Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-05-2012, 9:33 PM
vincewarde vincewarde is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,911
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Maybe we should check to see how many lawmakers......

......own stock in companies that produce hard gun cases. If this bill passes quite literally millions will be sold. I am only half joking
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:13 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,011
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coded-Dude View Post
do you also blame all AR owners for SB 249?
The proper blame for AB249 lies with CBS news, Leeland Yee and the idiots making "mag magnets".

It's not illegal to manufacture "mag magnets" (yet) and it's not illegal to neglect telling your customers that the improper use of their product is a felony but it is really stupid.

It's only mildly illegal to run a gun show video "sting" operation where the rules specify no photography but it is despicable.

It's not illegal to be a total *** after you are elected to the California assembly but Leeland Yee likes to be that way.

All stupid and all a bad idea but it happens.

Do you want to be part of the solution or part of the problem?

UOC first became an issue in CA when it got publicized in the 2008 election campaign (outside of CA). Then groups in CA started doing it very visibly which added fuel to the fire. Now long gun carry may be banned.

If some guy hadn't been on the Obama campaign route with an empty AR15, we might have avoided all of this but Californians who practiced UOC made sure that we got here.

It's impossible to put the geenie back in the bottle but that doesn't mean we can't learn from our mistakes.

Don't rile up the soccer moms, don't talk to the media and don't sell "felony buttons".

If we could do that we would get a lot more time to fight the real battles like LTC issuance problems, "assault weapon" bans and "gun free school zones" (which aren't really gun free).
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:21 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,164
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Sandman View Post
Why? You know concealed carry used to be frowned upon and seen as the sign of a coward or shady character. Open carry has a lot longer tradition than concealed carry ever will. I guess you favor some other form of greeting as well, instead of a handshake.
Open carry is an instant disadvantage when dealing with violent offenders. Take that into consideration when you're contemplating such measures. People want concealed carry for a reason. A majority of the states in the nation, have shall issue license to carry laws, which is contrary to your reasoning.

Last edited by RRangel; 07-05-2012 at 10:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:46 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lc17smp View Post
How does the gay rights movement go about pushing their agenda? Do they avoid starbucks? Do they avoid being seen in public? Are they afraid of what others think? Do they stick up for their sexual preference only? (gay, les, trans) They march down streets scaring children all the time but they seem to be winning. While I dont think these tactics would all work for gun rights it does show the timidness of our movement. Good thing for CGF (and others) and the fact that we can give $$$$ so others can do most of our dirty work.
Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected choice. Being gay is not considered by the politicians of California as a choice, but an in-born characteristic.

That's why the gays have been successful in California but gun owners have not. It's exactly the inverse in many other states.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-05-2012, 11:01 PM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,053
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected choice. Being gay is not considered by the politicians of California as a choice, but an in-born characteristic.

That's why the gays have been successful in California but gun owners have not. It's exactly the inverse in many other states.
Wanting to defend yourself is a choice? I'd consider it an instinct. Ancient cavemen bore arms.

Last edited by Shotgun Man; 07-05-2012 at 11:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-05-2012, 11:04 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotgun Man View Post
Wanting to defend yourself is a choice? I'd consider it an instinct.
Wanting to defend yourself with arms is viewed by them as a choice. Self defense is an instinct.

Argue it all you want, but this is how certain California politicians feel about gun owners and especially the California UOC movement.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-05-2012, 11:09 PM
watsonville's Avatar
watsonville watsonville is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: central coast
Posts: 568
iTrader: 11 / 93%
Default

As a well known man once said "I am not a crook"
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-05-2012, 11:47 PM
Mr.Sandman's Avatar
Mr.Sandman Mr.Sandman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 557
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRangel View Post
Open carry is an instant disadvantage when dealing with violent offenders. Take that into consideration when you're contemplating such measures. People want concealed carry for a reason. A majority of the states in the nation, have shall issue license to carry laws, which is contrary to your reasoning.
If open carry were an instant disadvantage when dealing with violent offenders than why do the police and military carry openly? Seems to me that the few professions which actually deal with violent situations regularly carry openly instead of concealed.

