Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Riverside Walmart open carry

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Riverside Walmart open carry

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2Jsn...w&feature=plcp

    Large police turnout for a large group of men and women exercising their rights. Weapons drawn by police officers, a pain compliance hold (I believe) was used, and the officers let several armed individuals stand behind them for a couple of minutes while they were totally distracted by another group of armed individuals.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    "Hoity-toity" Palo Alto, California, USA
    Posts
    103
    Awesome vid, can't wait to LGUOC in my local wally world come this January. But I do have a small PSA...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	howtorecordvideo.jpg 
Views:	232 
Size:	46.2 KB 
ID:	7423  

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    The Good- The Wal*Mart manager was a stand up fellow, relenting in making an issue of even long gun carry in his store after discovering that what was being done was completely legal. Someone should have gotten his name to write the corporate office in Bentonville, Arkansas in recognition of Wal*Mart's position on legal carry.
    The Bad- Riverside Police had drawn their weapons and used the application of physical force to restrain at least one detainee. Further, the police detained the subjects after the 12031(e) check was complete, so the Sgt could arrive to announce e-checks are about to be conducted. It seems clear that Riversides proceedures on dealing with open carry has either been undertrained or remains unclear to some officers.
    The Ugly- Open carry advocates are taking the path that people like Portantino, Ammiano, and Saldana want them to.

    "Wha?" you say? Yes, these politicians want open carriers to continue to escalate the issue of carrying firearms in California so they will achieve another victory in the court of public opinion (and likely in reducing transport of long guns in a locked case anywhere in public). It seems that some open carry groups have not learned the lesson that AB144 has delivered and continue to follow a strategy that failed in our unique political geography.

    I believe it is essential to go the opposite direction of where these politicians want...leaving the long guns at home and to show them, the police and the general public that the law the legislature passed and Jerry Brown signed is completely and utterly ineffective- that the legal open carry of handguns continues under one or more of the 27 exemptions there exists to 26350.
    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
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Wow, I can't believe you guys put up with this stuff everyday. Keep up the fight!!! I did notice one officer said something like "does anyone else have a gun we need to check.?" I would of said that they don't NEED to check any of the guns nor are they required to do so by law.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  5. #5
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    I've remained a bit afar as to the carry lately, but I'll relay my personal mindset.

    I've not really a proponent of shopping, going to restaurants, or meetings at the pier with open-carried guns. Although I'm the strongest gun proponent as far as rights go, in the face of public opinion, I think it's best to out manuever the opposition. Although we are fast becoming a rather high crime state, and law enforcement is strapped for resources to deal with it; I don't think we have reached a point at which the majority would accept an openly armed society yet. It's probably coming though. So my manuever is to work the gun back into vogue cleverly inserting it in public where it has good other reason to be there. I'm sure many of you recall my long gun carry last year where I hiked to the range. 10 miles through the city for good cause. It's hard to argue that you shouldn't have a gun if you're going to the range. It's also hard to argue same when on your way to a hunt, or to the gun shop. The point being, that going shopping with a gun is a bit hard to justify under present conditions. In that respect, I agree with Condition Three. What I can't tell though, is whether he would condone it under the conditions I mentioned. I'm happy to see this group at least got out and acknowledged their rights. It's hard to find activists these days, and I hope they remain so. But I also hope they consider my strategy in place of the shopping trip...for now anyway

  6. #6
    Regular Member jdholmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada
    Posts
    488
    I can see why nobody wants to live in California.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    10
    Great Video! I really like that the manager allowed everyone to continue shopping. I've seen way to many videos where the police convince the manager to kick the UOC's out of the store.

    I am more like Save Our State in that I usually only open carry when I'm heading to and from the range or other gun activity. About once a week I go trap shooting and ride my motorcycle straight through the middle of town with a shotgun slung on my back. I don't own a car so it's the only way for me to get there. I stopped at In-N-Out last night on the way home and had no problems, stoped at the bank to make a deposit the week prior. I have yet to have anyone say anything or even give me a stare.

    I would probably open carry more but I don't know anyone in my area that supports it.

