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

[FXR]

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

You shouldn't use a right just for the sake of using a right, if that makes any sense. Just like one shouldn't feel compelled to talk if he has nothing to say. If you think carrying an unloaded long gun will make your life better/safer/whatever then you can do so. Be aware that other people would like to continue to transport long guns house-to-car, car-to-range, etc, without breaking the law or causing a fuss, and highly visible actions will have repercussions on all of us. At this point, nobody honestly thinks that OC is creating positive public perception do they? I'll be the first to admit that I thought there was promise in "normalizing" guns to the public, but after AB144 I think the proof is in the pudding.

[popups]

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

What is LUCC?

California needs to follow its constitution. It says within that it is inseparable from the United States and that the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution is supreme to its law.

Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent
on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny
others retained by the people.

Although the California constitution does not state ownership or carry of arms per se. It implies that right to be recognized within the state of California. Not denying or impairing those rights. Then add article 3 and it is impossible to reasonably argue differently.

The problem for Californians is if they use the US supreme court decisions to argue for their right to keep and bear arms. As the US courts have recently made decisions against those rights. Not using the Bill of Rights and the California constitution to defend those rights; Californians will lose them and wouldn't be able to get them back with out a constitutional convention.

[FNH5-7]

The entitlement crowd owns this state's government and legislature. Until we can change the entitlement mentality we wont get far.

The entitlement crowd will take in as many laws, and wont mind being deprived of their constitutional rights as long as they are given something in return.

[popups]

You shouldn't use a right just for the sake of using a right, if that makes any sense. Just like one shouldn't feel compelled to talk if he has nothing to say. If you think carrying an unloaded long gun will make your life better/safer/whatever then you can do so. Be aware that other people would like to continue to transport long guns house-to-car, car-to-range, etc, without breaking the law or causing a fuss, and highly visible actions will have repercussions on all of us. At this point, nobody honestly thinks that OC is creating positive public perception do they? I'll be the first to admit that I thought there was promise in "normalizing" guns to the public, but after AB144 I think the proof is in the pudding.

Because politicians put a bill up for vote and they voted yes!? When did that small group become the opinion of the people of California?

The story goes. The police chiefs (politicians) asked to remove the people's right to defend their life and their property in public from criminals. Likely because they want to be the only ones with that "power." So a guy from Pasadena, with the Banning (Brady) Campaign, wrote up some bills to please their power seeking endeavors. Then the corrupt non representatives, for whatever their reasons, said sure why not!

If the police and the government just said to everyone, hey we all have the right to own and carry arms, even in public. Some people will throw a fit and the rest will get over it and worry about finding a job. Then criminals will start to understand what an armed citizen is. But we know the California government does not want to say that.

California should just ban all firearms tomorrow and confiscate them. That way the indifferent procrastinators can grasp reality.

[wildhawker]

What is LUCC?

Locked Unloaded Concealed Carry.

California needs to follow its constitution.

The CA Const. was found by the CA Sup. Ct. to include no protections for the right to arms. However, post-McDonald (and, briefly, while the 2009 Nordyke panel opinion controlled), the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment fully applies to all states and local governments.

It says within that it is inseparable from the United States and that the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution is supreme to its law.

See, Supremacy Clause pre-emption. See also, McDonald v. Chicago.

Although the California constitution does not state ownership or carry of arms per se. It implies that right to be recognized within the state of California. Not denying or impairing those rights. Then add article 3 and it is impossible to reasonably argue differently.

You're incorrect for the reasons cited above and incorporated by reference.

The problem for Californians is if they use the US supreme court decisions to argue for their right to keep and bear arms. As the US courts have recently made decisions against those rights. Not using the Bill of Rights and the California constitution to defend those rights; Californians will lose them and wouldn't be able to get them back with out a constitutional convention.

