Pittsburgh City Council baits gun owners with proposed G-20 gun ban

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I fail to understand the point of this? Mike nailed it, but it could be elaborated upon.

If the cops ask me to disperse, and I have a gun, am I automatically breaking a law? If their request is bogus and unlawful?

It looks like a way to target people who know their rights, and make sure only the willing sheeple will ever peaceably assemble.

Click to expand...

Mike and I tend to look at these things from a legal perspective (although one would be wise to remember that Mike has graduated and I am only at the beginning of my second year).

Having said that, there are a few points I would like to make about this particular topic.

1) Pittsburgh is subject to Pennsylvania's firearms preemption law. They have tried to tap-dance around this by making the operative clause in the ordinance "if they appear to be trying to disrupt police crowd dispersal." As Mike pointed out, if you disrupt police crowd dispersal activities WITHOUT a gun, you are subject to arrest, so the ordinance is largely symbolic. In order to have standing to challenge this ordinance, you have to be arrested for possessing one of the prohibited firearms AND appearing to be trying to disrupt police crowd dispersal. In other words, you have to commit an actual crime which none of us would ever do.

2) Mike and I have said it before but it bears repeating here. The rule when given an order by a law enforcement officer is to comply while documenting the misconduct for future legal action (via video or audio recorder, witnesses, and getting the officer's contact info). Arguing legal or constitutional issues on the scene with an officer who is misinformed or acting in bad faith will accomplish nothing other than an arrest that you will have to pay thousands to redress. While these types of cases, when carried through to a proper end, can do a great job of educating law enforcement and paving the way for future open carriers, do not set yourself up to be a test case that you are not prepared emotionally or financially to see all the way through.

3) I am still wondering why the G20 is the target of such animosity. You should remember that those who normally protest things like the G20 are not the best company while open carrying.

4) Scoped rifles? WTF? We want to normalize the open carry of firearms in normal life. How about a properly holstered handgun?

5) Before anyone accuses me otherwise, I absolutely believe in the right to open carry rifles and I believe in the right to do so anywhere that a person may legally be. However, there are logistic and political issues to doing so and I have to ask if this is a good next step in promoting open carry? I don't think so. We have made huge inroads in just a few years and the process of "normalizing" the sight of friends and neighbors going about their business while safely and legally open carrying is progressing nicely. We should be cognizant of this when these types of issues arise.

Just some thoughts I wanted to share.


John

imported post

jpierce wrote:

1) Pittsburgh is subject to Pennsylvania's firearms preemption law. They have tried to tap-dance around this by making the operative clause in the ordinance "if they appear to be trying to disrupt police crowd dispersal." As Mike pointed out, if you disrupt police crowd dispersal activities WITHOUT a gun, you are subject to arrest, so the ordinance is largely symbolic. In order to have standing to challenge this ordinance, you have to be arrested for possessing one of the prohibited firearms AND appearing to be trying to disrupt police crowd dispersal. In other words, you have to commit an actual crime which none of us would ever do.

Click to expand...

Excellent post John, but would you consider this small change to your first point?

I believe you would also have standing to challenge the ordinance if you were arrested for violating it, without actually committing a crime.

Of course it comes down to who gets to decide what "appearing to be...." is, but that is the point of challenging these types of ordinances in the first place. It's a matter of semantics, I know.

Your point concerning the emotional and financial toll on this endeavor cannot be overstated.

Just a thought.

TFred

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the people who protest "G20" meetings are leftist fruitcakes.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

imported post

3) I am still wondering why the G20 is the target of such animosity. You should remember that those who normally protest things like the G20 are not the best company while open carrying.

Click to expand...

has me wondering as well. :?

imported post

I'd suggest taht anyone wanting to OC protest the event, which 'our kind of people' generally don't, you shouldn't hang about, simply be seen and be 'passing through.' You don't have to hang around with the rest of the crowd. To simply let the media spot a unicorn should be plenty.

imported post

jpierce wrote:

3) I am still wondering why the G20 is the target of such animosity. You should remember that those who normally protest things like the G20 are not the best company while open carrying.

4) Scoped rifles? WTF? We want to normalize the open carry of firearms in normal life. How about a properly holstered handgun?

