That's not quite true. A number of agencies are now going to deal with issues (e.g. training on seizures, firearms, "assault weapons") they would not have otherwise. In other words, consider this an opportunity to make lemonade for everyone from this single innocent gun owner's lemons.
Of course there is. I suggest you read "The Constitutional Amendment Process
" and, as you might find useful, U.S. Supreme Court decisions
on Constitutional law matters (I'd suggest newest to oldest).
We wanted to discourage the practice because we honestly thought someone was going to get seriously hurt (e.g. shot/killed). Thankfully, however, that never happened while California's short-lived open carry movement was active; however, we did defend/back a number of open carry participants, most of them quietly. (We were the only organization to help them, btw.)
It's arguable that the politicization of their events and media-seeking nature of some of the participants gave the politicians cover to pass the laws they did. However, I've never
taken a Hotline call/email from an open carry participant who was arrested or had property taken and told them, "Sorry, you're just an open carry moron."
CGF's operational structure itself is a check against the viewpoint tyranny of the gun owner majority; one of the benefits of this is that we can choose to protect the innocent gun owner who needs help that you might not. The downside is that some might choose to not support our efforts financially due to some decision or statement of ours.
We think doing the right thing is worth the risk.