I propose the "Nuclear Option".

The bottom line is we will need a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit and that will mean we need to raise at least 25K so that we can run the case through the first level of appeals.

The issue starts with how many people will step up to fund the effort? As the weather gets better, the number of participants in the open carry events will grow.

If we don't have 1000 people in this state who will put up 25 dollars each, then we might as well just surrender now

We have people who are already organizing events, I propose fund raising events for a LOC/Sensitive zone Federal Lawsuit.

The response all of us need to make is I will step up regardless of wheter or not anyone else will.

Unlike the CCW permits, we are not going after individual sheriffs, we are going after the state itself.
The other organizations are not going to fight our battles.

In their view, Open Carry is politically unpopular, so they want to invest their resources in other areas first.

We can learn from the Gay Marriage issue, when Gavin Newsome first "legalized Gay Marriage" in San Francisco, it was very controversial. Gay Marriage Advocates have created a path that we can copy to get "Open Loaded" carry here in California.

Why redesign a wheel when we can just get one off the shelve?

In the last few years, public opinion has drastically shifted on the Gay Marriage issue because Gay Marriage advocates have been able to tie Gay Marriage to "equal rights".

Prop 8 did pass, but public opinion has shifted. Many people who voted for Prop 8 did not understand the underlying issues that Gay and Lesbian couples face and that "domestic partnerships" were a form of "seperate, but equal".

The 9th circuit will side with the plantiffs against Prop 8.

Supporters of Prop 8 will appeal to the US Supreme court and if the US Supreme court upholds Prop 8, there will be another prop to repeal it.

I expect at least a 5 to 4 ruling to overturn prop 8. The swing vote will be Justice Kennedy and possibly Justice Thomas.

Public opinion will shift if enough noise is made since the other side has nothing behind their positions other than emotional fear mongering.

First, one must look at why "Open Loaded Carry" was banned in the first place.

Back in 1967, California was much more racist than it is today and the police had much more public support.

Any LOC lawsuit will have to deal with the Black Panthers. Based on Bobby Seale's website, the Black Panthers originally were scanning police radios and showing up with cameras and recording devices so that they could document rights violations, kinda like what we do when the police show up at our events.

The police didn't like that and they started to attack people recording their civil rights abuses and it was the police violations of rights that motivated the Black Panthers to take up arms for self defense.

Bobby Seale btw is still alive, but he is getting up in his years, potentially he could be a witness in such a case. If he was a witness, we would get national news coverage.

If the real purpose of the Mulford Act which was to protect police who violate the civil rights of minorities comes out in testimony, it changes the whole dynamics of the case.

State AG Kamilla Harris is Black, this puts her in a very bad situation. Will she attack the legacy of the Black Panthers, Malcolm X , the Deacons for Peace and Justice and even Martin Luther King.

Malcolm X made a speech about the house African American and the field African American. Many of the so called Black Leaders would meet Malcolm X's definition of being a House African American.

Destroying the foundation of the the Mulford Act will mean that to rule against us is to uphold a law that was specifically designed to strip away the citizen's right to protect themselves from government officials who were in violation of their oaths of office and criminally operating under color of law.

Heller created the "sensitive zone" exception, but I believe that Justice Scalia deliberately put that in not to impede our rights, but to create a opportunity for a carry lawsuit to hit the Supreme Court.

The "1000 ft 24/7/365 School Zone" effectively guts our right to bear arms.

Common sense says that if a zone is "sensitive", then the government must demonstrate that whatever is in that zone is so "sensitive" and that their is an "compellling public need" that people entering that zone have to waive their fundamental right of self defense when entering it.

If a "Zone" is so sensitive, then common sense would indicate that zone is also a secure zone, for if it is critical to keep law abiding people from carrying arms, it is far more critical to prevent armed bad people from entering the zone.

Since giving up one's right of self defense is a requirement to enter that zone, it is critical that the zone has immediately available armed security capable of dealing with an immediate threat. Since many of the school shootings involved threats with Long Arms, a single police officer armed with only their sidearm is insufficient by any standard.

If the Children are what makes a "School" sensitive, then why is a "school zone" a "gun free zone" on non school hours?

Why can a home owner within a 1000 ft of a school have loaded arms in their home, but someone walking or driving on a public street with a open unloaded firearm would be subject to arrest.

Ideally we would like "Nordyke and other gun cases" to be ruled on first, but the state legislature is committed to ending even unloaded carry.

Hitting them not only with a lawsuit to stop the unloaded ban, but overturning the Mulford Act and the School Zone issue would be a nice counter offensive.

We probably will not get justice at the district level, we will have to go to the appeal level.

Considering that various counties are arguing that their CCW policies are Constitutional because of "Open Unloaded Carry", it would be interesting to see how much opposition we would really get.