Concealed carry has become the standard practice because a large group of people have an irrational fear of seeing an "exposed" firearm. If more people were exposed to firearms and didnt harbor their irrational fears, we would be having a completely different conversation. We have the right to BEAR arms, not just conceal them on your person or in your home.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:01 AM
rogervzv's Avatar
rogervzv rogervzv is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 2,087
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
There was never any good reason to have a bunch of guys with ARs have a "meeting" at Starbucks. It was a deliberate and unnecessary provocation, with no upside, that has led directly to the current and coming open-carry bans.
+1. These guys were provocative and guess what -- the Leftists, who have the upper hand in this state, were in fact provoked. Provoked to further restrict our gun rights. Nice going, UOC activists.
__________________
Come and Take It!
I'm the only hell my momma ever raised ...
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:15 AM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,053
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogervzv View Post
+1. These guys were provocative and guess what -- the Leftists, who have the upper hand in this state, were in fact provoked. Provoked to further restrict our gun rights. Nice going, UOC activists.

The gun-grabbers are on a feeding frenzy here in California. What provocation do they need?

Did we provoke long arms registration, SB 249, the AWB, HSC, mag limitations and every other restriction upon firearms ownership in this state as well?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:50 AM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Posts: 1,996
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glock21fan View Post
so does this now mean locked transportation of long guns?
There would be two options for long guns:

"in a locked container"

OR

"enclosed in a case that is expressly made for the purpose of containing a firearm and that is completely zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened with no part of that firearm exposed."
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-06-2012, 6:05 AM
highpowermatch's Avatar
highpowermatch highpowermatch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Mendocino County
Posts: 2,433
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola;8879022[B
]Rather than addressing the different arguments for or against OC'ers, I placed this thread in the hopes people would take the opportunity to practice their 1st amendment rights by petitioning their government. You have the time and opportunity right now.[/B] The hearing is over a month away, and the committee members are a helluva lot more influencable than I am at this point. In other words; you have just about zero prospects of getting me to stop open carrying my rifle. But there is a chance you can persuade a committee member or three that this bill is a bridge too far.
I have written a position paper on behalf of Save Our State. Any of you can do the same for whatever organizations you speak for, or just for yourself. You can mail it, e-mail it, or hand carry it into the committee office. The analysis is often based upon the support or opposition letters recieved. You reps, or those committee members don't read each letter you write them, but it is likely they read the analysis. I am urging you all to influence that analysis, and do so soon before it goes to print.

After the legislative remedies are over, whichever way it goes, you are free to berate me, disrespect me, or even attempt kicking my *** over whatever part I played in allegedly causing the bill in the first place. But please, please don't use my actions in that regard as an excuse to avoid taking part in the legislative process in progress right now. That would be a ridiculous, foolish, and losing plan to protect your rights and culture.

As my punishment for allegedly being at the root cause, I will lend my help to anyone who needs it in getting your written word to that committee room. I go to the capitol every week for at least one day. Whatever you need, short of financial aid, (I'm useless for that), I will try my dammedest to accomodate.
It appears that continuing the "I told you so" rant is more important than moving on and dealing with the task at hand.
__________________
"I watched a tank get disabled with a can of ravioli, once." - jdberger

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
― Winston S. Churchill

Last edited by highpowermatch; 07-06-2012 at 6:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-06-2012, 6:29 AM
QQQ's Avatar
QQQ QQQ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,243
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coded-Dude View Post
do you also blame all AR owners for SB 249?
Absolutely! Buying an AR-15 clone OLL and building it in to a full rifle (featureless or BB) is clearly instigating the anti's and will ruin it for the rest of us.

