PDA

View Full Version : OC Ban Proceeding


imtheomegaman
04-12-2011, 12:34 PM
http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_17826220

The Shadow
04-12-2011, 12:43 PM
"You don't need a side arm in order to buy a cheeseburger."

Portantino seems to either be unaware of, or is intentionally ignoring the mass shooting at McDonald's in San Ysidro, and the mass shooting at Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Tx.

Portantino, law enforcement representatives and others argued that the practice of carrying unconcealed weapons in public escalates tensions, increases the chances of violence and wastes already tight law enforcement resources.

Easy remedy, make CCWs shall issue. DUUUUHHHHH!
:dots:

tleeocinca
04-12-2011, 1:00 PM
This is a great example of "If you do not exercise your right, you will lose it". Law makers will not loosen the current CCW laws and now they will get UOC banned.

imtheomegaman
04-12-2011, 1:10 PM
yeah, I love the smug "you don't need a side arm..." what a jack*****

Ubermcoupe
04-12-2011, 1:14 PM
With the other thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=418015) discussing JB's opinion/feeling about firearms, what would happen if this made it to his desk???

Baconator
04-12-2011, 1:18 PM
How many other states have legal loc?

And wouldn't an outright ban on oc make ccw shall issue much easier?


Sent while watching 45David and boberama get it on.

wash
04-12-2011, 1:19 PM
This is a great example of "If you do not exercise your right, you will lose it". Law makers will not loosen the current CCW laws and now they will get UOC banned.

No, this is an example of people exercising their rights too visibly and getting it banned because soccer moms at Starbucks complained.

Don't try to blame people who didn't poke a stick at the hornet nest.

QQQ
04-12-2011, 1:22 PM
No, this is an example of people exercising their rights too visibly and getting it banned because soccer moms at Starbucks complained.

Don't try to blame people who didn't poke a stick at the hornet nest.

...as opposed to not exercising them at all?

Coded-Dude
04-12-2011, 1:24 PM
wouldn't banning OC make reversing such decisions as Peruta much easier? its good and bad. really depends on how adamant you are about open carry.

tleeocinca
04-12-2011, 1:27 PM
That makes no sense at all.. "Exercising your rights to visibly"...Ha Ha Ha, LMAO... That is the funniest thing I have heard all day. Maybe we can argue that people who exercise freedom of speech should whisper instead of voicing our opinions and then they will leave the sheep alone.

J.D.Allen
04-12-2011, 1:35 PM
Surprise surprise :rolleyes:

Rossi357
04-12-2011, 1:36 PM
Do you need a gun while buying a cheeseburger?
Maybe, maybe not.
Do you need a gun while the cheeseburger joint is being robbed?
DUH!

wash
04-12-2011, 1:38 PM
Well, I should take that back, it's not exercising a right.

Our right is to keep and bear arms and that means functional arms.

Do not take the anti-gun position that an unloaded gun is a functional arm.

Exercising what was left (after the LOC ban and GFSZs) is what is going to get UOC banned and trying to blame that on people who didn't UOC is stupid.

All this is going to do is make our fight for LOC more difficult.

Do you understand that?

Our case for shall issue CCW does not rely on the second amendment protecting carry, it relies on equal protection which a UOC ban has no legal impact on.

Trying to justify the ban with some imagined legal effect is almost as stupid as blaming the ban on people who didn't UOC.

Coded-Dude
04-12-2011, 1:52 PM
Well, I should take that back, it's not exercising a right.

Our right is to keep and bear arms and that means functional arms.

Do not take the anti-gun position that an unloaded gun is a functional arm.

Exercising what was left (after the LOC ban and GFSZs) is what is going to get UOC banned and trying to blame that on people who didn't UOC is stupid.

All this is going to do is make our fight for LOC more difficult.

Do you understand that?

Our case for shall issue CCW does not rely on the second amendment protecting carry, it relies on equal protection which a UOC ban has no legal impact on.

Trying to justify the ban with some imagined legal effect is almost as stupid as blaming the ban on people who didn't UOC.

Didn't the Peruta ruling go "south" for us because the Judge felt UOC was enough(no need for shall issue when uoc is an option)?

Barkoff
04-12-2011, 1:57 PM
With the other thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=418015) discussing JB's opinion/feeling about firearms, what would happen if this made it to his desk???


That will be interesting since many made claim that JB is a friend to firearm owners.

