PDA

View Full Version : Responsible Citizens of California Speak Out Against Passage Of AB 144


Black Dragon
10-10-2011, 2:10 AM
The Responsible Citizens of California have just issued a press release to speak out against the passage of AB 144--the Open Carry ban bill of 2011.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-oakland/responsible-citizens-of-california-weigh-against-the-passage-of-ab-144

Havoc70
10-10-2011, 2:43 AM
As much as I like you, this made me cringe:

Since the State Legislature and the Governor have chosen to attack the right to carry handguns, law-abiding citizens who wish to be able to protect themselves from violent criminals have no choice but to Open Carry long guns instead.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Responsible Citizens of California Weigh In Against The Passage Of AB 144 - Oakland Gun Rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-oakland/responsible-citizens-of-california-weigh-against-the-passage-of-ab-144#ixzz1aN1syZ2C

You're really going to go there? Insanity abounds.

bwiese
10-10-2011, 2:50 AM
Havoc70,

Absolutely right.

Very poor idea, BlackDragon. You'd have been far better off bringing up how this could possibly improve CCW stuff.

Unfortunately the UOCers are disconnected somewhat from the real gunrights movement and don't comprehend how this will really screw up some fixup laws where we have to work with other groups (LE) - and this prospectively just screws the pooch in that cooperation.

LE groups were the big opposer in AB144 and the UOCers picked a battle with them - and lost.

CalBear
10-10-2011, 2:50 AM
You're really going to go there? Insanity abounds.
Here's a form letter for us to use:

Dear Governor Brown,

I strongly urge you to veto AB 145, a bill that will ban the open carrying of long guns....

Sincerely,
XXX

GOEX FFF
10-10-2011, 3:20 AM
"Since the State Legislature and the Governor have chosen to attack the right to carry handguns, law-abiding citizens who wish to be able to protect themselves from violent criminals have no choice but to Open Carry long guns instead."

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Now you guys want to open up long guns to be put on the chopping block...... Hasn't there already been enough damage done??

xGearbox
10-10-2011, 3:26 AM
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Now you guys want to open up long guns to be put on the chopping block...... Hasn't there already been enough damage done??
Not really. So you want to have the ability to UOC long guns but we shouldn't ever practice it because the instant somebody does it, this activity can get banned? Why do we even have this then? Either exercise it or just outright ban it since we shouldn't do it anyway. Then we can focus on getting shall-issue or something more useful to gun owners.

831Shooter
10-10-2011, 4:10 AM
Not really. So you want to have the ability to UOC long guns but we shouldn't ever practice it because the instant somebody does it, this activity can get banned? Why do we even have this then? Either exercise it or just outright ban it since we shouldn't do it anyway. Then we can focus on getting shall-issue or something more useful to gun owners.

Fully Agreed!

First off, admittedly, I am new to calguns and I do not have the inside information that many involved with CGF do with regards to their strategy for our 2A rights, but I have never understood this attitude regarding UOC.

Second, I do not UOC, so I had no real "side" in this matter.

I just don't understand the attitude of 2A supporters shouting about NOT UOC handguns and don't UOC long guns. What good is a "right" (or really privilege in this state) if you are too fearful to do it. Just let them ban it, it's already "banned" in 99% of gun owners minds. They know they are legally allowed to UOC, but won't or don't because the know the hassle they will encounter with LE. It's pointless. "Hey, If I REALLY wanted to, I'm allowed to carry an UNLOADED gun openly in public"..

The whole thing is ridiculous. The gun grabbers in CA seem to have the law abiding gun owners right where they want them. A quick peruse through the threads will show that ASAP. There are still long posts about people questioning and scared about LEGALLY having a handgun in their vehicle "unloaded and in a locked container".

I don't claim to be right. Obviously, as I stated, there are people with much more knowledge in the "fight" the myself.

How did UOC hurt us?

IMHO, the LE, citizens and politicians who are anti gun for private citizens are NOT CHANGING their minds. Nothing we do is going to suddenly convince gun control nazis that they were wrong and now they will support our 2A rights.

Serious questions:

How does exercising a LEGAL right harm our cause?

How does NOT exercising a legal right help our cause?

To myself, it seems like there is no effect either way. The gun grabbers will still want to grab no matter what. Having a "right" that you realistically can not carry out is useless. Either we can ACTUALLY UOC handguns or long guns or we can't. If we can't then just get it over with and pass the law banning it already.

831S

TheExpertish
10-10-2011, 5:41 AM
I'm not surprised this was signed. Sucks but this will be made a mute point when Shall Issue succeeds.

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 6:04 AM
Reminds me of Patton. The idea is to not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.

And lets kill off this idea that you have to exercise your constitutional right. If that were the case the UOCers would be LOCers right now. It is clear that LOC is constitutionally protected but they don't do that.

If you want to win you set up a careful strategy with tactics which will further your strategy. You choose the terrain and the timing along with a favorable order of battle and then you execute.

UOCing long-guns is just walking into the opponent's kill zone. Not enough to get the right to UOC killed off - they need to make it so that we can't carry long guns either?

Is this "Responsible Citizens of California" an LCAV front group?

tenpercentfirearms
10-10-2011, 6:15 AM
If you want to win you set up a careful strategy with tactics which will further your strategy. You choose the terrain and the timing along with a favorable order of battle and then you execute.

This has always been the issue. There is a time and place for everything. The guys who were UOCing on an individual basis when they felt they needed to didn't wake up the beast. It was the coffee shop commando.

Yes, ultimately it was the legislature and the governor that made all of this happen, but you live in California. Realize you are outnumbered and you will never win through the legislative process. Those are concrete facts here in this state.

Caladain
10-10-2011, 6:16 AM
Gun owners have done more to hurt the movement than the anti's have. Please talk some sense into whatever organization you have a voice in *not* to open carry rifles.

ubet
10-10-2011, 6:53 AM
So on 10/10/12, we will be crying, cussing how every EFFING time we put a rifle in the pickup to go hunt it has to be locked up in a case. I am all for expressing your rights, but this is just not a battle you are going to win in this state. Its like going into every movie theater you can and yelling fire, yes you have the freedom of speech, but their is time and place restrictions on it.

UOC, you guys got slapped down less than 7 hrs ago, and you are going to uoc "evil black kitten and baby killers"? EFFING DUMB!

elsensei
10-10-2011, 7:44 AM
For those of you who actually believe you are men with rights, whether the state recognizes them or not, good on ya. The rest of you, what a bunch of gutless turds.

I'm really amazed.

Yes, I'm going to OC my shotgun. The black pistol-gripped 12 gauge semiautomatic, with the action open and buckshot and slugs in the carrier, ready to load. Probably get arrested by another badged thug that doesn't know the law, sue again and get paid.

And I'll figure out an exemption to 144 (there are 28, I'll know them and the thugs won't), legally carry a handgun, get arrested for again NOT breaking the law, sue again and have another payday.

Then when they ban long gun carry, I'll carry my sword, probably get arrested again, sue again, and get paid again.

And when you finally get your precious shall-issue government permission slips, I'll sign up for one too, conceal my handgun and walk around all day with a shirt saying "I'M CARRYING A BIG F-U-C-K-I-N-G HANDGUN" with an arrow pointing right to it. Then I'll get arrested for that, and make a case that I'm exercising my right to free speech. Let's see them weasel out of that. Again, I'll get paid.

The point is, I'm not going to cower and hope that sometime in the next 10 years kalifornia recognizes the right. I want to be able to carry a loaded chambered handgun open and everywhere and won't settle for anything less as long as I live here. I agreed to chair RCC with the understanding that we were not going to compromise, EVER. Compromise of gun rights is just half steps to hell, and what turned the NRA into the biggest gun control organization on the planet.

You don't have to like it. And just a warning, trying to talk me out of it is a waste of time. So save your breath.

Caladain
10-10-2011, 7:47 AM
When did you renew your Brady membership?

For those of you who actually believe you are men with rights, whether the state recognizes them or not, good on ya. The rest of you, what a bunch of gutless turds.

I'm really amazed.

Yes, I'm going to OC my shotgun. The black pistol-gripped 12 gauge semiautomatic, with the action open and buckshot and slugs in the carrier, ready to load. Probably get arrested by another badged thug that doesn't know the law, sue again and get paid.

And I'll figure out an exemption to 144 (there are 28, I'll know them and the thugs won't), legally carry a handgun, get arrested for again NOT breaking the law, sue again and have another payday.

Then when they ban long gun carry, I'll carry my sword, probably get arrested again, sue again, and get paid again.

And when you finally get your precious shall-issue government permission slips, I'll sign up for one too, conceal my handgun and walk around all day with a shirt saying "I'M CARRYING A BIG F-U-C-K-I-N-G HANDGUN" with an arrow pointing right to it. Then I'll get arrested for that, and make a case that I'm exercising my right to free speech. Let's see them weasel out of that. Again, I'll get paid.

The point is, I'm not going to cower and hope that sometime in the next 10 years kalifornia recognizes the right. I want to be able to carry a loaded chambered handgun open and everywhere and won't settle for anything less as long as I live here. I agreed to chair RCC with the understanding that we were not going to compromise, EVER. Compromise of gun rights is just half steps to hell, and what turned the NRA into the biggest gun control organization on the planet.

You don't have to like it. And just a warning, trying to talk me out of it is a waste of time. So save your breath.

elsensei
10-10-2011, 7:49 AM
The guys who were UOCing on an individual basis when they felt they needed to didn't wake up the beast. It was the coffee shop commando.

Yes, ultimately it was the legislature and the governor that made all of this happen, but you live in California. Realize you are outnumbered and you will never win through the legislative process.

gotta comment on this.

no, it was the individual guy who "woke up the beast". pull your head out. anyone who oc'd in this state was gonna cause a ruckus. ask me how i know.

and i agree, we'll never win in the legislative process and i've always thought lobbying and letter writing was a waste of time. the only thing that works is the judicial process. thugs only understand force.

Skidmark
10-10-2011, 7:49 AM
Unfortunately the UOCers are disconnected somewhat from the real gunrights movement and don't comprehend how this will really screw up some fixup laws where we have to work with other groups (LE) - and this prospectively just screws the pooch in that cooperation.

LE groups were the big opposer in AB144 and the UOCers picked a battle with them - and lost.

For those of you who actually believe you are men with rights, whether the state recognizes them or not, good on ya. The rest of you, what a bunch of gutless turds.

I'm really amazed.

Yes, I'm going to OC my shotgun. The black pistol-gripped 12 gauge semiautomatic, with the action open and buckshot and slugs in the carrier, ready to load. Probably get arrested by another badged thug that doesn't know the law, sue again and get paid.

And I'll figure out an exemption to 144 (there are 28, I'll know them and the thugs won't), legally carry a handgun, get arrested for again NOT breaking the law, sue again and have another payday.

Then when they ban long gun carry, I'll carry my sword, probably get arrested again, sue again, and get paid again.

And when you finally get your precious shall-issue government permission slips, I'll sign up for one too, conceal my handgun and walk around all day with a shirt saying "I'M CARRYING A BIG F-U-C-K-I-N-G HANDGUN" with an arrow pointing right to it. Then I'll get arrested for that, and make a case that I'm exercising my right to free speech. Let's see them weasel out of that. Again, I'll get paid.

The point is, I'm not going to cower and hope that sometime in the next 10 years kalifornia recognizes the right. I want to be able to carry a loaded chambered handgun open and everywhere and won't settle for anything less as long as I live here. I agreed to chair RCC with the understanding that we were not going to compromise, EVER. Compromise of gun rights is just half steps to hell, and what turned the NRA into the biggest gun control organization on the planet.

You don't have to like it. And just a warning, trying to talk me out of it is a waste of time. So save your breath.

Bill makes a very good point.

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 7:58 AM
elsensei:

You sound like the reason why the U.S. Army wins against so many others.

Uncoordinated action without proper support means that a well organized OPFOR is going to kill you unless you have overwhelming advantages in terrain, equipment, and numerical forces.

It's the problem with too many who've hunted and never been in leadership in the armed forces. You figure that with if you're brave and clever you'll win.

I think of it as the difference between a warrior and a soldier. The warrior goes off to do brave and great deeds as he/she is slaughtered. The soldier functions as a team and maneuvers for advantage in time, terrain, equipment, and numbers. Soldiers slaughter the heroic warrior(s).

I remember in Afghanistan we kept having problems with the ANA (Afghan National Army). No lack of bravery or intellect, but they'd hear of an attack and grab up weapons and load up in pick-ups to go fight the Taliban. No care taken to ensure that they had air support, a reserve force, or a logistical tail. They ran to the fight with much bravery and an inability to shoot straight.

