Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 84

Thread: California Unloaded Open Carry - Take a break NOW (please)

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    It is very important for us to temporarily suspend activist Ca OC until 9/1/08 at least. This is for very well thought out strategic reasons. If you are a regular CA OCDO member PM me for an off linediscussion on this. For any NUBs/FNGs please studyour past OC posts and penalcode info.and do ask questions but don't Ca OC right now. Please know that this is very hard for me to ask this considering how successfully we have been pushing Ca OC for over two years.

    There are developments which I can't shareyet with everyone. But let me say that WE, the"California Corps" (of the national litigation "coalition" - Alan Gura, Chuck Michel, Calguns Foundation, NRA, CRPA, SAF, Pink Pistols, GOA, etc...,)are looking forward to taking some strong and unprecedented action in the not too distantfuture. Please be apart of this coordinated effort. Waitfor orders (yes I know this is hard with such an independent and determined group ofLibertyLovers!we have assembled here) and be patient.Read andre-read Hellerif you have to butalso prepare by recruiting members. Maybe pick out a new OC holster to go with your shoes. And also get aholster for the speciallady (or man)in your life

    Just take a break for the month of August.

    But PLEASE DO SUPPORTtheLegal Defense Fund of the US Marine FALSELY arrested on Independence Day, July 4th for lawful Ca. UOC.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    Bumping to keep this near the top for all to see. I still have much to read, study, learn, buy(proper equip.), practice, train etc. These things all take time. So, for me, your request is no imposition at all. Thanks to all of you for your significant efforts on this issue.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    I cannot financially support the cause at the moment, but Iwholeheartedly hope that your plans meet with success.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    As the thread description states, I have agreed to postpone my activism until further notice. I have been the most outspoken to criticize the request, and I was wrong. I have been let in on a little 'inside information' that leads me to believe this is for the best.

    I cannot tell you how hard this decision was to make, as I am a "live free or die" liberty lover. However, sometimes you gotta stop beating your head against that brick wall long enough to let the artillary work on it. Know that I understand your desire to know what the game plan is, but understand that this must be kept on the down low. You will have to make your choice based on your trust of Cato, ConditionThree, and me.


    I encourage you to continue to recruit people. Continue to do your research and keep up to speed on the current legal cases. Continue to hand out fliers at 'gun-friendly' businesses. Most importantly, continue to support the Calguns Foundation and the Madison Society. These two organizations have our best interests at their core... and they have the political/legal know-how to get us there.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Erie, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    108

    Post imported post

    With all due respect, I feel that this is a very brash request to make without sharing this "priviledged insider information", or at least legitamizing why you request desisting CA OC.

    I mean, the majority of people here don't know you from Adam. Maybe quantifying your statement with reason and fact would help?

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    steveforopen wrote:
    With all due respect, I feel that this is a very brash request to make without sharing this "priviledged insider information", or at least legitamizing why you request desisting CA OC.

    I mean, the majority of people here don't know you from Adam. Maybe quantifying your statement with reason and fact would help?

    There are many people that really dont know me from "Adam", but elected to take my word for it and imitate my open carry anyway without the benefit of legal counsel. I am in agreement with Cato and others, that circumstancesdictate a breif hiatus would be prudent. This is only a strategic move, nothing more.

    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    I'm not in California, and I don't know what the situation is, but as an outsider looking in I'll have to say that this seems like putting the cart before the horse here.

    What is the primary reason you carry? Is it merely for a political statement, or is it for your own personal protection? Now it would appear that you are asking fellow members to put themselves in danger and forgo their only means of protection for the apparent sake of putting yourselves in a better position politically.

    When mass shootings occur in gun free zones, I put a heavy load of blame on the creators of the gun free zones. It appears that you are now asking California to become a gun free zone. If people should choose to cooperate with your political strategy, I have nothing against them as they are willing to freely sacrifice their safety for a bigger goal. But for those who simply want to go about their life with the only measure of protection allowed to them by the state of California, I really wonder how you can ask them to stop.

    Again, I am but an outsider, I do not know what's going on in California, but any political statement I'm making is secondary to the primary purpose of protecting myself and my family.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    I'm not in California, and I don't know what the situation is, but as an outsider looking in I'll have to say that this seems like putting the cart before the horse here.

    What is the primary reason you carry? Is it merely for a political statement, or is it for your own personal protection? Now it would appear that you are asking fellow members to put themselves in danger and forgo their only means of protection for the apparent sake of putting yourselves in a better position politically.

