Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: CGF REQUEST: Volunteers needed in every county ASAP!

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    CGF REQUEST: Volunteers needed in every county ASAP!

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...12#post5135112

    Quote Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
    All,

    Calguns Foundation is actively seeking volunteers from each and every California county who want to make a difference and are free of any prohibiting history; for a list prohibiting conditions, see the end of this post. It's important that we have coverage in each county - let's "get the word out" across the state.

    Unfortunately, we can't share much about the nature of this request just yet... As Bill Wiese says, "CGF: when you absolutely, positively have to sue every mother****** in the room!".

    If you are interested in working with CGF to advance gun rights in your area and across California, please email us the following information to volunteer@calgunsfoundation.org.

    Last:
    First:
    CGN Username (if any):
    County:
    City:
    Zip:
    Age:
    Occupation:
    Phone:
    Email:

    If for some reason you can't get involved directly as a volunteer, consider making a fully tax-deductible donation to CGF which will go straight to the front lines and support the numerous lawsuits and initiatives coming soon.

    Don't forget to sign up at www.calgunsfoundation.org and follow @CalgunsFdn for all the latest news and 2A resources. Please do pass the word along to your friends, family and shooting buddies. CGF is coming to town armed and ready with the nation's preeminent 2A litigators and operations team... and we're coming soon.

    Thank you for your support; we look forward to working closely with you to advance our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    -Brandon

    Prohibiting Conditions

    CALIFORNIA PROHIBITING CATEGORIES FOR A CCW LICENSE
    As of January, 1999

    • Persons convicted of a felony, or any offense enumerated in section 12021.1 of the Penal Code (PC).
    • Persons addicted to the use of narcotics.
    • Persons denied firearm possession as a condition of probation pursuant to PC section 12021(d).
    • Persons convicted of a specified misdemeanor pursuant to PC section 12021(c)(1) are prohibited from purchasing
    or possessing firearms for 10 years (see Attachment 2).
    • Juveniles adjudged wards of the juvenile court because they committed a 707(b) Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC)
    offense, an offense described in PC section 1203.073(b) or any offense enumerated in PC section 12021(c)(1) are
    prohibited until they reach age 30.
    • Persons who are subject to a protective order as defined in section 6218 of the Family Code, or a temporary restraining order or injunction issued pursuant to sections 527.6 or 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    • Persons found by a court to be a danger to others because of mental illness.
    • Persons found by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial.
    • Persons found by a court to be not guilty by reason of insanity.
    • Persons adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender.
    • Persons placed on a conservatorship because they are gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism
    • Persons who communicate a threat to a licensed psychotherapist, against a reasonably identifiable victim, and the psychotherapist reports to law enforcement pursuant to WIC section 8100(b), are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm for 6 months.
    • Persons in a mental health facility certified pursuant to WIC sections 5250, 5260, and 5270.15 are prohibited from possessing or purchasing or attempting to purchase firearms for 5 years.
    • Persons who are voluntary patients in a mental facility who are determined to be a danger to self or others are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm between admission and discharge.
    • Persons under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

