PDA

View Full Version : UOC, AB 144 and Black rifle drama


SanPedroShooter
04-13-2011, 6:54 AM
I am friends with a few guys from South Bay Open Carry. I read their facebook page. I have seen various rumblings about being people being forced (MY WORD, not theirs, but thats the gist of it) to UOC long guns if AB 144 passes. Do you think UOC advocates will take this next step?

What might the repercussions be?
Could it go beyond a direct ban and get into OLL availability issues, like OMG! OLL are available! Is the idea that it is so easy and well, mainstream to circumvent the AW ban, an idea we want to shine a spotlight on? I have come to understand that we are on slippery ground when the legislature can write and pass any anti gun rights bill they can dream up...

Now I support UOC on practical self defense grounds, which are slim to begin with, but have little love for group UOC events, but thats not really the point.
My question is Unloaded Open Carry of Long guns UOCoLG, is that the next step? And what would be the fallout?

I considered not even posting this because its such a divisive issue and I dont want to stir the pot, but I would like to know. If its a fire starter, delete it. And for the record I have asked SBOC the same question.

lgm118icbm
04-13-2011, 7:39 AM
Pro gun people are unfortunately an extreme minority in this state. Anti-gunners run our government, what do you expect them to do?

I think the efforts of UOC'ers would be much more effective if they worked on getting non shooters into the sport rather than going down to Starbucks with an AR15 and a political F-U agenda....

cdtx2001
04-13-2011, 7:42 AM
Unloaded OPEN Carry of long guns, as opposed to CONCEALED Carry of long guns?

IIRC, there's no such thing as concealing a long gun.

ubet
04-13-2011, 7:47 AM
Unloaded OPEN Carry of long guns, as opposed to CONCEALED Carry of long guns?

IIRC, there's no such thing as concealing a long gun.

Ya, but try waling into starbucks, with a trenchcoat and an ar under it.....thats gonna end well:rolleyes:

SanPedroShooter
04-13-2011, 8:05 AM
youre right, UCoLG then. I am already starting to regret bringing this up...

http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad189/brentx39/owl.jpg

MultiCaliber
04-13-2011, 8:15 AM
Well, think about it, you're a regular guy, you don't know anything about guns beyond what you see in movies/tv shows. You don't differentiate a BB equipped 10-rd capacity OLL rifle from the scary, evil machineguns they use on the tube. What would your reaction be, upon seeing some...*ahem* (deleted offensive remark) dude or several people carrying them around. You'd probably run for cover. Seriously. This would be bad.

A holstered pistol-with or without a magazine in it is far less threatening than an EBR, even if it is slung across the back. Remember that dude in AZ with the AR on his back that the media went ape buggy over? Now multiply it by a hundred and put it in California...:rolleyes:

Kharn
04-13-2011, 8:15 AM
This Friday, Gura, etc, get to respond to the MD AG's claim that unrestricted LOC of long-guns (even though no one in recent memory has tried it) is an acceptable substitute for shall-issue CCW. I think it will be very interesting reading...

ubet
04-13-2011, 8:41 AM
Even as pro gun as I am, if someone came in with an ar under their coat, my first instinct would be to take cover and go for my ccw gun.

On second thought, I guess I would determine if the "assault clip" was in the well, or if the magazine was not inserted first.

Decoligny
04-13-2011, 8:51 AM
Even as pro gun as I am, if someone came in with an ar under their coat, my first instinct would be to take cover and go for my ccw gun.

On second thought, I guess I would determine if the "assault clip" was in the well, or if the magazine was not inserted first.

But you can legally carry it with an empty magazine in the mag well.

Blackhawk556
04-13-2011, 8:55 AM
I think doing this is irresponsible. I bet if people were to walk into Starbucks with EBRs, Starbucks would freak out and bans in their business. The bradys win

FatalKitty
04-13-2011, 8:56 AM
Even as pro gun as I am, if someone came in with an ar under their coat, my first instinct would be to take cover and go for my ccw gun.

On second thought, I guess I would determine if the "assault clip" was in the well, or if the magazine was not inserted first.

bit jumpy? do you react that way to everyone who carries gun?

seriously - I might keep an eye on them, and if they didn't seam suspicious I would approach them (cautiously and in a non threatening manner) and ask 'em what's up!

bwiese
04-13-2011, 9:22 AM
I am friends with a few guys from South Bay Open Carry. I read their facebook page. I have seen various rumblings about being people being forced (MY WORD, not theirs, but thats the gist of it) to UOC long guns if AB 144 passes. Do you think UOC advocates will take this next step? What might the repercussions be?

If carrying OLLs, they will risk some growing complex delicate politics regarding AW issues that will be coming to a head in the near future - and end up killing a process that may readily allow us to short-circuit some court work.

That would put CGF funds (and efforts) in this field - as well as those expected NRA/CRPA Foundation funds/efforts - at risk to be wasted for drama-queen non-utility.

Wholly aside from this, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE GAINED by walking around with black rifles even though fully legal. The loss will not be OLLs, but a degradation of the whole current CA gun politics environment when we really have the ability to keep things quiet/neutral due to budget issues. It will render at least hostile a variety of legislators who are quiet friends. It can risk reigniting the gun issue as a CA public policy issue on front burner instead of just a campaign topic of yesteryear.





Could it go beyond a direct ban and get into OLL availability issues, like OMG! OLL are available! No. Unlike the UOC advocacy, the OLL campaign was intelligently guided. There was no risk of a complete ban (politically impossible to ban ordinary semiauto wood stocked 'hunting' rifles) and we had opposition cornered between the statutory law, the regulatory definitions, past approval history and a CA Sup. Ct decision. It was an embarassment that the DOJ had not updated their list for 5+ years; any attempt at fixup would either result in more registered assault weapons (no-no to them) or present a lot of embarassing issues. As it stood, with help from Higher Political Friends, we got to where we are today.

With over 300K OLL non-AW new black rifles in CA today - mostly ARs, some AKs, with a much smaller percentage of 'everything else' (FAL clones, Uzi variants, MAC10 clones, SCARs, etc) - there's nothing they can do to touch these without lighting (yet another) fire risking the underpinnings of the AW law which is already showing its porosity.

The antis and the politicians are aware of being 'owned' on the OLL front. You would have seen more effort to 'repair' this if it weren't such a success of a mix of Calgunners, CGF + Team NRA, and the good ol' marketplace of enlightened capitalism.

stix213
04-13-2011, 9:43 AM
Is the UOC crowd really this selfish and stupid? I hope not.

Caladain
04-13-2011, 9:45 AM
Sweet jesus..can we reach out to these folks?

bsim
04-13-2011, 9:52 AM
^ Just like you can't change the mind of the extreme liberal, it's just as hard to change the extreme gunnies.

Caladain
04-13-2011, 9:54 AM
Are we on speaking terms with the South Bay Open Carry leaders?

MudCamper
04-13-2011, 10:02 AM
I'm sorry to say, but if AB144 passes, there will be some in the UOC crowd who will UOC long guns in public urban areas. There will be no convincing them otherwise. They will not listen to reason from anyone. There is nothing anyone can do to stop them.

FatalKitty
04-13-2011, 10:25 AM
If carrying OLLs, they will risk some growing complex delicate politics regarding AW issues that will be coming to a head in the near future - and end up killing a process that may readily allow us to short-circuit some court work.

That would put CGF funds (and efforts) in this field - as well as those expected NRA/CRPA Foundation funds/efforts - at risk to be wasted for drama-queen non-utility.

Wholly aside from this, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE GAINED by walking around with black rifles even though fully legal. The loss will not be OLLs, but a degradation of the whole current CA gun politics environment when we really have the ability to keep things quiet/neutral due to budget issues. It will render at least hostile a variety of legislators who are quiet friends. It can risk reigniting the gun issue as a CA public policy issue on front burner instead of just a campaign topic of yesteryear.





