SF Chron: "Few attend San Leandro gun protest"

[Paladin]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/22/BAPI1LL43O.DTL

while mall management roped off 165 spaces to accommodate the rally, no more than 30 opponents of gun-control laws stopped by the midday event.

***

Mall management had roped off several rows of parking near the gym in anticipation of at least 100 open-carry supporters turning out, as well as counter-protesters, who in fact were entirely absent.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1bYqHcoGL

[Fot]

Not sure if it is a good or bad thing only 30 people showed up..

[Tacobandit]

People talk big on the net but its one thing to actually strap on a shottie and walk around

[Blackhawk556]

So people have common sense after all. -30

[Skidmark]

People talk big on the net but its one thing to actually strap on a shottie and walk around

Thankfully, very few did. These publicity-hungry UOC advocates are not helping us.

[mrdd]

So people have common sense after all. -30

30 is not a small number. Rather unfortunate.

[dwtt]

Thankfully, very few did. These publicity-hungry UOC advocates are not helping us.

Now that unloaded open carrying of pistols is banned, does anyone know if those UOC people are going to step up and continue to UOC after the ban comes into affect, get arrested, pay their huge legal fees to challenge the ban and get it overturned? Somehow I just don't think they have the fortitude to go all the way.

[CitaDeL]

Now that unloaded open carrying of pistols is banned, does anyone know if those UOC people are going to step up and continue to UOC after the ban comes into affect, get arrested, pay their huge legal fees to challenge the ban and get it overturned? Somehow I just don't think they have the fortitude to go all the way.

I believe many of those who participate in these events only do so in the safety of numbers. Whether any of these folks has properly prepared themselves for this kind of legal confrontation I think is dubious... Im reasonably certain that many who follow CGF suggestions have either held off on applying as the battlefield has not been adequately prepared or have applied for and been denied. The rogue elements I believe would not have taken any strategic move in the belief that unloaded open carry, not 'LTC' is the right.

I would be very surprised if there were participants who were willing to defy the new law by carrying an exposed handgun after January 1st. But if someone is going to carry exposed- I would almost rather they carried loaded as well. (but that wouldnt challenge 26350, but 12031)

[thrasherfox]

Now that unloaded open carrying of pistols is banned, does anyone know if those UOC people are going to step up and continue to UOC after the ban comes into affect, get arrested, pay their huge legal fees to challenge the ban and get it overturned? Somehow I just don't think they have the fortitude to go all the way.

I would say for that to work, a person needs to apply for a CCW first, then if denied, get and keep the denial letter.

Then they UOC (if they have the funds to lawyer up) and then when they are arrested they go to court, show they applied for a CCW, was denied, then they were arrested for UOC and then challenge the judge as to how they are supposed to exercise they 2A.

I would do it IF I needed to AND if I had the money to lawyer up.

But I don't need to and I don't have the money anyway.

[Caladain]

I would say for that to work, a person needs to apply for a CCW first, then if denied, get and keep the denial letter.

Then they UOC (if they have the funds to lawyer up) and then when they are arrested they go to court, show they applied for a CCW, was denied, then they were arrested for UOC and then challenge the judge as to how they are supposed to exercise they 2A.

I would do it IF I needed to AND if I had the money to lawyer up.

But I don't need to and I don't have the money anyway.

Even further, I'd say the person needs to have a spotless, unimpeachable background. And the proper groups need to acknowledge the time is correct (NRA, SAF, CGF) so you don't end up without top-notch "big guns" representation when things get up to the appeals court.

[CitaDeL]

Even further, I'd say the person needs to have a spotless, unimpeachable background. And the proper groups need to acknowledge the time is correct (NRA, SAF, CGF) so you don't end up without top-notch "big guns" representation when things get up to the appeals court.

If that is what is necessary, then what we are talking about is coordination with the aforementioned groups in a predetermined court district to groom a litigant for the express purposes to violate the offending statute to obtain standing.

I'm intrigued...

[DRM6000]

i'm rather surprised that the mall accommodated the event.

[Caladain]

People talk big on the net but its one thing to actually strap on a shottie and walk around

That said, if Gene or The Right People said that it was time to Nut-up-or-shutup and show up at location X with a loaded AR/Pistol/Shotgun, a lot more people would be there. (I'd even fly from NH to loadup and go out).

It's one thing if there's a plan, or a strategic purpose for doing something, even if you can't tell the people what that purpose is. The Right People are scheming gunnies, and i'd feel 120% okay with risking things if they were telling us to.

The Responsible Citizens have no such plan, no current cases, no lobbying, no strategy, no legislation, and no Class-A backup..they're letting the media write whatever story they want..no PR control/direction.

It's a fundamental difference at the moment.

Preemptive Anti-CitaDeL comment: I'd be much more chill with UOC groups, and a hellova lot less suspicious of their motives if there was some semblance of a strategy, The Right People were coordinating with them, and they were working towards the goal.

[Caladain]

If that is what is necessary, then what we are talking about is coordination with the aforementioned groups in a predetermined court district to groom a litigant for the express purposes to violate the offending statute to obtain standing.

I'm intrigued...

It's been done in the past. Or least, the people who violated the unjust law's cases were hijacked to serve the greater good by the big names in the civil rights fight. See Rosa Parks for an example.

[CitaDeL]

It's been done in the past. Or least, the people who violated the unjust law's cases were hijacked to serve the greater good by the big names in the civil rights fight. See Rosa Parks for an example.

Im eagerly anticipating the opportunity, if the word is given...

Preemptive Anti-CitaDeL comment: I'd be much more chill with UOC groups, and a hellova lot less suspicious of their motives if there was some semblance of a strategy, The Right People were coordinating with them, and they were working towards the goal.

Awh, that's sweet. You still think I'm some sort of... adversary.