    CALIFORNIA PROHIBITING MISDEMEANORS
    As of January, 1999

    Pursuant to Penal Code (PC) section 12021(c)(1), any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor violation for any of the following offenses is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under his or her custody or
    control any firearms within 10 years of the conviction:
    • Threatening public officers, employees and school officials (PC section 71).
    • Threatening certain public officials, appointees, judges, staff or their families with the intent and apparent ability
    to carry out the threat (PC section 76).
    • Possessing a deadly weapon with the intent to intimidate a witness (PC section 136.5).
    • Threatening witnesses, victims, or informants (PC section 140).
    • Attempting to remove or take a firearm from the person or immediate presence of a public or peace officer (PC section 148(d)).
    • Unauthorized possession of a weapon in a courtroom, courthouse or court building, or at a public meeting (PC section 171(b)).
    • Bringing into or possessing a loaded firearm within the state capitol, legislative offices, etc. (PC section 171c).
    • Taking into or possessing loaded firearms within the Governor’s Mansion or residence of other constitutional officers, etc. (PC section 171(d)).
    • Supplying, selling or giving possession of a firearm to a person for participation in criminal street gangs (PC section 186.28).
    • Assault (PC sections 240, 241)
    • Battery (PC sections 242, 243).
    • Assault with a stun gun or Taber weapon (PC section 244.5)
    • Assault with deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury (PC section 245).
    • Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument, by any means likely to produce great bodily injury or with a stun gun or Taber on a school employee engaged in performance of duties (PC section 245.5).
    • Shooting at an inhabited or occupied dwelling house, building, vehicle, aircraft, horsecart or camper (PC section 246).
    • Discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (PC section 246.3)
    • Shooting at an unoccupied aircraft, motor vehicle, ojbr uninhabited building or dwelling house (PC section 247)
    • Inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or significant other (PC section 273.5)
    • Willfully violating a domestic protective order (PC section 273.6).
    • Drawing, exhibiting, or using any deadly weapon other than a firearm (PC sections 417(a)(1), 417(a)(2)).
    • Brandishing a firearm in presence of a peace officer (PC section 417.1 – repealed by stats. 1998).
    • Drawing or exhibiting, selling, manufacturing, or distributing firearm replicas or imitations (PC section 417.2).
    • Inflicting serious bodily injury as a result of brandishing (PC section 417.6).
    • Bringing into or possessing firearms upon or within public schools and grounds (PC section 626.9).
    • Stalking (PC section 646.9).
    • Armed criminal action (PC section 12023).
    • Possessing a deadly weapon with intent to commit an assault (PC section 12024).
    • Driver or any vehicle who knowingly permits another person to discharge a firearm from the vehicle or any
    person who will fully and maliciously discharges a firearm from a motor vehicle (PC sections 12034(b), 12034(d)).
    • Criminal possession of a firearm (PC section 12040).
    • Firearms dealer who sells or transfers or gives possession of any firearm to a minor or a handgun to a person under the age of 21 (PC section 12072(b)).
    • Various violations involving sales and transfers of firearms (PC section 12072(g)(3)).
    • Person or corporation who sells any concealable firearm to any minor (PC section 12100(a) – repealed by stats. 1994).
    • Unauthorized possession/transportation of a machine gun (PC section 12220).
    • Possession of ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor (PC section 12320).
    • Carrying a concealed or loaded firearm or other deadly weapon or wearing a peace officer uniform, while picketing (PC section 12590).
    • Bringing firearm related contraband into juvenile hall (WIC section 871.5).
    • Bringing firearm related contraband into a youth authority institution (WIC section 1001.5).
    • Purchase, possession, or receipt of a firearm or deadly weapon by a person receiving in-patient treatment for a mental disorder, or by a person who has communicated to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical
    violence against an identifiable victim (WIC section 8100).
    • Providing a firearm or deadly weapon to a person described in WIC sections 8100 or 8103 (WIC section 8101).
    • Purchase, possession, or receipt of a firearm or deadly weapon by a person who has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender or found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity, and individuals placed under a conservatorship (WIC section 8103).

    FEDERAL PROHIBITING CATEGORIES FOR POSSESSING FIREARMS
    Gun Control Act of 1968, Title 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44
    As of January, 1999

    Pursuant to Section 922, any person listed below is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving any firearm, who:
    • Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
    • Is a fugitive from justice.
    • Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
    • Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
    • Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
    • Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
    • Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship.
    • Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
    • Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
    • Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
    • Has an out-of-state prohibitive criminal history.
    • Has a prior denial on a previous National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) inquiry.
    Last edited by cato; 10-16-2010 at 11:03 AM.

  2. #2
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    I have no inside info on this. But if I was going to guess I'd say every police chief and sheriff who doesn't accept the Constitutional Right of 'Self Defense' as 'Good Cause' for a LTC is about to find themselves in an expensive Federal situation...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769
    Email Sent!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I smell something interesting, but I won't say, cuz I might be right.
    Another interesting thing....My Sheriff thinks his county is "shall not issue". His words.
    Last edited by Gundude; 10-16-2010 at 05:54 PM.
    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
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I smell something interesting, but I won't say, cuz I might be right.
    Another interesting thing....My Sheriff thinks his county is "shall not issue". His words.
    Yes, something interesting is cooking with Calguns....

