[dantodd]

In case you can't find it pullnshoot's blog is at: http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/

[KylaGWolf]

Originally Posted by Geo

UOC seems to be mostly for peeps that want to draw attention to themselves. I understand their arguments and even agree with most of them (exercising a right, etc...), but in spite of their valid arguements to UOC, I think most mainly do it due to some deap-seated attention-whore issue.

Geo not all that open carry are out for drawing attention or being attention whores as you claim although I am sure there are a few that do. I don't UOC to draw attention to myself as you claim. My reason to UOC is that I have a better chance of loading said handgun and using it if needed than running away from a situation that would require me to defend myself being disabled. I walk with a cane that wouldn't do jack in stopping someone if I used it to defend myself. And being 6'1" female usually gets enough attention I don't need anymore than I already have.

[KylaGWolf]

Originally Posted by a1c

Citadel or GunCamper, when you UOC, are your mags in a visible holster pocket as well? I have to admit you both made good points and changed my perception of the issue... At this point I'm almost thinking of trying UOC until I get my CCW license...

When I UOC my mags are on the opposite side from my gun in a pouch. If you put them in your pocket then you are breaking the law. If you are seriously considering to UOC some things you may want to keep in mind:

1. Make sure to have a DIGITAL tape recorder that can record at least four hours continuous with FRESH batteries

2. Make sure to carry at least 15 fliers that have the relevant laws of what is legal when it comes to open carrying and be able to articulate what those laws mean to those that ask you.

3. Have a non gun carrying friendly witness with you that won't leave your side and that they carry said tape recorder and have access to either a digital video or still camera and make sure they understand that IF you get stopped they are not to stop taping or taking pictures even if asked by an LEO. Now some would say this is in your face. I look at it like this it not only protects you but the LEO from saying this or that did or did not happen.

4. Have the number for a good gun law attorney in your possession make sure your friend has said number too in case something does go horribly wrong and you get detained. Also make sure that you have the funds available to pay said attorney if needed.

5. Make sure there are NO schools within at least 1000 feet from where you plan to open carry. Do this by using things such as google earth and not only look for public schools but also private and charter schools. Also if it is not any area you know like the back of your hand take a look at the area before hand and double check. I have found schools that have NOT shown up on any map that would have been a violation had I UOCed in that area.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by KylaGWolf

I walk with a cane that wouldn't do jack in stopping someone if I used it to defend myself.

We need to remove the prohibition on Cane Guns.

[KylaGWolf]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

There is strategic value in not prompting a legislative response before incorporation and coloring the judicial outcome via Sykes.

Let's please keep this civil; if one would like more commentary on the arguments for and against, please do a search.

Yes there is a strategic value in not poking them with a stick doesn't mean I have to like the fact that they are basically making it hard for me to protect myself because they want the sheep to be unarmed.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by KylaGWolf

1. Make sure to have a DIGITAL tape recorder that can record at least four hours continuous with FRESH batteries

You need a voice recorder that can be concealed in a magazine body and keep that one in your mag well. You can be pretty sure that the LEO will not let that out of their sight during the detention.

[KylaGWolf]

Originally Posted by artherd

Exactly. We are presently asking for a stand-down, so that we can properly soften up the enemy with fast-movers.

You know I can think of some ways that would soften them up faster . Sorry in a mood today.

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by KylaGWolf

When I UOC my mags are on the opposite side from my gun in a pouch. If you put them in your pocket then you are breaking the law.

This is NOT true. There is no law that forbids concealing magazines or ammo. The problem is People v Hale. Depending on circumstances, this could be argued to be illegal, based on the Hale decision. Let me quote http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html#magazines here:

I've heard concealed magazines are illegal. Is that true?

While there is no code that supports this, there was an appellate case in 1974, People v. Hale, that ruled this way. It ruled that although the firearm in question was not concealed, the magazine was, and that only partial concealment is still concealment, and that the magazine was an "essential component" of the firearm. The logic is tortured beyond belief, but it currently could be used as a persuasive precedent in court. One way to avoid this pitfall is to carry your magazines in belt holsters, so that they match the 12025(f) language of "carried openly in belt holsters". Another option would be to keep an unloaded magazine in the firearm, thereby "completing" the firearm, and invalidating the asinine "essential component" logic.

If you have an unloaded magazine in your firearm, feel free to keep loaded mags in your pocket.

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by dantodd

You need a voice recorder that can be concealed in a magazine body and keep that one in your mag well. You can be pretty sure that the LEO will not let that out of their sight during the detention.

That is a brilliant idea!

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by MudCamper

That is a brilliant idea!

