• 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.

A Patriot's Response to OC Ban

1

1894cfan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
10
Location
, ,
marinepilot81 said:
"They tell us Sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power." -- Patrick Henry
Click to expand...

The one I like is......

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased by chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God! I know not what course others may take, as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!
 
Lawful Aim

Lawful Aim

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
131
Location
USA
Save Our State said:
I'd like to look for more creative methods first, and try to find ways to allow them NOT to arrest us.
Click to expand...

Does this mean you are ready to look at some administrative methods in law that will put agencies and officers under obligation to respect unalienable rights before they can even say, "Hold on. May we talk to you for a moment?"
 
Save Our State

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Lawful Aim said:
Does this mean you are ready to look at some administrative methods in law that will put agencies and officers under obligation to respect unalienable rights before they can even say, "Hold on. May we talk to you for a moment?"
Click to expand...

Of course; I've said before that I agree with some or many of your claims. I've also said that when they start working to the point they become a threat to the heirarchy, they will address them and bring it to a halt. For that reason, I'm not willing to place any of my supposed "inalienable rights" on the table for denial. In other words, I'll attempt anything that won't allow them to declare me a felon.
But we are also going to employ another strategy here. Flexing our "rights" muscle so to speak. I plan on holding an event at the state capitol to kick it off soon.
 
M

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
marinepilot81 said:
Well I was suggesting peaceful, armed demonstrations and purposefully avoided discussing tactics or "shaping the battlefield" on open forum.

You are right that up the middle would be a catastrophe. Do something else. You are wrong, however, to think the police will ever work with you. It's a Milgram's Experiment kinda thing: They're not evil; they just don't do what's right under authority.

You've been working with the police and educating the public for 50 years. How's that working for Californians?

"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!" -- Patrick Henry
Click to expand...

marinepilot81,

Thank you for knowing the difference between a strategy and tactics. If gun rights organizations knew the difference, we may not be having this written conversation.

What do you fly?


markm
 
M

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
Lawful Aim said:
Does this mean you are ready to look at some administrative methods in law that will put agencies and officers under obligation to respect unalienable rights before they can even say, "Hold on. May we talk to you for a moment?"
Click to expand...

Hey Lawfull Aim,

By administrative, do you mean 42 USC 1983, and 42 USC 1989?

If so, I agree with you totally. In our current political climate, holding individual LEOs financially responsible for their law-breaking actions would be the most effective tactic.

Our strategy should be an all-out political war (non-violent) which includes the 1983/1989 tactic as the "right-up-the-middle" coup de main.

As I recall, a 10th circuit court ruled that "...a lawfully carried firearm is no different than a wallet." (I think that was accurately quoted)

markm
 
Last edited:
C

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
mjones said:
Calguns.net Statistics
Threads: 434,722, Posts: 6,686,974, Members: 92,582, Active Members: 20,117

I think it would be a fair estimate to say that it would be hard to muster 40k gunnies in CA without limiting it to OCers...
Click to expand...


Members = 92,572

Members who oppose open carry = 92,568
 
carry for myself

carry for myself

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
544
Location
Maine
maybe a state like CA needs a show of force. think about the million man march. were there a million people to march in the city when the idea was founded? most likely not. but how many people showed up? well over a million. what if..........just for arguments sake. every open carrier in the country were to show up on the statehouse front door in CA?. how many would that be? .....think of how many of us actually are out there. whether we post alot, or dont even know this site exists. OCer's their friends, family, co-workers. they dont even all have to OC. but just imagine the number. if everyone showed up one day and said "we have a right, you dont" ..........imagine the effect of that?
 
wildhawker

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
Not only is the premise of "every open carrier in the country [showing up] on the statehouse front door in CA" absolutely untenable so as to be fantasy, but the total lack of efficacy were it to come to fruition would make the effort a totally demoralizing net loss.

-Brandon

carry for myself said:
maybe a state like CA needs a show of force. think about the million man march. were there a million people to march in the city when the idea was founded? most likely not. but how many people showed up? well over a million. what if..........just for arguments sake. every open carrier in the country were to show up on the statehouse front door in CA?. how many would that be? .....think of how many of us actually are out there. whether we post alot, or dont even know this site exists. OCer's their friends, family, co-workers. they dont even all have to OC. but just imagine the number. if everyone showed up one day and said "we have a right, you dont" ..........imagine the effect of that?
Click to expand...
 
thebigsd

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
wildhawker said:
Respectfully, I think your exaggeration mischaracterizes both the actual membership of Calguns.net and the position of those who are members.