    And I heard the San Diego Sheriff's debate, and there is no doubt that your Sheriff is either a complete moron or deliberately trying to reinterpret what 12050 says. Either case disqualifies him as a viable candidate for 'fry cook' let alone elected office. He also had the audacity to claim that this is what his attorneys had advised- His attorneys certainly dont have any excuse for this level of imbecility- since if this is true, it only made him appear even more incompetent as an administrator of justice for not being able to seek counsel that rightly interprets the law as it was written and intended.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Diego, California, United States
    Posts
    145
    e-mail sent

  7. #7
    Regular Member ryanburbridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Long beach ca, , USA
    Posts
    299
    E-mail sent for Los Angeles county. But the more the better.

  8. #8
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912
    E-mailed to help in Orange County.

    Given some of the statements above... I know my sheriff is a complete moron. Okay, so she was able to play the politics game and get appointed the first time, so maybe not a complete moron.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Yes, something interesting is cooking with Calguns....

    And I heard the San Diego Sheriff's debate, and there is no doubt that your Sheriff is either a complete moron or deliberately trying to reinterpret what 12050 says. Either case disqualifies him as a viable candidate for 'fry cook' let alone elected office. He also had the audacity to claim that this is what his attorneys had advised- His attorneys certainly dont have any excuse for this level of imbecility- since if this is true, it only made him appear even more incompetent as an administrator of justice for not being able to seek counsel that rightly interprets the law as it was written and intended.
    Yup a complete moron that is going to cost us thousands in San Diego but it couldn't go to a better freedom loving American.

    If you want to know more about Bill (William) Gore just google Ruby Ridge. Those with a couple ok a lot more years than I should remember.

  10. #10
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Email sent. This should be interesting.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Antioch, California, USA
    Posts
    68

    Thumbs up I'm in.

    E-mail sent.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Email sent.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  13. #13
    Regular Member ryanburbridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Long beach ca, , USA
    Posts
    299
    Ok i have started looking into what it takes to get a CCW. Most if not all sites i found say that you should have a very good "good cause" statement. Also they say that a denial looks bad and could cause problems down the road. What help can we expect to receive on this portion of the process? Are the ones that are looking into this using simple "self defense" wording for just cause? has any one above applied in the past and been denied?

  14. #14
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanburbridge View Post
    Ok i have started looking into what it takes to get a CCW. Most if not all sites i found say that you should have a very good "good cause" statement. Also they say that a denial looks bad and could cause problems down the road. What help can we expect to receive on this portion of the process? Are the ones that are looking into this using simple "self defense" wording for just cause? has any one above applied in the past and been denied?
    If you are not a prohibited person, a previous denial will have no weight. Self Defense is GC. A denial with a SD GC, however, would be a potent defense to a PC 12025/12031 charge (being that that is the state's preferred method of legal LOADED carry).

    I'd recommend signing up with CGF and seeing what they have cooking...
    Last edited by cato; 10-17-2010 at 09:32 PM.

  15. #15
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Those CCW sites are dinosors dedicated the the courtly art of kissing rings. No more ring kissing. The people demand licenses from their servants!... (At least until such time as we can get licensing struck down).

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Livermore, California, USA
    Posts
    229

    Cool

    I'm in for Alameda County!

    Carry On

    Livermoron

  17. #17
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Even having no specifics, this has got to be the best Californian litigious attack on constitutionally infringing police I have yet seen.

    I would prefer to have each and every cop who has initiated a 12031 check prosecuted under federal color of law violations, but since it is an imperfect world where criminals with badges get away with a lot of things, I am at least glad that steps are being made to finally re-level the playing field between cops and their Californian subjects.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  18. #18
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    Even having no specifics, this has got to be the best Californian litigious attack on constitutionally infringing police I have yet seen.

