SF Chron: "Open-carry activists to tote long-guns in public"

[FXR]

It's like this, any arm short of maybe a nuke and up to and including a battleship, you should be able to own by original intent.

But NEVER should you show your @$$ in public with so much as a water gun. Even if all the laws were on our side, not all of the public would be or has to be. Some people don't get the "gun thing", and it's disrespectful to infringe on there rights or beliefs to prove you can carry a frickin' UNLOADED shotgun or AR around in the city.

What right would be infringed exactly? Not that I like UOC as a useful defense, but as 1st amendment protest it's reasonable to assume someone might be offended. Don't confuse their right to be offended (sure) with the infringement of their "right" to not suffer offense (not so much).

[Pig Rifle]

Actually, since I'm not allowed to get an LTC in my fine county I probably would. Not because I have an irrational fear of firearms, but because if this person weren't a law-abiding citizen I would be completely defenseless.

So your answer is to call the fuzz on them, because you feel they should be equally defenseless? This right here is a perfect example of the average anti's mindset.

[popups]

California By A String

The only reason that long gun carry wasn't banned with handgun carry in AB-144 was because of hunting. It would have been hard to pass a bill that would ban hunting with firearms.

So those people out there saying, bearing the only arms allowed under CA law, is stupid and will just get long gun carry banned, should stop their un-American nonsense. Their anti bearing of arms argument is the same as it was with handgun carry. It is an emotionally (fear) based reaction to looming government over reach.

The CA government wants to ban guns altogether; so it is not the fault of the individuals that carry. When they [government] infringed the right to carry loaded, because of the Panthers, was a feeble attempt to ban bearing of arms in public by non government persons. That is why Portantino used the word "loophole." As they didn't make the original law complete. As time passes less people have experience with firearms, this gives the government the ability to easily pass infringements.

You should support the bearing of arms in public, whether it is openly or concealed. You should put in some effort to fight for you rights, instead of hiding in your homes with your hunting rifles and your 1911. If you allow it, it will be a matter of time before they come for those.

When they do ban carrying of long guns. It will be hard for them to make an argument that they are not trying to ban arms altogether and that they are not against the right to defend your life and property whilst in public. If they dare to use the registration to selectively remove firearms from peoples possession, it will be clear that they are not for "public safety," but for disarmament. As that is all that is left.

You have: a handgun ban, a modern rifle ban, a select fire ban, a suppressor ban, a magazine ban, an ammunition ban, bearing/carry ban, handgun registration and long gun registration.

I will say that, a large public group gathering with firearms is not my style. I think Californians will become fearful of a large group than a respectful, soft spoken, small, friendly one. A three to four person group maximum is what I am comfortable with. I suggest those large group gatherings separate to three or four people and never gather together more than that at any one time and place. Because even for me it is rather jarring to see a mass of people carrying arms. It is NOT because they are carrying guns. I would have the same reaction if I saw a car club of Ferraris.

Don't call yourself an activist (or act like one) or have arguments with people about arms. If people want to speak to you and gather some knowledge fine. Just do not argue with those who will never accept your human right no matter how correct the logic is.

[hammer]

The problem is that many times we cannot tell if this person is a threat or not. We cannot tell if the gun is loaded. I can't read people's minds and know their intentions.
Call 911? Sure, none of us are trained to evaluate a situation like this. We see a bunch of people with guns in their hands, is this a robbery? Is it a gang war?

Here is another example, take your semiauto, take the magazine out, is that gun unloaded? We know the answer to that.

Open carry means open carry of an UNLOADED weapon. Can any of us determine that a gun is unloaded by looking at it with the chamber closed?

I believe in our 2A rights. I just don't believe that by doing LGUC we are doing justice to this cause. This will cause panic among the public. We know the laws, they don't. What will they think? I agree it is misinformed, but this will not educate me. This will scare the public away. I would not be surprised if more laws are put into place after this.

[hammer]

I agree with Popups. You do have to fight for your rights.

Your suggestion of a small group of well dressed, friendly people with open carry will do a lot to make this agreeable to the public. I can agree to that.

[Databyter]

It's all about where when and how.

There is a way to do this that does not scare or offend and still educates and gets positive press.

The location should be public or private property that is in public view, but OFF the beaten path and not in the way or in front of or blocking any other traffic.

In other words not a mall, a beach, or a coffee shop.

But perhaps an empty parking lot, fairgrounds, Stadium tailgate area (not during a game of course).

And you just promote it and INVITE the public to come, and those that happen by can approach out of curiosity or whatever, but it should be somewhere where a person would not need to go without having that curiosity or interest.

Someone also suggested getting a permit to participate in a parade as a group of 2nd ammendment citizens with slung and holstered guns, which I think is another great idea.

There is a way that the factions in the court and the factions who want to educate through uoc can have a meeting of the minds and work together.

The issue is not black and white. There ARE benefits to UOC if it is done in a positive and thoughtful way, and it can also be destructive and counter-productive if it is done in an in your face way.

