Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Concern over SAF and CGF Lawsuit

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Concern over SAF and CGF Lawsuit

    What more evidence do we need!

    OC has been sacrificed as a pawn in CGF's CC strategy! Gene's fratricide comment comes to fruition.

    This article brings this out.

    "Legislatures might well prefer one form of carrying over another. Precedent relied upon by Heller reveals an ancient suspicion of weapons concealment where social norms viewed the wearing of arms as virtuous. But today, the open carrying of a handgun may be mistakenly viewed as provocative or alarming by individuals unfamiliar with firearms. California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus makes perfect sense. In rural, sparsely populated areas, Sheriffs are allowed to issue permits to carry handguns openly. But in more populous areas, the state deprives Sheriffs of this ability, and specifies that permits to carry must be limited to concealed handguns." - SAF/CalGuns appeal brief pg., 31 (emphasis added)

    Are you freakin' serious?????

    ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: We do not bash other gun rights organizations. However, I am leaving this thread because there is a valid discussion of the strategy involved in such lawsuits.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    Are you freakin' serious?????
    One might level that inquiry at you for your accusation.
    You see, the text you quoted was not from Gene, but from Alan Gura- the attorney handling the case. Your reliance on Charles Nichols to properly interpret what is being said is somewhat misplaced as he has demonstrated here and in the past that he does not fully grasp the strategy or why it is more likely to ensure the results we all want.

    Here is the link to the full brief that was quoted; http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ric...f-20110824.pdf
    Last edited by ConditionThree; 08-26-2011 at 09:49 AM.
    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    I read the brief and this exerpt from page 26 really caught my eye.

    "Plaintiffs have never argued for a
    right to carry handguns in, specifically, a concealed manner. The right
    is to carry arms, generally, subject to the state’s regulatory authority
    allowing for outright bans on particular modes of carry."

    To me it looks like they are going for both open and concealed carry in the total idea of "licensed carry". Once the restriction of good cause is reduced to "self protection" and any law abidng citizen can get a permit, then its a simple matter of altering the regulatory authority on particular modes of carry. Its simply a baby step towards "license to carry loaded any way you prefer" its just setting it up so it doesnt ruffle feathers and its harder to change if its done a little bit at a time. Once you get the license, then its much easier to get the change of the open carry rule---"..what if my coat flys open in public", "...what if my shirt accidential comes up over the weapon", "...what if someone sees printing of the weapon"

    Sons of Liberty I think your not seeing what others are seeing, SAF and CGF are being very crafty and selective in their arguments to get to the final goal. But thanks for posting this otherwise I never would have taken the time to read the brief and understand whats actually going on and why it was not attempted in Peruta v San Diego.
    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!!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Its like the anti's who keep using the words "assault clip" if you change the language and keep repeating it you can affect peoples view and belief of whats being said....

    Search and destroy has now been replaced with sweep and clear..
    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
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I think I understand the strategy they are using. It's the "low hanging fruit".
    They feel that getting everyone able to carry concealed is very possible. Getting it all...LOC and concealed carry, or constitutional carry in one shot is not possible.
    The first thing it to get "good cause" to be self defense, and "good moral character" to be anyone who isn't prohibited from owning a weapon. This doesn't change the law, but just changes the definition of those two things. They agree the the mode...that requiring a license to carry concealed is ok. After they achieve that, they will go for LOC. After that, they will go for constitutional carry.
    Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I think I understand the strategy they are using. It's the "low hanging fruit".
    They feel that getting everyone able to carry concealed is very possible. Getting it all...LOC and concealed carry, or constitutional carry in one shot is not possible.
    The first thing it to get "good cause" to be self defense, and "good moral character" to be anyone who isn't prohibited from owning a weapon. This doesn't change the law, but just changes the definition of those two things. They agree the the mode...that requiring a license to carry concealed is ok. After they achieve that, they will go for LOC. After that, they will go for constitutional carry.
    Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
    Hey Gundude,

    I think you are correct.

    As a project manager, I find that it is best to start a project by attacking the little tasks--those little nit-picky things that usually fall in line--except when something goes wrong. Many big projects get derailed over the smallest of things. Think about a foundation for a building. By going after "low hanging fruit," a seriously strong foundation can be built.

