PDA

View Full Version : An open letter to Open Carriers


Havoc70
10-10-2011, 6:45 PM
I have sent the following to members of the open carry group I founded (707 Open Carry):

With the passage of AB144 into law, the unloaded open carrying of handguns will now be a misdemeanor offense. There may be some members of UOC groups encouraging the UOC of long arms (rifles/shotguns). I have been working closely with CGF on various license to carry initiatives and I urge you to carefully consider the ramifications of carrying rifles.

I will not tell you to not do so, that is your choice to make, however, given the current political environment it would be like taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest. I firmly believe that UOC long arms will simply lead to yet more legislation that would have to be fought. You can be assured that the members of the State Assembly and/or Senate will quickly introduce legislation to ban the UOC of rifles.

This would impact hunters, marksmen and other people who use rifles for legitimate sporting purposes. Imagine having to lock your rifle in a case and then only unlocking it when you are in an "approved" area.

I urge you to NOT UOC long arms. History has proven what happens when people carry long arms. The Black Panthers carried loaded rifles and thus the loaded carrying of firearms was banned. Learn from history, don't repeat it.

Scott


Now, I am sure that many in the UOC crowd will vilify me for this, but I firmly believe that this political battle has been soundly lost and to continue fighting this will only lead to more bad crap down the road. So flame me if you must, but I stand by my stance that UOC is dead. Use the energy to get real carry reform in California (open or concealed), support the rights groups that have a solid grasp on the strategy.

Carrying long arms isn't going to accomplish squat except pissing off people that could turn out to be allies in our fight.

G60
10-10-2011, 6:51 PM
According to some OC groups, now is the time for "all out open carry" =[

redking
10-10-2011, 7:20 PM
I've seen a ton of police officers protesting this all ready... all with LOADED guns on their hips

Pretty risque

GammaRei
10-10-2011, 8:00 PM
According to some OC groups, now is the time for "all out open carry" =[

Thats is so goddamn stupid....

- G

model63
10-10-2011, 9:33 PM
I won't knock you for it... to the average Metropolitan Californian 'open carry' of anything is about as foreign as having a Republican legislator to represent them. I think we need to be on the same page, disciplined, with short term policy objectives coupled with long term efforts to win over hearts and minds.

We can't have an inconsistent message and division amongst the ranks. I hunt... and plainly speaking don't want grief when I get pulled over with my camo'd shotgun in the trunk or my backseat/front seat with my waders and decoy's in tow at 2 a.m. on way out to the blinds and get mistaken as a Montana Freemen. For a good number of us, UOC is political speech and I respect that right... but it obviously had real world consequences. I can also see that when viewed through the eyes of a utilitarian law enforcement command working with already depressed resources, the last thing they want is chasing up political speech encounters called in as 'man with gun'. I listen to scanner traffic periodically and it is clear our LE has a hard enough time showing up to every 'shots fired' or '10-33 audible' call they get.

I am encouraged that the recent UOC bill will lead to LTC for all as many have noted here. I think the lack of alternatives argument has real merit. This may be one of the rare times where we actually take 2 steps forward with 1 step back and not the opposite as many feel as of late. If we get virtual shall issue LTC, I think it equally important that we give some kind of acknowledgement to the UOC crowd for pressing this issue if the lack of alternatives argument down in SD is triangulated for us as it appears it may be and proves pivotal in bringing sunshine and nachos to us all. If we get nothing out of this for LTC, then I would be inclined to join them in UOC of long arms as we have nothing to lose in this state.

Longer term...I do think we need to 'come out of the closet' so to speak to effect change and to reduce the incidence of assaults on our rights by future legislatures. If we appear insular, conspiratorial, reclusive we are seen as fringe and easy to pick off. When we are seen as family, outgoing, respectable figures of diverse socioeconomic/political backgrounds contributing to our communities, putting a face on our issues, we give color to our cause. Regardless of your politics, one has to respect the effectiveness of this approach and change in opinion over time we've seen in the plethora of same-sex related issues, not just in California but throughout the country. Sure there are limits to the analogy, but social construct seems ever relevant. Courts are fine and will remain important in the short (however protracted) term, but the larger battle is what I would equate to a marketing campaign.

