• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Stand down?!

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

camsoup wrote:
cato wrote:
Sons of Liberty wrote:
I honestly do not know where these guys are coming from?!



They've financially and legally backed several UOCers which resulted in NO charges being filed in those cases.
Hows the saying go?  " A right unexercised is a right lost"?

 That's right we haven't lost it for good...only until June 2010 :shock:


Look how far the OC movement has come in this state, how did we get there?? People willing to exercise their right to OC on the streets, officers receiving new training, new memos, new bulletins issued, officers interacting with OC'ers in the real world.

To me, stopping open carry in CA until June 2010 at the earliest possible time would be a massive step back. All that training could be forgotten, the memos and bulletins forgotten if not rescinded (due to no more "threat" of lawsuits from people who are no longer putting themselves in a position to be violated in the first place). Veterans will retire, lateral transfers to other departments in the state will occur. LE awareness of OC will not be anywhere close to the level it is now if we hide for the better part of a year, and probably much longer because SCOTUS will not be ruling on loaded open carry unrestricted by permits, school zones, or other fake sensitive zones created by the government.

The claim has often been made that LEOs deal with so many people they can hardly be expected to know who leaders of the OC movement are even if they've been stopped and illegally IDed multiple times. Well if they don't stop anyone at all, then it's reasonable to expect they would not have OCers fresh in their mind past June 2010 (again, at the earliest possible time).
 

Old Timer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
49
Location
, ,
imported post

JC wrote:
So......just to be clear. The UOC public is being asked, by Calguns to voluntarily waiveour 2A rights . . .
I think you may have missed the point. What Gene is saying is that you have no 2nd Amendment rights in California. Until incorporation the 2nd Amendment does not apply to us. Therefore if you open carry you will not be able to claim your rights (which you don't have) were violated. He is saying wait until there is some solid case law on record before ocing. :)
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

Old Timer wrote:
JC wrote:
So......just to be clear. The UOC public is being asked, by Calguns to voluntarily waiveour 2A rights . . .
I think you may have missed the point. What Gene is saying is that you have no 2nd Amendment rights in California. Until incorporation the 2nd Amendment does not apply to us. Therefore if you open carry you will not be able to claim your rights (which you don't have) were violated. He is saying wait until there is some solid case law on record before ocing. :)
Exactly.

There are two sides to this argument, and I feel like I can argue them both equally as well, which sadly leaves me in a position where I am confused and afraid of shadows and clowns.

I know a lot of us have little desire to ask our government permission to do something we see as a right. But I can see times when I'd want to carry concealed (in the winter). There are a lot of people who have no desire to carry openly, for whatever reason. While I think they're not seeing the full picture, and that they will eventually come around to liking OC, I do hope that they can get their CCW if that's their preferred carry method.

At the same time, I totally see why somebody would want to continue UOCing. I certainly wouldn't want to be caught without a gun when I needed one (and for some reason LUCC wasn't an option). I also wouldn't want to take what I know is a fundamental human right and discard it as if it wasn't one. Every person has the right to defend themselves, and the second and fourteenth amendments couldn't be clearer in their intention. The UOC movement has come so far in this state. Before we had to educate every single police officer about the law, and now a lot of them already know about UOC. Why would we want to take a step back from all this forward progress we've made?

I hate to say it though, I think Gene's way is the practical way, and the "continue UOCing anyway" way is the idealistic way.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

Old Timer wrote:
JC wrote:
So......just to be clear. The UOC public is being asked, by Calguns to voluntarily waive our 2A rights . . .
I think you may have missed the point. What Gene is saying is that you have no 2nd Amendment rights in California. Until incorporation the 2nd Amendment does not apply to us. Therefore if you open carry you will not be able to claim your rights (which you don't have) were violated. He is saying wait until there is some solid case law on record before ocing. :)

It's been said on other threads that 4A rights are being violated, even with the 2A totally out of the picture. So 4A claims continue to be valid.
 

Old Timer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
49
Location
, ,
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
There are two sides to this argument, and I feel like I can argue them both equally as well, which sadly leaves me in a position where I am confused and afraid of shadows and clowns.
I know the feeling! I am on both sides of this issue. I believe in States Rights to the point that I agree with General Robert E. Lee, when asked to be the commanding General of the Army of the Potomac (US Army) he replied, "I am first a Virginian, then an American!" The rest is history.