Thanks, I thought it was kinda cool. Probably want to start with 1911 magazines since they are so common and decently sized.

[technique]

Originally Posted by MudCamper

That is a brilliant idea!

How would you retrieve the data from the recorder if its confiscated(worst case)?
What about the watch Gene posted a while back?

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by technique

How would you retrieve the data from the recorder if its confiscated(worst case)?

True. I didn't think of that.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by technique

How would you retrieve the data from the recorder if its confiscated(worst case)?
What about the watch Gene posted a while back?

At ten buck a pop you can keep a backup which makes a good decoy. If you are arrested you will have access to the recorder and a new set of batteries will bring back what was recorded. If it is disabled or damaged that would mean VERY BAD things for the police officers involved.

[technique]

Originally Posted by dantodd

At ten buck a pop you can keep a backup which makes a good decoy. If you are arrested you will have access to the recorder and a new set of batteries will bring back what was recorded. If it is disabled or damaged that would mean VERY BAD things for the police officers involved.

Well, I hear you but the "magazine" is evidence..not personal property(wallet, belt, keys..). I have never had access to either. Your personal property is released to you after you are let go...but evidence comes sometime later....assuming you are gonna be sitting in jail for a day or so.

[KylaGWolf]

Originally Posted by dantodd

You need a voice recorder that can be concealed in a magazine body and keep that one in your mag well. You can be pretty sure that the LEO will not let that out of their sight during the detention.

Well they won't see my recorder in the open but that is beside the point. Yes I carry mine on me and its not easily seen. But I am not going to say where I put it.

Yes a cane gun would be nice but even better would be that I could LOC or CCW without any issue.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by technique

Well, I hear you but the "magazine" is evidence..not personal property(wallet, belt, keys..). I have never had access to either. Your personal property is released to you after you are let go...but evidence comes sometime later....assuming you are gonna be sitting in jail for a day or so.

If it comes to charges you WILL have access to the evidence. Unless they've REALLY repealed parts of the constitution, other than the 18th Amendment.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Originally Posted by Swatguy10_15

So Ive read alot of posts pertaining to different aspects of this whole concept of UOC...What the purpose of this?

For someone that doesn't have a CCW permit, UOC is the only legal way to transport a handgun on foot when your destination/purpose doesn't fit one of the exemptions to PC 12025 (the concealed carry prohibited statute). I know there is a fairly widely held belief that you can always carry it in a locked case while on foot ("poor-man's CCW"), but that isn't true.

[Swatguy10_15]

Thats a good point grizlly,really good point actually.(Hence why I started this thread) Thanks for the input!

[Swatguy10_15]

Originally Posted by pullnshoot25

Call me cranky (I am sick this morning) but swatguy, you are, at a MINIMUM, a troll. I hate to say this since it seems to be the favorite quip of so many people on here, but the search function would have saved you that entirely too long and grammatically bastardized post and me the frustration of just merely skimming over it.If you did use the search function and STILL can't grasp the concepts at hand, then there isn't much that I or we can do to help you. Criminey!

As last ditch effort to inform you of even the basics, I will say that reading my first blog post shall give you what you (apparently) are seeking. My viewpoints have not changed much since then, if at all.

Time for microbiology.

-N8

Troll? Hmm.Been called alot of things but troll..Thats new.Kinda neat. All I see are youre viewpoints.Youre one person.With youre own opinions. In the big scheme of things that doesnt equate to much. But hey, you obviously have the answer! If it frustrates you to read a post,then dont.. Thanks for the input!

[Swatguy10_15]

Originally Posted by MudCamper

Interesting. I saw things differently. I took your original post as very hostile, and Army's as simply reactionary, and informative. I guess I can chalk it up to the typical problems with text communications. You also may not know that this has been a very heated discussion that has gotten quite nasty many times already in these forums. Sometimes that past bad taste taints people's way of reading things, on both sides of the issue.

Fair enough mudcamper ..That is the problem with simple text communications. I was unaware that this had been discussed and didnt think it wrong of me to simply ask....I meant anything but hostility, just wanted others opinions..Someone who just came to "loaded" conclusions,questions etc..Wouldnt care what anyone else thought, as they have already come to those conclusions..But I dont, I ask..Like to know what other people think.

[wildhawker]

Nate is a major player in the OC movement; his viewpoints on OC are shared by many. I'm not sure what you were driving at by diminishing the position of someone who has worked very hard to promote our 2A rights and has taken it upon himself to promote cooperation with others in the RKBA movement in this period of voluntary OC standdown.

Have your questions been answered to the degree you desired?