    In addition, sometimes bigger problems get solved, almost effortlessly. You know, that supplier who gave you a great price to supply material for your project, knows a sub who specializes in a task that you are having trouble with, and wall-la -- your problem is solved!

    The political left has dismantled 2A one bite at a time, and now we have this huge elephant of anti-constitutional laws and judicial precedent that need to be eaten, one bite at a time.

    This is reality.

    15 years ago, did any of you think that 4 states would be Constitutional Carry? How many of us thought that LEO would think twice, or pay the consequences, for violating a gun owners 4A rights? How many of us anguished that a 2A case never made it to SCOTUS? Wisconsin is going shall-issue and Chicago and DC are fighting a losing battle--who knew!. Cops are being sued in California for violating rights. 2A cases are in the courts. There are very few states that I travel through where I am in fear of getting caught with my guns; this was not the case 10 years ago.

    Progress is being made; one bite at a time. Our political system was designed to move slowly--this is good as command-and-control liberals can't change things too quickly.

    I agree with you Gundude.

    markm

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    I think it's pretty common for arguments to be made in lawsuits that don't necessarily reflect the true positions of those making the arguments, but instead further the case that is currently underway. There's no rule saying you can't talk about how the legislature obviously wants to have concealed carry be the method of carry one day and then the following day say open carry is constitutionally mandated. Given CGF's stated goal of getting concealed carry licenses to be shall issue first, I would expect arguments to be written exactly in this way. Laying out how you really feel about everything would make achieving incremental goals incredibly difficult as your arguments would get incredibly complicated.

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Your reliance on Charles Nichols to properly interpret what is being said is somewhat misplaced as he has demonstrated here and in the past that he does not fully grasp the strategy or why it is more likely to ensure the results we all want.

    Here is the link to the full brief that was quoted; http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ric...f-20110824.pdf
    I downloaded the case last night and read that first section including the parts quoted in the article.

    How can you not see what Gura is saying, "California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus makes perfect sense." This is what Gura is saying. It makes perfect sense to him! He is agreeing with the California legislature's approach to restricting open carry! Outrageous!

    This continues CGF's, SAF's, and the NRA's long time aversion to defending open carry! Some have said that we're being thrown under the bus. It's true. We are being used as pawns...expendable...to futher the objectives of monarchs.

    Here's another quote, "Heller’s recognition of a right to carry a handgun does not force states such as California and Texas to allow the carrying of handguns in a manner they understandably perceive may cause needless public alarm, so long as a more socially-conducive option exists to allow people to exercise the right to bear arms."

    Gura is not quoting. Gura is providing an affirmation of the regulations (12031) against open carry put out by the legislature to further the CC case.

    How can any sane, Constitution-loving citizen not take offense at these arguments?!

    Gene was not kidding about his fraticide comment. He said it and here it is. What more is there to prove?
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  9. #9
    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 think I understand the strategy they are using. It's the "low hanging fruit".
    They feel that getting everyone able to carry concealed is very possible. [SNIP] Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
    CC shall issue is not the "low hanging fruit". You have to get a couple of ladders out to get to that fruit. You have decisions at the district court levels (Peruta v. County of San Diego) and decisions at the Supreme Court level (McDonald v. City of Chicago), which have not been supportive of striking down CC permits through a 2A argument.

    The obvious leanings of the courts have been towards open carry. The low hanging fruit is the 12031 loaded carry prohibition.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    No, Gura speaks to the reality. He isn't formulating and presenting HIS opinion, he is explaining the reality that is witnessed.

    Here is the progression:
    Observation:
    But today, the open carrying of a handgun may be mistakenly viewed as provocative or alarming by individuals
    unfamiliar with firearms.
    Relevant citation:
    (“No reasonable person would dispute that walking into
    a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct
    which is virtually certain to create a disturbance”)
    Conclusion:
    California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus makes
    perfect sense.
    I highly doubt that such is HIS opinion or desire, it is a statement of the reality.