  8. #8
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    I've remained a bit afar as to the carry lately, but I'll relay my personal mindset.

    I've not really a proponent of shopping, going to restaurants, or meetings at the pier with open-carried guns. Although I'm the strongest gun proponent as far as rights go, in the face of public opinion, I think it's best to out manuever the opposition. Although we are fast becoming a rather high crime state, and law enforcement is strapped for resources to deal with it; I don't think we have reached a point at which the majority would accept an openly armed society yet. It's probably coming though. So my manuever is to work the gun back into vogue cleverly inserting it in public where it has good other reason to be there. I'm sure many of you recall my long gun carry last year where I hiked to the range. 10 miles through the city for good cause. It's hard to argue that you shouldn't have a gun if you're going to the range. It's also hard to argue same when on your way to a hunt, or to the gun shop. The point being, that going shopping with a gun is a bit hard to justify under present conditions. In that respect, I agree with Condition Three. What I can't tell though, is whether he would condone it under the conditions I mentioned. I'm happy to see this group at least got out and acknowledged their rights. It's hard to find activists these days, and I hope they remain so. But I also hope they consider my strategy in place of the shopping trip...for now anyway
    I'm going to address your mention of justification here- and I'm almost certain you really mean 'appropriateness'. One expects to see firearms at the range and hunting and on the way to and from each of those- therefore you can justify their appearance through what reasonable people would believe might be appropriate. However your implication that justification evaporates because a percievable use is not apparent while shopping, dining out, fetching the crumb crunchers from day care... is predicated on either a false sense of security or a belief that one does not have an immediate use for a firearm in any of those circumstances.

    We live in communities where available law enforcement is dwindling and criminal activity is on the rise- We cannot possibly predict when or where a genuine need for firearms will arise, and I can tell you that this need does arise while shopping at Wal*mart (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...ime&id=8436224), while dining out (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/...day-night.html) and fetching crumb crunchers from day care (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...t-of-break-ins). I personally believe any one of these stories is justification to carry a firearm in preparation for personal defense anywhere and anytime. What I question more than anything else are the motives for doing so immediately after we have been handed a legislative defeat, in a manner that is nearly certain to instigate another similar response, and without any other thought to deviating from the strategy that led to this failure in the first place.
    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 Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    I'm going to address your mention of justification here- and I'm almost certain you really mean 'appropriateness'. One expects to see firearms at the range and hunting and on the way to and from each of those- therefore you can justify their appearance through what reasonable people would believe might be appropriate. However your implication that justification evaporates because a percievable use is not apparent while shopping, dining out, fetching the crumb crunchers from day care... is predicated on either a false sense of security or a belief that one does not have an immediate use for a firearm in any of those circumstances.

    We live in communities where available law enforcement is dwindling and criminal activity is on the rise- We cannot possibly predict when or where a genuine need for firearms will arise, and I can tell you that this need does arise while shopping at Wal*mart (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...ime&id=8436224), while dining out (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/...day-night.html) and fetching crumb crunchers from day care (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...t-of-break-ins). I personally believe any one of these stories is justification to carry a firearm in preparation for personal defense anywhere and anytime. What I question more than anything else are the motives for doing so immediately after we have been handed a legislative defeat, in a manner that is nearly certain to instigate another similar response, and without any other thought to deviating from the strategy that led to this failure in the first place.
    Sir, you may have missed the main thrust of my intent. While I agree for the need for being armed as mentioned during day to day procedures, I believe that the public at large is not convinced of that yet, and therefore will react to the legislative restrictions accordingly. Seeing the firearms being carried "just because" is not sufficient reason for them to accept it. But give them a solid reason to defend it, or at least one not to reject it, and then you'll have started the pathway to re-insertion. the Portino's and the Saldana's will never be satisfied of course, but you begin to pare their support as you take away their reason. In other words, they will have a harder time pointing out the necessity of their laws when each carrier is engaging in a legitimate specified use that differs from the "just because I can" one.
    As for the timing you mentioned; I tend to think firearms restriction march on regardless. It might just end up getting turned around on them for going the bridge too far themselves. if for example they press for enclosed long guns, we get a whole new demographic involved...the hunter, who may not have felt like defending the OC issue prior. That's speculation of course, but the point being we have been handed many legislative losses, and the 144 should not be held forever in boogeyman status.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    The Ugly- Open carry advocates are taking the path that people like Portantino, Ammiano, and Saldana want them to.