You don't need an AR clone. Anyone who bought and used (in public!) an AR clone is to blame for the upcoming ban! You clearly did it just to gain attention and to live out your mall ninja fantasies. I own many guns and I don't think you need to have an AR. So I blame all the AR owners in California for this rather than the Leftist politicians who actually wrote and support the bill.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-06-2012, 6:48 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,841
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highpowermatch View Post
It appears that continuing the "I told you so" rant is more important than moving on and dealing with the task at hand.
Nah, we dont want to do that. It feels better to rub other people's noses in their failures than to produce positive results for gun owners regardless of their beliefs.
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-06-2012, 7:35 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,699
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fate View Post
. It was designed to provoke a response. It achieved that goal, though the proponents didn't seem to realize that's what was going to happen. Actions have consequences. Some good, some bad. Some unintended. Wisdom is hard earned for those unwilling to listen to the wise before it's playing for keeps.
UOC, at worst, only accelerated the inevitable. Many look at the Black Panthers protest in the 60s as the genesis of the Mulford Act, when in historical fact Reagan and the CA legislature already planned on introducing the bill as law long before Bobby Seale and Co. went downtown. His visit sped up the inevitable, but it would be foolish to say there wouldn't be a Mulford Act without the protest. So it is for UOC in that the legal loophole which permitted it would be closed eventually.Note that the State Government never intended the citizenry to carry any gun on their person at all without being a member of the "Establishment" in some way, and UOC was less a recognition of the 2nd Amendment and more of an unintended hole in the regulations.With a majority of CA residents shocked that carrying a pistol was in fact legal, its a hole which would have been plugged eventually.The first citizen who employed his UOC'd pistol to shoot a perp would trigger a ban:"we don't need cowboys on our streets shooting people, just surrender your dignity and capitulate to a criminal assault like a good subject , etc....."

Those of you who still think UOC triggered adverse legislation should note that your liberal neighbors despise guns *no matter where they're located*. A 1911 pistol is offensive to them on your hip,its offensive to them concealed, its offending to them in the trunk of your car, and its offensive to them in your gun safe. The liberal majority won't *feel* safe until all your legally owned guns and ammo are either out of state or dumped into the Pacific Ocean.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-06-2012, 7:51 AM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just to mention,

I never met at starbucks with any gun. I didn't take one to a political event. All I did was walk to the gun range with a 1950's rifle in a sling, a backpack, and some ammo. That disturbs the legislative power-mongers just as much as the starbucks thing. They really, really want to discourage the very thought of 2nd amendment activities. In addition, they really, really want the next generation to NOT learn about the 2nd amendment. If you can't show a firearm or other weapon in public, and doing so in schools is up to a principal, the only education a non-hunter kid will get about guns is from criminals
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-06-2012, 7:59 AM
glockman19 glockman19 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 10,487
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

I hope it passes...why?...because CA would then dis-allow ALL forms of carry except for CCW.

SCOUTS will step in and demand that CA follow the Constitution and make some form of open loaded carry legal.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-06-2012, 8:00 AM
Highsaw Highsaw is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by strongpoint View Post
perhaps if people with firearms are not acting dangerous or rabidly, people could deduce that the mere presence of a firearm does not make any of them dangerous or rabid. if this were to become commonplace, perhaps even the soccer moms would learn to not be scared.




what we need is constitutional carry, so people can carry any way they like. there's no reason open carry should be illegal -- NONE.




so ... don't do something which is completely legal (which open carry was at the time) because it might be made illegal? that seems to conflict with the notion of citizens living in a free society. you should run for legislative office once you get here; you'll fit right in.




of course: the fault obviously lies with the citizens who were exercising their constitutional rights, not with the legislators who chose to arrogate those rights. if you apply this line of "reasoning" to the first amendment, reductio ad absurdum takes effect really quickly.
When your in a state that is surrounded by sheeple and gun grabbers you hide in plain sight. And wait for the right time to act. Its no wonder you've lost almost all your gun rights, your practically giving them to your enemy and begging for your masters to take away more! You dont have the balls to stand up for your rights and by the time you grow a pair you wont even be able to own a kitchen knife.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-06-2012, 8:05 AM
sd_shooter's Avatar
sd_shooter sd_shooter is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hill Country, TX
Posts: 10,678
iTrader: 81 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19 View Post
I hope it passes...why?...because CA would then dis-allow ALL forms of carry except for CCW.