Originally Posted by Swatguy10_15

Troll? Hmm.Been called alot of things but troll..Thats new.Kinda neat. All I see are youre viewpoints.Youre one person.With youre own opinions. In the big scheme of the world that doesnt mean much,thanks for the input though!

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by Swatguy10_15

Fair enough mudcamper ..That is the problem with simple text communications. I was unaware that this had been discussed and didnt think it wrong of me to simply ask....I meant anything but hostility, just wanted others opinions..Someone who just came to "loaded" conclusions,questions etc..Wouldnt care what anyone else thought, as they have already come to those conclusions..But I dont, I ask..Like to know what other people think.

Your OP was full of conclusions. If it had been a simple question I doubt you would have received the responses that the actual post garnered.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by Swatguy10_15

I ask..Like to know what other people think.

I would really suggest using google search for the forum, the local search is not great. Hopefully that will fulfill your desire to know what people think and the roles people play around here. It's always great to have more voices in the conversation but there are much more efficient and less divisive ways to find what you are looking for than trying to re-hash the whole issue here.

[Swatguy10_15]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Nate is a major player in the OC movement; his viewpoints on OC are shared by many. I'm not sure what you were driving at by diminishing the position of someone who has worked very hard to promote our 2A rights and has taken it upon himself to promote cooperation with others in the RKBA movement in this period of voluntary OC standdown.

Have your questions been answered to the degree you desired?

Did you read his reply? Did that sound like a simple response..No. That was exactly what I was warned of earlier in this thread..A keyboard "shout down"..A troll? Bastardized grammar? ..To answer youre question yes..Ive gotten more than what I desired..Including a new outlook on some things..

[wildhawker]

Good, then I suggest you work alongside us and use that newfound outlook for furthering our rights and not misinformed notions of gun rights activists.

[inbox485]

Originally Posted by MudCamper

Presently the CalGuns Foundation is asking that we do not UOC in urban areas or other high-profile areas, until we re-win 2A Incorporation, which should be around June 2010. This is to avoid knee-jerk bad legislative response until our 2A rights are secure here in CA. But if you want to know more about the specifics and legalities visit http://www.californiaopencarry.org/

Originally Posted by wildhawker

There is strategic value in not prompting a legislative response before incorporation and coloring the judicial outcome via Sykes.

Let's please keep this civil; if one would like more commentary on the arguments for and against, please do a search.

I have a request for a few points of clarification on this. It has been stated here and elsewhere that OCing should be suspended until after June 2010 lest OCing incite the ire of legislatures resulting in an anti OC law in addition to the anti loaded in public law we already have, and somehow complicate the incorporation effort.

1) What is the difference between OC being banned and simply choosing not to do it?
2) I can see how incorporation could help the OC (and the CC) effort, and I can see how incorporation could be used to fight an all out OC ban, but how does not OCing to prevent a ban on OC help further either the OC or the CC cause?
3) Assuming the legislature decided to go full throttle after an anti-OC law in the next session, it wouldn't take effect until July 2010 at the earliest (January 2011 being more realistic). How would that hurt the incorporation effort if it is expected to be resolved one way or the other by June 2010?

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by inbox485

1) What is the difference between OC being banned and simply choosing not to do it?

At first glance it appears the answer is contained within your question.

2) I can see how incorporation could help the OC (and the CC) effort, and I can see how incorporation could be used to fight an all out OC ban, but how does not OCing to prevent a ban on OC help further either the OC or the CC cause?

Incorporation will allow "bear" cases to proceed on 2A grounds with at least intermediate scrutiny. Until we have a right to bear, it is wise to avoid any actions which would compromise the future vehicles to secure an open and loaded means of "bear" or, alternatively, create an outcome where open carry is the sole acceptable manner of "bear" (which can then be easily restricted on private property, etc.).

3) Assuming the legislature decided to go full throttle after an anti-OC law in the next session, it wouldn't take effect until July 2010 at the earliest (January 2011 being more realistic). How would that hurt the incorporation effort if it is expected to be resolved one way or the other by June 2010?

U/OC does not affect incorporation of 2A via McDonald.

[MudCamper]

inbox485, I have asked very similar questions myself, and I too have never received a very good answer, other than one, which I have only inferred, and which I will relate here.

Pre-Incorporation, the CA legislature could more easily pass a carry ban, or worsen 12031 (loaded or ammo restrictions). Then post-incorporation, this would cost us time and money to fight to overturn, distracting us from whatever the fight could be at that point. So the theory goes, don't scare the legislature with UOC and make us lose ground before incorporation.

Now this assumes a few things. First, that the actions of UOCers actually will garner enough attention from the legislature for them to take action. Second, that they aren't planning to do so already. Third, that it is somehow more difficult to pass bad laws post-incorporation than pre-incorporation. I have my doubts about all of these things myself.

