Brady Campaign Tactics from CRPA????

A recent email from CRPA regarding the Peruta case was brought to my attention today.

I was surprised to see them taking plays right from the Brady Bunch by making personal opinions appear as "obvious" "facts" without any actual evidence to support them.

http://www.crpa.org/_e/page/1594/mr12_27_10.htm

Appeal Filed in Lawsuit Challenging San Diego CCW Policies ​

​

12/27/10
....


In a nutshell, the District Court held that since California law allows unloaded open carry of handguns, rather than needing a CCW to defend yourself you can carry unloaded and openly, then act pursuant to a California law that requires you to wait until you are about to be attacked, then load your firearm. Obviously, that is not an effective way to exercise your fundamental, individual constitutional right to defend yourself, nor to bear a firearm under the Second Amendment. In fact, as a self-defense strategy, it's a risky tactic that might get you hurt or killed.

Click to expand...

I'm really curious to see the studies and evidence that shows that open carrying in CA increases your risk of injury or death over any other weapon carry method.


I'd venture that common reason would hold that far more people have been hurt and injured while concealing firearms in CA then open carrying; criminal gang activity. While it may not be relevant to the point, it highlights that the CRPA statements are IN FACT not true.

hgreen said:

A recent email from CRPA regarding the Peruta case was brought to my attention today.

I was surprised to see them taking plays right from the Brady Bunch by making personal opinions appear as "obvious" "facts" without any actual evidence to support them.

I'm really curious to see the studies and evidence that shows that open carrying in CA increases your risk of injury or death over any other weapon carry method.

I'd venture that common reason would hold that far more people have been hurt and injured while concealing firearms in CA then open carrying; criminal gang activity. While it may not be relevant to the point, it highlights that the CRPA statements are IN FACT not true.

Click to expand...

So it's not obviously better to have a LOADED weapon holstered in the event that there is a confrontation? Isnt it a fact that our right to keep and bear arms extends to fully functional and deadly arms- and not just to unloaded and inert ones?

I think the trouble here is in the perspective, not that they are reasoning with emotion rather than evidence.

ConditionThree said:

I think the trouble here is in the perspective, not that they are reasoning with emotion rather than evidence.

Click to expand...

Its both. They are using emotional opinions to justify a certain perspective.

Hgreen, i don't think you will find many people even here in OCDO that will take the stand that UOC as what we have here in California is better for self defense than Loaded carry(open or concealed) in any way shape or form. I think it is pretty OBVIOUS myself.

Devilinbp said:

Hgreen, i don't think you will find many people even here in OCDO that will take the stand that UOC as what we have here in California is better for self defense than Loaded carry(open or concealed) in any way shape or form. I think it is pretty OBVIOUS myself.

Click to expand...

Its clear you did not read what I posted.

Where did I say UOC is better than LOC or CLC???

Do you or do you not take as fact that open carrying unloaded in a self defense situation is much more dangerous than if it was loaded? What about if the weapon is a revolver instead of a semi-auto? I still have to agree with the statement that UOC is more dangerous than loaded as a self defense strategy. That IS what they are saying.

I agree with the CRPA that UOC is inherently 'more dangerous' then LOC. However I'd call UOC vs CCW a tie due to deployment time. FYI, I do all three.

hgreen said:

Where did I say UOC is better than LOC or CLC???

Click to expand...

You didn't. And I don't think anyone is trying to assert that you made that claim. To be more specific, I think you may have misinterpreted what the CRPA was trying to articulate- that UOC is not the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms since the weapon is not loaded and that as a defensive option, it is a bluff that requires you to go 'all in' in the face of confrontation, in spite of the fact you do not possess a meaningful hand.

mjones said:

I agree with the CRPA that UOC is inherently 'more dangerous' then LOC. However I'd call UOC vs CCW a tie due to deployment time. FYI, I do all three.

Click to expand...

Where did CRPA say that UOC is more dangerous than LOC??

The only other carry option mentioned was CCW...

