Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: 5th SD OC Event

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    5th SD OC Event


  2. #2
    Regular Member leoffensive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    309
    damn... ill be in arizona drinkin beer and fishin on the 4th

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Good to see you back on the horse pullnshoot25. Wish I could be there.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    RATS!! I'll be in Vegas.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  5. #5
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420
    I have to work.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106
    Great idea. Good luck with the event. Hope it all turns out fine.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    31
    Dude, I think with AB1934 still floating around, it's a bad idea. Especially on the 4th. You know that Saldana's going to use the fact that it's a holiday, and lot's of tourists around, to continue to try and push her agenda. "All those frightened tourists, with children! They feared for their lives from all those untrained open carriers!"
    Personally, with Mcdonald now in place, I think we have a lot better chance of getting AB1934 squashed before it gets passed, but not if we continue to poke the bear, and garner negative publicity, which is exactly what will happen with this event. Saldana would not pass up the opportunity to twist this little get together to her advantage, and put her spin on it.

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by The Nomadd View Post
    Personally, with Mcdonald now in place, I think we have a lot better chance of getting AB1934 squashed before it gets passed, but not if we continue to poke the bear, and garner negative publicity, which is exactly what will happen with this event. Saldana would not pass up the opportunity to twist this little get together to her advantage, and put her spin on it.
    Sorry, I fail to understand this logic. The only way AB 1934 will be stopped at this point is if we can convince enough Senators not to vote for it or for our Governor to veto it. Carrying arms for self-defense is a constitutionally protected right. If that doesn't convince a Senator to not vote against AB 1934, then nothing will. It's not like a Senator is going to say, "Well, I understand that carrying a firearm is a constitutionally protected right, but let me ask you this: did people exercise this right on July 4th? Because if so, I'm going to deny those people their constitutionally protected right and vote for this bad boy."

    A great number of us have held off for the results of McDonald. We now have the constitution protecting us. AB 1934 may still get passed, but if it does, it won't be because people attend a bar-b-que on private property on Independence Day.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by The Nomadd View Post
    Dude, I think with AB1934 still floating around, it's a bad idea. Especially on the 4th. You know that Saldana's going to use the fact that it's a holiday, and lot's of tourists around, to continue to try and push her agenda. "All those frightened tourists, with children! They feared for their lives from all those untrained open carriers!"
    Though I was one of the last to do so, I have held off carrying while awaiting the results of McDonald as requested by those with more legal insight than I.

    Not anymore. I will carry with all the authority and legal standing available, and refuse to cower before Saldana's mental charade comes to fruition. I plan on being in Hermosa Beach on Tuesday to help with the clean-up...and I will be carrying.

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    I agree with Bigtoe. The line has been drawn. It's up to the State Senators to decide whether or not they will respect the simple meaning of the 2A. Whether you carry or not at this point is not going to make a bit of difference to the outcome of AB1934. However, the re-integration of guns as a legitimate means of self-defense into a anti-gun culture begins with the simple act of openly bearing. That change cannot occur if no one has the courage to open carry.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    open carry in cal

    I have always been appalled at California's unloaded open carry law, even when I lived there over 30 years ago so I like to help correct the situation when I can. I think people tend to forget the racist history behind the creation of the law. I did a little searching on the internet into the passage of the law. Here is that information.



    A piece of the history into California’s unloaded open carry law.

    “It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, ‘prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.’ The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
    It began shortly after the shooting of Denzil Dowell. Easy Bay legislator Dan Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the law that permitted citizens to carry loaded weapons in public places so long as the weapons were openly displayed. What the Mulford law sought to achieve was the elimination of the Black Panther Police Patrols, and it had been tagged “the Panther Bill” by the media.
    The gun laws in California in 1966 stated a gun could be carried loaded in a public place so long as it was registered, not concealed and not pointed in a threatening manner.
    The Police Patrols had become an integral part of BPP community policy. Members of the BPP would listen to police calls on a short wave radio, rush to the scene of the arrest with law books and inform the person being arrested of their constitutional right. BPP members also happened to carry loaded weapons, which were publicly displayed, but were careful to stand no closer than ten feet from the arrest so as not to interfere with the arrest.
    Passage of the Mulford Bill would essentially end the Panther Police Patrols, so the BPP sent a group to Sacramento California on May 2, 1967 to protest. The group carried loaded rifles and shotguns, publicly displayed and entered the State Capitol building to read aloud Executive Mandate Number 1, which was in opposition to the Mulford Bill. They tried to enter the assembly Chamber but were forced out of this public place where they then read Executive Mandate Number 1 out on the lawn.
    A frightened California legislature responded by passing the bill, thus creating the Mulford Act, which was signed into law by then Governor Ronald Raegan.


    Origins
    In 1966, Huey P. Newton with his friend Bobby Seale from Oakland City College, joined a black power group called the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM). RAM had a chapter in Oakland and followed the writings of Robert F. Williams. Williams had been the president of the Monroe, North Carolina branch of the NAACP and later published a newsletter called The Crusader from China, where he fled to escape kidnapping charges.
    The Oakland chapter consisted mainly of students, who had no interest in this extreme form of activism. Newton and Seale's attitudes were more militant. The pair left RAM searching for a group more meaningful to them.
    They worked at the North Oakland Neighborhood Anti-Poverty Center, where they also served on the advisory board. To combat police brutality, the advisory board obtained 5,000 signatures in support of the City Council's setting up a police review board to review complaints. Newton was also taking classes at the City College and at San Francisco Law School. Both institutions were active in the North Oakland Center. Thus the pair had numerous connections with whom they talked about a new organization.
    With the help of Huey's brother Melvin, they decided on a uniform of blue shirts, black pants, black leather jackets, black berets, and openly displayed loaded shotguns (in his studies, Newton had discovered a California law that allowed carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun in public, as long as it was publicly displayed and pointed at no one).
    The organization's official newspaper, The Black Panther, was first circulated in 1967. Also that year, the Black Panther Party marched on the California State Capitol in Sacramento in protest of a selective ban on weapons.
    The Black Panther Party's most influential and widely known programs were its armed citizens' patrols to evaluate behavior of police officers.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country,” and he supervised an extensive program of counter-organizing that included surveillance, eavesdropping, infiltration, police harassment, perjury, and a laundry list of other tactics designed to incriminate party members and drain the organization of resources and manpower.
    From the beginning the Black Panther Party's focus on militancy came with a reputation for violence. They employed a California law which permitted carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun as long as it was publicly displayed and pointed at no one. Carrying weapons openly and making threats against police officers, for example, chants like "The Revolution has co-ome, it's time to pick up the gu-un. Off the pigs!” helped create the Panthers' reputation as a violent organization.
    On May 2, 1967, the California State Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure was scheduled to convene to discuss what was known as the "Mulford Act", which would ban public displays of loaded firearms. Cleaver and Newton put together a plan to send a group of about 30 Panthers led by Seale from Oakland to Sacramento to protest the bill. The group entered the assembly carrying their weapons, an incident which was widely publicized, and which prompted police to arrest Seale and five others. The group pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of disrupting a legislative session.
    Since the party's decline in the late 1970's, the group has been both praised and detested by scholars. Historians oftentimes use the Black Panther Party as the paragon example of the effectiveness of counterculture grassroots movements in the 1970's. However, due to the media's portrayal of the violent acts committed by the Black Panther Party's leaders, modern America overwhelmingly perceives the group's actions as a negative movement.


    Morgan

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •