PDA

View Full Version : Would a UOC ban ultimately be beneficial?


ChuckBooty
04-07-2011, 2:28 PM
Heller defined the second amendment as the right to keep and BEAR arms for self defense, McDonald applied that ruling to the states. So this would ultimately leave two options for California: LOC or CCW. It seems to me that allowing the legislature to ban UOC would eventually back them into a corner and allow Arizona style CCW here in California.

Thoughts?

wash
04-07-2011, 2:38 PM
We want both CCW and LOC. Getting UOC banned may potentially make getting LOC harder. I doubt it would help with CCW so I will not support any UOC ban unless the right people explain to me how it would help. So far I haven't heard anything like that from them.

I would like to say that until the CCW and OC situation gets resolved in our favor, UOC is a bad idea in urban areas, try LUCC instead for less drama and the element of surprise.

Knight_Who_Says_Ni
04-07-2011, 2:39 PM
We want both CCW and LOC. Getting UOC banned may potentially make getting LOC harder. I doubt it would help with CCW so I will not support any UOC ban unless the right people explain to me how it would help. So far I haven't heard anything like that from them.

I would like to say that until the CCW and OC situation gets resolved in our favor, UOC is a bad idea in urban areas, try LUCC instead for less drama and the element of surprise.

+1!

Until Oaklander or Gene explain how it would be beneficial, a ban looks bad in my eyes.

m1aowner
04-07-2011, 2:39 PM
I don't know. Ask the ones that UOC. They know everything.

taperxz
04-07-2011, 2:59 PM
CGF has made it clear that giving up a right to get a right is a bad idea. We need to keep what we have a go from there, forward. In a legal sense it may back the politicos into a corner, but we should never ever give up a right for the sake of getting another right.

Quser.619
04-07-2011, 3:00 PM
I don't know. Ask the ones that UOC. They know everything.

This :D

wildhawker
04-07-2011, 3:02 PM
How many times do we need to say that banning UOC is a *bad thing*, period?

Please, let's everyone stop with the "if they ban UOC they'll HAVE to allow CCW/LOC". They HAVE to allow at least 1 manner of carry, period. Losing UOC just means more to clean up later in re 1A and 2A transport, etc.

-Brandon

The Shadow
04-07-2011, 3:05 PM
We want both CCW and LOC. Getting UOC banned may potentially make getting LOC harder. I doubt it would help with CCW so I will not support any UOC ban unless the right people explain to me how it would help. So far I haven't heard anything like that from them.

I would like to say that until the CCW and OC situation gets resolved in our favor, UOC is a bad idea in urban areas, try LUCC instead for less drama and the element of surprise.

LUCC isn't even a viable solution to quell the UOC drama. If the gun is locked in your bag, you are as disarmed as if you had no firearm at all. About the only good thing is if an armed individual has his or her attention on someone else, and you are able to retrieve your firearm then. But if you are the focus of a criminal's attention, you're screwed, unless you can get away and hide from the criminal until you unlock, retrieve, and load your firearm before a criminal gets to you. In that case, you might as well run away, because sticking around and shooting it out with the bad guy would be stupid, and you'd be hard pressed trying to justify shooting the bad guy when you put yourself back into the fight.

Bottom line is, you can eventually protect others with your LUCC gun, but you can't protect yourself.

MasterYong
04-07-2011, 3:07 PM
This should be a poll.

And NO, it would not be beneficial.

I don't believe in the ends justifying the means in any circumstance. There's always unintended collateral damage.

CalBear
04-07-2011, 3:24 PM
Banning UOC is a *terrible* idea, and I will never support it. I will continue to support all forms of carry.

The UOC "problem" has been entirely invented by the anti gun people. They've taken something that is entirely a non-issue to public safety, and they've made it into one. They claim banning UOC will free up police resources. Well for one, there really aren't that many police resources being used in the first place, because these UOC incidents are few and far between. Second, these incidents shouldn't even be in the first place. If they'd stop doing these ridiculous "gotcha" unloaded / ID checks, UOC would draw ZERO police resources.

