Open Carry in California marches

imported post

Sounds like a good idea although I don't agree with some ofthe seemingly "Pushier" stuff coming out of the Gay Rights movement. I'm getting a bit nervous that religions/churches will have their rights infringed with some of the stuff being kicked around. I haven't looked into it too deep but stuff like churches possibly losing the right to refuse to marry a gay couple for religious reasonsseems like it's on it's way.


There's been no case in the United States where a church has lost their tax exemption or been threatened with any form of prosecution of fine for refusal to marry a same gendered couple. There certainly have been cases where a person running a public accomodation were fined, and they used their religious belief as a defense. That was the case in New Mexico that was talking about the photographer and the commitment ceremony. New Mexico has no legal same gender marriage.

You also can't use the case in Massachusetts either. An private adoption agency ran by the Catholic Church in Massachusetts was regulated and licensed by the Commonwealth. The Church agency engaged in discriminatory behavior against same gendered couples, they violated the terms of their adoption licensing, and they were sued. They got out of the adoption business. Again, not the same situation as refusing to marry. There are plenty of churches that WILL married same gendered couples, from the Metropolitan Community Churches (Christian), to other accepting religious organizations, as well as government justices of the peace (the judges who marry you in the courthouse). Why would the mainstream gay population ever call for forcing religious churches that hate their existence to marry them? It seems stupid considering that there's plenty of other options, ranging from the secular (marrying in the courthouse) to the very accepting (MCC).

Instead of watching the commercials and believing them blindly, check the facts. The kind of accusations coming out of the Pro-Prop 8 folks down in California are no different than the anti-gunners deliberately misrepresenting the facts about gun owners and their activities.

imported post

Don't have a problem with a gun rights parade.

I will not however, participate in a Gay Rights parade. I will not give tacit approval for Gay Rights just because a small percentage support my Gun Rights.

Not a Gay Basher, just not down with the public display of anything I wouldn't want a 10 year old to see, and I wouldn't want any 10 year old to see the sexually explicit exploits that occur inGay Rights parades.



I'm voting YES on Prop 8.

The Reverend Decoligny

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

I'm voting YES on Prop 8.

Click to expand...

Why waste your time?

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

I'm voting YES on Prop 8.

Click to expand...

Why waste your time?

Click to expand...

Despite the fact that I disagree with his opinion and his vote for Prop 8, voting is NEVER a waste of time.

-Lonnie

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

Don't have a problem with a gun rights parade.

I will not however, participate in a Gay Rights parade. I will not give tacit approval for Gay Rights just because a small percentage support my Gun Rights.

Click to expand...

Then don't. Let me and Nicki march instead. No one is forcing you to march anywhere near the "Gay rights" crowd.

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

Don't have a problem with a gun rights parade.

I will not however, participate in a Gay Rights parade. I will not give tacit approval for Gay Rights just because a small percentage support my Gun Rights.

Click to expand...

Then don't. Let me and Nicki march instead. No one is forcing you to march anywhere near the "Gay rights" crowd.

Click to expand...

Never said you shouldn't. Just stating that I won't, and why. I am all for everyone's right to defend themselves against any attacker. I just will not compromise my personal beliefs in one area to further my personal beliefs in another. I am by no means a pragmatist.

Anyone who wishes to support the Pink Pistols in the parade, more power to you.

Just thought I would at least put forth my thoughts about mixing the messages.

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

Never said you shouldn't. Just stating that I won't, and why. I am all for everyone's right to defend themselves against any attacker. I just will not compromise my personal beliefs in one area to further my personal beliefs in another. I am by no means a pragmatist.

Anyone who wishes to support the Pink Pistols in the parade, more power to you.

Just thought I would at least put forth my thoughts about mixing the messages.

Click to expand...

Possibly, however that there are those of us who are in BOTH communities who won't hide away from what they are.

Nicki put out there the possibility of some of this community, who are comfortable and accepting of the situation, to be part of the open carry demonstration at SF Pride or in the Castro District.

Better to ask the question than not ask at all.

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

I'm voting YES on Prop 8.

Click to expand...

Why waste your time?

Click to expand...

Despite the fact that I disagree with his opinion and his vote for Prop 8, voting is NEVER a waste of time.

-Lonnie

Click to expand...

I was being a smartass.

Anyway, I don't see what "mixed messages" are implied. The Pink Pistols are a RKBA group. Only they focus on gays for their membership base, just like the JPFO does with Jews. Neither group wants to establish rights only for themselves and to the exclusion of others. They're just using pre-existing social groups to unite members on specific issues.

