued insistence that there is a right to UOC, when it is merely allowed as a function of law in the Penal Code.

I'd submit, from having lived my 50 plus year life in California, that an overwhelming majority of the population here have been duped into believing that guns = bad. As such, getting in people's faces by pressing the issue so hard with UOC is going to blow up in our collective backsides.

Exactly like the Black Panthers carrying into the Legislature all those years ago did.

We will convert more people with outreach... CGF / NRA / CRPAF booths at fairs and gun shows, Appleseed events, Women on Target, etc. etc. etc. Combined with well thought out and strategically targeted litigation, we can win.

But if the general public keeps getting their noses rubbed and their tails twisted by what I term as "in your face UOC", we will lose.

bwiese
02-08-2011, 12:39 PM
But if the general public keeps getting their noses rubbed and their tails twisted by what I term as "in your face UOC", we will lose.

But much of the UOC crowd has an almost autistic level of social awareness. Look at the way they dress on their outings. (At least the black dude at the healthcare rally a year ago with the AR15 was nicely dressed, shoes shined, etc. Fat dudes with a gun and in a T-shirt don't engender good PR.)

Centurion_D
02-08-2011, 12:40 PM
Give em' hell Bill..:D

paul0660
02-08-2011, 12:41 PM
My conclusion is that it is NOT Them The People that have a problem with UOC. Its our legislators. People who (as noted above) will try to ban any & all forms of "and bear" no matter what we do. Which means that we risk nothing. Which is why I don't see a downside to the events.


Your argument is that banning carry will happen anyway, so go ahead and do whatever.

For a twelve year old, you express yourself very well!

Glock22Fan
02-08-2011, 12:49 PM
Atta way to enthrall the mass to unite. :rolleyes:

How many times does it need to be said.....Finger pointing and bickering ISN'T the issue at it's core here.

Then why don't you stop pointing your finger and bickering?

Ape
02-08-2011, 12:55 PM
Sad.......... :(
I can see that my trying to get to the point of loss of freedoms is being lost to personal attacks and self rightousness coupled with the over whelming need/desire to play the litigation game with the anti's in control.
So I'll simply concede my points and wish you all good luck in your silent march towards more loss of freedom.

Anchors
02-08-2011, 1:02 PM
We shouldn't have to worry about who is CCW, UOC, LOC, ULCC, UCLA, OCD, ADHD, sadfjhsdkflh.

Someday CA will be like AZ.
I hope.

dantodd
02-08-2011, 1:13 PM
Sad.......... :(
I can see that my trying to get to the point of loss of freedoms is being lost to personal attacks and self rightousness coupled with the over whelming need/desire to play the litigation game with the anti's in control.
So I'll simply concede my points and wish you all good luck in your silent march towards more loss of freedom.

If you cannot understand that in a battle one must sometimes hold fast on one line while pushing in another area then there is no purpose to continue the conversation. If you REALLY think that you can win every battle simultaneously then please feel free to fund the whole thing. Although I'm fairly confident, based upon your posts that your donations (if you make any) are going toward GOA.

In the mean time the people doing the real heavy lifting will soldier on and do the job they've been doing. Heller, Nordyke, McDonald, Richards etc. etc. etc.

We won't win every battle but we will stay the course an win the war.

You can thank us later though I'm sure you'll find more lemons to complain about in some way shape or form.

It really saddens me that you come in here and try to drive a wedge into the hard work that has been put into healing the wound that was UOC in California. Particularly because you are not even in CA and don't toil under the political and judicial problems that we face. For your sake, I truly hope that Denver doesn't keep up with their trend of polluting Colorado.

boxbro
02-08-2011, 1:16 PM
Sad.......... :(
I can see that my trying to get to the point of loss of freedoms is being lost to personal attacks and self rightousness coupled with the over whelming need/desire to play the litigation game with the anti's in control.
So I'll simply concede my points and wish you all good luck in your silent march towards more loss of freedom.

Oh the irony.
The UOC'ers are the ones marching towards more loss of freedom.
When UOC is banned, it will be the fault of UOC'ers who have brought so much unneeded attention to it.
You certainly won't be able to blame CGF or CGN for the ban.
My guess is, when it is banned, since UOC'ers wont be able to carry anymore, they'll come crying to CGF for help.
Of course they'll be too ashamed to admit that the difficult road ahead was paved by them, but they'll surely take undeserved credit for it if LOC ever becomes reality.
Trying to talk to a lot of UOC'ers is like talking to a wall, one might as well piss east into a west bound wind.

wash
02-08-2011, 1:16 PM
We are right on this issue, that is not the same as being self rightous.

It seems like the UOC issue isn't fracturing anything, it's just separating the wheat from the chaff.

Caladain
02-08-2011, 1:25 PM
Here's a thought, prolly just the romantic in me going for the epic tale, but what if some of the more....silly and outlandish...UOC people are actually Anti's?

I mean, thus far, the split from the UOC group and the rest of us is minorish. But it'd be pretty easy for the anti's to do a False Flag, provided they don't mind the hassle with the LEO's and cameras.

Certainly it's driving a wedge in amongst us, and a divided force is easy prey (The backstabbing of the last ban brings several groups to mind). Maybe time to open the communication lines back up (from both parties) and sort this out here instead of on the news?

Just a thought.

curtisfong
02-08-2011, 1:27 PM
play the litigation game with the anti's in control.


There is no other way to play. The anti's control the legislative branch here in CA. The only recourse is through litigation (judicial), where there is an actual chance of winning.

Until you understand that basic fact, you (and people who think like you) are doomed to failure and to making the same naive mistakes, over and over again.

Any loudmouthed braying is an attempt to sway the populous (and by extension, legislation). It will fail. Utterly.

dantodd
02-08-2011, 1:28 PM
Here's a thought, prolly just the romantic in me going for the epic tale, but what if some of the more....silly and outlandish...UOC people are actually Anti's?


I don't think any such accusations, even in semi-jest, do us any good and is more likely to be divisive than unifying.

wash
02-08-2011, 1:29 PM
There is nothing they could say to change the reality of the situation and so far they haven't listened to us.

I say good riddance.

Caladain
02-08-2011, 1:32 PM
I don't think any such accusations, even in semi-jest, do us any good and is more likely to be divisive than unifying.

Not accusing anyone of it, not even in this thread. But anti's have come on the forum before and tried to "stir the nest" and drive wedges. Is it outlandish, then, to imagine that it might have happened, might be happening, or might happen in the future?

In my mind, the only way to prevent that from succeeding is to heal the division, if one exists. A united front gets us all what we want, a divided front gets us nothing.

dantodd
02-08-2011, 1:33 PM
There is nothing they could say to change the reality of the situation and so far they haven't listened to us.

I say good riddance.

I have happily grown a considerable amount (not just in roundness) since I was in my 20s. I would like to think the tent is big enough to keep these folks inside while they continue their education.

Flopper
02-08-2011, 1:36 PM
Just to clarify, let me say unofficially that on behalf of the Calguns community, we welcome members from all states on our board.

The problem with Ape--I'm sad to say--is that he speaks too much and listens too little.

I would never go on to the NYShooters board, for instance, and start telling them to just start using bullet buttons. I don't know nearly enough about their laws or the legal or political climate to begin to speak intelligently with them about NY laws.

Ape, you are welcome on this board. . . but you need to learn more about what is going on around in CA before you start telling us how to run the show out here.

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 1:40 PM
Just to clarify, let me say unofficially that on behalf of the Calguns community, we welcome members from all states on our board.

Yeah, if you didn't welcome people from other states on this board, I mean, that would be a tragedy of epic proportions.

Glock22Fan
02-08-2011, 1:48 PM
Yeah, if you didn't welcome people from other states on this board, I mean, that would be a tragedy of epic proportions.

The difference between some of you OOS'ers and others, is that some of you take the trouble to understand the situation before telling us Californians what we should be doing!

If only they were all like you, Gray!

Regards,

John

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 2:06 PM
The difference between some of you OOS'ers and others, is that some of you take the trouble to understand the situation before telling us Californians what we should be doing!

If only they were all like you, Gray!

Regards,

John

I do so only at the direction of the locals, of course. :D

T.K.
02-08-2011, 2:11 PM
Unfortunately, as much as I want to support UOC and the like...

You don't fish for trout with a shotgun.

You don't fry eggs with a chainsaw.

You don't paint a car with a hammer.

You don't change the minds of people who fancy themselves as progressive, intellectual government leaders by rubbing their noses in doody.

You have to use the appropriate tools for ANY job, right? Well, thrusting guns at someone who is scared of them likely won't make them enjoy guns any more. The anti-gun legislators don't see huge groups of gun-toting civilians and say, "Well, look there. How harmless. I've been wrong all these years." They say, "Holy crap! See?! They have guns out in public! What are these rednecks planning to do with them?!"

To change the mind of an "intellectual", you have to think like an "intellectual". A scrapper understands a fistfight. A politician understands a debate.

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 2:22 PM
When UOC is banned, it will be the fault of UOC'ers who have brought so much unneeded attention to it.

Yep, blame the rape victims. They wanted to be raped, they should just have stayed at home and ordered everything online so they'd never have to face being victimized in public. :mad:

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 2:25 PM
Yep, blame the rape victims. They wanted to be raped, they should just have stayed at home and ordered everything online so they'd never have to face being victimized in public. :mad:

UOCing is not even on the same level of what you're talking about here. Guh, jeez, man. Your arguments are disgusting to the core.

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 2:28 PM
What's the definition of Battered Gun Owners' Syndrome, again?

ETA:
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html
1) Denial:

Stage one of gun owner's syndrome occurs when the gun owner denies to others, and to herself, that there is a problem. Most gun owners will make up excuses for why their governments have abusive incidents, time and time again. Gun owners will generally believe that the abuse will never happen again.

2) Guilt:

Stage two of gun owner's syndrome occurs when gun owners truly recognize or acknowledge that there is a problem in their relationship with government. Gun owners recognize that they have been the victim of abuse and that they may be abused again. During this stage, most gun owners will take on the blame or responsibility of any abuse they may receive from their governments. Gun owners will begin to question their own characters and try harder to live up their governments' “expectations.”

3) Enlightenment:

Stage three of gun owner's syndrome occurs when a gun owner starts to understand that no one deserves to be abused. A gun owner comes to see that the abuse she receives from her governments is not justified. She also recognizes that those governments have a serious problem. However, the gun owner "stays" with her abusers in an attempt to keep the relationship intact with hopes of future change.

4) Responsibility:

Stage four of gun owner's syndrome occurs when a gun owner recognizes that the governments have problems that only they can fix. Gun owners in this stage come to understand that nothing they can do or say can help their abusive governments. Gun owners in this stage also choose to take the necessary steps to leave their abusers and begin to start new lives.

CEDaytonaRydr
02-08-2011, 2:33 PM
What a horrible article.

I want those 5 minutes back... :mad:

Regardless of your position on this issue, it's just poorly written.

FAIL! :rolleyes:

dfletcher
02-08-2011, 2:36 PM
At the risk of stepping in it, I think gun rights proponents should take a page from black civil rights activists of the 50s and 60s. I believe Robert Levy has framed gun rights as a matter of exercising civil rights too. Gun owners should choose to fight where they have the best chance of success and in a manner that fosters success, not just on the issues that rile them the most or in a way that makes us feel good. Choosing our battles wisely, despite personal feelings or inclinations, seems best.

Black civil rights proponents didn't start by asserting they should be able to join private white clubs, send their children to private white schools and purchase the homes of white people. They started with public schools, public accommodations, the military, young black adults interacting with young white adults because that afforded the best opportunity for success; to do the former risked offending and alienating the majority of white people. Despite what I'm certain was great outrage and indignation, they understood failure or great delay was the price of reaching too far too soon with respect to defining rights.

WatchMan
02-08-2011, 2:41 PM
Wow. Another one of these threads. Like a viral flare-up. :banghead:

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 2:45 PM
Yep, and like some viruses, it makes some want to :puke:

IGOTDIRT4U
02-08-2011, 2:49 PM
Ah. Until this I hadn't realized that you lived in CO, which a a completely different political environment than California.

We're hanging on by the skin of our teeth here on the Left Coast. We're fighting rearguard actions. We're trying to undo decades of damage to gun rights. It's slow going, tedious and grinding. Distractions divert resources.

Organized Unloaded Open Carry in urban areas (within CA) encourages legislators to frame up feel-good bills which have the potential impact of truly bolloxing up gun rights in California.

Colorado is a different animal, entirely. Back when I was young and spry I lived in a different state - one with a 2A clause in its Constitution. I OC'd all the time. In Banks, office buildings, restaurants, etc. I was stopped by police once. And the officer simply wanted to know why I decided to carry a 10mm.

Again, California is different.

This isn't a blame game. It's an impassioned plea to the organize UOCers to help us focus efforts on the line until a breakout can be acheived instead of forcing us to divert energy and resources.

Heads up to Colorado. The part of the state that essentially controls your legislature is of the same mind and liberalism of that that controls California. Watch out, because before you know it, Colorado can end up like California.

DO NOT get comfortable, assuming it can never happen to good 'ol country and mountains Colorado.

DO NOT accept that there are "more of us than those few liberal pockets".

DO NOT assume that Colorado is run by "us life long Coloradoans". Look around when traveling your state. Does it still look like 'Colorado", or is it starting to look like California, more and more.

wash
02-08-2011, 2:52 PM
Face the facts, California is overwhelmingly liberal (in urban areas and votes in general), gun control is a policy that many of our politicians embrace because it's popular and gets them votes.

The voter initiative process is terribly expensive and in a state as liberal as California is, the pot heads and libertarians couldn't get a majority to de-criminalize and tax Marijuana with their very well funded initiative.

With gun owners being a minority, the chance of winning a voter initiative for LOC or constitutional carry is zero. I'm not being pessimistic or a battered gun owner, I'm being realistic.

The legislators won't do it for us.

That leaves the courts. That is why we focus there, because we can't rely on anything else.

These are the same reasons why California got so bad. We didn't have the second amendment and gun control was popular, things got bad because we didn't even have the courts.

We want to get politicians who support gun rights and we want gun rights to be the popular position but that is going to take time. The key is to secure our rights before we start flaunting them.

There will be a day that LOC rallies will be a good idea in California but if UOC gets banned like it seems it will, that day might have been pushed back 4-5 years.

It didn't take months to lose our rights, it took decades. We are trying to get them back in years. That takes strategy, patience and discipline. UOC does not have a place in the strategy because we want to win.

stormy_clothing
02-08-2011, 2:55 PM
Gun owners arent a minority, there just silent and prefer to let the NRA fight for them while refusing to openly support them. Until gun owners march in the street like oppressed black people or gay people or migrant workers it will be like this forever.

Stop taking cheap shots at UOC at least they are doing something instead of just talking about it.

Yugo
02-08-2011, 2:57 PM
im down to march. count me in......ill make some signs!

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 3:01 PM
Don't. The government will just ban parades in support of civil gun rights and authorize deadly force to stop them. :rolleyes:

dantodd
02-08-2011, 3:05 PM
Stop taking cheap shots at UOC at least they are doing something instead of just talking about it.

Pointing out the ultimate futility of an action and offering alternatives to accomplish real, meaningful change is not "cheap shots."

jdberger
02-08-2011, 3:08 PM
Gun owners arent a minority, there just silent and prefer to let the NRA fight for them while refusing to openly support them. Until gun owners march in the street like oppressed black people or gay people or migrant workers it will be like this forever.

Stop taking cheap shots at UOC at least they are doing something instead of just talking about it.

Sorry - that's just a pipe dream. It ain't gonna happen. Want an example?

Count the number of members of Calguns. Now count the number who show up to a Nordyke hearing, a City Council meeting, a Planning Commission meeting.

Heck - count the number who've NEVER entered the 2A forum here on CGN.

The ones who show up are the same folks. And, to be fair, it was the same way during the Civil Rights movement. A handful bother to show up. The are too busy with their game of horseshoes..

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 3:08 PM
Pointing out the ultimate futility of an action and offering alternatives to accomplish real, meaningful change is not "cheap shots."

I think he was referring to the penis size cheap shots.

Gray Peterson
02-08-2011, 3:10 PM
Gun owners arent a minority, there just silent and prefer to let the NRA fight for them while refusing to openly support them. Until gun owners march in the street like oppressed black people or gay people or migrant workers it will be like this forever.

Stop taking cheap shots at UOC at least they are doing something instead of just talking about it.

Gun owners are not on the same level as gay people or black people. Gun owners can choose to be gun owners or not. You can't choose your skin color or orientation.

There will be no sympathy for us in the California media.

dantodd
02-08-2011, 3:10 PM
I think he was referring to the penis size cheap shots.