    He shows that the reality is "mistakenly viewed as provocative or alarming", cites a statement from a court case, and points out that the method used by california "thus makes perfect sense."

    That shows that HE understands the opposition. That is a good thing.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    [SNIP]He shows that the reality is "mistakenly viewed as provocative or alarming", cites a statement from a court case, and points out that the method used by california "thus makes perfect sense."

    That shows that HE understands the opposition. That is a good thing.
    Gura could have said but did not say, "California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus is defective." He could have said but did not say, "...thus is misplaced." He could have said but did not say, "...thus is misguided."

    He said, "makes perfect sense."

    Definition of perfect is "without fault", "without blemish", "lacking nothing". Meaning of makes sense is "to be reasonable or comprehensible".

    Gura is therefore saying, "California's mode of regulating the carrying of handguns is thus reasonable without fault."

    He is sacrificing open carry and arguing that regulations for keeping guns concealed are reasonable.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    [QUOTE=Sons of Liberty;1600261]I downloaded the case last night and read that first section including the parts quoted in the article.

    How can you not see what Gura is saying, "California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus makes perfect sense." This is what Gura is saying. It makes perfect sense to him! He is agreeing with the California legislature's approach to restricting open carry! QUOTE]

    I think you are confusing regulation and restriction. He agrees that regulation is needed. He is not agreeing to restrictions (you're words)Any restriction that is disguised as regulation can be attacked, and I'm sure that will happen. We have many here in Calif.
    The purpose of this lawsuit is very narrow. To get good cause defined as self protection and to get good moral character defined as any person who can legally own a firearm.
    Regulation would be things like brandishing, threatening someone, or firing into the air.
    Restriction is what we have now. I am a lawabiding citizen who isn't prohibited from owning a firearm, yet I can't legally carry a functional handgun for self protection.

    Just my opinion.
    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.

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Still not buying your arguments. Here's another "pearl" from Gura:

    "Heller’s recognition of a right to carry a handgun does not force states such as California and Texas to allow the carrying of handguns in a manner they understandably perceive may cause needless public alarm, so long as a more socially-conducive option exists to allow people to exercise the right to bear arms."

    Where is this spelled out in Heller?
    Last edited by Sons of Liberty; 08-27-2011 at 02:26 AM. Reason: format
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  14. #14
    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 think you are confusing regulation and restriction. He agrees that regulation is needed. He is not agreeing to restrictions (you're words)Any restriction that is disguised as regulation can be attacked, and I'm sure that will happen. We have many here in Calif.
    The purpose of this lawsuit is very narrow. To get good cause defined as self protection and to get good moral character defined as any person who can legally own a firearm.
    Regulation would be things like brandishing, threatening someone, or firing into the air.
    Restriction is what we have now. I am a lawabiding citizen who isn't prohibited from owning a firearm, yet I can't legally carry a functional handgun for self protection.

    Just my opinion.
    Gura is supporting the idea in his argument that an open carry restriction in the regulation is reasonable in an urban area. This is what he is putting forth: A restriction in the bearing of arms (open carry).

    Another quote from Gura, "California validly chose to render the open carrying of handguns for self-defense largely impossible, while licensing the concealed carrying of functional handguns for self-defense."

    The more reasonable argument would be that the restricting of openly carried handguns to a state of unloaded is unconstitutional.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  15. #15
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    I dunno, I still think he's arguing to his strengths. If he argues that open carry and concealed carry laws in California are both messed up, then the CGF strategy falls apart. Say this case didn't exist and they file a new one with a complaint pointing out how open carry and concealed carry should be legal and easy to do in California. Now you're fighting a battle on two fronts and you have to win them BOTH. If you win concealed and lose open, then you just created case law that says open carry isn't needed. If you win open and lose concealed, you just created case law saying you don't need concealed. That goes against CGF's known strategy of getting the hard stuff out of the way first.

    Is 12031 the low hanging fruit? Absolutely. But where do you go from there? If the courts follow the Peruta judge line of thinking, as soon as one form of carry is granted then there is no constitutional requirement to allow another method. Go over to calguns.net and count the concealed carry supporters throwing money into CGF and then count the open carriers doing the same. If CGF gets open carry but loses concealed then they've abandoned their base who will now be very upset. Sure, we'll be happy, but CGF will not grow as an organization. Going after concealed first makes perfect sense in a long-term strategic viewpoint in my opinion.