No. Unlike the UOC advocacy, the OLL campaign was intelligently guided. There was no risk of a complete ban (politically impossible to ban ordinary semiauto wood stocked 'hunting' rifles) and we had opposition cornered between the statutory law, the regulatory definitions, past approval history and a CA Sup. Ct decision. It was an embarassment that the DOJ had not updated their list for 5+ years; any attempt at fixup would either result in more registered assault weapons (no-no to them) or present a lot of embarassing issues. As it stood, with help from Higher Political Friends, we got to where we are today.

With over 300K OLL non-AW new black rifles in CA today - mostly ARs, some AKs, with a much smaller percentage of 'everything else' (FAL clones, Uzi variants, MAC10 clones, SCARs, etc) - there's nothing they can do to touch these without lighting (yet another) fire risking the underpinnings of the AW law which is already showing its porosity.

The antis and the politicians are aware of being 'owned' on the OLL front. You would have seen more effort to 'repair' this if it weren't such a success of a mix of Calgunners, CGF + Team NRA, and the good ol' marketplace of enlightened capitalism.

You have a way with words that brings a smile to my face every time I read one of your posts.

WE... ARE... WINNING!

Crom
04-13-2011, 10:47 AM
I don't approve of open carrying of long guns in any manner in urban environments. I happen to live in a dense urban area. If I see anyone open carrying a long gun, even a police officer I am calling 911. And I don't care what their demeanor is, or how they look, or what uniform they wear.

If they're transporting it then that's different, it should be in a case or bag, not open.

Are we on speaking terms with the South Bay Open Carry leaders? [...]

Yes. There have been constructive civil discussions here at Calguns.net. hgreen (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=57972) is the founder. His most recent post is here. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6140392&postcount=13)

N6ATF
04-13-2011, 11:21 AM
Even if all law-abiding gun carriers moved out of CA tomorrow, the legislature would continue to pass bills infringing on the 2A. They are evil, they are pathological, and they will never stop as long as we live.

scarville
04-13-2011, 11:28 AM
Even as pro gun as I am, if someone came in with an ar under their coat, my first instinct would be to take cover and go for my ccw gun.
Then you probably avoid visiting Israel. Ever.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6510/israeliwomensb2.jpg

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6032/israeliwomen2za7.jpg

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4981/israel3vk9.jpg

Caladain
04-13-2011, 11:34 AM
Then you probably avoid visiting Israel. Ever.

Apples and Oranges. I wouldn't blink out here in NH (work moved me away, i'll be back in Cali in a few years) if someone carried an AR with a loaded mag down the street. Infact, seen it several times (group of people with AR15's and AK's)..no one cares and everyone is happy.

I wouldn't care if i was in Israel. It's normal, due to the way their army and way of life is setup. SINCE, loaded open carry of an AR15 *isn't* normal in LA, as a CCW, i'd immediately pick up on it as a warning flag, mainly because it's not "normal" in that area. But that's just me.

Kharn
04-13-2011, 12:08 PM
Crom,
I hope you never visit Israel or Switzerland if that is your attitude. Many SBRs (esp Uzis, ARs and Krinkovs) are comparably sized to large handguns, and are much easier to shoot under stress. I'd prefer CCW, but given lemons you might as well pull out recipes for meringue or lemonade.

wash
04-13-2011, 12:49 PM
I would love it if everyone could walk down the street carrying a loaded, suppressed, select fire MP5 if they could do it without threatening my gun rights.

That means we need to protect our rights first.

Right now it seems like the "UOC movement" is trying their best to sabotage my gun rights because they want to carry an empty pistol at Starbucks. If they get shut down by a UOC ban, evidently they will have to figure out a way to give us transport issues for long arms.

I've got a better idea, why don't you try to make your own coffee and let the people who have made positive progress for our gun rights try to establish constitutional protections for public carry of loaded weapons and fight against GFSZs.

safewaysecurity
04-13-2011, 12:55 PM
I know a few who will UOC long guns if AB 14473s passes. It would be awesome if they did it in SF. Heh.

CavTrooper
04-13-2011, 12:57 PM
The antis-in-gunnies-clothing have almost succeeded in thier first endevor of getting UOC on the table and banned, now they want to move on to long guns? Well, Im convinced these folks are not right in the head and are NOT out to promote the 2A but to derail the process that folks have been working for a long time now.

FUOCers.

ubet
04-13-2011, 1:01 PM
bit jumpy? do you react that way to everyone who carries gun?

seriously - I might keep an eye on them, and if they didn't seam suspicious I would approach them (cautiously and in a non threatening manner) and ask 'em what's up!

1)Yes I am jumpy, about everything. I count people coming in the door, take a head count or rough guess when I walk in a door. I look for exits, I wont sit with my back to a door, or a window. The people closest to me in restaraunts or similar places, I like to know if they are right or left handed, married or not. If they are somewhere for business or casual. I can pick most of this up by quick glances and am pretty damned accurate with it.

2) Nope not at all, like I said, trench coat, ar, mag inserted, gonna be problems, trench coat, no mag inserted, I would be keeping my eye on them.

My post was in refernce to the above post about concealing a long gun, that is what I was refering too. I have no problems with someone walking around with it thrown over their back, but under something, mag inserted, its usually not gonna end with sweet nothings being whispered. (all of this is talking about being in PRK only, not in a free state.)

Caladain
04-13-2011, 1:03 PM
I know a few who will UOC long guns if AB 14473s passes. It would be awesome if they did it in SF. Heh.

Hope you'll have a chat with them if they bring it up and try and convince them that they shouldn't.

ubet
04-13-2011, 1:06 PM
Then you probably avoid visiting Israel. Ever.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6510/israeliwomensb2.jpg

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6032/israeliwomen2za7.jpg

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4981/israel3vk9.jpg


I have no problem with that. I didnt know Israelie women were that hot.

MultiCaliber
04-13-2011, 1:13 PM
+1

I, also, found the women with EBRs strapped to them rather erotic.

nicki
04-13-2011, 2:46 PM
If AB 144 does pass and I use the word, does, versus when because I don't know if Jerry Brown will sign it.

I know Arnold would, but unlike Arnold, Jerry at least read the constitution and some point and his prime focus is the BUDGET.

Refusing to sign the UOC ban under the premise that it would be irresponsible of him at this point to sign any gun bill until the courts have provided guidance as to how far the 2nd amendment goes could happen.

Jerry could do that because of the budget issues.

If Jerry does sign the bill, then the responsible thing for the UOC people to do is actually fund and file their own lawsuit and while they are at it, they can attack the Mulford Act and so called "School Zones" as well.

I view the UOC battle in the same way I view the "Gay Marriage Issue".

A few years back, the vast majority of Californians opposed Gay Marriage, in fact prop 22 passed with over 2/3rds of the vote.

Support for Gay Marriage was even split in the Gay Community. I personally was against Gay Marriage even though I supported Domestic Partnerships.

What changed my view was the whole issue of "equal rights". Equality under the Law is a foundational cornerstone critical for our system of ordered liberty to work.

UOC has become more than just a gun issue, it has become a mulitple constitutional rights issue on numerous rights issues.

The Brady Campaign says that it is a danger to the public safety for people to carry guns, yet when it comes to the public, they tell people to rely on 911

Yesterday I was at the State Capitol, ran into the state Brady Bunch. My roomate tried to engage her in a reasoned discussion. It was easy to see her tune out, it is obvious she is committed to stripping us of all of our rights.

They really believe the Heller case only allows us to have guns in our homes.

The legislature voted for this bill in spite of Chuck Michel telling them point blank that he is torn about this bill because if they pass it, the resulting lawsuits he will win will fund his kid's college tutition.