Yeah, that would be a cheap shot I guess. I have a small penis and don't UOC.

wash
02-08-2011, 3:14 PM
I've never seen any numbers stating that a majority of Californians were gun owners. I would be surprised if the actual number was over 30%.

But whatever the number is, there is a segment of gun owners who are naive enough to believe in magazine bans, OC bans, "assault weapon" bans and other gun control laws. The fact is we don't have 50% of Californians being hard core gun rights activists. Hell, if we had 15% hard core gun rights activists, we could get a lot done.

If we had 50% our governor would hold the state of the state address at that shooting range in Sacramento. We just don't have that.

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 3:24 PM
Yeah, that would be a cheap shot I guess. I have a small penis and don't UOC.

I don't... :Angel_anim:

Gun owners are not on the same level as gay people or black people. Gun owners can choose to be gun owners or not. You can't choose your skin color or orientation.

Talk about disgusting to the core. Self-defense, is most critically, life and death. Or suicide, if you do not dare to come as close as you can to effectively defending yourself. :puke:

There will be no sympathy for us in the California media.

Of course not; crime deterrence and reduction is anathema to the media. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead. Some are likely praying for UOCers to be shot by police, so 1) they get their headlines/ratings/sales 2) UOCers run for the hills, leaving only CCers, then 3) crime goes up because criminals feel safe once again. Same goes for police chiefs; open carriers threaten their police State, so they "order" (non-binding) their officers to violate civil rights. No need for them to police if criminals are scared out of continuing their careers.

Bruce
02-08-2011, 3:25 PM
Yep, blame the rape victims. They wanted to be raped, they should just have stayed at home and ordered everything online so they'd never have to face being victimized in public. :mad:

More like if you turn on the stove, put your hand on the burner and get 3rd degree burn, don't expect any sympathy since you did it to yourself. ;)

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 3:28 PM
More like if you turn on the stove, put your hand on the burner and get 3rd degree burn, don't expect any sympathy since you did it to yourself. ;)

Yes, because every single UOCer personally was responsible for electing pathological, no stimulus-required, victim disarming traitors, NOT election fraud.

kcbrown
02-08-2011, 3:28 PM
You don't really have a right to carry a paperweight. We repeatedly warned that calling UOC a right protected under the 2A would have devastating consequences for us. We saw that in the Peruta decision what happens when a judge is convinced by a governmental defendant thanks to the UOC movement that carrying an unloaded firearm is somehow functional.

Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by malice.

To argue as you do here is to argue that the Peruta judge is an idiot and would not have arrived at the conclusion she did on her own without the "assistance" of the governmental defendant and the UOCers.

No, she concluded what she did because it was the most "bulletproof", if not the only, way to avoid the question, and that would be the case regardless of the actions of the UOCers or the arguments put forth by the government defendant.

This judge wanted to rule against RKBA. That she did so is plainly evident by the fact that entirely ignored the obvious implications of the Heller and McDonald decisions.

kcbrown
02-08-2011, 3:29 PM
Well, here it is, then. You need to realize that your 2A rights exist in a completely different political environment than us here in CA. I don't know if you are aware of this, but the CA Constitution DOES NOT have an RKBA clause. That's part of the problem here. Also, no one is telling UOC people to "hide in our basements". Just because UOC is being discouraged at this time, it does not mean "running and hiding" is encouraged. There are "other ways." More (politically) productive ways. In other worlds, we are merely saying there are more effective ways to regain our 2A rights in CA. And again...I WANT LOADED OPEN CARRY.

The existence of an RKBA clause in the state constitution may be necessary, but it's by no means sufficient.

Illinois is an existence proof of that.


ETA: There's another state that has RKBA in its constitution. Guess which one I'm talking about?

.

.

.

Answer: that shining beacon of freedom and self-determination, Hawaii.

kcbrown
02-08-2011, 3:39 PM
Scenario 1:

- UOC is outlawed in 2011 due to public backlash
- A federal court declares that "keep and bear" of a functional firearm is a fundamental right that extends outside your home

Outcome: Conceal Carry permits for all. No open carry in any form, anywhere in California.

Scenario 2:

- Play it cool and stop poking the tiger on public piers and in Sacramento
- A federal court declares that "keep and bear" of a functional firearm is a fundamental right that extends outside your home

Outcome: Your right to keep and bear almost surely includes Open Carry. Real Open Carry, not this abortion called "UOC" that is a joke to anyone not from California (sorry, has to be said).



No.

Scenario 2 is identical to scenario 1 except for the relative timing of the various events.

If the judiciary forces carry down the throats of the legislature while not placing explicit limits on time, place, and manner restrictions, then the legislature will pass laws restricting carry to the maximum degree possible.

You think the legislature will just sit by idly while they watch people carry loaded firearms in the open for all the world to see? No. They will take the very same steps in Scenario 2 as they would in Scenario 1, and because the legal situation will be the same, the courts will rule that the legislature can do so.

It is only if the courts rule that the legislature cannot impose time, place, and manner restrictions on carry that Scenario 2 would turn out any different than Scenario 1 in the end. And we both know that's not going to happen.



So here's the deal: when the federal courts declare the ban on functional weapons illegal...you get to choose your own manner of carry. Open Carry is possible, but only if you don't get the legislature to ban it today.
And only if you don't get the legislature to ban it tomorrow.

Good luck with that.



Keep your powder dry and be smart: Open Carry is likely grandfathered into the system and if played carefully stays that way. A strong federal decision might suck enough wind from the sails to let it stay, provided everyone plays nice. At that point, public carry would be a real "right", and this would help greatly.
Not gonna happen. You said so yourself: states are free to choose which form(s) of carry to allow, as long as they allow at least one. That condition remains true regardless of the timing. This hope you have that some Federal court will somehow magically take the wind out of the sails of the California legislature with respect to open carry is a pipe dream.

Want proof? Look at Nunn, where the situation was that there was already a stated and recognized right to keep and bear arms in the Georgia constitution.

boxbro
02-08-2011, 3:59 PM
Yes, because every single UOCer personally was responsible for electing pathological, no stimulus-required, victim disarming traitors, NOT election fraud.

Even if you aren't responsible for the existence of the stove, it still burns nonetheless.

dfletcher
02-08-2011, 3:59 PM
I've never seen any numbers stating that a majority of Californians were gun owners. I would be surprised if the actual number was over 30%.



Me neither. I think there are about 8 million gun owners in the state, roughly a weak 20% at best. Even with only 20%, if we could get gun owners to vote in the same way as the old folks do, we'd do pretty well.

wash
02-08-2011, 4:12 PM
If we had 20%, got all of them to register and got all of them to vote single issue gun rights, no anti-gun politician could survive.

I'm not holding my breath.

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 4:20 PM
If we had 20%, got all of them to register and got all of them to vote single issue gun rights, no anti-gun politician could survive.

Yes they would. It's called election and recall tampering. They're already morally guilty of aiding and abetting countless murders, rapes, maimings, and lesser crimes. You think that anything less isn't evil enough for them?

Even if you aren't responsible for the existence of the stove, it still burns nonetheless.

The victim disarmers live and breathe natural gas and no court is going to allow them to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The mere fact that civil gun owners EXIST in this state is all the spark they need to harm us. We will never see them punished appropriately as long as we live. It's great if you believe in Hell, or being able to haunt them after you die, but those who believe this existence is all there is have nothing to look forward to but infringement after infringement following decisions like Heller and McDonald and perfect impunity for the tyrannical State.

wash
02-08-2011, 4:30 PM
Ah, maybe I should buy stock in Reynolds. :TFH:

Sure, tampering can sway a race, but if we had 20% single issue Barbara Boxer would have lost by 5%. That's probably too much to tamper with.

bwiese
02-08-2011, 4:34 PM
Ah, maybe I should buy stock in Reynolds. :TFH:

Sure, tampering can sway a race, but if we had 20% single issue Barbara Boxer would have lost by 5%. That's probably too much to tamper with.

Fiorina also shot herself in the foot by talking about not being pro-choice. That cut her at least 4% right there. Babs had a lotta weakenesses and Fiorina could overcome those (along with hers) if she'd STFUd about that.

Flopper
02-08-2011, 4:40 PM
Gun owners are not on the same level as gay people or black people. Gun owners can choose to be gun owners or not.


Choice is irrelevant, but I'll play along.

Gun owners may not be on the same level because of the choice issue, but every human IS.

None of us chose to be sentient beings, but by our very existence we have a right to self-defense, of which we are obviously being deprived.

Army
02-08-2011, 5:44 PM
Stop pretending to be unaware of the effect of your actions, UOCers. There's a reason you're not openly carrying unloaded, bullet-buttoned ARs slung over your shoulders - - you know that doing so is likely to provoke counter-productive reactions. Apply that same logic to UOC of handguns. Get it, numb-skulls?!
So which of us numb-skulls is to blame for 10 round magazines, new .50BMG's banned, 1000' school zones, and may issue counties?

Nice of you to be above all the name calling and such.

wash
02-08-2011, 5:46 PM
A minority just means less than a majority, that is the only way I meant it.

wash
02-08-2011, 5:48 PM
Many laws happened before McDonald v. Chicago gave us incorporation. But it was Schwarzenegger who gave us the .50BMG ban.

kcbrown
02-08-2011, 5:56 PM
Many laws happened before McDonald v. Chicago gave us incorporation. But it was Schwarzenegger who gave us the .50BMG ban.

And many laws will happen after they gave us incorporation.

You act as if McDonald suddenly changed everything, like it's a magic elixir that will instantly heal the state and cause the legislature to suddenly come to its senses.

Quite obviously, that's not the case.


Nothing will prevent the legislature from passing more anti-gun laws no matter what the courts say. The legislature is immune from such things. They may be wasting time and money in the end, but they don't care.

It is only when passing anti-gun laws will materially reduce their chances of being reelected that they'll suddenly stop doing so. Not one second before.

sholling
02-08-2011, 5:57 PM
It's somewhat hilarious but sad that Charles is blaming the NRA for not fixing the disastrous situation that the sociopolitically unaware en masse UOC goons created by waving red flags under the noses of the soccer moms.

I will note that - as I and others had warned last year - new bills 'fixing' UOC would also have a lot of accompanying problems entirely separate from UOC since bad gun bills get a lotta crap glued on. We can only hope that they're vetoable because they're sure as hell gonna pass the legislature, nobody's rolling in on gurneys this year.

I doubt if the "coffee shop UOCers" - if we get transportation of guns restricted or other bad restrictions thrown in etc. in addition to a UOC ban - will be very welcome at many gun ranges or gunshops due to their naivete and screwups. We should bill them for the legal costs required to undo this crap and for 'opportunity costs' (time we have to spend fixing this crap when we could fix something else).
You and I disagree a lot but I'm in full agreement with you on this. The result of UOC was 100% predictable by anyone with any common sense and had no-zip-zero-nada chance of ever bringing the results that the UOC crowd hoped for. The way to open carry was through CCW. Once that battle was won LOC could well have followed in 10-15 years just like in other states. Frightening soccer moms has seen to it that it may never happen here. Like the Black Panthers carrying guns into the state house - the UOC crowd are costing Californians their rights.

kcbrown
02-08-2011, 6:00 PM
You and I disagree a lot but I'm in full agreement with you on this. The result of UOC was 100% predictable by anyone with any common sense and had no-zip-zero-nada chance of ever bringing the results that the UOC crowd hoped for. The way to open carry was through CCW. Once that battle was won LOC could well have followed in 10-15 years just like in other states.

LOC will never happen here as long as the legislature has the power to forbid it. It would take a major shift in the general thinking of the people here (not just with respect to guns, but with respect to rights and personal responsibility in general), and there's no way that will ever happen within our lifetimes.

Jack L
02-08-2011, 6:10 PM
Not trying to hijack but..........I just read about Thomas D. Allman up in Mendocino County. His attitude is the exact opposite of the sheriff we have here in SLO County. Amazing how the north rural counties can be so cool and open minded. His county web site even has links how to legally register you pot garden.

Bruce
02-08-2011, 6:16 PM
Yes, because every single UOCer personally was responsible for electing pathological, no stimulus-required, victim disarming traitors, NOT election fraud.

Thank you for clearing that up for us.

Obviously you have trouble with the idea that if you UOC, daring the powers that be to do something about you, and they pass a law banning UOC, it's pretty much your own fault. Since the consequences of your actions diverts time and resources away from other gun rights issues being fought, those of us who don't feel the need to "show off" are affected by your actions. Clear enough for you?

diginit
02-08-2011, 6:17 PM
Stop pretending to be unaware of the effect of your actions, UOCers. There's a reason you're not openly carrying unloaded, bullet-buttoned ARs slung over your shoulders - - you know that doing so is likely to provoke counter-productive reactions. Apply that same logic to UOC of handguns. Get it, numb-skulls?!

I have never been to Starbucks. But I LOC in the sticks where legal for SD. OC'ers are simply trying to put guns into public view and make the statement that all people that have guns are not bad. Alot ARE unaware what the repercussions of their actions may be. Don't blame OC'ers... Blame Anti's. AND YOU HAVE NOT BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO SPEAK TO ANYONE LIKE THIS! Get it? *******!

wash
02-08-2011, 6:57 PM
UOC is enabling the antis to get bad legislation passed. If we didn't have an anti problem we wouldn't have a UOC problem.

But we have to face reality, the antis are not going anywhere and we haven't convinced the politicians that an anti-gun policy will be bad for their political life.

That's why it's so crucial to win every battle, we need to destroy their motivation and demoralize them. Creating new battles to fight is not the way to do that.

sholling
02-08-2011, 7:18 PM
LOC will never happen here as long as the legislature has the power to forbid it. It would take a major shift in the general thinking of the people here (not just with respect to guns, but with respect to rights and personal responsibility in general), and there's no way that will ever happen within our lifetimes.
We've gone from a handful of states with shall issue and almost none with open carry to 41 shall issue states in 20 years. California will come along once the media are tamed and unwilling to stampede the public. Vote with you're dollars - I haven't watched anything but football on CBS, NBC, KTLA, ABC, or CNN in years (8 years for KTLA) because they are anti gun in their news and programming and I won't support them. I write polite and well thought out letters explaining why I refuse to watch their propaganda. CBS may be seeing the light (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shakeup-at-cbs-news-former-fox-news-boss-becomes-new-president/). Their ratings are in the tank and they need to do something. As Alan Gura keeps telling us - pick our fights wisely. Well UOC has proven (yup we told ya so) to be a dumb fight right now.

kcbrown
02-08-2011, 7:20 PM
UOC is enabling the antis to get bad legislation passed. If we didn't have an anti problem we wouldn't have a UOC problem.


No, afterwards you'd have a LOC problem, and the legislature would act on that faster than you can blink. In fact, you can expect them to act on it preemptively, because the situation at that point will be that the courts have challenged their power, and they'll throw a fit. Guess who they'll target in their fit?



But we have to face reality, the antis are not going anywhere and we haven't convinced the politicians that an anti-gun policy will be bad for their political life.

That's why it's so crucial to win every battle, we need to destroy their motivation and demoralize them. Creating new battles to fight is not the way to do that.I fully agree with you here. I just want to make crystal clear that the open carry battle is one we're almost certainly going to lose no matter how we play the cards.

kcbrown
02-08-2011, 7:23 PM
We've gone from a handful of states with shall issue and almost none with open carry to 41 shall issue states in 20 years.


Uh huh. And how many of those shall-issue states are "blue" states with crazy socialist types running the roost?



California will come along once the media are tamed. Vote with you're dollars - I haven't watched anything but football on CBS, NBC, KTLA, ABC, or CNN in years (8 years for KTLA) because they are anti gun in their news and programming and I won't support them. I write polite and well thought out letters explaining why I refuse to watch their propaganda. CBS may be seeing the light (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shakeup-at-cbs-news-former-fox-news-boss-becomes-new-president/). Their ratings are in the tank and they need to do something. As Alan Gura keeps telling us - pick our fights wisely. Well UOC has proven (yup we told ya so) to be a dumb fight right now.

Absolutely.

I'm not saying we shouldn't fight the fight to the best of our abilities. I'm saying that the open carry fight is one we should not expect to win.

Ape
02-08-2011, 8:13 PM
Just to clarify, let me say unofficially that on behalf of the Calguns community, we welcome members from all states on our board.

The problem with Ape--I'm sad to say--is that he speaks too much and listens too little.

I would never go on to the NYShooters board, for instance, and start telling them to just start using bullet buttons. I don't know nearly enough about their laws or the legal or political climate to begin to speak intelligently with them about NY laws.

Ape, you are welcome on this board. . . but you need to learn more about what is going on around in CA before you start telling us how to run the show out here.
Well as much as I appreciate the sentiment, I don't feel as though I was over stepping some unwritten boundry by trying to explain that the incessive bickering and finger pointing amongst the 2A community is a misguided one.
I've never once quoted laws or told anyone "how to run the show".
All I've been doing is pointing out the wheel spinning going on.
I simply believe that no matter what anyone in the 2A community thinks of OCing or CCing, the "real" issue is solidarity combined with effective mind set changes. And how in the world would we expect to effect change in the minds of the every day non gun owner by fighting amongst ourselves.