The question that I want answered most is, how exactly is it more difficult for the legislature to pass bad law post-incorporation?

[7x57]

Originally Posted by inbox485

I
1) What is the difference between OC being banned and simply choosing not to do it?

CGF doesn't have to spend a lot of time and money reversing a cessation, which would be in lieu of using those resources to go after the AW ban, or OC. It means it costs us to get back to where we are now instead of moving forward.

It may also place us in a poorer strategic position, particularly if we can't strike down *everything* about the ban and then have a precedent that says infringement X is Constitutional.

Why roll the dice if we don't have to?

Another way it matters is that if UOC is legal but under the radar, it is still available in emergencies.

Another way it matters is that there are many ways UOC could be made illegal, and some of them have very very nasty side effects on all gun owners. Even just getting to the range. For obvious reasons we don't like to talk openly about which ways are the worst on a public forum known to be read by antigunners, but we must not do things that could inadvertently make criminals of people for doing what they've always done. It would also greatly damage the living gun culture we still have.

2) I can see how incorporation could help the OC (and the CC) effort, and I can see how incorporation could be used to fight an all out OC ban, but how does not OCing to prevent a ban on OC help further either the OC or the CC cause?

It's clear a state cannot ban both OC and CC if the 2A is incorporated against them. But it isn't so clear they can't choose only one as the preferred mode (this is a debatable point--some have suggested to me that OC specifically is the protected right and CC is always at the state's discretion, while others including notably Alan Gura think a state may choose either so long as one mode of carry is available). If they ban OC now, and we win CC, we might never get OC back if the courts tell us that shall-issue CC is sufficient to satisfy the Right to Bear.

That said, Gene has a reasonable way to go after both *if* we go after CC before OC (that's at least one reason CGF is going after CC before OC--we want both). But again, why roll the dice?

3) Assuming the legislature decided to go full throttle after an anti-OC law in the next session, it wouldn't take effect until July 2010 at the earliest (January 2011 being more realistic). How would that hurt the incorporation effort if it is expected to be resolved one way or the other by June 2010?

Laws don't vanish because they're unconstitutional. Incorporation simply gives us a license to litigate. Litigation in federal court is expensive. We want to spend our money moving forward, not, as the Red Queen says, running as fast as we can just to stay in one place.

Plus, there is always risk of a weird result in court, so, one more time, I say "why roll the dice if we don't have to?"

7x57

[pullnshoot25]

OK, I will read your mindless drivel of a post.

So Ive read alot of posts pertaining to different aspects of this whole concept of UOC...What the purpose of this?
In my eyes this is moving backwards in an effort to retain and restore our 2nd amendment rights..NRA and Calguns seem to have plenty of good educated ideas as to what to do and how to help..I dont think Ive seen the endorsment for UOC..(Just because I havent seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist, I know this)
Heres my thought(s).

Search function is DEFINITELY your best friend. In fact, searching "california open carry" in Google gives you my blog on the third link. Even better, California Open Carry is the first link. Information is literally OVERFLOWING at that site.

Anytime a firearm is introduced into any situation,coffee at yuppiebucks, a book at B&N, anywhere..The situation has now become uncomfortable for John Q public. People will call 911, and as anyone whos involved in LE knows, people who call 911 dont always relay the facts..Simply carrying UOC can be quickly twisted into a "crazy man with a gun" 911 call..Now youve got all units running code to get there..No good can come of this..

Now you are sounding like some gutless degenerate that thinks as long as people crawl in the gutter that they won't be noticed. Newsflash! Learning takes EXPOSURE. Besides, cops are not legally obligated to come out. They can LEGALLY sit around munching on french cruellers if they wanted to.

On top of that PUSHING UOC down the throat of the local LE agency creates an anti-gun attitude by both LE patrol and overhead..For instance a County Sheriff who is kinda midway as far as issuing CCW's. With the economy and officers having to be laid off,hes reconsidering his position and is toying with the idea of issuing more permits..Then he starts having to deal with his patrol guys being constantly called to "man with a gun" calls. Only to hear that the person carrying a gun is proclaiming theyre 2nd amendment right to carry that firearm..Irregardless that the presence of that weapon has caused a bunch of grief,some scared citizens and alot of wasted patrol time.Also noting that a code 3 response is DANGEROUS.

Again, they are not required to come out. I have never asked a cop to come out and molest me and I never asked them to break the law.

Most county sheriffs are VEHEMENTLY anti-gun.

You propose pipe dream conjectures with little to no substance.