    "Wha?" you say? Yes, these politicians want open carriers to continue to escalate the issue of carrying firearms in California so they will achieve another victory in the court of public opinion (and likely in reducing transport of long guns in a locked case anywhere in public). It seems that some open carry groups have not learned the lesson that AB144 has delivered and continue to follow a strategy that failed in our unique political geography.

    I believe it is essential to go the opposite direction of where these politicians want...leaving the long guns at home and to show them, the police and the general public that the law the legislature passed and Jerry Brown signed is completely and utterly ineffective- that the legal open carry of handguns continues under one or more of the 27 exemptions there exists to 26350.
    Im not to sure C3 that working an exemption is a smart idea, because now it becomes my interpretation of an exemption vs a patrol officers interpretation or a sergeants, which means you now have it cost you a day in court. And from the LE perspective and media its a legitimate arrest for weapons possession in violation of the law, and im sure the local anti gun courts will agree. No one knows for sure what elevating the open carry to long guns will do. Public opininon is finicky, subject to group think mentatlity. If legislature trys to make another law that further treads on our rights, by going after rifles/shotguns, then maybe enough people and groups (NRA) will get mad enough to do something and have backing from "the people". The danger for antigunners making emotional gun restrcitive laws is they back themselves into a corner and make it much easier to lose lawsuits working there way up the appeals ladder. I point to Peruta and Richards both of which I think there arguments are now stronger due to AB 144 being made law.
    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!!

  11. #11
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    Im not to sure C3 that working an exemption is a smart idea, because now it becomes my interpretation of an exemption vs a patrol officers interpretation or a sergeants, which means you now have it cost you a day in court. And from the LE perspective and media its a legitimate arrest for weapons possession in violation of the law, and im sure the local anti gun courts will agree. No one knows for sure what elevating the open carry to long guns will do. Public opininon is finicky, subject to group think mentatlity. If legislature trys to make another law that further treads on our rights, by going after rifles/shotguns, then maybe enough people and groups (NRA) will get mad enough to do something and have backing from "the people". The danger for antigunners making emotional gun restrcitive laws is they back themselves into a corner and make it much easier to lose lawsuits working there way up the appeals ladder. I point to Peruta and Richards both of which I think there arguments are now stronger due to AB 144 being made law.
    1) I believe it is essential that the exemptions are exploited- even if it means that someone is falsely arrested and faces charges.
    2) The escalation of carrying long guns in an urban area IS a known outcome- this is what Portantino wants- or else he would have banned the open carrying of all firearms, not just handguns. The politicians are playing this so that gun owners appear to be the least reasonable people in the room and use this as justification to incrementally eliminate options, with the support of their constituents. The only way to make these people look foolish and irrational is to exploit the law that they wrote and nullify the effect that they desired.
    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

  12. #12
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by donny View Post
    Once again we have children with guns "helping" California gun owners in the worst way. When will the stupidity end?
    I don't see your teaching moments doing much in the way of convincing people otherwise.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    1) I believe it is essential that the exemptions are exploited- even if it means that someone is falsely arrested and faces charges.
    2) The escalation of carrying long guns in an urban area IS a known outcome- this is what Portantino wants- or else he would have banned the open carrying of all firearms, not just handguns. The politicians are playing this so that gun owners appear to be the least reasonable people in the room and use this as justification to incrementally eliminate options, with the support of their constituents. The only way to make these people look foolish and irrational is to exploit the law that they wrote and nullify the effect that they desired.
    C'mon ConditionThree; They will tweak their exemptions just as you predict their response to long gun carry. I don't see how it would be different.

