• 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.

UOC Without Calguns

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

As some here in California know, Calguns has been on the forefront in regaining our "Right to keep and bear arms".

Many of us are members of both groups and have seen the divisiveness, disdain and what low regard they seem to hold for us.

I recently tried to see if we could reach some agreement that would benefit both our groups. It seems that a fair majority of them seem extremely disinterested in working with us.

Tell me what you think. Can a compromise be made?
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

A consideration though.

If we are to do anything about it, we need to apply for CCW's in the respective areas we live.

I say once we get organized that this, along with requesting permission from school districts, are some of the first things we do.

Let us get the next area meeting planned and try to make it a big one. I would like to see if we can't kind of nominate leadership. Without point men it is difficult to organize.
 

bigtoe416

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

I think there is a disconnect between the people at calguns.net and the people behind the calguns foundation. The members over at calguns.net cover the range of all types of Californian gun owners, and they're no different from the breakdown of non-gun people in terms of how they feel about open carry. Most non-gun people don't like OCing, most calguns.net members don't like OCing. Whatever. I think if/when Gene and his cohorts win shall issue for California, then we'll start having more of the population start to think about OCing, and our numbers will swell.

There are probably a few different anti-UOC types at calguns.net:

Those that think carrying an unloaded gun is dumb. That's fair, I think it's fairly ridiculous, but it's better than not carrying, and I think it's better than LUCC too. If shall issue permits are released, we can bet that LOC is just a hop, skip, and a jump away. These people then have no reason to hate on OCing.

Those that think OCing in general is a bad idea because of whatever reason (criminals will get the drop on you, the population will run screaming, etc.). These people just want a CCW and that's it. At least, they think that's all they want. They've never carried before. Give them a CCW and 90+ degree weather and they'll be thinking about OCing, I guarantee it. I suspect we'll win over small percentages of these people during the first heat wave after shall issue is passed. I can't imagine there being too many people wearing a jacket that won't print along with flip-flops and shorts.

Those that are just plain opposed to people carrying guns at all. These people we won't win until a significant percentage of the population is carrying and the crime rates have fallen. This will only come shortly after shall issue or 5-10 years after LOC is passed.

I don't think the calguns foundation is anti-oc. Gene has said he wants to OC down Market street in SF. He's also hinted that he considers OCing handguns to the range (not in a holster, just throwing it on the dashboard). The foundation is trying to win cases. The majority of supporters of the foundation want ccw. Gene and company think if they go after LOC first, they'll never get shall issue ccw. It makes perfect sense for the foundation to be doing what they are doing.

We'll see the OC movement grow, I'm absolutely confident in that. We need more people carrying, and certain things have to happen before more people are carrying. Then our numbers will grow significantly.
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
imported post

I don't like the "slight-of-hand" political nature of the group. I don't like being portrayed as the scapegoat for every bad bill that comes along. (I really believe that Gene is stepping up bad PR on us.) I doubt that I will re-up on my NRA membership if they don't do something to temper theirhandling of OC'ers.

I have the feeling that we are going to be the "pawn" sacrificed in their chess match. Once they get "shall issue" CC (if they ever get it), I don't think we will ever hear from them again.

It's a matter of trust...and I don't trust them.

I say we go off on our own for now. Work on educating people and increase our numbers. We don't getCal-Gun support now.
 

ConditionThree

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

Theseus wrote:
Can a compromise be made?

Can a compromise be made between two immovable objects?

No. Only distance and time can create 'compromise' between them.

As advocates of a pure right, in a time and place where rights are not recognized, we are not in a position of power or influence. At least, not yet. As has been evidenced in the exchange at Calguns, many over there do not feel compelled to work with anyone from the open carry community.

We have come too early to the party, and offered too little for them to endure our protests. This will change once we have a favorable ruling from the Nordyke en banc.

Our compromise should be to remain patient until the court announces its ruling to incorporate the 2nd against the states. Calguns doesnt have any obligation to us, but their compromise would be to engender support, cooperation and offer advice in advocating the 2nd amendment in joint efforts with open carry.

