• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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:

steele

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Ventura, California
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.
 

steele

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Ventura, California
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:

steele

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Ventura, California
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:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.
 

Iopencarry

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
637
Location
Oakley, California, United States
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.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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.

The charge of the light bridgade makes for a good story, not for a victory.
 

steele

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Ventura, California
Before my revolver had been seized, I OC'd regularly. This is my video I posted nearly a year ago, while open carrying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5xg1oSdvK4 With this said, I bet most of you weren't even aware of my activity... So, just imagine how many others whom California Open Carry have inspired.

I really like the legal fund too! It could be considered a form of Tyranny Insurance: to give all OCers the confidence they need to fully assert their rights, if they so choose. We could earmark the fund(s) for the defense of a specific charge, e.g. e-check refusal or loaded carry; and specify the requirements to reedem it, e.g. video documentation, proof of no criminal activity. Other than that, a first come, first serve basis only seems equitable, if most everyone is contributing.

But just because OCers will use it, doesn't mean we are the only ones who can fund it! Do we ask the Marines to pay their own salary and purchase their own equipment? Absolutely not. There have to be fans of OC, many times over those who actively OC, who can see the benefit of supporting those defending their rights.

I like it. Let's do it! Anyone know a lawyer willing to establish the trust fund and defend our OCers?
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.

Okay. There could be as many as 60-80 state wide that open carry with regularity. So, that is about one open carrier to every 600,000 California citizens. Even if it were 10,000 people who regularly open carry, this isn't enough of a political force to be effective. This is why we cannot expect to attack the anti-gun hegemony at full force, head on. Such an attack will be deflected with the same annoyance as one has for a gnat or mosquito.

Before my revolver had been seized, I OC'd regularly. This is my video I posted nearly a year ago, while open carrying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5xg1oSdvK4 With this said, I bet most of you weren't even aware of my activity... So, just imagine how many others whom California Open Carry have inspired.

I really like the legal fund too! It could be considered a form of Tyranny Insurance: to give all OCers the confidence they need to fully assert their rights, if they so choose. We could earmark the fund(s) for the defense of a specific charge, e.g. e-check refusal or loaded carry; and specify the requirements to reedem it, e.g. video documentation, proof of no criminal activity. Other than that, a first come, first serve basis only seems equitable, if most everyone is contributing.

But just because OCers will use it, doesn't mean we are the only ones who can fund it! Do we ask the Marines to pay their own salary and purchase their own equipment? Absolutely not. There have to be fans of OC, many times over those who actively OC, who can see the benefit of supporting those defending their rights.

I like it. Let's do it! Anyone know a lawyer willing to establish the trust fund and defend our OCers?

I will email Jason and see what he says about it. But what you have to keep in mind, is that the 'right people' are not hungry to defend open carry related cases, not because they arent worthy of pursuing, but that the legal landscape isn't wholly ripe enough. The 2A agenda is much broader and there are targets that should be addressed before we instigate litigation that could influence the outcome of other unsettled issues.
 

steele

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Ventura, California
I will email Jason and see what he says about it. But what you have to keep in mind, is that the 'right people' are not hungry to defend open carry related cases, not because they arent worthy of pursuing, but that the legal landscape isn't wholly ripe enough. The 2A agenda is much broader and there are targets that should be addressed before we instigate litigation that could influence the outcome of other unsettled issues.

Please post his response! With the glut of lawyers out there, I wouldn't have thought there'd be a shortage of qualified professionals...
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
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'. ;)

I agree ! Here's some laws to help us out ! Robin47 :)

16 AM Jur 2d, section 177 and late 2d section 256
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
There are very few lawyers with the proper experience and knowledge to take on gun laws in CA.

I think that some not-too-distant future efforts will be of great interest to those of us interested in 2A/4A conlaw.
 

steele

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Ventura, California
I agree ! Here's some laws to help us out ! Robin47 :)

16 AM Jur 2d, section 177 and late 2d section 256

Man I am ignorant as to what that is...but I Googled it and got this (below); and it sounds damn good to me! Can I whip this out on an LEO: akin to brandishing a cross to a vampire?