Heads up to Colorado. The part of the state that essentially controls your legislature is of the same mind and liberalism of that that controls California. Watch out, because before you know it, Colorado can end up like California.

DO NOT get comfortable, assuming it can never happen to good 'ol country and mountains Colorado.

DO NOT accept that there are "more of us than those few liberal pockets".

DO NOT assume that Colorado is run by "us life long Coloradoans". Look around when traveling your state. Does it still look like 'Colorado", or is it starting to look like California, more and more.
Oh trust me, I know all too well that Colorado is closer to California insanity every day due to the political climate in Denver. And so do most other Colorado gun owners. Denver has been typically Liberal for a long time as a matter of fact. But it would seem in the last 20 years or so we've had an influx of California like politics brought from many who leave states like Cali to escape the over bearing politics, only to get right back into those bad voting habits. Like I said earlier, it's a bit of a sick and sad joke amongst Coloradoans when we refer to ourselves as becoming New California. :o

sholling
02-08-2011, 8:20 PM
Uh huh. And how many of those shall-issue states are "blue" states with crazy socialist types running the roost?
Vermont for one. They sent an avowed socialist to congress and they have remained no license required. But Vermont aside many of those shall issue states voted for Obama. California is only in the hands of Democrats because:

The gerrymandered districts that the RINOs agreed to.
Media bias to the point of hysterical HuffPo level propaganda.
The only big money allowed in California politics is union money.
The California RINO party is utterly clueless, untrustworthy, and ineffective. I for one can't any of the RINOs that "represent" me in either the state or federal legislative branches.

We've knocked off #1 and as of the 2012 elections the new much fairer districts should be in place. #4 will change as soon as they see third parties kicking RINO behinds and moderate dems start beating socialist dems in the new "jungle primary" in 2012.

#2 will change as people continue to flee the propaganda networks while #3 will take a lawsuit to end the restrictions on corporate money and a good bit of union busting at the polls. We're broke and that union busting is coming.

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 9:09 PM
Obviously you have trouble with the idea that if you UOC, daring the powers that be to do something about you, and they pass a law banning UOC, it's pretty much your own fault. Since the consequences of your actions diverts time and resources away from other gun rights issues being fought, those of us who don't feel the need to "show off" are affected by your actions. Clear enough for you?

Do you have trouble with the repeatedly proven hypothesis that as long as civil gun owners are alive and well in CA, we have, are, and will continue to be infringed upon in every single way possible, even though most of us provide zero stimulus other than simply EXISTING? Our mere existence is a threat to the criminals in and out of government who run, and ruin, our lives.

Thanks for revealing that your misplaced simmering UOC rage has made you assume that I am a UOCer. :D

wash
02-08-2011, 9:10 PM
No, afterwards you'd have a LOC problem, and the legislature would act on that faster than you can blink. In fact, you can expect them to act on it preemptively, because the situation at that point will be that the courts have challenged their power, and they'll throw a fit. Guess who they'll target in their fit?
The Black Panthers gave us the LOC problem.

I would rather fight one battle than two.

It would also be much better to enter the fight with shall issue CCW secured and a history of many many concealed weapons in public not causing problems, displaying that carry bans do not serve any government interest.

As it is, UOC activism is making it harder for us to get virtual shall issue while simultaneously making LOC less likely. There just isn't any upside.

I am still waiting to hear the great plan that reveals how UOC activism is going to result in anything other than a UOC ban and makes LOC happen quicker than the strategy of lawsuits that "the right people" are implementing.

I don't think it exists.

Someone might say it's for a constitutional carry initiative but that is just pure fantasy.

kcbrown
02-08-2011, 9:38 PM
The Black Panthers gave us the LOC problem.

I would rather fight one battle than two.

It would also be much better to enter the fight with shall issue CCW secured and a history of many many concealed weapons in public not causing problems, displaying that carry bans do not serve any government interest.


Sure, but that will never sway a legislature such as ours, which is prone to enacting anti-gun legislation out of the blue (*cough* AB962 *cough*), so where exactly is the "win" here with respect to open carry?

Especially since the less people see firearms openly, the more sensitive they will be when they do see them openly.



I am still waiting to hear the great plan that reveals how UOC activism is going to result in anything other than a UOC ban and makes LOC happen quicker than the strategy of lawsuits that "the right people" are implementing.

I don't think it exists.

Someone might say it's for a constitutional carry initiative but that is just pure fantasy.Can't argue with that. The way I see it, open carry is dead in the crib here in California no matter what moves we make.

Yugo
02-08-2011, 9:45 PM
im down to march. count me in......ill make some signs!

:o I was being sarcastic :o

Manic Moran
02-08-2011, 9:54 PM
That article appears to be as well researched and unbiased as something from the Brady campaign. Just on the other side.


Not only is this ban in direct defiance of the United States Supreme Court opinions Heller and McDonald which explicitly states that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is the right of an individual to cary a handgun for the purpose of self-defense

It is? They do? It's been a few years since I earned my law degree, but I really don't see anything definitive in those cases about carrying a firearm around in public.

NTM

sholling
02-08-2011, 10:38 PM
Especially since the less people see firearms openly, the more sensitive they will be when they do see them openly.
All it UOC did was push a bunch of soccer moms with no interest in guns either way into writing letters to their reps to do something about this new threat to "their children". In other words UOC accomplished exactly the opposite of what they hoped to accomplish it made us new enemies. UOCers can deny reality all they want but them are the facts. It's been little more than a childish tantrum and it's getting us all punished.

Speaking of tantrums what's really worrisome are some of the attitudes some very few of the more hotheaded in the UOC crowd that seem to imply that they are at some point going to fight back thinking we'll all rise up behind them in some glorious revolt - not gonna happen and somebody needs to cool those few loudmouths down. We're winning. We continue to win by letting the right people pick our battles and win one legal battle at a time.

wash
02-08-2011, 11:03 PM
Sure, but that will never sway a legislature such as ours, which is prone to enacting anti-gun legislation out of the blue (*cough* AB962 *cough*), so where exactly is the "win" here with respect to open carry?
Well we will never know if we could have managed to hang on to UOC without UOC activists screwing it up.

Of course UOC activists will blame it on the NRA.

I like a slim chance of a positive outcome much more than a virtual lock on a bad outcome.

Bruce
02-08-2011, 11:28 PM
Do you have trouble with the repeatedly proven hypothesis that as long as civil gun owners are alive and well in CA, we have, are, and will continue to be infringed upon in every single way possible, even though most of us provide zero stimulus other than simply EXISTING? Our mere existence is a threat to the criminals in and out of government who run, and ruin, our lives.

Thanks for revealing that your misplaced simmering UOC rage has made you assume that I am a UOCer. :D

I never assumed you were anything but misguided. :rolleyes:

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 11:36 PM
It is? They do? It's been a few years since I earned my law degree, but I really don't see anything definitive in those cases about carrying a firearm around in public.

Then you need to read, read, and read again. Not only the SCOTUS cases, but Alan Gura's subsequent cases citing SCOTUS on "and bear".

The Black Panthers gave us the LOC problem.

Actually, racist civil rights violating traitors who wanted to beat the crap out of and murder "n-words" (either directly, or by proxy) gave us the LOC problem. But... must... blame... victims... :mad:

All it UOC did was push a bunch of soccer moms with no interest in guns either way into writing letters to their reps to do something about this new threat to "their children".

Actually, the Brady Campaign for Victim Disarmament and Criminal Safety reminded the legislature that there were many "loopholes" to be closed to protect their criminal constituents, so they could continue victimizing children safely. UOC ban is just one infringement of hundreds that absolutely, guaranteed, 1:1 odds, will come to pass with zero punishment for those passing and implementing them, even if there was never a single UOCer in the first place, or if all UOCers killed themselves tomorrow.

P.S. Soccer moms who want their children to be victimized don't deserve the title of mother. They deserve an inmate number and revocation of parental rights.

kcbrown
02-08-2011, 11:36 PM
All it UOC did was push a bunch of soccer moms with no interest in guns either way into writing letters to their reps to do something about this new threat to "their children". In other words UOC accomplished exactly the opposite of what they hoped to accomplish it made us new enemies. UOCers can deny reality all they want but them are the facts. It's been little more than a childish tantrum and it's getting us all punished.


You'll get no argument from me that the UOCers have done and are doing it very wrong.

This isn't something you start off doing by going balls to the wall from the start. It's something you have to introduce very slowly and gradually. And you have to do it in such a way that you can contain the damage as much as possible if/when things don't go the way you hope.


But despite any of that, a money bet that the legislature would shut it down once it got traction (and, really, probably once it got any visibility whatsoever) no matter how positively that traction is viewed by the population would be easy money in the bank.

sholling
02-08-2011, 11:54 PM
Actually, the Brady Campaign for Victim Disarmament and Criminal Safety reminded the legislature that there were some "loopholes" to be closed to protect their criminal constituents, so they could continue victimizing children safely. Soccer moms who want their children to be victimized don't deserve the title of mother. They deserve an inmate number and revocation of parental rights.
Here is a perfect example of a tantrum and a refusal to face reality. The Brady Whiners have been whining for decades while losing the war. They weren't getting anywhere until the UOCers scared the soccer moms into backing the Brady Bunch. Don't be shy - stand tall, puff up your chest, and take full credit for the damage that you guys have done.

N6ATF
02-08-2011, 11:58 PM
Fix my quote. I'm done.

Anchors
02-09-2011, 12:34 AM
Not accusing anyone of it, not even in this thread. But anti's have come on the forum before and tried to "stir the nest" and drive wedges. Is it outlandish, then, to imagine that it might have happened, might be happening, or might happen in the future?

In my mind, the only way to prevent that from succeeding is to heal the division, if one exists. A united front gets us all what we want, a divided front gets us nothing.

Okay. They would be helping more by buying a firearm and supporting the gun industry. They would also have to learn laws and safety, which antis rarely know anything about.
Also, aside from the actual people working at Brady, most antis don't actively care. They just use any little chance they can to stick their opinion where it doesn't belong, but they aren't burning down any gun shops.


Everyone else. Stop fighting.
Arguing about who did what isn't going to help.
We are all on the same team.

Patrick-2
02-09-2011, 3:12 AM
Yeah, if you didn't welcome people from other states on this board, I mean, that would be a tragedy of epic proportions.

Yup. I might have more time to do real work.

Don't worry, though. When the MD weather warms up a bit I'll probably slow post. I like the outdoors and have some range upgrades to do this spring.

Patrick-2
02-09-2011, 3:27 AM
No.

Scenario 2 is identical to scenario 1 except for the relative timing of the various events.

If the judiciary forces carry down the throats of the legislature while not placing explicit limits on time, place, and manner restrictions, then the legislature will pass laws restricting carry to the maximum degree possible.

You think the legislature will just sit by idly while they watch people carry loaded firearms in the open for all the world to see? No. They will take the very same steps in Scenario 2 as they would in Scenario 1, and because the legal situation will be the same, the courts will rule that the legislature can do so.

It is only if the courts rule that the legislature cannot impose time, place, and manner restrictions on carry that Scenario 2 would turn out any different than Scenario 1 in the end. And we both know that's not going to happen.


And only if you don't get the legislature to ban it tomorrow.

Good luck with that.


Not gonna happen. You said so yourself: states are free to choose which form(s) of carry to allow, as long as they allow at least one. That condition remains true regardless of the timing. This hope you have that some Federal court will somehow magically take the wind out of the sails of the California legislature with respect to open carry is a pipe dream.

Want proof? Look at Nunn, where the situation was that there was already a stated and recognized right to keep and bear arms in the Georgia constitution.

I cannot take issue with your logic. You are probably correct.

Ohio is a good example of what you suggest: their Supreme Court ruled carry was an option and because the legislature had explicitly banned Concealed Carry (per permit requirements), that left Open Carry. Once the legislature was faced with the choice, they undid the system and banned OC while choosing CCW.

But technically in CA there are still two choices on the table (assuming an RKBA win in Federal Court). So we can do things that guarantee OC is banned; or do things that at least leave the door open.

Last year's attempt to kill OC was thwarted only due to forward-thinking legislators concerned about getting Republican support for budget matters this year. The budget is still an issue and those same pro-gun legislators are probably still needed. That means if the cards are played right, OC will live on another year.

I am not suggesting there is not a fight. It may even be an annual fight. The longer California holds out the more likely OC will stick around. There is a slight chance that enough of the public will come around. Again: slight.

I think that chance is still better than throwing everything away right now, just so a few 'activists' can make a big stink which actually makes gun owners look petty and churlish.

From the outside looking in (I was a recent full-time CA resident, and still have some roots there) it seems simple to me. Go with "maybe" over "never". Be good neighbors and good citizens. Play nice.

I think that is the frustrating thing for so many people: we all agree that a right exists and will someday (soon) be recognized. But some mistakenly believe that this means they will have a right to carry in the manner of their choice. An even smaller group believes they have that right now. Both are wrong.

At the end of all these cases - when RKBA is recognized in public - it is public opinion that will rule on the manner of carry. Nothing else. If people fail to cultivate that public opinion today - or at the least not aggravate it - they will have nobody but themselves to blame tomorrow.


Respectfully submitted.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-09-2011, 6:16 AM
I cannot take issue with your logic. You are probably correct.

Ohio is a good example of what you suggest: their Supreme Court ruled carry was an option and because the legislature had explicitly banned Concealed Carry (per permit requirements), that left Open Carry. Once the legislature was faced with the choice, they undid the system and banned OC while choosing CCW.

But technically in CA there are still two choices on the table (assuming an RKBA win in Federal Court). So we can do things that guarantee OC is banned; or do things that at least leave the door open.

Last year's attempt to kill OC was thwarted only due to forward-thinking legislators concerned about getting Republican support for budget matters this year. The budget is still an issue and those same pro-gun legislators are probably still needed. That means if the cards are played right, OC will live on another year.

I am not suggesting there is not a fight. It may even be an annual fight. The longer California holds out the more likely OC will stick around. There is a slight chance that enough of the public will come around. Again: slight.

I think that chance is still better than throwing everything away right now, just so a few 'activists' can make a big stink which actually makes gun owners look petty and churlish.

From the outside looking in (I was a recent full-time CA resident, and still have some roots there) it seems simple to me. Go with "maybe" over "never". Be good neighbors and good citizens. Play nice.

I think that is the frustrating thing for so many people: we all agree that a right exists and will someday (soon) be recognized. But some mistakenly believe that this means they will have a right to carry in the manner of their choice. An even smaller group believes they have that right now. Both are wrong.

At the end of all these cases - when RKBA is recognized in public - it is public opinion that will rule on the manner of carry. Nothing else. If people fail to cultivate that public opinion today - or at the least not aggravate it - they will have nobody but themselves to blame tomorrow.


Respectfully submitted.


I agree completely that public opinion is key. I dispute that the events create bad PR. If the comments on-line at the various newspapers are any guide (and why shouldn't they be?), the tide of public opinion is turning towards us. I credit the events for this. Because they got Them The People at least talking about the the issue. Coupled with the perception of Heller & McDonald (like someone above said, The courts said it, it must be so), good is coming.


Well we will never know if we could have managed to hang on to UOC without UOC activists screwing it up.

Of course UOC activists will blame it on the NRA.

I like a slim chance of a positive outcome much more than a virtual lock on a bad outcome.


The first line is correct: you don't know. Yet, you remain so very sure that nothing but bad will result.

Hmm.


UOC is enabling the antis to get bad legislation passed. If we didn't have an anti problem we wouldn't have a UOC problem.

But we have to face reality, the antis are not going anywhere and we haven't convinced the politicians that an anti-gun policy will be bad for their political life.

That's why it's so crucial to win every battle, we need to destroy their motivation and demoralize them. Creating new battles to fight is not the way to do that.


And hiding on the side telling the antis that there won't be a change for another 10-15 years won't convince them to behave either.

In any event, we don't need to "destroy" them. We just need to show them that not all "soccer moms" want guns grabbed. The events are doing this. The events are also the only outreach (that I know of) to the general public (because passing out brochures at gun shows, etc is NOT to the general public) that gunnies are doing.

But maybe its frustration driving the UOCers. Maybe they just want to do something. So, instead of telling the UOCers to just "sit, be good, let the Right People do their thing," maybe you could suggest a form of activism you'd like them to do instead? Something that still reaches out to the general public?


The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
02-09-2011, 6:16 AM
Your argument is that banning carry will happen anyway, so go ahead and do whatever.

For a twelve year old, you express yourself very well!

