• 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.

can i open carry with a leg holster

cato

cato

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

bad_ace wrote:
cato wrote:
The "anti UOC"Calguns Foundation backed his defense.
Click to expand...

+1 Nice. Good use of quotation marks :)
Click to expand...


It was this and about three other early UOC cases which showed them that defending UOC at this time was a use of resources that would not result in a positive change in any laws (just treading water). This realization was the beginning of don't UOC right know because of ...

I know, at least from personal conversations with board members, that they very much want a an expansive 2nd A. Right for both concealed and open carry including taking on restrictions on the types of protected weapons, mag capacity, 30 day one hand guna month, 10 day DOJ waiting period etc...

And the men behind the CGF/SAF curtains are some the best constitutional lawyers in the country. So when they recommend for the sake of getting an expansive Right to stand down on a very public issue to avoid potential Right delaying setbacksI have to give it very serious thought.


Back on topic, leg holsters!

Art Work by Oleg Volk:
 
Sons of Liberty

Sons of Liberty

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

cato wrote:
And the men behind the CGF/SAF curtains are some the best constitutional lawyers in the country. So when they recommend for the sake of getting an expansive Right to stand down on a very public issue to avoid potential Right delaying setbacksI have to give it very serious thought.
Click to expand...

Have the men behind the CGF/SAF ever supported UOC/OC? I have been monitoring the board for over a year (although just registered this year) and I have yet to see CGF/SAF openly support UOC/OC events and initiative.

I think the reason is that CGF does not engage in the UOC/OC activist route. They prefer the court route. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm saying you need both going on at the same time. Where would be civil rights movement be without both? Demonstrations are a way to make known wrongs that need to be made right.

And not to hijack the thread but... the inner thigh under the skirt/kilt holster arrangement is concealed and, without a permit, would get you in trouble if discovered in public.
 
cato

cato

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

Heller happened without any activism. Ohio's Supreme Court OC (actually was a CCW) case happened without any activism. Not saying activism is bad but until we as a political minority have constitutional protection and a way to enforce it (civil suits funded by someone) it not likely to do much more then reinforce the law as it is (witness the UOC memos).
 
cato

cato

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

Sons of Liberty wrote:
cato wrote:
And the men behind the CGF/SAF curtains are some the best constitutional lawyers in the country. So when they recommend for the sake of getting an expansive Right to stand down on a very public issue to avoid potential Right delaying setbacksI have to give it very serious thought.
Click to expand...

Have the men behind the CGF/SAF ever supported UOC/OC?
Click to expand...


At least two Marines (one was reserve) and a gentleman in Santa Monica were arrested in '07/'08 for UOC.The CGF "right people" (of the early formation of the now board run corporation) covered their legal fees (not sure who paid exactly - could have just been private individuals - there was no LDF set up)and all were non-proc cases (no charges filed by DAs).

Like I've said, these experiences and a few others that cropped up showed that pushing UOC and the cost ofpossible criminal cases (proven by Theseus' bill at $35-40,000 for a loss at trial court) was not a wise investment of time/money for the return (treading water legally) when time/money was needed for offensive legal action (more likely to give a return on investment).

Gene has supported LOC where legal and I believe they'd seriously consider an LOC defense where there are no other "colorful" issues (where LOC was clearly lawful). (I don't speak for them I'm just a supporter who shares their vision).

The other board membersI've spoken to would love to LOC or at least have it be legal so if their CCW became exposed there would be no issues.

Nobody I've meet with CGF or their legal teamis hostile to OC. There is however debate,the substance of which I've tried to represent here, as to the best deployment (time and place)of OC/UOC to accomplish ourexpansive RKBAgoals.



and back on topic :p:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top