    Gun rights organizations will continue to have to take on the harder cases first until the supreme court says that citizens have the right to carry a firearm in any way they desire (which it should, but probably won't). We still haven't got the supreme court to explicitly say bearing arms is protected, but once they do they will likely have lots to say on the manner of carry, and based on that dicta new cases will be filed which exploit the hints that the justices give us.

    Perhaps there's a way to get concealed and open carry in California by going after 12031 first, but I can't figure out how to do it. I'd love to hear any strategies anybody has though.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    Gura is supporting the idea in his argument that an open carry restriction in the regulation is reasonable in an urban area. This is what he is putting forth: A restriction in the bearing of arms (open carry).

    Another quote from Gura, "California validly chose to render the open carrying of handguns for self-defense largely impossible, while licensing the concealed carrying of functional handguns for self-defense."

    The more reasonable argument would be that the restricting of openly carried handguns to a state of unloaded is unconstitutional.
    Because the 2A caselaw(through mostly state cases) is heavily in favor of the state allowing one and restricting the other. It may be tough to refer to Nunn and Chandler and say that the 2A protects public carry, but we also think they're wrong in that we should have both CC and OC. While most cases protected OC while prohibiting CC, the fact is the opposite will be the case today unlike the 1800's and early 1900's. Going for the homerun shot right off the bat is what got us in trouble in the past.
    In CA, even assuming you could get UOC changed to LOC, you still have the BS gun-free school zones, and numerous other problems that are bypassed by having a CCW.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    Gura could have said but did not say, "California’s mode of regulating the carrying of handguns thus is defective." He could have said but did not say, "...thus is misplaced." He could have said but did not say, "...thus is misguided."

    He said, "makes perfect sense."

    Definition of perfect is "without fault", "without blemish", "lacking nothing". Meaning of makes sense is "to be reasonable or comprehensible".

    Gura is therefore saying, "California's mode of regulating the carrying of handguns is thus reasonable without fault."

    He is sacrificing open carry and arguing that regulations for keeping guns concealed are reasonable.
    He is creating a legal pleading, not a statement of policy.
    You are attempting to parse one or two sentence of a legal pleading out of context, and attempting to claim that this is HIS opinion. It isn't likely.

    He is commenting upon how it is actually happening. He isn't agreeing with it. And, he didn't state "reasonable without fault." Had he desired to state that, he would have.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    Still not buying your arguments. Here's another "pearl" from Gura:

    "Heller’s recognition of a right to carry a handgun does not force states such as California and Texas to allow the carrying of handguns in a manner they understandably perceive may cause needless public alarm, so long as a more socially-conducive option exists to allow people to exercise the right to bear arms."

    Where is this spelled out in Heller?
    Um, it isn't. Do you have a point? But, you can continue to waste your time attempting to take statements in a legal pleading out of context, and falsely present them as if they were the opinion of the lawyer, but you need to remember that the lawyer isn't writing a paper that presents his opinion. He is writing a paper that he feels will benefit his client in the case being presented. THAT isn't a proper place for policy. It is a place for effectiveness in communication, and for legal wrangling.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    Gura is supporting the idea in his argument that an open carry restriction in the regulation is reasonable in an urban area. This is what he is putting forth: A restriction in the bearing of arms (open carry).

    Another quote from Gura, "California validly chose to render the open carrying of handguns for self-defense largely impossible, while licensing the concealed carrying of functional handguns for self-defense."

    The more reasonable argument would be that the restricting of openly carried handguns to a state of unloaded is unconstitutional.
    So, what you needed to do was get on that legal team in Gura's place. Sheesh. It isn't your court case. You do know there is a PERSON attached to the court case. It isn't about you. It is about Peruta. Seriously.

    If that case were in Nevada, the points you bring up about wording may be effective. But, given past CA court cases, I highly doubt that the wording you prefer would be effective at acheiving the results the client desires.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    I have no doubt that Gura is writing to put forth the best case for his client: SAF and CGF. I can see this in his writings.

