California UOCers: please avoid black rifle drama...

Devilinbp · Sep 7, 2010

Gray Peterson said:
You would be incorrect and wrong. The OLL situation was known for years before it was pushed in the mid 2000's.

Please, explain to me how the OLL situation is analogous and what group of people were told not to perform a legal activity?

Mike Hawk · Sep 7, 2010

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
Wow! What other of your rights are you willing to roll over on? You do realize all the crap you people (CA residents) put up with is unconstitutional, right?

Gee, it never occurred to us Californians, Paul. Thanks so much for your unsolicited and redundant notification of our lousy situation out here!
Many of us are fighting hard to change our gun laws in this state. Oh and for what it's worth Paulie, I wear shorts in January and can see the ocean from my living room. Enjoy freezing your sack off this winter!

Gray Peterson · Sep 7, 2010

Devilinbp said:
Please, explain to me how the OLL situation is analogous and what group of people were told not to perform a legal activity?

In 2001, after the Harrot case, the series language was stricken the from the AW ban. It was around that point that certain people discovered the "OLL loophole".

People were told not to bring it up for fear of the Legislature coming in and rebanning it again. In 2005, however, there was enough information and legal support to push the OLL agenda, with many of the now-CGF directors leading the way. Look up the "Milpitas Lowers" case, which was finally dismissed in late 2006.

So yes, for a few years, there were times that the community was told "Don't do this" while the brass figured out the best way to make the loophole stick and also cause maximum damage to the Lockyer administration of the AG's office. Read Bill's posting carefully. There is an opportunity to fix a problem that EBR carry would screw things up for. Read between the lines.

Gray Peterson · Sep 7, 2010

ryanburbridge said:
In a way I do wish the ANTIs would completely ban and take away all gun overnight.

Sound crazy? What is going on now is the frog in boiling water. Slowly but surely we are loosing our rights not in the courts but in the peoples minds.

If they took our rights away over night I think people would mobilize very fast and FIGHT to get their rights back.

Would you guys be ok with a convicted felon walking into a gun store and ten minutes later walking out with a gun?

If you say NO this proves my point!

We have given in to the antis we are OK with some regulation or antigun laws. I AM NOT OK WITH ANY!

The real reason for the 2A, besides the self defense angle:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Stop praying for tyranny to happen just to justify yourself a glorious revolution.

Gray Peterson · Sep 7, 2010

MatieA said:
The Government has never led us astray before, why would they start now? If they ask us to do or not do something, there is a very good reason. They cannot always divulge their reasons. Having faith in them sometimes means blind faith.

Sound familiar?
I don't trust any organization 100% and especially not BLINDLY!!

Government has done plenty of demonstrate-able wrongs. What wrongs can you point that CGF has done?

Gray Peterson · Sep 7, 2010

Sons of Liberty said:
CGF has been moving in the opposite direction of the pedulum swing of individuals standing up for and demonstrating their rights to bear arms openly. It takes too long for them to change course and they are not at the leading edge of open carry; they are not at the leading edge of the growing discontent in this country for a government bent on ignoring individual rights.

If you're talking about the politics on stuff other than firearms, you're asking for too much. Focusing on political issues other than gun issues dilute our effectiveness.

Sons of Liberty said:
And I find it very irritating that after AB1934 dies, these CGF'ers want to jump out in front of the swelling movement and direct activity; an activity that they continuously openly spoke against these last couple of years. CGF is cold water being poured out on the hot coals of individuals wanting to push to get their rights re-established.

EBR carry and UOC carry doesn't re-establish rights. UOC is not protected by the 2nd amendment, which guarantees you the ability to carry a FUNCTIONAL firearm for self defense, not an unfunctional firearms, which what unloaded means.

Sons of Liberty said:
I think you can do us all a favor and publicly apologize to each and every OCer on the California forums on how you treated us for the last 2 years. Maybe, then can these wounds start to heal.

United Airlines doesn't advertise their "near-miss" rate, which is what AB1934 was.

Sons of Liberty said:
(And please, no one say anything about OLL or I'm going to puke.)

Better get your barf bag.

Bookman · Sep 7, 2010

bigtoe416 said:
Come now Ryan, is the request to not carry a weapon that is offensive in nature really such a bizarre request? If AB 1934 were to pass, things would be different and the carrying of long rifles would be a prudent protest to send a message to our politicians. Handguns are inherently a defensive weapon, and if any of us plan on carrying for purposes of self-defense, then we would be carrying the appropriate tool for the job.