He told them point blank that the only reason he lost the Peruta case was because the Judge said UOC satisfied Ed's 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

We need to approach the UOC people and tell them that just carrying long arms openly is retreating, instead what they need to do is draw the line in the sand and say NO.

I talked with Alany yesterday at the capitol and asked her how many people they have across the state. I told her that if every UOCer would commit 25 dollars, we could raise 50K to fund a lawsuit on OPEN Carry.

She responded that it wouldn't be enough, my response was that if the leaders and people doing UOC now did this, others would follow.

My point to her was that if the UOC community won't do this, then the battle is lost because a few people can't carry the load.

Nicki

scarville
04-13-2011, 3:33 PM
I have no problem with that. I didnt know Israelie women were that hot.
What? You think all look like Golda Meir?

Crom
04-13-2011, 3:38 PM
Crom,
I hope you never visit Israel or Switzerland if that is your attitude. Many SBRs (esp Uzis, ARs and Krinkovs) are comparably sized to large handguns, and are much easier to shoot under stress. I'd prefer CCW, but given lemons you might as well pull out recipes for meringue or lemonade.

Kharn,

Caladain, summarized what I was getting at. What is normal somewhere else in the world may not be in another part. It's a cultural thing and in my neighborhood walking around openly with a rifle or shotgun is cause for alarm. Where I live and back in 1984, James Oliver Huberty walked into a McDonalds restaurant and killed 21 people and injured 19 others before killing himself ( San Ysidro McDonald's massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre) ). He walked down the street openly with his guns too. A witness who spotted Huberty as he left his apartment and proceeded down San Ysidro Boulevard phoned the police, but the dispatcher gave the reporting officers the wrong address (which allowed him to kill more people as he had more time).

That is one of the primary reason I want CCW. I don't want to be a helpless unarmed victim. I want a fighting chance.

ubet
04-13-2011, 3:41 PM
If AB 144 does pass and I use the word, does, versus when because I don't know if Jerry Brown will sign it.

I know Arnold would, but unlike Arnold, Jerry at least read the constitution and some point and his prime focus is the BUDGET.

Refusing to sign the UOC ban under the premise that it would be irresponsible of him at this point to sign any gun bill until the courts have provided guidance as to how far the 2nd amendment goes could happen.

Jerry could do that because of the budget issues.

If Jerry does sign the bill, then the responsible thing for the UOC people to do is actually fund and file their own lawsuit and while they are at it, they can attack the Mulford Act and so called "School Zones" as well.

I view the UOC battle in the same way I view the "Gay Marriage Issue".

A few years back, the vast majority of Californians opposed Gay Marriage, in fact prop 22 passed with over 2/3rds of the vote.

Support for Gay Marriage was even split in the Gay Community. I personally was against Gay Marriage even though I supported Domestic Partnerships.

What changed my view was the whole issue of "equal rights". Equality under the Law is a foundational cornerstone critical for our system of ordered liberty to work.

UOC has become more than just a gun issue, it has become a mulitple constitutional rights issue on numerous rights issues.

The Brady Campaign says that it is a danger to the public safety for people to carry guns, yet when it comes to the public, they tell people to rely on 911

Yesterday I was at the State Capitol, ran into the state Brady Bunch. My roomate tried to engage her in a reasoned discussion. It was easy to see her tune out, it is obvious she is committed to stripping us of all of our rights.

They really believe the Heller case only allows us to have guns in our homes.

The legislature voted for this bill in spite of Chuck Michel telling them point blank that he is torn about this bill because if they pass it, the resulting lawsuits he will win will fund his kid's college tutition.

He told them point blank that the only reason he lost the Peruta case was because the Judge said UOC satisfied Ed's 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

We need to approach the UOC people and tell them that just carrying long arms openly is retreating, instead what they need to do is draw the line in the sand and say NO.

I talked with Alany yesterday at the capitol and asked her how many people they have across the state. I told her that if every UOCer would commit 25 dollars, we could raise 50K to fund a lawsuit on OPEN Carry.

She responded that it wouldn't be enough, my response was that if the leaders and people doing UOC now did this, others would follow.

My point to her was that if the UOC community won't do this, then the battle is lost because a few people can't carry the load.

Nicki

That is one of the best and most motivating posts that I have ever read. I will vow to pay $25 a month, to help fund a uoc lawsuit! I dont uoc, but I believe they have the RIGHT to, and I will contribute what I can to help them fight. Let me know where to send the check.

wash
04-13-2011, 3:53 PM
The problem is that there are no UOC groups that I know of who are doing any legal work, they would probably think the $25 is for their burger fund.

You could send the money to CGF or the CRPA foundation but that would probably go to fight a more important battle and UOC folks will still insist that their rights are being ignored.

It's a face palm situation.

Kharn
04-13-2011, 4:03 PM
Kharn,

Caladain, summarized what I was getting at. What is normal somewhere else in the world may not be in another part. It's a cultural thing and in my neighborhood walking around openly with a rifle or shotgun is cause for alarm. Where I live and back in 1984, James Oliver Huberty walked into a McDonalds restaurant and killed 21 people and injured 19 others before killing himself ( San Ysidro McDonald's massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre) ). He walked down the street openly with his guns too. A witness who spotted Huberty as he left his apartment and proceeded down San Ysidro Boulevard phoned the police, but the dispatcher gave the reporting officers the wrong address (which allowed him to kill more people as he had more time).

That is one of the primary reason I want CCW. I don't want to be a helpless unarmed victim. I want a fighting chance.Would Huberty have killed less people if he had carried his arms in a duffle bag? One firearm outside the home is the same as any other, regardless of size or concealment. Saying it is culturally wrong means you've ceded that mode of carry to the antis when we're the group on the offensive.

Caladain
04-13-2011, 4:27 PM
Would Huberty have killed less people if he had carried his arms in a duffle bag? One firearm outside the home is the same as any other, regardless of size or concealment. Saying it is culturally wrong means you've ceded that mode of carry to the antis when we're the group on the offensive.

Time and place. We're on the offensive, and no plan survives contact with the opfor. The goal is to change the culture so that it's acceptable, ONCE the laws actually are ironclad.

Until then, you're rolling the dice. OC is very dicey in Cali (school zones, not being loaded, etc). It's a political statement at the moment. The Goal should be to make it iron clad, Loaded, and carry however you wish. Then we can carry and get people used to the presence. Until then, there is the concern that the anti's get the soccermoms riled up enough to set us back several years because people want to make an overt political statement.

That said, in downtown LA, a man with an AR slung or under the coat would raise a warning flag, today. With good situational awareness, damn skippy i'm going to flag him and keep a respectful eye on him. Hopefully in two weeks that will change and i can go to not flagging him in my mind.

ubet
04-13-2011, 5:13 PM
The problem is that there are no UOC groups that I know of who are doing any legal work, they would probably think the $25 is for their burger fund.

You could send the money to CGF or the CRPA foundation but that would probably go to fight a more important battle and UOC folks will still insist that their rights are being ignored.

It's a face palm situation.

I do donate $20/25 a month already to cgf.

Bigtime1
04-13-2011, 5:27 PM
Seems that UOC of EBRs would be counterproductive in the long run. If they want to make a point then perhaps they should organize a protest walk, avoiding all the traps, with muskets slung over their shoulders.

wash
04-13-2011, 5:29 PM
That is great.

I just don't know where you can send money for strictly UOC related legal battles because the UOC groups don't seem to be planning any.

