Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: California OC Offensive Strategy: Use E-Check to Bring Back Loaded OC

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    135

    California OC Offensive Strategy: Use E-Check to Bring Back Loaded OC

    My apologies if this is a repeat...but has anyone challenged the E(mpty) Check in court?

    It is clearly an infringement on the right to bear arms, as is requiring firearms to be unloaded. Is there a particularly notorious E-check that we can establish a legal fund for? How about a class action lawsuit?

    Open Carry advocates need to go on the offense and score big! We need to retake lost ground. Otherwise, the State legislature will keep beating their drums until OC is completely 'illegal'. I can't think of a better way than to bring back Loaded Open Carry (LOC).

    What do you guys think? LOC'd and loaded!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I heard there was a criminal case....no citation....that an (e) check is an inspection and did not violate the 4th amendment. Probably something similar to truck inspection and weigh stations. This was before Heller and McDonald.
    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.

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    There are legal machinations and strategies that are not widely published. They are kept quiet so they can be bear the fruit that we all desire. I believe that there is something already afoot with 12031. If you want some idea on when this will bear fruit, all I will say is 'two weeks'. As for the plantiff, your guess is as good as mine.
    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

  4. #4
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    I have to concur, there are things going on we dont see or hear about but are strategic in changing things.

    I say focus on increasing UOC numbers, more outings, groups and solo. Ask for an appointment to speak to your local LE chief or senior officer. Sit down with them with all your UOC info and the Penal Codes let em know your law abiding and your gonna carry in their town. Be the change and win hearts and minds.
    New to OPEN CARRY? Click here first

    "Gun owners in California in 2011 are like black people in the south in 1955. If you don't understand that then your concepts of fighting for gun rights is just tilting at windmills." Gene Hoffman.

    "Why do you need to carry a gun?" ...Because it not a Bill of Needs, its a Bill of Rights!!

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I heard there was a criminal case....no citation....that an (e) check is an inspection and did not violate the 4th amendment. Probably something similar to truck inspection and weigh stations. This was before Heller and McDonald.
    People v. DeLong (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 786 , 90 Cal.Rptr. 193

    Bearing in mind that a state is free, as Chief Justice Warren put it, "to develop its own law of search and seizure to meet the needs of local law enforcement," provided, of course, that the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness be not offended (Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 60-61 [20 L.Ed.2d 917, 933-934, 88 S.Ct. 1889]), we hold that the mere examination of a weapon which is brought into a place where it is [11 Cal.App.3d 793] forbidden to have a loaded weapon, is not unreasonable and that the statutes authorizing such examination are constitutional.



    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    If Chester holds, then anybody should be able to challenge 12031 pretty easily IMO. Just take Chester's implied strict scrutiny for "law-abiding, reasonable citizens", add in Heller's "functional firearm" language, and any other supporting cases that arise by the time somebody bothers to challenge it. Strict scrutiny is very difficult to overcome, so as long as we have strict scrutiny we are golden.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Bearing in mind that a state is free, as Chief Justice Warren put it, "to develop its own law of search and seizure to meet the needs of local law enforcement," provided, of course, that the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness be not offended (Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 60-61 [20 L.Ed.2d 917, 933-934, 88 S.Ct. 1889]), we hold that the mere examination of a weapon which is brought into a place where it is [11 Cal.App.3d 793] forbidden to have a loaded weapon, is not unreasonable and that the statutes authorizing such examination are constitutional.

    Brought into ahhh ummmm public?
    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.

  8. #8
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Bearing in mind that a state is free, as Chief Justice Warren put it, "to develop its own law of search and seizure to meet the needs of local law enforcement," provided, of course, that the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness be not offended (Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 60-61 [20 L.Ed.2d 917, 933-934, 88 S.Ct. 1889]), we hold that the mere examination of a weapon which is brought into a place where it is [11 Cal.App.3d 793] forbidden to have a loaded weapon, is not unreasonable and that the statutes authorizing such examination are constitutional.

    Brought into ahhh ummmm public?
    Uhm... No.

    Loaded weapons are prohibited in certain public areas, not all. Loaded open carry, such as in unincorporated territory where discharge is not prohibited by local ordinance. So- their holding is that it is not unreasonable to inspect for the loaded condition in areas where loaded firearms or discharge is prohibited when an individual brings a weapon into those areas.