    I would prefer to have each and every cop who has initiated a 12031 check prosecuted under federal color of law violations, but since it is an imperfect world where criminals with badges get away with a lot of things, I am at least glad that steps are being made to finally re-level the playing field between cops and their Californian subjects.
    The legal route can take years. With a well timed win most jurisdictions will fall into line once they can see the hand writting on the wall (and the potential for millions in legal fees). Still the process of setting up dominos must be completed before they can be knocked over. I'm guessing the mystic CGF effort will take knocking over legal dominos to a new level!
    Last edited by cato; 10-17-2010 at 10:06 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    The legal route can take years. With a well timed win most jurisdictions will fall into line once they can see the hand writting on the wall (and the potential for millions in legal fees). Still the process of setting up dominos must be completed before they can be knocked over. I'm guessing the mystic CGF effort will take knocking over legal dominos to a new level!
    I was told not that long ago by a felon cop who unlawfully detained me to sue him and his entire department, among other obnoxious things. This is in a state with sweeping preemption, where the cop didn't have a legal leg to stand on, and he clearly knew it. Other common but less extreme problems involve cities refusing to issue handgun purchase permits, or charging illegal fees and instituting unlawful waiting periods. Efforts such as time consuming hidden camera investigations often but not always manage to fix these things.

    The thing that separates California is that not only are people less willing to stick up to cops, the cops are also therefore far more bold, making some of the worst in Michigan look like saints. What it takes to alleviate such things is a very strong, very relentless counter attack, utilizing every legally available advantage. In looking over the thread on calguns, it looks like that is indeed what is being coordinated.

    In reviewing the actions of war protesters in Berkeley in the 70's, it appears to me that many hippies were quite often far more audacious and courageous than most modern gun rights activists in California, and that subjects of the state have since then never quite regained their full sense of self respect, instead being rather unusually submissive to the police. (No disrespect intended towards those of you in Cali with a strong will to get things done in the face of overwhelming disapproval, it seems like most hang out on this forum). I am therefore happy that a strategy is available to be spoon fed to those who have any desire to be involved.

    No matter which options are deployed, if any end up working, I believe strongly that it will end up taking years to restore any meaningful measure of legal rights, especially to get it to a point where police go along. Using Michigan as an example, it has taken about 20 years to get from just a bit better off than Cali is now, to being one of the least handgun carry restricted states in the country if you have a CPL. And we're still fighting police abuse at times. McDonald and Heller can offer California a springboard for gun rights reinstatement, but it is going to take years of hard work. No ifs ands or buts about it, it will be extremely difficult and tedious. Also considering that the thin blue line hates stepping in to other jurisdictions it has over sight in to take out the trash, I believe nearly every correction of criminal cops will take time consuming FOIA's, complaints, and law suits. The wrongful prosecution isn't likely to stop soon either.
    Last edited by Michigander; 10-17-2010 at 10:33 PM.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  20. #20
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    This fight will be won in Federal Court (something MI did not have available during the last 20 years). Most jurisdictions in CA will comply quickly with license issuance. The hold outs will be raked over the coals.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    This fight will be won in Federal Court (something MI did not have available during the last 20 years). Most jurisdictions in CA will comply quickly with license issuance. The hold outs will be raked over the coals.
    I wish you guys luck. But it will not be that simple. Something we have had here is a number of federal law suits over the past 3 years. They are expensive, time consuming, and at the end of the day, rogue police don't care about throwing away tax payer money. Like all other criminals, if some Californian cops don't care about the law now, they won't care about it later, after it's changed.

    Assuming that everything goes as smoothly as possible, you should still expect Californian gun owners to get pissed on by the Californian government, very much like Chicago pissed on their subjects in the wake of McDonald. I harp on it often, how the Bay and LA regions have some of the very worst police in the USA. They are so bad that I honestly believe the areas would fit better in the EU that the USA. These are not the sort of criminals that you should underestimate. Nor should the potential future misdeeds of the California law makers be underestimated. Each and every detail will likely need to be sorted out in court. It will be an uphill battle, and that's the best case scenario.
    Last edited by Michigander; 10-18-2010 at 10:19 AM.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Costa Mesa
    Posts
    7