You could send that money you pledge to CGF but it won't go toward fighting GFSZs or some other OC related case (unless you can accept that CCW cases are a precursor to an OC case). We just aren't there yet, but there is a there there and we will get to it eventually.

wildhawker
04-13-2011, 5:44 PM
To be more accurate, CGF will allocate money and fund (either partially, or in full) those actions we as a Board deem appropriate and prudent. We have defended UOCers in the past as well as supported 1983 actions against state and municipal actors, and while we discourage the politicized use of UOC in urban California at this time (obviously, those who UOC for self-defense because they cannot acquire a CCW to carry loaded are reasonable to do as they are limited by the state of carry policy), we have and will continue to consider 2A and related civil rights violations in our strategic planning and defense funding.

-Brandon

That is great.

I just don't know where you can send money for strictly UOC related legal battles because the UOC groups don't seem to be planning any.

You could send that money you pledge to CGF but it won't go toward fighting GFSZs or some other OC related case (unless you can accept that CCW cases are a precursor to an OC case). We just aren't there yet, but there is a there there and we will get to it eventually.

Joe
04-13-2011, 5:50 PM
Tagged for later viewing

SanPedroShooter
04-13-2011, 5:56 PM
I am glad to see this thread has not spiraled into pettiness. When I read about UOCers planning on carrying long guns, which makes sense weather you agree or not, if you follow there argument to its conclusion. I thought I'd better get the expert opinion. Thanks Bill W. and Brandon

cdtx2001
04-13-2011, 6:07 PM
With over 300K OLL non-AW new black rifles in CA today - mostly ARs, some AKs, with a much smaller percentage of 'everything else' (FAL clones, Uzi variants, MAC10 clones, SCARs, etc) - there's nothing they can do to touch these without lighting (yet another) fire risking the underpinnings of the AW law which is already showing its porosity.



ONLY 300K-ish????? Geeze, I thought there would have been more than that. There's a gun store near me that sells about 1K of them a month. I can imagine other gun stores a cross the state are pumping thousands more into the system every month as well. I just thought it would be more than that.


As for the original topic, I'd never want to "show off" my OLL AR in public for the simple fact that the general public is mentally retarded when it comes to firearms, let alone EBRs. People FREAK OUT whenever they see someone with a gun no matter how legal it is. It's a very bad idea to OC an AR in any city.

The only time I could see myself out and about with an AR would be if I needed to gather more contestants for my Thunderdome after the SHTF and all the city slickers have broken down heading for "the hills". Either that, or I've advanced my position out from my perimeter slightly and am sniping off the hoards of zombies attempting to advance.

GrizzlyGuy
04-13-2011, 6:14 PM
The only time I could see myself out and about with an AR would be if I needed to gather more contestants for my Thunderdome after the SHTF and all the city slickers have broken down heading for "the hills". Either that, or I've advanced my position out from my perimeter slightly and am sniping off the hoards of zombies attempting to advance.

...or if Obama makes a campaign stop and Chris needs a wing man :43:

63GiXzpfGhA

SanPedroShooter
04-13-2011, 6:22 PM
That dude is sharp...
He looks good, he sounds good, but the biggest difference is Arizona isnt filled with a majority of bedwetting whiners. We have a culture of dependency in California, plus years of holphobic fear mongering. Thats why I could never support group UOC, its just plain bad timing. Once we have a court case, or two, on our side we'll all be armed in the street, at least I will. Untill then you're just stacking the deck against yourself, carrying a long gun is only gonna compund the problem.

Kharn
04-13-2011, 6:28 PM
Time and place. We're on the offensive, and no plan survives contact with the opfor. The goal is to change the culture so that it's acceptable, ONCE the laws actually are ironclad.

Until then, you're rolling the dice. OC is very dicey in Cali (school zones, not being loaded, etc). It's a political statement at the moment. The Goal should be to make it iron clad, Loaded, and carry however you wish. Then we can carry and get people used to the presence. Until then, there is the concern that the anti's get the soccermoms riled up enough to set us back several years because people want to make an overt political statement.

That said, in downtown LA, a man with an AR slung or under the coat would raise a warning flag, today. With good situational awareness, damn skippy i'm going to flag him and keep a respectful eye on him. Hopefully in two weeks that will change and i can go to not flagging him in my mind.There's a difference between "now is not the best time, please don't" and "if I see a rifle, I'm calling the cops!!1!!21!!" The former is productive, the latter plays into the antis' hands. The latter example is also quite silly when someone states they will call the cops if they see a cop with a rifle. :rolleyes:

Caladain
04-13-2011, 7:11 PM
There's a difference between "now is not the best time, please don't" and "if I see a rifle, I'm calling the cops!!1!!21!!" The former is productive, the latter plays into the antis' hands. The latter example is also quite silly when someone states they will call the cops if they see a cop with a rifle. :rolleyes:

And the word now is "Now is not the best time, please don't." from me at least. Look big game, or hell, even medium/short game, and you can see that the foundation isn't quite solid enough yet. It's like we're duracoating our guns, and it's day 2 of the curing...you don't want to go run-and-gun and abuse it quite yet, or you'll have to reduracoat.

I wouldn't call, but since i carry, and he's a possible high-risk threat, i'd flag him in my mind. Just to be fair, i also flag anyone i see with metal clips with crosses on them on their belt (popular conceal rig), any one who prints, and anyone with a gun on their hip, cop or not, unless i know them.

mag360
04-13-2011, 7:33 PM
how about "tactical lever action carbines"...kidding. It's only a cowboy lever action (in 45-70) ;)

Kid Stanislaus
04-13-2011, 8:05 PM
I have no problem with that. I didnt know Israelie women were that hot.


When I was a kid, back in the '50s, we thought all Russian women were fat, squat, and wore combat boots! When I went to Russia for the first time in '95 HO-CHEE-MAMA! there were some really beautiful women there (and they still are, look'n for young American studs to marry them and take'm home!).;)

ubet
04-13-2011, 8:21 PM
When I was a kid, back in the '50s, we thought all Russian women were fat, squat, and wore combat boots! When I went to Russia for the first time in '95 HO-CHEE-MAMA! there were some really beautiful women there (and they still are, look'n for young American studs to marry them and take'm home!).;)

I am trying to talk my wife into that we need a hot, russian housekeeper to live with us. My wife is gone quit a bit, so it would help with the "chores":D Oh and she could just cook and clean and live here for free:43:

ubet
04-13-2011, 8:23 PM
That is great.

I just don't know where you can send money for strictly UOC related legal battles because the UOC groups don't seem to be planning any.

You could send that money you pledge to CGF but it won't go toward fighting GFSZs or some other OC related case (unless you can accept that CCW cases are a precursor to an OC case). We just aren't there yet, but there is a there there and we will get to it eventually.

I meant, I do donate $20/25 to BOTH CGF and CGN a month. Or did last month and am going to this month and every month following, providing I have the money.

wash
04-13-2011, 8:38 PM
And the word now is "Now is not the best time, please don't." from me at least. Look big game, or hell, even medium/short game, and you can see that the foundation isn't quite solid enough yet. It's like we're duracoating our guns, and it's day 2 of the curing...you don't want to go run-and-gun and abuse it quite yet, or you'll have to reduracoat.

It's more like parkerizing you new flat build AK before you heat treat the pin holes.

I've seen that once...

bwiese
04-13-2011, 9:57 PM
ONLY 300K-ish????? Geeze, I thought there would have been more than that. There's a gun store near me that sells about 1K of them a month. I can imagine other gun stores a cross the state are pumping thousands more into the system every month as well. I just thought it would be more than that.

That 300+K number is a wild assed guess, and on the low side based on trends since Jan 2006. I don't want to be considered an overestimator.

And there were peaks and valleys - gun sales dropped when ammo shortages became a problem, there were slowdowns due to economy then peaks again when irrational Obama gun panic set in. Many gun shops are also only selling 20 -50 OLLs a month in good times.