In Iraq they'd talk about how you wanted to be the target of the insurgents - that way you'd never get hit. Admittedly it was an exaggeration, but the concept the insurgents frequently had was that they had to set up the mortars (or whatever the weapon might be) and fire it - and if Allah willed it would hit the infidels. So proper aiming was not a consideration for an awful lot of them.

The lessons are clear. If you want to win you have to be tactically and strategically smart. Carrying your shotgun around is the most wonderful thing you could do for LCAV.

armygunsmith
10-10-2011, 8:09 AM
Wow, ridiculous.

elsensei
10-10-2011, 8:22 AM
elsensei:

You sound like the reason why the U.S. Army wins against so many others.

Uncoordinated action without proper support means that a well organized OPFOR is going to kill you unless you have overwhelming advantages in terrain, equipment, and numerical forces.

It's the problem with too many who've hunted and never been in leadership in the armed forces. You figure that with if you're brave and clever you'll win.

I think of it as the difference between a warrior and a soldier. The warrior goes off to do brave and great deeds as he/she is slaughtered. The soldier functions as a team and maneuvers for advantage in time, terrain, equipment, and numbers. Soldiers slaughter the heroic warrior(s).

I remember in Afghanistan we kept having problems with the ANA (Afghan National Army). No lack of bravery or intellect, but they'd hear of an attack and grab up weapons and load up in pick-ups to go fight the Taliban. No care taken to ensure that they had air support, a reserve force, or a logistical tail. They ran to the fight with much bravery and an inability to shoot straight.

In Iraq they'd talk about how you wanted to be the target of the insurgents - that way you'd never get hit. Admittedly it was an exaggeration, but the concept the insurgents frequently had was that they had to set up the mortars (or whatever the weapon might be) and fire it - and if Allah willed it would hit the infidels. So proper aiming was not a consideration for an awful lot of them.

The lessons are clear. If you want to win you have to be tactically and strategically smart. Carrying your shotgun around is the most wonderful thing you could do for LCAV.

that whole argument might make sense if we weren't being bled dry in afghanistan, iraq, and lookee! now libya.

I look at it another way. If you hate the US, you can spend trillions building up ICBMs and have a full-fledged nuclear war, but why not just spend a couple million bucks and 19 of your followers, fly planes into buildings and get the entire nation to turn into a police state, destroy their economy, give up their rights and freedoms, make them sexually molest their own people at airports and spend trillions of dollars trying to fight a phantom, all in the name of security theatre?

Spelunker
10-10-2011, 8:29 AM
Bill,
Since it was the police chiefs association that convinced Gov brown to sign the anti carry bill, can you tell us how the LEO's are working with us? It seems to me, and from what I have read many others,that they only work against us.
where we have to work with other groups (LE)

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 8:35 AM
that whole argument might make sense if we weren't being bled dry in afghanistan, iraq, and lookee! now libya.

I look at it another way. If you hate the US, you can spend trillions building up ICBMs and have a full-fledged nuclear war, but why not just spend a couple million bucks and 19 of your followers, fly planes into buildings and get the entire nation to turn into a police state, destroy their economy, give up their rights and freedoms, make them sexually molest their own people at airports and spend trillions of dollars trying to fight a phantom, all in the name of security theatre?

I didn't say that our political leaders are strategically competent - they're certainly not. That means that even if we fight long and hard we can still lose. That's sort of my point?

But you put our well-trained and coordinated soldiers up against a similarly sized and equipped bunch of warriors and we'll kick their butts.

Sort of like in Vietnam. We didn't lose battles in Vietnam. Even the Tet Offensive was a slaughtering of the OPFOR. What happened is that our OPFOR and their allies here in the U.S. portrayed us as losing and got our politicos on board. We left the battlefield and lost what so many had given their lives to win.

Patriot Man
10-10-2011, 8:51 AM
As much as I like you, this made me cringe:



You're really going to go there? Insanity abounds.

OH Mr BlackDragon, Please re-direct your energy. This will cause immense public backlash. We need to stand united. This will make us look like complete and total IDIOTS. Put up a survey on this site and see how many of us agree with this stance (long gun open carry). I would estimate less than 5%. This will put LE in a terrible position with freaked out public people calling left right and sideways every time you do this.

oldrifle
10-10-2011, 8:57 AM
My 2 cents: The UOCers brought this on themselves (and on all of us). We'd all be much better if we just listened to Bill and Gene instead of pretending like we know better. Lead, follow or get out of the way... don't make things harder for us.

bwiese
10-10-2011, 9:25 AM
Reminds me of Patton. The idea is to not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.

And lets kill off this idea that you have to exercise your constitutional right. If that were the case the UOCers would be LOCers right now. It is clear that LOC is constitutionally protected but they don't do that.

If you want to win you set up a careful strategy with tactics which will further your strategy. You choose the terrain and the timing along with a favorable order of battle and then you execute.

UOCing long-guns is just walking into the opponent's kill zone. Not enough to get the right to UOC killed off - they need to make it so that we can't carry long guns either?


Yep.
And there are some things we can fix in courts, but why have to spend time & treasure on lawyering?




Is this "Responsible Citizens of California" an LCAV front group?

No, LCAV has better planning.

bwiese
10-10-2011, 9:28 AM
Bill,
Since it was the police chiefs association that convinced Gov brown to sign the anti carry bill, can you tell us how the LEO's are working with us? It seems to me, and from what I have read many others,that they only work against us.

See my post on LEO AW stuff. Huge problem, and multiple groups have to work together. They're starting to understand there's a problem, Sacto is getting it, and there's a bit of a panic.

And all this threatening of OC of rifles is just queering the pitch.

5thgen4runner
10-10-2011, 9:28 AM
Fully Agreed!

First off, admittedly, I am new to calguns and I do not have the inside information that many involved with CGF do with regards to their strategy for our 2A rights, but I have never understood this attitude regarding UOC.

Second, I do not UOC, so I had no real "side" in this matter.

I just don't understand the attitude of 2A supporters shouting about NOT UOC handguns and don't UOC long guns. What good is a "right" (or really privilege in this state) if you are too fearful to do it. Just let them ban it, it's already "banned" in 99% of gun owners minds. They know they are legally allowed to UOC, but won't or don't because the know the hassle they will encounter with LE. It's pointless. "Hey, If I REALLY wanted to, I'm allowed to carry an UNLOADED gun openly in public"..

The whole thing is ridiculous. The gun grabbers in CA seem to have the law abiding gun owners right where they want them. A quick peruse through the threads will show that ASAP. There are still long posts about people questioning and scared about LEGALLY having a handgun in their vehicle "unloaded and in a locked container".

I don't claim to be right. Obviously, as I stated, there are people with much more knowledge in the "fight" the myself.

How did UOC hurt us?

IMHO, the LE, citizens and politicians who are anti gun for private citizens are NOT CHANGING their minds. Nothing we do is going to suddenly convince gun control nazis that they were wrong and now they will support our 2A rights.

Serious questions:

How does exercising a LEGAL right harm our cause?

How does NOT exercising a legal right help our cause?

To myself, it seems like there is no effect either way. The gun grabbers will still want to grab no matter what. Having a "right" that you realistically can not carry out is useless. Either we can ACTUALLY UOC handguns or long guns or we can't. If we can't then just get it over with and pass the law banning it already.

831S

This 200% agreed

a1c
10-10-2011, 9:33 AM
For those of you who actually believe you are men with rights, whether the state recognizes them or not, good on ya. The rest of you, what a bunch of gutless turds.

I can't believe you are pulling the "man" card here. Seriously? What are you, 12?

I'm really amazed.

Yes, I'm going to OC my shotgun. The black pistol-gripped 12 gauge semiautomatic, with the action open and buckshot and slugs in the carrier, ready to load. Probably get arrested by another badged thug that doesn't know the law, sue again and get paid.

And I'll figure out an exemption to 144 (there are 28, I'll know them and the thugs won't), legally carry a handgun, get arrested for again NOT breaking the law, sue again and have another payday.

Then when they ban long gun carry, I'll carry my sword, probably get arrested again, sue again, and get paid again.

And when you finally get your precious shall-issue government permission slips, I'll sign up for one too, conceal my handgun and walk around all day with a shirt saying "I'M CARRYING A BIG F-U-C-K-I-N-G HANDGUN" with an arrow pointing right to it. Then I'll get arrested for that, and make a case that I'm exercising my right to free speech. Let's see them weasel out of that. Again, I'll get paid.

The point is, I'm not going to cower and hope that sometime in the next 10 years kalifornia recognizes the right. I want to be able to carry a loaded chambered handgun open and everywhere and won't settle for anything less as long as I live here. I agreed to chair RCC with the understanding that we were not going to compromise, EVER. Compromise of gun rights is just half steps to hell, and what turned the NRA into the biggest gun control organization on the planet.

You don't have to like it. And just a warning, trying to talk me out of it is a waste of time. So save your breath.

People like you are hopeless. You never learn. No sense of PR whatsoever. Just a stubborn, narrow-minded, childish approach of "I know I'm right, so screw all of you."

It DOESN'T MATTER that you had the right to OC until this bill got signed. It DOESN'T MATTER that you will use whatever loopholes to keep OCing - handguns or long guns.

You are just being selfish and short-sighted. You don't care about gun rights. You just care about being right.

MudCamper
10-10-2011, 9:36 AM
Fully Agreed!

First off, admittedly, I am new to calguns and I do not have the inside information that many involved with CGF do with regards to their strategy for our 2A rights, but I have never understood this attitude regarding UOC.

Second, I do not UOC, so I had no real "side" in this matter.

I just don't understand the attitude of 2A supporters shouting about NOT UOC handguns and don't UOC long guns. What good is a "right" (or really privilege in this state) if you are too fearful to do it. Just let them ban it, it's already "banned" in 99% of gun owners minds. They know they are legally allowed to UOC, but won't or don't because the know the hassle they will encounter with LE. It's pointless. "Hey, If I REALLY wanted to, I'm allowed to carry an UNLOADED gun openly in public"..

The whole thing is ridiculous. The gun grabbers in CA seem to have the law abiding gun owners right where they want them. A quick peruse through the threads will show that ASAP. There are still long posts about people questioning and scared about LEGALLY having a handgun in their vehicle "unloaded and in a locked container".

I don't claim to be right. Obviously, as I stated, there are people with much more knowledge in the "fight" the myself.

How did UOC hurt us?

IMHO, the LE, citizens and politicians who are anti gun for private citizens are NOT CHANGING their minds. Nothing we do is going to suddenly convince gun control nazis that they were wrong and now they will support our 2A rights.

Serious questions:

How does exercising a LEGAL right harm our cause?

How does NOT exercising a legal right help our cause?

To myself, it seems like there is no effect either way. The gun grabbers will still want to grab no matter what. Having a "right" that you realistically can not carry out is useless. Either we can ACTUALLY UOC handguns or long guns or we can't. If we can't then just get it over with and pass the law banning it already.

831S

QFT.

For those of you who actually believe you are men with rights, whether the state recognizes them or not, good on ya. The rest of you, what a bunch of gutless turds.

I'm really amazed.

Yes, I'm going to OC my shotgun. The black pistol-gripped 12 gauge semiautomatic, with the action open and buckshot and slugs in the carrier, ready to load. Probably get arrested by another badged thug that doesn't know the law, sue again and get paid.

And I'll figure out an exemption to 144 (there are 28, I'll know them and the thugs won't), legally carry a handgun, get arrested for again NOT breaking the law, sue again and have another payday.

Then when they ban long gun carry, I'll carry my sword, probably get arrested again, sue again, and get paid again.

And when you finally get your precious shall-issue government permission slips, I'll sign up for one too, conceal my handgun and walk around all day with a shirt saying "I'M CARRYING A BIG F-U-C-K-I-N-G HANDGUN" with an arrow pointing right to it. Then I'll get arrested for that, and make a case that I'm exercising my right to free speech. Let's see them weasel out of that. Again, I'll get paid.

The point is, I'm not going to cower and hope that sometime in the next 10 years kalifornia recognizes the right. I want to be able to carry a loaded chambered handgun open and everywhere and won't settle for anything less as long as I live here. I agreed to chair RCC with the understanding that we were not going to compromise, EVER. Compromise of gun rights is just half steps to hell, and what turned the NRA into the biggest gun control organization on the planet.

You don't have to like it. And just a warning, trying to talk me out of it is a waste of time. So save your breath.

I salute you sir.

BigDogatPlay
10-10-2011, 9:38 AM
Bill,
Since it was the police chiefs association that convinced Gov brown to sign the anti carry bill, can you tell us how the LEO's are working with us? It seems to me, and from what I have read many others,that they only work against us.

Chiefs are political animals, far removed from the world of actual police work on the street. Playing the card of the chief's association being representative of the LEO community is fallacious.