If they said UOC is horrible and we'd all rather have LOC and we are fighting for LOC then I would never have posted this.

The point is they are making UOC into some bastard child that no one should even consider in favor of CCW ONLY.

Show me in the news brief where LOC was mentioned as something they are seeking for CA.

Their strategy is clear to anyone who reads their homepage. What is in BIG BOLD TEXT on the top right? "Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed."
What about when criminals believe EVERYONE is armed or believe/know SOMEONE is armed...

mjones said:

I agree with the CRPA that UOC is inherently 'more dangerous' then LOC. However I'd call UOC vs CCW a tie due to deployment time. FYI, I do all three.

Click to expand...

+1 .....just for this specific statement, deployment time is so close to the same under the conditon 2 people are standing hands at their sides waiting for the starting bell to go off. I think you would have to weigh all the usual positions to draw from to see if this argument still holds mustard. From a seated position I have regulary pulled UOC loaded and fired faster than LCC. Although not from an ankle holster, that could be conceivably faster while seated, someone who owns an ankle holster may care to comment.

The discussion though does pose certain what if's. Uniformed officers carry LOC, but undercover do not. Assuming they see the life threatening attack coming LOC will probaly be faster than undercover LCC draw, although maybe not from a shoulder rig under an open sports jacket.

To me there seems like so many variables: not to mention visible deterrent factor that cant be accounted for, in stopping a life threatening assault because it may discourage the attack in the first place.

Plus we must remember the original intent of UOC was to make it so difficult to carry anymore that most sheeple would just give up and get a ccw, (oh wait, they made that impossible too :banghead

I just don't understand why some "pro 2A" groups in CA are in essence sacrificing open carry in favor of CCW...

Ideally both should be available at all times.

I personally plan on LOC and LCC when I leave CA to free America at all possible times.
LOC gives the deterrent and fast draw, LCC gives a back-up that can be reached for that looks like you are going for a wallet or something in case you are caught from behind.

Out-of-Stater dropping in...

What about when criminals believe EVERYONE is armed or believe/know SOMEONE is armed...

Click to expand...

It has to make them think at least twice about doing something, because here in Arizona you have no idea who is armed and who isn't.
With our 'Castle Doctrine' and 'Stand your ground' laws, criminals really take their lives in their hands!

Hang in there, the winds of change are blowing!

-MH

hgreen said:

I just don't understand why some "pro 2A" groups in CA are in essence sacrificing open carry in favor of CCW...

Ideally both should be available at all times.

I personally plan on LOC and LCC when I leave CA to free America at all possible times.
LOC gives the deterrent and fast draw, LCC gives a back-up that can be reached for that looks like you are going for a wallet or something in case you are caught from behind.

Click to expand...

I think you mistake the strategy of not actively seeking LOC to be the same as sacrificing it in favor of CCW.

hgreen said:

I'm really curious to see the studies and evidence that shows that open carrying in CA increases your risk of injury or death over any other weapon carry method.

Click to expand...

It doesn't, at all, at least according to the crime statistics through which I've rummaged (I began post-collegiate life as a data analyst, database designer, and programmer, and registered statistician, if that helps with my credentials). Any mention of this is invariably an anti-OC tactic.

I'd venture that common reason would hold that far more people have been hurt and injured while concealing firearms in CA then open carrying; criminal gang activity.

Click to expand...

Actually, not so. In fact, the states don't really tell the story one way or the other. What they do say is that the difference in crime against the two populations is statistically insignificant. What common sense says is that while OC might deter some (those who're scared of the armed citizen), it may cause others to target you (those who don't like the armed citizen).

Delving into other (psychology) databases, we find the latter are more likely to prey on the weak, while being wary of the wolf, so if you're going to CC, make dang sure neither you nor your behaviors are that of a sheep, but of a wolf. You can't fake it. You have to be it. The good news is that you can get there, provided you know your firearm forwards and backwards, and can operate in any environment, with or without a firearm. The interesting thing is that the further along this line you go, the less you exude any sort of false sense of confidence. If anything, you start learning how to disappear into the crowd, where survival is no longer an issue of bravado, but of being the one who is not seen vs being the one who is, regardless of how one might be seen.