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

This is patently unconstitutional. How about changing it to something like;

(e) In order to determine whether or not a residence contains illegal narcotics for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any residence occupied by anyone........
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a residence pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

The movement would be better if everybody practiced civil disobedience, were arrested en masse, and appealed it to the supreme court. I'm not even talking about carrying loaded, just refusing an illegal e-check.

We need funding. You can start bussing us in from AZ. 'course, I'll wind up convicted for being in a GFSZ with my luck.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
This is patently unconstitutional. How about changing it to something like;



The movement would be better if everybody practiced civil disobedience, were arrested en masse, and appealed it to the supreme court. I'm not even talking about carrying loaded, just refusing an illegal e-check.

We need funding. You can start bussing us in from AZ. 'course, I'll wind up convicted for being in a GFSZ with my luck.

Arrested en masse?... What? all 80-100 of us? That would be a short lived and ineffective protest. As I have pointed out before, there are places where an (e) check is not authorized and there is an appropriate plantiff, appropriate jurisdiction, and appropriate time to challenge this. It wont take 80-100 arrests to make this point- it will only take one. (And the tenacity to follow this through the meandering trail of the California judiciary.)
 

sharkey

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Arizona
Arrested en masse?... What? all 80-100 of us? That would be a short lived and ineffective protest. As I have pointed out before, there are places where an (e) check is not authorized and there is an appropriate plantiff, appropriate jurisdiction, and appropriate time to challenge this. It wont take 80-100 arrests to make this point- it will only take one. (And the tenacity to follow this through the meandering trail of the California judiciary.)

OK? So you have someone who was (e) checked where California law does not allow it. And a victory on that will be what, only (e) check where authorized? A proper victory would be (e) check ruled unconstitutional. Next step would be loaded open carry.

If I'm mistaken I apologize but I can only read between so many lines.
 
Last edited:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
OK? So you have someone who was (e) checked where California law does not allow it. And a victory on that will be what, only (e) check where authorized? A proper victory would be (e) check ruled unconstitutional. Next step would be loaded open carry.

If I'm mistaken I apologize but I can only read between so many lines.

Alright- allow me to outline it step by step;

Step 1) The Mulford Act, after forty years of institutionalized 2A oppression has made carry of a exposed sidearm an anachronism in the state of California. In it appears subsection (e) which most police assume supercedes any 4th amendment protections. The opening overture is to introduce limited exersizes of open carry where it remains a legal activity and to endure the violations of these intrusions.

Step 2) With the repetition of this activity in such numbers and frequency, the authorities encountering open carriers in their various jurisdictions are educated- either by the open carry advocates or the legal departments of the agencies who come into contact with open carriers, who recognize that overstepping their authority represents a significant risk of litigation. This limits the action police take when contacting open carry advocates to specific perameters. (Ideally, only taking the amount of time to conduct a 12031(e) inspection, nothing more.)

Step 3) Many law enforcement authorities still search serial numbers, in spite of the fact they have neither probable cause to believe the firearm is stolen. And they still demand identification, in spite of the fact they do not have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot. We have seen this challenged by Sam Wolanyk in San Diego and there are other challenges in progress.

Step 4) Most law enforcement authorities still believe that the 12031(e) inspection is reasonable 'anywhere' and 'anytime' in spite of the fact that in the majority of unincorporated territory in California, it is perfectly legal to carry a loaded handgun. This has not yet been challenged as no one I am aware of has refused an (e) check in unincorporated territory where discharge is not prohibited. When this does occur, there likely will be an arrest- wherein the plantiff should have made preparations to document the encounter on audio/video and have counsel on standby.