LEOs in more urban settings are going to see less value in (L or U)OC than their counterparts in more rural settings. Thats a function of geography and demographics. I, personally, never had a problem with anyone who is a law abiding person carrying firearms to protect themselves. As a LEO I understood early on that I had nothing to fear from such a person because they are.... << shudder >> law abiding. Unfortunately, there are no signs that identify people conveniently for LE as law abiding so we have to check. That offends the sensibilities of some, in part because some LEO have grossly over responded over the years.

Speaking solely for myself as a now former LEO who worked in both settings and who chased more than a few MWAG calls, if you choose to carry as a law abiding person I'd much prefer you did so concealed. There is far less drama and it is far less disruptive to the community in which you live. This is why I am four square in support of LTC reform in California.

As to the poster above who plans to OC his long guns.... you will be creating unnecessary drama that will only cloud our civil rights position that much further. But good luck with it if that's what you choose to do.

RazzB7
10-10-2011, 9:41 AM
My 2 cents: The UOCers brought this on themselves (and on all of us). We'd all be much better if we just listened to Bill and Gene instead of pretending like we know better. Lead, follow or get out of the way... don't make things harder for us.

I agree. Had we (responsible gun owners) just used our UOC rights as RIGHTS, instead of using those same rights to make a "tee-hee, I just thumbed my nose at the man and posted it on youtube" political statement, that right might never have been infringed. Bill, Gene and others are leading the way, and they saw this bill coming long before any of us.

SoCalXD
10-10-2011, 9:48 AM
What part of "Civil Disobedience" don't you armchairs understand? Do you think that after generations of passing oppressive laws, that REASON will in any way sway the statists in permanent control of the government of California? If you're waiting for some magic legal wand to sprinkle fairy dust over all these laws to nullify them, give it up... they now have shown that they will happily continue to pass laws, regardless of potential legal chalenges... that's because individually, they are above the law. That is called a "Totalitarianism". How do Americans deal with tyrants? (The answer here, for apparently 95% of you, is to wring your hands online, and then roll over on your back, peeing yourselves like frighted puppies).

And don't think that by getting a tea party candidate into the white house, and a majority in both houses in 2013, will have any effect on your lack of gun rights in this State... it wont.

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 9:57 AM
QFT.



I salute you sir.

I wish everyone would remember that one very big sign of sanity is to repeatedly do the same thing and expect a different outcome. Further UOC demonstrations are likely to get us further UOC bans - not sure exactly how that helps the UOC cause?

And I'd note that one of the people you quoted decided he had to violate the forum rules in order to use an obscenity? Likely to get himself banned.

I'm not exactly sure why such behavior is commendable. But, to each his own - and the rest of us get to deal with the consequences?

Caladain
10-10-2011, 9:58 AM
What part of "Civil Disobedience" don't you armchairs understand? Do you think that after generations of passing oppressive laws, that REASON will in any way sway the statists in permanent control of the government of California? If you're waiting for some magic legal wand to sprinkle fairy dust over all these laws to nullify them, give it up... they now have shown that they will happily continue to pass laws, regardless of potential legal chalenges... that's because individually, they are above the law. That is called a "Totalitarianism". How do Americans deal with tyrants? (The answer here, for apparently 95% of you, is to wring your hands online, and then roll over on your back, peeing yourselves like frighted puppies).

And don't think that by getting a tea party candidate into the white house, and a majority in both houses in 2013, will have any effect on your lack of gun rights in this State... it wont.

Our victory will be *inspite* of this train of thought and the people who are scope-locked on it. Just remember you're helping the anti's so much when you follow this train of thought that it's a wonder they don't give you a membership card.

The Shadow
10-10-2011, 9:58 AM
I'll be quite honest with the UOCers, I supported your carrying of unloaded handguns, because it was a valid statement about the draconian restrictions on our right to bear arms, but carrying long guns in public is just going to cause trouble and the average citizen will not support that. So keep your long guns at home unless you're going to take them shooting and don't carry them with you to Starbuck's.

MudCamper
10-10-2011, 10:02 AM
I wish everyone would remember that one very big sign of sanity is to repeatedly do the same thing and expect a different outcome. Further UOC demonstrations are likely to get us further UOC bans - not sure exactly how that helps the UOC cause?

Did you even read 831's post?

I just don't understand the attitude of 2A supporters shouting about NOT UOC handguns and don't UOC long guns. What good is a "right" (or really privilege in this state) if you are too fearful to do it. Just let them ban it, it's already "banned" in 99% of gun owners minds.

What difference does it make if it is banned if you never intend to do it anyway? None. It may as well be banned. At some point the legislature will go so far that more people will wake up and then maybe we can start to turn this insane ship around.

RazzB7
10-10-2011, 10:03 AM
What part of "Civil Disobedience" don't you armchairs understand? Do you think that after generations of passing oppressive laws, that REASON will in any way sway the statists in permanent control of the government of California? If you're waiting for some magic legal wand to sprinkle fairy dust over all these laws to nullify them, give it up... they now have shown that they will happily continue to pass laws, regardless of potential legal chalenges... that's because individually, they are above the law. That is called a "Totalitarianism". How do Americans deal with tyrants? (The answer here, for apparently 95% of you, is to wring your hands online, and then roll over on your back, peeing yourselves like frighted puppies).

And don't think that by getting a tea party candidate into the white house, and a majority in both houses in 2013, will have any effect on your lack of gun rights in this State... it wont.

Civil disobedience has a time and a place. In fact, our country is founded on this. But to UOC as a form of civil disobedience to do what? Fight for a right we already had, but has now subsequently been infringed?

What was the point of the UOC movement? What were they fighting for? I missed it. All I ever saw was a bunch of "neener, neener, neener! Look what I can do and you can't stop me!" Guess what?...they stopped you now!

So your answer is to do the same thing with long guns now? To what end? What is your end game?

a1c
10-10-2011, 10:10 AM
What part of "Civil Disobedience" don't you armchairs understand? Do you think that after generations of passing oppressive laws, that REASON will in any way sway the statists in permanent control of the government of California? If you're waiting for some magic legal wand to sprinkle fairy dust over all these laws to nullify them, give it up... they now have shown that they will happily continue to pass laws, regardless of potential legal chalenges... that's because individually, they are above the law. That is called a "Totalitarianism". How do Americans deal with tyrants? (The answer here, for apparently 95% of you, is to wring your hands online, and then roll over on your back, peeing yourselves like frighted puppies).

And don't think that by getting a tea party candidate into the white house, and a majority in both houses in 2013, will have any effect on your lack of gun rights in this State... it wont.

OK, if you're going to bring up civil disobedience in here, please remember that in the 60s, it's not the armed Black Panthers and the early Malcolm X types who got things done.

G60
10-10-2011, 10:14 AM
Folks, you can't explain the analogy 'chess, not checkers' to people who cant even connect four.

1859sharps
10-10-2011, 10:16 AM
If the day comes that I have to finally leave California to be able to exercise my 2nd amendment rights, it will be because of the UOC crowds short sightedness doing the work of anti gun groups for them.

I can only hope that they don't continue to screw up so badly that anti gun case law gets made at the 9th court and ends "freedom" in the so called "free states" too.

oldrifle
10-10-2011, 10:16 AM
I see armed rebellion and armed altercations with police in this state's future with disastrous effects on our rights unless certain people wise up and get with the program.

I don't know if some of you noticed but the reason we still have a lot of the guns rights we have is because the average soccer mom doesn't know what we're up to. A lot of the non-gunner people I talk to are surprised that we can have semiautomatic rifles and order our ammunition online. They weren't even aware of it... they just either assumed it was already illegal or never thought about it.

Likewise, most people in CA would be surprised to learn that the open carrying of unloaded guns in public is legal because they may go their whole life without seeing it. I'm not saying that's right, but that's just the way it is for most people.

In my line of work we have a saying called "security through obscurity", which means that because a system is either unknown or superficially hidden to those that would like to violate it, it's likely that system will go unnoticed by them. Our cover was blown and the attackers of freedom used the opportunity to take that right away.

/End of fever-induced, possibly nonsensical rant.

Falconis
10-10-2011, 10:18 AM
So what's after long guns? Pots and pans?

MudCamper
10-10-2011, 10:19 AM
Folks, you can't explain the analogy 'chess, not checkers' to people who cant even connect four.

Stooping to insults only weakens your argument.

And the fact of the matter is, banning UOC, of handguns or long guns, doesn't really interfere with the chess game to win LTC of concealed handguns, which is all most non-UOCers want anyway.

Tankhatch
10-10-2011, 10:20 AM
Fuzzy logic...........

Loosing the UOC right on hand guns (like we have, for now) may lead to open up the doors, on getting a CCW permits for consealed handgun carry.

Loosing the UOC right on rifles / shotguns, (maybe in the future) may lead to open up the doors, on getting a CCW permits for consealed rifle / shotguns carry.

Big problem is: Loosing the UOC right for rifles / shotguns,,, and their needing to get a CCW permit to carry a consealed rifles / shotguns,,,, let see ya conseal a rifle / shotgun under your coat !

viet4lifeOC
10-10-2011, 10:20 AM
NRA supports Harry Reid
CGN supported Jerry Brown

Keep your money.

Wherryj
10-10-2011, 10:23 AM
For those of you who actually believe you are men with rights, whether the state recognizes them or not, good on ya. The rest of you, what a bunch of gutless turds.

I'm really amazed.

Yes, I'm going to OC my shotgun. The black pistol-gripped 12 gauge semiautomatic, with the action open and buckshot and slugs in the carrier, ready to load. Probably get arrested by another badged thug that doesn't know the law, sue again and get paid.

And I'll figure out an exemption to 144 (there are 28, I'll know them and the thugs won't), legally carry a handgun, get arrested for again NOT breaking the law, sue again and have another payday.

Then when they ban long gun carry, I'll carry my sword, probably get arrested again, sue again, and get paid again.

Sorry, I guess you get ONE "evil" feature. Make sure that your pistol grip is the ONLY one...

And when you finally get your precious shall-issue government permission slips, I'll sign up for one too, conceal my handgun and walk around all day with a shirt saying "I'M CARRYING A BIG F-U-C-K-I-N-G HANDGUN" with an arrow pointing right to it. Then I'll get arrested for that, and make a case that I'm exercising my right to free speech. Let's see them weasel out of that. Again, I'll get paid.

The point is, I'm not going to cower and hope that sometime in the next 10 years kalifornia recognizes the right. I want to be able to carry a loaded chambered handgun open and everywhere and won't settle for anything less as long as I live here. I agreed to chair RCC with the understanding that we were not going to compromise, EVER. Compromise of gun rights is just half steps to hell, and what turned the NRA into the biggest gun control organization on the planet.

You don't have to like it. And just a warning, trying to talk me out of it is a waste of time. So save your breath.

Isn't this an assault weapon? I haven't spent much time on the shotgun flow chart, but I believe that this is an issue.

Sorry, you get ONE "evil feature". Make sure that your pistol grip is the ONLY one.

m03
10-10-2011, 10:24 AM
For those of you who actually believe you are men with rights, whether the state recognizes them or not, good on ya. The rest of you, what a bunch of gutless turds.

I'm really amazed.

Yes, I'm going to OC my shotgun. The black pistol-gripped 12 gauge semiautomatic, with the action open and buckshot and slugs in the carrier, ready to load. Probably get arrested by another badged thug that doesn't know the law, sue again and get paid.

And I'll figure out an exemption to 144 (there are 28, I'll know them and the thugs won't), legally carry a handgun, get arrested for again NOT breaking the law, sue again and have another payday.

Then when they ban long gun carry, I'll carry my sword, probably get arrested again, sue again, and get paid again.

And when you finally get your precious shall-issue government permission slips, I'll sign up for one too, conceal my handgun and walk around all day with a shirt saying "I'M CARRYING A BIG F-U-C-K-I-N-G HANDGUN" with an arrow pointing right to it. Then I'll get arrested for that, and make a case that I'm exercising my right to free speech. Let's see them weasel out of that. Again, I'll get paid.

The point is, I'm not going to cower and hope that sometime in the next 10 years kalifornia recognizes the right. I want to be able to carry a loaded chambered handgun open and everywhere and won't settle for anything less as long as I live here. I agreed to chair RCC with the understanding that we were not going to compromise, EVER. Compromise of gun rights is just half steps to hell, and what turned the NRA into the biggest gun control organization on the planet.

I think the phrase "more harm than good" applies heavily to the above.

You don't have to like it. And just a warning, trying to talk me out of it is a waste of time. So save your breath.

Ah, by all means, go out and do more damage to our cause than the antis ever did. Loudly talk negatively about everyone around you while you are doing so, after all, that's within your rights too. Why not wear a bright orange outfit with battery-powered blinking lights attached in order to attract even more attention to yourself. You could carry your pet snakes along with you and walk your pitbull(s) while you're doing all of the above.