That's hard to do while OC! And for that, one needs a different personna, one that's similarly totally non-bravado, while simultaneously saying, "I'm know what's going on around me. Don't want any trouble, but won't shirk from it, either." That's speaking softly, and what you're carryng is your big stick. The unknown is whether you know how to use it. The more you carry it, the more you fire it at the range, the more comfortable you'll be using it in any situation.

So, carry as often as legal and practical, and practice often at the range. Go for some of the advanced pistol training. Don't bankrupt yourself, but if you can spend $1,200 on an annual vacation, you can spend half that on a decent advanced course.

While it may not be relevant to the point, it highlights that the CRPA statements are IN FACT not true.

Click to expand...

I hope my experience, above, highlights the same.

hgreen said:

I just don't understand why some "pro 2A" groups in CA are in essence sacrificing open carry in favor of CCW...

Click to expand...

Because the states regulatory scheme makes CC the loaded method of exercising the right based on the theory they are litigating. And as a daily practical matter CC will serve the majority of Califirians in their daily lives.

I prefer LOC personally but most whom I know who would carry if they could would choose CC for business and personal reasons. CC will get more Californians into defensive carry for more of their daily routine then LOC. But we shall see what the courts decide in their good time.

Based on Nunn/Heller states will get to choose their carry schemes OC vs CC.

Const. Carry will be a legislative choice and sadly not a Bliss/Heller dictate.

cato said:

Because the states regulatory scheme makes CC the loaded method of exercising the right based on the theory they are litigating. And as a daily practical matter CC will serve the majority of Califirians in their daily lives.

I prefer LOC personally but most whom I know who would carry if they could would choose CC for business and personal reasons. CC will get more Californians into defensive carry for more of their daily routine then LOC. But we shall see what the courts decide in their good time.

Based on Nunn/Heller states will get to choose their carry schemes OC vs CC.

Const. Carry will be a legislative choice and sadly not a Bliss/Heller dictate.

Click to expand...

I understand the legal strategy of gaining CC over LOC first, but the tactics being used by CGF, CRPA, NRA in CA are at the EXPENSE of OC and their verbal bad mouthing of OC with straight up lies is not a constructive, or very becoming of a pro-2A organization. There are about a thousand other ways the news release could have been worded that did not include misleading lies about open carry in CA while still showing that they indeed are working to better 2A rights.

NRA is NOT a friend of Open Carry

hgreen said:

I understand the legal strategy of gaining CC over LOC first, but the tactics being used by CGF, CRPA, NRA in CA are at the EXPENSE of OC and their verbal bad mouthing of OC with straight up lies is not a constructive, or very becoming of a pro-2A organization. There are about a thousand other ways the news release could have been worded that did not include misleading lies about open carry in CA while still showing that they indeed are working to better 2A rights.

Click to expand...

The NRA has never been a fan of open carry.

Why would the NRA support open carry, there is no $ for the NRA in it. They promote concealed carry, with the instructional requirements. There is lots of $ involved with instruction.

They are, after all, the chief benefactor of the Concealed Carry Instruction Industry (C2I2).

Thundar said:

The NRA has never been a fan of open carry.

Why would the NRA support open carry, there is no $ for the NRA in it. They promote concealed carry, with the instructional requirements. There is lots of $ involved with instruction.

They are, after all, the chief benefactor of the Concealed Carry Instruction Industry (C2I2).

Click to expand...

Really? Then how come they are pushing for constitutional carry without license in Arizona, and also in Iowa and Wisconsin?

Gray Peterson said:

Really? Then how come they are pushing for constitutional carry without license in Arizona, and also in Iowa and Wisconsin?

Click to expand...

I can't speak for Iowa and Wisconsin, but it was AZCDL that fought for and got Constitutional Carry in Arizona.

-MH