While I don't personally believe in Open Carry of long guns, I feel the need to point out that you just used the same reason the other side uses against us. They feel that WE shouldn't carry because it offends THEM. I don't care if it offends them. Being personally offended isn't a rational basis from which to make laws.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Sep 7, 2010

Mike Hunt said:
Oh and for what it's worth Paulie, I wear shorts in January and can see the ocean from my living room. Enjoy freezing your sack off this winter!

I can open carry with one in the pipe and if a LEO asks me anything I can keep silent and keep walking.

slowfiveoh · Sep 7, 2010

The AR series of rifles really should be a symbol of national pride for this country. Instead, it's vilified by those who claim to be looking out for my rights.

Again, we can all accept that there is political maneuvering that certain bodies would love to initiate, without being "burdened" by those exercising their rights. However, doesn't the concept, in and of itself, preclude the exercising of said rights?

Is said request, although not legally weighed, another concession of the free to those who deem themselves morally superior?

How many pages of conversation on this topic now?

I would say enough to likely make an anti giggle with glee.

AR platform firearms.
EVIL

Tupperware guns.
GOOD

Such stupidity.

cato · Sep 7, 2010

cato said:
We have no state right to arms and will be dependent on only what ever the federal right becomes once it is fleshed out in court in the coming decades. In the mean time we have to engage in a fluid battle against an enemy which occupies the stratigic high ground with a larger force (legislative power) while we probe for and strike their week spots while waiting for reinforcements (court protection) before beginning a larger sustained campaign for victory (a meaningful RKBA).

Our situation is not unlike that of the continental army where Washington avoided pitched battles and often withdrew to keep his force intact. In Ca, metaphorically, our French Fleet has not yet arrived.

Guess I'll just quote me...

Devilinbp · Sep 7, 2010

Gray Peterson said:
In 2001, after the Harrot case, the series language was stricken the from the AW ban. It was around that point that certain people discovered the "OLL loophole".

People were told not to bring it up for fear of the Legislature coming in and rebanning it again. In 2005, however, there was enough information and legal support to push the OLL agenda, with many of the now-CGF directors leading the way. Look up the "Milpitas Lowers" case, which was finally dismissed in late 2006.

So yes, for a few years, there were times that the community was told "Don't do this" while the brass figured out the best way to make the loophole stick and also cause maximum damage to the Lockyer administration of the AG's office. Read Bill's posting carefully. There is an opportunity to fix a problem that EBR carry would screw things up for. Read between the lines.

I appreciate the info.....since i have not had the time or funds to delve into creating an EBR this helps bring me up to speed. As i have already stated.....i do not object to following this request.

That being said....there is a difference between the OLL and UOC situations. OLL was about exploiting a loophole.....UOC is fully legal. Just pointing that out. What has me asking all of these questions and my shorts in a bind is a thread on CGN where UOC is being vilified(big surprise) and Some members are pushing for all UOC in groups to cease. Here is a link: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=339356

heliopolissolutions · Sep 7, 2010

I considered walking into this ****-storm and throwing down.

But then I realized I'm hungry, and that an early lunch would be preferable.

No matter how much we disagree about tactics, we're still brothers and sisters.

Gray Peterson · Sep 7, 2010

From Brett Thomas (aka the_quark):

I'd say there are a couple of differences between this and Heller. NRA was saying "wait an indeterminate amount of time." We're saying "Wait a couple of years until we establish you have a clear, constitutional right to bear arms, which are doing right now in at least three cases". We're not saying "stop exercising your rights until an undetermined time." We're saying "what you are doing is right now actively screwing with what we're trying to accomplish at this very second. Please just let us finish the line of cases and establish we have a constitutional right to bear, and then let's break this thing wide open." Quite frankly, if California had passed AB1934, it could've been used directly by opposing judges as evidence that "bear" isn't "fundamental to our concept of ordered liberty" and made it less likely for us to get strict scrutiny, which could potentially impact all kinds of gun laws, and not in a good way. (Gray's note: What he's talking about is the district court judges in CAND and certain panels of the 9th Circuit, and also see what he's saying here: Once bear is established as a fundamental right and carry licenses must be issued for self defense, there will likely be further litigation against PC12031 and PC626.9, which is the two laws which are preventing LOC).