That was nowhere near his argument, and ad hominem attacks in a serious discussion is definitively twelve-year-old behavior.

Manic Moran
02-09-2011, 8:31 AM
Then you need to read, read, and read again. Not only the SCOTUS cases, but Alan Gura's subsequent cases citing SCOTUS on "and bear".


Much though I agree with Gura's line of reasoning and believe him to be correct on the merits (and I certainly hope he is!), the simple fact is that he is not SCOTUS, and Heller ruled on nothing outside of the home, a fact which has been relied upon several times by other courts in the time since the Heller ruling. A more expansive definition of 'bear' to mean 'bear outside of the home as well as inside it' is simple personal extrapolation, not binding judicial precedent. The courts he is arguing his cases before are under no obligation to agree with him, he is merely putting forward the argument for their consideration.

NTM

wash
02-09-2011, 9:14 AM
Surely the Heller decision gave us the right to carry, the problem is that the case wasn't about carry, it was about owning a gun in the home.

The right to carry wasn't the issue so it wasn't fleshed out.

It doesn't makes sense that we can keep but not bear.

With that said, we have to wait for it to get fleshed out. The place to flesh it out is not California. The CA courts are not good for that. We need precedents and they have been coming slowly in the other friendlier districts. A UOC ban forces our hand without giving us the chance to draw new cards.

I'm not going to stand around silent while the fringe goes and ruins my chances of getting my rights back. We've been telling UOC activists to do positive things like fight against GFSZ laws, help out with the CCW initiative, volunteer in the C3 program, take someone shooting, and more but they get their kicks with an empty gun at Starbucks.

I'm not going to pat them on the back, adjust their helmet and tell them it's ok.

sholling
02-09-2011, 10:54 AM
I agree completely that public opinion is key. I dispute that the events create bad PR. If the comments on-line at the various newspapers are any guide (and why shouldn't they be?), the tide of public opinion is turning towards us.
You assume a lot of things. 1st you assume that everyone wants to carry a gun. You assume wrong. Even in shall issue states only about 3% of the population legally carries a gun, and darn few people (a fraction of 1%) open carry in open carry states.

2nd you assume that the tide of general public opinion supports open carry - it doesn't. Most unarmed people feel intimidated at the sight of an armed man. That's perfectly normal because it puts the unarmed at a serious disadvantage - and believe it or not they probably don't want to carry a gun (see above). That IN YOUR FACE disadvantage/intimidation is night and day different than the knowledge that theoretically someone in the area may be legally CCWing. In sight = IN YOUR FACE! Out of sight = out of mind.

3nd you assume that the average citizen is aware of Heller and McDonald or gives a rat's tail one way or the other. They don't have a clue and the last thing the average soccer mom wants is somebody they don't know walking around with guns near their children. Again out of sight = out of mind.

You can deny reality all you like but your argument carries no more basis in reality than claiming the world is flat because it it looks flat to you. You may see 33,000,000 Californians chomping at the bit for the right to open carry but the world isn't flat and there aren't 33,000,000 people that agree with you. There may be 33,000 statewide but the rest see open carry in population centers as a threat to their kids, or intimidating, or just plain bad manners. With all due respect you need to step away from the gun boards and the shooting range for a few months and learn how non-gunnies think.

Glock22Fan
02-09-2011, 11:04 AM
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5781696#post5781696)
I agree completely that public opinion is key. I dispute that the events create bad PR. If the comments on-line at the various newspapers are any guide (and why shouldn't they be?), the tide of public opinion is turning towards us.


The on-line comments in the newspapers is heavily biased by the fact that we are well organized to go in and make our viewpoints known. THe anti's are less well organized, and too sleepy to care much about being heard.

. . . You may see 33,000,000 Californians chomping at the bit for the right to open carry . . .

My guess is that less than 33% of the membership of this board is chomping at the bit for the right to open carry. I know I'm not.

sholling
02-09-2011, 11:35 AM
My guess is that less than 33% of the membership of this board is chomping at the bit for the right to open carry. I know I'm not.
I think you're right and 33% of members might be generous. The only time that I care to open carry is hiking in bear country or when hunting. My guess is that 2011 is the year that the UOCers will succeed in getting UOC banned statewide.

MudCamper
02-09-2011, 3:58 PM
How many UOC people are genuine contributors to the NRA, Calguns, CRPA, SAF, and other dedicated organizations?

I am a life member of the NRA, a life member of CRPA, a life member of SAF, and have donated $2300 to CGF. I am not an urban UOCer, but I was a proponent of the urban guys in the beginning.

The questions that really need to be posed is, "How is organized UOC HELPING the cause? Is organized UOC accomplishing something that can't be accomplished in another way?"

IMO the California UOC movement did do some good in the first few years. It resulted in a litany of LEA training memos (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?67322-Read-This-First-California-Open-Carry-Information) that educated many (likely thousands) of LEO to the true facts about 12025, 12031, and People v Clark, as well as other 4A issues. It also resulted in a surprising level of public support. Yes, it has also had big negative consequences in the California legislature.

It's somewhat hilarious but sad that Charles is blaming the NRA for not fixing the disastrous situation that the sociopolitically unaware en masse UOC goons created by waving red flags under the noses of the soccer moms.

A large number of the urban UOCers that still carry today can not be persuaded to stop. But there are many that could be. I try to help some understand your position, that we need to lay low until CGF/SAF/CRPA/NRA have secured some form of carry rights in court. While I understand your frustration with those who won't listen, I again ask you to try and cool your rhetoric ("UOC goons" for example) as it only makes persuading those who will listen more difficult. I single you out of the noise only because you are a CGF board member and a man respected by many in our community, including myself, and your words carry significantly more weight.

southernsnowshoe
02-09-2011, 7:49 PM
UOC is enabling the antis to get bad legislation passed. If we didn't have an anti problem we wouldn't have a UOC problem.

But we have to face reality, the antis are not going anywhere and we haven't convinced the politicians that an anti-gun policy will be bad for their political life.

That's why it's so crucial to win every battle, we need to destroy their motivation and demoralize them. Creating new battles to fight is not the way to do that.

I am going to puke. We have to face reality? the reality is UOC's like me are the ones with balls enough to take a stand and not just talk about it, or let some lawyer talk about it for them. Can't speak for anyone else here, but all I want to do is create battles with anti-gunners...............and fight.

kcbrown
02-09-2011, 8:05 PM
I am going to puke. We have to face reality? the reality is UOC's like me are the ones with balls enough to take a stand and not just talk about it, or let some lawyer talk about it for them. Can't speak for anyone else here, but all I want to do is create battles with anti-gunners...............and fight.

It takes more than guts to win this particular fight...

This isn't a fistfight. This is war. It involves strategy, politics, tactics, and even the occasional political equivalent of a fistfight.


You guys are engaging in fistfights without it being part of a solid long-term strategy. You're like the unit that goes rogue. Tons of good intentions, but ultimately causing more strategic harm than good.


Do you really want to win this war or not?

Dr Rockso
02-09-2011, 8:09 PM
I am going to puke. We have to face reality? the reality is UOC's like me are the ones with balls enough to take a stand and not just talk about it, or let some lawyer talk about it for them. Can't speak for anyone else here, but all I want to do is create battles with anti-gunners...............and fight.

Yep, Churchill obviously had no balls since he didn't invade Germany in '41.

southernsnowshoe
02-09-2011, 8:18 PM
It takes more than guts to win this particular fight...

This isn't a fistfight. This is war. It involves strategy, politics, tactics, and even the occasional political equivalent of a fistfight.


You guys are engaging in fistfights without it being part of a solid long-term strategy. You're like the unit that goes rogue. Tons of good intentions, but ultimately causing more strategic harm than good.


Do you really want to win this war or not?

Yep, Churchill obviously had no balls since he didn't invade Germany in '41.

If licking boots and kissing *** is your style then do what you do. It takes all kinds. I strongly oppose anyone telling me anything about my guns. All it is going to take is a spark, an awakening, just like Lexington and Concord in 1775. Can't wait.

Ape
02-09-2011, 8:54 PM
If licking boots and kissing *** is your style then do what you do. It takes all kinds. I strongly oppose anyone telling me anything about my guns. All it is going to take is a spark, an awakening, just like Lexington and Concord in 1775. Can't wait.

:confused:
Seriously, I'm all for no loss of rights.....But wishing for a revolution and typing it for the world to see on a public forum is more than just having a militant attitude. That's not going to gain rights in the 2A arena if that's what you're thinking? All that'll do is cause problems for you first and foremost. And secondary will be the 2A community.

kcbrown
02-09-2011, 9:26 PM
If licking boots and kissing *** is your style then do what you do. It takes all kinds. I strongly oppose anyone telling me anything about my guns.


So do we.

The difference is that we're going out there to win for good.

Want to join us?



All it is going to take is a spark, an awakening, just like Lexington and Concord in 1775. Can't wait.The vast majority of revolutions end badly, because people who are in such a state of mind are easily manipulated. Want proof? Look at the fate of the Tea Party, and how easily it was co-opted.

The most effective actions have a lot of planning behind them.

curtisfong
02-09-2011, 9:42 PM
There is a reason the military has a chain of command.

sholling
02-09-2011, 10:20 PM
I am going to puke. We have to face reality? the reality is UOC's like me are the ones with balls enough to take a stand and not just talk about it, or let some lawyer talk about it for them. Can't speak for anyone else here, but all I want to do is create battles with anti-gunners...............and fight.
And what are you going to do when you succeed in getting UOC banned? Pick up a rifle and start shooting? You'll do it alone. Pick your battles and fight smart by laying low for now and helping the right people win court cases by digging deep. It's the ONLY way to victory in California.

Funtimes
02-10-2011, 12:52 AM
Sorry - that's just a pipe dream. It ain't gonna happen. Want an example?

Count the number of members of Calguns. Now count the number who show up to a Nordyke hearing, a City Council meeting, a Planning Commission meeting.

Heck - count the number who've NEVER entered the 2A forum here on CGN.

The ones who show up are the same folks. And, to be fair, it was the same way during the Civil Rights movement. A handful bother to show up. The are too busy with their game of horseshoes..

Man so much hate between the ranks!
I see alot of slamming of the UOC folks, but, at a recent event... SBOC pulled 60 people into a establishment for dinner. I consider the rallying of those numbers, in itself, an accomplishment.

I do know some people who don't want to CC, and rather LOC or UOC instead. To each their own. As someone said in here somewhere, there is certainly a fracture among the firearm owners. Putting the bolts on those fractures and at least partially working together could probably be beneficial to various causes. Guess we will eventually find out if a OC ban will stand -- two weeks!

I will be interested to see how many Hawaii citizens show up for our Toy Gun ban hearing on Tuesday.

E Pluribus Unum
02-10-2011, 1:03 AM
It's somewhat hilarious but sad that Charles is blaming the NRA for not fixing the disastrous situation that the sociopolitically unaware en masse UOC goons created by waving red flags under the noses of the soccer moms.

I will note that - as I and others had warned last year - new bills 'fixing' UOC would also have a lot of accompanying problems entirely separate from UOC since bad gun bills get a lotta crap glued on. We can only hope that they're vetoable because they're sure as hell gonna pass the legislature, nobody's rolling in on gurneys this year.

I doubt if the "coffee shop UOCers" - if we get transportation of guns restricted or other bad restrictions thrown in etc. in addition to a UOC ban - will be very welcome at many gun ranges or gunshops due to their naivete and screwups. We should bill them for the legal costs required to undo this crap and for 'opportunity costs' (time we have to spend fixing this crap when we could fix something else).

-1 Bill.

I have to differ with you. Though I do not choose to open carry at the moment, you cannot slight anyone for exercising a constitutional right, even if it hurts "the cause".

They are constitutional rights; it's bad when BOTH sides get all riled up when someone does it.

Bruce
02-10-2011, 1:39 AM
I am going to puke. We have to face reality? the reality is UOC's like me are the ones with balls enough to take a stand and not just talk about it, or let some lawyer talk about it for them. Can't speak for anyone else here, but all I want to do is create battles with anti-gunners...............and fight.

I think somebody needs a nap. :rolleyes:

kcbrown
02-10-2011, 3:19 AM
-1 Bill.

I have to differ with you. Though I do not choose to open carry at the moment, you cannot slight anyone for exercising a constitutional right, even if it hurts "the cause".

They are constitutional rights; it's bad when BOTH sides get all riled up when someone does it.

What's great about rights is that people can exercise them even when others disagree with them about it.

People who want to go to these UOC events absolutely have the right to do so. They have the right to freely associate.

And for now, the legislature allows them to UOC. That, unfortunately, will almost certainly change soon. I personally believe that UOC is a right just the same as carrying a newspaper is. The legislature doesn't believe anything is a right except for their "right" to dictate to us what we can and cannot do.


I may not agree that such events are wise, but I absolutely support the right of those who wish to participate in those events to do so.


Someone who truly understands what rights are all about will support the right of others to exercise them even if they disagree with said exercise (and even if it's to the point of abhorrence).

There are precious few people who truly understand what rights are all about...

Mulay El Raisuli
02-10-2011, 6:34 AM
You assume a lot of things. 1st you assume that everyone wants to carry a gun. You assume wrong. Even in shall issue states only about 3% of the population legally carries a gun, and darn few people (a fraction of 1%) open carry in open carry states.


I assume nothing of the kind. You (and just about everybody else opposed to UOC) just LOVE to assume what UOCers think, what motivates us, etc. Then you mount attacks on positions that we do not hold. This post is full of it.


2nd you assume that the tide of general public opinion supports open carry - it doesn't. Most unarmed people feel intimidated at the sight of an armed man. That's perfectly normal because it puts the unarmed at a serious disadvantage - and believe it or not they probably don't want to carry a gun (see above). That IN YOUR FACE disadvantage/intimidation is night and day different than the knowledge that theoretically someone in the area may be legally CCWing. In sight = IN YOUR FACE! Out of sight = out of mind.


The events (because you've been careful to note that it is only the events I speak of, right?) are outreach, & from my personal experience, recognized as such by the vast majority of people we interact with. If it were taken as offensively "in your face" then we'd see a lot more negative reactions from the people we deal with.


3nd you assume that the average citizen is aware of Heller and McDonald or gives a rat's tail one way or the other. They don't have a clue and the last thing the average soccer mom wants is somebody they don't know walking around with guns near their children. Again out of sight = out of mind.


The news was on those stories like ugly on an ape. Yes, I do assume that the vast majority of people are aware of them to some extent. The idea of the events wasn't to get "in your face," but to build on the news reports. To tell Them The People more than what their local anchor tells them. Because leaving this issue "out of mind" does nothing to change those minds.

Yes, "out of sight does = out of mind." But leaving the issue "out of mind" does nothing to change the minds of your average soccer mom. She'll think what she thinks & she'll continue to think that unless & until someone gives her something else to think about. The choice is to have her think only what the antis think, or to provide a differing POV so that the basic illogic of what the antis present falls into an infertile field. That "someone else" isn't the guy passing out brochures at a gun show, because she doesn't go to gun shows. That "someone else" is is a UOCer.


You can deny reality all you like but your argument carries no more basis in reality than claiming the world is flat because it it looks flat to you. You may see 33,000,000 Californians chomping at the bit for the right to open carry but the world isn't flat and there aren't 33,000,000 people that agree with you. There may be 33,000 statewide but the rest see open carry in population centers as a threat to their kids, or intimidating, or just plain bad manners. With all due respect you need to step away from the gun boards and the shooting range for a few months and learn how non-gunnies think.


Since your assumptions that start not in left field, but from the subway stop waaay past left field, its no surprise that you're totally wrong here. Instead of paying attention to what the UOCers actually, say, you just rant on about you think (?) we want, believe, hope to achieve from our efforts. IOW, the biggest denial of reality comes from your keyboard.

I don't see more than a small percentage of people anywhere wanting to LOC on a regular basis. Making that the Minimum Constitutional Standard is not the goal of the events. The goal of the events is to reach out to Them The People. I'll repeat the question so studiously ignored: If you don't like this form of outreach, what form would you like us to take?


The on-line comments in the newspapers is heavily biased by the fact that we are well organized to go in and make our viewpoints known. THe anti's are less well organized, and too sleepy to care much about being heard.


This is good. In that this is a real argument. Thanks.

But, we are all over those articles, but I dispute that the Bradys aren't also. And a discerning reader can tell pretty easily who wrote which response. That same discerning reader can also tell who is just an average citizen weighing in on the topic. By those responses, I contend we are winning over the average citizen.

In addition, note how the news stories have changed their tone. Its gone from "MEN WITH GUNS AT THE STARBUCKS!!!!!" to an acknowledgment that a group of people quietly exercised their 2A Rights. Which of course, necessarily includes the acknowledgment that the 2A is a Right. Proof of this change is also shown by the fact that the Bradys FAILED at Starbucks and at other places too. Quiet dealings with the legislature didn't accomplish that. That change in attitude came from the events.

