Open carrying long guns on motorcycles

[oni.dori]

Open carry in CA is ALWAYS a bad idea in urban public areas, regardess of the type of firearm being carried; it causes FAR more trouble and stigma than it is worth. In NO WAY are you proving any point, making any statement (other than, "please, I am BEEGGING YOU to make this illegal too, and FURTHER restrict our 2A Rights"), or "sticking it to the man", you are just asking for trouble. IANAL, but I would STRONGLY advise against it; because you are not only effecting your rights, but the rights of EVERY OTHER gun owner in CA.
Your best option is to LUCC.

[CitaDeL]

Open carry in CA is ALWAYS a bad idea in urban public areas, regardess of the type of firearm being carried; it causes FAR more trouble and stigma than it is worth. In NO WAY are you proving any point, making any statement (other than, "please, I am BEEGGING YOU to make this illegal too, and FURTHER restrict our 2A Rights"), or "sticking it to the man", you are just asking for trouble. IANAL, but I would STRONGLY advise against it; because you are not only effecting your rights, but the rights of EVERY OTHER gun owner in CA.
Your best option is to LUCC.

Only truth is 'absolute'. While it may be true from your perspective that open carry is 'always' bad, that 'no good' can possibly come of transporting a firearm openly, your thesis can be disproved with a single account when nothing negative occurs. There have been more than one.

While I agree that it is not beneficial to use it as a political tool at this time, open carry isn't always as stigmatized or troublesome as is being supposed here.

[oni.dori]

Based on recent widespread media coverage, general public opionion in CA, as well as recent passed an proposed laws, I would have to definitely disagree. I have yet to see one instance where it has been beneficial to our cause/movement. I am not saying it couldn't save someone's life, or that people get harrassed EVERY time they participate in said activity; however, it pretty much always creates negative reactions to us and our hinders our progress.

Honestly though, that LEO's open style locked rig is pretty suh-WEET, but I doubt it would do much to help alleviate said hysteria.

[artoaster]

Very discreet

I'd go with this:

[GM4spd]

Only truth is 'absolute'. While it may be true from your perspective that open carry is 'always' bad, that 'no good' can possibly come of transporting a firearm openly, your thesis can be disproved with a single account when nothing negative occurs. There have been more than one.

So, if a two year old wets their fingers and sticks them into a 110V
outlet and "nothing" happens they should continue doing this until something
"absolute" happens. Very good. Pete

[mtsul]

tag

[CitaDeL]

Based on recent widespread media coverage, general public opionion in CA, as well as recent passed an proposed laws, I would have to definitely disagree. I have yet to see one instance where it has been beneficial to our cause/movement. I am not saying it couldn't save someone's life, or that people get harrassed EVERY time they participate in said activity; however, it pretty much always creates negative reactions to us and our hinders our progress.

Honestly though, that LEO's open style locked rig is pretty suh-WEET, but I doubt it would do much to help alleviate said hysteria.

The only recent media coverage on anything open carry related was about Charles Nichols using it as a sledgehammer to emphasize his considerable ignorance in both political and legal matters. I hardly call that 'widespread'. The other issue is that when open carry is done discretely, few have raised any concern.

So, if a two year old wets their fingers and sticks them into a 110V
outlet and "nothing" happens they should continue doing this until something
"absolute" happens. Very good. Pete

Nice strawman. While it could be said there might be a corollary between using open carry as a political tool and a child sticking a fork in a electrical outlet the results may have some predictable outcome- the same cannot be said of individual open carry outside of inarguably instigative political activities. You seem to share oni dori's affection for absolutes. All cases and circumstances are not equal, and therefore do not have equal outcomes. I believe this is pretty well documented.

[oni.dori]

The only recent media coverage on anything open carry related was about Charles Nichols using it as a sledgehammer to emphasize his considerable ignorance in both political and legal matters. I hardly call that 'widespread'. The other issue is that when open carry is done discretely, few have raised any concern.