5) Before anyone accuses me otherwise, I absolutely believe in the right to open carry rifles and I believe in the right to do so anywhere that a person may legally be. However, there are logistic and political issues to doing so and I have to ask if this is a good next step in promoting open carry? I don't think so. We have made huge inroads in just a few years and the process of "normalizing" the sight of friends and neighbors going about their business while safely and legally open carrying is progressing nicely. We should be cognizant of this when these types of issues arise.

Click to expand...

Answer to 3)

A. The G-20 was never the target of animosity. The “trigger” that has built up all of the bile in the back of my throat is the treatment of Mountain Jack. Remember it is the judge that went on an inappropriate tirade, insulting the law abiding gun owners instead of the government goons that clearly violated the civil rights of a citizen. The Pennsylvania State Police need to learn that they cannot get away with violating the civil rights of gun owners as an expedient solution to their issues.

B. Why the G-20 then? Simple, the G-20 is the next available presidential event in WESTERN PENNSYSLVANIA where we can exercise our rights. After all, a right unexercised is a right lost.

Answer to 4)

A. Suggesting holstered handguns, WTF?

B. Pejorative comments about scoped rifles, which are, BTW, legal even under the proposed Pittsburgh EBR ban certainly is nothing like the NATO doctrine (Attack on one is an attack on all.) that unites many 2A proponents.

C. If you want to normalize firearms, why do you object to firearms other than handguns?

Answer to 5)

A. The comment about the good next step is reminiscent of what Concealed Carriers say about open carriers, i.e.; don’t do it because you will wreck it for us.

B. The open carry movement is a firearms movement, not a handgun movement.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

jpierce wrote:

3) I am still wondering why the G20 is the target of such animosity. You should remember that those who normally protest things like the G20 are not the best company while open carrying.

4) Scoped rifles? WTF? We want to normalize the open carry of firearms in normal life. How about a properly holstered handgun?

5) Before anyone accuses me otherwise, I absolutely believe in the right to open carry rifles and I believe in the right to do so anywhere that a person may legally be. However, there are logistic and political issues to doing so and I have to ask if this is a good next step in promoting open carry? I don't think so. We have made huge inroads in just a few years and the process of "normalizing" the sight of friends and neighbors going about their business while safely and legally open carrying is progressing nicely. We should be cognizant of this when these types of issues arise.

Click to expand...

Answer to 3)

A. The G-20 was never the target of animosity. The “trigger” that has built up all of the bile in the back of my throat is the treatment of Mountain Jack. Remember it is the judge that went on an inappropriate tirade, insulting the law abiding gun owners instead of the government goons that clearly violated the civil rights of a citizen. The Pennsylvania State Police need to learn that they cannot get away with violating the civil rights of gun owners as an expedient solution to their issues.

B. Why the G-20 then? Simple, the G-20 is the next available presidential event in WESTERN PENNSYSLVANIA where we can exercise our rights. After all, a right unexercised is a right lost.

Answer to 4)

A. Suggesting holstered handguns, WTF?

B. Pejorative comments about scoped rifles, which are, BTW, legal even under the proposed Pittsburgh EBR ban certainly is nothing like the NATO doctrine (Attack on one is an attack on all.) that unites many 2A proponents.

C. If you want to normalize firearms, why do you object to firearms other than handguns?

Answer to 5)

A. The comment about the good next step is reminiscent of what Concealed Carriers say about open carriers, i.e.; don’t do it because you will wreck it for us.

B. The open carry movement is a firearms movement, not a handgun movement.

Click to expand...

I understand both sides of this. Our rights were removed incrementally. When large and sweeping power grabs are attempted, they usually don't work out. such is the belief of many that we won't be successful in taking back our rights if we try to do it all at once. It will stand out too much. Incremental is the argument being made, not because it is 'better,' but because it works.

If it didn't, we would not be in the position we are in today.

I still hold forth the idea that if you don't stir the pot, you'll make no progress at all.

As with the AR-15 in Phoenix; there were a dozen other people there with 'regular' guns. Now that the AR-15 showed up, nobody seems to care about the rest.... bitch all you want, but it is the same, very effective, game that the Liberals have played. They want to get away with something Leftish, so they pull something 'way over the top' and then everybody 'settles' and 'compromises' for what their real goal was all along. They end up giving up nothing at all in a 'compromise.'

Incremental.

This is the exact same thing they have been, very successfully, doing to us for nigh a century now. It works. We have no rights as evidence and proof that their strategy works.