In addition, don't you think the TV stations 'feel the pulse' of their communities? Don't you think they pander to the lowest common denominator? Given the change on tone on the part of the TV stations, don't you think that they have felt the change in attitude among the soccer moms?

I think they have. So, I'll modify the question posed above. When (if) anyone suggests a form of outreach other than the events, will you at least try to suggest something that will be as effective in changing the minds of the general public as the events have been?


The Raisuli

Gray Peterson
02-10-2011, 8:03 AM
-1 Bill.

I have to differ with you. Though I do not choose to open carry at the moment, you cannot slight anyone for exercising a constitutional right, even if it hurts "the cause".

They are constitutional rights; it's bad when BOTH sides get all riled up when someone does it.

UOC is not a constitutional right.

Can't speak for anyone else here, but all I want to do is create battles with anti-gunners...............and fight.

No, you mean you want to create battles with the anti-gunners with the Legislature, and make our allies in Sacramento fight, while all you do is purely make phone calls to the committees and to your Legislators. That's not fighting. What Worley and Pederson do in Sacramento is real fighting. You're Don Quixote, and our friends in Sacramento are Sancho Panza.

Gray Peterson
02-10-2011, 8:18 AM
Mulay:

If that's the case, then Texas and Florida should be the most anti-gun states in the union, as both states have banned OC for nearly 3 decades. I can guarantee you that they are actually the more pro-gun states in terms of carry. People in both states love their guns, and love to carry. In fact, after 24 years of shall-issue in Florida, OC will be passed there, and in Texas, it'll happen after 15 years of shall-issue concealed carry only.

OC_Gunman
02-10-2011, 8:36 AM
I have never been to Starbucks. But I LOC in the sticks where legal for SD. OC'ers are simply trying to put guns into public view and make the statement that all people that have guns are not bad. Alot ARE unaware what the repercussions of their actions may be. Don't blame OC'ers... Blame Anti's. AND YOU HAVE NOT BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO SPEAK TO ANYONE LIKE THIS! Get it? *******!

Diginit, UOCers will take correction whenever they are wrong, from whomever has the sense to identify UOCers' error and say so!

I regret that the importance and urgency of this matter precludes greater diplomacy: Most UOCers appear to have the socio-political capacity of children, and a similar lack of ability to defer gratification. When the misbehavior of children begins to detract from the serious business of adults, it is time to put the children to bed.

sholling
02-10-2011, 10:06 AM
I assume nothing of the kind. You (and just about everybody else opposed to UOC) just LOVE to assume what UOCers think, what motivates us, etc. Then you mount attacks on positions that we do not hold. This post is full of it.
I make no apologies for being angry with those that cost me rights out of arrogance and immaturity. At the risk of angering the mods I'll say it again - promoting the 2nd Amendment through UOC is exactly like promoting nudism through walking around town butt naked. You may think you're doing outreach and some may react positively but the fact that YOU are about to get UOC banned proves your theory pure hogwash. Like the nudist at the mall for every positive reaction you're scaring or offending 100.

The events (because you've been careful to note that it is only the events I speak of, right?) are outreach, & from my personal experience, recognized as such by the vast majority of people we interact with. If it were taken as offensively "in your face" then we'd see a lot more negative reactions from the people we deal with.
The "perfectly reasonable" nudist at the mall is going to stir up enough curiosity to think he's getting a positive reaction while the curious are really thinking "what a moron".

Since your assumptions that start not in left field, but from the subway stop waaay past left field, its no surprise that you're totally wrong here. Instead of paying attention to what the UOCers actually, say, you just rant on about you think (?) we want, believe, hope to achieve from our efforts. IOW, the biggest denial of reality comes from your keyboard.
You are getting yet another anti-gun law passed through your actions and you say I'm denying reality? Wake up.

I don't see more than a small percentage of people anywhere wanting to LOC on a regular basis. Making that the Minimum Constitutional Standard is not the goal of the events. The goal of the events is to reach out to Them The People. I'll repeat the question so studiously ignored: If you don't like this form of outreach, what form would you like us to take?
The most effective outreach method is taking non-shooters shooting. Get involved in Appleseed and take girl friends and all of their friends shooting.

bwiese
02-10-2011, 10:27 AM
sholling: I love you, you "get" it.

OleCuss
02-10-2011, 10:45 AM
I've kinda wondered whether The Bradys could be funding the UOC movement here in California. I'm pretty sure they're not - but it would be one of their most fiscally brilliant moves.

I mean provide a little organization for some believers in UOC, encourage them to UOC everywhere as a group/gang. Preferable if you can get them to be bearded, tattooed, and wearing T-shirts over a big gut (not saying that all or most UOCers fit that description). It's an awesome plan since they'll be scaring the population, causing derision of those who believe in the RKBA and ensuring that both the legislature and the courts will be as unfriendly as possible.

Maestro Pistolero
02-10-2011, 11:02 AM
Like the nudist at the mall for every positive reaction you're scaring or offending 100. The "perfectly reasonable" nudist at the mall is going to stir up enough curiosity to think he's getting a positive reaction while the curious are really thinking "what a moron".

What a BS analogy. Being nude in public is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental, incorporated right.

Lot's of white folks were offended and scared when blacks marched, took their seats at the lunch counters, shared drinking fountains and public restrooms, and dared to sit at the front of the bus.

Sometimes forcing people to confront their irrational fears and deeply held delusions is the only path.

[quote]The most effective outreach method is taking non-shooters shooting. Get involved in Appleseed and take girl friends and all of their friends shooting.

Agreed. It's essential as part of the long term PR effort. But, in itself, it will do nothing in the short or medium term to secure our rights. Little more, in fact, than taking someone to church will protect our right to freedom of religion.

Gray Peterson
02-10-2011, 11:35 AM
Lot's of white folks were offended and scared when blacks marched, took their seats at the lunch counters, shared drinking fountains and public restrooms, and dared to sit at the front of the bus.

Sometimes forcing people to confront their irrational fears and deeply held delusions is the only path.

People can't change their skin color, they can, however, change their gun ownership status. Do not compare choices like gun carry and gun ownership with non-choices like race.


Agreed. It's essential as part of the long term PR effort. But, in itself, it will do nothing in the short or medium term to secure our rights. Little more, in fact, than taking someone to church will protect our right to freedom of religion.

How does open carrying in urban California protects our rights long term? It doesn't.

kagekiri
02-10-2011, 11:49 AM
Like the nudist at the mall for every positive reaction you're scaring or offending 100. The "perfectly reasonable" nudist at the mall is going to stir up enough curiosity to think he's getting a positive reaction while the curious are really thinking "what a moron".

What a BS analogy. Being nude in public is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental, incorporated right.

Lot's of white folks were offended and scared when blacks marched, took their seats at the lunch counters, shared drinking fountains and public restrooms, and dared to sit at the front of the bus.

Sometimes forcing people to confront their irrational fears and deeply held delusions is the only path.



Agreed. It's essential as part of the long term PR effort. But, in itself, it will do nothing in the short or medium term to secure our rights. Little more, in fact, than taking someone to church will protect our right to freedom of religion.

I can't tell if you're saying UOC events are better than taking someone shooting, but I don't see the short/medium term benefits there, either. I agree with you that the nudist analogy isn't perfect, but I can't divulge your own opinion from the post.

Going by your analogy, if taking someone shooting is taking someone to church, I'd say political UOC is like walking around campuses or malls with Bibles, slogan signs, or Christian artwork shirts trying to convert people (and I've actually tried that once when I was still Christian). Or maybe even being the guy/group just loudly preaching to everyone passing by with a Bible raised in the air.

Yeah, most people are polite and won't go out of their way to offend you (even more so when you have visible firepower, I'd assume), and you may get some very positive responses (usually from people who already "believe" to some degree or lapsed believers), but you get the distinct feeling some of them are thinking "how do I get rid of these nutbags; why are they allowed to do this?" Heck, on my own campus, I actively avoided or was cold to proselytizers of all sorts, so I know the feeling coming from the other side.

Sometimes, your efforts to convert just turn what would otherwise be total apathy into a general resentment of your cause. To go back to the religion example, people don't usually care about others practicing their religion in private, but they hate people who put it in your face, like door-to-door preachers or public religious demonstrations.

As for comparisons to civil rights, discriminating against specific races or against females is a bit different than discriminating against people who've made specific lifestyle choices. Of course, that lifestyle choice is that you choose the ability to defend your life, but they don't see it that way.

Caladain
02-10-2011, 11:54 AM
What a BS analogy. Being nude in public is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental, incorporated right.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but We don't have a constitutionally protected, fundamental, incorporated right to openly carry arms. We *do* have a constitutionally protected, fundamental, incorporated right to carry arms in some fashion, ergo as of this moment we have the recognized right to carry concealed or UOC, depending on the county/mood/feeling of the ruling powers as to which they "approve", and provided we don't run afoul of any of the multitude of firearms laws.


For now, at least, until Gene and Calguns wave their hand and make the magic happen :chris:

sholling
02-10-2011, 11:59 AM
Like the nudist at the mall for every positive reaction you're scaring or offending 100. The "perfectly reasonable" nudist at the mall is going to stir up enough curiosity to think he's getting a positive reaction while the curious are really thinking "what a moron".

What a BS analogy. Being nude in public is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental, incorporated right.
1st Amendment right to free expression. The SCOTUS has repeatedly held that dancing naked is constitutionally protected free speech, they simply allow time, place, and manner restrictions - just like they did in Heller.

Lot's of white folks were offended and scared when blacks marched, took their seats at the lunch counters, shared drinking fountains and public restrooms, and dared to sit at the front of the bus.
I was around back then and remember those times well - were you? The national media and all of college level academia were on the side of those marchers. Those same influential groups are our enemies and will do their best to paint UOCers as even more irrational than they actually are.

Sometimes forcing people to confront their irrational fears and deeply held delusions is the only path.
Like a child hitting his mom and throwing a tantrum in the store because they can't have candy NOW! You'd rather cost us the the entire battle and leave us with no rights than show a little maturity and patience.

Agreed. It's essential as part of the long term PR effort. But, in itself, it will do nothing in the short or medium term to secure our rights. Little more, in fact, than taking someone to church will protect our right to freedom of religion.
Yet you measure success by how effective you are at getting UOC banned.

Maestro Pistolero
02-10-2011, 12:15 PM
People can't change their skin color, they can, however, change their gun ownership status. Do not compare choices like gun carry and gun ownership with non-choices like race.
How does open carrying in urban California protects our rights long term? It doesn't.

With much respect Gray, that's a false comparison. The comparison I am making relates to the time, place, and manner in which one exercises an established constitutional right, whatever the right, and whatever the criteria for unfair discrimination.

The denial of said right may be due to discrimination based on skin color, or against those who insist upon possessing a means to self defense, but it is not a relevant distinction.

In fact, I would argue that the means to keep one's self and one's family alive would trump every other right, as loss of life renders all other rights meaningless.

Self defense is a choice, only if one is willing to relinquish the outcome to circumstances and individuals out of their control.

kagekiri
02-10-2011, 12:29 PM
With much respect Gray, that's a false comparison. The comparison I am making relates to the time, place, and manner in which one exercises an established constitutional right, whatever the right, and whatever the criteria for unfair discrimination.

The denial of said right may be due to discrimination based on skin color, or against those who insist upon possessing a means to self defense, but it is not a relevant distinction.

In fact, I would argue that the means to keep one's self and one's family alive would trump every other right, as loss of life renders all other rights meaningless.

Self defense is a choice, only if one is willing to relinquish the outcome to circumstances and individuals out of their control.

That's your opinion, and one I agree with, but it's getting quite rare in the world and in our media. The levels of support are different, the right itself is quite different (and getting rare worldwide, too), and the situation and environment are different.

So fighting it the same way they fought for civil rights or women's suffrage (public events and demonstrations) doesn't make sense; that's the issue here.

Their demonstrations show peaceful resistance to already enacted laws they want changed, while UOC demonstrations just expose laws that anyone even a little scared of guns wish didn't exist. They are, by definition, groups of armed people walking in public (usually men). That's quite different imagery, and it's more like we're taunting/intimidating the anti-gunners than asserting rights.

We can't get away with the same tactics just because they're both constitutionally protected rights. The situations are very different and require different (and I believe, less in-your-face) tactics.

kcbrown
02-10-2011, 1:01 PM
Mulay:

If that's the case, then Texas and Florida should be the most anti-gun states in the union, as both states have banned OC for nearly 3 decades. I can guarantee you that they are actually the more pro-gun states in terms of carry. People in both states love their guns, and love to carry. In fact, after 24 years of shall-issue in Florida, OC will be passed there, and in Texas, it'll happen after 15 years of shall-issue concealed carry only.

I suspect you're probably right, but I'll believe it when I see it.

If the people in Texas and Florida love their guns so much, then explain why they had been afraid to see them in the open in public.


That said, I see where you're going with this, and your point is a very good one, but the mindset of the average person in Texas, at any rate, is and has always been very different than the mindset of the average person here (now. California hasn't always been populated with people of the current mindset). People in Texas have always had something of an independent streak. People here in California want mommy.

People who have a mindset like that in Texas will eventually come around given something like CCW. People in California never will. It'll take much more than just CCW to sway them.

Maestro Pistolero
02-10-2011, 1:05 PM
The perception that armed men are inherently dangerous
and not a force for good is indeed a tough perception to undo.

OC events that combine with public service events like trash
pickups, feeding homeless, neighborhood improvement projects
are brilliant ways to counter the negative imagery.

kcbrown
02-10-2011, 1:08 PM
People can't change their skin color, they can, however, change their gun ownership status. Do not compare choices like gun carry and gun ownership with non-choices like race.


The methods for changing a mindset of fear are the same, whether or not that which is feared is something that can be chosen.



How does open carrying in urban California protects our rights long term? It doesn't.

The theory is that by exposing people to firearms in the open, they'll eventually get acclimated to it. There's some truth in that, but it has to be done very carefully.

JRob
02-10-2011, 1:47 PM
[U]

UOC is not functional firearms carry as envisioned by our founding fathers and the Framers of the 14th amendment......

This is tangential to the discussion, but - As evidenced by Law ____ which made it illegal to carry an unloaded or unprimed muzzleloader?

scarville
02-10-2011, 3:07 PM
Reading the above, I'm of a mind that the best way for the anti's to screw over the majority of Calgunner would be to pass a shall issue OPEN carry permit law. Suddenly there is no case for overturning the may issue CCW and gunnies will have to deal with the apparent social stigma of carrying a gun.

Remember I am just a dumb 'ol engineer so I am trained think logcally not legally.

Dr Rockso
02-10-2011, 3:38 PM
Reading the above, I'm of a mind that the best way for the anti's to screw over the majority of Calgunner would be to pass a shall issue OPEN carry permit law. Suddenly there is no case for overturning the may issue CCW and gunnies will have to deal with the apparent social stigma of carrying a gun.

Remember I am just a dumb 'ol engineer so I am trained think logcally not legally.

That would backfire on them like it did in Ohio. Enough mobs of armed people out frightening the peasantry gets them to give us CCWs pretty quick.

Maestro Pistolero
02-10-2011, 3:50 PM
That would backfire on them like it did in Ohio. Enough mobs of armed people out frightening the peasantry gets them to give us CCWs pretty quick.

This

Gray Peterson
02-10-2011, 4:08 PM
That would backfire on them like it did in Ohio. Enough mobs of armed people out frightening the peasantry gets them to give us CCWs pretty quick.

This

Ohio had the votes to pass shall-issue concealed carry reform in the Legislature. A majority of the Legislature in California would simply "ride out" the time and let the private sector ban all guns from their properties, making it impossible for the normal person to OC. Throw in the factor of government building bans and the inability to take transit, and you make it nearly impossible for a person to carry anywhere, and the Legislature can just wait and do nothing.

scarville
02-10-2011, 5:31 PM
Ohio had the votes to pass shall-issue concealed carry reform in the Legislature. A majority of the Legislature in California would simply "ride out" the time and let the private sector ban all guns from their properties, making it impossible for the normal person to OC. Throw in the factor of government building bans and the inability to take transit, and you make it nearly impossible for a person to carry anywhere, and the Legislature can just wait and do nothing.
That's pretty much the way I see it unfolding too.

I don't think a strategic shall issue open carry will happen simply because the anti's aren't well organized enough to pull it off and are blinded by their hatred. Look at how the idiots in DC are working to preserve the status quo instead of exploiting the loopholes on Heller. Nevertheless the government can regulate time, manner and place and the Constitution doesn't protect us from property owners (or their agents) banning guns completely on their land.

Glock22Fan
02-10-2011, 5:47 PM
sholling: I love you, you "get" it.

You beat me to it, Bill.

