Portantino at it again: AB1527 long gun open carry ban

[fiddletown]

Lawsuits. Extremely likely the collectivist interpretation of the 2nd (and/or lack of incorporation) would have been the response,...

Exactly. Without the foundation of Heller and McDonald, litigation was largely futile and likely to set poor precedent.

Sounds like you weren't even there. The people that were ultimately bent, and were the driving force behind the advancing legislation were organizations like the CPOA. It wasn't John Q. and Mary Y. Public calling legislators demanding that something be done... it was the lobbying efforts of law enforcement groups as well as LCAV....

Without sufficient public support, such lobbying efforts are insufficient.

...And you are still missing the point.

• All guns are bad to the California legislators.
• They need no inspiration to make a new law.
• OC in any of its forms did not create a new need for a law.
• Those who chose to do it are being used as the reason or excuse for advancing law that would be offered up by our legislature anyway.

No, you don't understand the point. In States in which enough of the body politic supports the RKBA, legislators with such agendas don't get elected, or if somehow they do, they don't get re-elected. Thus Arizona was able to enact constitutional carry because the public elected legislators who would enact such laws and who had good reason to expect to get re-elected if they did.

The sad fact is that to enough voters in California guns are bad, so legislators with such perspective get elected and re-elected. And of course, the UOC business reinforced that public perspective.

...Does anyone know how much it costs to get an initiative on the ballot? If carefully worded we could have an amendment that the sheeple would vote for that would reverse all of the bad gun laws in this state....

Why would you think that?

Aside from the fact that it can cost millions to get an initiative on the ballot, how could you write one (1) that would pass in this political climate; and (2) that would reverse all bad gun laws? And are you aware that both the title of an initiative and the initiative summary need to be passed by the Secretary of State to promote full disclosure if the nature and significance of the initiative and to minimize the opportunity for cleverness?

...Also, are there any lawsuits that could go class action, IANAL but it would seem if the state were hit with a ton of class action lawsuits they may back down....

I am a lawyer, and it doesn't work that way. In any case, there is a well organized and orchestrated litigation strategy in process being pursued by several highly competent lawyers.

[SilverTauron]

Perhaps we are looking at this problem the wrong way.

If you openly carry unloaded and inanimate objects in public, and the same public is of the collective mindset that such weapons are so 'dangerous' that even in their unloaded state their presence must be outlawed, what does that say about the perspectives of your fellow citizens?

There is little doubt that both UOC and those pursing the legal avenues have the same goals. But from my distant perspective the fight is already lost if the voting majority think that firearms should be outlawed.

Many people in California feel that the 2nd Amendment should never have been written, and are determined to enforce that thinking no matter what obstacles stand in their way.

A quote states this attitude perfectly:

Except that if the right is one that never should have existed to begin with, the opposite can and will prove true, as it just did in California.
From :http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...arry-guns.html

The core of the matter is that UOC protest or no, gun control is on the agenda in that part of the state.If it wasn't people standing around with openly carried ARs and AKs, then it would be a self-defense shooting. Or an instance where the police stopped someone with multiple AR's and magazines in the trunk. To those of us who frequent this forum its not news at all.

To people who are repulsed by firearms, the reaction is "oh my GAWD!Can you believe that crazy man had an assault rifle in his car!Loaded magazines! The GOVERNMENT should do something about that". And when it comes to gun control, that's something any government is all to happy to establish at the constituents' request.

Can that problem be solved with open carry? It cannot. But the courts cannot solve it either. We can limit what the politicians can do via the courts, but that still doesn't adress the cause of the problem,which is Sally J. Public calling her council representative because she was upset at the sight of someone open carrying a shotgun in the Gander Mountain parking lot.

Take away public support, and the anti-gun confiscation gang is dead on arrival. Gun control bills pop up here in free America too, and they die quickly because the population will not tolerate the loss of their rights. It seems in California and other places the people believe they and no one else should possess the rights granted to them.

[fiddletown]

..Many people in California feel that the 2nd Amendment should never have been written, and are determined to enforce that thinking no matter what obstacles stand in their way....

...To people who are repulsed by firearms, the reaction is "oh my GAWD!Can you believe that crazy man had an assault rifle in his car!Loaded magazines! The GOVERNMENT should do something about that". And when it comes to gun control, that's something any government is all to happy to establish at the constituents' request.