Personally I think those dumb-asses will take away their biggest argument against "shall issue". I know it has always been the standard reply anytime I have called a democrat's office.

wash
04-12-2011, 1:58 PM
Yes but that was a bad case that Peruta forced us to handle.

We could win that on appeal but we will probably win in Richards first.

Face it, the judge in Peruta wanted to punt. She used UOC as an excuse (even though it's not legal in 95% of urban areas due to GFSZs).

Decoligny
04-12-2011, 2:00 PM
Do you need a gun while buying a cheeseburger?
Maybe, maybe not.
Do you need a gun while the cheeseburger joint is being robbed?
DUH!

Maybe he needs to ask the patrons of the McDonald's in San Ysidro! Oh Wait, He Can't, They're Dead! They really needed a gun while ordering their cheeseburgers!

Barkoff
04-12-2011, 2:01 PM
Do you need a gun to buy a cheeseburger? Hmm, let's ask this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BODWUohtXHo&feature=player_embedded

tleeocinca
04-12-2011, 2:11 PM
Do you need a gun to buy a cheeseburger? Hmm, let's ask this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BODWUohtXHo&feature=player_embedded

Look at all the sheep just standing there watching it happen. I counted 7 guys standing there while one guy is getting the **** beaten out of him.. That makes me sick

Alan Block
04-12-2011, 2:16 PM
You definitely need one to buy tacos in Rialto.

tleeocinca
04-12-2011, 2:17 PM
Or one to by Chinese take out in Oakland California

Coded-Dude
04-12-2011, 2:23 PM
Look at all the sheep just standing there watching it happen. I counted 7 guys standing there while one guy is getting the **** beaten out of him.. That makes me sick


my thoughts exactly. I was hoping the business manager/owner would've at least retreated to get a weapon(even a bat or knife), but he just ran behind the counter.

thrasherfox
04-12-2011, 2:27 PM
No, this is an example of people exercising their rights too visibly and getting it banned because soccer moms at Starbucks complained.

Don't try to blame people who didn't poke a stick at the hornet nest.



Seriously, I am not an UOC advocate, however, if you cant excercise the right then whats the differance if it is banned or made illegal?

anyone who is against UOC becuase you think it just draws undue attention, then you might as well keep your mouth shut when we have one more right taken from us.

This is a prime example of you dont use it you lose it.

People have not excercised the right in so long, now when people try to excercise it they will now lose that right.

So what if soccor mom is offended, the police need to tell the soccor mom it is legal and the persons right, not harrrasing the person UOC.


This reminds of one time when I used to bounty hunt and my partner and I went into a house and got a guy, police were called. we showed the officers our paper work

The guys wife was screaming at us and the police officers. after the officer looked at our paper work and saw everything was in order he told us to go ahead and do our job.

My partner went to cuff the guy and the wife jumped in front of her husband.

One of the officers grabbed the guys wife and physically slammed her up against the wall and told her if she tried that again he was going to arrest her for interfering with what we were doing because we had the legal right to do what we were doing.

This was about 20 years ago.

what happend to law enforcement? what happened to officers standing up for the rights of law abiding citizens and putting people back in their places who try to infringe on our rights.

No one should be getting upset at ANYONE who UOC. I dont do it and never wanted to, personally I dont want to become a target for someone. But if someone wants to they should be able to. LEO's should support them.

This state is screwed up beyond belief and I am sorry to see what kind of mentality this state has bread into our LEO's. Fortunately not all LEO's are against citizens. but also just as unfortunate, laws are allowed to be passed that forces these good LEO's to have to enforce laws alot of them dont believe in.

Us3rName
04-12-2011, 2:29 PM
very well put thrasherfox

turbosbox
04-12-2011, 2:41 PM
A misguided law to correct the actions of a misguided few :(

stix213
04-12-2011, 2:45 PM
Seriously, I am not an UOC advocate, however, if you cant excercise the right then whats the differance if it is banned or made illegal?

anyone who is against UOC becuase you think it just draws undue attention, then you might as well keep your mouth shut when we have one more right taken from us.

This is a prime example of you dont use it you lose it.

People have not excercised the right in so long, now when people try to excercise it they will now lose that right.

So what if soccor mom is offended, the police need to tell the soccor mom it is legal and the persons right, not harrrasing the person UOC.


This reminds of one time when I used to bounty hunt and my partner and I went into a house and got a guy, police were called. we showed the officers our paper work

The guys wife was screaming at us and the police officers. after the officer looked at our paper work and saw everything was in order he told us to go ahead and do our job.

