L.A. Times Opinion on Open Carry

[tenpercentfirearms]

Just in case you missed it, it wasn't the lone OCer who anyone noticed. It was doing it as a protest movement.

What must hurt most about this article is it is pretty much dead on. You poked the lion with a stick and the lion jumped out of its cage and shoved it up all of our rectums.

Hopefully the courts will clarify the situation someday, but until then, good going.

UOC lost. Anti-gunners won. Facts are facts.

[Glock22Fan]

This argument is so ridiculous and tired..... There is a difference between the lone use of OC for legitimate self defense or transport, and 25 guys all showing up to Starbucks with guns scaring the crap out of everyone, over and over and over and over.

I don't understand why the UOCers seem to be so willingly blind to this.

+1000 to the first para, and I could explain the second, but it might upset Kestryl.

[pietropau9]

I like the way some people on here look at open carry in only one direction. They would be able to stick their 8 inch knife in you before you can load and fire. Is this the only scenario you can think of where UOC can be used. How about that shooting in Seal Beach? You could have been in the store or YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE THE BUILDING and been able to do something about the shooter. It's not only a direct attack on you that you might have made a difference.

I love how some people think a legal right should have been taken away because a club meets at a public place to educate the public on what is supposed to be their legal rights. Individuals have been reported, groups have been reported, and most times its the public and LEO's that were uneducated in the law. Thats what led to most of the problems.

I have open carried with these groups and at no time had anyone ever made a spectical of themselves. Simply open carrying is not asking for trouble. Look at states that have adoped this right. There doesn't seem to be a problem there. The only problem is CA is not used to it and so the "do gooders" call the police. In some states they don't even respond to these calls since it is accepted.

Again, I have to say I would rather conceal carry. I don't like advertising that I have a weapon. However, I don't know where you people live but where I live it is not an option. I don't want to carry a long gun but this will be done as a form of protest. Not that they want to carry long guns in their everyday lives but what choice has CA given them??????

[Rossi357]

We should stop voting. If we exercise that right, they will take it away.

[pietropau9]

I highly doubt that any "bad guys" open carry and stop at starbucks on their way to a crime. Nope, haven't read that in the papers. The problem is Calguns, UOC, and the NRA have their own agenda's and they are not supporting the constitution. Until all groups get together for one GOOD law that is acceptable to all we will always have this bickering.

[stix213]

I highly doubt that any "bad guys" open carry and stop at starbucks on their way to a crime. Nope, haven't read that in the papers. The problem is Calguns, UOC, and the NRA have their own agenda's and they are not supporting the constitution. Until all groups get together for one GOOD law that is acceptable to all we will always have this bickering.

The problem is the UOC movement lacks any coherent strategy for actual success, and any PR finesse. It was never a doomed cause (until it got permanently banned of course) but it was a doomed strategy to promote the cause.

You guys go out to public locations, scare people, and then let the scared people write the news story about the event instead of controlling the message yourself, and somehow expect the public to agree with you.

You don't see how relying on the anti-gun media to pick up the story about your UOC events was a fatal flaw in the strategy? You allowed the anti-gunners to frame the message by doing so, and for some reason on freaking purpose. I'll never understand this, it was always doomed to failure.

[bruss01]

Used to be someone could clean a pistol in their partially-fenced back yard.

Used to be someone with a security threat could carry from their front door to the mailbox on the corner.

Used to be someone could unload when leaving an area where LOC was ok and get themselves home, if they lived nearby.

People carrying as a political statement made lives worse for people who didn't. Entirely predictably. That might have been worth it if there was a reasonable goal in mind, but I sure haven't seen any.

I see the point you are making, but those scenarios constitute probably less than 1/10th of 1% of Californians. For the rest, this law essentially changes nothing.

[Tack]

This doesn't match my experience, so I call BS on the Times. If anyone called the LA police it was off duty LEO or a shop owner who had connections and called in UOCs as a favor. I've heard recordings of calls to the PD where a wise dispatcher politely thanks the caller and asks if a crime is in progress. That call was NOT in LA.

Or are we arguing tactics? Shall we bash the black rifle crowd for the assault rifle ban they created? Maybe the rifle guys want the rest of us all to help defend their rights. The sad truth is that the politicians own us. They can pass any law they think will pull in votes or special interest campaign dollars. Me, I support all the 2A rights, not some of them; from pepper spray to 50BMG.

[pietropau9]

The problem is the UOC movement lacks any coherent strategy for actual success, and any PR finesse.

You guys go out to public locations, scare people, and then let the scared people write the news story about the event instead of controlling the message yourself, and somehow expect the public to agree with you.

