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

[kcbrown]

Except during Fast and Furious?

Hanlon's Razor is generally applicable to private individuals and groups of same, because their purpose and intent is not, generally, to bring greater harm to others.

Hanlon's Razor is generally not applicable to government, because the government's goal is to increase its own power at the expense of the freedom of the people. Which is to say, the government's goal directly involves harming others. Therefore, the reverse of Hanlon's Razor applies to the government: never attribute to stupidity that which can adequately be explained by malice.

[sreiter]

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.

agree with being able to own everything

disagree with not carring in public...

it's perception.

there was a time when the well dressed man wore a sword always....or sikh's and indonesians wearing knifes

if these people REALLY had a issue with guns, they'd freak at seeing cops carrying

if carrying was the norm, no one would be upset by it

[1859sharps]

I have a question for all those that support open carry (rifle, shotgun or handgun) or actively do so.

Given the political realities, legal realities, demographics, how districts are drawn, letter and spirit of the law, basically all that is California.....

How will open carry remove the handgun roster, get LTC and/or LOC, remove magazine capacity restrictions, address the "assault weapons law", make it easier to get NFA controlled items etc, etc.....

Please do not point to another state and say it worked there...we aren't the other 49 states, we are California. so please explain to me how in California with all that means, Open Carry will make things better?

[kcbrown]

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.

The great conflagration to refresh the tree of liberty is more likely to kill the tree entirely than anything else. The American Revolution was an outlier, an exception to what historically happens when armed insurrection takes place. The vast majority of armed insurrections wind up replacing the sitting government with a despotism or dictatorship, because people are naturally herd animals who tend to follow "leaders" and who, therefore, will generally place a single person in position of absolute power. We already see a tendency towards that in our own society, on the part of those who believe the President should be able to do just about anything he pleases.

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.

That may be the case, but it's not an option to be exercised until all other options are thoroughly exhausted, precisely because it's such a long shot with such a high cost. High cost, low odds actions are the ones to be taken last.

[wyrm2021]

We all support the right to UOP, but we cant stand is this fringe of ours, if we consider it our fringe, moves without a forthought to their actions. Even in light of the previous legislation.
Need we be reminded, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a differant outcome is the definition of what.........anybody.......anybody?


My take on this is that they are not our fringe group, but the other side dressing up in our clothes to accoplish their ends!

[blazeaglory]

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.

No its the fact that we dont know if that person is UOC or a psycho on his way to murder people in a hair salon.

UOC of long guns for the simple fact of "just because" has no place in this society. We should be concentrating our efforts and energy in other areas of the pro 2A movement.

[Jason P]

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).

I can't believe I have to explain this. The liberal hippie typical Californian, or the housewife/soccer mom who believes whatever she sees on MSNBC is the majority here.

She and Lord knows how many other people email a DeLeon or Porkantino, a stupid law gets passed, and hampers our rights further, while simultaneously creating a bigger pool of dog$h!t for the good folks trying to straighten this all out to wade through.

The 1st Amendment has been pretty well enshrined and protected, and prevails lopsidedly(word?) in most cases. How often do most courts rule against a 1A issue. Thousands of cases we rarely hear about nationwide are settled in round one in 1A cases. Some kid or parent sues a school. The press has a confidential source. A celebrity gets pissed because someone includes them in a work of fiction, protected by the 1A.

And the list goes on. But 2A rights aren't there yet. And when yahoos decide to exercise their 2A rights in a 1A fashion, their is backlash. Heard of AB144? Google it. Caused by people who had to demonstrate.

I'll be the first to say UOC is garbage for SD in more cases than any form of LTC, but having a gun available in a capacity that doesn't involve a frickin lockbox etc is better than nothing. At least someone UOC'ing has a chance to stop some nut before he takes out innocent bystanders in a Ft. Hood type situation.

Even having a gun on your hip may be a deterrent. And all that is better than nothing, and may have even been a reasonable option under certain circumstances based on the law at the time. But now even that is done.

So the guy who UOC's walking his dog in a rough neighborhood at night, or the lady who UOC's walking to/through a parking garage after work/school... REGULAR PEOPLE - have lost their only means of defending themselves legally because some clowns decided not to "LET THE MAN KEEP THEM DOWN" in big groups at surburban coffee shops and burger joints.

Boy, that sure showed them

So what we have to hope and pray for now is that we get a legitimate carry decision before even one life that could have been saved by lowly UOC is lost due to stupid people doing something when they didn't need to.

Because that's the real issue. Do you need to carry? Well that should be up to you. Do 75 people need to show up at Payless shoes wearing Glocks, Sigs, AR's and AK's. Probably not, unless they're planning a hostile takeover in the Dr. Scholls isle.

