By your logic all the elements you claim make an opinion more "well-founded" than another give the Brady Campaign and LCAV as much legitimacy in their opinions about 2nd amendment issues as Calguns. They have "real experience, paid legal counsel, and .." (they would argue competence), I would argue they have as much if not more competence than most of the comments I read on Calguns forums.
In some ways, you're correct. LCAV is a worthy adversary. If you think your moral high ground will win the war in court (which translates to those rights which will be protected for what is now 308 Million Americans), then you really have no idea of the game you're playing. Also, why do you put any stake into any "forums"? Let's be real, they are discussion tools, but in no way are they representative of real work product.
Its interesting how you claim to know facts about someone you have never met or spoken to in person, your statements are pure conjecture and nothing more. This statement leads me and others to question all other statements of "fact" that you make as having as much credibility as this statement. Zero.
There is no "permission slip" needed to UOC in CA, which I'm sure you know. I do not UOC out of fear, I UOC because I am a law abiding citizen who works within the legal means provided to me in the state I live to affect change through positive community activism and education.
I for one, as many others, judge an organization not on what they claim to be, but by their fruits. If Calguns' fruits are represented by the statements you post online, then the foundation has some SEVERE credibility issues. They would do well to stop alienating and insulting a very large, powerful, portion of the 2A community in CA.
UOC is a silent exemption - a "permission slip" of sorts, for doing something "not quite the real thing" - to the state's utter lack of respect for the real right - LOADED carry. Can you tell me where in our history unloaded guns were normally carried for self defense? Are you arguing that unloaded carry is a real self-defense tool? I'm perplexed that you agree with the anti-gun judge in Pertua.
I know enough about you that you're not willing to exercise the real right. This means that you're practical. You understand that breaking the law - unconstitutional though it may be - leads to pain and loss of access (to your teaching tools) for you. That is a rational decision. What's irrational is telling other people to ignore good advice simply because your version of reality says that being prudent while fighting a very dangerous war is unnecessary, and more, giving up ground.
Do you really think that the whole of the OC community feels alienated? I'm curious how you think that I'm "alienating and insulting a very large, powerful, portion of the 2A community in CA". First, can you tell me how you measure "large" and "powerful"? Secondly, I've been, and remain, good friends with many in the U/OC subset of 2A. Here's something to consider: I'm a big fan of OC, and am equally interested in constitutional carry. The road to freedom goes through California, but California is not where I intend to live my final days. I'm here because the fights we must win are here. I have a network of properties in "free" states and a ranch in a open carry state. Do you think I want to carry concealed when I go from the field to the farm supply store? I've a personal investment in winning the war, as do you. If we sat down for coffee, you and I would almost certainly agree more than we disagree. The difference, I'd offer, is in approach - and the difference is fairly significant.
I'm not telling people that they should not participate in UOC activities. I do believe that some are useful, and some are harmful - as in all things in life, energy tends to be destructive, so it's the well-planned and executed which bring returns for our cause. I also believe that your rage against the "permission slips" is not entirely wrong, it's just wrong as-applied. Furthermore, we should be doing what we can to help our fellow carriers, including giving them the greatest chance of a) defending against prosecution and b) creating good law from the facts. This, I believe, is accomplished through the 30 minutes it takes to fill out and mail in an application and a check for $20. If you really think this is giving up ground, then I'd say that you're not being realistic about the field of battle. That sort of leadership gets troops killed.
Someone as informed and sophisticated as you are may not have trouble managing the task of staying clear of the ills which can befall participants of UOC - ills which we have and continue to defend - but do at least acknowledge that as a leader, you have a responsibility to the full spectrum of people you lead, including those who are intoxicated with your message yet lack the ability to always live it
just outside that 1000ft zone.