    Another one for Orange County

    Email Sent

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    In reviewing the actions of war protesters in Berkeley in the 70's, it appears to me that many hippies were quite often far more audacious and courageous than most modern gun rights activists in California, and that subjects of the state have since then never quite regained their full sense of self respect, instead being rather unusually submissive to the police. (No disrespect intended towards those of you in Cali with a strong will to get things done in the face of overwhelming disapproval, it seems like most hang out on this forum). I am therefore happy that a strategy is available to be spoon fed to those who have any desire to be involved.
    I am often stunned by the lack of the 60's spirit. I can remember being in the midst of tear gas cannisters hitting the ground and (luckily not hitting us). The cops were even more prone to beat on people once a mele broke out too. Nowadays, people walk and drive down the street with their heads down. I don't know what happened to us. I still wonder if it ain't sumthin' in the water.
    But...with that said, I met quite a few sh!theads during the late 60's that were more interested in just plain tearing things up that trying to accomplish a stated goal. All they would leave is a trashed neighborhood in their wake.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Quote Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
    I am often stunned by the lack of the 60's spirit. I can remember being in the midst of tear gas cannisters hitting the ground and (luckily not hitting us). The cops were even more prone to beat on people once a mele broke out too. Nowadays, people walk and drive down the street with their heads down. I don't know what happened to us. I still wonder if it ain't sumthin' in the water.
    But...with that said, I met quite a few sh!theads during the late 60's that were more interested in just plain tearing things up that trying to accomplish a stated goal. All they would leave is a trashed neighborhood in their wake.
    Realistically, there were 2 civil wars/violent struggles going on at the time in the USA. The effort for blacks to be treated under federal law as equal to whites, and the struggle for the very broad spectrum of people known popularly as hippies to try and end the vietnam war.

    Berkeley students and others witnessed and participated in both. They were some of the most extreme rioters. They saw the Black Panthers, and the more respectable Deacons For Defense when going to the south to study/participate in the black civil rights efforts, which contrary to popular belief revolved around a lot of armed blacks, and a lot less defenseless Ghandi style efforts than the gun owner Martin Luther King Junior wanted known at the time. All of this can be read in vintage student publications, which is where I learned about it, being currently a 24 year old.

    The Berkeley students were in a perfect place at a perfect time to see that violence is all too often the key solution to the problem of violent bullying oppressors. Why that all went away is something I still don't understand.

    Now I'm not saying that the ideas the bay area hippies and black panthers had about lets go kill the police are applicable to todays problems, but I am saying that a fierce spirit of unrelenting, uncompromising resistance is crucial to any successful political change. All of the horse **** "stand downs" I have seen out of California gun rights activists make me want to vomit. As does the acceptance of unconstitutional loaded gun checks. If you can't respect yourself, you shouldn't expect others to respect you, and this is perhaps the biggest roadblock to trying to bring freedom back to the left coast.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    Berkeley students and others witnessed and participated in both. They were some of the most extreme rioters. They saw the Black Panthers, and the more respectable Deacons For Defense when going to the south to study/participate in the black civil rights efforts, which contrary to popular belief revolved around a lot of armed blacks, and a lot less defenseless Ghandi style efforts than the gun owner Martin Luther King Junior wanted known at the time. All of this can be read in vintage student publications, which is where I learned about it, being currently a 24 year old.
    I have forgotten what touched off those berkeley riots between blacks and whites, mainly because I missed that fortunately, but I do recall that there were shootings. I remember one of the kids in school brought some photos his brother had taken which showed a couple people shot with birdshot. The black vs white rioting had more to do with anger at white people as opposed to the anti-war skirmishes which were generally young people vs the establishment. We all weren't hippies at all. There may have been an effort by some blacks to latch on to the anti establishment crowd, but truthfully I don't remember that many black antiwar protesters in my circle of conspirators. I do remember coming across a gang of black bikers out on the street in Berkeley in front of a store, and tow or more were sporting bandoliers of shells. I remember this event clearly because as I walked by, one of them said "hey whitey", and the rest of the sentence was lost on me. As it turned out, one black biker was talking to another black biker who had really light skin and that was his nickname.
    But the Black panther types were pretty bold to exhibit weapons during such a tumultuous period. Most of the antiwar activists were mainly doing more passive stuff by just refusing to disperse or burning a piece of government issue something or other, (not always a draft card), blocking a street, or flanking a riot squad. Just try and find someone with those qualities today! There are some out there, but they're often quite mad or anarchist types. Not that many weren't anarchists back then.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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