  14. #14
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    C'mon ConditionThree; They will tweak their exemptions just as you predict their response to long gun carry. I don't see how it would be different.
    How would it look for the legislature to reneg on an exemption that they carved out for their protected classes? I think that is a bit different than taking another of our options off the table. In banning long gun open carry there is no political capital to be lost- the 27 exemptions however, exist to satisfy some 'special people' who would be put off by more arbitrary restrictions on transporting handguns. In order to frustrate those who passed this piece of sh*t law, we need to step into the shoes of those who they were trying to protect.
    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

  15. #15
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    How would it look for the legislature to reneg on an exemption that they carved out for their protected classes? I think that is a bit different than taking another of our options off the table. In banning long gun open carry there is no political capital to be lost- the 27 exemptions however, exist to satisfy some 'special people' who would be put off by more arbitrary restrictions on transporting handguns. In order to frustrate those who passed this piece of sh*t law, we need to step into the shoes of those who they were trying to protect.
    They've already succeeded in marginalizing those 27 different special people. That's the step taken before picking them off one or more at a time. They didn't just carve out 27 exemptions; they designed the 27 next amendments to the code. Remember the seat belt law? they said they would not stop people just for that, and they exempted busses, vehicles over 6000 lbs GVW, etc. Those exemptions are gone now. One at a time, and gone

  16. #16
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    They've already succeeded in marginalizing those 27 different special people. That's the step taken before picking them off one or more at a time. They didn't just carve out 27 exemptions; they designed the 27 next amendments to the code. Remember the seat belt law? they said they would not stop people just for that, and they exempted busses, vehicles over 6000 lbs GVW, etc. Those exemptions are gone now. One at a time, and gone
    Seriously? You think that they will tell Hollywood..."Yeah, you're going to have to keep all the pistols cased... Sorry about the inconvenience. Have fun filming in Arizona."
    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

  17. #17
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Seriously? You think that they will tell Hollywood..."Yeah, you're going to have to keep all the pistols cased... Sorry about the inconvenience. Have fun filming in Arizona."
    they may not do them first, but consider the mindset of these lawmakers. they would like to see hollywood step away from guns. That's a side issue, but should be considered in the overall. the lawmakers have pared down the number of people who will complain about their next amendment to the law. It's divide and conquer.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    281

    hollywood

    I work in the entertainment industry sometimes. It is very normal to have uniformed LEO's that are either retired or working paid overtime staffing a movie set for security and traffic control when filming on city streets along with regular security guards. I can tell you NOBODY IS GOING TO GET ARRESTED on the crew filming a legitimate film production with any show guns, no matter what kind of guns they have. These productions have a "armorer" who is responsible for the the prop guns; and collects, loads them with blanks if needed for a scene. The armors have every kind of gun imaginable form old tommy guns to the last auto weapons, depending on what is called for. All bullet hits you see is the responsibility of special effects guys. If a bullet hit is in water, they normally use paint ball guns to simulate the hits, on cars or dirt they use small explosive electronic charges. As far as the normal crime dramas the actors just walk around the sets (including outside location settings) with both concealed and open carried weapons. The LEO's could care less about the weapons and the actors just do their acting thing. Ever heard of a crew member getting arrested for anything illegal while on a movie set? It never happens. Nothing is going to change with the new law and the LEO's know who are paying their paychecks.
    Last edited by oc4ever; 11-20-2011 at 12:44 AM.

  19. #19
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    they may not do them first, but consider the mindset of these lawmakers. they would like to see hollywood step away from guns. That's a side issue, but should be considered in the overall. the lawmakers have pared down the number of people who will complain about their next amendment to the law. It's divide and conquer.
    The 'Entertainment' exemption is the chink in 26350's armor that I believe is the strongest to exploit because Hollywood money does to some extent control our legislature- I don't think even our legislature would alienate California's leading moneymaker to silence gunowners... though they may enact other laws to exclude us from claiming that we are having an entertainment event.
    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