UOC has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with irresponsible police departments, and nagging citizens who cannot sleep at night knowing guns are "out of sight, out of mind."

wash
04-07-2011, 3:27 PM
LUCC isn't even a viable solution to quell the UOC drama. If the gun is locked in your bag, you are as disarmed as if you had no firearm at all. About the only good thing is if an armed individual has his or her attention on someone else, and you are able to retrieve your firearm then. But if you are the focus of a criminal's attention, you're screwed, unless you can get away and hide from the criminal until you unlock, retrieve, and load your firearm before a criminal gets to you. In that case, you might as well run away, because sticking around and shooting it out with the bad guy would be stupid, and you'd be hard pressed trying to justify shooting the bad guy when you put yourself back into the fight.

Bottom line is, you can eventually protect others with your LUCC gun, but you can't protect yourself.
An unloaded gun on your hip doesn't help you much either, it just opens you up to e-checks and soccer moms calling in "man with a gun" complaints to the police.

The drama I want to avoid is UOCers that get in trouble and make us all look bad.

Without a loaded gun, any security you feel from carrying is imagined. That is why no permit LOC and shall issue CCW are such important rights to secure.

Don't sabotage LOC with UOC.

Dexster
04-07-2011, 3:39 PM
An unloaded gun on your hip doesn't help you much either, it just opens you up to e-checks and soccer moms calling in "man with a gun" complaints to the police.

The drama I want to avoid is UOCers that get in trouble and make us all look bad.

Without a loaded gun, any security you feel from carrying is imagined. That is why no permit LOC and shall issue CCW are such important rights to secure.

Don't sabotage LOC with UOC.

Well said, I am glad that people excerise the right, thats good but if offered a solution to CCW over UOC and someone decides to UOC it shows that they are more interested in the attention then they are in the protection.

Wherryj
04-07-2011, 4:03 PM
+1!

Until Oaklander or Gene explain how it would be beneficial, a ban looks bad in my eyes.

I would agree. Losing rights is never a good thing, even if losing them comes with an unintended "silver lining".

CitaDeL
04-07-2011, 4:38 PM
Heller defined the second amendment as the right to keep and BEAR arms for self defense, McDonald applied that ruling to the states. So this would ultimately leave two options for California: LOC or CCW. It seems to me that allowing the legislature to ban UOC would eventually back them into a corner and allow Arizona style CCW here in California.

Thoughts?

Bans of any kind are bad. Whether or not there is a possibility of side effects is irrelevant because liberty is being restrained. Everyone should be contacting the state assembly public safety committee to urge them to put a stop to AB144, post haste.

I don't know. Ask the ones that UOC. They know everything.

Heh. Sarcasm. Something else I know about.

pitchbaby
04-07-2011, 4:38 PM
Losing any right is not a benefit... Having said that, I often wonder what difference it makes since I would never want to UOC in any of the places where I would actually feel I need to have a weapon with me to protect myself. I would hate to be wearing a BULLSEYE in the middle of a war zone. So, what does even having UOC gain us from a practical perspective besides being a base right? Not much in my opinion. Still, I don't want to see it go cause I am a patriot. Can you tell I'm conflicted?!?!?!

The Shadow
04-07-2011, 10:40 PM
An unloaded gun on your hip doesn't help you much either, it just opens you up to e-checks and soccer moms calling in "man with a gun" complaints to the police.

The drama I want to avoid is UOCers that get in trouble and make us all look bad.

Without a loaded gun, any security you feel from carrying is imagined. That is why no permit LOC and shall issue CCW are such important rights to secure.

Don't sabotage LOC with UOC.

I'm not in favor of any carry other than LOC and CCW. But my point in making my post is simply that, carrying a firearm, and having it within inches of you, but not being able to draw an fire it in self defense, pretty much makes it worthless. UOC is only slightly better, but still, you have to take that first step an load, then chamber and fire a round. While some guys with a lot of practice can do it in under three seconds, it still delays being able to fire a round in self defense enough, to where it seems problematic to me. What I find interesting is that on the one hand, 12031 says that a firearm is loaded when a round is in a position to which it can be fired. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there, it includes having a loaded magazine in the mag well or a round in the cylinder of a revolver, or in the case of rifles and shotguns, in the ammunition tube. Thank you Bob Mulford and Ronald Reagan.

rugershooter
04-07-2011, 11:53 PM
Banning UOC is a *terrible* idea, and I will never support it. I will continue to support all forms of carry.