But, on the other hand, I believe the US Constitution applies to each and every American regardless of the State in which they reside. So, I tend to be on both sides of the fence on the States Rights issue.

Regarding OCing, I can see merit in both sides of the argument. As I see the 2nd Amendment as being a fundamental right I can't imagine any state saying that it does not apply without incorporation and therefore, in my opinion, OCing is a fundamental right. However, until I have some case law on my side I am not willing to be the test case, nor would I enjoy seeing some reactionary legislation passed that will require additional litigation to overcome, so I can see merit in the position being taken the CGF, et elii.

Talk about fence straddling! :D
 

Old Timer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
49
Location
, ,
imported post

N6ATF wrote:
It's been said on other threads that 4A rights are being violated, even with the 2A totally out of the picture. So 4A claims continue to be valid.
Well, on closer inspection, maybe not. If there is no fundamental right to carry a gun, then carrying a gun may be viewed as RAS for the detention and search. :(
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

Old Timer wrote:
N6ATF wrote:
It's been said on other threads that 4A rights are being violated, even with the 2A totally out of the picture. So 4A claims continue to be valid.
Well, on closer inspection, maybe not. If there is no fundamental right to carry a gun, then carrying a gun may be viewed as RAS for the detention and search. :(

All the pre-incorporation case law people keep quoting seems to indicate detention and search are illegal if gun carrying is not made 100% (unconstitutionally) prohibited at the circumstance of the detention and search.

Just because 2A might as well not exist doesn't mean the 4A and 5A are waived and it is open season on forced identification, self-incrimination, and unreasonable searches and seizures.

Otherwise the ACLU probably wouldn't be bothering with their suit in Colorado in support of a gun owner. Even they recognize 4A and 5A are inviolate, no matter what.
 

JC

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
12
Location
San Diego, California, USA
imported post

Old Timer wrote:
JC wrote:
So......just to be clear. The UOC public is being asked, by Calguns to voluntarily waiveour 2A rights . . .
I think you may have missed the point. What Gene is saying is that you have no 2nd Amendment rights in California. Until incorporation the 2nd Amendment does not apply to us. Therefore if you open carry you will not be able to claim your rights (which you don't have) were violated. He is saying wait until there is some solid case law on record before ocing. :)
I have those rights because in order for CA to have joined the Union it had to submit to the letter of the Constitution.



Yeah, I am an Idealist so sue me.:cool:
 

VAReact

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
10
Location
Hell, eh?, ,
imported post

Well, if no one had 2nd amendment rights in CA before Nordyke, the WHY DID ANYONE EVER UOC BEFORE THE DECISION?!? Or is this 4th amendment territory?
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
imported post

VAReact wrote:
Well, if no one had 2nd amendment rights in CA before Nordyke, the WHY DID ANYONE EVER UOC BEFORE THE DECISION?!? Or is this 4th amendment territory?
Depends on who you ask. Some would say that I am an attention whore. I tend to believe that I have the right regardless of the percieved disposition of the second in California.
 

camsoup

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
167
Location
Red Bluff, California, USA
imported post

Old Timer wrote:
JC wrote:
So......just to be clear. The UOC public is being asked, by Calguns to voluntarily waiveour 2A rights . . .
I think you may have missed the point. What Gene is saying is that you have no 2nd Amendment rights in California. Until incorporation the 2nd Amendment does not apply to us. Therefore if you open carry you will not be able to claim your rights (which you don't have) were violated. He is saying wait until there is some solid case law on record before ocing. :)
Robbing this post from Tom in another thread

flintlock tom wrote:
What I don't understand is why this doesn't count as "incorporation":

Code:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Why doesn't this incorporate the 2nd and ALL other portions of the US constitution??


I dont think LE is going to violate my 2A rights when I OC, I fear they will try violate my 4A rights, whether I am OC'ing or simply in public crossing the street.
 

TatankaGap

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
193
Location
Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
Sons of Liberty wrote:
I honestly do not know where these guys are coming from?!

They come from being in the fight for years placing livelihoods, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line. They've saved lawful gun owners (including UOCers) from aggressive DAs and multiple felonies and the loss of Rights. THEY (us) have raised nearly $100,000+ in the lastcouple years for various legal fights. THEY ARE suing the State of CA and the District of Columbia in Federal Court.

They've financially and legallybacked several UOCers which resulted in NO charges being filed in those cases.