I disagree. I think that what is good and right and honest does not suffer the same stigma as a negative power grab. We're jsut trying to take BACK what has been illegally been stripped away. No matter how the media tries to paint it, we still have momentum. This suggests to me that incrementalism may well work as a 'fight fire with fire' tool, and it is the ONLY tool that evil has at it's disposal in a democratic republic. But good need not limit itself to the same methods as evil. But that's just what I think.... The shoe fits, but no society in all of recorded history has ever tried to walk in it.

imported post

Here is the gun Ban proposal (I bolded the gun ban section). IANAL, but the way I read this proposed law, mere posession of any of the guns is a violation of the proposed law.

Link: http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/council/assets/g20leg/2009-1708.pdf

510 City-County Building
414 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219 City of Pittsburgh
Text File
Committee: Status: Held In Council
Introduced: Bill No: 2009-1708
Public Safety Services Committee
8/24/2009
Presented by Mr. Kraus


Ordinance amending the Pittsburgh City Code, Title VI, Conduct, Article I: Regulated Rights andActions, by adding Chapter 607A, titled “Prohibitions on Use of Obstruction Equipment andPossession of Certain Items with Intent to Defeat Lawful Dispersal Orders.”


WHEREAS, in the course of performing their public safety duties, City police officers have been exposed to and/or have become aware of various objects and extreme measures that have been and are currently being used by individuals to obstruct the public's ability to freely move about on streets, sidewalks, and in or out of buildings as well as to inhibit free movement of emergency response equipment; and


WHEREAS, City Council hereby finds that the use of such objects that allow persons to affix themselves to other objects or persons with the intent to avoid lawful removal poses a serious threat to the heath, safety, welfare and security of the public; and


WHEREAS, City Council also finds that the use of certain items for the purpose of avoiding lawful removal is likewise a serious threat to the health, safety, welfare and security of the public and itspolice force.


Be it resolved by the Council of the City of Pittsburgh as follows:


Section 1. The Pittsburgh City Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 607A, titled “Prohibitions on Use of Obstruction Equipment and Possession of Certain Items with Intent to Defeat Lawful Dispersal Orders.”


Chapter 607A Prohibitions on Use of Obstruction Equipment and Possession of Certain Items with Intent to Defeat Lawful Dispersal Orders


Section 607A.01 Prohibition on Inhibiting Access to Streets, Sidewalks and Public Buildings No person, other than governmental employees in the performance of their official duties, shall possess any tool, object, instrument or other article adapted, designed, or intended to be used for:


1) obstructing the public's ability to freely move about on streets, sidewalks, or
buildings to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access; or


City of Pittsburgh Page 1 Printed on 8/31/2009
Text File Report for Ordinance 2009-1708 Continued...


2) inhibiting emergency response equipment from being moved without impediment
or delay, where such person has the intent to use the tool, object, instrument or other article by itself or in combination with other objects to:


1) obstruct the public's ability to freely move about on streets, sidewalks, or buildings
to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access; or


2) for inhibiting emergency response equipment from being moved without
impediment or delay.


The prohibited tools, objects, instruments, or other articles shall include but not be limited to sections of pipe or containers filled with or wrapped in weighted material such as concrete and/or containing handcuffs, chains, carabiners, padlocks, or other locking devices.


Section 607A.02 Prohibition on Possession of Certain Items with Intent to Defeat Lawful Dispersal Orders.


No person shall possess any items in the following categories:


1) noxious substances;


2) “contraband weapon, accessories and/or ammunition” as defined in Section 607.02 of the Pittsburgh City Code;


3) filtered gas masks or similar device designed to filter all air breathed and that
would protect the respiratory tract and face against irritating, noxious or poisonous
gases; or


4) any projectile launcher or other device that is commonly used for the purpose of
launching, hurling, or throwing any object, liquid, or material or other substance
with the intent to use any of the said aforementioned items for the purpose of defeating lawful removal upon receipt of official crowd dispersal orders. For the purpose of this Section, “noxious substance” includes but is not limited to animal or human waste, animal or human blood, rotten eggs, acid, gasoline, manufactured gases or sprays, and alcohol.


Section 607A.03 Penalty


Any person found in violation of any section of this chapter shall be subject to a fine not to exceed Three hundred dollars ($300) and costs for each offense, and in default for payment thereof, may be imprisoned for not more than thirty (30) days. Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.