    On the other hand, it could be construed that it WOULD be unreasonable for an inspection for loaded condition where it is not unlawful to possess loaded weapons.
    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

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    10

    I always

    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    I have to concur, there are things going on we dont see or hear about but are strategic in changing things.

    I say focus on increasing UOC numbers, more outings, groups and solo. Ask for an appointment to speak to your local LE chief or senior officer. Sit down with them with all your UOC info and the Penal Codes let em know your law abiding and your gonna carry in their town. Be the change and win hearts and minds.

    I always call to talk to them and make an appointment and they never return my calls.

    In addition the chief of CMPD was put on administrative leave and nobody wants to talk about it. Something is going on.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    There are legal machinations and strategies that are not widely published. They are kept quiet so they can be bear the fruit that we all desire. I believe that there is something already afoot with 12031. If you want some idea on when this will bear fruit, all I will say is 'two weeks'. As for the plantiff, your guess is as good as mine.
    Interesting...please keep us updated!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    135
    This is a great learning process for me. I've never heard of any of these cases. The legal strategy I had in mind is much simpler...but may be harder to win, because it is based on challenging the law itself. It is not enforceable law, if it conflicts with the Constitution(s)

    PREMISE: States are required to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights

    2nd Amendment "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

    o Isn't ammunition integral to a firearm; and not being able to immediately defend against a criminal with a loaded gun a HUGE infringement? Loaded open carry was the legal precedent until 1967....

    Article XIV "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; California Constitution Article I clearly affirms this U.S. Article.

    o How can this be/has this been interpreted? It is obvious that LEOs need to be ready to defend themselves against criminals (right to self-defense), so they carry loaded. Then wouldn't a law prohibiting this same right to self-defense, to every other U.S. citizen, be a denial of the equal protection of the laws?

    P.S. The latter could/should also be applied to 'traffic law'.
    Last edited by steele; 01-31-2011 at 01:38 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    I have to concur, there are things going on we dont see or hear about but are strategic in changing things.

    I say focus on increasing UOC numbers, more outings, groups and solo. Ask for an appointment to speak to your local LE chief or senior officer. Sit down with them with all your UOC info and the Penal Codes let em know your law abiding and your gonna carry in their town. Be the change and win hearts and minds.
    Why not do BOTH? We've got a battalion sized membership ready to go.

  13. #13
    Regular Member DooFster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Nellis AFB, Nevada
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by steele View Post
    This is a great learning process for me. I've never heard of any of these cases. The legal strategy I had in mind is much simpler...but may be harder to win, because it is based on challenging the law itself. It is not enforceable law, if it conflicts with the Constitution(s)

    PREMISE: States are required to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights

    2nd Amendment "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

    o Isn't ammunition integral to a firearm; and not being able to immediately defend against a criminal with a loaded gun a HUGE infringement? Loaded open carry was the legal precedent until 1967....

    Article IV "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; California Constitution Article I clearly affirms this U.S. Article.

    o How can this be/has this been interpreted? It is obvious that LEOs need to be ready to defend themselves against criminals (right to self-defense), so they carry loaded. Then wouldn't a law prohibiting this same right to self-defense, to every other U.S. citizen, be a denial of the equal protection of the laws?

    P.S. The latter could/should also be applied to 'traffic law'.
    Quote Originally Posted by steele View Post
    Why not do BOTH? We've got a battalion sized membership ready to go.
    I second that motion...let's do it!
    IT is better to have a gun on you and NOT need it, than to need a gun and NOT have it on you...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Uhm... No.

    Loaded weapons are prohibited in certain public areas, not all. Loaded open carry, such as in unincorporated territory where discharge is not prohibited by local ordinance. So- their holding is that it is not unreasonable to inspect for the loaded condition in areas where loaded firearms or discharge is prohibited when an individual brings a weapon into those areas.

    On the other hand, it could be construed that it WOULD be unreasonable for an inspection for loaded condition where it is not unlawful to possess loaded weapons.
    And based on these arguments, the only way we can make this ruling work for us is to get a ruling from a court or for a legislation to remove/change/repel/amend/ the areas where one can legally carry a loaded firearm.

  15. #15
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by steele View Post
    This is a great learning process for me. I've never heard of any of these cases. The legal strategy I had in mind is much simpler...but may be harder to win, because it is based on challenging the law itself. It is not enforceable law, if it conflicts with the Constitution(s)

    PREMISE: States are required to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights

    2nd Amendment "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

    o Isn't ammunition integral to a firearm; and not being able to immediately defend against a criminal with a loaded gun a HUGE infringement? Loaded open carry was the legal precedent until 1967....