Can that problem be solved with open carry? It cannot. But the courts cannot solve it either. We can limit what the politicians can do via the courts, but that still doesn't adress the cause of the problem,which is Sally J. Public calling her council representative because she was upset at the sight of someone open carrying a shotgun in the Gander Mountain parking lot.

Take away public support, and the anti-gun confiscation gang is dead on arrival. Gun control bills pop up here in free America too, and they die quickly because the population will not tolerate the loss of their rights. It seems in California and other places the people believe they and no one else should possess the rights granted to them.

I agree. Of course we must still pursue a well planned course of litigation to help try to limit what the legislature can do against our interests and to try to improve the legal situation.

But the real and most fundamental question for us is how do we make gun ownership useful and relevant in the everyday lives of people who hate guns, who are afraid of them, who are afraid of people who own or want to own them, who distrust guns and people who own them or want to own them, and who believe that they are intellectually, culturally and morally superior to people who own guns or want to own guns?

We can't accomplish that sort of thing by legislation or court decisions.

What we can do is --

[1] Bring new people into guns, shooting and the shooting sports and help inculcate them in our culture of responsible gun ownership. (As a coach and instructor I have, without compensation, in the last ten years introduced hundreds of people to guns and shooting.)

[2] Be ourselves good ambassadors for shooting and gun ownership -- dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners.

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep our guns needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. And that is why doing things likely to be found obnoxious by the very folks we need to bring over on to our side is counterproductive.

[cmaynes]

Napoleon supposedly said that if an enemy is hurting himself, dont interfere.

The "Open Carry advocacy" is doing just that-

Gun Rights are Civil Rights.

[AlexDD]

Sliver lining? This ban may protect the gains we've made on ARs and AKs.

-Gene

Can someone explain this to me or give me some breadcrumbs to follow? What does method of transport/carry have to do with evil features, or lack thereof, on Assault Weapons?

Ps I haven't checked, but does this new ban on UOC of rifles still allow the concealed carry unloaded long guns?

[highpowermatch]

Really?

Who do you blame for the .50 BMG rifle ban. Explain who brought about the GFSZ. Which firing range was so stupid as to let people shoot there, and get closed down? What about all those crazy fools and their surplus firearms that got banned back in 93? Who had too many normal capacity magazines? How many dead cops did it take to ban "cop killer" ammo?

Your are talking out of your *****. The ONLY blame to be leveled, is toward leftist legislators that fear you and your freedoms.

I was thinking this same thing, yes its frustrating but to take it out on the folks standing up for our rights and not the liberal A holes who push it through seems misguided. I am sure the prowling antis love to see us argue over this stuff. Divide and conquer.

Maybe we can all calm down and at the bare minimum stay united on 2A rights.

[southernsnowshoe]

Thanks open carry people for mucking it up for the rest of us.

.

You are welcome. I carried mine alot, and was an obvious menace to society . Make sure when a California state law comes up to ban free speech that your keep your mouth shut.
But wait, what citizens would you have to blame then? when the corrupt legislature passes such a unconstitutional ban.

[fiddletown]

...yes its frustrating but to take it out on the folks standing up for our rights and not the liberal A holes who push it through seems misguided....

[1] The UOC activists really weren't looking out for our interests because they really didn't understand what they were doing and they didn't understand the effect their actions would have.

[2] The simple fact is that the UOC folks did not know what they were doing, even though a bunch of more able and qualified RKBA activists tried to explain it to them.

[3] And if you claim to be looking out for my rights, you have a responsibility to me not to mess up. If you do mess up, you can reasonably expect to be criticized for doing so; and you will have earned that criticism. As they say in medicine, "First do no harm."

[4] What counts in the real world is results. Real life does not grade on a curve, and there is no extra credit for effort or good intentions.

[5] And the "the liberal A holes" who push through this kind of nonsense are doing what the folks who elected them want them to do. Politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

[kcbrown]

There needs to be a distinction made between those open carriers who were simply open carrying for protection (e.g., kylagwolf), and those who did so as a form of protest.

The former tended to carry discreetly. They simply went about their business as anyone would, and didn't raise eyebrows very often.