The UOC "problem" has been entirely invented by the anti gun people. They've taken something that is entirely a non-issue to public safety, and they've made it into one. They claim banning UOC will free up police resources. Well for one, there really aren't that many police resources being used in the first place, because these UOC incidents are few and far between. Second, these incidents shouldn't even be in the first place. If they'd stop doing these ridiculous "gotcha" unloaded / ID checks, UOC would draw ZERO police resources.

UOC has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with irresponsible police departments, and nagging citizens who cannot sleep at night knowing guns are "out of sight, out of mind."


Just yesterday I encountered an SD County Sheriff's Deputy while UOC'ing. He was on patrol in the area while I was walking home. We exchanged greetings and went our separate ways. I saw his eyes drop to my handgun but he never mentioned one word about it. Not every UOC citizen/police encounter has to be bad; if UOC'ers are using up police resources while they do (e) checks, it's the fault of the police, not us.



Well said, I am glad that people excerise the right, thats good but if offered a solution to CCW over UOC and someone decides to UOC it shows that they are more interested in the attention then they are in the protection.

I agree, but only as far as loaded vs. unloaded carry goes. If people have the option to carry a loaded gun it's just plain stupid to opt to carry an unloaded one. In that case, it's painfully obvious that people are only doing it to get attention (good or bad). However, if we had LOC I'd use that method 80% of the time rather than CC. For me it's simply more comfortable.

nicki
04-08-2011, 2:53 AM
The UOC ban would happen in a Pre Heller/MacDonald world in a heartbeat and it would be a VERY BAD THING.

However, the unintended consequences of a UOC ban will be something the sponsors of the bill never saw coming.

The issue with UOC becomes more than just a 2nd amendment issue.
Now I am not a lawyer, so I am doing the spaghetti legal test.
I will throw out stuff, not all is good, but something will stick.

Let's start with the Open Carry issue itself.

The UOC gatherings are effectively "Political Statements", as such, they may be just as protected as things such as "flag burning" or "protesting outside of war hero veteran funerals".

Any lawsuit against the UOC ban probably will include both 1st and 2 amendment causes of action.

If we are challenging a UOC ban, might as well throw in the Mulford Act too as well as the school zone.

Of course what was the real purpose of the "Mulford Act"? Well, it was to disarm those "Black Panthers" going around with loaded guns.

Now according to Bobby Seale, the Black Panthers originally started just observing the police and documenting arrests with pictures and audio.

Of course the Police didn't like that, so they attacked the people who were trying to observe the police. Well Bobby Seale was going through law school at the time and he figured out that they could carry loaded arms, as long as they were in plain view.

Guess they figured back then that their "Good Cause" statements for a CCW probably wouldn't go over too well.

Ex. I request a permit for self defense from armed racist police who may attempt to violate my rights under color of law.

So the Mulford Act was passed to protect racist police engaged in civil rights abuses.

Now of course let's look at our State Attorney General. Do you think that a Black Attorney General will have a problem with a case where she has to defend a blantantly racist law?

She will have to argue that the Black Panthers had NO JUSTICATION for carrying arms, that they were a public menace.

What has been the core argument the counties are using as a defense in both the Richards case and the Peruta case:rolleyes:

Why, the sheriffs CCW policies are constitutional because the plantiff can openly carry.

The issue of open carrying a "functional arm" ie "loaded" was something that was danced around.

If UOC is banned, the right to bear arms in any manner is gone. What if a Judge on a CCW case says the following:

The ccw laws and the ban on open carry have stripped Californians of their right to bear arms. The state's law violates the 2nd, 9th and 14th amendment rights of all Californians.

Gives us Arizona carry.

The next Supreme Court gun case could be a gun case and if it is, Justice Thomas may be writing it.

Common sense and intelligence would say, don't do any gun legislation till we get some case law and guidance from the courts.

All I figure is they are banking on the lower Fed courts ignoring the 2nd and by the time a case gets to the SCOTUS, the court majority will flip and Heller and MacDonald will be overturned.

Of course, if we have the SCOTUS 5 and they get cases from California, they will put the hammer down.

Maybe after all is done, they don't care wheter they lose, all they want to say is they tried.

Nicki

goodlookin1
04-08-2011, 7:44 AM
From a 2A standpoint, UOC ban is bad. You should be able to carry in any form you want to.

But I still firmly believe that from an overall carry standpoint, it would help us get shall-issue CCW, which is a much more practical (and tactically better) form of carry. If all people who wanted to carry could easily get a CCW, then there would be no point of UOC. Who would want to carry openly and unloaded, only to get harassed by LEO and take extra precious seconds to load should you need to use it? It's pointless and impractical from a tactical standpoint.