My partner went to cuff the guy and the wife jumped in front of her husband.

One of the officers grabbed the guys wife and physically slammed her up against the wall and told her if she tried that again he was going to arrest her for interfering with what we were doing because we had the legal right to do what we were doing.

This was about 20 years ago.

what happend to law enforcement? what happened to officers standing up for the rights of law abiding citizens and putting people back in their places who try to infringe on our rights.

No one should be getting upset at ANYONE who UOC. I dont do it and never wanted to, personally I dont want to become a target for someone. But if someone wants to they should be able to. LEO's should support them.

This state is screwed up beyond belief and I am sorry to see what kind of mentality this state has bread into our LEO's. Fortunately not all LEO's are against citizens. but also just as unfortunate, laws are allowed to be passed that forces these good LEO's to have to enforce laws alot of them dont believe in.

You're entire argument is flawed in that you believe UOC is a protected right, which it is clearly not. UOC is merely something legally allowed with a firearm by the state that has no bearing on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Banning it does not affect the right to keep arms, as you will still be able to own them and have them at home without UOC. Banning UOC will not have an affect on the right to bear arms, as bearing arms means its loaded.

Flaunting UOC has just made it a target to be banned, and when we get the right to Bear loaded Arms in California again, it will very likely still include a ban on open carry thanks to the people who aren't looking at the big picture.

We could have had Shall Issue CCW AND UOC, and then maybe LOC later. Thanks to the UOCers we'll likely end up with only Shall Issue CCW. Thanks a lot.

Again, UOC is not and was never a "right" that needs to be exercised to be kept. To argue otherwise is pretty ridiculous.

wash
04-12-2011, 2:49 PM
I'm more concerned with expanding my rights than being ideologically pure.

I do some things I shouldn't have to do because it will make things better and I refrain from doing dome things that I should be able to do for the same reason.

You should look at the situation and realize that laws like these get passes because the majority of CA voters are not opposed to violating your rights and they elect people who will do it for them. Those are the same people at the Starbucks.

How do you think an empty gun on your side while you order a latte is going to change their mind?

It's probably not impossible to change their mind but that's not the way to do it, especially since our rights are so vulnerable at this time.

Many people have been telling UOC activists that their actions are going to get UOC banned. You can't blame that on people who didn't do it.

It's pretty simple cause and effect but evidently that's too hard for some people to understand.

N6ATF
04-12-2011, 3:28 PM
:dupe: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=384326

CHS
04-12-2011, 3:29 PM
Well, I should take that back, it's not exercising a right.


UOC *IS* about exercising a right. However, it's not the right that the UOC folk claim to be exercising.

UOC is about exercising the 1st amendment right. Not the 2nd.

I'm here to fight for the 2nd. The 1st is already well cared for.

wash
04-12-2011, 4:21 PM
UOC *IS* about exercising a right. However, it's not the right that the UOC folk claim to be exercising.

UOC is about exercising the 1st amendment right. Not the 2nd.

I'm here to fight for the 2nd. The 1st is already well cared for.
Well said.

But actually we are fighting that fight in Nordyke. UOC bans might just screw up what we win in that case.

I wanted to do the UOC march at the Alameda County Fair Grounds but that might get outlawed before we have a chance.

oldfireguy
04-15-2011, 9:20 AM
South Bay Open Carry agrees.....the ultimate goal IS concealed carry in California.

bwiese
04-15-2011, 10:03 AM
Didn't the Peruta ruling go "south" for us because the Judge felt UOC was enough(no need for shall issue when uoc is an option)?

It went south in the sense that they felt UOC was good enough.

It had a hidden gem in that they acknowledged that some form of carry must exist ;)

MudCamper
04-15-2011, 10:58 AM
No, this is an example of people exercising their rights too visibly and getting it banned because soccer moms at Starbucks complained.

Don't try to blame people who didn't poke a stick at the hornet nest.

Wash, you really do have an axe to grind. You've posted vehemently anti-UOC comments literally dozens of times in multiple threads just in the last couple of days. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But what you should consider is this. AB1934 was barely defeated last year. But it was guaranteed to be reintroduced again this year, and AB144 is it. Even if every single UOCer stopped carrying last year, and even publicly pronounced that they destroyed all their guns and would never carry again, AB144 would still have been introduced. So you really are flogging a dead horse here. It doesn't really matter what the UOCers do or don't do at this point. There's no point in you increasing your blood pressure over it.