I am of the understanding that a ruling could run as far off as June 2010- but according to one of Gene's posts, they have already selected the panel and they have decided to allow video. I really don't think it will take 10 months to deliberate over Nordyke. I would predict that we will have a decision much sooner than that.

Lets get to that hurdle and reassess our strategy once we are there.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

My basic proposal is that we will still organize, have events, and recruit, but that we will do so in a low-key manner long enough for them to get the cases they want taken care of.

When they get CCW we will let loose the dogs of war and get our LOC. . .

It seems to me a fair way for us to both get what we want, but apparently they don't want that.

What I wonder, is if they are willing to stop the bashing on Calguns and leave us relatively alone, could we get an agreement here that we will not be so "in your face" about our events?
 

N6ATF

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

Theseus wrote:
My basic proposal is that we will still organize, have events, and recruit, but that we will do so in a low-key manner long enough for them to get the cases they want taken care of.

When they get CCW we will let loose the dogs of war and get our LOC. . .

It seems to me a fair way for us to both get what we want, but apparently they don't want that.

What I wonder, is if they are willing to stop the bashing on Calguns and leave us relatively alone, could we get an agreement here that we will not be so "in your face" about our events?
Apparently any threads whatsoever about our events are too "in your face" for CGN - as they cannot help themselves from invading our threads and turning them into massive bash-fests. I think the bashing can only be stopped through force from the top. Bans against ALL bashers were NOT handed out even after multiple warnings that they were coming. The force is weak with this one.

The status quo in regards to the 2A in CA is that it is NOT a right, it is a privilege, paid for with bribes. Either "legal" bribes in the form of infringing fees, or illegal bribes in the form of campaign contributions, quid pro quo, to gain the license to keep and bear arms everywhere reasonable.

Say we get "shall-issue". Great. The status quo is only slightly changed; illegal bribes are no longer necessary to gain the license, but legal ones still are - and those legal ones have no limit on how high they can be set. $2,000 CCW fee? I would not be surprised - if you can't block the gun owners, at least block the poor masses who can barely afford cheap 1911 clones, let alone high-end custom 1911s. And make heaps of cash for your department which would be pushed further and further into irrelevancy, the more law-abiding gun carriers out there!

So, the infringement of the 2A continues, the RKBA is still not a right at all, and criminals in and out of government rejoice.

Shall-issue to me means every non-prohibited person in the state automatically gets a hard plastic card in the mail on a yearly basis reminding them they can carry guns everywhere with SCOTUS-limited exceptions. Whether they own guns, hate guns, or are indifferent.

That is not what it means to the powers that be. Not even close; not even in the same universe.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

And apparently because I used the words "take action" and "getting louder" I am propositioning violence against someone. . .

Amazing.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

I know I am not your leader. I am no more a leader here than any other person.

I have talked about what I don't like about Calguns, and even here in this thread expressed my tire over the attitudes. . . But let us step back a second.

I want you to ask yourselves these questions and answer honestly.
  1. Other than the cause of "right", what do we have to offer the cause. And I don't mean Calguns, I mean the cause of OC?
  2. Is what we have to offer today enough to meet the full challenge that we face in California?
  3. Can we, in the next 10 months, work hard enough to change enough peoples minds to make LOC a reality in California? 24 Months? 46 Months?
  4. Can we, as we are, actually achieve anything if the very 2A supporting lawyers that have the skill, power and influence to actually change something don't consider us "team players".
Consider what Calguns is really asking of us and think for a moment. Taking away the rhetoric and the loudmouths on Calguns that are against us. . . Would you rather have Calguns an allie or not at all?

They have resources, skill, and numbers at their disposal.

I also propose that we can still accomplish much of the same goals over the next 10 months than we would otherwise have been able to, and perhaps even better.

We can still have public events. Just not carrying. Until we get better media contacts and better spin control it is actually a dis-service to us anyway, right?

Take a mall for example. If we event OC to a mall, what would likely happen? We get kicked out.