The latter carried for the purpose of public display. Their goal was explicitly to make the public aware of their actions. It is these who we have a problem with. It may have seemed like a good idea with respect to pistols, because it could be seen as an effort to educate the public and to acclimate them to firearms. But to do that with rifles (which are even more "in your face" and regarded as more dangerous and scary) after UOC of pistols was outlawed?

When you attempt to wake the dragon, you are an idiot if you don't realize that you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

[southernsnowshoe]

I was thinking this same thing, yes its frustrating but to take it out on the folks standing up for our rights and not the liberal A holes who push it through seems misguided. I am sure the prowling antis love to see us argue over this stuff. Divide and conquer.

Maybe we can all calm down and at the bare minimum stay united on 2A rights.

And there you have it brother. When you can't get "gun rights advocates" to support you, as a citizen, carrying a gun, all is lost.
Not only do the politicians not support gun rights, your fellow gun owners won't stand with you and walk at the beach, or at the mall with their piece, at least back when we could.
The reply to this post will be a lecture as to my inability to understand some grand strategy, and how running, hiding, and kissing as*, is a more politically correct and therefore more effective approach.
I say screw that. I am going to carry it if I need it. I don't write this to perpetuate the rock throwing among the members. We should all be together, but never will be. Blaming ANYBODY for our problem, except the worthless union controlled pukes who write and pass garbage legislation is a waste of time, and plays into the hands of brady.

[fiddletown]

...Blaming ANYBODY for our problem, except the worthless union controlled pukes who write and pass garbage legislation is a waste of time, and plays into the hands of brady.

Well you obviously haven't been following or understanding the discussion. This is not about people carrying guns. This is about people engaging in ill conceived political actions. You can't understand the difference, and your opinions on the question can be ignored.

[huntercf]

I wonder if the founding fathers went through this when they sat down and signed the declaration of independence, it could be said that they were provoking the king into a fight and the colonists would lose more of their rights.

If it's a right and someone exercises that right and then the libidiots pass legislation to infringe that right seems to me we shouldn't be blaming the person exercising their right, maybe we should direct our ire at the real enemy.

It also seems like some anti-gun rhetoric is being used here ~ If the right to carry people hadn't put it out there then we would still have that right, this sounds like ~ If people weren't allowed to own guns then we wouldn't have all this crime involving guns. Sound familiar?

[hoffmang]

Can someone explain this to me or give me some breadcrumbs to follow? What does method of transport/carry have to do with evil features, or lack thereof, on Assault Weapons?

Ps I haven't checked, but does this new ban on UOC of rifles still allow the concealed carry unloaded long guns?

I and others have asked those who wish to be recalcitrant about the UOC handgun ban that if they're going to ignore advice that long gun UOC isn't going to get us much, that they at least UOC long guns that don't look evil. The reason being that evil features seem to be off the radar in the larger culture and keeping them that way while we secure them (Williams v. Cook County, Haynie v. Harris, etc.) would be of value. Sadly, because many UOC'ers are really about being in people's faces some have chosen not to simply carry a Remington 870 or a lever action rifle but instead are carrying ARs and AKs.

Intentionally scaring people only removes support and runs the risk of invigorating the legislature on ARs and AKs. At bottom, if one is going to UOC a long gun, UOC a long gun that is politically difficult to ban the ownership of...

My underlying point was that if the long gun UOC ban passes quickly, it may stop long gun UOC before fear and retrenchment about ARs and AKs can come back to the California Legislature. "I thought we banned these" - Average Bad Legislator in CA...

-Gene

[southernsnowshoe]

Snowshoe, knock it off or you're looking at a ban.

[kcbrown]

I understand the frustrations of some who are chomping at the bit for some action. We got Heller and McDonald, and despite the amount of time that's passed since then, nothing of consequence has changed for us.

Patience, my friends! It's going to take time to repair the damage.

The faster alternative is even less likely to succeed and will cost tens of millions of people their lives. Believe me when I tell you that it is worth waiting a bit in order to avoid that. If you don't believe me, then ask yourself how you'd feel if you lost a family member -- because such a thing is a very real possibility with the faster alternative. Ask yourself if you'd rather sacrifice a bit of time in order to keep them alive.