California UOCers: please avoid black rifle drama...

Sons of Liberty said:

Wow! So opencarry.org is now controlled by CGF?! Wow! I figured something like this might happen.

Click to expand...

Nobody controls anything (except for the Mike and John). Nobody has the power of coercion here. We must use logic and debate and WE ALL COOPERATE voluntarily in an adult manner.

Has it been lost on your readings or hate for CGF that Gene wants the end game to be a suppressed F/A SBR sub gun slung over the shoulder walking down a SF sidewalk with a beer in his hand (ok not the last part but)? It takes planning to get there or what you'll have with an onslaught of hail mary court cases is no usable right in our lifetime by snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory with very bad decisions. The enemy is still very stong politically and in judicial offices. Middle of the road or anti Judges must be painted into a corner legally by persuasive and binding but simple case law. Hence Heller's 'in the home only' prayer for relief for starters.

Re-read the crossing the moat castle wall post (I liked that one).

Sons of Liberty said:

Wow! So opencarry.org is now controlled by CGF?!

Click to expand...

Maybe there is agreement on both sites.

cato said:

Because this sites owners agree, co-operate, and are DOWN with the coalition plan; Alan Gura, Don Kilmer, Jason Davis, Gene Hoffman, Mike Stolenwerk, John Peirce, Bill Weise, Gary Peterson, Me, Mudcamper, CA Libertarian, Condition3, (& many other OCers criminally defended by CGF in years past) Virginia Citizens Defense League and all the other states movers and shakers in WI, MI, WA, AZ, GA, CO, IL, DC and nationally are on the same page.

Click to expand...

Whoa! Seeing my name mentioned with such company immediately brings the following to mind!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FucbvoFFy0

MudCamper said:

Whoa! Seeing my name mentioned with such company immediately brings the following to mind!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FucbvoFFy0

Click to expand...

I've kinda got blond hair and I recall you're a brunete? So it does fit. I will say I've sat a the same table with Jason Davis and Pullnshoot 25!!! Gene used to return my PM's before he got so busy. I think I have a napkin he wipped his mouth with and Alan Gura and Otis McDonald have signed my constitution along with Ron Paul!

Oh gaud I'm a groupie...:uhoh:

excuse me for the loss of composure I think I'm still giddy from last nights events

the road map http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=317860 for anyone who missed it

I would have preferred if the CGF "right people" (or are they now the "exalted people") would have come on over here asking us to obey the law and not test any specific laws that might set the movement back. But instead we get another "don't do anything legal" speech because we might step on some anti's toes.

And before anyone starts flaming me, I get it, I assure you I do; you know, chess and all that. I also get the fact that we are entirely outnumbered in Sacramento and those rats do just about anything they want.

But I've said it before, and I'll say it again...we will win nothing in the legislature, everything we will win will be in the courts. And those wins will be challenged at best, or simply ignored in reality, just like AB1934 ignored SCOTUS and their McDonald ruling. An incorporated right means nothing to these domestic enemies.

So if the envelope is pushed, yet everything is legal, well that's just the way it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked ground was not taken by staying put.

Oh, and I remember something about a possible 12031(e) challenge...something that maybe was going to happen even before McDonald. Now, I don't visit CGN all that much anymore, but I don't remember reading or hearing anything about that challenge being filed. Please correct me if I am wrong?

Why?

Why are we even talking about carrying long guns? UOC isn't illegal. The only talk that I ever heard about long gun carry was IF UOC was banned and in effect on 01/01/2011. Why even post this here? And I think it was a mistake to even refer to long gun carry as "Black Rifles", "EBR", etc. Thanks for using the anti-gun propaganda terminology.

I really don't have a problem with any of the pro-2A groups. They all have their place in the world and choose to focus on what they want to focus on. It is kind of annoying when one group (or two or three) decides that their direction is the direction for everyone and that everyone should fall in line. Oh, and make sure you donate because money is what makes all the difference.