-Brandon
Click to expand...

That's why it's an exaggeration...lol. I have to agree that he has a point. I have surfed Calguns quite a bit and as a whole the forum does seem to lean away from open carry.
 
wildhawker

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
hgreen said:
I believe there are exceptions for parades and other "official/sanctioned" events for both school zone law and probably open carry restrictions.

Just get a parade permit and you're good. Otherwise how do all the armed service parades or ROTC marches happen? You just got to play their games.
Click to expand...

hgreen said:
I believe there are exceptions for loaded carry [strike]parades and other "official/sanctioned" events[/strike] for [strike]both[/strike] school zone law [strike]and probably open carry restrictions[/strike]*.

Just get a [strike]parade permit[/strike] PC 12050/26150 carry license and you're good. Otherwise how do all the [strike]armed service parades or ROTC marches happen[/strike] judges and reserve officers carry in school zones? You just got to play their games.
Click to expand...

An analogy for your consideration.

-Brandon

* Prior to AB 1363 (2009), this final strike would not exist.
 
Last edited:
wildhawker

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
thebigsd said:
That's why it's an exaggeration...lol. I have to agree that he has a point. I have surfed Calguns quite a bit and as a whole the forum does seem to lean away from open carry.
Click to expand...

I think an unfortunate byproduct of the debate over UOC was that people felt the need to choose a manner preference based on perceived risk to the right. (Let's not debate this here, as I certainly am not trying to rekindle the debate.)

Based on my experience with a large number of people in the community, I firmly believe that real, objective polling of Calguns members would indicate something closer to:

* An overwhelming majority believe that "keep" and "bear" mean just that;
* A large majority would prefer the option to carry in any manner they wish (e.g. open or concealed);
* A large majority believe that carry licenses and fees, as they currently, exist are unconstitutional and overly burdensome;
* A large majority believe that, if concealed carry is to be regulated/licensed, then some other manner of bear must be available to all on a non-discretionary basis;
* A large majority share the fundamental values of the OC community;
* A majority would prefer "Constitutional carry";
* A majority would LOC at some point if it is held to be the constitutional minimum and/or a legislatively-sanctioned lawful manner of bear;
* A substantial number, and possibly a majority, do not agree with the understood tactics/strategy of UOC, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the disagreements those in gun rights have are very much like the fights that occur at the family dinner table at a reunion or Thanksgiving. It hurts, and it sucks. However, the continuing segregation of members of the full community and subjective tests of "patriotism" are no better than the subjective discretion that California's sheriffs impose on law-abiding gun owners.

-Brandon
 
Last edited:
M

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
wildhawker said:
I think an unfortunate byproduct of the debate over UOC was that people felt the need to choose a manner preference based on perceived risk to the right. (Let's not debate this here, as I certainly am not trying to rekindle the debate.)

Based on my experience with a large number of people in the community, I firmly believe that real, objective polling of Calguns members would indicate something closer to:

* An overwhelming majority believe that "keep" and "bear" mean just that;
* A large majority would prefer the option to carry in any manner they wish (e.g. open or concealed);
* A large majority believe that carry licenses and fees, as they currently, exist are unconstitutional and overly burdensome;
* A large majority believe that, if concealed carry is to be regulated/licensed, then some other manner of bear must be available to all on a non-discretionary basis;
* A large majority share the fundamental values of the OC community;
* A majority would prefer "Constitutional carry";
* A majority would LOC at some point if it is held to be the constitutional minimum and/or a legislatively-sanctioned lawful manner of bear;
* A substantial number, and possibly a majority, do not agree with the understood tactics/strategy of UOC, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the disagreements those in gun rights have are very much like the fights that occur at the family dinner table at a reunion or Thanksgiving. It hurts, and it sucks. However, the continuing segregation of members of the full community and subjective tests of "patriotism" are no better than the subjective discretion that California's sheriffs impose on law-abiding gun owners.

-Brandon
Click to expand...

Hey Brandon,

I think your analysis of CalGuns members is right-on. I don't have enough experience with CalGuns to consider my opinion worth anything, but I do share your conclusion as a gut feeling.

I am one of those who has been critical at the Thanksgiving Table; however, I dislike the family members who sink to ad hominem attacks. CalGuns is not the BG in this fight. Lefty politicians are the problem (I know, that was a generalizaion, and yes there are Benedict Arnold republicans). A difference of opinion regarding Strategy/Tactics is not a blood feud.

Thanks again for your contributions to our cause.

markm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top