...or instead, why not use all that time and energy to sway public opinion towards the positive aspects of widespread carry?

MudCamper
10-10-2011, 10:25 AM
I don't know if some of you noticed but the reason we still have a lot of the guns rights we have is because the average soccer mom doesn't know what we're up to...

In my line of work we have a saying called "security through obscurity", which means that because a system is either unknown or superficially hidden to those that would like to violate it, it's likely that system will go unnoticed by them. Our cover was blown and the attackers of freedom used the opportunity to take that right away.

This is the key to the disconnect between the UOC crowd and the rest of the 2A community. UOCers don't want to have gun privileges only because the unwashed masses haven't figure out to ban it yet. They want to normalize the presence of guns in the eyes of all of the people.

G60
10-10-2011, 10:37 AM
Stooping to insults only weakens your argument.

And the fact of the matter is, banning UOC, of handguns or long guns, doesn't really interfere with the chess game to win LTC of concealed handguns, which is all most non-UOCers want anyway.

Apologies. I should say "...to those who are losing at tic-tac-toe"

I can imagine a future when we're fighting against bills to close the long gun open carry AND OLL "loopholes" because I know some people are just itching to OC their off list rifles.

Kestryll
10-10-2011, 10:37 AM
This is the key to the disconnect between the UOC crowd and the rest of the 2A community. UOCers don't want to have gun privileges only because the unwashed masses haven't figure out to ban it yet. They want to normalize the presence of guns in the eyes of all of the people.

While that's a great thought and one I support there is a fundamental problem with it.
When people see something 'new' or something that is 'scary' because of ignorance there are two things they can do, adapt to it or remove(destroy) it.

Open carry to normalize firearms in the public has a problem because both of those options are currently on the table and it's common knowledge that the gut response of the vast majority of people is to fear and then try to destroy that which is different. In this case 'destroy' means outlaw.

As long as the option to summarily ban LOC/UOC exists that WILL be the first response by both the public and the Legislature. All that will happen now is the loss of what may prove to be a useful tool later on.

a1c
10-10-2011, 10:39 AM
This is the key to the disconnect between the UOC crowd and the rest of the 2A community. UOCers don't want to have gun privileges only because the unwashed masses haven't figure out to ban it yet. They want to normalize the presence of guns in the eyes of all of the people.

How's that working out?

xGearbox
10-10-2011, 10:45 AM
You know the AB 144 doesn't change much other than UOC in public streets in incorporated cities? It doesn't affect hunters. It doesn't affect people in public/private ranges. And it most certainly doesn't affect your ability to have guns in your private property. So really, where most of the issues regarding UOC are caused in public, incorporated areas is pretty much the new place we can't UOC in. It probably wouldn't have been outlawed had we not exercised UOC in such a profound manner. But if we didn't exercise UOC, what the point of having the ability to do in the first place?

CalBear
10-10-2011, 10:51 AM
You can't normalize the sight of something that people don't understand and have no familiarity with. They need to be educated before, not after. Imagine a couple gay dudes going to the most anti gay town in the South and making out on a street corner for a few hours every day. Now do you honestly think the outcome is going to be normalization?

Much of urban California still has an irrational fear of firearms. When they see visible guns in public, their reaction is more likely to be fear and anger than normalization. We're making some headway with folks in these areas, but it's coming much more from the increasing recognition of our rights as fundamental rights, and it's coming from efforts by individuals to reach out to the uneducated folks around them.

There is a difficult PR campaign being waged in CA right now. We're trying to combat local ordinances against gun stores, we're trying to get sheriffs to have more reasonable LTC policies, and we're trying to get people to lay off the gun control. One problem we have is cooperation at this level is much more difficult for officials when they have perceived LEO and community problems coming from pro gun activists.

wolfstar
10-10-2011, 10:52 AM
What part of "Civil Disobedience" don't you armchairs understand? Do you think that after generations of passing oppressive laws, that REASON will in any way sway the statists in permanent control of the government of California? If you're waiting for some magic legal wand to sprinkle fairy dust over all these laws to nullify them, give it up... they now have shown that they will happily continue to pass laws, regardless of potential legal chalenges... that's because individually, they are above the law. That is called a "Totalitarianism". How do Americans deal with tyrants? (The answer here, for apparently 95% of you, is to wring your hands online, and then roll over on your back, peeing yourselves like frighted puppies).


Civil Disobedience only works if you do it for a cause the media favors. If it favors it then such an act gives you good press. If it doesn't it uses your Civil Disobedience to paint you and every other gun owner and evil, dangerous, and insane.

oldrifle
10-10-2011, 10:54 AM
This is the key to the disconnect between the UOC crowd and the rest of the 2A community. UOCers don't want to have gun privileges only because the unwashed masses haven't figure out to ban it yet. They want to normalize the presence of guns in the eyes of all of the people.

You're right, it is the disconnect. The problem is, UOC is not normal and it will likely not be normal ever again, especially in California. Concealed carry is extremely "normal" and common across the country and hopefully soon it will be in CA as well.

I'm fine with people not wanting to see my gun as long as I *can* carry it and use it if I have to defend a life. Hopefully this ban will get us a step closer to that.

Purple K
10-10-2011, 10:55 AM
The wisdom provided by those "in the know" at Calguns has not failed me. Their work, subtly behind the scene and in the courts, has worked far better than the UOCers "in your face" tactics. UOC of long guns can only lead to bad things!

mdimeo
10-10-2011, 10:57 AM
But if we didn't exercise UOC, what the point of having the ability to do in the first place?

It used to be that, if someone had a serious security threat where having a gun openly strapped to their hip when they walked out to their mailbox would add some security, they could. He had the ability. That was good. That was the point.

Now he can't. That guy's now SOL. People who cared more about making a political statement than they cared about that guy's ability to protect himself wrecked it.

A year from now I don't want to be writing something like this: "it used to be a guy could carry his rifle from his house to his car, and from the range parking lot to the range, without having to lock it in a case. Now he can't." Which is where any rifle UOC movement will lead us.

MudCamper
10-10-2011, 10:58 AM
How's that working out?

One way or another, it is working out. Like many have stated again and again, what does it matter if the state forbids action that 99.9% of the gun community was too afraid to do themselves anyway? And one could argue that the more the state restricts our rights, the more obvious it becomes to the complacent majority, which in turn may eventually help us win. If not, so what. I just don't understand why so many people are upset at losing a privilege that they never intended to exercise anyway.

bwiese
10-10-2011, 10:59 AM
NRA supports Harry Reid


You got a lot to learn sonny.

For justifiable reasons..

.... you think Sharron Angle would have any seniority, compared to
Reid?

.... think Angle was remotely intelligent enough to deal with issues,
as opposed to just throwing up useless bills for PR?

... ever hear of something called PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce
in Arms Act? The thing that saved the gun industry before Heller?

Oh - the Sharron Angle/Tea Party folks that were calling in death threats to NRA staffers I know & trust really didn't help at all.

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 11:03 AM
This is the key to the disconnect between the UOC crowd and the rest of the 2A community. UOCers don't want to have gun privileges only because the unwashed masses haven't figure out to ban it yet. They want to normalize the presence of guns in the eyes of all of the people.

Hmm. . .

Not really. The fundamental disconnect between the UOCers and the 2A community is that UOC is a 1A right, not a 2A right.

Our fundamental right enshrined in the 2A includes being "armed". Definitionally, UOC is not "armed" for these purposes.

The militant UOCers leverage off the fact that the RKBAers are into civil rights and 1A is a civil right.

UOC is a civil right which I think should be in support of the RKBA rather than undermining it.

So even though I am not of the militant UOC move it pains me to see it destroy the 1A civil right to UOC. At the same time it greatly irritates me when militant UOC causes drama which damages our RKBA and then jumps our case for being RKBAers not supporting them.

But understand that UOC is not RKBA. It is not covered under the 2A. It is not covered by Heller. It is not covered by McDonald. It is not covered by Ezell. It is not a Mulford Act issue.

Militant UOC is not a friend of the 2A and is not covered by it.

Don't take that wrong, I am a friend of UOC because I am a civil rights activist and UOC is the exercise of freedom of speech.

This also means that I oppose militant UOC because I believe it is damaging their right to free speech. I'd rather that the militancy had gone away and people had UOC'ed if and when they thought UOC would significantly enhance their security as an individual.

oldrifle
10-10-2011, 11:03 AM
One way or another, it is working out. Like many have stated again and again, what does it matter if the state forbids action that 99.9% of the gun community was too afraid to do themselves anyway? And one could argue that the more the state restricts our rights, the more obvious it becomes to the complacent majority, which in turn may eventually help us win. If not, so what. I just don't understand why so many people are upset at losing a privilege that they never intended to exercise anyway.

That's not the part that upsets me because frankly I think UOC is stupid and pointless. I don't criticize people who do it but I think it makes a person a target for all kinds of bad stuff and my sense of self-preservation keeps me from doing it. What upsets me is the lack of understanding of strategy and common sense.

If this UOC ban results in us getting shall issue CCWs, I will thank the UOCers. Right now we're down one right so I'm not going to feel much good will unless that happens. Until then, I'd keep your head down on UOC issues, stop with the open carrying of long guns nonsense and support CGF and the NRA.

ubet
10-10-2011, 11:05 AM
to the person who wants to uoc his semi auto shotty,

You remind me of the spoiled kid jumping up and down shouting me me me me, its all about me.

I saw the point behind uoc, I didnt agree with throwing it in everyones face, but I understood the sd aspect of it. You guys tried it, it didnt work, it go banned. So instead of learning to "improvise, adapt and overcome" you are going to beat your head against the wall to acquire the same cruddy results. You obviously didnt learn that handgun uoc was a bad idea, so now, you are going to do it with evil kitten killer black rifles :facepalm:? If you fail in your first attempt at something, why on your second attempt would you attack the problem in the same EXACT MANNER and expect different results? :nuts:

Kestryll
10-10-2011, 11:08 AM
I just don't understand why so many people are upset at losing a privilege that they never intended to exercise anyway.

And there is your fatal assumption.

Once it's not a threat to future litigation and there is case law to prevent it from being used to further limit or remove our rights I's like to be able to open carry. I'd prefer LOC myself as UOC is more about making a statement than self defense to me.

You assume that because some of us don't want to make things harder on us all that we have no interest in being able to open carry.

wash
10-10-2011, 11:11 AM
Stooping to insults only weakens your argument.

And the fact of the matter is, banning UOC, of handguns or long guns, doesn't really interfere with the chess game to win LTC of concealed handguns, which is all most non-UOCers want anyway.
Nope, the insults are effective because it can dissuade people who are on the fence.

As far as hurting/helping LTC, that is irrelevant.

You are getting it wrong when you think that CGF, SAF, CRPA and NRA only want concealed carry. We want it all (including LOC) and the strategic path to get it all goes through LTC first. It's not preference, it's strategy.

You don't seem to understand any of that and aren't willing to learn so it leads us to have a low opinion of your cognitive abilities.

I'm anxious to hear your response after you look up "dissuade", "strategic" and "cognitive".

ubet
10-10-2011, 11:16 AM
Instead of uoc of long guns, why dont you AT LEAST CONCEAL THEM? Being as long guns by definition are not concealable, why not just where a long overcoat with them underneath where no one can see?

That way you wont be throwing it in everyones faces, and still be able to protect yourself. But I forgot its not about self defense its about drawing attention to yourself so you can post it on youtbue and have your 5 nanoseconds of fame.

MudCamper
10-10-2011, 11:20 AM
'd keep your head down on UOC issues, stop with the open carrying of long guns nonsense and support CGF and the NRA.

Well I don't believe that this is an either-or. I support open carriers like Sam and Nate, and I support CGF.

I find it sad that Sam's post was excuse enough to ban him from CGN. I hope it's only temporary.

I'd prefer LOC myself as UOC is more about making a statement than self defense to me.

For some it may have been (a 1A issue). But for me it was not. I only UOCed in rural CA, as it was my only legal method of carry. I've lost that now. I hold no animosity toward my urban brethren who drew the attention of the legislature. My animosity lies with the legislature, which is were it belongs.

You assume that because some of us don't want to make things harder on us all that we have no interest in being able to open carry.

I don't assume that's true of you, nor all UOC opponents, just most. I also don't see this as harming nor slowing any effort for LOC in the long term. But honestly I don't think we'd ever get that in CA.

chris12
10-10-2011, 11:27 AM
The fundamental disconnect between the UOCers and the 2A community is that UOC is a 1A right, not a 2A right.