A gun is a tool: If it's rendered useless or inoperable in the split seconds that it's needed, what the F is the point? Looking cool? Feeling like a bada**? Please. I haven't time for such charades.

Of course, since that may be the only form of legal carry for you as of right now, then yeah....go ahead and do it and exercise your right privilege. But since it's going to come down to one or the other in this sad state, then CCW makes soooo much more sense. Why fight for pointless carry? I'd rather fight for a useful right than a worth-less right, which **may** cause issues in obtaining the more useful form of carry (CCW). Once the useful right has been established, then go for the pointless one if you really feel the need to.

JMHO

Window_Seat
04-08-2011, 8:08 AM
An unloaded gun on your hip doesn't help you much either, it just opens you up to e-checks and soccer moms calling in "man with a gun" complaints to the police.

The drama I want to avoid is UOCers that get in trouble and make us all look bad.

Without a loaded gun, any security you feel from carrying is imagined. That is why no permit LOC and shall issue CCW are such important rights to secure.

Don't sabotage LOC with UOC.

Agreed... to an extent... Soccer moms are still calling in to this day, and LEAs are still responding because of their department policies.

The OC movement has been going for several years now, and UOC has become (in some areas/cases) a 6:00/10:00 news topic, so it's already known that UOC is legal, they've seen the "look and attire" of the average UOCer, and are STILL calling in with MWAGs to LEAs, and LEOs are STILL responding to do (e) checks.

There's something wrong with this picture, especially when in other states (with large metro areas) have LEOs who can decipher between a LAC carrying LOC, and a lawless gang thug carrying CCW, but here in the PRK, they use the excuse of "we don't know who you are, so we have to treat you as if you are this/that..." :rolleyes:

It's important to stop and remember who UOCs, and who doesn't.

HST, any legislation that furthers a right for any group (like AB-610 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=412633)) needs to be supported, and any bill that attempts to strip a right is a bad thing no matter how you look at it.

Erik.

HowardW56
04-08-2011, 8:10 AM
I don't know. Ask the ones that UOC. They know everything.

:rofl2:

Goosebrown
04-08-2011, 8:20 AM
I think it will remove the rational that we don't need shall issue. If you can't have either, you are in violation of the newest interpretation (the correct interpretation) of the constitution. If it passes then the next time we sue for CCW, it is going to be really hard for a judge to say you don't need a CCW because you have UOC... oh... wait.. you don't have UOC...

dantodd
04-08-2011, 8:59 AM
I think it will remove the rational that we don't need shall issue. If you can't have either, you are in violation of the newest interpretation (the correct interpretation) of the constitution. If it passes then the next time we sue for CCW, it is going to be really hard for a judge to say you don't need a CCW because you have UOC... oh... wait.. you don't have UOC...

UOC does not meet the Heller test for a protected 2A exercise. Therefore; it is an inadequate alternative to carrying an ACTUAL FUNCTIONING firearm for self-defense in the event of violent confrontation. The Peruta judge simply got that part wrong.

Anti-UOC laws violate your 1A right and are not a direct impingement of 2A rights because UOC isn't a direct exercise of the 2A.

Since UOC does involve an "arm" there is an exercise, to a limited degree, of 2A but it is NOT the core right protected by Heller. As Brandon said there are some direct implications due to transport etc.

Don't be fooled into thinking that UOC is an exercise of the rights guaranteed in Heller, those right are much more expansive than UOC.

wildhawker
04-08-2011, 9:17 AM
I think it will remove the rational that we don't need shall issue. If you can't have either, you are in violation of the newest interpretation (the correct interpretation) of the constitution. If it passes then the next time we sue for CCW, it is going to be really hard for a judge to say you don't need a CCW because you have UOC... oh... wait.. you don't have UOC...

In addition to what Dan said, I want to clear the air here: there's not going to be any more 'core' "bear" cases, but simply follow-on cases for peripheral issues such as fees, due process, etc. Anyone who believes that UOC (or a ban thereof) is somehow related to the real constitutional questions has not read Alan's MSJ, P&As and briefs for Richards (or any other case, for that matter).

Uxi
04-08-2011, 9:21 AM
Banning UOC is a *terrible* idea, and I will never support it. I will continue to support all forms of carry.