NRA's approach with Heller was "let's wait and see if we can get a shift in the makeup of the supreme court." We're actively trying to get court recognition of these rights, using a strategy that we have proven works in two cases, so far. In-your-face UOC is directly undermining this proven strategy, and we're only asking you to wait until the Supreme Court has said "Yes you have a right to bear arms, too," and given our past track record, that's two or three years off.

Once we have that, yes, please open carry in everyone's faces. Heck, I'll join you. But the risk from it right now is that we get laws passed that A) we might not be able to overturn any time soon, and B) that will directly undermine our attempt to get a clear ruling this is constitutionally protected behavior. (Gray's note: Does this look like the posting of an anti-gunner to all of you?)

Aside from that, in California, here's my most realistic fear: CA bans UOC. We sue to say "You can't do that, it violates the 'bear' provision of the 2nd amendment". I'll pause briefly to note here that in bringing that lawsuit, we're not bringing some other lawsuit to overturn some existing crummy law. I'll also note that this lawsuit isn't going to be the one to establish we have a right to "bear", since there will already be other lawsuits on that topic well ahead of it. In that case, we get the decision, "Well, sure, you have a right to bear, but a 12050 license lets you bear," and the Supreme Court doesn't take the case on appeal. You know what? You just locked in, at the last possible moment, that we in California don't have a right to carry without a license. And there's no way to fix it other than getting the legislature to overturn it. (Gray's note: This should be a note to you "what part of 'shall not be infringed do you not understand' types. Civil rights are undermined by stupid cases and stupid decisions by people on the ground)

But, if you wait two years until we've gotten the courts to settle this issue, when it comes up again in the legislature we can go to all the legislators and say, "Look, the Supreme Court just said we have a right to 'bear' - you can't do this!" And that will be enough political cover to keep it from passing. And, even if it does pass, we're starting the case with an on-point Supreme Court case in our back pocket, on our side.

My fear is that a lot of UOCers see this as a tremendous vindication of their approach. It took a ton of work by NRA and CRPA behind the scenes (work, again, that kept them from doing something more productive) to prevent this bill passing - and even then, with all due respect to Tom and Ed, there was more luck than skill involved in us dodging this bullet. I'm getting the vibe from some UOCers that, the tiger was charging them, NRA shot it, and they've now decided they're all immune to tigers.

Back to the original point, I'm deeply saddened that people can't seem to see the difference between NRA's "wait and see, maybe it'll get better" approach with Heller, and our "please stop throwing gasoline on this fire we're trying to put out" approach with "bear".

Later post:

Look, I want this, too. I just see a different path to get there. Heller said you have a right to a functional, loaded firearm in your home. Our strategy with "bear" is to get the Supreme Court to recognize this right outside the home, too, cleanly and easily, through cases like the one in North Carolina. Once we get a recognition, I think then is the time to push for the sociological change of getting people used to people walking around with guns.

Again, my fear is that applying this pressure too early will at worst set laws and precedents we can't overturn, later. At best, it emboldens our enemies and saps resources we could be using to fight existing crappy laws. If they pass new crappy laws because of UOC, it will be a definitive blow to our side. We'll lose prestige. We need now the mantle of invincibility, of inevitability. Setting them up to slap us down does not play into that. We'd also need to spend a lot of time and money trying to overturn whatever crappy laws they come up with.

I'm sorry that you see this as you "educating" the public. Maybe the handful of people you actually interact with. Everyone else reads in the newspaper about how those "crazy gun nuts" are carrying in Starbucks and wants to know why the hell that's legal. I was taking a liberal friend to the range the other day (trying to switch an anti), and he brought up how scary the UOC people were. This isn't an anti-gun activist, just your standard-issue Bay Area liberal, and he'd heard about it in the press and thought it was crazy. Those are the people you're really reaching with UOC publicity. There needs to be a recognition that this is a political event, and the MSM is never going to be writing stories about how a bunch of people peacefully exercised their rights; they're going to be writing stories about "crazy gun nuts" in the park.

You can say, as someone else did in this thread, "It shouldn't matter what people look like." Sure, I agree, it shouldn't. Doesn't matter to me. But it does matter in the press. If you want to convince people carrying guns in public is "mainstream" you need to look "mainstream" - otherwise John Q. Public is going to figure you're a wierdo with a gun, and that's pretty scary, and shouldn't someone in Sacramento be doing something about that?