MudCamper
04-13-2011, 10:00 PM
The legislature voted for this bill in spite of Chuck Michel telling them point blank that he is torn about this bill because if they pass it, the resulting lawsuits he will win will fund his kid's college tutition.

He told them point blank that the only reason he lost the Peruta case was because the Judge said UOC satisfied Ed's 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

If all this is true then wouldn't AB144 passing actually end up working in our favor?

We need to approach the UOC people and tell them that just carrying long arms openly is retreating, instead what they need to do is draw the line in the sand and say NO.

I talked with Alany yesterday at the capitol and asked her how many people they have across the state. I told her that if every UOCer would commit 25 dollars, we could raise 50K to fund a lawsuit on OPEN Carry.

She responded that it wouldn't be enough, my response was that if the leaders and people doing UOC now did this, others would follow.

50K / 25 = 2000. There are not that many UOCers. I bet there aren't more than 200 in the entire state. What you need to understand is that UOCers are very vocal and very public. Just a few makes it seem like there are many.

Well, regardless, I'd help start a fund if I knew there was a competent attorney standing by and willing to take up the fight. Let's see what happens with AB144 first. I think we have a good chance that Brown will veto it.

The problem is that there are no UOC groups that I know of who are doing any legal work, they would probably think the $25 is for their burger fund.

You really need to stop spewing this kind of crap. Your insults just divide us. You are not helping. Well, you're helping the antis, but not us.

That is great.

I just don't know where you can send money for strictly UOC related legal battles because the UOC groups don't seem to be planning any.

They aren't planning any because the UOC community is still just a bunch of individuals and a few small rag-tag groups. They are too independent to even get along with each other. Plus they are shunned and insulted constantly by the rest of the RKBA community, which usually just makes them rebel even more.

Yugo
04-13-2011, 10:05 PM
Well, think about it, you're a regular guy, you don't know anything about guns beyond what you see in movies/tv shows. You don't differentiate a BB equipped 10-rd capacity OLL rifle from the scary, evil machineguns they use on the tube. What would your reaction be, upon seeing some...*ahem* (deleted offensive remark) dude or several people carrying them around. You'd probably run for cover. Seriously. This would be bad.

A holstered pistol-with or without a magazine in it is far less threatening than an EBR, even if it is slung across the back. Remember that dude in AZ with the AR on his back that the media went ape buggy over? Now multiply it by a hundred and put it in California...:rolleyes:

maybe if more people really did this others would stop beleiving the hype.

santacruzstefan
04-13-2011, 10:54 PM
What would they get from OCing a rifle? In my mind, it would do more good in once of those bags that looks something like a skateboard bag. Even a guitar gig case. At least then, the majority of people wouldn't think twice, and they wouldn't be singled out by a criminal were a time ever to come that they needed to defend themselves, and it wouldn't even need to be locked.

wildhawker
04-13-2011, 11:04 PM
If all this is true then wouldn't AB144 passing actually end up working in our favor?

And because it isn't, they passed it anyway.

With respect to the $50k number for an OC lawsuit, whoever thinks that's enough to fund it all the way needs to share whatever they are smoking. Try $150k+ in a better venue than California offers.

-Brandon

Crom
04-13-2011, 11:13 PM
Would Huberty have killed less people if he had carried his arms in a duffle bag?

Maybe. Maybe not, it's impossible to know.
One firearm outside the home is the same as any other, regardless of size or concealment.

Not so! There is a huge difference. The handgun is king because it is concealable.


Saying it is culturally wrong means you've ceded that mode of carry to the antis when we're the group on the offensive.

There is nothing wrong with my opinion. it's just that an opinion. And at the present time it is not socially acceptable to witness individuals openly carrying long guns in urban California.

There's a difference between "now is not the best time, please don't" and "if I see a rifle, I'm calling the cops!!1!!21!!" The former is productive, the latter plays into the antis' hands. The latter example is also quite silly when someone states they will call the cops if they see a cop with a rifle. :rolleyes:

I don't know maybe it's different in Maryland where your from...

Witnessing a cop carrying a rifle is outside the norm for where I live and if I see it happening it probably means something very bad has happened or could happen at any time. Rather than just wonder what's going on I'm going to take the initiative and make that call and find out what's going on.

Peter.Steele
04-13-2011, 11:18 PM
Unloaded OPEN Carry of long guns, as opposed to CONCEALED Carry of long guns?

IIRC, there's no such thing as concealing a long gun.



Depends on the weather and what you're wearing.

In Maine, where I'm from, if you have the license and you can (a) legally own it and (b) conceal it, you can carry it.

In the middle of the winter, if you're a big enough guy, it ain't hard to conceal a G3 on a single-point tac sling.

Blackhawk556
04-14-2011, 1:23 AM
If open carry gets banned, what makes open carriers think they will get what they want by open carrying a rifle?? We need to attack the antis in the court room with everything we got, not at Starbucks by having a latte.

Kharn
04-14-2011, 2:52 AM
Not so! There is a huge difference. The handgun is king because it is concealable. I meant in terms of danger to the populace, sure a 1911 is a few inches shorter and lighter than a Mini-Uzi, but if they're both carried by a responsible, law-abiding gun owner at the end of the day they're both going home unfired.

I don't know maybe it's different in Maryland where your from...

[quote]Witnessing a cop carrying a rifle is outside the norm for where I live and if I see it happening it probably means something very bad has happened or could happen at any time. Rather than just wonder what's going on I'm going to take the initiative and make that call and find out what's going on.Calling the cops would be the first response for most of the sheeple in MD if they saw a rifle anywhere but at deer camp or the gun range, but that doesn't mean it is the right attitude for gun owners that know the behavior itself is legal. Instead of a blanket statement, the situation should be examined. Calling in a shady guy with a ski mask, gloves and a tactical vest under his trench coat is one thing, calling in a guy in slacks, button-down and a mag in a pocket opposite his wallet is another.

Dreaded Claymore
04-14-2011, 3:27 AM
And the word now is "Now is not the best time, please don't." from me at least. Look big game, or hell, even medium/short game, and you can see that the foundation isn't quite solid enough yet. It's like we're duracoating our guns, and it's day 2 of the curing...you don't want to go run-and-gun and abuse it quite yet, or you'll have to reduracoat.

Exactly, except instead of Duracoating our guns, we're Guracoating them.

*rimshot*

wash
04-14-2011, 9:22 AM
You really need to stop spewing this kind of crap. Your insults just divide us. You are not helping. Well, you're helping the antis, but not us.

Where am I wrong here?

You've said yourself that there are not enough UOCers to fund a lawsuit and they aren't coordinated enough to run one if there were enough.

UOC activists are gun owners and they know who is working to expand their rights but somehow they couldn't hear those people when they all said UOC isn't doing anything positive in urban CA and it will just lead to the government banning it (which is happening right now unless you missed it).

So now that they have managed to sabotage UOC of pistols, they now want to give us long gun transport issues.

This is monumentally stupid and I'm not going to stop saying it for the sake of unity. The UOC activists are the ones that need to show some unity and listen.

THE PEOPLE TELLING YOU THAT UOC IS NOT A GOOD IDEA RIGHT NOW ARE CORRECT!

locosway
04-14-2011, 9:59 AM
I see a lot of FUD, hypocrites, and uninformed in this thread.

As Bill said, it could hurt future legal action. Outside of that, why do you care if someone is carrying a long gun? Hell, someone even said that they would call 911 if they saw a cop with a rifle out. Seriously? Some of you need to educate yourselves on what, who, and why a rifle might be used and what type of ballistics we're talking about.

MudCamper
04-14-2011, 1:51 PM
If open carry gets banned, what makes open carriers think they will get what they want by open carrying a rifle??

They would do it just as a big fat F-YOU to the legislature. I'm not saying that is productive. It's just the reason I think it would be done.

wash
04-14-2011, 2:17 PM
Oh, it will produce something.