The UOC "problem" has been entirely invented by the anti gun people. They've taken something that is entirely a non-issue to public safety, and they've made it into one. They claim banning UOC will free up police resources. Well for one, there really aren't that many police resources being used in the first place, because these UOC incidents are few and far between. Second, these incidents shouldn't even be in the first place. If they'd stop doing these ridiculous "gotcha" unloaded / ID checks, UOC would draw ZERO police resources.

UOC has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with irresponsible police departments, and nagging citizens who cannot sleep at night knowing guns are "out of sight, out of mind."


Right. Well said. Dispatchers and 911 operators need to be trained on how to properly handle a "man with a gun" call and respond appopriately. "Oh it's hostered? Well he has a right to bear arms. Has he taken it out or pointed it at anything?"

SgtDinosaur
04-08-2011, 9:51 AM
Just because I would never dream of LOCing doesn't mean I don't mind giving up my right to do so. For so many years we have been giving in, compromising and getting rolled over that my attitude is "not one more inch". And I want all the rights they've taken away back, too. This nonsense has gone on far too long. I'm behind CGF and the others working to restore our rights 100%.

scarville
04-08-2011, 9:57 AM
Be careful you do not let your opponents get you asking the wrong questions.

IANAL, but it seems to me the protected right is to keep and bear a functional firearm. An unloaded gun is missing an essential component of the system and is, therefore, no more functional than a car with an empty fuel tank or a cell phone with a dead battery. Given that, UOC is simply not a Second Amendment issue.

The proposed UOC bans are blantantly aimed at First Amendment rights and even the ACLU might have an issue with that.

AaronHorrocks
04-08-2011, 10:30 AM
How many times do we need to say that banning UOC is a *bad thing*, period?

Please, let's everyone stop with the "if they ban UOC they'll HAVE to allow CCW/LOC". They HAVE to allow at least 1 manner of carry, period. Losing UOC just means more to clean up later in re 1A and 2A transport, etc.

-Brandon

They don't "allow" us anything. It's our right. The power of the government comes from we the people. The government is not made of upper class social elites that allow us to do this and that. I for one, am a free man.


An unloaded gun on your hip doesn't help you much either, it just opens you up to e-checks and soccer moms calling in "man with a gun" complaints to the police.

The drama I want to avoid is UOCers that get in trouble and make us all look bad.

Without a loaded gun, any security you feel from carrying is imagined. That is why no permit LOC and shall issue CCW are such important rights to secure.

Don't sabotage LOC with UOC.

I'm still alive. I'm still breathing. I'm still here. My vary existance is in contrary to your statement. First off, I'm freaking here. That's helping me very much. Secondly the security I feel from carrying is real, not imagined. With a loaded mag in my left pocket of my 5.11 tactical pants, I can lock and load in under one second. Furthermore, the vary fact that I started to carry a gun case around (empty or not) prevented further attacks and assaults.

Being an adult male in fear for my life is one thing, but it only gives me a hint of what it would feel like to be a defenseless little woman weighing in at under 100 pounds, if she needed to defend herself from some similar creep.

Many people on this forum keep talking about hypotheticals, while some of us have actually lived it. Listen to us, and learn from us.
I'm not about to stop UOC because you tell me, to put my life in jeopardy again, just because you want LOC again sometime in the future.

MudCamper
04-08-2011, 10:35 AM
Everyone always forgets about rural UOC.

I ALWAYS UOC when I am in the National Forest or BLM. This bill would ban this.

This is VERY BAD.

OleCuss
04-08-2011, 10:39 AM
Yeah, I don't know why the ACLU is not all over the attempt to ban UOC. Clearly a 1st Amendment situation.

I don't even want the 2nd Amendment associated with UOC - no offense intended to UOCers, but the 2A protected right is to keep and bear a functional as opposed to a non-functional weapon. The fact that an unloaded firearm may be quickly loaded and become a functional firearm does not alter the fact that it is not a functional firearm when one is UOC'ing.

UOC is a 1A issue. Properly speaking, maybe it should not even be discussed on this forum, but the UOCers are my brothers and sisters and UOC should be viewed as a protected speech protest against the violations of our RKBA - so I do not object.