THEY are individuals here, on calguns.net, and those who started The Calguns Foundation. THEY are Civil Rights litigants Alan Gura (victor of Heller v DC), Don Kilmer and Don Kates of Nordyke v King (who have worked nearly for free for a decade on YOUR behalf). THEY are the Second Amendment Foundation, NRA, CRPA, and the Madison Society.

THEY ARE US speaking openly about strategies which would be better kept secret. But to keep our coalition united these things must be spoken about openly.

UOC or LOC will, IMO, play a strategic part in securing our Rights. But we are akin to a specialty or elite unit suited for a selected strategic target at a selected time. The bravery exhibited here with the risks takento personal liberty and personal fortunes tell me that I'm in the best of company. You ALL exhibit the characteristics of what makesour American Republic the best place on Earth. I salute ALL of you for being a part of this.

I've been here since the beginning when it was only Condition Three carrying and me advising. It is my considered opinion that with the way the political and legal cardsare being dealt that it is not yet the time for our unit to play it's part in this battle.

What we want to avoid is a Dunkirk. New legislation that can't be stopped by injunctions or suits when there is no legal Right established is just that.

Waiting (again:X)for incorporation is wise. We've suffered for 70 years with the fall out from Miller and 40 years from the Mulford Act (12031) so lets be wise and pick our battles on the ground of our choosing with conditions favorable to the Self Defense Human Rights Victory we all seek.
I concur with the above. Each person must make their own decision as to how to defend their personal safety and homes and families - I do not UOC as a general rule, but I always LOC when in the mountains (lawfully in unincorporated areas not having shooting bans) - because there are bears and tweekers in the mountains and deputies are at least 2 hours away if you can find a cellphone signal to call one -

But that's me - I go to places out in the woods because there are less people and more wilderness there and that's how I like it. Outside CA, where my permits are respected I CC all the time.

If necessary, I'll LUCC in restricted areas and I have a vest for highly restricted areas that prohibit any form of carry (e.g., courthouses) - none of this involves education or activism.

For activism, I have UOC'd only when working specifically on UOC projects - and I believe that for the time being, for my personal situation, I can open carry an empty holster filled with the Constitution for political expression and I can carry LUCC in a fanny pack if needed for quick access to self-defense -

IMHO, it's not a bad idea to let the LEO protocols and educational campaign percolate for a few months until the 2A incorporation issue is resolved - there is much education and activism to be accomplished to make OC safer for everyone - and to properly follow up on the courageous efforts by CA OCers to establish 'beachheads' throughout CA -

It would honor the work of our colleagues (the "THEY") mentioned in the above post and further align with them rather than feed into any schism - there is no reason for us to feed into any 'divide & conquer' energy -

And the above post mentioned some very specific instances in which a legislative foul play in Sacto can cause post-Heller, post-incorporation suffering to the gun owners of CA - none of us want a Dunkirk here.

IMHO, it is paramount to get 'shall issue' to be the law of the land in CA - in shall issue states, the computer decides - the police are not allowed to even ask why you want a permit or why you want to carry a gun - IMHO, that's the way it should be IMHO - 'shall issue' opens up a societal understanding and acceptance of the RKBA that can only be obtained through mass hands on experience with firearms - which is typically becomes widespread after 'shall issue' passes -

I believe we would be kicking ourselves hard if some failure to achieve 'shall issue' were the fault of the OCers -

As responsible people, we can make up our minds when to exercise our rights and when to exercise our brains. Choosing to refrain from aggressive OC strategies during the time that the incorporation issue is being resolved, makes a lot of sense to me.

Some day, you'll be trying to explain all these hassles to your grandkids and they won't understand because CA's oppressive, unconstitutional and anachronistic gun laws will have been invalidated and completely replaced by a set of laws made by equally insane legislators bent on frustrating the RKBA but which at least will be forced to pass basic constitutional muster (compelling gov't purpose; least restrictive means to achieve it; etc.)

In the meantime, good travel deals can be had to South Dakota where we can host everyone in the Black Hills and you can OC 24/7/365 ;)
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

"A Right Unexercised Is A Right Lost!" Yes. And the Right was lost if we ever had a federal one which applied to the statesbefore 1803. Before we can not unexercise it ;) we need to get it back without taking two steps backward at the same time.

The vast majority ofother states on our OC map have a state court protected "right" to open carry licensed or unlicensed. We only have the legislature's "good" graces until such time as we get a court protected Right (most likely)through the efforts of CGF and SAF.
 
Top