No, the U.S. Supreme Court decisions on 2A are not the "problem". The problem is that we have only limited U.S. Sup. Ct. jurisprudence and many lower courts who seek to frustrate the rights protected under the Second Amendment. Thankfully, these cases will work their way up and shall be resolved by the highest court, where necessary. Trust that those cases will provide the contours of the rights that California will be forced to respect.

At this time, there is no federally-acknowledged right to bear arms for self-defense. When that changes, so, then, will California's legislatively-created policies (and their enforcers) be forced to submit to the higher authority that is our Constitution.

-Brandon

[r3dn3ck]

let em' ban long gun UOC. All that adds is more infringement, more fuel to the fire, more ammo for use in court and if that don't work, more reason for the great conflagration to refresh the tree of liberty.

Those that think we'll get out of this whole mire of rights infringement, government power grabs and on and on without violence having to play a part at some point are fooling yourselves.

[Rekrab]

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.

It's always cute when someone implies that I'm an Anti.


The fact is my rights have been limited in this state so that I cannot defend myself in public against firearms with firearms. Since I have a hard time believing anyone would actually need to carry a long gun in public I would be suspicious. Since I've been disarmed by my government I'll make them handle it.

[a1c]

I guess most of the ironically-named "Responsible Citizens of California" either live in urban and suburban environment, or are not hunters.

Otherwise they would think twice about the consequences of their stupid actions.

[Mrbroom]

I kind of like the idea of a republican bringing the bill forward with a "shall issue" clause..

[pietropau9]

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.

Ok. A group of young and middle age mostly white guys in a public place in broad daylight carrying rifles and shotguns slung on their backs with t shirts that state unarmed open carry or dress clothes. Yep! Could be a gang war. Yep! Could be a "mob" meet up of convicted felons getting ready to rob a bank. Check yourself.

[weinerd]

The guy in the photo just looks douchey to me... And the way the photo caption spells out the caliber of douchey's handgun signifies to me that the author is pretty firearm ignorant.

[dantodd]

Actually, if the assembly in Commifornia were to ban the intrastate transport of firearms as a result of LGUOC, it might actually wake the rest of you Fudds up to actually stand up for your rights.

They won't ban transport, they'll require locking cases for transport, just like handguns. Congrats.

[trashman]

...signifies to me that the author is pretty firearm ignorant.

That's really the problem - we Calgunners are all up to our frontal lobes in guns. We spend time buying and selling guns, shooting them, and most of all we spend a large amount of time discussing them on boards like this. We obsess about the legal peculiarities of the law. We obsess about the politics of guns.

A wide majority of the general public who come into contact with UOC-ers will be confused or baffled, primarily because they aren't exposed to guns except in the movies. Any parent who is taking their kid to the mall (who barely has time to feed themselves, let alone spend hours on Calguns debating UOC) will not have a positive reaction -- they are just trying to get through their day -- and guess what - they will have their newly-formed biases confirmed when they read an article written by a journalist who (at best) also knows nothing of guns, and (at worst) will lazily present the activity in a sensational light to make sure it draws enough eyeballs for the advertisers.

I have openly carried (loaded..) where legal for years when I backpack. I understand the passion for open carry. I am just saddened that we are giving the legislature the opportunity to further encroach our rights.

Just because we can't fully exercise our rights doesn't mean we should facilitate having those rights eliminated by the democratic process.

And that's what UOC has done. Favored making a short-term statement instead of fighting the long-term fight that will benefit our children.

--Neill

[G60]

Agents provocateurs.

[trashman]

Actually, if the assembly in Commifornia were to ban the intrastate transport of firearms as a result of LGUOC, it might actually wake the rest of you Fudds up to actually stand up for your rights.

Oh I totally agree. But that's not what will happen. The legislature will require locked cases for long guns -- and so now you've just given law enforcement another reason to arrest otherwise innocent gunnies during a traffic stop if they didn't get the news that longguns need to be locked up.

As dantodd says, "congrats".

--Neill