N6ATF
04-14-2011, 2:18 PM
The mere fact that law-abiding gun owners exist in CA at all is a big fat F-YOU to the criminal legislature. And since their pen is mightier than our swords, once they ban UOC they'll immediately, pathologically move onto placing the next piece in the total victim disarmament puzzle, in order to achieve their criminals utopia.

As long as they're going to pass victim disarmament anyway, there might as well be some self-defense exercised in the meantime.

SanPedroShooter
04-14-2011, 3:31 PM
I will just jump in to say, no where did I see anyone advocating carrying long guns. I did see it postulated and put in terms of "if we cant UOC handguns we will have to carry long guns" type statements. Thinking it over, if the UOC argument is, we carry this way to show support for the 2A, because its our only option, and possibly for defense, then if the ability to carry handguns is taken away, there is only one option left, ie long guns.

My question was, if that where to be the case, what would happen? The UOC activists i have corresponded with seem to think that even if the law passes, it would never go into effect because of lawsuits (that CGF among others, would have to bankroll)/ injunctions etc... so resorting to carrying long guns would never have to be considered.

I dont want to ascribe false motivations or speak to the strategy of people that I hardly know.

hgreen
04-14-2011, 5:49 PM
I think the efforts of UOC'ers would be much more effective if they worked on getting non shooters into the sport rather than going down to Starbucks with an AR15 and a political F-U agenda....

Why not do both? :)

http://southbayopencarry.org/events/monthly-range-night/


We want you to bring new people and will be giving away a special gift to the person who brings the most new individuals at each of our official events!

Also, for the FUD spreaders that open carry of long guns will send people into shock and panic... Several have OC'd long guns in the very URBAN city of Hermosa Beach and guess what happened? Nothing. No cops called, no one went running or screaming.

For the record, SBOC is not advocating long gun open carry. In fact we adamantly encourage participants to stick with handguns for the time being. But some of the posters on here don't seem to be bothered with getting facts straight.

N6ATF
04-14-2011, 6:57 PM
Also, for the FUD spreaders that open carry of long guns will send people into shock and panic... Several have OC'd long guns in the very URBAN city of Hermosa Beach and guess what happened? Nothing. No cops called, no one went running or screaming.

Actually if you believe many of the Battered Gun Owners Syndrome sufferers here, "the majority of" "soccer moms" were shocked, panicked, and calling 911 running away, screaming that blood was running in the streets.

wash
04-14-2011, 7:38 PM
Perhaps the great majority of people have neutral to positive reactions when they see a person open carrying, the problem is you get a few who call the police and write their senator.

That wouldn't be so bad except that it gives our lousy senators an easy way to look like they are doing something and secure the sheeple vote.

We wouldn't have an OC ban cooking if we didn't have UOC activists riling up the antis. It's that simple.

We won't have the antis trying to require locked cases for long gun transport if UOC activists choose to do empty holster protests (perhaps while LUCC), but if they bring their ARs, we will see that or something equally stupid.

I hope no one thinks I'm a battered gun owner, I'm just trying to allow the good people fighting for our rights a chance to secure my carry rights before I OC.

locosway
04-14-2011, 7:47 PM
Perhaps the great majority of people have neutral to positive reactions when they see a person open carrying, the problem is you get a few who call the police and write their senator.

That wouldn't be so bad except that it gives our lousy senators an easy way to look like they are doing something and secure the sheeple vote.

We wouldn't have an OC ban cooking if we didn't have UOC activists riling up the antis. It's that simple.

We won't have the antis trying to require locked cases for long gun transport if UOC activists choose to do empty holster protests (perhaps while LUCC), but if they bring their ARs, we will see that or something equally stupid.

I hope no one thinks I'm a battered gun owner, I'm just trying to allow the good people fighting for our rights a chance to secure my carry rights before I OC.

If gun owners never exercised their rights nothing would have been banned. It's only when people flex their right to be armed is when it's taken away. Personally I'm tired of it... I'm tired of being scared to live my life. I'm tired of anti's getting all worked up because I have the right to be armed. I'm so ready to go move into a mountain cave and give society the finger.

N6ATF
04-14-2011, 8:30 PM
Perhaps the great majority of people have neutral to positive reactions when they see a person open carrying, the problem is you get a few who call the police and write their senator.

So you admit it's not the majority against us.

That wouldn't be so bad except that it gives our lousy senators an easy way to look like they are doing something and secure the sheeple vote.

So we have "a few" sheeple (Brady Campaign for Criminal Safety and Victim Disarmament, ex officio International Criminals Unionists) versus THOUSANDS of gun owners contacting lawmakers. We get circular filed, because we are not their fellow criminals, we are the worst possible threat to criminals.

We wouldn't have an OC ban cooking if we didn't have UOC gun activists owners riling up the antis. It's that simple.

Fixed. You think the criminals' decades-long march of creeping incrementalism would stop or even slow down if we all never took our guns outside our homes? Keep dreaming. They will infringe on the 2A as long as we dare to live.

We won't have the antis trying to require locked cases for long gun transport if UOC activists choose to do empty holster protests (perhaps while LUCC), but if they bring their ARs, we will see that or something equally stupid.

We will see that regardless, eventually expanding to bans on locked transport outside the home, without unambiguous SCOTUS decisions backed up by judicially-ordered armed force. If the US Marshals literally put guns to the legislators' heads and march them all to the cells indefinitely for contempt, only then I expect they will stop. Not because law-abiders effectively committed hara kiri by allowing ourselves to be victimized, too often to death.

dantodd
04-14-2011, 11:30 PM
Highly visible open carriage of handguns brought us a ban on Open Carry of handguns. Why anyone would think that the result will be any different with long guns is beyond me.

Now. Of course we could take the approach of pushing every corner of the right as it currently exists which means the legislature will pass more and more restrictive laws and then it will cost money to roll those laws back where they violate the constitution. This is the best way ever to guarantee a minimal right that is restricted to the maximal level the Supreme Court will allow.

This is the equivalent of letting SCOTUS set policy because the default policy of CA government will be to restrict our rights as much as they can get away with.

There wasn't that long ago when the legislature ignored UOC and other issues. Now that it has been politicized the legislature feel they HAVE to take action.

hgreen
04-14-2011, 11:48 PM
Highly visible open carriage of handguns brought us a ban on Open Carry of handguns.

I take it you go to the range in secret, buy ammo in secret? No? Then you must be responsible for the ammo bans/restrictions they keep pushing through...

dantodd
04-14-2011, 11:53 PM
I take it you go to the range in secret, buy ammo in secret? No? Then you must be responsible for the ammo bans/restrictions they keep pushing through...

Range, stores selling ammo etc. are all places that expect to see firearms and related goods.

greasemonkey
04-15-2011, 12:20 AM
I take it you go to the range in secret, buy ammo in secret? No? Then you must be responsible for the ammo bans/restrictions they keep pushing through...

Are you really saying you see zero difference between OC/buying ammo at a gun shop and 50 people UOC'ing as a political F-U statement at an establishment in the middle of town in California? Wow. Go internetz.

N6ATF
04-15-2011, 12:27 AM
Now. Of course we could take the approach of pushing every corner of the right as it currently exists which means the legislature will pass more and more restrictive laws and then it will cost money to roll those laws back where they violate the constitution. This is the best way ever to guarantee a minimal right that is restricted to the maximal level the Supreme Court will allow.

There are two concurrently operating rules in place for CA.gov:
Infringe on the 2A in every way possible incrementally, no matter what the law-abiders are doing, because they threaten criminals just by existing and we can't allow that.
Infringe on the 2A in every way possible incrementally, because the law-abiders are threatening criminals, and we can't allow that.


This is the equivalent of letting SCOTUS set policy because the default policy of CA government will be to restrict our rights as much as they can get away with.