It's meant to give them a voice on the issue, not to exclude non-gays. It's a way of trying to get the gay community (which is currently pretty anti-RKBA) to recognize why the RKBA should be important to each of them. It's not an attempt to get special rights just for gays. The Pink Pistols are a RKBA group formed by primarily gay members, nothing else. If they get their way, we get our way. There is no mixed message.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Decoligny wrote:

I'm voting YES on Prop 8.

Click to expand...

Why waste your time?

Click to expand...

Despite the fact that I disagree with his opinion and his vote for Prop 8, voting is NEVER a waste of time.

-Lonnie

Click to expand...

I was being a smartass.

Anyway, I don't see what "mixed messages" are implied. The Pink Pistols are a RKBA group. Only they focus on gays for their membership base, just like the JPFO does with Jews. Neither group wants to establish rights only for themselves and to the exclusion of others. They're just using pre-existing social groups to unite members on specific issues.

It's meant to give them a voice on the issue, not to exclude non-gays. It's a way of trying to get the gay community (which is currently pretty anti-RKBA) to recognize why the RKBA should be important to each of them. It's not an attempt to get special rights just for gays. The Pink Pistols are a RKBA group formed by primarily gay members, nothing else. If they get their way, we get our way. There is no mixed message.

Click to expand...

The mixed message is not in what they are saying or supporting, it is what I would be saying if I marched.

The mixed message would be if I were to march with the Pink Pistols, in a Gay Rights parade,I would be giving a mixed message that I not only support RKBA, but that I also support theagenda being put forth in the Gay Rights parade. I do not.

This is the mixed message that I will not put forth.

If you support the both messages, then please, by all means march.

imported post

Well, before anyone gets to name calling and such. . .

I think Decolignyhas a point. If he does not wish to march I think it is in his right. I hope this doesn't turn into a discussion about what is right ot wrong or why.

My feeling is that the Pinks represent gun rights. By marching with them I lend my support for RKBA. Now, I feel RKBA is a universal right regardless of gender, religion, sexual orientation or political affiliation. So I will march with the Pinks.

The remainingquestion is does the parade stand for gay lifestyles, or gay rights? I bet the later is the winner.

imported post

Hi all, I'm a new member. Just signed up today, although I've been lurking here since May of this year. I'm a big supporter of the movement.

This thread finally made me register and start posting. I think have a pro-gun rights group at the gay pride parade would be awesome for a couple of reasons.

First and most important is that it frames the 2A right within a context that the Anti-guns in SF can actually understand. It removes the partisan nature of the 2A debate. Second, it would be so satisfying to strap on my Glock and go walking around in Newsomes town.

I would consider doing this had I never seen a pride parade. I think that a lot of the behavior that happens during pride parades is antagonistic, vulgar and unecessary. I wouldn't expect to be able to dress my girlfriend in lingerie and strap on a leather banana hammock and go walk down a public street making obscene gestures.
:celebrate
I wonder how much of that show is for shock value and how much is really for advancing gay/human rights. This is where the message has a chance to be confused.
Let me just say that I'm for human rights for all and I have many close friends who are gay. But I think that lewdness of the behavior typical at pride parades is what will keep most people, including me from participating in a march as proposed in this thread. But I do support the Pink Pistols group and I hope they do make a large showing in SF in '09.

imported post

Cass wrote:

SNIP... it would be so satisfying to strap on my Glock and go walking around in Newsomes town.

Click to expand...

Tell me about it. :lol:

And by the way, welcome to the forum! I'm happy to see this thread attracting new members; I think it's ideas like this that may finally get some serious grassroots activism underway here in CA.

imported post

OK somebody research SF. Find a place where UOC is no crime and lets make this happen!!! Lets take this fight to into the belly of the beast!!!!!!!!!!

Nicki, I'm not talking aboutthe parade but just a normalOC meet up for lunch or dinner in SF (pinks welcome too). I'm down for the pink pistols color guard too; National,State and Rainbow Flag (I'll have to kinda bite my tongue but I'll survive in the name of taking the fight to SF )

Lonnie, you'll need to spend some political capitol andask some Washingtonians and Origonians to join us. Lets have thewhole of the Left coast join us and support the2nd A (second to none) in California in 2009!!!!!!!!



art work by Oleg Volk:

imported post

cato wrote:

OK somebody research SF. Find a place where UOC is no crime and lets make this happen...