SCOUTS will step in and demand that CA follow the Constitution and make some form of open loaded carry legal.
LOL, pretty high hopes there. If Roberts can be persuaded to join the Dark Side, what makes you think he won't do it when the next 2A case comes up?

And everyone who thinks "the pendulum will swing back" here in CA are deluded. We have a liberal majority in our state government because we have a liberal majority in the population! The libs are there to stay, the weather is just too nice.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-06-2012, 9:25 AM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you can argue, you can write. Please tell me you'll write a letter or position paper to influence this committee.

Here is a short speech I gave before the last committee. Maybe it will spur some ideas of your own:

Quote:
Good morning committee members

I am Davi Rodrigues, Current Chief officer of Save Our State. I am here today to ask you to strongly consider the ramifications of furthering this bill that would disrespect the culture of a very large population of Californians and Americans.

The bill in its' current form would make it a crime to display publicly, an implement that has played a large part in the formation of this country. In addition to that, it would outlaw and condemn the practice of the second amendment to the US bill of rights in public. Imagine if that were to be applied to the first amendment. Free speech, but only on private property.


A lot of mention has been made about how disturbing it is for people to show up at shopping centers, restaurants, and other public venues carrying unloaded weapons. About 250 years ago, a group of ordinary men, each with their own rifle, gathered in lexington for a monumental event. They met at a tavern. This bill would have seen those men arrested and their rifles siezed before they ever fired a shot heard round the world. The war might have been averted and you all would likely be subjects beholden to the whims of a monarchy instead of being part of a freely elected democracy

The men you find in shopping malls and restaurants with rifles in tow are not so different from those who took their rifles to lexington a quarter century ago. They are freedom loving, law abiding, patriotic citizens with bold personalities. Think of the concept of outlawing the acts of the minutemen. Do you really want history to reflect that of you?

Rifles are a big, big part of American culture. Unlike the handgun, rifles have a long historical record in this state and the US. This bill has made no provision for protecting that American culture, but rather seeks to suppress it. In 2009, several of you here voted to forcibly teach police officers in this state the cultural significance of the sihk kirpan, and how to be sensitive when encountering them during police work. In contrast, American culture was given no such consideration. While it was written that sihks should get the benefit of cultural diversity training in relation to their display of a benign weapon, Americans with their benign unloaded rifles are a burden on police resources and should be arrested. The message you send here is discriminatory.

Like it or not, Americans are compelled to teach the next generations about the 2nd amendment and its relation to their freedom and independence. No education in that field would be complete without a rifle up close and in person. This bill seeks, once again, to inhibit that education. Californians have a right to speak freely, and as US citizens we have a first amendment right to free expression, gather in public, and exchange ideas and concepts for the common good, This bill seeks to restrict those concepts and exchanges to words and graphics only, as it makes no provision for even a disabled rifle to be displayed in public with the exception of a parade. The courts have allowed some restrictions on time and place for 1st amendment activities in public, however this bill offers no option for that where the firearm is the teaching instrument. This bill also relegates gun safety and hunters safety education to private property for the most part. placing such limits on practical gun safety education is likely to see more people use guns without that training..

I would like to point out the very nature of weapons in relation to people. People want to feel protected and not powerless. Throughout the history of man, weapons have evolved mostly out of necessity for survival, but also because of a need to feel empowered and safe. in their quest to feel safe, those weapons have evolved from simple stones being hurled to catapults, after that came steel swords and armor, then bows and arrows, and after that, gunpowder. Firearms have served to quench the desire for even more superior weapons for several centuries. If you remove that option from them, human nature being what it is, the search will begin for suitable replacements, and in an age of scientific advance where discoveries and inventions are born in the garages of similarly situated friends, it won't be long before those replacements crop up in malls, restaurants, and taverns all across the state. The next generation of weaponry may be far more malignant than anything we have to contend with now, and this bill becoming law will provide the inspiration for their developement. 1527 will create a new arms race my fellow Californians