    When mass shootings occur in gun free zones, I put a heavy load of blame on the creators of the gun free zones. It appears that you are now asking California to become a gun free zone. If people should choose to cooperate with your political strategy, I have nothing against them as they are willing to freely sacrifice their safety for a bigger goal. But for those who simply want to go about their life with the only measure of protection allowed to them by the state of California, I really wonder how you can ask them to stop.

    Again, I am but an outsider, I do not know what's going on in California, but any political statement I'm making is secondary to the primary purpose of protecting myself and my family.
    Here in CA, since our right to self defense is not protected by our state constitution, we are treading on political ground every time we carry. I agree that self defense is a high priority, and we don't take it lightly when we ask people not to open carry.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    steveforopen wrote:
    With all due respect, I feel that this is a very brash request to make without sharing this "priviledged insider information", or at least legitamizing why you request desisting CA OC.

    I mean, the majority of people here don't know you from Adam. Maybe quantifying your statement with reason and fact would help?
    I have to agree with you here. While I do trust cato, Ca_Libertarian, and ConditionThree, I think a little more needs to be explained. Is it that there are details that may effect a court case that shouldn't be discussed because it will be giving ammo to the DA? If so, just that much info would be useful.

    The only reasons I've heard for the suspension of OC are as follows:

    1 - There is some risk that SB 1171 could get reworded in emergency legislation into a sweeping new definition of loaded. If we lay low it will just die on 8/31.

    2 - Once Heller is incorporated via Nordyke, if you are arrested for legal OC, it becomes a civil rights violation by the arresting officer.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    asforme wrote:
    I'm not in California, and I don't know what the situation is, but as an outsider looking in I'll have to say that this seems like putting the cart before the horse here.

    What is the primary reason you carry? Is it merely for a political statement, or is it for your own personal protection? Now it would appear that you are asking fellow members to put themselves in danger and forgo their only means of protection for the apparent sake of putting yourselves in a better position politically.

    When mass shootings occur in gun free zones, I put a heavy load of blame on the creators of the gun free zones. It appears that you are now asking California to become a gun free zone. If people should choose to cooperate with your political strategy, I have nothing against them as they are willing to freely sacrifice their safety for a bigger goal. But for those who simply want to go about their life with the only measure of protection allowed to them by the state of California, I really wonder how you can ask them to stop.

    Again, I am but an outsider, I do not know what's going on in California, but any political statement I'm making is secondary to the primary purpose of protecting myself and my family.
    Here in CA, since our right to self defense is not protected by our state constitution, we are treading on political ground every time we carry. I agree that self defense is a high priority, and we don't take it lightly when we ask people not to open carry.


    The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations

    Article VI, U.S. Constitution
    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.



    The Supreme Court Ruling that reasonable regulations can be made is a direct violation of Article VI since any regulation is an "infringement" and reasonable is very subjective. I would hate to read about another victim but when it happens; I would like to read about the family filing suit against judges, legislators, police and everyone that infringed on the victim's right to bear arms.:X
    Your state, like mine and many others, have judges and politicians that refuse to honor their oath of office. Your state constitution is in conflict with the U.S. constitution and the people and legislators have to be reminded of that because it jeopardises all other rights. Some good readingare the Federalist Papers and the constitution. We have let the government go too far and should have taken action sooner. I hope you think about Article VI and can see how clear it is.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    I have to concur. There's no real "insider information" but it the UOC movement hasn't gotten on the radar of the California Legislature (they are just damned aloof).

    Basically, the SB1171 is for real, and a possible threat to UOC. Here's what we face. If SB1171 is gutted and amended to completely ban open carry, there is literally no chance of going to a federal court and asking for a preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the act at this stage, because the 2nd amendment is not incorporated onto the 9th circuit, yet....

    The previous interlocutory appeal of the Nordyke case indicated some very strong individual rights and pro incorporation statements in the statements by Judges O'Scainnlain and Gould, the only wild card being Judge Alarcon. O'Scannlain's court is based in Oregon, and Gould's located in Washington State, both states with strong RKBA provisions in their state constitutions.