Go, Sholling, go!

stix213
02-10-2011, 6:07 PM
Group public UOC events are about as effective at promoting gun rights as public gay group orgies would be to promoting gay marriage. Showing it off in public doesn't mean you are actually helping.

my opinion at least

kcbrown
02-10-2011, 7:34 PM
That's pretty much the way I see it unfolding too.

I don't think a strategic shall issue open carry will happen simply because the anti's aren't well organized enough to pull it off and are blinded by their hatred. Look at how the idiots in DC are working to preserve the status quo instead of exploiting the loopholes on Heller. Nevertheless the government can regulate time, manner and place and the Constitution doesn't protect us from property owners (or their agents) banning guns completely on their land.

Why do you guys always assume that the enemy is composed of a bunch of idiots?

Such assumptions eventually lead to one's own undoing.


If we don't have a good defense against the shall-issue open carry contingency, then we are screwed.

Librarian
02-10-2011, 7:36 PM
This is tangential to the discussion, but - As evidenced by Law ____ which made it illegal to carry an unloaded or unprimed muzzleloader?

Still PC 12025 for concealed, 12031 for loaded.

While such handguns are not 'firearms' for purposes of PC 12020 (buying and selling) they ARE firearms for carry.

scarville
02-10-2011, 8:27 PM
Why do you guys always assume that the enemy is composed of a bunch of idiots?

Such assumptions eventually lead to one's own undoing.

If we don't have a good defense against the shall-issue open carry contingency, then we are screwed.
No I do not think they are all idiots. An unfortunate choice of word to describe people I really do not like and, on further thought, the possibility of an open carry end run looks more likely. Right now I think the anti's are disorganized in the wake of Heller and McDonald. Eventually they will recover and hit back in an intelligent way. The Calguns lawyers may be doing well now but no plan long survives contact with enemy. The progun plan is expected to take years so it had better be ready for a counter offensive in months. Maybe weeks

One reason I brought up shall issue open carry (SIOC? SILOC?) is it looks like a way to exploit the loopholes in Heller. It may not be practical as I've described it but I will argue that the time, place and manner provisions are loopholes in RKBA and are a threat.

southernsnowshoe
02-10-2011, 9:48 PM
UOC is not a constitutional right.



No, you mean you want to create battles with the anti-gunners with the Legislature, and make our allies in Sacramento fight, while all you do is purely make phone calls to the committees and to your Legislators. That's not fighting. What Worley and Pederson do in Sacramento is real fighting. You're Don Quixote, and our friends in Sacramento are Sancho Panza.

You are rediculous. The anti gun people I am fighting is law enforcement. The people who regard the constitution as an impediment to furthering thier agenda. Open carry is a form of protest, and I will stop when
a. I get my CCW or
b. it becomes illegal and finally makes my decision for me and I move to Arizona

wash
02-10-2011, 9:57 PM
You are naive if you think that strategy is going to do anything except get UOC banned in California.

Gray Peterson
02-10-2011, 9:58 PM
You are rediculous. The anti gun people I am fighting is law enforcement. The people who regard the constitution as an impediment to furthering thier agenda. Open carry is a form of protest, and I will stop when
a. I get my CCW or
b. it becomes illegal and finally makes my decision for me and I move to Arizona

Oh, so you're fighting law enforcement. :rolleyes: Tell me, what are you fighting them for?

One more thing: Have you applied for a carry license?

UOC'ers strongly encouraged to apply for a carry license (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5345191&postcount=1)

If you are to be denied, you now have proof that you attempted to comply with the State requirements to carry but were rebuffed by the licensing authority (or you might just get a permit...) However, if you later have an interaction with law enforcement that is sub-par, the actual fact of your application and denial will make that interaction far more valuable to the fight for gun rights.

So I'll ask again: Have you applied for a carry license?

Yugo
02-10-2011, 10:03 PM
How many UOC people are genuine contributors to the NRA, Calguns, CRPA, SAF, and other dedicated organizations?

I do but you guys talked some sense into me so I dont UOC. Good luck to us for getting CCW.:D

Bruce
02-10-2011, 10:43 PM
You are rediculous. The anti gun people I am fighting is law enforcement.

Why? They just enforce the laws, they don't pass them

The people who regard the constitution as an impediment to furthering thier agenda. Open carry is a form of protest, and I will stop when
a. I get my CCW or
b. it becomes illegal and finally makes my decision for me and I move to Arizona

Best idea you have posted.

You really need to stop and take a look at the vitriol you're spewing.

Maestro Pistolero
02-10-2011, 10:49 PM
If one is going to call a brilliant attorney ridiculous, best to learn how to spell the word first.

dantodd
02-10-2011, 11:21 PM
You are rediculous. The anti gun people I am fighting is law enforcement. The people who regard the constitution as an impediment to furthering thier agenda. Open carry is a form of protest, and I will stop when
a. I get my CCW or
b. it becomes illegal and finally makes my decision for me and I move to Arizona

Do your plan is to ignore all advice given by those advancing the cause and then.

a. Get your CCW based on the hard work of others that you are working against or
b. burn down the rights we DO have and then move away to leave your excrement behind. Wow. Thanks for all the help.

southernsnowshoe
02-11-2011, 6:19 AM
You really need to stop and take a look at the vitriol you're spewing.

Law enforcement does not pass the laws. No **** sherlock. Sheriff Gore has the power to grant my CCW or not. Two years ago I get into a conflict with the sheriffs department over the material coming into my scrapyard, thieves are out stealing copper, brass etc. and although I have run a legitimate business for 15 years here, it is presumed on the part of local law enforcement that we have been somehow doing something wrong and we are treated like criminals and presumed guilty untill proven innocent. Things have calmed down and they see that I am not going any crap from them. I got in thier face and said you show me what stolen scrap material looks like and I won't buy it. In standing up for myself I have made enemies on the sheriffs dept, so be it. I have made enemies here, so be it. I thought this was a gun group, wrong. I wish I would have known before I contributed any money. I have $30,000 to $40,000 cash on me at any given time, so I will keep my glock or my 629 on, unloaded becouse thats the law.And to all of the brilliant minds at work on this, the elitists who believe that they are superior to me and know better than I why I should have a gun, walk a mile.

Gray Peterson
02-11-2011, 6:40 AM
Law enforcement does not pass the laws. No **** sherlock. Sheriff Gore has the power to grant my CCW or not. Two years ago I get into a conflict with the sheriffs department over the material coming into my scrapyard, thieves are out stealing copper, brass etc. and although I have run a legitimate business for 15 years here, it is presumed on the part of local law enforcement that we have been somehow doing something wrong and we are treated like criminals and presumed guilty untill proven innocent. Things have calmed down and they see that I am not going any crap from them. I got in thier face and said you show me what stolen scrap material looks like and I won't buy it. In standing up for myself I have made enemies on the sheriffs dept, so be it. I have made enemies here, so be it. I thought this was a gun group, wrong. I wish I would have known before I contributed any money. I have $30,000 to $40,000 cash on me at any given time, so I will keep my glock or my 629 on, unloaded becouse thats the law.And to all of the brilliant minds at work on this, the elitists who believe that they are superior to me and know better than I why I should have a gun, walk a mile.

Again, you didn't answer my question.

Have you applied for a carry license? Yes or no?

southernsnowshoe
02-11-2011, 6:48 AM
Again, you didn't answer my question.

Have you applied for a carry license? Yes or no?

I will be turning in my paperwork in August, long story. and if i get denied, the culmination of all of this will be the mother of all lawsuits, I will spend my worth if I have to. I'm pissed.

scarville
02-11-2011, 7:13 AM
1st Amendment right to free expression. The SCOTUS has repeatedly held that dancing naked is constitutionally protected free speech, they simply allow time, place, and manner restrictions - just like they did in Heller.
I hope that is an not accurate comparison. If the anti's can put the same restrictions on carrying a gun as they do on dancing naked, that pretty much limits it to the private property where no one can see you. Jaysus Aitch Crixus, That's even less the we have now. :banghead:
The most effective outreach method is taking non-shooters shooting. Get involved in Appleseed and take girl friends and all of their friends shooting.
Lets assume I take one new person shooting every month and that person becomes an instant convert and does the same thing. According to Google (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&idim=state:06000&dl=en&hl=en&q=california+population) the population of Californa as of Jul 2009 was 36,961,664 That's very close to 2 to the 25 power (33,554,432) so in a bit more than two years everyone in California will be a gun owning Second Amendment fundamentalist.. Right? All you guys were wrong. It two years, not two weeks. :shock:

OleCuss
02-11-2011, 7:25 AM
I will be turning in my paperwork in August, long story. and if i get denied, the culmination of all of this will be the mother of all lawsuits, I will spend my worth if I have to. I'm pissed.

Your dedication is appreciated.

A recommendation, however? Gray is both extremely knowledgeable and very helpful. Pay close attention to what he suggests or asks because there is a method to the madness - and Gray is dedicated to our gun rights like few others on Earth.

There are tactics and strategies involved and few of us who've not been fighting for our rights for a decade or more really know what it takes to make it work.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-11-2011, 7:30 AM
Mulay:

If that's the case, then Texas and Florida should be the most anti-gun states in the union, as both states have banned OC for nearly 3 decades. I can guarantee you that they are actually the more pro-gun states in terms of carry. People in both states love their guns, and love to carry. In fact, after 24 years of shall-issue in Florida, OC will be passed there, and in Texas, it'll happen after 15 years of shall-issue concealed carry only.


You should have included what post of mine you're responding to. I'm not seeing anything here that relates to anything I've actually said.


I make no apologies for being angry with those that cost me rights out of arrogance and immaturity. At the risk of angering the mods I'll say it again - promoting the 2nd Amendment through UOC is exactly like promoting nudism through walking around town butt naked. You may think you're doing outreach and some may react positively but the fact that YOU are about to get UOC banned proves your theory pure hogwash. Like the nudist at the mall for every positive reaction you're scaring or offending 100.


Your analogy is inapt.

Further, as pointed out before, UOC is a glitch in the system. Something the PRK legislature is hopped up to ban anyway. But, that there was any resistance to that, that Nunez felt even the tiniest bit betrayed when she tried for that ban is proof that the events are indeed having a positive effect.

I attribute your claim that 100 are scared to every 1 we reach to your admitted & obvious anger. Certainly, you've offered nothing to prove it.


The most effective outreach method is taking non-shooters shooting. Get involved in Appleseed and take girl friends and all of their friends shooting.


Such is your opinion. Yet, numbers matter in politics. Taking hundreds of people (one at a time) to a range certainly helps, but making millions think about the issue in a positive way is even better. And (again) that the events generate a positive response is shown by the change in attitude in the media.

I see that my question is still being ignored. I'm guessing that it will stay that way. Fine. But I once read that when von Steuben came over to help train the troops of George Washington, he commented (angrily) that Prussian troops simply did as they were told. But that Americans had to be told why before they obeyed. Americans aren't really happy to do as we're told. Not even when the command comes from someone on our own side. Americans have a tendency to act as they think best. My point being that the events are going to continue. Unless & until a good argument is offered as to why they shouldn't. Anger-driven arguments about how "The sky will fall!" don't meet that criteria. So, you can rant about how the UOCers can/should stop, & then moan about it when they don't. Or, you can accept that they will occur & figure out how to adapt to and/or take advantage of the situation.


The Raisuli

sholling
02-11-2011, 9:25 AM
Further, as pointed out before, UOC is a glitch in the system. Something the PRK legislature is hopped up to ban anyway. But, that there was any resistance to that, that Nunez felt even the tiniest bit betrayed when she tried for that ban is proof that the events are indeed having a positive effect.
The fact that you and your ilk have succeeded in nothing but costing us more of our rights and that you think you have gotten the media on our side just prove to me that you are delusional and no amount of logic or facts will convince you to stop hurting the cause of restoring the 2nd Amendment to California. You've made up your mind and will not let reality get in the way of a good fantasy. I just hope that once you succeed in getting UOC banned that you stand up and take full and complete credit for costing 33,000,000 people their rights. Perhaps get t-shirts made saying "I did my part to get UOC banned".

I'm done with you and the rest of the Gorskis of the movement. You can lead a zealot to knowledge but you can't make him think.

Good day sir.

dfletcher
02-11-2011, 9:41 AM
I have $30,000 to $40,000 cash on me at any given time, so I will keep my glock or my 629 on, unloaded becouse thats the law.

Doesn't this put you in a little different situation than folks who do UOC to make a political point or push the issue? I'm guessing if the cops stopped you and asked "WTH are you doing?" you'd tell them "protecting my fanny & $30 grand the only legal way I know how in CA".

If I were in your moccasins, so to speak, I'd be especially PO'd that if to make a point folks got Sacramento to ban something I have to rely on - it's not just politics, it's your livelihood, correct?

southernsnowshoe
02-11-2011, 9:46 AM
Your dedication is appreciated.

A recommendation, however? Gray is both extremely knowledgeable and very helpful. Pay close attention to what he suggests or asks because there is a method to the madness - and Gray is dedicated to our gun rights like few others on Earth.

There are tactics and strategies involved and few of us who've not been fighting for our rights for a decade or more really know what it takes to make it work.

I appreciate you sir. I just believe that anyone who berates or insults a citizen for carrying a gun is wrong. Let a law or regulation pass or fail on it's merits, if that means another fight, then that is better than running scared.

southernsnowshoe
02-11-2011, 9:54 AM
Doesn't this put you in a little different situation than folks who do UOC to make a political point or push the issue? I'm guessing if the cops stopped you and asked "WTH are you doing?" you'd tell them "protecting my fanny & $30 grand the only legal way I know how in CA".

If I were in your moccasins, so to speak, I'd be especially PO'd that if to make a point folks got Sacramento to ban something I have to rely on - it's not just politics, it's your livelihood, correct?

Good friend, my position is no more perilous than anyone else. Do you have children, property, prized objects, life and limb you feel is worth protecting? Let's just all carry, simple. I know loading is a problem when UOC, but I am confident. Saldana did not get to make her pitch, we can just work against it this time also, but I am not going to stop carrying.

kagekiri
02-11-2011, 9:56 AM
I attribute your claim that 100 are scared to every 1 we reach to your admitted & obvious anger. Certainly, you've offered nothing to prove it.

Such is your opinion. Yet, numbers matter in politics. Taking hundreds of people (one at a time) to a range certainly helps, but making millions think about the issue in a positive way is even better. And (again) that the events generate a positive response is shown by the change in attitude in the media.

I see that my question is still being ignored. I'm guessing that it will stay that way. Fine. But I once read that when von Steuben came over to help train the troops of George Washington, he commented (angrily) that Prussian troops simply did as they were told. But that Americans had to be told why before they obeyed. Americans aren't really happy to do as we're told. Not even when the command comes from someone on our own side. Americans have a tendency to act as they think best. My point being that the events are going to continue. Unless & until a good argument is offered as to why they shouldn't. Anger-driven arguments about how "The sky will fall!" don't meet that criteria. So, you can rant about how the UOCers can/should stop, & then moan about it when they don't. Or, you can accept that they will occur & figure out how to adapt to and/or take advantage of the situation.


The Raisuli

Wait, so you saying "millions are positively affected by our UOC movements" is fine without proof or citation, and so is your dubious statement that the "media is now shifting to our side", but the fact that there are now actual laws being crafted to close the UOC "loophole" isn't a direct or obvious enough warning that UOCing politically has done nothing useful?

You're being pretty selective with your facts; if you're going to require them from anti-political-UOCers, why don't you provide your own?

The media backlash and negative responses are there in the news for you to see. The anti's laws are being proposed to cut out UOC specifically. Where is the positive response you speak of? How is this broad public action better than personally interacting with people in a way that can't be twisted by the media (e.g. range trips)?

Saying "We're going to do it anyway if you don't give us a better reason, so shut up and deal with it" (my paraphrase of how you ended that last paragraph) is hardly helpful. The reasons have been very clearly stated here by multiple people. Getting the legislature extra reason to move against UOC, which IS HAPPENING ALREADY, isn't helpful for anyone.

Caladain
02-11-2011, 9:57 AM
I appreciate you sir. I just believe that anyone who berates or insults a citizen for carrying a gun is wrong. Let a law or regulation pass or fail on it's merits, if that means another fight, then that is better than running scared.

Win the battle, lose the war? It became necessary to destroy the town to save it?

No one is saying you *shouldn't* have the right to openly carry. What people *are* saying is that you have to *pick* your battles.

As a commander, you can charge straight at the enemy, straight up the middle. You will likely take heavy losses. OR, you can flank them, drop arty, airstrike, etc, to weaken them *before* forcing the end game.

Charging up the middle at the moment will most likely do more harm than good, and saying "Damn the consequences!" is probably not the most constructive thing in the world.