Lastly I would like to relay that about 1 year ago I put my rifle on my back and hiked to the shooting range from my home. I made it about a half mile before I was face down on the pavement surrounded by many law enforcement officers. A harrowing experience and very tense moments indeed. But a few months later I set out again, only this time I called every law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction in that area and let them know I would be hiking to the range again. this time, no police resources were wasted, and no dangerous conditions were encountered. 11 miles through busy city and county streets, with a rifle in plain view, and no one was injured or frightened to death. The only police I encountered waved at me. Give us that option before this bill proceeds. the option to notify that we are exercising our rights, something like some first amendment activities get. Help us preserve our culture just as you helped the sihks.
I'll post our position paper here in a little bit too
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:41 AM
Tiberius's Avatar
Tiberius Tiberius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,160
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

If this fight is phrased, by us, as an effort to preserve the right to walk through malls and cities while carrying a rifle, it will lose for sure. Most people are alarmed by rifles in malls - as most of us would be. It is simply outside the norms of current culture. It smells of crazy person or spree shooter.

The pressure points on this are that it unnecessarily bans something that hardly ever happens (mall carry) and more centrally, creates huge problems for hunters and others who are minding their own business. It criminalizes things that shouldn't be. It's expensive. It's pointless. It's unnecessary. Those are the angles.

We have to play in the world we have, not the one we might like. Rights are not absolute - not free speech, and not the 2nd amendment either. In the eyes of Mr and Mrs Average, all gun rights advocates look bonkers when some of argue for the right to take ARs to Starbucks. I agree we should have the right, but that's one that shouldn't be exercised.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:41 AM
Tiberius's Avatar
Tiberius Tiberius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,160
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

If this fight is phrased, by us, as an effort to preserve the right to walk through malls and cities while carrying a rifle, it will lose for sure. Most people are alarmed by rifles in malls - as most of us would be. It is simply outside the norms of current culture. It smells of crazy person or spree shooter.

The pressure points on this are that it unnecessarily bans something that hardly ever happens (mall carry) and more centrally, creates huge problems for hunters and others who are minding their own business. It criminalizes things that shouldn't be. It's expensive. It's pointless. It's unnecessary. Those are the angles.

We have to play in the world we have, not the one we might like. Rights are not absolute - not free speech, and not the 2nd amendment either. In the eyes of Mr and Mrs Average, all gun rights advocates look bonkers when some of argue for the right to take ARs to Starbucks. I agree we should have the right, but that's one that shouldn't be exercised.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:54 AM
QQQ's Avatar
QQQ QQQ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,243
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
If this fight is phrased, by us, as an effort to preserve the right to walk through malls and cities while carrying a rifle, it will lose for sure. Most people are alarmed by rifles in malls - as most of us would be. It is simply outside the norms of current culture. It smells of crazy person or spree shooter.

The pressure points on this are that it unnecessarily bans something that hardly ever happens (mall carry) and more centrally, creates huge problems for hunters and others who are minding their own business. It criminalizes things that shouldn't be. It's expensive. It's pointless. It's unnecessary. Those are the angles.

We have to play in the world we have, not the one we might like. Rights are not absolute - not free speech, and not the 2nd amendment either. In the eyes of Mr and Mrs Average, all gun rights advocates look bonkers when some of argue for the right to take ARs to Starbucks. I agree we should have the right, but that's one that shouldn't be exercised.
And to many, it looks bonkers for you to want to own an AR-pattern semiautomatic rifle. What other people get offended by should not dictate your behavior.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:58 AM
crasch crasch is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Next thing they will ban my spud-gun... oh wait for it.....
Potato Guns Are Illegal in California. Who Knew?
__________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Embarking on a great crusade to stamp out runaway decency in the west.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:01 AM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,556
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

duplicate, deleted

Last edited by Wiz-of-Awd; 07-06-2012 at 11:02 AM.. Reason: duplicate, deleted
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:01 AM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,556
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QQQ View Post
Absolutely! Buying an AR-15 clone OLL and building it in to a full rifle (featureless or BB) is clearly instigating the anti's and will ruin it for the rest of us.