On youtube, one of the groups i've watched periodically outside of Hickok45 is 'gunwebsites' from Az (IIRC) and at the end of most every video the past few years they have a little hook they use with a quote and a saying that I'll paraphrase something to the effect of 'the guys and gals of gunwebsites encourage us to take a CCW class every year, practice once a month and carry everyday...' In a similar fashion we should try to win a full time convert to our community once a year, invite friends with wives once a month to the range (need to always get the women on board) and do a little something every day to spread the gospel (did I a mention I'm Agnostic in real life :) ) for our cause either through education or casual conversation.


My $0.02..

galactusnt
10-10-2011, 9:37 PM
No. It is not stupid. What you all need to get thru your heads is that inrementalism doesnt work. By accepting all the premises of the enemy, most notably the regulation premise and the prohibited person premise and the presumption of legality of existing law, all thanks to the Viagra Heller decision, I and my equivalents, simply do not kave the right to keep and bear arms in California on the very handguns that the immensely weak Heller decision was supposed to guarantee. 3 years after that decision no less, a. Court still managed to say I have no right outside the home! And the Supremes avoided taking the case! I am fifty years old. Exaclty when do I get to walk in relative safety of comfort at arms? I will say it again. Your victories to date are minimal and can be rolled back with the stroke of a pen. Let them open carry. Let us get a total ban so we can test the strength of the ViagraH decision. I would kill to see one lawyer state that a Gun free zone is nothing but a killing field waiting to happen. I would kill for one lawyer to actually write that ALL manners of carry are protected. I would kill for a lawyer to state, unequivocally, that a right by definition has all subordinate aspects the right entails, in our case, transport, ranges, ammunition, gun type, sights, silencers, number of weapons carried, ban registration, ban tracking, ban dros. And the prohibited person nonsense has got to go. If you are not in a mental institution as danger to self and othersor someones ward, then you should have full rights to a weapon. Period. I will go cool off for afew days and then return to support the fight.

CitaDeL
10-10-2011, 9:45 PM
I have sent the following to members of the open carry group I founded (707 Open Carry):



Now, I am sure that many in the UOC crowd will vilify me for this, but I firmly believe that this political battle has been soundly lost and to continue fighting this will only lead to more bad crap down the road. So flame me if you must, but I stand by my stance that UOC is dead. Use the energy to get real carry reform in California (open or concealed), support the rights groups that have a solid grasp on the strategy.

Carrying long arms isn't going to accomplish squat except pissing off people that could turn out to be allies in our fight.

You forgot to offer them an alternative to carrying a long gun.

sandman21
10-10-2011, 9:59 PM
You forgot to offer them an alternative to carrying a long gun.

Yep and history. I would suggest that empty holsters with a banana would be a more effective tool to show how ridiculous the law is. My .02.

Why were the Black Panthers carrying exactly? Protecting themselves and their community is not a bad thing.

Lone_Gunman
10-10-2011, 10:02 PM
Please tell them to LUCC.

CalBear
10-10-2011, 10:03 PM
I would suggest that empty holsters with a banana would be a more effective tool to show how ridiculous the law is. My .02.
Agreed. I think this is a good way of protesting the recent carry law, as well as the concealed LTC issuance policy. It says "I care about this and you're depriving me of a right" without stirring up the bee hive as much.