But IMHO, the mix of 1A and 2A means that whatever is chosen by our state government (LOC or CCW), they will eventually have to allow both CCW and LOC.

moleculo
04-08-2011, 10:47 AM
Everyone always forgets about rural UOC.

I ALWAYS UOC when I am in the National Forest or BLM. This bill would ban this.

This is VERY BAD.

I always LOC in the National Forest or BLM. I'm always hunting for something and I always have my hunting license with me. :D

wildhawker
04-08-2011, 10:48 AM
Secondly the security I feel from carrying is real, not imagined. With a loaded mag in my left pocket of my 5.11 tactical pants, I can lock and load in under one second.

Do you agree with the Peruta decision? From the substance of your post, it appears you already perceive yourself to have a functional-enough weapon.

As a practical matter, should the need for self-defense arise, nothing in section 12031 restricts the open carry of unloaded firearms and ammunition ready for instant loading. See Cal. Penal Code § 12031(g).

Furthermore, the vary fact that I started to carry a gun case around (empty or not) prevented further attacks and assaults.

This implies that a) there were previous "attacks and assaults", and b) you have dispositive evidence which indicates your carry of a gun case was directly related to the prevention of "further attacks and assaults".

goober
04-08-2011, 10:59 AM
...With a loaded mag in my left pocket of my 5.11 tactical pants, I can lock and load in under one second.
really?

no... really?

Furthermore, the vary fact that I started to carry a gun case around (empty or not) prevented further attacks and assaults.
you need some basic instruction in logic.


regardless, i will add my voice to those that are saying

A UOC BAN IS A BAD THING. WE DO NOT WANT IT, AND SHOULD FIGHT THIS BILL.

uyoga
04-08-2011, 11:10 AM
I can not help but wonder what the District Court’s Opinion would have read like, if Judge Gonzalez had not had ”UOC” to fall back on.

MudCamper
04-08-2011, 11:14 AM
I always LOC in the National Forest or BLM. I'm always hunting for something and I always have my hunting license with me. :D

Well as a hunter, 12027(g) allows you to carry concealed. But I am not a hunter so I can't use that. Besides, I don't want to get tangled up in some DFG code, like lead ammo or something.

I LOC when I can (hiking off road or in my own campsite) but the reality is I end up in "prohibited areas" much of the time (mostly roads) and UOC is the only game in town.

OleCuss
04-08-2011, 11:15 AM
I can not help but wonder what the District Court’s Opinion would have read like, if Judge Gonzalez had not had ”UOC” to fall back on.

Maybe Peruta would have won? But as it is, the judgment is erroneous and will go through appeals and the outcome should eventually be the same as it would have been if Judge Gonzalez had not ruled incorrectly.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 11:39 AM
Agreed... to an extent... Soccer moms are still calling in to this day, and LEAs are still responding because of their department policies.

Soccer Moms: euphemism for Brady Campaign members, an extreme minority group of sociopaths who control CA.gov and will never be appeased before they achieve a criminals' utopia, wherein all the law-abiding are defenseless, dead, in prison, or have fled the state. Misogynistically implies women wish harm upon their own children by disarming good people and making criminals safe.

The OC movement has been going for several years now, and UOC has become (in some areas/cases) a 6:00/10:00 news topic, so it's already known that UOC is legal, they've seen the "look and attire" of the average UOCer, and are STILL calling in with MWAGs to LEAs, and LEOs are STILL responding to do (e) checks.

There's something wrong with this picture, especially when in other states (with large metro areas) have LEOs who can decipher between a LAC carrying LOC, and a lawless gang thug carrying CCW, but here in the PRK, they use the excuse of "we don't know who you are, so we have to treat you as if you are this/that..." :rolleyes:


Right. Well said. Dispatchers and 911 operators need to be trained on how to properly handle a "man with a gun" call and respond appopriately. "Oh it's hostered? Well he has a right to bear arms. Has he taken it out or pointed it at anything?"

Department policies are more and more involving training dispatchers on how to screen out UOC calls from the MWAGCAVC (man with a gun committing a violent crime) ones and the LEOs on how not to violate civil rights by actually observing the "suspect" before they "prone them out" and prepare to take "two weeks off" (:gura: East Palo Alto PD) -
a lot of the time they just eyeball and don't even e-check, let alone run serial numbers, force production of ID/DL, etc... we rarely see audio/video-backed complaints from UOCers anymore. Progress has been made.