You don't need an AR clone. Anyone who bought and used (in public!) an AR clone is to blame for the upcoming ban! You clearly did it just to gain attention and to live out your mall ninja fantasies. I own many guns and I don't think you need to have an AR. So I blame all the AR owners in California for this rather than the Leftist politicians who actually wrote and support the bill.
Hhmmm, well...

Assuming that you're being funny or even sarcastic, then OK - I guess...

-or-

Assuming that you're serious in this [above] statement, then you are clearly on the other side of all this and you should leave.

A.W.D.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:13 AM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,556
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Sandman View Post
...We have the right to BEAR arms, not just conceal them on your person or in your home.
Definition of "Bear" - transitive Verb

"to be equipped or furnished with (something)"

A.W.D.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:29 AM
luchador768 luchador768 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,222
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

UOC is a pretty classic example of "picking your battles." I followed the handgun issue and despite the counsel of the legal folks here the UOC crowd pushed foreward and we ended up with a ban. The UOC folks then shifted thier focus to long guns and recieved the same attention and action from lawmakers. If this is an end run to try and change CCW policy good luck and I hope it works out. If it's just hubris, then thanks again for pressing an agenda that benifits few and puts the rights of many on the line.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:34 AM
winnre's Avatar
winnre winnre is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IE, Southern CA
Posts: 9,214
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

In my CCW class the trainers believed the UOCers were Brady members in disguise. I have to disagree -- the Brady bunch has not been as effective as UOCers in killing our rights.
__________________
"If Jesus had a gun he would be alive today"-Homer Simpson
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:58 AM
Fate's Avatar
Fate Fate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Proud Member of the Quitter Club. Moscow, ID
Posts: 9,541
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
Rather than addressing the different arguments for or against OC'ers, I placed this thread in the hopes people would take the opportunity to practice their 1st amendment rights by petitioning their government. You have the time and opportunity right now. The hearing is over a month away, and the committee members are a helluva lot more influencable than I am at this point. In other words; you have just about zero prospects of getting me to stop open carrying my rifle. But there is a chance you can persuade a committee member or three that this bill is a bridge too far.
Ah so you're the one I was thinking of. Way to go buddy. You're the most awesomest activist ever. What was your endgame plan from the start? Is this it?

Should this law pass, now or later (but it will pass), armed agents of the state will be happy to "get you to stop open carrying your rifle." Then we get to pay to feed and house you as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
After the legislative remedies are over, whichever way it goes, you are free to berate me, disrespect me, or even attempt kicking my *** over whatever part I played in allegedly causing the bill in the first place. But please, please don't use my actions in that regard as an excuse to avoid taking part in the legislative process in progress right now. That would be a ridiculous, foolish, and losing plan to protect your rights and culture.
Why wait? You're here now. The irony of you telling us what's "ridiculous, foolish or a losing plan to protect our rights and culture" is rich. Yes, this thing needs to be fought, but it's an uphill climb. The problem is, this is a distraction from other battles currently being waged. Are you prepared to fund THIS battle?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
As my punishment for allegedly being at the root cause, I will lend my help to anyone who needs it in getting your written word to that committee room. I go to the capitol every week for at least one day. Whatever you need, short of financial aid, (I'm useless for that), I will try my dammedest to accomodate.
I found my answer. You got nothin' and are worth nothin' in this fight that you have brought to the rest of us. In otherwords, you like to pick fights without the will or means to finish them.
__________________
"On bended knee is no way to be free." - Eddie Vedder, "Guaranteed"

"Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr dated August 19, 1785
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:14 PM
QQQ's Avatar
QQQ QQQ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,243
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winnre View Post
In my CCW class the trainers believed the UOCers were Brady members in disguise. I have to disagree -- the Brady bunch has not been as effective as UOCers in killing our rights.
The Brady bunch has not been as effective as OLL owners in killing our rights.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:28 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,699
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am amazed and shocked at the base partisanship in this thread.If only the Violence Policy Institute and the Brady Campaign could bicker and blame each other as well as you guys are here.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:29 PM
Nessal Nessal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mckinney, Texas/ Fremont, CA
Posts: 2,261
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
There was never any good reason to have a bunch of guys with ARs have a "meeting" at Starbucks. It was a deliberate and unnecessary provocation, with no upside, that has led directly to the current and coming open-carry bans.