stix213
10-10-2011, 10:04 PM
No. It is not stupid. What you all need to get thru your heads is that inrementalism doesnt work. By accepting all the premises of the enemy, most notably the regulation premise and the prohibited person premise and the presumption of legality of existing law, all thanks to the Viagra Heller decision, I and my equivalents, simply do not kave the right to keep and bear arms in California on the very handguns that the immensely weak Heller decision was supposed to guarantee. 3 years after that decision no less, a. Court still managed to say I have no right outside the home! And the Supremes avoided taking the case! I am fifty years old. Exaclty when do I get to walk in relative safety of comfort at arms? I will say it again. Your victories to date are minimal and can be rolled back with the stroke of a pen. Let them open carry. Let us get a total ban so we can test the strength of the ViagraH decision. I would kill to see one lawyer state that a Gun free zone is nothing but a killing field waiting to happen. I would kill for one lawyer to actually write that ALL manners of carry are protected. I would kill for a lawyer to state, unequivocally, that a right by definition has all subordinate aspects the right entails, in our case, transport, ranges, ammunition, gun type, sights, silencers, number of weapons carried, ban registration, ban tracking, ban dros. And the prohibited person nonsense has got to go. If you are not in a mental institution as danger to self and othersor someones ward, then you should have full rights to a weapon. Period. I will go cool off for afew days and then return to support the fight.

I suppose you've been donating heavily to the CGF, CRPA, NRA, 2A Foundation, and regularly show up in person to fight the good fight? Or are you just telling people what they need to do for you?

CitaDeL
10-10-2011, 10:10 PM
Yep and history. I would suggest that empty holsters with a banana would be a more effective tool to show how ridiculous the law is. My .02.

Why were the Black Panthers carrying exactly? Protecting themselves and their community is not a bad thing.

I think you are trying to tell me where to put my banana.

I am inclined to return the advice.

sandman21
10-10-2011, 10:16 PM
I think you are trying to tell me where to put my banana.

I am inclined to return the advice.

I had a joke but I will keep it to myself. Not PG. :43::eek:

I think the UOC movement needs to realize that they can do more good by changing tactics. At the same time I think this passed because some gun owners got in there head that we would have LTC next week if it passed.

Cokebottle
10-10-2011, 10:21 PM
Please tell them to LUCC.
Please carefully read 12026.2 before doing/recommending this.

IMHO, LUCC is not legal on foot without specific destination requirements met.
It is legal in an automobile at any time.

CitaDeL
10-10-2011, 10:27 PM
Please carefully read 12026.2 before doing/recommending this.

IMHO, LUCC is not legal on foot without specific destination requirements met.
It is legal in an automobile at any time.

You mean to or from any motor vehicle. This includes public transportation, taxis, shuttle buses, scooters, motorcycles... get the picture?

NapaPlinker
10-10-2011, 10:32 PM
What if we all started open carrying dirks and tasers?

taperxz
10-10-2011, 10:33 PM
Yep and history. I would suggest that empty holsters with a banana would be a more effective tool to show how ridiculous the law is. My .02.

Why were the Black Panthers carrying exactly? Protecting themselves and their community is not a bad thing.

Exactly a banana is the same as what they were carrying before anyway! At least you can eat it on the way home!

The Black Panthers carried loaded. A functional firearm, not a banana.

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 10:34 PM
I agree that UOC tactics are necessarily going to have to change, or further regulations are certain to follow.

However, let's be very clear here: AB 144 was signed because the Legislature passed it over the vocal opposition of every gun lobbying arm in Sacramento and countless gun owners, and the CLEOs complained of public safety risk, officer safety, and other BS ad nauseam to the ex-AG.

-Brandon

ETA: I certainly hope that the energy and raw horsepower of the OC movement would join forces and help us force compliance in the realm of carry licensing. This will do nothing but put more loaded guns on law-abiding gun owners' persons for self-defense - a common desire, to be sure.

I think the UOC movement needs to realize that they can do more good by changing tactics. At the same time I think this passed because some gun owners got in there head that we would have LTC next week if it passed.

Cokebottle
10-10-2011, 10:40 PM
You mean to or from any motor vehicle. This includes public transportation, taxis, shuttle buses, scooters, motorcycles... get the picture?
I disagree.

12026.2 does not exempt you if you walk out of your front door and take a stroll around the block, or walk to the mall... or through the mall.

It does not provide a GENERAL exemption to 12025 the way 12026.1 does when you are in a motor vehicle. 12026.1 and 12026.2 are two separate and specific exemptions.
12026.1 protects you when in a motor vehicle.
12026.2 protects you when NOT in a motor vehicle, but with specific destination requirements that would preclude "general everyday carry"

Lone_Gunman
10-10-2011, 10:42 PM
Please carefully read 12026.2 before doing/recommending this.

IMHO, LUCC is not legal on foot without specific destination requirements met.
It is legal in an automobile at any time.


Sorry, I'm going to take Genes advice over yours.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=278739





And another LUCC thread
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=397026

LUCC is actually legal. A movie seat is a place that you can UOC and therefor can certainly LUCC, and you've yet to understand the implication of that statement.

Not only is an LUCC prosecution difficult, it's impossible. Explain to me the set of circumstances that allows a successful prosecution - even ignoring the reasonable doubt standard.

-Gene

Cokebottle
10-10-2011, 10:50 PM
Sorry, I'm going to take Genes advice over yours.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=278739
Feel free.

The OP in that thread was speaking specifically about LUCC through a GFSZ to get from his front door to his car.

That is a specified exemption in 12026.2

I'd get further clarification before recommending it as a general practice:

PC 12026.1

(a)Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the following applies to the firearm:
(1)The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment.
(2)The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b)The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter.
(c)As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device.

PC 12026.2
(a)Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
(1)The possession of a firearm by an authorized participant in a motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event when the participant lawfully uses the firearm as part of that production or event or while going directly to, or coming directly from, that production or event.
(2)The possession of a firearm in a locked container by a member of any club or organization, organized for the purpose of lawfully collecting and lawfully displaying pistols, revolvers, or other firearms, while the member is at meetings of the clubs or organizations or while going directly to, and coming directly from, those meetings.
(3)The transportation of a firearm by a participant when going directly to, or coming directly from, a recognized safety or hunter safety class, or a recognized sporting event involving that firearm.
(4)The transportation of a firearm by a person listed in Section 12026 directly between any of the places mentioned in Section 12026.
(5)The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a fixed place of business or private residential property for the purpose of the lawful repair or the lawful transfer, sale, or loan of that firearm.
(6)The transportation of a firearm by a person listed in Section 12026 when going directly from the place where that person lawfully received that firearm to that person's place of residence or place of business or to private property owned or lawfully possessed by that person.
(7)The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a gun show, swap meet, or similar event to which the public is invited, for the purpose of displaying that firearm in a lawful manner.
(8)The transportation of a firearm by an authorized employee or agent of a supplier of firearms when going directly to, or coming directly from, a motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event for the purpose of providing that firearm to an authorized participant to lawfully use as a part of that production or event.
(9)The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a target range, which holds a regulatory or business license, for the purposes of practicing shooting at targets with that firearm at that target range.
(10)The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a place designated by a person authorized to issue licenses pursuant to Section 12050 when done at the request of the issuing agency so that the issuing agency can determine whether or not a license should be issued to that person to carry that firearm.
(11)The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a lawful camping activity for the purpose of having that firearm available for lawful personal protection while at the lawful campsite. This paragraph shall not be construed to override the statutory authority granted to the Department of Parks and Recreation or any other state or local governmental agencies to promulgate rules and regulations governing the administration of parks and campgrounds.
(12)The transportation of a firearm by a person in order to comply with subdivision (c) or (i) of Section 12078 as it pertains to that firearm.
(13)The transportation of a firearm by a person in order to utilize subdivision (l) of Section 12078 as it pertains to that firearm.
(14)The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a gun show or event, as defined in Section 478.100 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the purpose of lawfully transferring, selling, or loaning that firearm in accordance with subdivision (d) of Section 12072.
(15)The transportation of a firearm by a person in order to utilize paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 12078 as it pertains to that firearm.
(16)The transportation of a firearm by a person who finds the firearm in order to comply with Article 1 (commencing with Section 2080) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code as it pertains to that firearm and if that firearm is being transported to a law enforcement agency, the person gives prior notice to the law enforcement agency that he or she is transporting the firearm to the law enforcement agency.
(17)The transportation of a firearm by a person in order to comply with paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072 as it pertains to that firearm.
(18)The transportation of a firearm by a person who finds the firearm and is transporting it to a law enforcement agency for disposition according to law, if he or she gives prior notice to the law enforcement agency that he or she is transporting the firearm to the law enforcement agency for disposition according to law.
(19)The transportation of a firearm by a person in order to comply with paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072 as it pertains to that firearm.
(20)The transportation of a firearm by a person for the purpose of obtaining an identification number or mark assigned for that firearm from the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12092.
(b)In order for a firearm to be exempted under subdivision (a), while being transported to or from a place, the firearm shall be unloaded, kept in a locked container, as defined in subdivision (d), and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
(c)This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter.
(d)As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock, combination lock, or similar locking device. The term "locked container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle.