I'm sorry, but discreetly and open carry is an oxymoron. Also, since that is about the only coverage that OC has gotten, that that is the most widespread it has gotten, my point remains the same. No matter what, it got widespread enough that it caught the attention of CA legistators, and they banned it. I would say that is proof enough of the negativity it garners. In the end, touting one man's ignorance is no excuse to remain so yourself. To deny that the participation in OC'ing, and the public image it creates does damage to our movement, then you are oblivious. Why would you want to participate in an activity that is counterproductive to regaining your rights? In the end, I would gladly trade OC for something far better and more effective (CC).

[CitaDeL]

I'm sorry, but discreetly and open carry is an oxymoron. Also, since that is about the only coverage that OC has gotten, that that is the most widespread it has gotten, my point remains the same. No matter what, it got widespread enough that it caught the attention of CA legistators, and they banned it. I would say that is proof enough of the negativity it garners. In the end, touting one man's ignorance is no excuse to remain so yourself. To deny that the participation in OC'ing, and the public image it creates does damage to our movement, then you are oblivious. Why would you want to participate in an activity that is counterproductive to regaining your rights? In the end, I would gladly trade OC for something far better and more effective (CC).

'Discretion' and 'open carry' are not contradictory terms. Open carry as a first amendment objective (such as a protest) is something distinct and seperate from individual open carry. You are mistaking one for the other. Again.

You also mistake statutorily regulated concealed carry for the right.

Your willingness to trade one form of carry for the other demonstrates a compromise that illustrates exactly why California is going the opposite direction that the nation is... Any reason one would gladly trade a right for the privilege is wholly contrary to the movement to expand and preserve our liberty- and makes them a prostitute to the statists who will compel performance in order to permit their civic duty.

[oni.dori]

'Discretion' and 'open carry' are not contradictory terms. Open carry as a first amendment objective (such as a protest) is something distinct and seperate from individual open carry. You are mistaking one for the other. Again.

Yes, they are. The ENTIRE point of adhering to CA OC law was to be blatant and unmistakable, otherwise legal problems would ensue. You wouldn't be UOC'ing if you didn't want the attention from it, because there is really no "tactical" advantage gained from it that would outweigh the benefits. In a real conflict, you would make yourself more of a target than a protected individual. There is no way you would be able to draw and load your firearm to be effective in a split-second situation, let alone a standoff. Your assailant would instantaneously attack you the second they saw you trying to load your firearm in a standoff. They automatically have the advantage. The point of CC is discretion. Discretion gives you advantage. Carrying an already loaded firearm gives you an advantage. I am ALL ABOUT the unfair advantage, it saves lives. I support the right to OC, not UOC. UOC is pointless and counterproductive. If we had CC, I would wholeheartedly support a push for OC. CC is just more important, safer, and easier to achieve right now.

You also mistake statutorily regulated concealed carry for the right.

How is CC not a right? I never said OC wasn't a right. However, there are certain ways you have to go about regaining both. Right now, CC is the best option. I never said I didn't want to see OC come back, I don't want to see UOC come back. It is utterly pointless in comparison (other than for gaining attention).

Your willingness to trade one form of carry for the other demonstrates a compromise that illustrates exactly why California is going the opposite direction that the nation is... Any reason one would gladly trade a right for the privilege is wholly contrary to the movement to expand and preserve our liberty- and makes them a prostitute to the statists who will compel performance in order to permit their civic duty.

Incorrect, it's called strategy. Once we have CC, it will be FAR easier to get OC back, LOADED OC. To demand the remenance of HALF of a right, at the expense of all the others is the definition of insanity (and no different than you are accusing me of). You are far to focused on the right in front of your nose to see the whole picture. Chess my friend, chess. There is a method to the madness.

one thing to keep in mind, if you carry in a guitar case or lacrosse case (sweet), one of the upcoming bills that may pass has a provision that any case has to be made for firearms, no more disguising the contents.

So if you go on public transit or bike it's will not be legal to have a disguising case. Be sure to keep on top of that; if you buy a guitar case and go happily on your way, in a few months you could be doing something illegal (though it's currently not).

Link to proposed bill, preferrably the secion in question?

[oni.dori]

Then how can you legally LUCC legally? I have heard that was just FUD.