Our fundamental right enshrined in the 2A includes being "armed". Definitionally, UOC is not "armed" for these purposes.
...
But understand that UOC is not RKBA. It is not covered under the 2A. It is not covered by Heller. It is not covered by McDonald. It is not covered by Ezell. It is not a Mulford Act issue.

UOC is a 1A right AND a 2A right. RKBA, the A is for Arms not just for firearms. RKBA protects UOC just as much as it protects clubs and knives. That of course doesn't mean that the gov can ban firearms because clubs and knives are available, just like they can't ban handguns because rifles are available.

CalBear
10-10-2011, 11:28 AM
For some it may have been (a 1A issue). But for me it was not. I only UOCed in rural CA, as it was my only legal method of carry. I've lost that now. I hold no animosity toward my urban brethren who drew the attention of the legislature. My animosity lies with the legislature, which is were it belongs.
I'm not angry with UOC folks, either, but I do think it's worth pausing to reflect on the outcome of some of the tactics thus far. For people in rural areas, where UOC is not a terrifying sight for all of the sheeple, what was possible at one point no longer is. I don't think the UOC campaigns have done much in the way of normalizing the sight of guns. I think it basically stirred the pot, and resulted in a response from the legislature. Obviously I'm angry with the legislature for being so typically anti gun, but I still contend it's worth pausing for a strategy shift, rather than move onto the next step and start UOCing long guns.

In-your-face displays aren't going to work right now in CA, and will result in a response from the legislature.

bwiese
10-10-2011, 11:28 AM
UOC is a 1A right AND a 2A right. RKBA, the A is for Arms not just for firearms. RKBA protects UOC just as much as it protects clubs and knives. That of course doesn't mean that the gov can ban firearms because clubs and knives are available, just like they can't ban handguns because rifles are available.

Sorry. UOC is not really Heller protectable - because it's not a functional firearm. The more winning stance is LOC to defend, but we don't want to queer CCW.

MudCamper
10-10-2011, 11:31 AM
I'm anxious to hear your response after you look up "dissuade", "strategic" and "cognitive".

While I had great respect for many of your past contributions to these forums, I have to continue to disagree with you that insulting each other does any good. You may in fact succeed in dissuading some from even coming to these forums anymore. I don't see how that helps us.

ubet
10-10-2011, 11:31 AM
bwiese, would it be legal to conceal carry an UNLOADED long gun (not asking if smart, just legal)?

I have no intention of doing this, because I have a ccw (luckily).

And if legal, and the uoc crowd is going to carry them anyway, is it better for them to conceal, or either way are we going to get ***** on again?

jdberger
10-10-2011, 11:31 AM
NRA supports Harry Reid
CGN supported Jerry Brown

Keep your money.

The NRA supported Reid with good reason.

CGN isn't a person. It's a community. Many members didn't support Brown. Many did.
CGF (which is what I think you mean) CANNOT support/endorse political candidates and doesn't.

CalBear
10-10-2011, 11:34 AM
bwiese, would it be legal to conceal carry an UNLOADED long gun (not asking if smart, just legal)?

I have no intention of doing this, because I have a ccw (luckily).

And if legal, and the uoc crowd is going to carry them anyway, is it better for them to conceal, or either way are we going to get ***** on again?
Long guns, by definition in CA, are not concealable firearms. CA has a ban on carrying concealed a concealable weapon without a permit or exemption.

AFAIK attempting to conceal a long gun would not be illegal, as long as it's unloaded, but it would be difficult.

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 11:38 AM
UOC is a 1A right AND a 2A right. RKBA, the A is for Arms not just for firearms. RKBA protects UOC just as much as it protects clubs and knives. That of course doesn't mean that the gov can ban firearms because clubs and knives are available, just like they can't ban handguns because rifles are available.

Sorry, you're wrong. An unloaded firearm is not ready for defensive or offensive purposes. It is no more an "arm" than is a paperweight.

The fact that the firearm can be quickly loaded and become an "arm" is irrelevant in regards to defining an unloaded firearm. It is not an "arm" until it is loaded.

Therefore UOC is not a 2A issue. It is a 1A issue. It is also very disturbing to see the legislature trample on our free speech rights just because that free speech is construed as "scary" or not politically correct.

chris12
10-10-2011, 11:42 AM
Sorry. UOC is not really Heller protectable - because it's not a functional firearm. The more winning stance is LOC to defend, but we don't want to queer CCW.

I didn't state it was protected in Heller, though some of the concepts could apply. I stand by it being protected by 2A because it can be used as an arm even though it isn't a firearm.

chris12
10-10-2011, 11:44 AM
Sorry, you're wrong. An unloaded firearm is not ready for defensive or offensive purposes. It is no more an "arm" than is a paperweight.

The fact that the firearm can be quickly loaded and become an "arm" is irrelevant in regards to defining an unloaded firearm. It is not an "arm" until it is loaded.

Therefore UOC is not a 2A issue. It is a 1A issue. It is also very disturbing to see the legislature trample on our free speech rights just because that free speech is construed as "scary" or not politically correct.

How is an unloaded firearm different than a small club/baton/asp? A club can't ever be loaded, but it is an "arm".

Dr Rockso
10-10-2011, 11:45 AM
A couple years back pullnshoot caused a bit of drama by carrying a shotgun to an event at Denny's...the ensuing conversation contains one of my favorite CGN quotes of all time:
Sometimes I wish "discretion" was listed as a right. Maybe more people would be likely to use it.

Paul S
10-10-2011, 11:45 AM
I find it very sad that the stiff uppercut we've been dealt by Gov. Brown has only seemed to cause bickering and infighting here on Calguns.

I had hoped for higher ground with proposals and analyses of what we can do now rather than what I am reading. Perhaps it is a natural reaction and after anger subsides there will be more of substance. I can only hope.

wash
10-10-2011, 11:46 AM
While I had great respect for many of your past contributions to these forums, I have to continue to disagree with you that insulting each other does any good. You may in fact succeed in dissuading some from even coming to these forums anymore. I don't see how that helps us.
I'm interested in talking with gun owners who are interested in fighting for their gun rights and winning.

I won't feel bad if the losers decide to go somewhere else.

It is sad that some gun owners who should be our allies seemingly do everything in their power to undermine our rights. I shun them.

I know I can't change their minds with anything I say so I save who I can.

bwiese
10-10-2011, 11:47 AM
I didn't state it was protected in Heller, though some of the concepts could apply. I stand by it being protected by 2A because it can be used as an arm even though it isn't a firearm.

It's an arm for 'keep', but the core right for 'bear' is loaded/useful.

We don't want to fight for a lower standard.

ubet
10-10-2011, 11:53 AM
Long guns, by definition in CA, are not concealable firearms. CA has a ban on carrying concealed a concealable weapon without a permit or exemption.

AFAIK attempting to conceal a long gun would not be illegal, as long as it's unloaded, but it would be difficult.

diffucult yes, but maybe, if they were not seen, and people felt they needed to be bullheaded and did it, it wouldnt be QUITE the back lash like was seen of uoc of handguns :shrug:

chris12
10-10-2011, 11:53 AM
It's an arm for 'keep', but the core right for 'bear' is loaded/useful.
I didn't realize 2A relegated some arms for keep only.

We don't want to fight for a lower standard.
I completely agree here. I think all arms should be protected!

wolfstar
10-10-2011, 11:59 AM
A year from now I don't want to be writing something like this: "it used to be a guy could carry his rifle from his house to his car, and from the range parking lot to the range, without having to lock it in a case. Now he can't." Which is where any rifle UOC movement will lead us.

In my apartment I already have to cover up my long guns when I transport them to my car to avoid calls to cops about a guy with a lot of guns walking around. That probably makes them concealed weapons but I would rather just avoid dumb 911 phone calls and freaking my neighbors out.

The fact is UOC is already impossible to do in an urban setting without being harassed by law enforcement. This law just adds real penalties to the already existing system.

My375hp302
10-10-2011, 12:16 PM
Amen to this, I dont have the balls to go out and do what you do buut god bless you for doing it. For those of you that say this man has no sence of pr let me ask you a question. Where has your pr gotten us? Where has all of the playing nice gotten us? Seems like every few months our good buddy Deleon writes another bill and most of them get passed. The I'm write and f everyone else attitude is what made this country great. We didnt threaten Hitler with sanctions, we went over there and kicked his teeth down his throat. While I'm a fan of speak softly but carry a big stick, you have to actually have the big stick, and maybe its time to start wacking people with it because the whole talking thing doesnt seem to be working.

For those of you who actually believe you are men with rights, whether the state recognizes them or not, good on ya. The rest of you, what a bunch of gutless turds.

I'm really amazed.

Yes, I'm going to OC my shotgun. The black pistol-gripped 12 gauge semiautomatic, with the action open and buckshot and slugs in the carrier, ready to load. Probably get arrested by another badged thug that doesn't know the law, sue again and get paid.

And I'll figure out an exemption to 144 (there are 28, I'll know them and the thugs won't), legally carry a handgun, get arrested for again NOT breaking the law, sue again and have another payday.

Then when they ban long gun carry, I'll carry my sword, probably get arrested again, sue again, and get paid again.

And when you finally get your precious shall-issue government permission slips, I'll sign up for one too, conceal my handgun and walk around all day with a shirt saying "I'M CARRYING A BIG F-U-C-K-I-N-G HANDGUN" with an arrow pointing right to it. Then I'll get arrested for that, and make a case that I'm exercising my right to free speech. Let's see them weasel out of that. Again, I'll get paid.

The point is, I'm not going to cower and hope that sometime in the next 10 years kalifornia recognizes the right. I want to be able to carry a loaded chambered handgun open and everywhere and won't settle for anything less as long as I live here. I agreed to chair RCC with the understanding that we were not going to compromise, EVER. Compromise of gun rights is just half steps to hell, and what turned the NRA into the biggest gun control organization on the planet.

You don't have to like it. And just a warning, trying to talk me out of it is a waste of time. So save your breath.

SickofSoCal
10-10-2011, 12:16 PM
For those of you who actually believe you are men with rights, whether the state recognizes them or not, good on ya. The rest of you, what a bunch of gutless turds.

I'm really amazed.

Yes, I'm going to OC my shotgun. The black pistol-gripped 12 gauge semiautomatic, with the action open and buckshot and slugs in the carrier, ready to load. Probably get arrested by another badged thug that doesn't know the law, sue again and get paid.

And I'll figure out an exemption to 144 (there are 28, I'll know them and the thugs won't), legally carry a handgun, get arrested for again NOT breaking the law, sue again and have another payday.

Then when they ban long gun carry, I'll carry my sword, probably get arrested again, sue again, and get paid again.

And when you finally get your precious shall-issue government permission slips, I'll sign up for one too, conceal my handgun and walk around all day with a shirt saying "I'M CARRYING A BIG F-U-C-K-I-N-G HANDGUN" with an arrow pointing right to it. Then I'll get arrested for that, and make a case that I'm exercising my right to free speech. Let's see them weasel out of that. Again, I'll get paid.

The point is, I'm not going to cower and hope that sometime in the next 10 years kalifornia recognizes the right. I want to be able to carry a loaded chambered handgun open and everywhere and won't settle for anything less as long as I live here. I agreed to chair RCC with the understanding that we were not going to compromise, EVER. Compromise of gun rights is just half steps to hell, and what turned the NRA into the biggest gun control organization on the planet.

You don't have to like it. And just a warning, trying to talk me out of it is a waste of time. So save your breath.

^ I like this post!

SickofSoCal
10-10-2011, 12:19 PM
People like you are hopeless. You never learn. No sense of PR whatsoever. Just a stubborn, narrow-minded, childish approach of "I know I'm right, so screw all of you."

Remember this?


In Congress, July 4th 1776:

Dear King George,

We aren't your slaves anymore. Kiss off!


Signed,

A bunch of criminals and trouble makers





Freedom is ALWAYS illegal. Just remember that.

Dave A
10-10-2011, 12:24 PM
OleCuss said:

"Don't take that wrong, I am a friend of UOC because I am a civil rights activist and UOC is the exercise of freedom of speech."

I disagree with this because UOC to many people is too much like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Legislators and courts will always bow to the will of the masses and restrict those actions that alarm the majority. Whether or not there is the likelihood of actual harm from UOC is irrelevant, because it upsets the majority and that is good enough. There was only one likely outcome of the UOC debacle and doing the same on long guns is simply idiotic.

Caladain
10-10-2011, 12:25 PM
You do realize what you're paraphrasing was an armed rebellion that cost lots of lives, had neighbors fighting each other? It Also was a signed death warrent for all involved.

*is that what you're advocating due to California stating that UNLOADED Open carry isn't allowed*?


Remember this?


In Congress, July 4th 1776:

Dear King George,

We aren't your slaves anymore. Kiss off!