I don't think these guys will stop, but maybe some of us can work with them and influence a postive change that will solve the problems and meet the goals of both sides.

[hoffmang]

<sigh> .....it's fools like Leftwich who stonewall gun rights in California.

Sadly, Ms. Leftwich has the votes and we do not.

The last time someone openly carried long guns, Ronald Reagan signed a law introduced by a Republican. This time only the party and race of the carriers has changed.

-Gene

[FatalKitty]

WE ALREADY LOST THE RIGHT TO CARRY LONG GUNS IN PUBLIC UNLOADED OR NOT



don't you get it? you're afraid of enjoying your rights for fear of losing them... that makes ZERO ****ING SENSE

[GWbiker]

Sadly, Ms. Leftwich has the votes and we do not.

The last time someone openly carried long guns, Ronald Reagan signed a law introduced by a Republican. This time only the party and race of the carriers has changed.

-Gene

As I recall, no shots were fired. Some/most/all Black Panthers were disarmed at the scene...sooooo aside from the racial bias, my question would be - was the Mulford Act really necessary?

[hoffmang]

WE ALREADY LOST THE RIGHT TO CARRY LONG GUNS IN PUBLIC UNLOADED OR NOT



don't you get it? you're afraid of enjoying your rights for fear of losing them... that makes ZERO ****ING SENSE

Tactics are being confused with strategy.

-Gene

[hammer]

Tactics are being confused with strategy.

-Gene

Aaahhhhh... strategy vs tactics! Now we are getting somewhere!

[CCWFacts]

"Open carrying of any guns, pistols or rifles, alarms the public and it wastes law enforcement resources while they have to monitor the people carrying them," Leftwich said. "It would be best if it were totally banned."[/I]

Leftwich, she was born to do her job!

Anyway, LEOs have almost unlimited discretion in how they spend their time. They can spend it productively chasing down violent criminals and putting them behind bars. Or they can, if they chose, waste it. They have many many options in how exactly they waste their time. They can invest years of LEO resources in busting dastardly Amish dairy farmers who dare sell milk to fully-informed consumers who seek it out. They can investigate teenagers who have privately sent bikini shots to their friends and charge them with child pornography. In the UK they can invest their valuable time in creating blogs for their dogs. They can defend a private meeting against the ghosts of civil rights activists. They can go to fancy bars in SF and pour their expensive liquor down the drain because it had a cucumber soaking in it.

Really there's no boundary or limit or stopping point on what they can do to waste taxpayer money.

And if they choose to, they are also free to waste taxpayers' money on standing around watching some other people (who happen to be carrying unloaded long guns) standing around.

No one is forcing the police to waste money. They have the creativity to find their own ways to avoid the hard work of chasing down and arresting violent gang members. That kind of work is hard, dangerous, unpleasant, and takes courage and will. So much nicer to pursue all these other leisurely activities. Busting Amish farmers and hormonal teenagers and civil rights activists vs. violent drug dealers and gang members? Which is a more agreeable way to spend ones time? The pay's the same.

[hoffmang]

As I recall, no shots were fired. Some/most/all Black Panthers were disarmed at the scene...sooooo aside from the racial bias, my question would be - was the Mulford Act really necessary?

Necessary or not, it passed and became the law of California for the last 40 years.

The real underlying issue is this. Many of us, myself included, would like to believe that the right to bear arms is pretty wide. However, everyone pushing this issue may in fact find out that the right to bear arms that we can actually defend and secure is smaller than what we all want.

I'd prefer to secure even some part of the right to bear before gun owners continue to use tactics that play into the strategy of our enemy.

Two tactics that don't play into the enemy's strategy: LUCC, and concealed long gun carry.

However, I expect my thoughts to be ignored by those who "know better" - just like the last time.

-Gene

[popups]

Sadly, Ms. Leftwich has the votes and we do not.

The last time someone openly carried long guns, Ronald Reagan signed a law introduced by a Republican. This time only the party and race of the carriers has changed.

-Gene

How audacious!

That is why a Republic was formed not a democracy! So when people do things you do not like you cannot take their right away to do it. As long as they do not harm you through property damage, fraud, non fulfillment of contract, robbery or assault.

California has long disapproved of the Republic and decided to follow the ways of democracy. That is why they pass hundreds of bills every year -- every one of them, from what I have seen, infringe Californian's human rights.

I had yet to fully understand how horrible the state of California is, until recently, when I watched the floor proceedings of the elected. I haven't been alive long enough to understand the level of filth Californians love to bathe in. If I did not relate firearms to freedom. If I didn't take my right to defend myself and my property in a violent crime filled county seriously, it would have took me longer. Now I am looking fondly toward Arizona. IF my theory that less firearm infringements equals more liberty, then no matter how rooted I am, I will plan my escape, just like the others I know have done.

Hopefully soon California will collapse and some real leaders will rebuild it to a great state. Then I could return.

[FNH5-7]

You guys seriously expect a pro-gun article from the SF Chronicle?