You *should* have the right to openly carry a loaded firearm. You *should* have the right to carry a loaded firearm concealed. You *should* be able to protect you and yours without fear of the Gov dropping down on your head afterwards.

What *should* be and what currently *is* shows us what ground we need to cover to *fix* this problem. We lost before because we were splintered and disorganized. Let us all work together to fix this, or surely they will take everything from each of us individually.

Edit:
And no one is saying *YOU* shouldn't UOC. It's the *movement* that people are saying "Avoid black rifle drama".

rysmithjr
02-11-2011, 11:16 AM
here's the letter I sent to 2 of the LA City Councilmembers (Garcetti & LaBonge) I work with often, comments and improvements in my approach are welcomed:



I just saw an article discussing the language of the motion from Jan 28, 2011 concerning gun issues and legal understandings from the City Attorney, and that the motion also included this language: "...the local community organizations aimed at stemming gun violence, including Women Against Gun Violence and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, be invited to attend any such presentation and discussion, and to share their information, insight, advice and ideas."

There are many law abiding gun owners, myself included, who are against gun violence and yet would oppose further bans on our already limited means of self defense, an individual right assured to each of us in the US Constitution and the California Constitution. While a majority of gun owners would never consider Unloaded Open Carry in public (and I request any documentation that this is in any way a problem or even common occurrence in Los Angeles), they are building legal cases against the shady cronyism and perhaps illegal methods of granting CCW permits in Los Angeles and other cities around California. Open Carry would never be a problem (since the argument against it is that it causes mass hysteria, panic and fear among the populace) if LA were to follow a Shall Issue CCW policy, since CCW is by definition Concealed.

I encourage you to open proper debate on this issue if you are serious about representational democracy. Cherry picking only those groups who support the position to be involved is not fair or just. Even more, I encourage you to actually take steps that are effective at solving the real problems. Law abiding UOCers are not the criminals that are causing any damage.

I welcome any opportunities to speak to you further about this.

southernsnowshoe
02-11-2011, 11:50 AM
Win the battle, lose the war? It became necessary to destroy the town to save it?

No one is saying you *shouldn't* have the right to openly carry. What people *are* saying is that you have to *pick* your battles.

As a commander, you can charge straight at the enemy, straight up the middle. You will likely take heavy losses. OR, you can flank them, drop arty, airstrike, etc, to weaken them *before* forcing the end game.

Charging up the middle at the moment will most likely do more harm than good, and saying "Damn the consequences!" is probably not the most constructive thing in the world.

You *should* have the right to openly carry a loaded firearm. You *should* have the right to carry a loaded firearm concealed. You *should* be able to protect you and yours without fear of the Gov dropping down on your head afterwards.

What *should* be and what currently *is* shows us what ground we need to cover to *fix* this problem. We lost before because we were splintered and disorganized. Let us all work together to fix this, or surely they will take everything from each of us individually.

Edit:
And no one is saying *YOU* shouldn't UOC. It's the *movement* that people are saying "Avoid black rifle drama".

If they take everything away from us individually, then they are going to end up with two in the chest and one in the head, like Mussolini. I don't fear anyone in this process, nobody should. Strap on your piece, go about your daily life, and let them explain to us how we are criminals.

Caladain
02-11-2011, 12:03 PM
If they take everything away from us individually, then they are going to end up with two in the chest and one in the head, like Mussolini. I don't fear anyone in this process, nobody should. Strap on your piece, go about your daily life, and let them explain to us how we are criminals.

Already carry concealed every day, and have zero fear of anyone, or anything. XD45 Tactical (big beast) in a shoulder holster.

But i also dream of a Cali where i can have my AR15 non-gimped, my XD can have it's proper 13 rd magazine, and, because the fancy strikes me, i could buy a M82.

southernsnowshoe
02-11-2011, 12:14 PM
Already carry concealed every day, and have zero fear of anyone, or anything. XD45 Tactical (big beast) in a shoulder holster.

But i also dream of a Cali where i can have my AR15 non-gimped, my XD can have it's proper 13 rd magazine, and, because the fancy strikes me, i could buy a M82.

I am with you brother, have alot of my really good stuff in a friends safe in AZ, would like to live like a free american and have them here. If you are mentally sound and 21 years old I support your right to own any and all guns, but people like us are considered extremists in California.

Gray Peterson
02-11-2011, 1:04 PM
Already carry concealed every day, and have zero fear of anyone, or anything. XD45 Tactical (big beast) in a shoulder holster.

But i also dream of a Cali where i can have my AR15 non-gimped, my XD can have it's proper 13 rd magazine, and, because the fancy strikes me, i could buy a M82.

You and me both.

I am with you brother, have alot of my really good stuff in a friends safe in AZ, would like to live like a free american and have them here. If you are mentally sound and 21 years old I support your right to own any and all guns, but people like us are considered extremists in California.

Not by me. I support constitutional carry of loaded firearms.

Maestro Pistolero
02-11-2011, 1:33 PM
It always makes me wince a little when I remember that the same rifle that I may freely drive around with in my trunk in Nevada, would make me a felon if I crossed the CA state line.

From perfectly legal, to a felony. It truly is as if it's not even the same country.

Tarn_Helm
02-11-2011, 2:50 PM
We need to win.

And the Green Bay Packers don't need the Special Olympics guys for 'special teams'.

Every corporation, organization, etc. tries to get its A-team together and not let it be affected by the low performers.

The poltico-legal knowledge of the "in-your-face UOCers" is very limited. They also have hurt things for the 'practcial UOCers' who occasionally use UOC as a limited attempt at a self-defense solution.

And yes, for every person who sees UOCers in person and "doesn't mind" or "gets the message", 1000X more see it on TV news and in newspapers where whatever positive message was conveyable has been warped out of existence.

Look, Gene and I and Kestryll and a ton of others here would like every decent person running around with the gun of their choice concealed or displayed, LOADED. That end can be gotten to by *not* UOCing en masse with bad PR. UOC is very likely to pass given the emotionalism- no matter who and what lobbysts do what , when - and carry a bunch of bad baggage as tacked onto the bill that screws LOTS OF OTHER GUNNIES IN CA.

En masse UOC would only be wise if the CA legislative situation were reversed, and that we lost some weak/antigun Republicans to boot.

+1

The rest of the post below is a response to the UOC advocates.

Maybe the point will be clearer with fewer words:

Getting laws passed for "firearm carry"--open or not--involves winning a popularity contest not a logic contest.

We cannot win the popularity contest by scaring people--even if they should not be scared to see a gun.

You cannot talk a person out of his emotions, out of how he feels.

You can only show respect for those feelings while diplomatically pleading for a different course of action justified by fact-based reassurances, careful legal reasoning and some judicious compromises.

Compromise= license and permit procedures for CCW (or LOC).

No compromise= demanding to carry anything and everything with or without a permit.

The latter sounds internet-macho and might even be constitutionally justifiable, but it can never succeed as an opening bid.

Aim for the attainable.

Advance incrementally toward the more desirable.

That is the only viable strategy.

If you cannot put yourself in the other guy's mind for as long as it takes to see his point of view, you should shut up because you are only hurting our cause.

And our cause involves winning a popularity contest with people who vote based on emotion not logic.

Discretion is not only the better part of valor it is the key to winning legislative battles and other popularity contests.

There.

I tried to be brief.

edsel6502
02-11-2011, 2:52 PM
+1

The rest of the post below is a response to the UOC advocates.

Maybe the point will be clearer with fewer words:

[SNIP]

Aim for the attainable.

Advance incrementally toward the more desirable.

That is the only viable strategy.

If you cannot put yourself in the other guy's mind for as long as it takes to see his point of view, you should shut up because you are only hurting our cause.

And our cause involves winning a popularity contest with people who vote based on emotion not logic.

Discretion is not only the better part of valor it is the key to winning legislative battles and other popularity contests.

There.

I tried to be brief.

Eloquently put.

Thank you.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-13-2011, 7:31 AM
Wait, so you saying "millions are positively affected by our UOC movements" is fine without proof or citation, and so is your dubious statement that the "media is now shifting to our side", but the fact that there are now actual laws being crafted to close the UOC "loophole" isn't a direct or obvious enough warning that UOCing politically has done nothing useful?

You're being pretty selective with your facts; if you're going to require them from anti-political-UOCers, why don't you provide your own?

The media backlash and negative responses are there in the news for you to see. The anti's laws are being proposed to cut out UOC specifically. Where is the positive response you speak of? How is this broad public action better than personally interacting with people in a way that can't be twisted by the media (e.g. range trips)?

Saying "We're going to do it anyway if you don't give us a better reason, so shut up and deal with it" (my paraphrase of how you ended that last paragraph) is hardly helpful. The reasons have been very clearly stated here by multiple people. Getting the legislature extra reason to move against UOC, which IS HAPPENING ALREADY, isn't helpful for anyone.


I see I should have been more clear. I'm not saying that the events ARE positively influencing millions. I compared the two approaches (one at a time vs. big-time media coverage) & opined that the bigger the numbers, the better the effect.

And on that, I say that politics is numbers. The more the better. I'm not against gunnies taking antis out to shoot. I think that's a great idea. But, as positive as that might be, its still not all that many people (someone above did the math).

Yes, the media is responding. Some still respond negatively. But not all. And its the fact that its not all that I do cite as proof that the events are having a positive effect.

Another positive effect is the fact that Saldana FAILED in her attempt to ban UOC. Do you seriously believe that this is not a change, a positive change, in the legal & political landscape? Not long ago her bill would have sailed through & been signed in a heartbeat. Yes, there's noise to ban the practice. Has it been introduced yet? Has it passed yet? Has Jerry said he'll sign it when it comes to his desk?

Finally, you shouldn't paraphrase when the actual words are easier to use. Its not honest. A response to what I actually said would have been. It would also have kept you on track to the point I was actually making.

As for me, I personally am standing down (though I am re-thinking that). But that's irrelevant. There are many others who aren't. So, reality is that the events are going to have to be dealt with. Calling for UOCers to just STFU & do as they're told (a paraphrase, true, but an accurate one, I think) & then crying & moaning when they don't is hardly an intelligent response. Its like being mad at the tide for wiping out your sand castle. Even if you got each & every Calgunner to stand down, the events would happen anyway. Which is the point I was making.

So, wail, moan, cry. Or, deal with something almost as inevitable as the tide. What do you think is the better response?


The Raisuli

xenophobe
02-13-2011, 10:17 AM
If they're UOCing to make a political statement, it's not a helpful one.

Sure, if they're doing it for self defense, go for it. But doing it to further gun awareness and politics isn't actually helping pro-gunners. It's riling up the antis for pretty much zero benefit and rather noticeable detriment (e.g., all these laws specifically crafted because they were UOCing).

Yeah, the person kicking the hornets' nest isn't actually directly harming anyone's rights, but pissing off hornets that go on to sting everyone else is hardly beneficial or well thought out behavior and definitely worth reprimanding. Yeah, we'll do our best to deal with the hornets while we're at it, because they're a bigger problem and the real end problem as well (which is what I assume you mean by "assigning the blame to where it's due"), but why not stop the silly kids from getting everyone into a bigger mess than we need to?

That's the problem: if anything, the ones continuing to UOC politically without any thought to the consequences are the ones who've splintered off from the rest of gun-owners. We want to pull the rug from under the antis with actually effective judicial rulings; annoying the antis into higher legislative activity is just wasted or even negative action, whether or not the UOCers are part of our "side."


^^^ I completely agree. And, QFT.


It seems rather sensible to retreat when "directly engaged" by Hoffmang...

Oh, it's kind fun debating him when you know you're right. That just doesn't happen so often. ;)

southernsnowshoe
02-13-2011, 12:57 PM
Another positive effect is the fact that Saldana FAILED in her attempt to ban UOC. Do you seriously believe that this is not a change, a positive change, in the legal & political landscape? Not long ago her bill would have sailed through & been signed in a heartbeat. Yes, there's noise to ban the practice. Has it been introduced yet? Has it passed yet? Has Jerry said he'll sign it when it comes to his desk?




The Raisuli

Saldana was sabotaged by her fellow democrats, they are not stupid and were fearful of losing ground last november, as it was their fears were unfounded as this state went completely contrary to the rest of the country and all common sense. I believe that this will embolden the democrats, if this comes to a vote, what do you think will prevent it's passing? A socialist state, run by corrupt unions who want liberals in power, only reinforces the comfort zone that the majority democrats need to operate in and dismantle the constitution piece by piece. This is where we are, where we live, to think any other way is to live in denial. Having said that you can hide in your living room, or carry your guns and DEMONSTRATE that the public has nothing to fear from law abiding citizens that UOC.

Librarian
02-13-2011, 1:52 PM
Having said that you can hide in your living room, or carry your guns and DEMONSTRATE that the public has nothing to fear from law abiding citizens that UOC.

Or, some idiot can call in a MWG and the local police can handle the incident badly and the anti-gun media can publish a story or TV piece seen by thousands who were not there, portraying a rational, calm, law-abiding gun carrier as a danger to the public.

Glock22Fan
02-13-2011, 2:10 PM
Having said that you can hide in your living room, or carry your guns and DEMONSTRATE that the public has nothing to fear from law abiding citizens that UOC.
Or, you can promote the thought "Phew, I was lucky today, I saw that idiot redneck carrying a gun - obviously up to no good as law abiding citizens don't need guns. Lucky I got away today before he went beserk, nothing actually happened, thank the Lord. But it will be different next time. Better call my representatives and make sure that people like that get locked up and have the key thrown away."

bwiese
02-13-2011, 5:29 PM
Saldana was sabotaged by her fellow democrats, they are not stupid and were fearful of losing ground last november, as it was their fears were unfounded as this state went completely contrary to the rest of the country and all common sense.


Oh pure baloney.

The reason AB1934 didn't pass last year was mostly due to illnesses - Pat Wiggins was drooling and inchoate from Alzheimers - they'd've had to wheel her in and have her aide push the vote button. Ginny Oropeza was also gravely ill and would have had to have been wheeled in on a gurney.

That won't happen this time around, which means unless an extraordinary push against the new carry bill is maintained by less compromised folks, and unless the UOC people [edited: stand down], it WILL pass.

Somehow the UOC people never looked at the scorecard up in the legislature before they went sideways in public.

I got a nastygram recently attacking me for having a 'different standard' on OLLs vs UOC. What that person didn't realize is, for OLL vs AW stuff, there was a huge body of regulation and court decisions that all mutually affected each other and would restrain negative outcomes. The only chance they'd've had would be to ban all semiauto sporting rifles and they don't have the votes for that because they don't want to fully upset the hunter/sportsmen crowd (i.e, the antis think they can keep them corralled away from the RKBA fundamentalists).

southernsnowshoe
02-13-2011, 7:34 PM
[QUOTE=bwiese;5809727]Oh pure baloney.

The reason AB1934 didn't pass last year was mostly due to illnesses - Pat Wiggins was drooling and inchoate from Alzheimers - they'd've had to wheel her in and have her aide push the vote button. Ginny Oropeza was also gravely ill and would have had to have been wheeled in on a gurney.

That won't happen this time around, which means unless an extraordinary push against the new carry bill is maintained by less compromised folks, and unless the UOC people [edited: stand down], it WILL pass.

[edited: stand down]? Really. Come on over for a beer friend.

southernsnowshoe
02-13-2011, 8:10 PM
Librarian,
I respect your position, but we are grown men on here. Express your opinions, thats fine, but insult me and we can settle it like grown men. next time anyone including you wiese can PM me.

Gray Peterson
02-13-2011, 8:19 PM
STFU? Really. Come on over for a beer friend.

Bill understands and interfaces with the folks in Sacramento a lot more than you have, and you have some serious anger management problems. You forget that telling someone to STFU doesn't give you license to kick someone's teeth in under California self defense law....

southernsnowshoe
02-13-2011, 8:38 PM
Bill understands and interfaces with the folks in Sacramento a lot more than you have, and you have some serious anger management problems. You forget that telling someone to STFU doesn't give you license to kick someone's teeth in under California self defense law....

So you think you can talk to people anyway you want? Thats how you live? I guess its easy to tell me to STFU when you are not standing in front of me. pathetic. all of this becouse a low level new member like myself would dare question the almighty powers that be on here.

hoffmang
02-13-2011, 9:12 PM
I am going to puke. We have to face reality? the reality is UOC's like me are the ones with balls enough to take a stand and not just talk about it, or let some lawyer talk about it for them. Can't speak for anyone else here, but all I want to do is create battles with anti-gunners...............and fight.
If you had "balls" then you would openly carry a loaded firearm (and turn in your CCW paperwork in something less than 6 months.)

Why do UOC'ers think the right is to carry an unloaded firearm? The right is to carry a loaded firearm. Even California law considers an unloaded firearm a bludgeon for the purposes of assault. If you UOC and you think you're taking a stand!!! you're amusing. Taking a stand is openly violating 12031, getting arrested and taking it like a man. However, I suggest you read King on the issue of lovingly accepting the punishment first (http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html).


If the people in Texas and Florida love their guns so much, then explain why they had been afraid to see them in the open in public.

It's not crazy or even bad public policy for a state to wish to encourage concealed carry. It saves the state listening to whining sheeple "man w/ a gun calls" and gives herd immunity as bad guys don't know which sheep is actually a lion.

I do believe LOC is probably an unprohibitable right under any original interpretation of the 2A, but I know we can't win that here. We have to win that somewhere else and reimport it.

-Gene

southernsnowshoe
02-13-2011, 9:20 PM
[QUOTE=hoffmang;5811348]If you had "balls" then you would openly carry a loaded firearm (and turn in your CCW paperwork in something less than 6 months.)

You are talking about an issue that you have zero knowledge of. I am dealing with the Sheriffs dept. on my own. No lawyers yet, becouse I make my living from the sweat of my brow, whereas a lawyer make his living off of the misery or others.

hoffmang
02-13-2011, 9:26 PM
If you had "balls" then you would openly carry a loaded firearm (and turn in your CCW paperwork in something less than 6 months.)

You are talking about an issue that you have zero knowledge of. I am dealing with the Sheriffs dept. on my own. No lawyers yet, becouse I make my living from the sweat of my brow, whereas a lawyer make his living off of the misery or others.

Submit the application. It does not take a lawyer to submit and get a denial. A denial helps you if later you have trouble when carrying your hunk of aluminum that looks like a firearm.

For all those who are interested in the PR battle, this is what forcing shall issue CCW creates on the PR front: http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=122914&catid=2

You have to watch the video.We can't pay to get the local newscasters talking about how CCW holders don't cause problems and their training makes them much safer. Just wow.

-Gene

kcbrown
02-13-2011, 9:36 PM
It's not crazy or even bad public policy for a state to wish to encourage concealed carry. It saves the state listening to whining sheeple "man w/ a gun calls" and gives herd immunity as bad guys don't know which sheep is actually a lion.


Tactical advantages of LOC vs CCW aside (and clearly, such tactical decisions really should be made by the guy carrying the gun, no?), a state that "loves its guns" as you claim Texas and Florida do does not put up with whining sheeple going :willy_nilly: and running off to mommy (er, the police) at the sight of a gun! Such people get laughed at in a state where people really love their guns, not taken seriously like you're suggesting.

Nice try. Try again.



I do believe LOC is probably an unprohibitable right under any original interpretation of the 2A, but I know we can't win that here. We have to win that somewhere else and reimport it.
I don't think it's even that. SCOTUS did reference Nunn as an authoritative source, after all. But if they take LOC off the table, they have to give us CCW.


Of course, "sensitive places" will probably largely do us in anyway...

southernsnowshoe
02-13-2011, 9:42 PM
Submit the application. It does not take a lawyer to submit and get a denial. A denial helps you if later you have trouble when carrying your hunk of aluminum that looks like a firearm.

For all those who are interested in the PR battle, this is what forcing shall issue CCW creates on the PR front: http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=122914&catid=2

You have to watch the video.We can't pay to get the local newscasters talking about how CCW holders don't cause problems and their training makes them much safer. Just wow.

-Gene

I carried concealed for years (geez gray peterson, that must violate some california law!) and frankly it is damned uncomfortable. UOC is comfortable, I have done it a total of at least 300 hours in public, with only one incident in Ramona at a Chevron station,the sheriff deputy saw me pumping gas turned his car around, asked me if it was loaded without exiting his vehicle. That was it. We all know UOC is going to get banned, it sucks, I don't really want to CCW. That's all there will be I guess.

trashman
02-13-2011, 9:47 PM
a state that "loves its guns" as you claim Texas and Florida do does not put up with whining sheeple going :willy_nilly: and running off to mommy (er, the police) at the sight of a gun! Such people get laughed at in a state where people really love their guns, not taken seriously like you're suggesting.

Nice try. Try again.


Have you spent much time in either of those states? I have, and I think you may be projecting some wishful thinking...

Those parts of the South have some serious non-Libertarian impulses embedded deep in their core and I promise you when the cops get a call of "man with a gun" they respond with plenty of taxpayer-funded urgency -- and they aren't laughing at the person that phoned the call in...

--Neill

kcbrown
02-13-2011, 9:56 PM
Have you spent much time in either of those states? I have, and I think you may be projecting some wishful thinking...

Those parts of the South have some serious non-Libertarian impulses embedded deep in their core and I promise you when the cops get a call of "man with a gun" they respond with plenty of taxpayer-funded urgency -- and they aren't laughing at the person that phoned the call in...


And that is entirely antithetical to a society that "loves its guns". You can't say that a society both loves something and panics at the sight of it all at the same time!

I grew up in Texas, for what that's worth. From what I've seen, as a whole, Texas does not "love its guns" -- and that's my point.


If you want to see a society that loves its guns, look at Arizona and Alaska. Someone calling all :willy_nilly: about a man with a gun would get laughed at there (actually, they'd almost certainly get asked some pointed questions about what the guy with the gun is actually doing, and then get schooled right then and there if the guy with the gun isn't acting in a threatening manner. But either way, the "man with a gun call" argument carries little weight in states that really love their guns).

kagekiri
02-13-2011, 10:16 PM
I see I should have been more clear. I'm not saying that the events ARE positively influencing millions. I compared the two approaches (one at a time vs. big-time media coverage) & opined that the bigger the numbers, the better the effect.

And on that, I say that politics is numbers. The more the better. I'm not against gunnies taking antis out to shoot. I think that's a great idea. But, as positive as that might be, its still not all that many people (someone above did the math).

Yes, the media is responding. Some still respond negatively. But not all. And its the fact that its not all that I do cite as proof that the events are having a positive effect.

Another positive effect is the fact that Saldana FAILED in her attempt to ban UOC. Do you seriously believe that this is not a change, a positive change, in the legal & political landscape? Not long ago her bill would have sailed through & been signed in a heartbeat. Yes, there's noise to ban the practice. Has it been introduced yet? Has it passed yet? Has Jerry said he'll sign it when it comes to his desk?

Finally, you shouldn't paraphrase when the actual words are easier to use. Its not honest. A response to what I actually said would have been. It would also have kept you on track to the point I was actually making.

As for me, I personally am standing down (though I am re-thinking that). But that's irrelevant. There are many others who aren't. So, reality is that the events are going to have to be dealt with. Calling for UOCers to just STFU & do as they're told (a paraphrase, true, but an accurate one, I think) & then crying & moaning when they don't is hardly an intelligent response. Its like being mad at the tide for wiping out your sand castle. Even if you got each & every Calgunner to stand down, the events would happen anyway. Which is the point I was making.

So, wail, moan, cry. Or, deal with something almost as inevitable as the tide. What do you think is the better response?


The Raisuli

My paraphrase for the last portion is because you're defending people as if they're mindless forces of nature (which you repeat again, here).

Attempting to reason with nature is stupid, but reasoning with other pro-gunners shouldn't be. They're not the tide, their actions don't have to be taken for granted. If they act stupidly, they deserve to be called out on it; anything less would be irresponsible as fellow citizens in this state. You may call that moaning, but I'd rather try to shame or anger them into further consideration of their actions and their actual efficacy than just sit down and shut up.

I know you were also suggesting making lemons into lemonade with UOC instead of "whining" about them (I guess reasoning on a board without direct interaction is a bit whiny, but hey, what are forums for?), which is a nice notion, but I really don't see any positive way to spin it. It's just a costly distraction for real efforts to crush the bad Cali laws.

Real "evangelizing" happens most often if you know the person or several people who hold the beliefs and respect their character and behavior. A friend's recommendation is way more impacting than hearing what some guy is shouting in the streets in an obvious political fashion. That's why the range trip idea makes more sense to me; it's how I've seen other people's beliefs changed.

Otherwise, you get what you see in response to those UOC articles as reported in the media: people just standing on their sides, the same sides they'd chosen long prior to the event. I don't see things like "Wow, never thought of it that way, I guess I should support gun rights!" You just get polarization and the most committed veterans on each side sniping at each other with old arguments and the occasional ad hominem attack.

Hunt
02-13-2011, 11:13 PM
...

UOC is a light and transient cause. It is an abomination and it is not a civil right. The problem is, of course, is that the process of banning UOC will cause is problems with other forms of gun transportation.

yes indeed, permits to transport, classes to transport, licenses to transport and if done with California style every minor variation from the prescribed regulations will become a felony. How about transporting your firearm to the range and you make one minor error (stop to gas up the car) and end up with 5 felony charges. Don't think so? This is how it is in HI right now, CA antis would love this.

Hunt
02-13-2011, 11:21 PM
... a society that "loves its guns"...

I have seen videos of NH Freestaters protesting MJ laws in the jail lobby smoking pot while open carrying in the lobby of the jail. Cops came out and just told them to leave. This CA mentality is beyond any common sense, it's a brainwashing program to turn the masses into managable livestock, nothing but a giant tax farm for the pigs in Sacramento.

Hunt
02-13-2011, 11:32 PM
... it is presumed on the part of local law enforcement that we have been somehow doing something wrong and we are treated like criminals and presumed guilty untill proven innocent... I have $30,000 to $40,000 cash on me at any given time...

In CA you are guilty until you can prove your innocence, regardless of the attorney rhetoric you will find on this website. snowshoe be very careful having that much cash on hand, asset forfieture laws allow the cops to take the money and you have to prove you are not a drug dealer to get the money back.

Gray Peterson
02-14-2011, 12:40 AM
I carried concealed for years (geez gray peterson, that must violate some california law!) and frankly it is damned uncomfortable. UOC is comfortable, I have done it a total of at least 300 hours in public, with only one incident in Ramona at a Chevron station,the sheriff deputy saw me pumping gas turned his car around, asked me if it was loaded without exiting his vehicle. That was it. We all know UOC is going to get banned, it sucks, I don't really want to CCW. That's all there will be I guess.

Then you were using the wrong kind of gun or the wrong kind of carry method. If you were carrying unlawfully in California, then I have no sympathy for you if or when you are arrested, because you didn't take the actual time to apply for a carry license to have some form of shielding yourself, nor were you statutorily ineligible to acquire a license due to your non-residency. I have more sympathy for Jim Phillips, the Nevada jazz musician who shot a thug in self defense, said thug invading a restaurant and beating people up, than for you.

Not to mention, you threaten people with violence when they disagree with you. Everything that is wrong with the UOC movement, I can sum it up with you as a particular example as you act like a violent thug who is more obsessed with fighting "law enforcement" than actually winning.

Gray Peterson
02-14-2011, 1:06 AM
yes indeed, permits to transport, classes to transport, licenses to transport and if done with California style every minor variation from the prescribed regulations will become a felony. How about transporting your firearm to the range and you make one minor error (stop to gas up the car) and end up with 5 felony charges. Don't think so? This is how it is in HI right now, CA antis would love this.

As disagreeable as this is, I don't think it'll get to the Hawaii level in California. There still will be transportation challenges that'll occur from UOC's ban.

kcbrown
02-14-2011, 2:14 AM
As disagreeable as this is, I don't think it'll get to the Hawaii level in California. There still will be transportation challenges that'll occur from UOC's ban.

Why do you believe it won't get this bad here?

A law that requires a permit in order for you to transport your firearm? How will that not pass muster at SCOTUS? The state can make the same argument for that as it can for just about any kind of permit: it's there to ensure that the permit holder knows the law.

southernsnowshoe
02-14-2011, 5:29 AM
Then you were using the wrong kind of gun or the wrong kind of carry method. If you were carrying unlawfully in California, then I have no sympathy for you if or when you are arrested, because you didn't take the actual time to apply for a carry license to have some form of shielding yourself, nor were you statutorily ineligible to acquire a license due to your non-residency. I have more sympathy for Jim Phillips, the Nevada jazz musician who shot a thug in self defense, said thug invading a restaurant and beating people up, than for you.

Not to mention, you threaten people with violence when they disagree with you. Everything that is wrong with the UOC movement, I can sum it up with you as a particular example as you act like a violent thug who is more obsessed with fighting "law enforcement" than actually winning.



First off the 2nd amendment is my CCW. Second, you don't see the difference between discussing your opinions and telling someone to STFU?
I don't need to threaten anyone, I will go toe to toe with anyone that wants to throw around personal insults like that, not a threat, an invitation.

southernsnowshoe
02-14-2011, 5:56 AM
yes indeed, permits to transport, classes to transport, licenses to transport and if done with California style every minor variation from the prescribed regulations will become a felony. How about transporting your firearm to the range and you make one minor error (stop to gas up the car) and end up with 5 felony charges. Don't think so? This is how it is in HI right now, CA antis would love this.




So I am curious............when is Hoffman, Peterson, Wiese etc. going to come out and berate gun owners for carrying guns in their vehicle? that's bad too right? Somebody could make the news with, heaven forbid a gun in their car.somebody could try to pass a law. Make's as much sense as hating on UOC.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-14-2011, 5:59 AM
My paraphrase for the last portion is because you're defending people as if they're mindless forces of nature (which you repeat again, here).

Attempting to reason with nature is stupid, but reasoning with other pro-gunners shouldn't be. They're not the tide, their actions don't have to be taken for granted. If they act stupidly, they deserve to be called out on it; anything less would be irresponsible as fellow citizens in this state. You may call that moaning, but I'd rather try to shame or anger them into further consideration of their actions and their actual efficacy than just sit down and shut up.


I agree that it shouldn't be like arguing with nature, but it nearly is just that difficult to argue with True Believers. Further, directing insults (shame/anger) at them only makes it worse. That's not the approach you use when you try to change the mind of an anti. Why do you think it'll work on a UOCer?


I know you were also suggesting making lemons into lemonade with UOC instead of "whining" about them (I guess reasoning on a board without direct interaction is a bit whiny, but hey, what are forums for?), which is a nice notion, but I really don't see any positive way to spin it. It's just a costly distraction for real efforts to crush the bad Cali laws.


A: I do see ways to spin it. More, I see lemonade being made. B: Given the 'force of nature' aspect, figuring out how to make lemonade is a better approach than cursing this particular 'tide.'


Real "evangelizing" happens most often if you know the person or several people who hold the beliefs and respect their character and behavior. A friend's recommendation is way more impacting than hearing what some guy is shouting in the streets in an obvious political fashion. That's why the range trip idea makes more sense to me; it's how I've seen other people's beliefs changed.


Again, I totally agree with your approach. I just don't see it as the ONLY approach. Because sometimes the guy obviously expressing his POV in the street DOES change minds.


Otherwise, you get what you see in response to those UOC articles as reported in the media: people just standing on their sides, the same sides they'd chosen long prior to the event. I don't see things like "Wow, never thought of it that way, I guess I should support gun rights!" You just get polarization and the most committed veterans on each side sniping at each other with old arguments and the occasional ad hominem attack.


That's not been my experience. Nor is that what we see in the media lately. The attitude there HAS changed. The clip that Gene linked to wasn't something that we could have expected a few years ago. Now, I'm not going to claim that the events are entirely responsible for that. But neither am I going to accept the claim that the events should get zero credit for that change either.

Finally, yes, the veterans on each side do tend to snipe & insult. But the war isn't for the veterans of either side. Its for the middle.


The Raisuli

Glock22Fan
02-14-2011, 7:40 AM
First off the 2nd amendment is my CCW.

Just proving that you really, really don't know what's what here in California - either that or you don't care.

Second, you don't see the difference between discussing your opinions and telling someone to STFU?
I don't need to threaten anyone, I will go toe to toe with anyone that wants to throw around personal insults like that, not a threat, an invitation.

Very adult behavior. The fact that you are, apparently, big and strong doesn't solve anything. Your willingness to fight is a big no-no for someone who wants to carry a firearm.



So I am curious............when is Hoffman, Peterson, Wiese etc. going to come out and berate gun owners for carrying guns in their vehicle? that's bad too right?

No it isn't, because your typical soccer mom doesn't see your gun in a vehicle, doesn't worry about her kids being next to your gun in Starbucks or Walmart and doesn't recognize you as a threat.

Somebody could make the news with, heaven forbid a gun in their car.somebody could try to pass a law. Make's as much sense as hating on UOC.

This is why some of us are so tired of debate with you guys. You just have absolutely no ability to read the biased media reports of MWG calls and relate those to the antics of politicians trying to ban the practice. This isn't theoretical, like your example, it is real, and happened last year, and is happening again this year.



My comments in bold.

southernsnowshoe
02-14-2011, 8:33 AM
Glock22Fan,
I agree with you about how pointless this debate is.

Librarian
02-14-2011, 10:57 AM
Glock22Fan,
I agree with you about how pointless this debate is.

And on that note, we're done here.