[CitaDeL]

Yes, they are. The ENTIRE point of adhering to CA OC law was to be blatant and unmistakable, otherwise legal problems would ensue. You wouldn't be UOC'ing if you didn't want the attention from it, because there is really no "tactical" advantage gained from it that would outweigh the benefits. In a real conflict, you would make yourself more of a target than a protected individual. There is no way you would be able to draw and load your firearm to be effective in a split-second situation, let alone a standoff. Your assailant would instantaneously attack you the second they saw you trying to load your firearm in a standoff. They automatically have the advantage. The point of CC is discretion. Discretion gives you advantage. Carrying an already loaded firearm gives you an advantage. I am ALL ABOUT the unfair advantage, it saves lives. I support the right to OC, not UOC. UOC is pointless and counterproductive. If we had CC, I would wholeheartedly support a push for OC. CC is just more important, safer, and easier to achieve right now.

Who said anything about loading a firearm? And even if were were discussing UOC, I think we would be hard pressed to find a criminal who was enthusiastic about attacking anyone with a gun- the chance that the firearm is loaded is sufficient to keep most from trying.

How is CC not a right? I never said OC wasn't a right. However, there are certain ways you have to go about regaining both. Right now, CC is the best option. I never said I didn't want to see OC come back, I don't want to see UOC come back. It is utterly pointless in comparison (other than for gaining attention).

Concealed carry in California is completely discretionary. Even in counties that do issue licenses, you are being compelled to perform so you may exercise your right to self defense. You are compelled to make statements of innocence, subjected to extra scrutiny, molested as your fingerprints are seized, and must agree to comport yourself in the manner they dictate. If you do not perform to their satisfaction, the issuing agency can yank your license for any reason they want. Explain to me how one exercizes a right, through the approval of a government authority and the issuance of a revocable license.

Incorrect, it's called strategy. Once we have CC, it will be FAR easier to get OC back, LOADED OC. To demand the remenance of HALF of a right, at the expense of all the others is the definition of insanity (and no different than you are accusing me of). You are far to focused on the right in front of your nose to see the whole picture. Chess my friend, chess. There is a method to the madness.

The only 'remnants' of the second amendment in California are what you can have in the privacy of your own home. The legislature is almost wholly composed of those who intend to remove guns from every public venue. They intended this even before UOC 'parties' became popular and will continue their mission whether or not people carry openly or unloaded.

You're preaching about strategy to someone who recognizes that when you are surrounded and outnumbered 3 to 1 in enemy territory, what you do 'strategically' is completely irrelevant anymore. They will come to get you even if you do nothing at all. (Which isnt a strategy, but surrender.) I suppose that if we were to agree on one thing, it would be that one should not run directly into the line of fire, exposing remaining friendlies to the enemy, and claim to be a hero while doing so.

[clutch_dust]

I live in Rosamond which can barely be described as rural, so the whole urban riot theory is null, and I'm not planning on carrying a shotgun around just for the hell of it. I'm talking about loading up the saddlebags with clays and shells, throwing the 12 gauge on my back, and riding ~2 miles to go to a remote location to get some target practice with some friends.

[GearsCOG5]

Think about all these freaks that live around us, you dont think some old lady or stuck up soccer mom thats driving behind you isnt going to immediately pick up there phone and call the cops spouting off that some mad man is carrying around a gun. Your going to have a minimum of 5 squad cars behind you in a matter of minutes imo.

[warkaj]

And? So what. They're wasting their time. No law is being broken, they have no reason to detain you and IF they do... you're going to be a rich man once your attorney is done with them. The fact of the matter is this, all I see out of CalGuns is people spouting off "don't you UOC.... Don't you do it! you'll get it taken away from us".... well apparently you folks don't do it anyway so what do you care if it gets taken away? And if UOC for long rifles does get taken away then guess how many lawsuits will come down on this State? MILLIONS. Because then we have no way to exercise our 2A right and CA is on its way to a Shall Issue state. You can thank all us Godless UOC'ers you screamed at.

"A right not exercised is a right soon lost"... I guess we forgot that here.

And by the way, I'm UOC an AR-15 tomorrow... camo'd with all the bells and whistles. And I'm taking it there with my motorcycle. Yes.... I will be pulled over and yes I will be harassed. Do I care? NOPE. I'll also be wearing a vest under my bike jacket and wearing a helmet cam in case I get shot by some rookie cop I can give the video to my lawyer and laugh at the settlement I get.