    UOC will get the Legislature's attention probably next year, however by the time it passes the judges panel in Nordyke will incorporate the 2nd, which makes it highly likely that a federal lawsuit challenging a new full out open carry ban will have a preliminary injunction. Also, any law enforcement officer would be PERSONALLY liable for any RKBA rights violations. The cops in California have been all too willing to throw LAC's (Law abiding citizens) under the bus for perceived technical violations of the law, it's time to turn the tables on them.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    UOC will get the Legislature's attention probably next year, however by the time it passes the judges panel in Nordyke will incorporate the 2nd, which makes it highly likely that a federal lawsuit challenging a new full out open carry ban will have a preliminary injunction.
    Is it really plausible that a 3-judge panel will rule in favor of incorporation? It's true that Heller questioned the rationale behind U.S. v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois and suggested that those cases are ripe for reconsideration, but there is also plenty of precedent saying that only the U.S. Supreme Court can overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It seems like a circuit court panel would be extremely reluctant to hold that the right to bear arms is incorporated when a much safer course of action is to discuss why that's the correct result but conclude with "unfortunately, our hands are tied by binding precedent and any corrective action will have to be taken by the Supremes." That's SOP in such cases (where existing Supreme Court precedent has been broughtinto serious question by subsequent cases)and all the commentary I've seen (on legal blogs etc) seems to agree that that's the most likely outcome of the post-Heller cases challenging state and local laws. The incorporation battle is winnable, but it will likely have to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    If indeed such a request came from the legal team dealing with this issue in CA, it would seem to be a wise move to accede to the request.

    Idon't know the poster, or what his position, if any, with these groups is norI have not seen the request elsewhere.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    ilbob wrote:
    If indeed such a request came from the legal team dealing with this issue in CA, it would seem to be a wise move to accede to the request.

    Idon't know the poster, or what his position, if any, with these groups is norI have not seen the request elsewhere.

    The request originated over on the CalGuns.net forums. And it comes from Gene Hoffmang of the CalGuns Foundation. There is nobody that I have higher regard for than this individual when it comes to fighting for firearms rights in California.

    Again, the reason's I've heard for therequest are,

    1 - There is some risk that SB 1171 could get reworded in emergency legislation into a sweeping new definition of loaded. If we lay low it will just die on 8/31.

    2 - Once Heller is incorporated via Nordyke, if you are arrested for legal OC, it becomes a civil rights violation by the arresting officer.





  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I feel that INDIVIDUAL OC should be approached and maybe stopped, but that GROUP meetings are still the order of the day.

    But maybe that is me.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    Seems like much ado about nothing. Between the landmines of school zones, car carry, and the guarantee of LEO harassment, it's nearly impossible to carry all the time for protection in CA no matter what the current law says.

    "Don't exercise your rights or people will get scared and ban it." Where have I heard that before?

    Californians are basically screwed on the carry issue until something happens to incorporate the second amendment, *and* the laws on the books are challenged, *and* the politicians are forced to comply (ala D.C.).

    Good luck. I corrected the problem by moving slightly east.

  18. #18
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    bobernet wrote:
    Californians are basically screwed on the carry issue until something happens to incorporate the second amendment, *and* the laws on the books are challenged, *and* the politicians are forced to comply (ala D.C.).
    Something is happening! Patience is sadly required. I don't know if I fully agree with all concerns from the "right people" but I've learned from watching the significant victories gained in bringing in "evil" black rifle lower receivers and "banned" pistolsto trust certain people. Taking a month long hiatus from UOC is a small sacrifice to build trust with other groups and individualswho have their finger on the pulse of CA's legislative realities and whoshare our goals. And are willing to backwrongfully accused Californiansfinancially insome cases.

    As always, now or in the future we must push "smart" UOC tactics. That means placing oneself in a legally tactical superior position with witnesses, video, and audio while carrying our brochures and being surewe are not in626.9 PC and171 b zonesetc...and obeying local ordinances until they are overturned.

    Next year will be more exciting then this our"summer of Heller". I can't wait!

    Just take a break for the month of August.

    But PLEASE DO SUPPORTtheLegal Defense Fund of the US Marine FALSELY arrested on Independence Day, July 4th for lawful Ca. UOC.




    photo by oleg volk:

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    bobernet wrote:
    "Don't exercise your rights or people will get scared and ban it." Where have I heard that before?
    If the Legislature bans open carry in the next month, due to the lack of Second Amendment caselaw in the 9th Circuit (Hickman, Kasler, and Fresno Rifle has been wiped out), there is no way that a judge can be convinced to put in a preliminary injunction to stop that law from being enforced. Typically, in first amendment cases, we have case law that states that if there's a fundamental right being at issue, and the question is unknown as to whether or not the law is constitutional under the 1st amendment, a preliminary injunction should be granted due to the fundamental nature of the right.