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by donny View Post
    Once again we have children with guns "helping" California gun owners in the worst way. When will the stupidity end?
    Seriously, what other option do they have? They live under the tyranny of the majority. I'm so glad I'm not forced to live under those conditions. I would have revolted long ago had my liberty been subject to the will of the state. I pity all of you in California.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    1) I believe it is essential that the exemptions are exploited- even if it means that someone is falsely arrested and faces charges.
    2) The escalation of carrying long guns in an urban area IS a known outcome- this is what Portantino wants- or else he would have banned the open carrying of all firearms, not just handguns. The politicians are playing this so that gun owners appear to be the least reasonable people in the room and use this as justification to incrementally eliminate options, with the support of their constituents. The only way to make these people look foolish and irrational is to exploit the law that they wrote and nullify the effect that they desired.
    I dont believe Portantino is the leader of this anti gun movement anymore than I believe Saldana was. They were just the next democratic pawns who were termed out and was their turn to be the poster child for the Brady Campaign and the anti gun agenda of the ruling class of "elected officials" in this state. Banning weapons gives the Law Enforcement power to control funding and money which the Dems provide in exchange for maintaining there power over the government. Its the politics of kingdoms, police chiefs and politicial sheriffs want to keep the gravy train rolling for themselves. the rank and file officers know that armed citizens stop crime, but that means there would be a reason to cut funding to LE if they allowed us to take care of our own safety. So the liberals and the LE are in bed together, ban the guns make CA a place for criminals to have unarmed victims requiring more money for LE. And the anti gun, convicting CA courts are in on it as well. Pushing the envelope of absurdity and forcing the dems/libs to keep trying to infringe 2A rights helps our cause because the rest of the country and SCOTUS are going the opposite direction. Very quickly they will violate federally protected civil rights and we can win that in court, its the next progession for Heller and Macdonald. I bet you next year they will pick another termed out Democrat (again) to be the poster boy for Long Gun open carry ban, and they will try and push that thru as well. Our hope is that this will upset more rational people, more pro 2A groups and stir people to action and affect elections, If we cant change the legislature to majority Repblican nothing will change.
    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!!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    I dont believe Portantino is the leader of this anti gun movement anymore than I believe Saldana was. They were just the next democratic pawns who were termed out and was their turn to be the poster child for the Brady Campaign and the anti gun agenda of the ruling class of "elected officials" in this state. Banning weapons gives the Law Enforcement power to control funding and money which the Dems provide in exchange for maintaining there power over the government. Its the politics of kingdoms, police chiefs and politicial sheriffs want to keep the gravy train rolling for themselves. the rank and file officers know that armed citizens stop crime, but that means there would be a reason to cut funding to LE if they allowed us to take care of our own safety. So the liberals and the LE are in bed together, ban the guns make CA a place for criminals to have unarmed victims requiring more money for LE. And the anti gun, convicting CA courts are in on it as well. Pushing the envelope of absurdity and forcing the dems/libs to keep trying to infringe 2A rights helps our cause because the rest of the country and SCOTUS are going the opposite direction. Very quickly they will violate federally protected civil rights and we can win that in court, its the next progession for Heller and Macdonald. I bet you next year they will pick another termed out Democrat (again) to be the poster boy for Long Gun open carry ban, and they will try and push that thru as well. Our hope is that this will upset more rational people, more pro 2A groups and stir people to action and affect elections, If we cant change the legislature to majority Repblican nothing will change.
    I Agree, what I would like to know is if there is any ongoing court cases, now dealing with PC 12031e
    and maybe AB144, to find the unconstitutional ?
    Do any of you know of such cases ? Robin47

  23. #23
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    I Agree, what I would like to know is if there is any ongoing court cases, now dealing with PC 12031e
    and maybe AB144, to find the unconstitutional ?
    Do any of you know of such cases ? Robin47
    12031(e) is being challenged as a component to a false arrest for possession of assault weapons. (See Brendan John Richards v. California Attorney General Kamala Harris) It is also expected to be facially challenged December 12, by someone whom will remain unnamed, who has neither the proper strategic venue nor the ability to fund their own litigation. This effort could at least stall any remedy Mr. Richards might see in his case, at worst, fortify the state of California's position that 12031(e) is not constitutionally overreaching.
    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

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Redondo Beach
    Posts
    22

    PC 12031(e)

    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    12031(e) is being challenged as a component to a false arrest for possession of assault weapons. (See Brendan John Richards v. California Attorney General Kamala Harris) It is also expected to be facially challenged December 12, by someone whom will remain unnamed, who has neither the proper strategic venue nor the ability to fund their own litigation. This effort could at least stall any remedy Mr. Richards might see in his case, at worst, fortify the state of California's position that 12031(e) is not constitutionally overreaching.
    I spoke on the phone with the attorney, Jason Davis, who brought the Richards case shortly before he filed it (Richards has now been consolidated with Haynie). We spent two hours going over my case and he was satisfied that it does not conflict with Richards or any other case he plans to bring.