I just can't help but notice that many of these groups are run and dominated by lawyers. The judicial system isn't the only way to get our 2A rights restored. There will be a time when lawyers and judges won't uphold the 2A and then what should we do? Wait 10, 20, 30 years until a new generation comes around to fight for 2A rights in the courts again? Wait until the pendulum swings back in our favor again?

It sounds like UOCers should start asking permission of those "who are all on the same page" for permission on how to most effectively exercise their 2A rights.

cato said:

Because this sites owners agree, co-operate, and are DOWN with the coalition plan; Alan Gura, Don Kilmer, Jason Davis, Gene Hoffman, Mike Stolenwerk, John Peirce, Bill Weise, Gary Peterson, Me, Mudcamper, CA Libertarian, Condition3, (& many other OCers criminally defended by CGF in years past) Virginia Citizens Defense League and all the other states movers and shakers in WI, MI, WA, AZ, GA, CO, IL, DC and nationally are on the same page.

Click to expand...

Dyslexia ftw. It's Gray

Most of you question CGF because of my statements so I'd like to address some things.

1. The black rifle issue is specific to an opportunity for positive change. We have an opportunity to work with a new ally that would be forced politically to abandon all of us if UOC of black rifles became common before that opportunity was completed.

2. Long in the past I did ask folks to hold off on UOC in CA. In your heart of hearts, I expect you realize how close we got to losing UOC. We didn't and that's excellent. CGF can't defend UOCers in most cases (but we can in some now.) However, the strategic environment has now changed. Be careful out there and I would ask that UOCers not be in people's faces about public carrying but UOC respectfully and casually. Those who can LOC should feel completely free. I personally don't think UOC is our best strategy in urban California, but I'm far less worried about real damage occurring now that 1934 failed.

There has been a lot of absolutism in this debate. We've always said that "at this time" matters but "this time" has now changed. Please notice that that's happening on our side and understand that that should be seriously considered if you doubted that position in the past.

-Gene

jsebclark said:

Why are we even talking about carrying long guns?

Click to expand...

As a precaution based on advances made in the legislative field over the past weeks.

UOC EBR has already happened in CA (however isolated) but why hand the other side an issue to reclaim territory when that can be avoided? This wasn't an 'order' to not do it. This was a 'please' and a 'request' AND an 'olive branch' to reconnect in dialogue with the UOC community. These and other concerns must be discussed and cross posted.

Count 1934's defeat as a victory for UOC pistol. Nobody's opposing UOC that I know of at this point for political reasons and I'm happy to withdraw my objections to it with 1934's demise for this year. Let the 1st A. ring! But please UOC very smart and carfully for your own sake (legal/criminal risk etc...)

LG-OC may normally be verboten at OCDO but obviously with CA's unique UOC situation and lack of a court protected right to carry the Admin. have allowed this venue for this issue.

We must make the best of our time now to show the detractors that UOC is a useful 'protest' and 'political tool' for the recapture of our suppressed RKBA (loaded) in CA. Keeping the public message palatable to the CA population should also be in our OC play book. That is why I've, in the past, pushed 'dressing up' a little to ease people's potential fears surrounding OC in CA. We ARE in the communication and education business. We ARE 2nd A ambassadors and must tailor our messages to be accepted by the greatest numbers in the shortest amount of time while we secure our beachead.

Gray Peterson said:

Dyslexia ftw. It's Gray

Click to expand...

My fingers have been flying fast and furious tonight...:banghead:

coolusername2007 said:

.

Oh, and I remember something about a possible...

Click to expand...

Operation Overlord wasn't announced until it was mostly underway. "e" isn't June 6th but maybe it's the Italian Campaign. "e" has not been forgotten. McDonald was just about a month ago so...

MudCamper said:

I wholeheartedly support Bill, and the CGF on this one. Let's keep the long guns out of OC for now (in urban areas anyway).

Click to expand...

The irony in California is that handguns are practically illegal to transport on foot in urban areas with 626.9 still in place.

Felid`Maximus said:

The irony in California is that handguns are practically illegal to transport on foot in urban areas with 626.9 still in place.

Click to expand...