    Article IV "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; California Constitution Article I clearly affirms this U.S. Article.

    o How can this be/has this been interpreted? It is obvious that LEOs need to be ready to defend themselves against criminals (right to self-defense), so they carry loaded. Then wouldn't a law prohibiting this same right to self-defense, to every other U.S. citizen, be a denial of the equal protection of the laws?

    P.S. The latter could/should also be applied to 'traffic law'.
    Quote Originally Posted by steele View Post
    Why not do BOTH? We've got a battalion sized membership ready to go.
    Quote Originally Posted by DooFster View Post
    I second that motion...let's do it!
    Here's a word picture for you.

    The year is 1942, the Nazi's have occupied France for about 2 years and have taken this time to fortify the French coastline. Dwight Eisenhower has just arrived in London and tells Churchill that he plans on a direct assault on Berlin with as many men as he can muster. Churchill says; "Let's do it!"

    If Eisenhower actually blew into town and threw as many men as he could find without first having sufficient forces trained, equipped, and deployed in the most strategically advantageous way, and air dropped them on Berlin in the dark of night in an attempt to capture the most obvious and important target first- Europe would be ruled under the crooked cross of Nazi fascism to this very day.

    It sucks, but California has been occupied by the forces of evil for nearly fifty years. Some of our gun laws have been around since before most of us were born. Hitler only took a couple of years to dig himself in- he didnt have a 40-50 year head start like the enemies of the second amendment have...and it took the combined efforts of several countries, thousands of men, thousands of planes, tanks, weapons, and military skill to invade at Normandy- and even when the Allies achieved a foothold on Europe on D-day, the war would continue for almost another year and we wouldnt win every battle.

    Where incrementalism allowed unjust laws creep into our government, by incrementalism we must obliterate them, until such time it is appropriate to overthrow unjust laws with force. There is a time for strategy and a time for audacity, we need more practice at the former, before implementing the latter.
    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

  16. #16
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Uhm... No.

    Loaded weapons are prohibited in certain public areas, not all. Loaded open carry, such as in unincorporated territory where discharge is not prohibited by local ordinance. So- their holding is that it is not unreasonable to inspect for the loaded condition in areas where loaded firearms or discharge is prohibited when an individual brings a weapon into those areas.

    On the other hand, it could be construed that it WOULD be unreasonable for an inspection for loaded condition where it is not unlawful to possess loaded weapons.
    If an LEO tries to do an e-check in my neck of the woods I will tell them to pound sand. I am legally allowed to LOC in 99.9% of unincorporated Kern County. An e-check isn't allowed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Before 12031 was modified I used to always carry loaded when I OCd as I also have a CCW. At the time I would have refused an e-check because I could provide an exemption.

    Now when I OC its still generally LOC because I do it in unincorporated or non prohibited areas. If ever asked under these circumstances I would of course refuse an e-check.

    Its extremely rare that I ever UOC as I have other options. Who knows maybe I'll get lucky and never get e-checked. Considering I don't participate in group UOC, I suppose its possible.

  18. #18
    Regular Member DooFster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Nellis AFB, Nevada
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Here's a word picture for you.

    The year is 1942, the Nazi's have occupied France for about 2 years and have taken this time to fortify the French coastline. Dwight Eisenhower has just arrived in London and tells Churchill that he plans on a direct assault on Berlin with as many men as he can muster. Churchill says; "Let's do it!"

    If Eisenhower actually blew into town and threw as many men as he could find without first having sufficient forces trained, equipped, and deployed in the most strategically advantageous way, and air dropped them on Berlin in the dark of night in an attempt to capture the most obvious and important target first- Europe would be ruled under the crooked cross of Nazi fascism to this very day.

    It sucks, but California has been occupied by the forces of evil for nearly fifty years. Some of our gun laws have been around since before most of us were born. Hitler only took a couple of years to dig himself in- he didnt have a 40-50 year head start like the enemies of the second amendment have...and it took the combined efforts of several countries, thousands of men, thousands of planes, tanks, weapons, and military skill to invade at Normandy- and even when the Allies achieved a foothold on Europe on D-day, the war would continue for almost another year and we wouldnt win every battle.