If LEOs were STILL doing e checks at exactly the same rate as before (which I don't believe they are, good on them), it would be because the "soccer moms" are STILL committing crimes: abusing the 911 system and false reporting law-abiding gun owners as violent criminals.

Gray Peterson
04-08-2011, 11:45 AM
it won't work. Even in jurisdictions where there's completely functional bans, carry bans and such have been upheld (see my case in Denver).

A UOC ban is not helpful.

rugershooter
04-08-2011, 12:06 PM
From a 2A standpoint, UOC ban is bad. You should be able to carry in any form you want to.

But I still firmly believe that from an overall carry standpoint, it would help us get shall-issue CCW, which is a much more practical (and tactically better) form of carry. If all people who wanted to carry could easily get a CCW, then there would be no point of UOC. Who would want to carry openly and unloaded, only to get harassed by LEO and take extra precious seconds to load should you need to use it? It's pointless and impractical from a tactical standpoint.

A gun is a tool: If it's rendered useless or inoperable in the split seconds that it's needed, what the F is the point? Looking cool? Feeling like a bada**? Please. I haven't time for such charades.

Of course, since that may be the only form of legal carry for you as of right now, then yeah....go ahead and do it and exercise your right privilege. But since it's going to come down to one or the other in this sad state, then CCW makes soooo much more sense. Why fight for pointless carry? I'd rather fight for a useful right than a worth-less right, which **may** cause issues in obtaining the more useful form of carry (CCW). Once the useful right has been established, then go for the pointless one if you really feel the need to.

JMHO

But is the only choice ccw or uoc? Or a combination of uoc, ccw, and loc? Loc should be legal, if for no other reason than protecting those who ccw and accidentally expose their gun. I also like being able to OC; it's just my personal preference. If loc were legal, nobody who's serious about carrying a gun for self defence is going to uoc.

If it were a choice between uoc and ccw, I'd fight for ccw. But I don't know why people see those two options as the only choice rather than loc being another choice. Maybe you know something I don't?


Just because I would never dream of LOCing doesn't mean I mind giving up my right to do so. For so many years we have been giving in, compromising and getting rolled over that my attitude is "not one more inch". And I want all the rights they've taken away back, too. This nonsense has gone on far too long. I'm behind CGF and the others working to restore our rights 100%.

It's refreshing to hear someone say that :cool2:
I've seen too many arguments between gun owners about the pros and cons of ccw vs. oc where one side bashes the other side's method of carry. Specifically, I've seen a lot of argumnts where ccw proponents call into question the legitimacy of the ocer's motivation and reason for carrying. Note, that these are discussions about Loc vs. ccw, not Uoc vs. ccw; that's a different beast to discuss. But we're all gun owners and should support other gun owners and their ability to exercise their rights in the manner they choose.

loose_electron
04-08-2011, 12:24 PM
OC movement has been going for several years now, and UOC has become (in some areas/cases) a 6:00/10:00 news topic, so it's already known that UOC is legal, they've seen the "look and attire" of the average UOCer, and are STILL calling in with MWAGs to LEAs, and LEOs are STILL responding to do (e) checks.


Erik - I understand all the acronyms except "STILL" care to translate?

(jk!)

:12::yes::yes::yes:

AaronHorrocks
04-08-2011, 12:42 PM
really?

no... really?


you need some basic instruction in logic.


regardless, i will add my voice to those that are saying

A UOC BAN IS A BAD THING. WE DO NOT WANT IT, AND SHOULD FIGHT THIS BILL.

Do you think you know me? Do you think you know what I've been through? Or the reason I bought my first firearm? Why I needed police escorts? Why I went to court to get a restraining order? How I was injured during an assault? Where I've been chased? How I was followed every day to and from work? How I've seen him watch me leave the gun store with a gun case and sit in his truck and not get out because I had a gun case on me?

From the sound of it, you have no idea the hell I've gone through. I'm alive because I own a firearm, and I've carried a gun case frequently in plain sight of my physcopathic criminal stalker. Being unarmed during that time period of my early 20's would directly mean being dead.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 1:03 PM
Do you think carrying a gun case would have helped if the stalker didn't see you buy the gun in the first place? Such is LUCC.

Bigtime1
04-08-2011, 1:25 PM
Now of course let's look at our State Attorney General. Do you think that a Black Attorney General will have a problem with a case where she has to defend a blantantly racist law?