Right, and they will do so regardless of what gun owners do or do not do, so we should end this delusion right now that we can stop these criminals from being criminals by bringing about their criminals utopia before they even pass it completely into law.

There wasn't that long ago when the legislature ignored UOC and other issues. Now that it has been politicized the legislature feel they HAVE to take action.

They are pathological, and would take action anyway. We are daring to exercise our civil rights, daring to steamroller them in civil suits, daring to threaten criminals actively and passively, so they HAVE to take action to protect themselves.

Are you really saying you see zero difference between OC/buying ammo at a gun shop and 50 people UOC'ing as a political F-U statement at an establishment in the middle of town in California? Wow. Go internetz.

They are both expressions of civil rights, and both have been subject to bans. The mythical 50 people UOCing (doubtful that the entire attendance, plus ones and kids all carried) in one establishment, would likely be because the property owner welcomed or invited it. They are not invading, they are not flipping the bird to the restaurant owners, but CA.gov is flipping the bird to business owners by telling them they can't make their businesses the safest places possible. Property rights fail.

Highoctaneman1
04-15-2011, 12:36 AM
Range, stores selling ammo etc. are all places that expect to see firearms and related goods.

Starbucks, Target, and walking down the street are all places you expect to see people living their lives with the right to defend themselves.

wash
04-15-2011, 10:31 AM
So you admit it's not the majority against us.



So we have "a few" sheeple (Brady Campaign for Criminal Safety and Victim Disarmament, ex officio International Criminals Unionists) versus THOUSANDS of gun owners contacting lawmakers. We get circular filed, because we are not their fellow criminals, we are the worst possible threat to criminals.



Fixed. You think the criminals' decades-long march of creeping incrementalism would stop or even slow down if we all never took our guns outside our homes? Keep dreaming. They will infringe on the 2A as long as we dare to live.



We will see that regardless, eventually expanding to bans on locked transport outside the home, without unambiguous SCOTUS decisions backed up by judicially-ordered armed force. If the US Marshals literally put guns to the legislators' heads and march them all to the cells indefinitely for contempt, only then I expect they will stop. Not because law-abiders effectively committed hara kiri by allowing ourselves to be victimized, too often to death.
It doesn't matter how right you are if the outcome of your actions is negative.

Have you ever experienced that? Being right but it doesn't matter.

Let me dispel some illusions here.

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Godzilla are make believe and do not exist.

I tell you that because maybe your parents and teachers forgot, at the same time they forgot to teach you cause and effect and common sense.

Now I might seem like a bad guy for killing the Tooth Fairy but your baby teeth are probably all gone by now, you weren't going to get any more quarters any way.

It's nice to believe in the Tooth Fairy because at least you get a quarter in return for the bloody gums and toothless photos.

It's nice to believe that UOC will make people recognize our gun rights but we don't even get the quarter, we get e-checks, detainment, illegal searches for serial numbers and UOC bans.

You're not going to wake up in the morning and find that the UOC fairy left you a hand tooled Hollywood style gun belt, fringed leather chaps and Constitutional Carry under your pillow.

MudCamper
04-15-2011, 10:37 AM
Range, stores selling ammo etc. are all places that expect to see firearms and related goods.

One of the goals of the OC community (nationwide, not just in CA) is to change that perception - to re-normalize guns in public. Once people see guns being carried by average Joes enough, they will get used to it. It's human nature.

greasemonkey
04-15-2011, 11:07 AM
Starbucks, Target, and walking down the street are all places you expect to see people living their lives with the right to defend themselves.

Correct, those are places we all should and do expect people to live their lives normally, with exercising their right to defend themselves. CGF has stated many, many times that they support UOC as a means of self-defense, especially as a last resort due to arbitrary denial of CCW. This normal view of self-defense does not represent group demonstrations. XX number of people showing up at a restaurant/coffee shop just so they can UOC to make a political statement is not self defense.

wash
04-15-2011, 11:29 AM
MudCamper, you made a post in a thread that has become locked so I'll rebut here.

My blood pressure is fine. If it raised every time I saw someone doing something stupid I would have blown a gasket long ago.

I see a problem and it's 100% preventable.

The secondary problem is that UOC activists don't seem to respond to logic or reason so I have to talk down to that level.

I'm not going to just watch this silliness and let it stand.

Someone was trying to claim that the UOC ban was caused by people who didn't UOC. Can't you see how retarded and circular that logic is?

I'm not afraid go keep beating this red-headed step child. You're like Oliver on the Brady Bunch.

N6ATF
04-15-2011, 11:31 AM
I tell you that because maybe your parents and teachers forgot, at the same time they forgot to teach you cause and effect and common sense.

Seems like you were replying to someone else, but if not...

2A rights being exercised in any shape or form is the cause, infringements are the effect.

wash
04-15-2011, 11:45 AM
Well I buy gun parts, reload ammo (a small amount), shoot at the range, post on calguns.net, volunteer at gun shows and do a tiny amount of political work for my gun rights.

There is nothing there that the antis can really make a fuss over and that is exercising my rights.

I'll do more as my rights are expanded.

Like I've said many times I really want to do the Alameda County Fair Grounds UOC demonstration when the time is right. Unfortunately a UOC ban could mean that time never comes.

Oh, one other thing to rebut. If the UOC activism had not continued after the 2008 election, we would not have UOC bans to fight. It has been going on for about three years now and they are just recently trying to ban it. If we had kept a lower profile, the antis wouldn't have any reason to ban it.

MudCamper
04-15-2011, 12:07 PM
MudCamper, you made a post in a thread that has become locked so I'll rebut here.

My blood pressure is fine. If it raised every time I saw someone doing something stupid I would have blown a gasket long ago.

I see a problem and it's 100% preventable.

You must have missed my point. My point is that AB144 would have been introduced whether or not anyone UOCed. So it's not preventable. Yelling at them to stop won't make any difference. You can yell at them for what they already did, but IMO that's counterproductive.

Someone was trying to claim that the UOC ban was caused by people who didn't UOC. Can't you see how retarded and circular that logic is?

AB1934 was a result of a CalGuns approved open carry event in San Diego back in February 2009. AB144 was a result of AB1934's defeat.

http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu79/ikeepitmoving2/DSC01033.jpg

I'm not afraid go keep beating this red-headed step child. You're like Oliver on the Brady Bunch.

I assume your reference is to the television show, and not the Brady Campaign? I never watched the show (only 2 channels as a kid) so I don't know what you mean. Should I be offended?

N6ATF
04-15-2011, 12:21 PM
You must have missed my point. My point is that AB144 would have been introduced whether or not anyone UOCed.

He hasn't missed our point made in dozens of threads - he flat out denies pathological victim disarmers are pathological victim disarmers. It's pointless to argue with that denial.

wash
04-15-2011, 1:35 PM
Just like they banned talking on cell phones while driving because no one was doing it?

Wake up, the antis had no idea what UOC was until they saw it in Starbucks.

Our enemies are evil and devious but they are also stupid.

We can avoid a lot if we just don't give them ideas for things to ban.

MultiCaliber
04-15-2011, 2:55 PM
I don't understand why this argument is still going on. It doesn't really matter anymore why UOC has been and is on the political chopping block. It just is. I doubt any number of starbucks UOC hangouts contributed much to it, either, except in possible cases where they encountered some antis who made a scene/called the cops.

Bottom line is, eventually, one of these slavering get-rid-of-all-guns-no-matter-what politicians would have realized it was legal to open carry, even though unloaded, and that should not be allowed. In their minds anyway.