I want to make it absolutely clear that I think Loaded Open Carry is what the constitution envisioned and is the ultimate goal from a "bear" perspective. When we suggest doing other things now, it's interim suggestions given the political and legal reality we live in. When we talk about how "soon you should be able to get a 12050 license easily", we mean, "...and, since that's obviously better than UOC, you'll want to use that 'til LOC is legal." LOC is absolutely our goal. We just recognize that the political and legal reality is we need to walk before we can crawl, and our A-number-one priority is to make it so the average law-abiding Californian can carry a loaded gun. In some fashion or other, not locked up. Sykes and its relatives are the quickest route to that path. Once we get "people can carry loaded guns" we'll work on "people can carry loaded guns openly". But political UOC is not getting us closer to LOC - and arguable may make it harder to get.

Political UOC, massive starbucks coffee meets, and so on, doesn't work. Defensive UOC does in fact work.

What Brett is trying to say here is that individual UOC is OK. Massive political rallying, starbucks coffee meets, and so on, is not OK. OCing of EBR's are definitely not OK under any circumstances, especially when they have the effect of screwing up a solution that may fix a particular problem to said weapons, as it where.

The leadership of CGF is not anti-open carry, regardless of the fact that people are conflating their statements with those of individual posted members of CGN (who are not leadership). For all of this talk about "Individual responsibility", it seems certain people keep saying "CalGuns" this and "CGF" that, and not naming specific names. Smearing an entire forum with no individual call out of names.

Gray Peterson · Sep 7, 2010

Devilinbp said:
I appreciate the info.....since i have not had the time or funds to delve into creating an EBR this helps bring me up to speed. As i have already stated.....i do not object to following this request.

That being said....there is a difference between the OLL and UOC situations. OLL was about exploiting a loophole.....UOC is fully legal. Just pointing that out. What has me asking all of these questions and my shorts in a bind is a thread on CGN where UOC is being vilified (big surprise) and Some members are pushing for all UOC in groups to cease. Here is a link: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=339356

Yes, and you notice that CGF leadership isn't telling people to cease all UOC.

UOC is as much a loophole as OLL was.

the_quark said:
I want to make this really, really clear. CGF IS PUSHING FOR LOC. We have made the tactical decision to go for CCW first (see Sykes). But, we are consulting in cases out of state that move towards LOC. We think a lot about how to get LOC. WE WANT LOC, as much as you do. Just because decide "We should get A first for tactical reasons" doesn't mean we don't also want B. We're not "ignoring" a great many people, we're trying to expand our rights as fast as we can. You can Monday morning quarterback our decisions, that's fine. But don't say (as I've seen multiple times in this thread) that CGF is opposed to LOC, or doesn't care about it, or isn't working towards it. WE ARE. We're just giving you the realistic assessment that shall-issue CCW will probably be here, first.

And, AGAIN, no one at CGF is saying "Don't UOC if you feel you need to for your safety". We're just saying "Now is not a good time to be getting press attention on this issue." The frightening thing is the political UOCers who are now emboldened by the close AB1934 fight, who seem to see this as an endorsement of their tactics rather than the near-death experience it was.

the_quark said:
I want to make one clear point separately here, too: All anyone is saying is "Try to stay out of the press when you UOC". That's it. If you feel you need to do it individually for safety, that's your right and decision. If you have a friend that feels the same way and you meet for coffee, that's fine. But don't call reporters, don't stage big events, don't do things like start carrying rifles (black or otherwise).

Yes, please, do this in a few years if we get the legal landscape we want. Then will be the time to be "in your face" (and believe me, I'll be there with you).

Carry if you feel you must. But try not to make a spectacle of it, and I'd personally advise telling any reporters that call you "no comment" unless you already have a lot of experience dealing with the press - and even then a hostile reporter can screw you and there's not a darn thing you can do about it.

I'll ask all of you again: Is the CGF leadership anti-gun or anti-open carry? I think not.

bwiese · Sep 7, 2010

Devilinbp said:
That being said....there is a difference between the OLL and UOC situations. OLL was about exploiting a loophole.....UOC is fully legal. Just pointing that out. What has me asking all of these questions and my shorts in a bind is a thread on CGN where UOC is being vilified(big surprise) and Some members are pushing for all UOC in groups to cease. Here is a link: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=339356

Let's get this right...
... OLL stuff was about usage of some legislatively unaddressed issues opened by an interplay of
regulation and court decisions.