Click to expand...

I was hoping to do something a bit sooner than 2009, but if Lonnie wants to help organize, I think it would be worth the wait to make this a big event. Heck, if we time this right, it could even be a huge Nordyke Incorporation Celebration.

I think we should definitely invite pink pistols to join us, though I think we should make it clear this is an open carry lunch. I have nothing against them, and would gladly march hand-in-hand with them another day to oppose Prop 8. I want this lunch/dinner to be just about the 2nd Amendment.

I would love to spearhead the planning of this event. However, I would like some help. The biggest hurdle in the past meetup was finding a venue that was not within 1,000' of a school. I've been to SF twice in my life, and both were on bus tours when I was in grade school. So I have no concept of the lay of the land over there.

Perhaps someone familiar with SF could help me do some research. If you want to help please PM me.

imported post

(Sorry Nicki, I thread highjacked ya.)

Haven't read 626.9 in a while but isn't private prop. exempt exempt? So locked case onto the private parking lot, place into open holsterand then walk into thebusiness is then no crime? So then 1000' is not a consideration unless someone crosses onto the public sidewalk/roadway.

Time to reread it....:banghead:

Ok, it hasa pretty cut and dried clear exemption for private property. But I don't think many places in SF have their own parking. Hmmmmm...

626.9. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the
Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person
knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written
permission of the school district superintendent, his or her
designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as
specified in subdivision (f).
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful...

Click to expand...

Still a locked case can get one to the restauraunt if an otherwise prohibited school zone needs to be crossed.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Perhaps someone familiar with SF could help me do some research.  If you want to help please PM me.

Click to expand...

Come on man, I live here! What do you want me to do?

I can start "researching" venues right now, but I'll point out in advance that there's basically no way to get into the city without passing near a school, so we'll all need to be locked up until we get to whatever venue we select. Not that this will be anything new... :banghead:

imported post

626.9. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995. (b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e)

Click to expand...

I know that many people disagree with me, but this to me is a clear but cloudy statement.

My inerpritation of this is:

• If the average person can not determine an area to be within the 1000 ft. zone prior to entering one
• If you do not travel the area on a regular basis
• You are not from the local area in and around the zone
• You don't look up the location and measure using a mapping guide

You can not be guilty of this section.

So unless there is a school in imediate proximity to the area we plan to meed I hold that we not be scared.

Besides, OC'ing in a school zone while making a 1A protected political statement would be a great venue to dispute the law creating an unlawful exemption for CCW permit holders and not OC'ers...It could be a 2 birds, 1 stone kind of thing.

The only other question is if the PRK have made it illegal to possess a gun while making a political statement or demonstration like some states have....

imported post

Theseus wrote:

626.9. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995. (b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e)

Click to expand...

I know that many people disagree with me, but this to me is a clear but cloudy statement.

My inerpritation of this is:

• If the average person can not determine an area to be within the 1000 ft. zone prior to entering one
• If you do not travel the area on a regular basis
• You are not from the local area in and around the zone
• You don't look up the location and measure using a mapping guide

You can not be guilty of this section.

So unless there is a school in imediate proximity to the area we plan to meed I hold that we not be scared.

Besides, OC'ing in a school zone while making a 1A protected political statement would be a great venue to dispute the law creating an unlawful exemption for CCW permit holders and not OC'ers...It could be a 2 birds, 1 stone kind of thing.

The only other question is if the PRK have made it illegal to possess a gun while making a political statement or demonstration like some states have....

Click to expand...

The jury will determine if you knew, or reasonably should have known, that you were in a school zone. Until we have Heller incorporated, I would say it would be unwise to test these waters.

imported post

Well, we can get into that argument again all day long.

I still think that in some cases we are being EXTRA careful. I don't want to go to far off topic on this, but I remember a state, CA maybe even that struck down similar laws because there is the CCW exemption creating two classes of people....I believe it was in relation to parks...but I will look for it.

Sometimes shells need to be walked on.

But as suggested we don't need to worry about the rules. Just pick a place and carry sidearms in a locked case until you arrive at the meeting place, then whip that bad boy out.

imported post

Has anyone not actually on school grounds ever been arrested for 626.9? I doubt it very much. I bet most LEO, aside from campus police, even know the PC section.

As for post-Heller. I think we'll be stuck with school zones for many years, if not forever. From the Heller descision:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Click to expand...