She will have to argue that the Black Panthers had NO JUSTIFICATION for carrying arms, that they were a public menace.



I would pay good money to watch that tap dance.

Uxi
04-08-2011, 1:34 PM
Department policies are more and more involving training dispatchers on how to screen out UOC calls from the MWAGCAVC (man with a gun committing a violent crime) ones and the LEOs on how not to violate civil rights by actually observing the "suspect" before they "prone them out" and prepare to take "two weeks off" (:gura: East Palo Alto PD) -
a lot of the time they just eyeball and don't even e-check, let alone run serial numbers, force production of ID/DL, etc... we rarely see audio/video-backed complaints from UOCers anymore. Progress has been made.


That's great to hear. Anything as prominent as the AWB bulletins (bullet-button and 10/30-mag)?

goober
04-08-2011, 1:36 PM
Do you think you know me?
...

From the sound of it, you have no idea the hell I've gone through.

no, i don't know you or what you've been through.
i responded to your post because without additional information such as you just provided, your statement sounded likely to be based on faulty logic.

thanks for the clarification. sorry to hear you've been through all that, and hope things are better now and in the future.
and sorry if it seemed i was jumping on you... no offense intended.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 1:48 PM
That's great to hear. Anything as prominent as the AWB bulletins (bullet-button and 10/30-mag)?

Not sure how you define prominent. From http://californiaopencarry.org/faq.html :
http://www.californiaopencarry.org/memos/SPD_oc_memo.pdf Sacramento Police Department Memo on Open Carry
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/OC-LE-Bulletin-2008-07-24.pdf Sacramento Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center Open Carry Bulletin
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/CPOA-Client-Alert-12042008.pdf California Peace Officers Association Open Carry Memo
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/Los_Angeles_DA-2008-22_Carrying_Guns.pdf Los Angeles District Attorney Open Carry Memo
http://www.californiaopencarry.org/memos/LASD_oc_memo.pdf Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Open Carry Memo
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/San-Diego-PD-TB-08-05-California-Open-Carry-Dec-2008.pdf San Diego Police Department Open Carry Bulletin
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/OCSD%20Training%20Bulletin.pdf Orange County Sheriff's Department Open Carry Bulletin
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/Oceanside-OpenCarry_training_memo-2009-03-12.pdf Oceanside Police Department Open Carry Training Memo
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/SD-DA-OC-Memo-2009-03.pdf San Diego District Attorney Open Carry Training Bulletin
http://www.opencarryradio.com/documents/Sunnyvale_California_Memo_18_Sep_09.pdf Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety OC Memo
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/36586.html San Mateo Sheriff's Office Open Carry Memo
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=263332 Golden Gate Park Open Carry Memo
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=67591&d=1283675263 Livermore PD UOC Response (see page 7-8)
http://hoffmang.com/firearms/diaz/DiazSignedAgreement.pdf San Fernando PD Schooling (start on page 7) (great document)

southernsnowshoe
04-08-2011, 9:00 PM
Do you think you know me? Do you think you know what I've been through? Or the reason I bought my first firearm? Why I needed police escorts? Why I went to court to get a restraining order? How I was injured during an assault? Where I've been chased? How I was followed every day to and from work? How I've seen him watch me leave the gun store with a gun case and sit in his truck and not get out because I had a gun case on me?

From the sound of it, you have no idea the hell I've gone through. I'm alive because I own a firearm, and I've carried a gun case frequently in plain sight of my physcopathic criminal stalker. Being unarmed during that time period of my early 20's would directly mean being dead.


You don't have to explain yourself to anybody friend. Any reason is a good reason to carry a gun, loaded or unloaded. Granted loaded is better, but I can load pretty fast myself, almost as fast as I could draw from deep concealment. As far as banning UOC, this is california, and it is unrealistic in this state to think we would get LOC, or shall issue just because UOC was banned.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-09-2011, 5:17 AM
Be careful you do not let your opponents get you asking the wrong questions.

IANAL, but it seems to me the protected right is to keep and bear a functional firearm. An unloaded gun is missing an essential component of the system and is, therefore, no more functional than a car with an empty fuel tank or a cell phone with a dead battery. Given that, UOC is simply not a Second Amendment issue.

The proposed UOC bans are blantantly aimed at First Amendment rights and even the ACLU might have an issue with that.


Here's hoping.


The Raisuli