    Where incrementalism allowed unjust laws creep into our government, by incrementalism we must obliterate them, until such time it is appropriate to overthrow unjust laws with force. There is a time for strategy and a time for audacity, we need more practice at the former, before implementing the latter.
    Oh, I understand what you're saying - I was just being sarcastic...lol...
    IT is better to have a gun on you and NOT need it, than to need a gun and NOT have it on you...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Here's a word picture for you.

    The year is 1942, the Nazi's have occupied France for about 2 years and have taken this time to fortify the French coastline. Dwight Eisenhower has just arrived in London and tells Churchill that he plans on a direct assault on Berlin with as many men as he can muster. Churchill says; "Let's do it!"

    If Eisenhower actually blew into town and threw as many men as he could find without first having sufficient forces trained, equipped, and deployed in the most strategically advantageous way, and air dropped them on Berlin in the dark of night in an attempt to capture the most obvious and important target first- Europe would be ruled under the crooked cross of Nazi fascism to this very day.

    It sucks, but California has been occupied by the forces of evil for nearly fifty years. Some of our gun laws have been around since before most of us were born. Hitler only took a couple of years to dig himself in- he didnt have a 40-50 year head start like the enemies of the second amendment have...and it took the combined efforts of several countries, thousands of men, thousands of planes, tanks, weapons, and military skill to invade at Normandy- and even when the Allies achieved a foothold on Europe on D-day, the war would continue for almost another year and we wouldnt win every battle.

    Where incrementalism allowed unjust laws creep into our government, by incrementalism we must obliterate them, until such time it is appropriate to overthrow unjust laws with force. There is a time for strategy and a time for audacity, we need more practice at the former, before implementing the latter.
    Hmmm...I don't see the need for an incremental approach, if the goals are beneficial to everyone. It is only when you are the minority and are afraid of the people paying attention to what you are doing, do you have to use such devious means. Did you see that Daily Breeze poll? We are a super majority. Furthermore, a court case is more akin to a surgical strike than a full offensive. All that is lacking is INITIATIVE.

  20. #20
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by steele View Post
    Hmmm...I don't see the need for an incremental approach, if the goals are beneficial to everyone. It is only when you are the minority and are afraid of the people paying attention to what you are doing, do you have to use such devious means. Did you see that Daily Breeze poll? We are a super majority. Furthermore, a court case is more akin to a surgical strike than a full offensive. All that is lacking is INITIATIVE.
    Who is 'we'?

    And how does an unscientific internet poll play a factor in determining that 'we' are a supermajority?

    If 'we' is describing gunowners or 2A proponents in California, I can assure you that 'we' are not. Open carriers are an even smaller segment of the population that even the general gun owning populous regard as 'fringe'. I can assure you there is no lack of initiative and enthusiasm. Our momentum seems to be improving as well, but that may not be translated into invoking the order to deploy all our troops to take the beachhead.

    Open carry occured in California before all the battlefield peices were in place. One of those pieces is the establishment of the RTKABA on enemy territory. AB1934 and AB 144 owe their origins to the enemy making observations of our activities. We dodged AB1934 just long enough for them to take another shot at unloaded guns. They are likely to take it. We may have to cope with surrendering another piece on this chessboard because of premature movements... in chess, sacrifice is necessary, but such losses are usually accepted for greater achievements. But it isnt prudent to keep giving the enemy new, easy targets to pursue.
    Last edited by ConditionThree; 01-28-2011 at 09:12 PM.
    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

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Who is 'we'?

    And how does an unscientific internet poll play a factor in determining that 'we' are a supermajority?

    If 'we' is describing gunowners or 2A proponents in California, I can assure you that 'we' are not. Open carriers are an even smaller segment of the population that even the general gun owning populous regard as 'fringe'. I can assure you there is no lack of initiative and enthusiasm. Our momentum seems to be improving as well, but that may not be translated into invoking the order to deploy all our troops to take the beachhead.

    Open carry occured in California before all the battlefield peices were in place. One of those pieces is the establishment of the RTKABA on enemy territory. AB1934 and AB 144 owe their origins to the enemy making observations of our activities. We dodged AB1934 just long enough for them to take another shot at unloaded guns. They are likely to take it. We may have to cope with surrendering another piece on this chessboard because of premature movements... in chess, sacrifice is necessary, but such losses are usually accepted for greater achievements. But it isnt prudent to keep giving the enemy new, easy targets to pursue.
    I know it seems like OCers are a minority; but a better way to think of it is as this - OCers are the tip of the spear. The perception of isolation, via controlled media, is simply the enemy's PsyOps. Americans love freedom - we are many, the kleptocrats are few.