But why does any person or group have to have an agenda to exercise their rights? I don't know what happen before AB 144 was introduced but I don't think UOC advocates assembled in groups. I never seen them and I work in public area's all over the county on a nightly basis. I think you are putting the cart before the horse. But, I could be wrong. Either way, if the public was informed of the law I don't see what the difference would be. From what I understand, in other states when people call to complain they are informed that it is legal and in most cases LEO's dont even come out to investigate.

[bruss01]

This argument is so ridiculous and tired..... There is a difference between the lone use of OC for legitimate self defense or transport, and 25 guys all showing up to Starbucks with guns scaring the crap out of everyone, over and over and over and over.

I don't understand why the UOCers seem to be so willingly blind to this.

I'll repeat - I'm not saying I support the OC movement. However, as long as the public kept seeing a lone UOC'er and calling cops who respond to a "man with a gun" call in a hostile, combative fashion with guns drawn, it was impractical for the average Californian to try to UOC and peaceably go about their business. Although I don't necessarily support HOW it was done, I do agree that before the average Californian could reasonably UOC on a regular basis, the public has to be educated to quit making those calls, they have to know it is legal and proper and not a threat to them. If that wasn't accomplished, then it would still be impractical to UOC. I can tell you I'm personally not taking a chance of a rookie cop rushing out on a MWG call, pointing his gun at me and then a nervous twitch of his trigger finger ending my life or worse, crippling me for life. So I don't see UOC as being of any practical use without the public becoming educated and tolerant of the practice. So now that UOC is illegal, what have we lost, in a useful tangible sense? Very little, almost nothing. And it reinforces the legal position for shall issue LTC/CCW whatever you want to call it these days.

[stix213]

But why does any person or group have to have an agenda to exercise their rights? I don't know what happen before AB 144 was introduced but I don't think UOC advocates assembled in groups. I never seen them and I work in public area's all over the county on a nightly basis. I think you are putting the cart before the horse. But, I could be wrong. Either way, if the public was informed of the law I don't see what the difference would be. From what I understand, in other states when people call to complain they are informed that it is legal and in most cases LEO's dont even come out to investigate.

Then you've simply not been paying attention if you don't think they assembled in groups.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7248503

You're correct that the public needed to be better informed. You're incorrect if you think the way to inform them was 25 armed men in line for coffee, or a story on the nightly news written by an anti-gunner that was equally scared by the showing.

The reason you need an agenda is because with this type of movement you need clear attainable goals, and a well thought out strategy to attain them with limited downside if the strategy were to fail (so a failure does not preclude your ability to try again with a new strategy). Not doing so can be disastrous, like getting the entire practice banned for example.

[curtisfong]

I don't know what happen before AB 144 was introduced but I don't think UOC advocates assembled in groups.

Sigh.

[pietropau9]

Then you've simply not been paying attention if you don't think they assembled in groups.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7248503

You're correct that the public needed to be better informed. You're incorrect if you think the way to inform them was 25 armed men in line for coffee, or a story on the nightly news written by an anti-gunner that was equally scared by the showing.

Like I said, I UOC one time with a group. I don't have prior knowledge of what happen prior to AB 144 being introduced. I personally didn't feel comfortable with the group I went with. They were very anti-police/establishment during their meetings and it was more an anti-government meeting. I'm a paramedic and former Marine. I have contact with LEO's everyday. Most don't think UOC is wrong but thats the foot soldiers. Anyway, going against most of them; I don't mind an officer inspecting my weapon, hell, he can run the serial number I have nothing to hide. And like I said, I personally don't want anyone knowing I'm carrying. Needless to say, I didn't fit in with the UOC mold and didn't go back. But I also know I have no record or problems, am familiar with weapons, and CAN'T get a CCW due to CA rules.

[Wherryj]

Well, except for this part too:



They are forgetting the last time this happened, when the Black Panthers' exercising of their rights led to the Mulford Act.

It said "seldom" not "never". That is still a correct statement.

[Calplinker]

UOC

This argument is so ridiculous and tired..... There is a difference between the lone use of OC for legitimate self defense or transport, and 25 guys all showing up to Starbucks with guns scaring the crap out of everyone, over and over and over and over.

I don't understand why the UOCers seem to be so willingly blind to this.

This is dead on accurate. The UOC folks just don't seem to get it.

Now, they've moved on to walking around with rifles.

Their actions resulted in the law against UOC of hand guns. Anyone care to guess how the legislature, PD's and governor will react to their new shenanigans?

Just because something is legal, does not mean it is wise to flaunt it and make a fool of yourself.

Most people wouldn't notice a lone UOC'r, but this doesn't provide the attention that they seem to crave. So, they ratchet it up with groups of people, then video tape themselves exercising their "right".

Their goal is to get attention, nothing more.

Personally, I'm glad they passed the law.

Once they pass the next one banning UOC of long guns, what will the attention seekers do next?