City of Pittsburgh Page 2 Printed on 8/31/2009
Text File Report for Ordinance 2009-1708 Continued...


Section 607A.04 Severability


The provisions of this chapter shall be severable and, if any of the provisions shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this chapter shall remain in effect.Finally, that any Ordinance or Resolution or part thereof conflicting with the provisions of this Ordinance, is hereby repealed so far as the same affects this Ordinance.

imported post

This is the code section fordefinitions used in Pittsburg's is proposed gun ban:

Link: http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=13525&sid=38

§ 607.02 DEFINITIONS.


As used in this Chapter, certain terms are defined as follows:

(a) FIREARM. Any pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun of any kind which impels a pellet or bullet by means of explosive charge.

(b) AIR GUN. Any gun which uses air under pressure from pumping or other means to discharge missiles at a muzzle velocity in excess of two hundred (200) feet per second.

(c) TOY AIR GUN. An air gun which does not contain air under high pressure from pumping or other means but which derives its force from a spring which is set by a simple cocking operation and discharges missiles through a smooth bore barrel at a muzzle velocity less than two hundred (200) feet per second.

(d) FACSIMILE OF A FIREARM. Any toy, antique, starter pistol or other object which bears a reasonable resemblance to an operable firearm, or any object which impels a missile or pellet by means of spinning action, compression or CO2 cartridge.

(e) AMMUNITION. Any projectile, pellets or bullets, along with their fuses and primers, that can be fired from guns or otherwise propelled.

(f) ASSAULT WEAPON. All automatic, semi-automatic weapons or weapons parts, designated as assault weapons herein. The term shall include all versions of the following, including weapons sold under the designation provided in this subsection:

(1)Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12";

(2)M1 carbine type;

(3)M16 type;

(4)Uzi type semi-automatic weapons;

(5)Algimec AGM 1 type;

(6)Armalite AR-180 type;

(7)Australian Automatic Arms SAR;

(8)Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic weapons;

(9)Beretta AR-70 and BM59 semi-automatic weapons;

(10)Bushmaster Assault Rifle;

(11)Calico M-900 Assault carbine and M-900;

(12)CETME G3;

(13)Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88 type;

(14)Colt AR-15 and CAR-IS series;

(15)Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1 and Max 2, AR 100 types;

(16)Demro TAC-1 carbine type;

(17)Encom MP-9 and MP-45 carbine types;

(18)FAMAS MAS 223 types;

(19)FN-FAL, FN-LAR or FN-FNC type semi-automatic weapons;

(20)Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12 shotguns;

(21)G3SA type;

(22)Galil type;

(23)Heckler and Koch HK91, HK93, HK94, MP5, PSG-1;

(24)Intratec TEC 9 and 22 semi-automatic weapons;

(25)M14S type;

(26)MAC 10, MAC 11, MAC 11-99mm carbine type weapons;

(27)PJK M-68 carbine type;

(28)Plaingield Machine Company Carbine;

(29)Ruger K-Mini-14/5F and Mini-14/5RF;

(30)SIG AMT, SIG550SP, SIG551SP, SIGPE-57 types;

(31)SKS with detachable magazine type;

(32)Spectre Auto carbine type;

(33)Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48 type;

(34)Steyr A.U.G. semi-automatic type shotgun;

(35)USAS 12 semi-automatic type shotgun;

(36)Valmet M62, M71S, M76, or M78 type semi-automatic weapons; and

(37)Weaver Arm Nighthawk.

(g) AUTOMATIC. Any weapon capable of firing continuously until ammunition is exhausted.

(h) CONTRABAND WEAPONS, ACCESSORIES and/or AMMUNITION. Any assault weapon, bazooka, recoilless rifle, grenade, rifle grenade launcher, anti-tank gun, flamethrower, rocket, mortar, bomb, mine, booby trap, large capacity ammunition belt, weapon silencer, or other weapon, device, accessory or ammunition, designed or intended to cause injury or death to persons or damage to property for which no common lawful purpose exists, any item defined as an "offensive weapon" under the Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, sec 1, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 908(c) or any other military style weapon from which a projectile, harmful fluid or gas may be propelled.

(i) WEAPON SILENCER. Any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other weapon to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other weapon.

(j) INOPERABLE. The alteration of an assault weapon, or its ammunition, in a manner that it cannot be fired and that the owner or possessor of the weapon does not possess or have control over the parts necessary to make the weapon operable.