    The benefit of a central command and strategy does not need to be belabored. Let me ask you this though, what is the most efficient and robust fighting structure? How did we defend against the British; how are the Iraqis defending themselves from us today; and how has Switzerland retained its sovereignty? With loosely networked militias. Taking potshots and evaporating away as ghosts. This principle can and should be applied for maximum effect, in the world of 'politics'.

    It is to our advantage to think more like Regulars and less like Red Coats. We have the numbers to overwhelm them. As victories mount, our numbers will grow.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    135
    If someone has an E-Check they want to contest, please step forward! Here is a plan of attack for anyone willing:
    - Start a dedicated thread for the specific case
    - Embed a contribution widget, for the legal fund
    - When the fund is up to critical mass, a lawyer can be brought on board to execute the litigation

    My guess is the legal fund will need to be about $7k, unless it is appealed to higher courts? Is this about right? If so, that would work out to an average of $7 with 1,000 OCers contributing. Could you spare $7 for a chance to win back your legal right to carry loaded, without harassment or fear, anywhere OC is 'legal' in California? How much did you spend on your gear again...?
    Last edited by steele; 01-28-2011 at 11:05 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by steele View Post
    If someone has an E-Check they want to contest, please step forward! Here is a plan of attack for anyone willing:
    - Start a dedicated thread for the specific case
    - Embed a contribution widget, for the legal fund
    - When the fund is up to critical mass, a lawyer can be brought on board to execute the litigation

    My guess is the legal fund will need to be about $7k, unless it is appealed to higher courts? Is this about right? If so, that would work out to an average of $7 with 1,000 OCers contributing. Could you spare $7 for a chance to win back your legal right to carry loaded, without harassment or fear, anywhere OC is 'legal' in California? How much did you spend on your gear again...?
    Yes, I just quoted myself... While thinking this over, smoking my pipe(tobacco), I realized that it may very well require someone actually arrested and charged with the misdemeanor of, either "Obstruction": not allowing an Officer to e-check them; or actually carrying a loaded firearm "12031" violation. Otherwise, the agency could just pay out a settlement, with no impact on the law. Is there any cases like that pending?

    If not, then what we could do is establish a legal fund - in advance. Once met, then anyone and everyone brave enough to assert their rights can either, carry loaded and/or refuse all e-checks. The first OCer charged with a misdemeanor, if any, will have the full force of this legal fund to defend them. First come, first serve. How about that!?
    Last edited by steele; 01-28-2011 at 11:54 PM.

  24. #24
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by steele View Post
    Yes, I just quoted myself... While thinking this over, smoking my pipe(tobacco), I realized that it may very well require someone actually arrested and charged with the misdemeanor of, either "Obstruction": not allowing an Officer to e-check them; or actually carrying a loaded firearm "12031" violation. Otherwise, the agency could just pay out a settlement, with no impact on the law. Is there any cases like that pending?

    If not, then what we could do is establish a legal fund - in advance. Once met, then anyone and everyone brave enough to assert their rights can either, carry loaded and/or refuse all e-checks. The first OCer charged with a misdemeanor, if any, will have the full force of this legal fund to defend them. First come, first serve. How about that!?
    Yes, someone will likely need to gain standing by being arrested or unlawfully detained. There are already plantiffs with standing and others yet waiting in the wings for the battlefield to mature. Such a battle is likely to cost into the many tens of thousands of dollars.

    At my last estimate, there are fewer than 400-500 (there are about 400 members registered with this forum from CA.) that have open carried in conjunction with an organized event in California and would wager there are fewer than 20 that open carry with any regularity- statewide. Unless all of these people are willing to cut a $100.00 check, I think we would be considerably short on funds.

    I do believe there is merit to establishing such a defense fund- since CGF is not defending UOC at this time. I do disagree with 'first come, first served' though... Administration of defense funds should be based on the merit of the plantiff's case, not the first advocate to get hooked up.
    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

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    C3

    I believe in, and agree with most of your last post. All except the " fewer than 20 that open carry with any regularity- statewide"

    I personally know more then that just in the Bay Area that carry daily. That does not take into account the Valley, or the area of the state north of Sac., Then, lets count the 20-30 or more that carry daily in Socal.

    I do believe you underestimated the numbers state wide, that carry on a daily basis.

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
  •