Signed,

A bunch of criminals and trouble makers





Freedom is ALWAYS illegal. Just remember that.

Liberty1
10-10-2011, 12:28 PM
OleCuss said:

"Don't take that wrong, I am a friend of UOC because I am a civil rights activist and UOC is the exercise of freedom of speech."

I disagree with this because UOC to many people is too much like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Legislators and courts will always bow to the will of the masses and restrict those actions that alarm the majority. Whether or not there is the likelihood of actual harm from UOC is irrelevant, because it upsets the majority and that is good enough. There was only one likely outcome of the UOC debacle and doing the same on long guns is simply idiotic.

No majority was upset. The power elite was annoyed. But that's all it takes.

Caladain
10-10-2011, 12:29 PM
Where has your pr gotten us?
Shall issue across most of the nation. Shall issue across large portion of Cali. The 2nd Amendment *recognized* as a incorporated right. The Right to Keep and Bear arms recognized. Multiple court cases current in process of getting large portions of the AW law overturned, the mag limit gone, the right to bear arms outside the home clarified, etc.

We've (not myself directly, i'm a non-existant small cog) done it *inspite* of folks like Mr. elsensei. That WHOLE train of thought serves the Anti's. You might as well go get your Brady membership today..if you don't already have it.

What has the UOC crowd done?

SickofSoCal
10-10-2011, 12:31 PM
You do realize what you're paraphrasing was an armed rebellion that cost lots of lives, had neighbors fighting each other?

*is that what you're advocating due to California stating that UNLOADED Open carry isn't allowed*?

No, not at all.

I'm just pointing out how our country was founded. Very radically. And most people didn't want it either. The losers moved back to England or up to Canada.


Are we for freedom or not? Are we for someone exercising freedom or not? I personally don't open carry. Never have and never will. However, I support those that do, and their right to do it.

CalBear
10-10-2011, 12:37 PM
Shall issue across most of the nation. Shall issue across large portion of Cali. The 2nd Amendment *recognized* as a incorporated right. The Right to Keep and Bear arms recognized. Multiple court cases current in process of getting large portions of the AW law overturned, the mag limit gone, the right to bear arms outside the home clarified, etc.

We've (not myself directly, i'm a non-existant small cog) done it *inspite* of folks like Mr. elsensei. That WHOLE train of thought serves the Anti's. You might as well go get your Brady membership today..if you don't already have it.

What has the UOC crowd done?
It's the battered gun owner syndrome that Gene was talking about. We've made so much progress from the low point in RKBA history, we've gotten the 2A confirmed as a fundamental right, most of the nation is happily issuing carry permits, and we have great looking court cases that should propagate up within a year or two, hopefully leaving us with a good carry situation in CA. We've also got great stuff in the works at the Federal level.

The problem is, some people just look at what the situation is right now, and right here. They want carry immediately, and they aren't patient enough to wait out the litigation strategy. They end up either leaving or getting out the big stick. Thing is, CGF is trying to work with local officials to clean up various RKBA messes, and it becomes more and more difficult for local officials to cooperate when their constituents become angrier and angrier over black rifle displays and large UOC showings.

CalBear
10-10-2011, 12:51 PM
Remember this?


In Congress, July 4th 1776:

Dear King George,

We aren't your slaves anymore. Kiss off!


Signed,

A bunch of criminals and trouble makers





Freedom is ALWAYS illegal. Just remember that.
No it's not, and thankfully we've got a great republican system of government that, in theory, is supposed to protect us from rights abuses. We have many people working hard within our system of government to correct some of the wrongdoings and rights abuses that have piled up over the years on 2A issues.

There will always be people grabbing for power so they can squash out freedom. It's our job as the citizens of this country to stay vigilant, hit the polls and elect the right officials, speak out when necessary, and march in protest when necessary.

Sure, some countries hit a point where the abuses become to great and too insurmountable such that they require immediate rebellious action, but that is no where near the case in our great land. We still have plenty of time and money to salvage this great nation and restore all of our freedoms. Most of the country has improving 2A rights, and CGF and others are working hard to get ours back. Within a few years supreme court rulings or even circuit court rulings will stamp out the moves to suppress carrying firearms, and we'll be one more step in the right direction.

What differentiates CGF and other similar organizations from an organization like the originator of this discussion is foresight and strategy and ability to work most efficiently within our system of government. CGF and the likes know best how to use litigation and other methods to start a snowball, and then as it grows, pound things home with better civil rights PR, and eventually legislation and acceptance of 2A. The other type of group acts in a more dramatic and catastrophic manner, as if to say "all is lost! time for immediate rebellion and visible protest." There's a time and place for that in nations, and present day CA is neither the time, nor the place. We have way too much momentum and upside on the litigation and federal protection side to be that pessimistic about the future of our rights.

jdberger
10-10-2011, 12:55 PM
There seems to be a lot of "I want it NOW" in this thread. It's unfortunate.

Our fight isn't going to be lightening quick. It's going be be a grinding slog against entrenched forces and ideas. The entire public perception of guns needs to be changed from radical death-dealing malevolently sentient beings to simple tools - no different from a set of hedge-clippers.

Prancing down the sidewalk in front of TJ Maxx with a Big Black Shotgun isn't going to convince soccer moms of anything. At best, it will alert them to the fact that there are Big Black (evil) Shotguns out there. But it's not going to "normalize" the experience for them.

Celebrate the right to bear arms all you want - but AT THIS POINT IN TIME don't do it in a way that's going to be seen as counterproductive.

It's funny - many of the folks who state, "A right unexercised is a right lost" cringe at the thought of Gay Pride Parades. They fault the participants for "shoving" their sexuality in people's faces and lament that homosexuals should remain low-key. That they should practice their sexuality (kissing/handholding) in the privacy of their own home. They claim that events like Gay Pride turn people away from gay rights. They claim that the overt display of gay culture is offensive.

Yet now, they're seriously planning on a Black Rifle OC event?

bwiese
10-10-2011, 12:59 PM
Celebrate the right to bear arms all you want - but AT THIS POINT IN TIME don't do it in a way that's going to be seen as counterproductive.

It's funny - many of the folks who state, "A right unexercised is a right lost" cringe at the thought of Gay Pride Parades. They fault the participants for "shoving" their sexuality in people's faces and lament that homosexuals should remain low-key. That they should practice their sexuality (kissing/handholding) in the privacy of their own home. They claim that events like Gay Pride turn people away from gay rights. They claim that the overt display of gay culture is offensive.

Yet now, they're seriously planning on a Black Rifle OC event?

Yup. Cognitive dissonance and FAIL on political knowledge.

Falconis
10-10-2011, 1:01 PM
Way I see it, 2A people are outnumbered in this state. You have the legislature against us, the anti's against us, the media against us, and a lot of normal people on the fence that are probably leaning against 2A or just don't care. With those odds, a direct assault, especially of the senses won't work.

joefrank64k
10-10-2011, 1:04 PM
Is this "Responsible Citizens of California" an LCAV front group?

No, LCAV has better planning.

Now that's sig-worthy! :D

MudCamper
10-10-2011, 1:15 PM
It's funny - many of the folks who state, "A right unexercised is a right lost" cringe at the thought of Gay Pride Parades. They fault the participants for "shoving" their sexuality in people's faces and lament that homosexuals should remain low-key. That they should practice their sexuality (kissing/handholding) in the privacy of their own home. They claim that events like Gay Pride turn people away from gay rights. They claim that the overt display of gay culture is offensive.

Yet now, they're seriously planning on a Black Rifle OC event?

I think you are seriously misreading the sub-factions here. In my experience, the UOC folks are the hard core libertarian types, who support gay rights as well as gun rights. I guess your mileage may vary, but that's what I've observed.

stix213
10-10-2011, 1:31 PM
How did UOC hurt us?


It got the practice banned, I thought this was self explanatory.


Serious questions:

How does exercising a LEGAL right harm our cause?

How does NOT exercising a legal right help our cause?


Think of it another way.... If you were a 1A activist, how do you think group protests where everyone walked down the street yelling racial slurs effect that cause? People hanging out at Starbucks yelling N'er N'er N'er, instead of using the 1A for a legit purpose.

Eventually there would be a tipping point and a backlash against it. AB144 is the equivalent to that here.

RazzB7
10-10-2011, 1:34 PM
It got the practice banned, I thought this was self explanatory.



Think of it another way.... If you were a 1A activist, how do you think group protests where everyone walked down the street yelling racial slurs effect that cause? People hanging out at Starbucks yelling N'er N'er N'er, instead of using the 1A for a legit purpose.

Eventually there would be a tipping point and a backlash against it. AB144 is the equivalent to that here.

Wow! Well said. :King:

SickofSoCal
10-10-2011, 1:39 PM
It got the practice banned, I thought this was self explanatory.



Think of it another way.... If you were a 1A activist, how do you think group protests where everyone walked down the street yelling racial slurs effect that cause? People hanging out at Starbucks yelling N'er N'er N'er, instead of using the 1A for a legit purpose.

Eventually there would be a tipping point and a backlash against it. AB144 is the equivalent to that here.

What a horrible example.

Using your logic, 49 other states should be on the cusp of banning open carry. NEWSFLASH: they're not!


Just admit it. California is a messed up place.

BigDogatPlay
10-10-2011, 1:50 PM
What a horrible example.

Using your logic, 49 other states should be on the cusp of banning open carry. NEWSFLASH: they're not!


Just admit it. California is a messed up place.


Most of the 49 other states don't allow for open carry at all. The list that do is a short one. California's unique unloaded open carry has long been the exception, rather than the rule when measured against the other states.

Yes, California has become a messed up place. But let's set emotions aside and get our facts straight.

My375hp302
10-10-2011, 1:52 PM
Shall issue across most of the nation. Shall issue across large portion of Cali. The 2nd Amendment *recognized* as a incorporated right. The Right to Keep and Bear arms recognized. Multiple court cases current in process of getting large portions of the AW law overturned, the mag limit gone, the right to bear arms outside the home clarified, etc.

We've (not myself directly, i'm a non-existant small cog) done it *inspite* of folks like Mr. elsensei. That WHOLE train of thought serves the Anti's. You might as well go get your Brady membership today..if you don't already have it.

What has the UOC crowd done?

I was refering to CA, I'm from GA so I know what its like to live in a free state. As far as CA goes you have acomplished very little, and given up a lot. CA is NOT shall issue and is still basicly NO issue in many areas, while the second amendment was upheld by the supreme court it has had no effect here, and while I can appreciate all of the pending cases, as of now they have also accomplished NOTHING. We are all getting bent over in this state, at least the uocers had the balls to excercise their right before it was taken away.

All that is required for tyranny to thrive is for good men to do(accomplish) nothing.

Patriot Man
10-10-2011, 2:02 PM
I see armed rebellion and armed altercations with police in this state's future with disastrous effects on our rights unless certain people wise up and get with the program.

I don't know if some of you noticed but the reason we still have a lot of the guns rights we have is because the average soccer mom doesn't know what we're up to. A lot of the non-gunner people I talk to are surprised that we can have semiautomatic rifles and order our ammunition online. They weren't even aware of it... they just either assumed it was already illegal or never thought about it.

Likewise, most people in CA would be surprised to learn that the open carrying of unloaded guns in public is legal because they may go their whole life without seeing it. I'm not saying that's right, but that's just the way it is for most people.

In my line of work we have a saying called "security through obscurity", which means that because a system is either unknown or superficially hidden to those that would like to violate it, it's likely that system will go unnoticed by them. Our cover was blown and the attackers of freedom used the opportunity to take that right away.

/End of fever-induced, possibly nonsensical rant.

Very well said! I hate to see you lucid.:D

Liberty1
10-10-2011, 2:04 PM
... the uocers had the balls to excercise their right before it was taken away...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7242470&postcount=276

Must do something...anything...it's the effort that counts not the result? Into the valley of death road the gallant 600!

And I take credit and blame for being one of the 4 that helped UOC get off the ground.

wash
10-10-2011, 2:06 PM
What works in Georgia isn't always going to work in CA.

I've been to Georgia a few times and I've seen how different it is.

MudCamper
10-10-2011, 2:10 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7242470&postcount=276

Must do something...anything...it's the effort that counts not the result? Into the valley of death road the gallant 600!

And I take credit and blame for being one of the 4 that helped UOC get off the ground.

While the anecdote you link may be true, I fear that the old man waiting for rescue will just die much later, having taken no action. At least that's how it feels sometimes. I've been waiting for decades and sometimes it feels good to act, even if it's suicidal (metaphorically speaking).

Caladain
10-10-2011, 2:11 PM
What works in Georgia isn't always going to work in CA.

I've been to Georgia a few times and I've seen how different it is.