Same with long guns. Re-read the exemption for 'transporting' LGs - 'transporting' is not the same as 'carrying'. Read Overturf and I guarantee the courts will say 'carrying' a LG in a GFSZ is not lawfully 'transporting'. LGUOC in GFSZs will result in charges and a conviction and a 10 year prohibition in CA.

Beware of 626.9 and don't toy with it. Sykes (licences to carry) will take care that issue until it can be wiped out completely.

Yes in a GFSZ LUCC is required for now (hint/wink).

A reminder of forum rules...

(12) NO BASHING OF OTHER GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS: Regardless of how convinced you are that another gun rights organization is not doing their job, this is not the place to air those concerns unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization. All other rants against other gun rights groups will be deleted or the thread locked.

CGF is not anti-open carry.

(14) LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.


No suggestion is made here from Bill or from Gene in a vacuum. California is not Arizona, and if they're asking the folks in this forum to not do something that was only going to be done if AB1934 had actually passed. It did not. This is a pullback from the brink.

Specifically from Gene:

1. The black rifle issue is specific to an opportunity for positive change. We have an opportunity to work with a new ally that would be forced politically to abandon all of us if UOC of black rifles became common before that opportunity was completed.

You can bet that if there is a "positive change", you folks here on this forum would be full participants in said positive change in gun rights in California.

One more comment: bwiese did not sticky the thread. Someone with mod powers did so because they thought it important to point out.

OK, so CGF doesn't want us to open carry Evil Black Rifles. What about my black Mini-14 with a 30 round magazine? The mini-14 is "featureless" and the 30 round magazine is perfectly legal. Rhetorical question, so don't bother...

Look, I understand the CGF logic in their requests: they are playing the 2A fight like a chess game but unfortunately I feel like they are treating UOC'ers as the pawns that are disposable. I love that CGF is working toward the same cause as all of us, but I don't necessarily agree with all of their tactics (nor do I have to agree). I'm don't advocate stupidity in this fight, but history is defined by the Rosa Parks' of the world - the ones who say, "No, I will NOT get out of my seat"...not by the individuals who timidly defer to attorneys to fight for their cause. In this battle in this state, we need both the attorneys and the Rosa Parks' to win and they are both equally important. It would be far more advantageous if the CGF folks could learn to use the UOC'ers to their strategic advantage in this battle, especially since we are all on the same side. I don't feel that asking UOC'ers to stand down on any front is a very wise use of strategic resources.

moleculo said:

OK, so CGF doesn't want us to open carry Evil Black Rifles. What about my black Mini-14 with a 30 round magazine? The mini-14 is "featureless" and the 30 round magazine is perfectly legal. Rhetorical question, so don't bother...

Look, I understand the CGF logic in their requests: they are playing the 2A fight like a chess game but unfortunately I feel like they are treating UOC'ers as the pawns that are disposable. I love that CGF is working toward the same cause as all of us, but I don't necessarily agree with all of their tactics (nor do I have to agree). I'm don't advocate stupidity in this fight, but history is defined by the Rosa Parks' of the world - the ones who say, "No, I will NOT get out of my seat"...not by the individuals who timidly defer to attorneys to fight for their cause. In this battle in this state, we need both the attorneys and the Rosa Parks' to win and they are both equally important. It would be far more advantageous if the CGF folks could learn to use the UOC'ers to their strategic advantage in this battle, especially since we are all on the same side. I don't feel that asking UOC'ers to stand down on any front is a very wise use of strategic resources.

Click to expand...

Rosa Parks did not just decide one day to stop going to the back of the bus. This piece of falsehood was taught in schools during the time I was growing up. Luckily I learned the truth:

Black activists had begun to build a case to challenge state bus segregation laws around the arrest of a 15-year-old girl, Claudette Colvin, a student at Booker T. Washington High School in Montgomery. On March 2, 1955, Colvin was handcuffed, arrested and forcibly removed from a public bus when she refused to give up her seat to a white man. She claimed that her constitutional rights were being violated. At the time, Colvin was active in the NAACP Youth Council, a group to which Parks served as Advisor.