    The CGF, and especially Gene, have never been fond of open carry. CC is their agenda. I could (but won't) go and dig out thread after thread of Gene and his supporters trying to dissuade OCers in all of their efforts, because he was afraid of a court case like this one. One that would be written and decided to exclude CC. And now, he has done the thing that he feared others would do to his agenda. A case is being put forth to get the courts to agree that CC is the 2A option.

    And if this is decided that CC is the 2A option, how hard do you think it will be to remove the OC restrictions or totally ban OC (without permission slips)?

    Infinitely more difficult.

    The courts will simply say "You have your 2A option...remember Gura's case? Go and get your government permission slip." (Which, by the way, can be suspended/revoked by the same power that issued it. Look what's happening along the east coast during the hurricane state of emergency, the very time that self-defense is needed.)
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  21. #21
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Here is a quote from Calguns. I think it's pretty accurate.

    Forget the world you want. Here is the world you are likely to get:

    RKBA is not limited to the home, but some compelling interest exists outside the home in limited circumstances
    Sensitive places are those where the gubbermint takes more than token responsibility for your security: if they take your authority to defend yourself, they must accept some responsibility for the outcome. This limits the places they can call 'sensitive' if only because they cannot take responsibility for all government places.
    Civilian firearm carry can be restricted from private property, including merchants.
    There will be no massive backlash against those who put up "no carry" signs in coastal urban areas.
    Eventually some shop owners will tire of policing those who give them money. What starts as a political statement eventually becomes a shoulder-shrug "who cares?" and most eventually tire of the fight. Some will persevere. Major chains get over it and move on.
    Anti-gun politicians will still be anti-gun but will move on to other issues because the big fights were won in our favor. Mostly.
    The federal legislature will step in and set some new national rules on carry, sales and transport of firearms that supposedly comport with the big decisions. Why? Because Congress abhors a vacuum and right now there is no national carry standard.
    People on gun boards will continue to lament about our sorry existence, even while they can carry a loaded firearm into a bank in Beverly Hills.
    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.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710
    Sons of Liberty, what you seem to fail to realize is, Alan Gura is playing to win. Strategy, not tactics. If we go for open carry of suppressed full auto from the start, we'll lose it all. We have to pick our battles wisely to win the most we can in the long run. In California, that means we'll get CC long before OC.

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
    Sons of Liberty, what you seem to fail to realize is, Alan Gura is playing to win. Strategy, not tactics. If we go for open carry of suppressed full auto from the start, we'll lose it all. We have to pick our battles wisely to win the most we can in the long run. In California, that means we'll get CC long before OC.
    I fully realize what is going on here. CC is not open carry. It's SAF and CGF compromising the 2A rights of others for CC. It's not about suppressed full auto...it never has been...that's rhetoric. If CC is achieved, you won't see SAF and CGF "waste" their resources on OC. It's not in their blood.

    It wouldn't surprise me if SAF and CGF are secretly encouraging the passage of AB144 with the CA legislature to help their case.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  24. #24
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    The continuing unfounded accusations are frivolous and demeaning to those who offer much of their lives to the advancement of 2A liberties.

    If you think that CGF or SAF has done any such thing are you imply in your post, then please do request every single legislative record and post your evidence here. I'll wait.

    You're desperate for attention, that someone, somewhere, would take up with you against those of us fighting for OUR rights. Please consider very carefully before responding with why I would invest myself in a cause intended to secure only half a right. Then please tell me when you're going to offer our cause, the People's right to keep and bear arms, something of merit beyond a few virulent keystrokes.

    -Brandon

    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    I fully realize what is going on here. CC is not open carry. It's SAF and CGF compromising the 2A rights of others for CC. It's not about suppressed full auto...it never has been...that's rhetoric. If CC is achieved, you won't see SAF and CGF "waste" their resources on OC. It's not in their blood.

    It wouldn't surprise me if SAF and CGF are secretly encouraging the passage of AB144 with the CA legislature to help their case.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    They are not turncoats. Quit being melodramatic.

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
  •