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

[Left Coast Conservative]

Well I did what I could in the comment section, for all the good it will do:

"The people holding the event are not gun nuts, they are rights nuts.

Let me explain.

These people believe, as I do, that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the individual to be armed for self defense, both in the home, and in public. So far, the Supreme Court has validated the "in the home" part of that view, but has not yet affirmed the "in public" part.

Meanwhile, about 40 states in the United States allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons in public legally, after satisfying objective criteria. However California is not one of these states. While California does have a concealed weapon law, licenses to carry are very rarely issued in urban counties where the need to be armed is greatest. In Santa Clara county, only 55 licenses to carry are currently issued to civilians.

The Open Carry movement uses open carry events to protest the current state of the California laws governing law carry of arms in public - laws that almost totally prevent a citizen from carrying weapons openly or concealed, laws which therefore deny the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights.

The Open Carry advocates do not want to carry weapons in a way that alarms the public, but the public has not afforded the citizen any other way to carry, and the public prevents effective self-defense by tolerating restrictive laws. Many comments to this article have mentioned that unloaded guns are useless for self defense, and have wondered why these Open Carry advocates do not conceal their weapons. The reason is that Open Carry advocates believe in following the law, and now open carry of unloaded long guns is all that is allowed.

This event is a protest, intended to illustrate the stupidity of the current California laws concerning bearing arms in public. One solution to this situation would be to reform California laws by adopting a shall-issue license to carry system. Other states do it without many problems, California could as well. Once this state was a social trend setter, but now it has fallen behind the rest of the nation.

Time for us to catch up."

[HowardW56]

I just finished reading the comments. I find it interesting that the discussion has evolved from guns are bad, to is the carrying of an unloaded gun as a protest, a form of protected speech...

People are starting to venture outside the pure guns are bad thought process.

[dfletcher]

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.

A restrictive bill that interfered with hunting is something I honestly hadn't considered. I think a bill banning long gun OC could be crafted that doesn't touch hunting, I think they'd have to, but that it comes up is indicative of the "unintended consequences" territory we enter once the legislative ball gets rolling.

[curtisfong]

Agents provocateurs.

Never attribute to malice...

[dalriaden]

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.

I'd much rather carry an ar-15 for self defense then a handgun, just because I have a ton more experience with one and am infinitely more comfortable with it. Toss in the the unjacketed rounds the dea uses and over penetration isn't a worry.
Short of a guy walking around in a balaclava with body armor and a mag in I wouldn't find lguoc that worrying, strange perhap, but wouldn't have my panties in a wad crying in the corner, or call the cops.

I would be more supportive of UOC if they would get permits to protest and have educational stands to try and garner support, as it is they have the 2a community in an uproar so how can they hope to garner the support of the less informed and less caring?

[souljahboi]

This tread is getting tl;dr, but I thought I'd at least throw in my 2 bits.

I sympathize with the UOC folks and I applaud their outstanding vocal efforts but they are handling this completely wrong. The average American citizen is getting dumbed down like the livestock they eat (that includes some of us "gun nuts"). Openly carrying guns (handgun or longarm) is basically out of societal norm (e.g. the stockyard) and causes herd panic. Politicians (ranchers) want the herd docile and controllable so they can be prepped for whatever they need to extract from us (fleecing, slaughterhouse, etc.) You do not antagonize the herd because both the herd and the ranchers will beat you into conformance (passing "common sense" laws).

There basically two choices that can be made here. One, the whole herd stages an uprising to force change; or two, a part of the herd uses the system against itself to affect change.

Both routes are not easy. Although the "occupy everything" movement feels good, in the end, nothing will change. Unlike the Arab Spring, this "uprising" has no teeth.

[G60]

Never attribute to malice...

In this case it's at the point the two are indistinguishable.

[Caladain]

Never attribute to malice...

Except during Fast and Furious?

[Maestro Pistolero]

If someone really wants to protest, let 'em grow a real set and LOC en masse after the law goes into effect. I don't believe there is a difference in the penalty at that point for loaded vs unloaded. I could be wrong.

BTW, I'm not actually suggesting this. Just that if you want to blindly stand on principle without regard for consequences, then let those consequences be yours.

[BigDogatPlay]

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.

There is nothing per se about it. There is no statement of RKBA in the California Constitution and there is a boat load of case law on point that has upheld any number of the state's restrictions for exactly that reason. The implication you see is not spelled out, and in the law that becomes the difference between much of the rest of America and us here in California.

[Librarian]

Well I did what I could in the comment section, for all the good it will do:

That's very good; thanks for doing that.

[Quser.619]

Not to hijack the thread, but which do you think will last longer the law's preventing us from legally carrying & exercising our 2A rights or the UOC vs. non-UOC (right now) battles? Personally I'm sick of the internal battles.

[dantodd]

Not to hijack the thread, but which do you think will last longer the law's preventing us from legally carrying & exercising our 2A rights... Personally I'm sick of the internal battles.

obviously .45 is superior to 9mm

[luckystrike]

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.

You are anti and don't know it yet, let me quote you... Since you have a hard time believing that someone would NEED to carry a longgun I'll use your own logic for a second and say I have a hard time believing that you NEED your saiga 762 in the first place since you don't live in a war zone or even hunt.

Your logic is flawed and is counterproductive if you go calling the cops everytime you see a rifle and get skeered

[Pig Rifle]

[QUOTE=Rekrab;7367002]It's always cute when someone implies that I'm an Anti.QUOTE]

Didn't mean to imply that, so I apologize. My point is that many antis, upon seeing someone visibly armed, will ask themselves "Why is he armed?" rather than "Why am I UNarmed?".

To put it another way, the anti won't stand up and demand to know why most of us have been disempowered. Instead, he will seek to disempower EVERYONE, which he feels will level the playing field for himself. It is a very selfish way to look at things.