    Nor could he articulate any defect in my legal arguments.

    The United States Supreme Court in Heller clearly stated that Open Carry is the manner in which a firearm can be carried, with the possible exception of when a person is travelling.

    CalGuns/SAF/NRA/CRPA have all brought and lost Federal cases pretending that the Supreme Court really didn't mean what it said in regards to the manner in which it is constitutional to carry a weapon - which is Open Carry.

    Another fact which the anti-Open Carry folks on this and other forums fail to comprehend is that I am simply seeking an injunction against PC 12031. My injunction can lose all the way up to the US Supreme Court and it will not set a precedent, binding or persuasive. Unlike the concealed carry lawsuits which have failed and are very likely to fail on appeal. If any of these concealed carry decisions is published by an appellate court, it will establish a binding or persuasive precedent. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the inevitable appeal and reaffirms that it really meant what it said in Heller then there will be another High Court precedent against concealed carry.

    My lawsuit is filed and online for the world to read. If any attorney who has a 2nd Amendment case in the 9th Circuit can articulate, in writing, why my case is defective they are welcome to do so. They know how to reach me.

    Proponents of concealed carry should be begging these attorneys to drop their cases before they do irreparable harm.

  25. #25
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by CNReporter View Post
    I spoke on the phone with the attorney, Jason Davis, who brought the Richards case shortly before he filed it (Richards has now been consolidated with Haynie). We spent two hours going over my case and he was satisfied that it does not conflict with Richards or any other case he plans to bring.

    Nor could he articulate any defect in my legal arguments.

    The United States Supreme Court in Heller clearly stated that Open Carry is the manner in which a firearm can be carried, with the possible exception of when a person is travelling.

    CalGuns/SAF/NRA/CRPA have all brought and lost Federal cases pretending that the Supreme Court really didn't mean what it said in regards to the manner in which it is constitutional to carry a weapon - which is Open Carry.

    Another fact which the anti-Open Carry folks on this and other forums fail to comprehend is that I am simply seeking an injunction against PC 12031. My injunction can lose all the way up to the US Supreme Court and it will not set a precedent, binding or persuasive. Unlike the concealed carry lawsuits which have failed and are very likely to fail on appeal. If any of these concealed carry decisions is published by an appellate court, it will establish a binding or persuasive precedent. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the inevitable appeal and reaffirms that it really meant what it said in Heller then there will be another High Court precedent against concealed carry.

    My lawsuit is filed and online for the world to read. If any attorney who has a 2nd Amendment case in the 9th Circuit can articulate, in writing, why my case is defective they are welcome to do so. They know how to reach me.

    Proponents of concealed carry should be begging these attorneys to drop their cases before they do irreparable harm.
    In this protracted conversation, did Mr Davis bring up the possibility that in the event that you won, or won on appeal, that the equal protection aspects of Peruta and Richards v Prieto could be nullified? And that when these cases are dismissed, that territory in school zones would still be unreachable by anyone without a license to carry? If this suit did not interfere with any pending cases, why weren't Mr. Davis' services secured with the funding you have solicited, so that your theories could be presented in the most congent and direct manner possible? Did you reimburse Mr Davis for his time consulting you on the telephone? I do assume that you did collect those funds for that purpose.

    While the suit may not be defective, and it is being hypothesized that you may even win, I think its still difficult to argue that the timing isn't a bit troublesome for pending litigation. I also visualise another outcome in addition to stalling shall issue; we get LOC outside of school zones, anywhere where we arent asked to leave, and California's licensing scheme remains may issue- changing nothing in metropolitan areas.
    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

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
  •