Step 5) Since the ruling in a number of cases pending have not yet been released, we are still in a state without clearly defined rights to both 'keep' and 'bear'. Until that time, all we can really do, is whittle away at what actions police can take while detaining someone for having a visable firearm. Only AFTER 'keep' and 'bear' is fully incorporated, would we move on to step 6- where you would have 12031(e) challenged based on the conflict with the 4th amendment. (Of course, this does not take into account any ongoing efforts to challenge 12031 that we have not been made aware of. Any such challenge would still have to wait for pending rulings.)
 

Firemark

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
445
Location
San Diego
Alright- allow me to outline it step by step;

Step 1) The Mulford Act, after forty years of institutionalized 2A oppression has made carry of a exposed sidearm an anachronism in the state of California. In it appears subsection (e) which most police assume supercedes any 4th amendment protections. The opening overture is to introduce limited exersizes of open carry where it remains a legal activity and to endure the violations of these intrusions.

Step 2) With the repetition of this activity in such numbers and frequency, the authorities encountering open carriers in their various jurisdictions are educated- either by the open carry advocates or the legal departments of the agencies who come into contact with open carriers, who recognize that overstepping their authority represents a significant risk of litigation. This limits the action police take when contacting open carry advocates to specific perameters. (Ideally, only taking the amount of time to conduct a 12031(e) inspection, nothing more.)

Let me interject something after step 2 that many people may not be aware of, many of the senior LE officers, especially the chiefs who are more politician than police officer, are very much in lock step with the liberal/democratic legislature. Which makes sense the police want more power to secure their budgets and numbers, the legislature passes laws that help them and take away from our citizens rights, as example unloaded open carry laws from 1967. We all know this law is unconstitutional, but it was passed during a time when FEAR, and communist infiltrators drove the masses and nobody would dare object. So know we have 40+ years of a law that never should have been but the next generation just accepts it as it is on face value because its for the "safety of the community" which is BS.
In Kalifornista, the legislature is in lock step with many if not all of the judges. So you have a 3 ring circus each helping the other out, to grab power and control, and maintain power and control. How do I know this, Because at gatherings where ALL 3 members from this circus show up and sit together and shake hands and carry on quiet conversations its obvious that there is a very definite power conserving structure at work. No lower level California judge is going to upset the apple cart and go against the political climate that LE, Judges, and the Legislature thrive under.

This is why there is no one Panacea case that is going to change everything, we all wish it would, realistically it will never get by the 3 ring circus of power. Just look at how Heller and Macdonald got butchered by antigun groups and democrats over the phrase "in the home".

This is also why, each year the CA legislature will continue to bring forth anti gun bills because:
1) the outgoing, termed out Representative (Democrat) is the one tasked with bringing the bill so it doesnt hurt their current political career, and in a few years they can sneak back into government somewhere else. (watch for Saldana to come back)
2) the Liberals/Dems hold a majority of votes in the capitol, so the odds are good that anything written in crayon on paper will pass.
3) A pro gun bill will meet with partisan failure, no Dem will ever vote for it especially against party lines.
4) passing an anti gun bill doesnt harm any Dem/liberal... the ammunition band last year was ruled unconstitutional, and what did they do write the same bill again this year just change a few words around.
5) all they need is 1 Psycho to go on a shooting rampage and they get all the free press and publicity to make their "We have to do something" campaign a shot in the arm and the fearful masses support them.

What we need is to work harder to get pro 2A legislators in office, and keep anti gunners out. We have to engage and inform all those people who are asleep and wake them up and get them to vote Pro 2A. We need to use the internet more effectively and recruit more people to the cause, get better organized, start winning hearts and minds. Talk to more people, teach them, get them angry and scared about whats happening.

The media is a powerful manipulator of people and it works on fear and drama. The anti-gunners know this and use it effectively to scare people into accepting the idea of "just a few more rights sacrificed for feeling safe". We need to start using media and literally scare people into waking up and realizing that the only responsibility for their own safety is themselves. .
 
Top