THERE WAS NO POLITICAL DOWNSIDE because there were only a few viable options, all in favor of our side - either they'd have to create a pool of new registered AWs (after a few weeks of saying "two weeks" we knew that was not gonna happen) - or let things be. Any attempt to create a new suite of "Category 4" AWs, or re-regulate 'detachable magazine' definition would fail due to inconsistency (due to prior regulatory approval of other setups already) and prior DOJ writings and at worst would have created a new pool of registered AWs.

The legislature would've been in a bind - there's nothing they (Irwin) could do to address this: there was (and still is) no political will in CA to ban all semiauto rifles (the only legislative attack really possible) as every hunting & outdoor group and even quite a few LE groups would come out raving against that. (i.e., some of you remember the "duck hunters" and "30 Cal idiots" that stayed quiet during the 1st AW bans - "I don't need a black gun..." )

We also knew "buybacks" (like the SKS fiasco) were also not feasible both due to size & scope of situation and California budget. The DOJ early on also knew that.

So before we moved en masse and did stuff publicly in big runs (and doing web ads about AG Bill Lockyer letting 30+K new AWs into CA) we'd already thought a lot about the legal-political outcomes.

The legislature did a "aw shucks what happened here" and passed AB2728 with some skillful NRA maneuvering they realized it was the best outcome. Simultaneously, it appears Deputy AG Alison Merrilees lied to various leg aides/staffers/legislators about her ability to fix 'detachable magazine' and
when it failed for a variety of reasons her credibility was lost in whole pile of different quarters.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Gray Peterson · Sep 7, 2010

bwiese said:
The legislature would've been in a bind - there's nothing they (Irwin) could do to address this: there was (and still is) no political will in CA to ban all semiauto rifles (the only legislative attack really possible) as every hunting & outdoor group and even quite a few LE groups would come out raving against that. (i.e., some of you remember the "duck hunters" and "30 Cal idiots" that stayed quiet during the 1st AW bans - "I don't need a black gun..." )

Btw, the "Irwin" spoken of here is Irwin Norwick, who essentially wrote the AW ban among other provisions of PC12000 et al. He's a continual presence at the California Legislature and is the "point man" on gun control issues. If Saldaña is the public face, Norwick is the private writer.

bigtoe416 · Sep 7, 2010

Bookman said:
While I don't personally believe in Open Carry of long guns, I feel the need to point out that you just used the same reason the other side uses against us. They feel that WE shouldn't carry because it offends THEM. I don't care if it offends them. Being personally offended isn't a rational basis from which to make laws.

Offensive, as in the opposite of defensive. Not offensive as in offending somebody. I don't care if carrying a AR-15 offends anybody either. We absolutely have the right to express ourselves how we choose, even if the end result is that people are offended.

MudCamper · Sep 7, 2010

Gray Peterson said:
The leadership of CGF is not anti-open carry, regardless of the fact that people are conflating their statements with those of individual posted members of CGN (who are not leadership). For all of this talk about "Individual responsibility", it seems certain people keep saying "CalGuns" this and "CGF" that, and not naming specific names. Smearing an entire forum with no individual call out of names.

Gray Peterson said:
Yes, and you notice that CGF leadership isn't telling people to cease all UOC.

I'll ask all of you again: Is the CGF leadership anti-gun or anti-open carry? I think not.

And just to clarify for some folks who may miss the subtleties of the acronyms here:

CGN = CalGuns.net, a privately owned internet forum with between 30K and 50K members of the public.

CGF = CalGuns Foundation, a 501 (c) (3) charitable organization that fights for gun rights, founded by Bill, Gene (both have posted in this thread) and a handful of other CGN members.

heliopolissolutions said:
No matter how much we disagree about tactics, we're still brothers and sisters.

I wholeheartedly concur!

EXTREMEOPS1 · Sep 7, 2010

My CA DOJ approved AR1 offends everyone ...even fellow UOC's

bigtoe416 said:
Offensive, as in the opposite of defensive. Not offensive as in offending somebody. I don't care if carrying a AR-15 offends anybody either. We absolutely have the right to express ourselves how we choose, even if the end result is that people are offended.

But I still UOC the "bad black rifle" when my pistols needs a break

bwiese · Sep 7, 2010

MudCamper said:
CGN = CalGuns.net, a privately owned internet forum with between 30K and 50K members of the public.

That's a "registered subscriber" number.

The actual 'viewership' and 'ongoing California repetitive viewership' is much higher as shown by the IP addresses.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

California UOCers: please avoid black rifle drama...

Regular Member

New member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member