Probably 95% of people who would want to carry a firearm for self defense at all would want to do it concealed, or if it must be visible, then loaded. UOC is an extremely neutered, watered-down form of self defense. If AB144 passes and helps us get CCW permits, then we can write a eulogy praising UOC as the martyr that got us CCW.

wash
04-15-2011, 4:29 PM
That's how antis see them. Then they tell everyone else that's what you are.

It doesn't matter that they are incorrect if they succeed in getting a ban. I don't want them to succeed.

I really don't care if you call me a tool, I'm the one trying to protect and expand my rights in a way that isn't counterproductive.

If I have to be a tool to do it, I will be a tool without apology.

N6ATF
04-16-2011, 12:35 AM
Wake up, the antis had no idea what UOC was

They created it in 1967. Strrrreecccch.

Funtimes
04-16-2011, 1:08 AM
And because it isn't, they passed it anyway.

With respect to the $50k number for an OC lawsuit, whoever thinks that's enough to fund it all the way needs to share whatever they are smoking. Try $150k+ in a better venue than California offers.

-Brandon


Well that is if your counting attorney fee's. Grab a pro-bono lawyer or two and that cost goes down.

sfbadger
04-16-2011, 1:22 AM
We wouldn't have an OC ban cooking if we didn't have UOC activists riling up the antis. It's that simple.



Well stated! You have to pick your battles carefully or you run the risk of losing the war! It's just that simple.

wildhawker
04-16-2011, 2:42 AM
Well that is if your counting attorney fee's. Grab a pro-bono lawyer or two and that cost goes down.

Find me a qualified attorney that would do that case on pure contingency.

-Brandon

Funtimes
04-16-2011, 3:21 AM
Well, "qualified" would be a very opinion based statement. Many people would say there is only 5-6 people who should be doing 2a litigation (Alan, Jason, Chuck +crew, Don) there are many other attorneys who have done criminal, civil, and second amendment litigation though.

Two attorneys (+1 in background) and 1 law student are helping me in Hawaii right now.

epilepticninja
04-16-2011, 1:28 PM
If I see anyone open carrying a long gun, even a police officer I am calling 911.


Crom: *Calling 911*
911: "911, state your emergency"
Crom: "One of your patrol officers is in my neighborhood carrying his/her AR-15, please roll Code 3 to this location and arrest him/her because I don't believe anyone should be carrying a long gun, even a police officer. Thanks."

N6ATF
04-16-2011, 1:32 PM
LMAO

wazdat
04-16-2011, 2:22 PM
I don't understand why this argument is still going on. It doesn't really matter anymore why UOC has been and is on the political chopping block. It just is. I doubt any number of starbucks UOC hangouts contributed much to it, either, except in possible cases where they encountered some antis who made a scene/called the cops.

Bottom line is, eventually, one of these slavering get-rid-of-all-guns-no-matter-what politicians would have realized it was legal to open carry, even though unloaded, and that should not be allowed. In their minds anyway.

Probably 95% of people who would want to carry a firearm for self defense at all would want to do it concealed, or if it must be visible, then loaded. UOC is an extremely neutered, watered-down form of self defense. If AB144 passes and helps us get CCW permits, then we can write a eulogy praising UOC as the martyr that got us CCW.

- May 2, 1967: About 30 armed Black Panther members entered the California legislature to protest consideration of outlawing the right of private citizens to bear arms. There was no violence, but the spectacle is well remembered and brought the group into public light..

Shortly thereafter, legislation was passed making LOC illegal in California. I'm fairly certain it added legitimacy, in the minds of Congressmen and Senators of that day, to the passage of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

AndrewMendez
04-16-2011, 2:45 PM
The problem is that there are no UOC groups that I know of who are doing any legal work, they would probably think the $25 is for their burger fund.

You could send the money to CGF or the CRPA foundation but that would probably go to fight a more important battle and UOC folks will still insist that their rights are being ignored.

It's a face palm situation.

Just quoting so people read it twice.

Highoctaneman1
04-17-2011, 1:28 AM
Correct, those are places we all should and do expect people to live their lives normally, with exercising their right to defend themselves. CGF has stated many, many times that they support UOC as a means of self-defense, especially as a last resort due to arbitrary denial of CCW. This normal view of self-defense does not represent group demonstrations. XX number of people showing up at a restaurant/coffee shop just so they can UOC to make a political statement is not self defense.

Well just speaking from personal experience the laws are so confusing that I felt more comfortable UOC with a group for the first couple of times.

After I got use to UOC with others I was more confident that I knew the laws and went out alone. I now UOC when ever I can, alone, and with my family. If it wasn't for these UOC group meets I would not have the knowledge I needed to carry like I do now.

It feels so good that I can finally be armed and protect my family, my self, and my community. If this new law passes it sucks that I have to carry a long gun but I'll have to adjust and so will every one else that lives in this state run by antis.

I still go to UOC events with others. It's a great way to share our experiences and show new people how to protect their family in CA.

I really do feel bad every time I read how bad "Open carry people" are to getting the right laws passed and all the rest of the stuff CGN is doing for our rights, but I just can't sacrifice my families safety for the hope of a better laws sometime in the future.

I don't UOC to make a political statement but I do see the importance in having a welcoming group come together regularly to help teach new people.

OleCuss
04-17-2011, 6:00 AM
OK, I've never spent any significant time with UOCers. No offense to them but I consider them to be brothers and sisters.

I also have no particular problem with them strapping on and going about their business as a political statement. If they feel more secure as well, then that's wonderful.

I find it painful when the intellect of the UOCers is questioned. I don't find them stupid even though some of them are very wrong on certain things.

But there is perspective which too many are missing.

Does anyone remember what happened when Gandhi used non-violent methods to at least spark the move to independence for India? If he'd tried that on the Soviet Union the outcome would have been very different. But he was using the tactic on Britain, and in Britain the tactic(s) actually worked as they should have.

Take a look at the "Middle East". In some cases the tyrants have fallen and in others they are secure while others are still fighting it out. The U.S. approach has so far appeared to be stupid almost beyond belief - even if well-intentioned.

In Afghanistan we've been far less successful than we should because our big muckety-mucks believe that fighting a polite war based on a Western model of behavior will work.

Point is that you have to tune your tactics and strategy to the enemy and to the audience. Here in California the enemy feeds on the public display of weaponry and generally equates those who display the weaponry with the thugs on TV and in the movies.

The fact that they don't always call the cops on people carrying firearms may be that they are just too apathetic or that they have the pathetic notion that the cops are all-knowing and are thus already aware of the situation.

So far as it being important to get together to teach people?

I recall when I was in the CA ARNG and we'd have "Dark Night". The officers and many of the senior enlisted would get together and plan our use of mortars, .50 caliber machine guns, M4's, etc. But at the "Dark Night" you wouldn't see one single firearm - not one.

You don't have to be carrying a firearm in order to plan or to teach certain aspects of the proper employment of weaponry. That is an indisputable fact.

Now if you are teaching marksmanship you'll eventually have to employ firearms. But I seriously doubt that marksmanship and firearms handling are a serious matter of instruction at public UOC demonstrations.

Now to go back a bit? I seriously don't think that if AB144 passes that the same mentality will exist among the UOCers. The UOCers seem to believe that they beat the previous legislation by political means - not a stupid opinion, but I think they are very wrong. If AB144 passes despite their/our best efforts I think it may be a wake-up that brings home the idea that their strategy and tactics aren't working and won't work in the near future. I think that hgreen, the puppy, havoc, etc. will be on-board with the idea that UOC'ing EBR's would be very counterproductive and that will tend to decrease the risk that many will pursue that avenue.

To a certain extent, I may fear the defeat of AB144 more than its passage. If AB144 is beaten you may get more people carrying EBR's because they figure that UOC of pistols worked and that they can advance our RKBA by carrying EBR's about. EBR carrying could get us huge problems with many of our already onerous laws being made even more oppressive and expensive to fight.

FWIW