    If the Leg does that next year rather than in the next 30 days, post-Nordyke incorporation cases, then the likelyhood of a preliminary injunction being granted goes up exponentially.

    I'd rather have a preliminary injunction putting a hold on the law change to ban open carry than deal with no prelim injunction and causing all of us to be unable to open carry AT ALL for 2 to 3 years.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    When someone has been working hard on something for your benefit, and they say, "Hey, we need this little bit of help from everyone," what's the harm in giving that little bit of help?

    Not everything can be posted on the Internet--the other side doesn't give away the game-plan and you can't either. Quarterbacks don't loudly announce, "Hey, let's run this play!" Any answer that is provided will be followed by another question and another until everyone has heard the answer they want. Unfortunately, everyone wants to hear a different answer.

    Most pro-rights people aren't happy with the DC-vs-Heller decision because they want it to go farther, never mind it's the best and biggest decision in a long time, and lays the groundwork for other wins. Instantly, lawsuits were filed in Illinois and California. Heller wasn't allowed to register his automatic, and a lawsuit is being filed for that. Change is happening, please understand that.

    If you want the inside track, you have to be the one doing the heavy lifting. If you're not willing to do the hard work and still want the change, you have to do the little things the people who are hard at work are fighting for. Nobody is asking for money, they're asking for a small favor.
    "Just take a break for the month of August." Nothing was said about July and I can't read minds. It is important to say exactly what you mean even when the details are best left out. We want to do this right, don't we?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Santa Clarita, California, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    If Hoffman, Cato, ConditionThree, and CA_Libertarian are on board, then so am I. The really convincing thing is that CA_Libertarian has hopped on the "postpone OC" bandwagon. He seemed to be strongly against the idea at first, but since he's changed his mind, so have I. I admittedly don't OC everywhere, but I do it enough to potentially get noticed by the police cars that constantly crawl my neighborhood.

    If a series of court decisions over the next few months can bring constitutionally protected loaded OC (as seems genuinely possible) to my hip, then I'm all for doing almost whatever it takes to get there. Shall-issue CCW will hopefully fall in place shortly thereafter We might actually have gun rights that are recognized in CA.

  22. #22
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    We've alreadyshown that our interpretation of 12031 is correct. By UOCing now we gain nothing substantial legislatively or constitutionally.and we have no tools yet to removethis law and solve the problems is causes.

    What we have done in CA over the last several years is demonstrate that UOC can be accepted or a least acknowledged as legal by Leos (San Diego, Sacramento, Turlockand others). What we have demonstrated is that people, by a huge percentage,do NOT over react to the peaceful open carry of a holstered defensive sidearm in Ca. What we have done is shown the way to many who would rather CC, but now accept, that support or OC as the protected 2nd A. right(soon),is perhaps the most direct method to get what they want.

    Now is the time to gird our armor and get ready for the next fight. That will happen after incorporation. And I suspect the numbers who flock to our ranks, encouraged by key influential groups and individuals within certain state level groups, will be our reward for patience at this time.

    If one is concerned for one's safety, following PC 12026.1(a)using a locked briefcase, fanny back, or Bagmaster (TM)belt packis aviable option.


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    PubliusCA wrote:
    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    UOC will get the Legislature's attention probably next year, however by the time it passes the judges panel in Nordyke will incorporate the 2nd, which makes it highly likely that a federal lawsuit challenging a new full out open carry ban will have a preliminary injunction.
    [snip] but there is also plenty of precedent saying that only the U.S. Supreme Court can overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
    It may seem like a small point, but only a constitutional amendment can overturn a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court can, and does, reverse itself.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Turlock, California, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Are you guys discouraging all open carry? I'd still like to carry at my residence and on my prop, but I'd like to help in our cause, so let me know.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Antelope, California, USA
    Posts
    96

    Post imported post

    Californian wrote:
    Are you guys discouraging all open carry? I'd still like to carry at my residence and on my prop, but I'd like to help in our cause, so let me know.
    Welcome... and to answer your question, this is still completely fine. There's no real danger of causing public panic or LEO contact (I'm assuming here).

    It's the open carrying in public that we are restraining from.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •