• 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.

Martinez Meet-up Report

dirtykoala

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
644
imported post

Contacting leo to inform them of lawfully uocing is a great example of people that, like Brady says, "Are doing this for attention". Contacting leo throws out the "political statement" argument, and the "self defense" argument. It almost guaruntees police envolvement and people will obviously look to see what the cops are doing. If that isn't a cry for "look at me!" I don't know what is.

I wouldn't be able to leave my house if I felt the need to call the cops every time I felt like doing something legal outside of my home.
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
imported post

Hey bigtoe416,

And, there is another reason for the "heads-up". In pollitics there is the theory of "plausible deniability." Sometimes this theory is referred to as "political cover."

By giving a "heads-up" to police we gave ourselves and police "plausible deniability." By cooperating with police and having a pre-event compliance check (in some cases), LEO and OCers can proclaim that laws were followed. The police can have their talking points prepared for calls from city council persons or the press. We can tell prospective converts to our cause that we operate within the law and respect LEO, whether weagree with 12031 (e) or not.

Before I got involved with the OC movement, I was a little worried that some of the people who may be participating in the OC movement were radical anarchists masquerading as unlawful militia. My wife was worried too.

But when Gus iterated to me in person last weekend, something that had been iterated by other attendees beforehand through email (Iopencarry for one), I was convinced that these were law-abiding citizens working to get gun laws clarified and changed to conform to the US Constituion. Gus told me how he gave the "heads-up" to LEO. He told me the name of our meet-up's liasson person at PD, and then he explained our groups goals to a stranger while not being political or radical. This all gave credence to what Gus, et allia, were trying to accomplish last Saturday.

By giving LEO a "heads-up" and a contact person for our event, LEO can have a contingency plan in case radicals try to disrupt our event or instigate one of our attendees to defend himself. LEO works for us. They are there toprovide a deterentfor crimes committed against us, if we let them.

markm
 

Iopencarry

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
637
Location
Oakley, California, United States
imported post

Thank you Mark, you are a good person to lead up your local area. We will help you in any way we can.

Like I have said before. I carry daily, I only call the LEO's when more then 10 will be at any one place. For all the reasons Mark has stated.

It works for us, if someone else doesnt like it, so be it. Let them deal with it like they want to. But I will tell you this much, WE have a good healthy repore with the LEO's in our area. ALL of them. The Respect we give them, is in turn given back.
 

bigtoe416

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

MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
By giving a "heads-up" to police we gave ourselves and police "plausible deniability." By cooperating with police and having a pre-event compliance check (in some cases), LEO and OCers can proclaim that laws were followed. The police can have their talking points prepared for calls from city council persons or the press. We can tell prospective converts to our cause that we operate within the law and respect LEO, whether weagree with 12031 (e) or not.
I'm not sure if I'm following what you're saying about plausible deniability. Isn't plausible deniability when somebody positions themselves so they can say they didn't know anything about a particular event? I'm not sure how informing people of events gives anybody deniability about anything, but then sometimes I'm a bit dense.

I don't think informing the police of our legal actions gives us any more ability to say we operate within the law and respect law enforcement officers. I'm pretty sure everybody here operates entirely within the law. If anything we're extreme sticklers for the law. If we weren't, we'd just carry concealed and nobody would ever know and we'd be able to protect ourselves. I personally respect LEOs quite a bit. It's an extremely respectable job providing that one doesn't try to game the system. My problem is when gaming the system becomes accepted practice and rights are trampled on.

By giving LEO a "heads-up" and a contact person for our event, LEO can have a contingency plan in case radicals try to disrupt our event or instigate one of our attendees to defend himself. LEO works for us. They are there to provide a deterent for crimes committed against us, if we let them.
Just to play devil's advocate here, it's entirely possible that by giving a heads up that the police could plant agent provocateurs which would intentionally disrupt the event. Not saying this has happened in our group, but it definitely happens. Anybody who thinks there isn't a chance one of us is a police officer is deluding themselves.

Also, I think most people have some degree of apprehension coming to a meetup. I don't know anybody who had apprehension after coming to meetup though. We're all fairly normal (except for me, I'm a spaz).
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
imported post

Hey bigtoe416,

The political usage of "plausible deniability" is different from the legal definition. Politics ismarketing. When we give a "heads-up" we are performing our "due-diligence." We are signalling to participants and the public that we operate "within" the law. We help police to train for OC. We use our cooperation with the police to prove that we are not a fringe movement.

Perception is KING in politics. As long as people believe the lies that Saldana, et allia, barf up, we will need "truthful plausible deniability" to dispell the lies.

John Kerry was trying to use "plausible deniability" when he claimed on the campaign trail that he voted against the war. But, he voted for the war before he voted againstit. He was the deceiver. We need to use "plausible deniability" to dispel the lies.

RABBIT TRAIL ALERT: internet definitions of PD use an example of a finger hold as torture--this is rediculous. Don't believe the information you get from these sites. One popular site has abio on a public person--this public person tries to correct his birthday and school history, but unknown posters change the bio back to the wrong information as soon as he fixes the wiki page. PC is rampant on these sites.