(k) LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION BELT. A belt or strip which holds more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously into a semi-automatic weapon or an ammunition belt which can be readily converted into a large capacity ammunition belt.

(l) PISTOL GRIP. A well defined handle, similar to that found on a hand gun, that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon and which permits the shotgun to be held and fired with one (1) hand.

(m) SEMI-AUTOMATIC. A weapon which fires a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger and its self-reloading or automatically chambers a round, cartridge or bullet without additional slide, bolt or other manual action.

(Ord. 30-1993, eff. 12-9-93)

imported post

John,

The title of the section might suggest that intent to defeat lawful dispersal orders is an element of the defined crime, but a straightforward reading of 607A.02 indicates that the operative clause is POSESSION.

Link:

Section 607A.02 Prohibition on Possession of Certain Items with Intent to Defeat Lawful Dispersal Orders.

No person shall possess any items in the following categories:

1) noxious substances;

2) “contraband weapon, accessories and/or ammunition” as defined in Section 607.02 of the Pittsburgh City Code;.....





IMHOa strict reading of the law would indicate that any ammunion that could be used in any of the banned firearms is also banned.

imported post

You left off the end of 607A.02. It begins with the clause:

No person shall possess any items in the following categories:

Then lists the enumerated items and then ends with

with the intent to use any of the said aforementioned items for the purpose of defeating lawful removal upon receipt of official crowd dispersal orders.

...

The crime is defeating crowd dispersal orders NOT mere possession.

I am not defending their statute, but it was clearly written with the specific intent to avoid violating state preemption. As Mike said earlier ... this is bait to entrap some open carrier in a less than perfect situation.



Thundar wrote:

John,

The title of the section might suggest that intent to defeat lawful dispersal orders is an element of the defined crime, but a straightforward reading of 607A.02 indicates that the operative clause is POSESSION.

Link:

Section 607A.02 Prohibition on Possession of Certain Items with Intent to Defeat Lawful Dispersal Orders.

No person shall possess any items in the following categories:

1) noxious substances;

2) “contraband weapon, accessories and/or ammunition” as defined in Section 607.02 of the Pittsburgh City Code;.....





IMHOa strict reading of the law would indicate that any ammunion that could be used in any of the banned firearms is also banned.

Click to expand...

imported post

jpierce wrote:

You left off the end of 607A.02. It begins with the clause:

No person shall possess any items in the following categories:

Then lists the enumerated items and then ends with

with the intent to use any of the said aforementioned items for the purpose of defeating lawful removal upon receipt of official crowd dispersal orders.

...

The crime is defeating crowd dispersal orders NOT mere possession.

I am not defending their statute, but it was clearly written with the specific intent to avoid violating state preemption. As Mike said earlier ... this is bait to entrap some open carrier in a less than perfect situation.



Thundar wrote:

John,

The title of the section might suggest that intent to defeat lawful dispersal orders is an element of the defined crime, but a straightforward reading of 607A.02 indicates that the operative clause is POSESSION.

Link:

Section 607A.02 Prohibition on Possession of Certain Items with Intent to Defeat Lawful Dispersal Orders.

No person shall possess any items in the following categories:

1) noxious substances;

2) “contraband weapon, accessories and/or ammunition” as defined in Section 607.02 of the Pittsburgh City Code;.....

IMHOa strict reading of the law would indicate that any ammunion that could be used in any of the banned firearms is also banned'

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think the point is that, in typical over-reaction fashion, the mere presence of the gun will be determined to be an impediment and/or disobedience of orders, even though it is not.

Just carry a gun that isn't on the list?

imported post

ixtow wrote:

jpierce wrote:

You left off the end of 607A.02. It begins with the clause:

No person shall possess any items in the following categories:

Then lists the enumerated items and then ends with

with the intent to use any of the said aforementioned items for the purpose of defeating lawful removal upon receipt of official crowd dispersal orders.

...

The crime is defeating crowd dispersal orders NOT mere possession.

I am not defending their statute, but it was clearly written with the specific intent to avoid violating state preemption. As Mike said earlier ... this is bait to entrap some open carrier in a less than perfect situation.



Thundar wrote:

John,

The title of the section might suggest that intent to defeat lawful dispersal orders is an element of the defined crime, but a straightforward reading of 607A.02 indicates that the operative clause is POSESSION.

Link:

Section 607A.02 Prohibition on Possession of Certain Items with Intent to Defeat Lawful Dispersal Orders.

No person shall possess any items in the following categories:

1) noxious substances;

2) “contraband weapon, accessories and/or ammunition” as defined in Section 607.02 of the Pittsburgh City Code;.....

IMHOa strict reading of the law would indicate that any ammunion that could be used in any of the banned firearms is also banned'

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think the point is that, in typical over-reaction fashion, the mere presence of the gun will be determined to be an impediment and/or disobedience of orders, even though it is not.

Just carry a gun that isn't on the list?

Click to expand...

Remember twhat the PA State Police said in the Mountain Jack case, that his posession was an impediment.

I have been looking at the gun ban list ixtow. I think I will bring my scoped Swedish Mauser (Swedish 6.5 x 55mm ammo is not used by any of the banned guns).

imported post

I haven't looked at the list. But I assume there is some blanket clause that would disapprove of my Saiga in .308?

imported post

Thundar wrote:

I have been looking at the gun ban list ixtow. I think I will bring my scoped Swedish Mauser (Swedish 6.5 x 55mm ammo is not used by any of the banned guns).

Click to expand...

Huh?It is counterproductive to purposesly bring long guns to any "protent" event let alone a non-gun rights related events like G-20 meetings or health care discussions, etc.

This web site and its related community is about normalizing the open carry of holstered handguns in normal everyday life, not trying to cause problems with exteme or disturbing gun carry behavior (i.e., carrying signs about watering the grass with blood) that hurts open carry reform efforts, invites more regulation, and gives the authorities all the circumstances to successfully claim qualified immunity when they detain and arrest you.

Use some common sense and not hurt the cause.

imported post

Mike wrote:

Thundar wrote:

I have been looking at the gun ban list ixtow. I think I will bring my scoped Swedish Mauser (Swedish 6.5 x 55mm ammo is not used by any of the banned guns).

Click to expand...

Huh?It is counterproductive to purposesly bring long guns to any "protent" event let alone a non-gun rights related events like G-20 meetings or health care discussions, etc.

This web site and its related community is about normalizing the open carry of holstered handguns in normal everyday life, not trying to cause problems with exteme or disturbing gun carry behavior (i.e., carrying signs about watering the grass with blood) that hurts open carry reform efforts, invites more regulation, and gives the authorities all the circumstances to successfully claim qualified immunity when they detain and arrest you.

Use some common sense and not hurt the cause.

Click to expand...

They're making it into a gun protest with this potential law. Like the headline says, baiting...

imported post

Mike wrote:

Thundar wrote:

I have been looking at the gun ban list ixtow. I think I will bring my scoped Swedish Mauser (Swedish 6.5 x 55mm ammo is not used by any of the banned guns).

Click to expand...

Huh?It is counterproductive to purposesly bring long guns to any "protent" event let alone a non-gun rights related events like G-20 meetings or health care discussions, etc.

This web site and its related community is about normalizing the open carry of holstered handguns in normal everyday life, not trying to cause problems with exteme or disturbing gun carry behavior (i.e., carrying signs about watering the grass with blood) that hurts open carry reform efforts, invites more regulation, and gives the authorities all the circumstances to successfully claim qualified immunity when they detain and arrest you.

Use some common sense and not hurt the cause.

Click to expand...

QFT

imported post

ixtow wrote:

They're making it into a gun protest with this potential law. Like the headline says, baiting...

Click to expand...

Right, so stay away from the anti-OC publcity trap they are setting.

imported post

Mike wrote:

ixtow wrote:

They're making it into a gun protest with this potential law. Like the headline says, baiting...

Click to expand...

Right, so stay away from the anti-OC publcity trap they are setting.

Click to expand...

I'm not planning to be there. What I'm trying to do is suggest to others that if they want to, and I see the reason why, that the best course of doing so would be to be just walking through. Just be seen, and keep on walking.

You can't be asked to disperse if you weren't standing about in the first place. You still make your point. And you do so in a fashion which is dis-associative to the unruly crowds who do hang about. You're going from point A to point B, and this stuff just happens to be in between those two pints.

Your course of action is like promoting abstinence as the only form of contraceptive. People are GOING to do it. I'm just trying to air the least 'entrapped' way I can think of.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

What I'm trying to do is suggest to others that if they want to, and I see the reason why . . .

Click to expand...

There is no good reason why.