What if we have a table at 2 entrances of the mall with literature and information? Will we get kicked out? No. 1st Amendment speech! It is protected.

We would be able to reach more people with 30 minutes of handing out pamphlets and information than all day of walking around the mall. Dont' believe me? Lets try it!

And since we are still working on building OUR organization we don't have to worry so much if Calguns doesn't stick around because we will have amassed an army to fight for our own rights.

Working together is better for us all. . . believe it.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Two things to remember about CalGuns.net:

  1. It is an open forum, and most of the discussion there is NOT the official position (or even the un-official positoin) of The CalGuns Foundation.
  2. Out of thousands of members, there are a dozen or two that think we're idiots. From what I've seen, about twice that number like what we're doing. Then there's the vast majority that are indifferent.
My point is that there is a very small number of anti-OC people there, and to compensate for lack of numbers, they post a lot and are very "loud" about their opinion. Then they try to drag us into silly arguments so they can make us look as petty as them. (And, unfortunately, we often fall for it.)

IMO, we can continue being high-profile. Just cross-post your event there, then IGNORE the trolls. Simply do not respond to them. Then when your event goes smoothly, simply post how it went, and again resist the urge to respond to trolls.

I still believe that some day CGF will morally and financially support OC, and the reason they will is because most of their moral/financial supporters want that. I think most of the board members also want this. However, I think it's pretty obvious that OC takes a back seat to both CCW reform and OLL/AW reform. So, I think we're in for a long wait before we see them get around to our cause.

While we would greatly benefit from such support, I believe we can still get a lot done until then. I think we are already making great progress. I remember just a short 14 months ago police were guffawing at the idea of OC. Several memos and training sessions later, most the PDs are becoming desensitized to the idea. They know what to expect, and what is expected of them.

Anybody who says we've accomplished nothing is a fool.

Carry on.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

Theseus wrote:
As some here in California know, Calguns has been on the forefront in regaining our "Right to keep and bear arms".

Many of us are members of both groups and have seen the divisiveness, disdain and what low regard they seem to hold for us.

I recently tried to see if we could reach some agreement that would benefit both our groups. It seems that a fair majority of them seem extremely disinterested in working with us.

Tell me what you think. Can a compromise be made?

Compromise cannot be reached with those who refuse to compromise.

Concessions must be made from both sides for a compromise to be reached.

If only one side makes concessions, you wind up in the end embracing the oppositions viewpoint without having the opposisiton ever even recognizing your viewpoint.

This is a form of incremental dialectic where two sides start with opposing viewpoints and one is willing to make concessions and the other demands a shift to the middle ground while in reality not making any concessions. This ends with one side shifting, and the other holding ground, and then the next demand for a shift to middle ground is made, and another shift is made, and the two sides are closer, but only closer to the side that did not compromise. Each shift is smaller, and thus less painful, and less objectionable, and finally you end up at UNCONDTIONAL SURRENDER.

UOC|--------------------------------|----------------|--------|----|--|-|CalGuns
 

TatankaGap

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

I am supportive of anyone who is lawfully exercising their RKBA under the 2A and Heller and en banc Nordyke to come - I share the view that the 2A will be incorporated to the states - hopefully by June 2010 if not earlier -

IMHO, we should be planning for the post-incorporation reality now rather than getting into trivial and often petty debates which are like debates over whether God exists - they get heated and no one changes anyone else's mind -

In a post-incorporation reality, most of CA's gun laws will fail to pass constitutional muster. Also, we need to realize that unlike CCW, OCing is a form of 1st Amendment exercise when coupled with CA's oppressive gun laws and the expression of political dissatisfaction with it - I believe there was a reference to this in the now-stayed Nordyke decision -

For me, the value of OCing has to do with reconditioning the public to be comfortable with lawfully armed citizens again. Currently, the public is conditioned to have some form of comfortable discomfort with only cops and criminals being armed.