Sorry to be so contrary, but the fact that one innocent and now defenseless person could be raped or beaten or killed or all of the above because of these people really pisses me off.

And I have to say, if I didn't know the crowd coming into my business or neighborhood hangouts, and 40-50 of them were all packing and were in or out of uniform, I'd be wondering what the hell was going on until someone explained. And I LOVE guns.

Imagine the mind of a suburbanite with zero exposure. No wonder they're crapping their pants and demanding something be done. They are either uninformed or misformed, and there first real exposure to the bells of liberty is shock and awe latte's with a side of dumb@$$...

[Jason P]

agree with being able to own everything

disagree with not carring in public...

it's perception.

there was a time when the well dressed man wore a sword always....or sikh's and indonesians wearing knifes

if these people REALLY had a issue with guns, they'd freak at seeing cops carrying

if carrying was the norm, no one would be upset by it

Yeah, but you don't make it the norm by having 50-100 people running around with EBR's. Damn, that's just tomfoolery at its most tomfoolish.

The way you make it the norm is to walk your dog with your gun, smile and stop and talk to your neighbors. Mind your own business, contribute to society when you can. Carry(no pun intended) on with business as usual, but be carrying.

You win hearts and minds by setting a good example, not by setting up a perimeter with people who obviously aren't thinking clearly.

[FatalKitty]

Tactics are being confused with strategy.

-Gene

sure... my "strategy" is to defend myself (that means my freedoms) from all those who would stifle it, be that the state of california, a gangbanger or even YOU

whatever tactics I use in that strategy are up to me, and no one can tell me which ones to use and which not to. If you think carrying guns is counter to expanding our rights to carry guns... it may be because you have your tail between your legs.

just my opinion. You've done far more for my rights than I have... I don't carry a long gun in public as I have no need to... I do however 100% support those that do carry in public, long guns, hand guns, squirt guns... even if they carry as a means of political protest.

to be 100% honest... I am ****ing sick of sacrificing my queen to save a few rooks. it's bull****.

[Databyter]

No its the fact that we dont know if that person is UOC or a psycho on his way to murder people in a hair salon.

UOC of long guns for the simple fact of "just because" has no place in this society. We should be concentrating our efforts and energy in other areas of the pro 2A movement.

This is why the choice or WHERE, WHEN, and HOW needs to be carefully thought out by UOC activists.

There is a way to do this without making people aprehensive that still meets the goal or promoting rights, educating, and getting attention on the restrictions.

[fiddletown]

...There is a way to do this without making people aprehensive that still meets the goal or promoting rights, educating, and getting attention on the restrictions.

On the other hand, if there is such a way, it sure looks like no one has found it yet.

As for promoting rights, how many people formerly negative or neutral on gun rights are now drifting toward supporting gun rights as a result of UOC activities?

[Diabolus]

On the other hand, if there is such a way, it sure looks like no one has found it yet.

As for promoting rights, how many people formerly negative or neutral on gun rights are now drifting toward supporting gun rights as a result of UOC activities?

AB144 passed, so I would say we are not only pushing more anti's into action, but we are now gaining the attention of even more anti's with these "protests" who would otherwise remain on the sidelines.

[rogervzv]

"this kind of event is an invitation to ban long rifles in public now,"

An invitation the CA legislature will be more than happy to accept.

Exactly. Exactly.

[scarville]

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?

That didn't really matter much then. Law enforcement wanted the Mulford Act and in 1968 -- only three years after the Watts Riot -- that pretty much insured the Legislature's cooperation.

[popups]

I'll be the first to say UOC is garbage for SD in more cases than any form of LTC, but having a gun available in a capacity that doesn't involve a frickin lockbox etc is better than nothing. At least someone UOC'ing has a chance to stop some nut before he takes out innocent bystanders in a Ft. Hood type situation.

Even having a gun on your hip may be a deterrent. And all that is better than nothing, and may have even been a reasonable option under certain circumstances based on the law at the time. But now even that is done.

So the guy who UOC's walking his dog in a rough neighborhood at night, or the lady who UOC's walking to/through a parking garage after work/school... REGULAR PEOPLE - have lost their only means of defending themselves legally because some clowns decided not to "LET THE MAN KEEP THEM DOWN" in big groups at surburban coffee shops and burger joints.

Because that's the real issue. Do you need to carry? Well that should be up to you. Do 75 people need to show up at Payless shoes wearing Glocks, Sigs, AR's and AK's. Probably not, unless they're planning a hostile takeover in the Dr. Scholls isle.

And I have to say, if I didn't know the crowd coming into my business or neighborhood hangouts, and 40-50 of them were all packing and were in or out of uniform, I'd be wondering what the hell was going on until someone explained. And I LOVE guns.