Well now that Sheriff has a great deal of anti-citizen with a gun resentment and essentially says "screw that!" to the increased issuance of Concealed weapons permits.
Another factor..Carrying a firearm openly, without a badge is LOOKING for problems. Theres no if and or buts about it. When youre average citizen sees a gun, and no badge..Problem..Now the gang member WITH A LOADED weapon see's an opportunity to score another firearm...or...Now someone pissed because theyre kids saw it and are terrified..

Yay! More worthless anecdotes amongst more mindless drivel!

I thought the 2nd amendment fight was one won by public support and legal battles..Not shoving the presence of a weapon down the publics throat. Especially in the larger cities..Alot of the public, arent necessarily anti-gun or pro gun..Society is such that if it doesnt personally affect someone,they usually dont care. Now it would seem those individuals would be leaned toward anti-gun because theyve been made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a firearm in a public place.."I cant even go to yuppiebucks without seeing someone toting a gun!"

The only way you can get public support is by going out INTO PUBLIC. Slithering around and hoping that no one notices you does not get support at all. This isn't France, this is America.

The image of a gun owner getting coffee and not acting in the oft-quoted but highly inaccurate stereotypical manner goes a lot farther than just talking about it over the internet in what appears to be pseudo-bonics.

Now before some keyboard commando goes and tells me how much of a bas*** I am..Im simply trying to understand..Im open to all thoughts,educated input and such..Whats the concept behind UOC, what purpose is it seving in the fight to restore and keep our 2nd amendment rights? Do the benefits outweigh the negative attention? Im all about fighting to keep what little rights weve been left with..But Im about an educated effective fight, not a hip shoot reflex

You aren't trying to understand. Your mind is made up and you have made that quite clear by not only siding with police in their illegal harassment of gun owners but by belittling the common gun owner and creating wild fantasies of public mayhem caused by an inanimate object.

-----

Well, that analysis blew 15 minutes of my time. Back to more important matters, like analyzing the relationship between lungs and kidneys in blood pH regulation.

[wildhawker]

Nate, this thread did not need to continue the sillyness.

Ignoring the insults, your position is based at least partially on unsupported presuppositions. Let's not digress into the us vs. them threads of months past.

If we can agree, I'd prefer to discuss this issue with the OP offline and mitigate further senseless arguing in this public forum.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Originally Posted by Swatguy10_15

Did you read his reply? Did that sound like a simple response..No. That was exactly what I was warned of earlier in this thread..A keyboard "shout down"..A troll? Bastardized grammar? ..To answer youre question yes..Ive gotten more than what I desired..Including a new outlook on some things..

To lighten it up a bit, have a look at this video he made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDWxCpVlrkw

Is that not the most hilarious video on YouTube ever?

[locosway]

Nate is just upset that he can't work out the kinks in his bioluminescent leather pants for the coming Halloween party.

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by GrizzlyGuy

To lighten it up a bit, have a look at this video he made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDWxCpVlrkw

Is that not the most hilarious video on YouTube ever?

The hip twist with arms folded is worth the price of admission.

[pullnshoot25]

Lol you guys crack me up. I gotta see what you are talking about when I am at an actual computer.

Btw, there IS a way to make a sustainable colony of bacteria, even bioluminescent ones. However, it would have to be on a small scale. I just learned about it today, it is called a chemostat. Also, I would probably have to use E. Coli, which I am a little leery about using.

We shall see who gets the first glow, dammit!

[technique]

Damn Nate....

OP if you really did look into the subject, you wouldn't be asking those questions. Opinions vary on the board but both sides(with the exception of the Veleny(?) Weenie(?) dude, what ever his name is..) are pretty much in cooperation...so why bother post and rehash a tired subject when you can just read past arguments or join Cal-open-carry and see what its about for yourself?

[camsoup]

Originally Posted by Swatguy10_15

To answer youre question yes..Ive gotten more than what I desired..Including a new outlook on some things..

If you were really looking for a simple response, it seems you would have posted a simple question.

You are only one person and gave us YOUR opinions on OC and then get upset when someone posts an opinion different than yours?

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see Army posting anything that could be construed as rude.

[pullnshoot25]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

The hip twist with arms folded is worth the price of admission.

Just got to a real computer. This was a fun video to make.

BTW, I can twist my hips in all sorts of funny ways...

[locosway]

Originally Posted by pullnshoot25

Just got to a real computer. This was a fun video to make.

BTW, I can twist my hips in all sorts of funny ways...

Dude, TMI man... TMI....

[tankerman]

Originally Posted by Geo

I think most mainly do it due to some deap-seated attention-whore issue.

Kind of like your post