The public is also pretty bought into the PR sound bites of Brady and the VPC and their propaganda - so breaking them out of that mindset is hard and responsible OCing can help with that -

But OCing can easily lead to terrible results in the legislature before (and even after) the 2A is incorporated to CA and the states - so we're playing with fire if we OC in too loud a fashion publicly -

And yet, it is not realistic to think that lawfully armed citizens aware of their RKBA will simply not exercise their rights, especially when there are convoluted laws that can be navigated to allow some form of public exercise of the right via UOC -

I have made a personal choice to UOC only when necessary for my self-defense and family defense and to publicly carry empty holsters and literature when making the point of how oppressed CA gun owners are. Where possible I prefer LOC and CC on private property and where necessary I will engage in LUCC -

Every time I leave CA and get back to a place that respects my RKBA (and my permits), I am relieved and feel more free than when I'm in CA - ironically, CA is one of the least 'free' most highly regulated states I've ever been in despite what popular myths might say about California Living.

As for Calguns, they have made major strides of progress that help every CA gun owner, and I don't see how anyone benefits from intentionally frustrating what Calguns is trying to do -

And it must be noted that OC was affirmed by the White House as not being a problem despite all the panties that got wadded up over the 2 incidents at the health care forums - and those two events got huge press and injected the issue into the debate forcefully -

The question to my mind is how well the responsible OC people will rise to the challenge of keeping the debate framed and focused on the RKBA pre-existing the US Const. and the 2A and even reminding the public that the British restrictions on the (then) Englishman's common law RKBA was, equal with the taxation/representation issues, as the complaints of the American Revolutionaries that gave rise to the American Revolution -

While I have the floor, I also echo the comments made elsewhere that only since Heller have lawful gun owners been able to 'come out of the closet' as gun owners and only by interacting as responsible gun owners, IMHO, will people who are dangerous gun owners be revealed and subject to gentle community intervention by their peers - this is the real way to reduce mental health related gun violence -

OC is definitely 'coming out of the closet' as a responsible gun owner, having the two-fold positive impact of deterring crime (and related gun violence) and encouraging better conditions for peer intervention that reduces mental health gun violence.

So, Calgun's political agendas aside, the real positive societal impacts, IMHO, come from responsible OCing - therefore, the 'game IS worth the candle."
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

Theseus wrote:
I want you to ask yourselves these questions and answer honestly.
Other than the cause of "right", what do we have to offer the cause. And I don't mean Calguns, I mean the cause of OC? Not much. Sure we have a few brochures, we have a few who are willing to attend an event. But we aren't organized, we don't have a formal organization, we don't have a board to run the organization,we don't havefunding, we don't have a political/LEA liason, we don't have a voice. Hell we don't even have t-shirts, even the Escondido group has t-shirts (not that we need t-shirts but you get my drift.)

Is what we have to offer today enough to meet the full challenge that we face in California? NO, not even close.

Can we, in the next 10 months, work hard enough to change enough peoples minds to make LOC a reality in California? 24 Months? 46 Months? I think we're looking at a minimum of 24 months AFTER 2A incorporation. What we can do right now before incorporation (between 2-9months)is get organized.

Can we, as we are, actually achieve anything if the very 2A supporting lawyers that have the skill, power and influence to actually change something don't consider us "team players". Sure we can makeprogress, the SD group has proven that.But whether or not they consider us team players is a moot point. Until we areorganized and/or they are ready to tackle LOC on their time table, they'll never "negotiate" with us. And why should they, we are the "wrench" being thrown into their perfectly laid out plans. The harder we try to work "with" them, the harder they'll push back trying to shut us down.

Consider what Calguns is really asking of us and think for a moment. Taking away the rhetoric and the loudmouths on Calguns that are against us. . . Would you rather have Calguns an allie or not at all? Ultimately we'll need them as an allie, but for now it is exceedingly clear we'll have to go it alone.