Due diligence: The context used is the carea reasonable personshould take when evalutating risks. Risk assessment and mitigation are criticalin politics as the lawof unintended consequencesworks full time in politics.

markm
 

CA Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
10
Location
Lafayette, California, USA
imported post

Wish I had known about the meet as I would have loved to attend with my holstered unloaded sidearm!

Would someone please let me know when the East Bay Contra Costa County group meets. I only read about this in the "Martinez Gazette", a week late! Sure would have liked some heads up if someone would like to e-mail me a when and where for next time.

:)

Open Carry advocates hold gathering Downtown






By



GretaMart[/url]



Staff Reporter


April 29, 2010



Return to story
]' jQuery1272578991703="16">
images-1_0.jpeg

Bay Area members of the Open Carry movement congregated in Martinez last Saturday, meeting at the Downtown Starbucks for coffee, muffins and the opportunity to make theirpoint.

Open Carry advocates have increased visibility around Contra Costa County over the past six months in an apparent effort to attract support for openly carrying an unloaded weapon in plain sight, usually holstered on a belt or chest. While the guns are forbidden by law to be loaded, ammunition can be toted on a personsimultaneously.

According to eyewitnesses, about 15 men met in the morning hours at the Starbucks and stayed roughly an hour, milling around both inside the coffee shop and around the adjacent Main StreetPlaza.

The Gazette attempted unsuccessfully to locate a spokesperson for the movement. The manager at Starbucks said he could not comment on the incident and referred inquiries to the company’s corporate headquarters in Seattle, which provided noresponse.

However, plenty of opponents to the Open Carry adherents expressed their disapproval of theeffort.

“I just think these guys are hilarious, as in absurd and ridiculous,” said one eyewitness who requested anonymity, adding that they look like a bunch of ‘losers’ who are so [emasculated] that they feel the need to carry guns. “Do they think they look cool? Really, what is thepoint?”

Commander Gary Peterson said Monday that the department knew about the meeting slightly beforehand when one of the members telephoned headquarters to advise of theirpresence.

“This is not the first time they’ve been to town, they met once at the Starbucks at Nob Hill,” said Peterson. “They normally have someone videotaping police interactions to protect their rights. We are authorized to contact them to determine if the guns are loaded or not. It puts our officers against a rock and a hard spot because people tend to be uncomfortable aroundthem.”

There were no reports of altercations stemming from Saturday’smeeting.

“I understand we all have the right to carry unloaded firearms, I’m not disagreeing with that right,” said Mayor Schroder on Wednesday. “But it’s a little intimidating and notnecessary.”

On April 18, approximately 15 Open Carry proponents met at Red Brick Pizza in Pleasant Hill, and earlier in the year about 100 met at Buckhorn Grill in Walnut Creek. After the event, the owner of the Bay Area restaurant chain, John Pickerel, sent out a press release announcing the company’s new policy of no gunsallowed.

“The Buckhorn Grill would like to apologize…we have not in the past nor shall in the future allow weapons in our restaurants from our employees, vendors or customers. We made an exception on February 6, 2010, and regret this decision now. We were misled with some facts,” wrote Pickerel. “The local police were involved and we knew none of the weapons were loaded, but it still caused tension with the large mob of people arriving as a group instead of individually. It was supposed to be a group luncheon, and it turned into an…organized propaganda meeting with an agenda. We apologize for any inconvenience to our regular customers, it will not happenagain.”

A California legislator from San Diego, Lori Saldana, has introduced AB1934, which, according to the bill’s text, “existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it an offense to carry a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as specified…existing law provides that firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of those provisions. This bill would delete the exception pertaining to firearms carried openly in beltholsters.”
 

CA_Libertarian

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

bigtoe416 wrote:
I still don't get why people bother reporting lawful activity to police departments. I guess I feel that if you are running your lawful activities by law enforcement, then you really have no freedoms whatsoever. If you're obeying the law, it shouldn't matter what you're doing. I certainly don't call up the police before I post something to these forums, or before I kiss my fiancee, or before I eat a burrito. If I felt obligated to ask permission before living my life, I might as well walk around in handcuffs with a GPS chip embedded under my skin. Just my opinion.

-1

I keep my local LEOs apprised of EVERYTHING I do.

For example, I've talked to dispatchers in 3 different jurisdictions today:

0645 - notified Stanislaus Sheriff's Dept I intended to take a piss

0646 - notified SSD I was also going to wash my hands and brush my teeth

0650 - Notified SSD and the fire dept I would be cooking/eating waffles.

0720 - notified CHP, Ceres PD,and Modesto PDI intended on driving onpublic roadways, including details of route, vehicle description,VIN andreg#, insurance carrier, CA DL #, etc. Invited them to inspect my vehicleand my sobriety if they so desired.

0750 - advised CHP,CPD, and MPDthat I arrived safely at work.

(... really there's much more but I don't think I need to go on to get my point across...)

Cooperation - becuase proving to the "powers that be" and the public that you're a "good guy"is more important than self respect.
 
Top