Cokebottle
10-10-2011, 10:52 PM
And another LUCC thread
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=397026
LUCC is actually legal. A movie seat is a place that you can UOC and therefor can certainly LUCC, and you've yet to understand the implication of that statement.
-Gene
Not as of January 1

warbird
10-10-2011, 11:19 PM
It might not hurt to go back to basics and make sure the Federal Bill of Rights is adopted in full into the california constitution and to "out" any legislator who will not sponsor a bill or a ballot referendum for this adoption. Then once that becomes law then challenge in court those laws such as this law that infringe on those rights. I am betting Brown researched this carefully and that this non-adoption of the federal Bill of Rights will be his excuse for signing the bill. Take that excuse away from him and put it in front of the people. People might not carry but they are tired of no support and protection from the police. I would volunteer time to get signatures as should everyone. We need to nail this down before it gets out of hand. The state cannot challenge adoption of the Federal Bill of Rights in court and to fight it on the ballot citing only opposition to the second amendment would show the public they are trying to cherry pick and would deny all rights to prevent just this one.

wildhawker
10-10-2011, 11:25 PM
2A and 14A are already applicable to state and local governments. See, McDonald v. Chicago.

-Brandon

It might not hurt to go back to basics and make sure the Federal Bill of Rights is adopted in full into the california constitution and to "out" any legislator who will not sponsor a bill or a ballot referendum for this adoption. Then once that becomes law then challenge in court those laws such as this law that infringe on those rights. I am betting Brown researched this carefully and that this non-adoption of the federal Bill of Rights will be his excuse for signing the bill. Take that excuse away from him and put it in front of the people. People might not carry but they are tired of no support and protection from the police. I would volunteer time to get signatures as should everyone. We need to nail this down before it gets out of hand. The state cannot challenge adoption of the Federal Bill of Rights in court and to fight it on the ballot citing only opposition to the second amendment would show the public they are trying to cherry pick and would deny all rights to prevent just this one.

Lone_Gunman
10-10-2011, 11:31 PM
Eeh, It's all academic for me anyway. I have my LTC.

cmaynes
10-10-2011, 11:33 PM
Yep and history. I would suggest that empty holsters with a banana would be a more effective tool to show how ridiculous the law is. My .02.

Why were the Black Panthers carrying exactly? Protecting themselves and their community is not a bad thing.

the reason why all this has to be viewed as a CIVIL RIGHTS issue- not a gun rights issue.

If the anti's can be framed in terms so loaded as "Racist" many will rethink their posturing.

big red
10-10-2011, 11:43 PM
If we already have 2A and 14A then there should be a legal challenge being planned somewhere. When do we start stopping people carry anything with a sharp edge or anything that could be used as a club? When will California require baseball players to carry their baseball bats in locked carrying cases out of fear someone might use one as a weapon? Personally I would feel more comfortable sitting with a half dozen guys carrying unloaded Glocks than one crazy eyed idiot carrying a basball bat during the playoffs.

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 12:14 AM
If we already have 2A and 14A then there should be a legal challenge being planned somewhere. When do we start stopping people carry anything with a sharp edge or anything that could be used as a club? When will California require baseball players to carry their baseball bats in locked carrying cases out of fear someone might use one as a weapon? Personally I would feel more comfortable sitting with a half dozen guys carrying unloaded Glocks than one crazy eyed idiot carrying a basball bat during the playoffs.

Start reading here: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present

-Brandon

negolien
10-11-2011, 8:37 AM
Exactly a banana is the same as what they were carrying before anyway! At least you can eat it on the way home!

The Black Panthers carried loaded. A functional firearm, not a banana.

failed premise bud... I can load it up fast enough so.... please try some more :fud:

sandman21
10-11-2011, 1:13 PM
I agree that UOC tactics are necessarily going to have to change, or further regulations are certain to follow.

However, let's be very clear here: AB 144 was signed because the Legislature passed it over the vocal opposition of every gun lobbying arm in Sacramento and countless gun owners, and the CLEOs complained of public safety risk, officer safety, and other BS ad nauseam to the ex-AG.

-Brandon

ETA: I certainly hope that the energy and raw horsepower of the OC movement would join forces and help us force compliance in the realm of carry licensing. This will do nothing but put more loaded guns on law-abiding gun owners' persons for self-defense - a common desire, to be sure.

I do not doubt that one bit, everyone who put in time should be thanked a hundred times.

I donít think as many gun owners opposed the bill as last time because they thought it was going to give us a LTC faster, so they wanted it to pass.

Lost.monkey
10-11-2011, 1:22 PM
Yep and history. I would suggest that empty holsters with a banana would be a more effective tool to show how ridiculous the law is. My .02.

Why were the Black Panthers carrying exactly? Protecting themselves and their community is not a bad thing.

So why not carry holstered squirtguns? Airsoft? Let's get a 12031 (e) check performed on a squirtgun on youtube! Bonus points if he prones you out at gunpoint.

DVSmith
10-11-2011, 1:26 PM
A few people out carrying guns around at Starbucks, long, short, whatever, is just provocative to the the general population.

If the open carry crowd had any real tangible support they would start a PR campaign that included radio, television and print ads in major publications and markets that coordinated their message with public appearances and segments on talk shows and news magazines.

They don't, so they can't. All they can do is take a baseball bat to the hornets nest as pointed out by the OP.

Given that general mentality, they are not going to listen to any argument for restraint. All you will get is the standard old chestnuts they pass along to justify their continued missteps.

Gryff
10-11-2011, 1:37 PM
Well, the idiots got what anybody with an active brain cell would expect...a ban. Now they want to do it all again with rifles?

One of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. That's a symptom of stupidity, too.

QQQ
10-11-2011, 2:04 PM
You all banned yourselves from your right to OC when you refused to do so when it was legal.

You didn't even need the government to place the ban forcefully.

I will not UOC and never have for practical reasons and because people wiser than myself tell me that it could hurt the 2A movement.

However, I refuse to mock those who have chosen to exercise their rights, even if it has resulted in a further unconstitutional restriction. You guys who are mocking the UOC movement are making it obvious that you have common ground with the Brady's, even if it's for different reasons. A right is a right is a right.

MudCamper
10-11-2011, 2:30 PM
When the UOC movement stages large events carrying long guns, the legislature will no doubt act. But all they have to do this time is amend PC 26350 et al to read firearm instead of handgun. This will happen. There is nothing any of us can do to stop it.

MolonLabe2008
10-11-2011, 2:39 PM
So, people exercising their rights leads to more legislation infringing those rights?

Am I missing something?

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 3:39 PM
When the UOC movement stages large events carrying long guns, the legislature will no doubt act. But all they have to do this time is amend PC 26350 et al to read firearm instead of handgun. This will happen. There is nothing any of us can do to stop it.