We can still have public events. Just not carrying. Until we get better media contacts and better spin control it is actually a dis-service to us anyway, right? Why not carry? We can still carry, we just need to get a more organized. We may not need to carry at all events, but I see no need to stop carrying cold turkey at all events. Your mall idea for example would be an example where we don't carry, but other venues that aren't full of FUD why not?
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
Theseus wrote:
I want you to ask yourselves these questions and answer honestly.
Other than the cause of "right", what do we have to offer the cause. And I don't mean Calguns, I mean the cause of OC? Not much. Sure we have a few brochures, we have a few who are willing to attend an event. But we aren't organized, we don't have a formal organization, we don't have a board to run the organization,we don't havefunding, we don't have a political/LEA liason, we don't have a voice. Hell we don't even have t-shirts, even the Escondido group has t-shirts (not that we need t-shirts but you get my drift.)

Is what we have to offer today enough to meet the full challenge that we face in California? NO, not even close.

Can we, in the next 10 months, work hard enough to change enough peoples minds to make LOC a reality in California? 24 Months? 46 Months? I think we're looking at a minimum of 24 months AFTER 2A incorporation. What we can do right now before incorporation (between 2-9months)is get organized.

Can we, as we are, actually achieve anything if the very 2A supporting lawyers that have the skill, power and influence to actually change something don't consider us "team players". Sure we can makeprogress, the SD group has proven that.But whether or not they consider us team players is a moot point. Until we areorganized and/or they are ready to tackle LOC on their time table, they'll never "negotiate" with us. And why should they, we are the "wrench" being thrown into their perfectly laid out plans. The harder we try to work "with" them, the harder they'll push back trying to shut us down.

Consider what Calguns is really asking of us and think for a moment. Taking away the rhetoric and the loudmouths on Calguns that are against us. . . Would you rather have Calguns an allie or not at all? Ultimately we'll need them as an allie, but for now it is exceedingly clear we'll have to go it alone.

We can still have public events. Just not carrying. Until we get better media contacts and better spin control it is actually a dis-service to us anyway, right? Why not carry? We can still carry, we just need to get a more organized. We may not need to carry at all events, but I see no need to stop carrying cold turkey at all events. Your mall idea for example would be an example where we don't carry, but other venues that aren't full of FUD why not?
Therein may be the compromose. . . We may be able to OC at some events. I consider that we can have many more private events where we can introduce new OC'ers to the cause. . . educate them and prepare them.

It has been said before, I think that if we just ignore the nay-sayers and coordinate our events and efforts we will be OK.

At the same time, I was pretty pissed when Kestryll came in thumping his chest at me when I was the one trying to keep it civil and merely responded to the negative. I had to step away for a second.

Now, thre is a small branch of people that are being less vocal against us and that are branching off of Calguns because of the heavy handedness of the moderation.

I have been offered a forum on that groups board where OC can get its own little home, and I have accepted.

Now, about getting organized, we should decide if we want one larger chapter that included LA, OC, Riverside and SB or each county has a chapter.

I have a website that I have been trying to build to assist us in our quest. Although OCDO is, as discussed, the main method of communication and it does a pretty good job of providing information, it is diluted with all the posts and such.

I propose that we construct that site as a portal for information. A quick, concise site that allows us to collaborate better as a group, inform the public, and provide a singular place where out chapter can spread its own word.

Take a look. If you have any ideas, let me know. If you think you can help build the site, or have the interest, then PM me. I will work with getting each person a login and admin rights so that we can begin to build.

ocrights.org We can use the one site for all chapters or each chapter can have its own custom site. . .that is to be determined at a later date.
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
imported post

As others have already mentioned, I would recommend not confusing the standing of the CalGuns Foundation with that of the Calguns.net discussion forum.

I believe they have made it clear that the Foundation supports OC, but that they feel they must use a methodology for overall 2a progress in CA which OC currently complicates.

In other words, they do indeed want to embrace OC in CA. But according to the path they have found for extending 2a rights to the most people possible; some forms of OC can cause unneccesary hurdles to their strategy.

When the time is right I think you will see the Foundation wholeheartedly endorse OC.

In the meantime, the CalGuns Foundation will continue to be an effective aspect of the furtherance of gun rights in this state. Just as importantly, so will we here at OCDO.
 
Top