Work transplanted me to NH a while back. No one cares if you walk into the store with an AR15, fully loaded with greentip, 100 round BetaC.

I stopped the guy because i was in the market at the time for an aimpoint, and his had one. It ended up being a casual discussion that stopped a few other folk who were asking about the performance of the optic (including a few moms with kids).

No one bats an eye, it's completely normal, no one *cares*.

NH is different from Cali.

Liberty1
10-10-2011, 2:28 PM
… I've been waiting for decades and sometimes it feels good to act, even if it's suicidal (metaphorically speaking).

I'm with you on that brother! Forward into the breach or valley of death can be fun. If I were an old man (coming too soon) I'd apply for a license in DC, get my denial, then LOC. I'd sit in a DC jail until SCOTUS seals my fate or glory.!

I hate CC with a passion as a personal choice; it's just uncomfortable, harder to get to, and provides NO deterance IMO. http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

But it (CC) will do CA good to help it with it's acceptance of RKBA loaded and will benefit a greater number of Californians in the short to near term.

I will roar with laughter however if SCOTUS goes with LOC.

GWbiker
10-10-2011, 2:31 PM
Most of the 49 other states don't allow for open carry at all. The list that do is a short one. California's unique unloaded open carry has long been the exception, rather than the rule when measured against the other states.

Yes, California has become a messed up place. But let's set emotions aside and get our facts straight.

37 of the other 49 states do allow for OC, some W/O a permit and some require a permit. (Open-carry.org map)

And yes, California has become a messed up place.

Liberty1
10-10-2011, 2:42 PM
Most of the 49 other states don't allow for open carry at all. The list that do is a short one.

Not true. http://opencarry.org/maps.html

stix213
10-10-2011, 3:00 PM
What a horrible example.

Using your logic, 49 other states should be on the cusp of banning open carry. NEWSFLASH: they're not!


Just admit it. California is a messed up place.

You can't even open carry in Texas dude. If you think group flaunting open carry in front of parents with their kids, and provoking LEO contact, wasn't going to have any repercussions in CA when you can't even do it in Texas (especially after all the warnings and predictions of exactly this result), then I don't know what to say.

I guess Texas is just a messed up place :rolleyes:


The goal of normalizing firearms in public in CA is certainly a worthy goal. The problem was (past tense) the poor execution of strategy, which achieved the exact opposite result. Now as a direct result of this failed strategy, the goal of public firearm normalization has been set back and possibly (probably?) permanently harmed.

mdimeo
10-10-2011, 3:09 PM
In my apartment I already have to cover up my long guns when I transport them to my car to avoid calls to cops about a guy with a lot of guns walking around. That probably makes them concealed weapons but I would rather just avoid dumb 911 phone calls and freaking my neighbors out.


Well, that's you, and probably me too. There are literally millions of people for whom that isn't true, and would really rather a bunch of yahoos with unloaded ARs slung over their shoulders at Starbucks to make a point didn't screw it up, as the same yahoos have already screwed it up for people who used to be able to sit in their unfenced back yard with an empty pistol.

Back when it looked like there might be something to gain from UOC activism, it was a reasonable thing to do. Right now all evidence suggests it's completely counterproductive, and doubling down ain't gonna help any.

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 3:17 PM
Twice today I've heard a Chuck Michel statement to the press. Basically saying that now that UOCers can't carry pistols that they are going to express themselves by carrying long guns.

I'm finding it very interesting but am not at all sure what that means. It is clear that he is framing it as an infringement on a 1A free speech right, that seems clear.

But since Michel and his firm work very closely with the NRA is it possible that this is a prelude to the NRA taking up the 1A case against AB144?

There was roughly simultaneous mention on the broadcast that the UOCers are organizing a long gun UOC event and I'm wondering if the NRA is helping to stage such an event?

Is it possible that RCoC has retained Michel's firm to represent them in a challenge to AB144 on 1A grounds? If so, my respect for the organization is going up substantially since I believe that is the right thing to do.

If someone has additional information and would like to clue me in I'd be much obliged.

And heck, if Chuck Michel is in favor and if it were considered strategically advantageous, I'd consider joining them for long gun UOC if that would clearly benefit our right to free speech and not harm our RKBA. I can bring anything from a Ruger 1022 to a .30-06 to a RAW.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 3:18 PM
Just saw this on the news, figured I'd come over to give my condolences. I know how you feel. The county I live in in NY will not issue CCWs and open carry was never even an option.

Here's hoping we can all change our respective governments or, if all else fails, move out of our crappy respective states.

chead
10-10-2011, 3:27 PM
In my line of work we have a saying called "security through obscurity", which means that because a system is either unknown or superficially hidden to those that would like to violate it, it's likely that system will go unnoticed by them. Our cover was blown and the attackers of freedom used the opportunity to take that right away.

You should also know the adage "security through obscurity is no security at all", then.

GWbiker
10-10-2011, 3:29 PM
You can't even open carry in Texas dude.

Because it's against the law to OC in Texas...a "shall issue" state.

Prior to signing of AB144 last night, it was NOT against the law to OC an unloaded handgun in California, which is a "May issue, depending on who you are, what connections you have and how much influence you have" state.

Texas is way ahead of California in gun rights.

a1c
10-10-2011, 3:35 PM
I think you are seriously misreading the sub-factions here. In my experience, the UOC folks are the hard core libertarian types, who support gay rights as well as gun rights. I guess your mileage may vary, but that's what I've observed.

I too have observed different factions among UOC activists.

Problem is, there are UOCers (some of the more libertarian types) who were asked to kindly stand down for a while, and many did. But others - some are in this board, even in these threads - did not. For them it was not so much about gun rights than it was about some self-righteous desire to defy cops and proudly wearing an unloaded gun "just because" they could. Some people hate any form of authority, and this was their chance to prove it once more, under the cover of the law and the fight for the 2A. I'm sure they thought they were in their right - and in a way, they were - but it accomplished nothing good.

Zero political savviness. They are now retreating under cheap displays patriotism and emotional arguments, and they have no practical advice nor short or long-term strategy whatsoever to regain their rights back. It's gone, and it's gone for good. They were warned many, many times. Not by antis, but by people on their side. They chose to ignore it. They played, and they lost big time. Now the only argument they have left is to rail how little we've gained so far, not realizing that they have actually potentially hurt the cause in the long run.

They acted in an entitled, selfish manner. They wanted their carry right, and they wanted it now. They were the Code Pink of the pro-gun movement, alienating everybody with pointless demonstrations.

SickofSoCal
10-10-2011, 3:46 PM
I too have observed different factions among UOC activists.

Problem is, there are UOCers (some of the more libertarian types) who were asked to kindly stand down for a while, and many did. But others - some are in this board, even in these threads - did not. For them it was not so much about gun rights than it was about some self-righteous desire to defy cops and proudly wearing an unloaded gun "just because" they could. Some people hate any form of authority, and this was their chance to prove it once more, under the cover of the law and the fight for the 2A. I'm sure they thought they were in their right - and in a way, they were - but it accomplished nothing good.

Zero political savviness. They are now retreating under cheap displays patriotism and emotional arguments, and they have no practical advice nor short or long-term strategy whatsoever to regain their rights back. It's gone, and it's gone for good. They were warned many, many times. Not by antis, but by people on their side. They chose to ignore it. They played, and they lost big time. Now the only argument they have left is to rail how little we've gained so far, not realizing that they have actually potentially hurt the cause in the long run.

They acted in an entitled, selfish manner. They wanted their carry right, and they wanted it now. They were the Code Pink of the pro-gun movement, alienating everybody with pointless demonstrations.

I see how it is.......you don't really want constitutional government after all.

Part of the concept of liberty and freedom, is tolerating others use of it.

guns4life
10-10-2011, 3:46 PM
elsensei:

You sound like the reason why the U.S. Army wins against so many others.

Uncoordinated action without proper support means that a well organized OPFOR is going to kill you unless you have overwhelming advantages in terrain, equipment, and numerical forces.

It's the problem with too many who've hunted and never been in leadership in the armed forces. You figure that with if you're brave and clever you'll win.

I think of it as the difference between a warrior and a soldier. The warrior goes off to do brave and great deeds as he/she is slaughtered. The soldier functions as a team and maneuvers for advantage in time, terrain, equipment, and numbers. Soldiers slaughter the heroic warrior(s).

I remember in Afghanistan we kept having problems with the ANA (Afghan National Army). No lack of bravery or intellect, but they'd hear of an attack and grab up weapons and load up in pick-ups to go fight the Taliban. No care taken to ensure that they had air support, a reserve force, or a logistical tail. They ran to the fight with much bravery and an inability to shoot straight.

In Iraq they'd talk about how you wanted to be the target of the insurgents - that way you'd never get hit. Admittedly it was an exaggeration, but the concept the insurgents frequently had was that they had to set up the mortars (or whatever the weapon might be) and fire it - and if Allah willed it would hit the infidels. So proper aiming was not a consideration for an awful lot of them.

The lessons are clear. If you want to win you have to be tactically and strategically smart. Carrying your shotgun around is the most wonderful thing you could do for LCAV.


If you want to win you have to have tactically and strategically smart leaders.

When there are no leaders the warriors feel compelled to step up and do something. Find an adequite leader for the CA 2nd amendment movement and I believe the warriors will get in line, until then they are going to continue to do their own thing.

a1c
10-10-2011, 3:54 PM
I see how it is.......you don't really want constitutional government after all.

Part of the concept of liberty and freedom, is tolerating others use of it.

Oh, I want it. I just know some things take a little bit of time, because I'm a grown up. I also know that there are different ways of doing things, and that rubbing your ideas into someone else's face is not always the smartest nor most efficient way of going at it.

dogtrainer
10-10-2011, 4:08 PM
If you don't use your rights--you lose them.

If you don't fight for your rights--you lose them.

It was nice to hear (on this forum) from the open carry people about their experiences using their right to open carry.

Now Calguns knows that every Second Amendment defense effort (individual or coordinated group effort) should be supported.

Army
10-10-2011, 4:24 PM
I fully agree with CGN.

From now on, I will ride in the back of the bus and never sit at the front lunch counter, certainly I will use the back door and the smaller, dirtier restroom. Thankfully we have our own leaking pipes for a drinking fountain. Never again will I march on Atlanta or Selma or Washington DC just to listen to a rabble rousing dreamer. There is no reason in standing up for our Constitutional rights...

...because good things will happen when we do nothing at all.

>>off my sarcasm soapbox<<

RazzB7
10-10-2011, 4:27 PM
This has to go down as best troll ever. 123 posts, 2831 views and the original poster has ONE post, the beginning.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 4:28 PM
What we really need is a president who will intervene when a state steps on the rights of the people. Isn't that the most important role of the federal government (and some may argue, the only role)? To make sure that states don't step on rights that we're all entitled to as free citizens of the United States of America?

831Shooter
10-10-2011, 4:37 PM
Originally Posted by 831Shooter
How did UOC hurt us?

It got the practice banned, I thought this was self explanatory.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Like I stated in my original post. The "practice" was ALREADY de facto banned. Sure, "on the books" you had the legal right to UOC. Reality was if you went out and legally did so, you would most likely be arrested

Again, what's the point? When you are legally allowed to do something, yet it's recommended that if you do UOC, you should "be prepared to be arrested" and "keep $5000-$10,000 in a legal fund" for your defense. Your defense of a LEGAL act!

There have been multiple statements about how the UOC "in your face" got UOC banned and we should have just used it as our right only.. Using one quote for an example:

Originally posted by RazzB7
Had we (responsible gun owners) just used our UOC rights as RIGHTS, instead of using those same rights to make a "tee-hee, I just thumbed my nose at the man and posted it on youtube" political statement, that right might never have been infringed.

Sure, maybe a few did it as a "i just thumbed my nose at the man", but I believe most did so to actually bring attention to the fact that it was a LEGAL practice. They actually risked their own arrest to do so.

If the UOC movement never came about and brought into the spotlight, the people that were UOC for self defense would surely have been arrested, instead of "likely" getting to walk away after a hassle and an e-check. It was those people that caused all the memos to be sent to the LE departments explaining the law and telling them what they had the legal right to do, in the event of coming into contact with someone UOC. It was the threat of their departments being sued that kept them from hassling people even more than they did. Even after it was widely known that UOC was legal people were still being arrested.

LE was not required to do an e-check. They were allowed to. There has never been an incident of an UOC in CA committing a violent crime. Police Chiefs and others in LE have made statements that "criminals do not usually keep firearms in holsters", etc. yet citizens legally choosing to UOC were still harassed with e-checks and beyond. Many times, LE would be stopping and performing e-checks on people they had already done so to numerous times. They already had a good idea of who this person was and the fact that they carried according to the law. Yet they DECIDED to stop them and do an e check anyway. Other officers did not bother to do e-checks on people. It's obvious they could have developed policies where a person legally UOC without any other reason to believe a crime has been committed or going to be committed were left alone to go about their business.


Think of it another way.... If you were a 1A activist, how do you think group protests where everyone walked down the street yelling racial slurs effect that cause? People hanging out at Starbucks yelling N'er N'er N'er, instead of using the 1A for a legit purpose.

Eventually there would be a tipping point and a backlash against it. AB144 is the equivalent to that here.

I think that is a bad analogy. Here in 2011 most people feel very confident in their right to free speech. Those going about their right to exercise free speech are generally not fearing every second they will be confronted by LE and keeping a $5-10K stash for a legal fund.

If it were not for the UOC "activists" the people that wanted to use UOC for self defense would have been WAY less likely to actually do so for fear of arrest. They also were then way less likely to be arrested and charged falsely when and if they did decide to UOC.

Just my .02
831S

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 4:41 PM
This has to go down as best troll ever. 123 posts, 2831 views and the original poster has ONE post, the beginning.

You may be right, but I'm not so sure. . .

I've got a feeling that there is a faction within the UOC movement which has been very busy today. Not sure exactly what they are planning or whether it will be wise. But I'm betting that the UOCers are going to try to make a really big splash in the next few days.

Making a big splash takes coordination. And I'm not seeing a number of the biggies in the movement posting in the relevant threads today.

I think it will be interesting.

stix213
10-10-2011, 7:09 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with you. Like I stated in my original post. The "practice" was ALREADY de facto banned. Sure, "on the books" you had the legal right to UOC. Reality was if you went out and legally did so, you would most likely be arrested

Again, what's the point? When you are legally allowed to do something, yet it's recommended that if you do UOC, you should "be prepared to be arrested" and "keep $5000-$10,000 in a legal fund" for your defense. Your defense of a LEGAL act!

There have been multiple statements about how the UOC "in your face" got UOC banned and we should have just used it as our right only.. Using one quote for an example:



The point was yesterday I could UOC across a campground (outside of my site) and on a rural road, and never even get a second look. It was very useful to me, and I did it all the time when going out plinking in the NF. Now I'm going to have to bring a freaking lockable case with me just in case I want to walk out of my campsite to the restroom.

No one has ever recommended against doing exactly this ^^^. This very useful purpose for a very useful exemption. You are flat out lying when you say UOC was in general recommended against. What WAS recommended against was purposely getting a rise out of the urban population while our carry rights are still in flux due to current litigation.

Imagine if two years from now, after SCOTUS has already found that loaded carry is a right, and we have shall issue LTC concealed variety. Do you think police chiefs and the state legislature would have tried to ram through a UOC ban at that time? What would be the point? Anyone UOCing could already legally carry loaded and concealed. There would have been no real push to ban it, even with mass numbers of people flaunting it. Banning it at that time just means instead the gun would be LOADED! You might have seen police chiefs coming out and saying, "well at least we can see it and we know its not even loaded, so I don't see the problem."

But no, there was just zero patience for the right strategic moment to play this card. There was going to be a time and place to do exactly this, and it was not right now. Everyone who helped bring about AB144 basically blew open carry for everyone, probably for good in this state. Thanks

javalos
10-10-2011, 8:26 PM
Ex-UOC's...have you guys ever heard of the word "discretion?" This is Kalifornia, UOC of rifles will only draw negative attention and legislation, you're only screwing yourselves and others. Concentrate on concealed carry.

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 8:35 PM
Here's the AP article via syracuse.com. Enjoy.

http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2011/10/new_law_bans_open_carry_of_han.html

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 8:41 PM
Thank you for the article.

They quoted Chuck Michel, but he said significantly more than they quoted in that article.

I'd love to know exactly what is afoot. I don't think it is simply that Michel is going to go back to the District court and ask that the previous decision be vacated.

a1c
10-10-2011, 8:45 PM
What we really need is a president who will intervene when a state steps on the rights of the people. Isn't that the most important role of the federal government (and some may argue, the only role)? To make sure that states don't step on rights that we're all entitled to as free citizens of the United States of America?

No. That's what the judicial branch is for.

wash
10-10-2011, 8:54 PM
I really doubt that any UOC group has retained Chuck Michel.

OleCuss
10-10-2011, 9:06 PM
I'll go with your judgment on that one. But it was interesting to listen to a radio report with him talking about pending UOC activities and addressing it as a 1A issue.

MudCamper
10-10-2011, 9:10 PM
The point was yesterday I could UOC across a campground (outside of my site) and on a rural road, and never even get a second look. It was very useful to me, and I did it all the time when going out plinking in the NF.

I believe that this is still legal. There was an exception put in for it. It is being discussed here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=7297489#post7297489), although Liberty1 is trying to disagree with me. It seems pretty clear to me. We need all the minds here on CalGuns to sort this out ASAP. I personally will continue to UOC in the NF and BLM.

I will quote the exception again here, but it's annoying to discuss the same thing in two different places.

26388. Section 26350 does not apply to, or affect, the open
carrying of an unloaded handgun on publicly owned land, if the
possession and use of a handgun is specifically permitted by the
managing agency of the land and the person carrying that handgun
is in lawful possession of that handgun.

oldrifle
10-10-2011, 10:16 PM
Something tells me they're planning on UOCing AR-15 pattern rifles because they'll get the UOCers the most attention. The last thing we need is legislative attention on fixed magazine and featureless OLLs. We'll start seeing bills to ban semi-automatic rifles introduced, guaranteed.

stix213
10-10-2011, 10:57 PM
I believe that this is still legal. There was an exception put in for it. It is being discussed here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=7297489#post7297489), although Liberty1 is trying to disagree with me. It seems pretty clear to me. We need all the minds here on CalGuns to sort this out ASAP. I personally will continue to UOC in the NF and BLM.

I will quote the exception again here, but it's annoying to discuss the same thing in two different places.

Well there's some good news

Foriegn power
10-10-2011, 11:13 PM
wait so UOC is illegal now? Guys my grandpa was like just conceal the dam thing no issues and no problems! I told him this ain't the 60's but hey over time society has become stupider and stupider I told him. It is true guys just carry it discretely.

unusedusername
10-10-2011, 11:57 PM
Thank you for the article.

They quoted Chuck Michel, but he said significantly more than they quoted in that article.

It IS interesting that NRA is spending money on this issue. Michel's office does not issue releases nor speak to the press for free, and his hourly rate is nothing to sneeze at.

Your NRA at work folks, even when we just lost a battle, still fighting the war.

viet4lifeOC
10-10-2011, 11:58 PM
I personally don't open carry. Never have and never will. However, I support those that do, and their right to do it.

Agreed.

After all I'm all about civil rights:rolleyes:

831Shooter
10-11-2011, 1:27 AM
The point was yesterday I could UOC across a campground (outside of my site) and on a rural road, and never even get a second look. It was very useful to me, and I did it all the time when going out plinking in the NF. Now I'm going to have to bring a freaking lockable case with me just in case I want to walk out of my campsite to the restroom.

No one has ever recommended against doing exactly this ^^^. This very useful purpose for a very useful exemption. You are flat out lying when you say UOC was in general recommended against. What WAS recommended against was purposely getting a rise out of the urban population while our carry rights are still in flux due to current litigation.

Imagine if two years from now, after SCOTUS has already found that loaded carry is a right, and we have shall issue LTC concealed variety. Do you think police chiefs and the state legislature would have tried to ram through a UOC ban at that time? What would be the point? Anyone UOCing could already legally carry loaded and concealed. There would have been no real push to ban it, even with mass numbers of people flaunting it. Banning it at that time just means instead the gun would be LOADED! You might have seen police chiefs coming out and saying, "well at least we can see it and we know its not even loaded, so I don't see the problem."

But no, there was just zero patience for the right strategic moment to play this card. There was going to be a time and place to do exactly this, and it was not right now. Everyone who helped bring about AB144 basically blew open carry for everyone, probably for good in this state. Thanks

Apparently you don't like when people disagree with you.. I really don't care that you have 5000+ posts and I am new here, please DON'T call me a liar. Especially when what you are saying I am "flat out lying" about is wrong.

It's quite obvious to anyone who reads CGN that there are those who support open carry and those who don't. Here is just one thread as an example of many:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=473900

As far as CGF, here is Gene's post about UOC:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=366342

A couple snippets from that post:

Though CGF officially feels that it is still not the best strategic/political choice to UOC in urban California, while LOCing where allowed in California is just fine, we would like to add one very important recommendation...

CGF remains unwilling to defend UOC cases generally. However, we will be far more amenable to a UOC case where the UOCer attempted to comply with PC § 12050 and has proof via a return receipt of tracking information, as it significantly narrows the counter arguments that a law enforcement agency can make.

I don't know about you, but that UNEQUIVOCALLY reads to me like UOC is "generally recommended against" by CGF. There certainly is nothing stated about not UOC only for "purposely getting a rise out of the urban population"

I have no problem with CGF opinion on UOC. They obviously have their ducks in a row and supporting open carry was not a part of their strategy. I respect all the hard work they have done and what has been accomplished. Like I also stated, I don't UOC.

I still stand by my statement that if it were not for the people that WERE UOC for the purpose of bringing attention to it, having encounters with LE, etc. that ANYONE UOC in urban/suburban CA would be getting arrested and spending $$$ in defense instead of "mostly" getting an e-check and being on their merry way..

Anyway, onward and upward!

831S

GWbiker
10-11-2011, 1:36 AM
Here's the AP article via syracuse.com. Enjoy.

http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2011/10/new_law_bans_open_carry_of_han.html

One of the first rules of firearms safety is to always assume a weapon is loaded. “Main Street California is not the Old West, and you don’t need a gun to buy a cheeseburger,” Portantino said.

Guess he's never been to Stockton...:rolleyes:

monk
10-11-2011, 1:42 AM
Guess he's never been to Stockton...:rolleyes:

You know, I've been to stockton and to be honest, I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

stix213
10-11-2011, 1:54 AM
Apparently you don't like when people disagree with you.. I really don't care that you have 5000+ posts and I am new here, please DON'T call me a liar. Especially when what you are saying I am "flat out lying" about is wrong.

It's quite obvious to anyone who reads CGN that there are those who support open carry and those who don't. Here is just one thread as an example of many:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=473900

As far as CGF, here is Gene's post about UOC:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=366342

A couple snippets from that post:





I don't know about you, but that UNEQUIVOCALLY reads to me like UOC is "generally recommended against" by CGF. There certainly is nothing stated about not UOC only for "purposely getting a rise out of the urban population"

I have no problem with CGF opinion on UOC. They obviously have their ducks in a row and supporting open carry was not a part of their strategy. I respect all the hard work they have done and what has been accomplished. Like I also stated, I don't UOC.

I still stand by my statement that if it were not for the people that WERE UOC for the purpose of bringing attention to it, having encounters with LE, etc. that ANYONE UOC in urban/suburban CA would be getting arrested and spending $$$ in defense instead of "mostly" getting an e-check and being on their merry way..

Anyway, onward and upward!

831S

For some reason you are ignoring the key word 'urban California' in the recommendations, as in NOT in general (vast majority of the state is anything but urban). I stand by what I previously said.

Yeah you're probably right though, if it weren't for the UOCers there would be more problematic LEO encounters that go south in urban/suburban CA..... since, you know, it wouldn't be banned and all :rolleyes: Any incremental improvement in the LEO behavior just went out the window when the practice became subject to a 6 month jail sentence.

831Shooter
10-11-2011, 2:02 AM
For some reason you are ignoring the key word urban California in the recommendations, as in NOT in general.

Yeah you're probably right, if it weren't for the UOCers there would be more problematic LEO encounters that go south in urban/suburban CA..... since, you know, it would still be legal :rolleyes:

OK, now you are reaching.. big time.. The grand majority of the population in CA live in "urban" California. If you want to believe that the CGF official policy was not "in general" be my guest.. IMO you are quite wrong.

There certainly was NOTHING in that recommendation about UOC being OK, except when "purposely getting a rise out of the urban population"..

Carry on.. I have no more time to waste on this as Open Carry is a dead issue now anyway..

831S

odysseus
10-11-2011, 2:07 AM
Everyone should know how salivating the news media like KTVU, where I see a lot of UOC stories show, will be if people start to UOC Ar15s. I agree as other's have said - people need to work together, coordinate, and make intelligent moves than just be driven by anger and have a news reporter use you.

MudCamper
10-11-2011, 9:10 AM
Well there's some good news

Well my opinion is not unanimous yet (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=7297489#post7297489).

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 9:47 AM
Now Calguns knows that every Second Amendment defense effort (individual or coordinated group effort) should be supported.

I vehemently disagree.

-Brandon