I think the above is correct on all counts.

[Not in any way related to the post quoted above] I'm also asking everyone to cease the personal attacks and blame. AB 144 is done. Move on. Regroup, and let's keep looking forward; there's lots of work to do, and it's not getting done with us jawing at each other here.

-Brandon

G60
10-11-2011, 3:49 PM
And when some decide to open carry 'scary' long guns, how quickly do you think legislation will be introduced to "close the off list lower loophole"

dantodd
10-11-2011, 4:10 PM
When the UOC movement stages large events carrying long guns, the legislature will no doubt act. But all they have to do this time is amend PC 26350 et al to read firearm instead of handgun. This will happen. There is nothing any of us can do to stop it.

It would sure be nice if this doesn't happen and I can continue to carry my long guns in a gun bag without a lock. just sayin'

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 4:10 PM
And when some decide to open carry 'scary' long guns, how quickly do you think legislation will be introduced to "close the off list lower loophole"

Can't touch OLLs, but can ban [unloaded] open carry of long guns.

MudCamper
10-11-2011, 5:06 PM
It would sure be nice if this doesn't happen and I can continue to carry my long guns in a gun bag without a lock. just sayin'

Well you could. If they just changed the wording of the new law from handgun to firearm, then you could concealed carry your long guns, but not open carry them. Crazy but true. To illegalize concealed long guns they'd also need to amend 12025 (or whatever they are renumbering it to).

stix213
10-11-2011, 5:12 PM
So, people exercising their rights leads to more legislation infringing those rights?

Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something. When something is simply "legal" that in no way means it is a "right."

Cokebottle
10-11-2011, 6:31 PM
Can't touch OLLs
Oh, they can, but they don't want to.

And unlike the 3 bills that just passed, they realize that they don't want to because they know exactly what reopening "the list" would mean.

DVSmith
10-11-2011, 6:37 PM
Yes you are missing something. When something is simply "legal" that in no way means it is a "right."

This is a point that seems really hard for some to wrap their heads around.

I would personally prefer a SCOTUS decision that allows me the same equipment that our military buys as I really believe that is what the 2A is all about. Unfortunately I am in the minority. The question becomes, if reasonable restrictions are allowable per Heller, what makes anyone think that UOC, shall issue concealed carry and any other derivative is a 'right'?

So those here that claim that their 'right' is being infringed won't concede your point let alone acknowledge it.

Now if we could harness that energy as Brandon suggests and get everyone on board with a long term strategy, we might have a fighting chance. But when you have individuals that think they have the answer and run off to do their own demonstrations or bring their own legal actions, well, as Lincoln said, 'a house divided...'

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 6:58 PM
Oh, they can, but they don't want to.

And unlike the 3 bills that just passed, they realize that they don't want to because they know exactly what reopening "the list" would mean.

Maybe the implication of my word selection wasn't clear enough.

-Brandon

HowardW56
10-11-2011, 7:15 PM
I think the above is correct on all counts.

[Not in any way related to the post quoted above] I'm also asking everyone to cease the personal attacks and blame. AB 144 is done. Move on. Regroup, and let's keep looking forward; there's lots of work to do, and it's not getting done with us jawing at each other here.

-Brandon

>>>>>>>>>>>:iagree:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Bigtwin
10-11-2011, 7:36 PM
I know as cliche as this phrase is...together we stand, devided we fall! It is very true and now more than ever. Stop attacking the UOC folks and work together....right now we need to do this!

I did not and do not UOC, to me it was a non issue I will not do so and well good for you the folks that did so. I chose the route that I think it is better they not know what I carry. Now we need to unite on pushing LTC to all that can!

SimpleCountryActuary
10-11-2011, 9:13 PM
Yep and history. I would suggest that empty holsters with a banana would be a more effective tool to show how ridiculous the law is. My .02..

I get hungry about 2 pm. Maybe I should conceal carry a couple just in case.

("No Ma'am, I'm not glad to see you.")

Best!