Parks was raising money for Colvin's defense, but when E.D. Nixon learned that Colvin was pregnant, it was decided that Colvin was an unsuitable symbol for their cause. Soon after her arrest she had conceived a child with a much older married man. Strategists believed that the segregationist white press would use Colvin's pregnancy to undermine any boycott. The NAACP also had considered, but rejected, earlier protesters deemed unable or unsuitable to withstand the pressures of cross-examination in a legal challenge to racial segregation laws. Colvin was also known to engage in verbal outbursts and cursing. Many of the legal charges against Colvin were dropped. A boycott didn't materialize from the Colvin case, and legal strategists continued to seek a complainant beyond reproach.


Copied from Wikipedia but sourced from her own autobiography among other sources.

Rosa Parks was not a person by herself to strike down segregation. For her movement (the civil rights movement for African-descended Americans), she was working with her version of CGF (the NAACP) to make get segregation tossed in Alabama. That is how you play smart.

Also, if UOC'ers were merely disposable pawns, the Coalition of gun rights groups in California that wasn't directly aligned with xOC (NRA-California, CRPA, CGN+CGF) would not have spent many months of time defeat to AB1934. Even though the bill becoming would have gained us LOC with a license to carry (especially post-Sykes), it still was fought, as any form of further further gun control by the California Legislature is unacceptable, and must be fought with a unified base.

The Coalition (the named above groups that I stated) fought in concert with RCC to keep this ban from passing. Remember, folks, the battle for gun rights in California is not just about UOC, or LOC, or even carry in general.

I agree with Bill's general theme of ***avoiding provacative DRAMA*** re gun carry

bwiese said:

Hello California UOCers,

I'll not go into another Bill W. harangue here about merits (or lack thereof) of general UOCing, or the political consequences we luckily dodged.

[We were fortunate *this year* to end up having some big help from unexpected quarters and from drama around two legislators (one with mental function issues, one very ill) that would've required being wheeled in on gurneys to vote. Who knows what'll happen next year.]

But what I WILL specifically ask for, however, is to PLEASE REFRAIN FROM (U)OC OF BLACK RIFLES/"EVIL LONG GUNS", etc.

Certain groups don't need to be alienated and are disposed to work with us on certain key legislative matters of important mutual/overlapping interest in the future. OCing of EBRs can result in more Saldaña-style PR drama with guns even more inflammatory than sidearms.

Let's not speculate publicly here, but I'm hoping some folks here can 'read between the lines' and help guide others. Fixups with multi-group support are achieveable and are much cheaper than litigation.

Thank you!


Bill Wiese
CGF
San Jose CA

Click to expand...

I agree with Bill's general theme of ***avoiding provacative DRAMA*** in California, or frankly ANYWHERE when it comes to gun carry - any act or group outing that can easily be twisted by the antis into some sort of kooky "protest", or confrontational or martial exercise should be avoided.

Open carry is about carrying properly holstered handguns in daily life just like the concealed carriers do - onesies and twosies is the ideal, people acting normally going about your business.

If you want to hold a get together, great, but it should be low key, normal people getting together for lunch or picnic, go tot the range, whatever. And if you can hold it in an unincorporasted terretory where the county has not banned shooting, even BETTER as folks can carry loaded there if they want and the police cannot detain anyone there for load checks and the political pressure will be off the police chief's back to "do somthing."

At the end of the day this is a publicity war - shooting ourselves in the foot does not win any engagements even when it feels good.

Because Long Guns are "drama invoking".
Because people are "rightfully afraid" of long gun carry, especially AR/AK variants.

I understand the commentary about political chess, but can we please stop trying to substantiate the ideology that "black rifles" for whatever reason and/or purpose, are "justifiably panic inducing"?

I mean for Christs sake guys, half of you bitch about them being good "mouse round guns", or other pervasive commentary about the self defense merit of AR's.

Just sayin...

I don't think anyone has to worry about people UOCing black rifles. That was, however, a contingency plan should AB 1934 pass into law. It's not an issue now. I don't even see why it needs to be brought up. A lot of unnecessary drama going on here over nothing.