You DO NOT needs ANY REASON to exercise a right. That's why it's called a right and not a priviledge.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:35 PM
highpowermatch's Avatar
highpowermatch highpowermatch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Mendocino County
Posts: 2,433
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
I am amazed and shocked at the base partisanship in this thread.If only the Violence Policy Institute and the Brady Campaign could bicker and blame each other as well as you guys are here.
So very true, the childish rants going on in here pointing fingers is embarrassing. Some of the comments in here should be cause for the ban hammer IMO.

The horse is dead folks, you may stop beating it any time now. Time to grow up, move on.
__________________
"I watched a tank get disabled with a can of ravioli, once." - jdberger

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
― Winston S. Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:38 PM
Fate's Avatar
Fate Fate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Proud Member of the Quitter Club. Moscow, ID
Posts: 9,541
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
I am amazed and shocked at the base partisanship in this thread.If only the Violence Policy Institute and the Brady Campaign could bicker and blame each other as well as you guys are here.
Easy to say when you do not live in CA, nor are affected by any of this.
__________________
"On bended knee is no way to be free." - Eddie Vedder, "Guaranteed"

"Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr dated August 19, 1785
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:39 PM
Dantedamean's Avatar
Dantedamean Dantedamean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,293
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
I am amazed and shocked at the base partisanship in this thread.If only the Violence Policy Institute and the Brady Campaign could bicker and blame each other as well as you guys are here.
Ya, this kind of well thought out comment will fall on def ears. This drives me crazy too. This is probably why most the country has given up on California.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:46 PM
highpowermatch's Avatar
highpowermatch highpowermatch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Mendocino County
Posts: 2,433
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fate View Post
Easy to say when you do not live in CA, nor are affected by any of this.
I am amazed, live in Ca and am affected by this.

Did I think UOC was an effective way to protest? No. Do I think many of you who like beating a dead horse are acting like children? Absolutely.

You have made your points, over and over and over and over. If someone want's to continue to UOC and you have not persuaded them to stop with your tactful name calling and endless blame game then there is nothing left for you to say that will work eh?

Now lets all put on our big boy pants, move on and get back to the topic at hand. I believe the topic is the actual bill, not how you perceive we got to this point. If you wan't to continue to argue over this, how about starting a thread titled "Thanks Again UOC crowd"?
__________________
"I watched a tank get disabled with a can of ravioli, once." - jdberger

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
― Winston S. Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:59 PM
ICONIC's Avatar
ICONIC ICONIC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Posts: 1,223
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

One of the main issues for disagreement here is how we choose to support the 2A. Example UOC'ers want an in your face approach, openly carrying firearms in public, which is your right to do.

There are others who work for the 2A by going through less direct in your face means (I am part of this group). UOC'er topic causes issues with them due to the "in your face approach that some of them take with firearms." This approach causes unneeded attention and causes some to believe that UOC just reinforces the stereotype that gun owners are all a bunch of mall ninjas waiting for things to pop off so we can use our guns.

Through out our Country's history many civil rights group have had issues with one another with how their message is portrayed. ie. MLK vs. Malcolm X, Frederick Douglass vs. Underground railroad etc.

In conclusion, this debate will never be settled until CA looks more like Arizona when it comes to 2A.
__________________
I am only here for the milk and cookies
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-06-2012, 1:03 PM
Mr.Sandman's Avatar
Mr.Sandman Mr.Sandman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 557
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
Definition of "Bear" - transitive Verb

"to be equipped or furnished with (something)"

A.W.D.
So now this conversation has degraded into a semantics match. I, like many others on here, are confused as to why those who supposedly rally under the 2nd amendment cause still shutout those who, "dont perfectly" align with their same interpretation and beliefs.

Concealed or open I dont really care, I just find it ironic that people would villainize those who choose to carry openly, whereas in past history the situation was reversed.

Are we going to start having different 2nd amendment denominations now?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-06-2012, 1:14 PM
Fate's Avatar
Fate Fate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Proud Member of the Quitter Club. Moscow, ID
Posts: 9,541
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highpowermatch View Post
I am amazed, live in Ca and am affected by this.

Did I think UOC was an effective way to protest? No. Do I think many of you who like beating a dead horse are acting like children? Absolutely.

You have made your points, over and over and over and over. If someone want's to continue to UOC and you have not persuaded them to stop with your tactful name calling and endless blame game then there is nothing left for you to say that will work eh?

Now lets all put on our big boy pants, move on and get back to the topic at hand. I believe the topic is the actual bill, not how you perceive we got to this point. If you wan't to continue to argue over this, how about starting a thread titled "Thanks Again UOC crowd"?
You're welcome to move along and read something else. Might be better than calling people childish and inviting a ban of your own.

FWIW, this thread and the original link is getting bumped to the top of the page. The message is getting out.

Here's a suggested reading topic: A history lesson of UOC 1.0 with some of the same characters. (Deja Vu all over again). For a preface, Gene Hoffman eloquently lays out why using handgun UOC as political speech was a bad idea two years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
The fundamental flaw of UOC as a political strategy is that it does not create a base of support in the political middle. That it is controversial amongst gunnies is clear evidence that it is an idea whose time is not yet ripe.

Here is the political truth. If you can't get the middle to either embrace an idea or at least not really care in opposition, you're going to have a very hard time winning with that political idea. Like it or not, licensed, trained CCW is at least not opposed by the political middle. Take that ground first and the political middle moves closer to supporting OC.

Don't attack the enemy where he's strongest. The gun control movement is the absolute strongest in Urban and Suburban California. And UOC'ers decided to dance in their coffee shops.

It's the same way there are a lack of gay pride parades in Salt Lake City or West Texas.

I do admit that I want to see which UOC proponent is man enough to admit that when I foretold of this legislation (and even warned that it would be from Saldaña) I was correct and they were not listening.


Who will be man enough to admit the political mistake so everyone can learn from it?

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
Lots of people have been dragged into situations they didn't want, or didn't start. Soldiers for instance. Draftees in the Viet Nam era didn't think too highly of war hawks or Richard Nixon as they hit the rice paddies, but they managed to put their disgust for thier own aside and gave it their all in the prosecution of the war effort.
How about , win, lose, or draw, you rub our collected noses in it when it's all over.
I wonder how many people will be man enough to stand up for their rights in the face of oppressive politicians. Right after right has been diminished, dismissed, belittled or ignored. Many people have failed to listen to those who warned of that, and followed the path to temporary safety.
Saldana Be damned.
I'm not going to waste a second putting an accent mark on her written name. She doesn't deserve that much respect
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
The advent of the movement was too early and spread to battlefields where we lack adequate support. Yes. This is wholly correct.

I did abide by the request to stand down however, so I am not the proponent you are seeking to chasten with "I told you so".


But the fact of the matter is, that the legislation would be advanced regardless of when or where OC was being practiced. Pick your nose in public and someone will want to put a stop to it.

Is it a political mistake? Perhaps- time will tell. I tend to believe that change does not occur where there is no conflict. Im also of the belief that a complete ban on possession, carry, or transportation is better for California's over all 2A fight particularly in pending cases on licensing issues, so it isnt a complete failure.
__________________
"On bended knee is no way to be free." - Eddie Vedder, "Guaranteed"

"Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr dated August 19, 1785

Last edited by Fate; 07-06-2012 at 1:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:41 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy