Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Sooo, Carrying your unload AR15 isnt cool?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    101

    Sooo, Carrying your unload AR15 isnt cool?

    Whats the deal here... We carrying, we not carrying?

    Im on the verge of carrying my AR (not just out to get a burger) somewhere sometime.

    I know all the calgunners will cry n say I have a mental handicap or something but what else are they good for but a laugh right? Lol
    And would it be a d**k move to answer because calguns.net told me to do if im asked why im carrying? Hahaha

    But no really, wats the deal wit long guns... To carry or not to carry.



    Oh n I got a few days left... Mini Draco pistol UOC?
    Im probably pushin it huh

  2. #2
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by eraseallhope View Post
    Whats the deal here... We carrying, we not carrying?

    Im on the verge of carrying my AR (not just out to get a burger) somewhere sometime.

    I know all the calgunners will cry n say I have a mental handicap or something but what else are they good for but a laugh right? Lol
    And would it be a d**k move to answer because calguns.net told me to do if im asked why im carrying? Hahaha

    But no really, wats the deal wit long guns... To carry or not to carry.



    Oh n I got a few days left... Mini Draco pistol UOC?
    Im probably pushin it huh
    My opinion is, that "hot rod" type weapons in conjunction with carrying "just because you can" is going to contribute to the anti-gun crowds propaganda effort, while doing almost nothing to preserve Californians gun rights, unless....you can demonstrate you are doing so for a plausible reason. So that reason might be that you were taking it to the gunsmith, the range, a swap meet, a safety class where you were a student or instructor, etc.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    My opinion is, that "hot rod" type weapons in conjunction with carrying "just because you can" is going to contribute to the anti-gun crowds propaganda effort, while doing almost nothing to preserve Californians gun rights, unless....you can demonstrate you are doing so for a plausible reason. So that reason might be that you were taking it to the gunsmith, the range, a swap meet, a safety class where you were a student or instructor, etc.
    I think that owning firearms in conjunction with being a civilian is going to contribute to the anti-gun crows propaganda effort. You should only own guns if you can demonstrate a plausible reason, like, being a gunsmith contractor to fix government firearms, teaching safety classes for government and police dept. employees.
    ^Sound familiar?

    I think the notion that we shouldn't exercise our rights just because they may try to take our rights is just silly and/or counter productive when it comes to protecting our rights. What's the point of having it if you can't use it? I'm on the same page as Ca Patriot.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 12-16-2011 at 06:07 PM. Reason: better wording
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  4. #4
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    I think the CalGuns positions is being grossly misrepresented.

    They were opposed to urban-group-UOC, and are currently opposed to urban-rifle-UOC, because it will be much harder to get it back once its taken away by our state legislature.

    The issue is timing - not about open carry. Getting open carry banned today makes the ability to have legal urban-loaded-open-carry down the road take MUCH longer.
    Last edited by mjones; 12-16-2011 at 07:31 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I think that owning firearms in conjunction with being a civilian is going to contribute to the anti-gun crows propaganda effort. You should only own guns if you can demonstrate a plausible reason, like, being a gunsmith contractor to fix government firearms, teaching safety classes for government and police dept. employees.
    ^Sound familiar?

    I think the notion that we shouldn't exercise our rights just because they may try to take our rights is just silly and/or counter productive when it comes to protecting our rights. What's the point of having it if you can't use it? I'm on the same page as Ca Patriot.
    I don't believe you understood what I was trying to convey there

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by eraseallhope View Post
    Whats the deal here... We carrying, we not carrying?

    Im on the verge of carrying my AR (not just out to get a burger) somewhere sometime.

    I know all the calgunners will cry n say I have a mental handicap or something but what else are they good for but a laugh right? Lol
    And would it be a d**k move to answer because calguns.net told me to do if im asked why im carrying? Hahaha

    But no really, wats the deal wit long guns... To carry or not to carry.



    Oh n I got a few days left... Mini Draco pistol UOC?
    Im probably pushin it huh
    Yes, that is pushing it. Can you articulate a reason why it is necessary to 'push it' by carrying any long gun (let alone an AR platform rifle), when you could still carry an exposed handgun for self defense under one of more than two dozen exemptions to PC26350?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjones View Post
    I think the CalGuns positions is being grossly misrepresented.

    They were opposed to urban-group-UOC, and are currently opposed to urban-rifle-UOC, because it will be much harder to get it back once its taken away by our state legislature.

    The issue is timing - not about open carry. Getting open carry banned today makes the ability to have legal urban-loaded-open-carry down the road take MUCH longer.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    I don't believe you understood what I was trying to convey there
    Oh, they did understand your point. And their response was to mock your assertion that one should have a purpose to carrying a long gun, beyond being a bullet trap for junior officers and deputies, or to carry whatever, for no reason whatsoever in spite of the certain political fallout in California.
    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

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Yes, that is pushing it. Can you articulate a reason why it is necessary to 'push it' by carrying any long gun (let alone an AR platform rifle), when you could still carry an exposed handgun for self defense under one of more than two dozen exemptions to PC26350?
    .

    My mini Draco is a pistol, its just an AK pistol.

    And why is it necessary? Its probably not... Maybe we should all just attend the next LAPD gun buy back?

  8. #8
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by eraseallhope View Post
    My mini Draco is a pistol, its just an AK pistol.

    And why is it necessary? Its probably not... Maybe we should all just attend the next LAPD gun buy back?
    Do you have some unsatisfied desire to create some form of Embodian* conflict with law enforcement officials? The reason why I ask, is that I want to specifically memorialize the moment I first indicated that these actions would be an epically horrendous opening to a political trainwreck involving the second amendment, predicated on the premise that one should do something completely irrational with a firearm simply because they assert that it is their right to do so.

    Yes, I know a Mini Draco is a stubby AK pistol (which would, in California require a bullet button to comply with our funny little assault weapons laws and at 17" overall length would not be considered a concealable weapon). The only worse idea anyone has ever concieved of, besides openly carrying this kind of weapon for the purposes of aggitating law enforcement, is to paint the tip of the muzzle orange. Are you supposing that if one doesn't paint the muzzle break orange on this kind of weapon that the fallout would somehow be better that previous attempts, by open carrying it at a LAPD gun buy back?

    Don't answer that... The real question I need an answer to is, Why would anyone favor openly carrying a long gun (or a military style pistol like the Mini Draco) when the law provides ample exemptions for nearly anyone willing to exploit them, to carry an exposed handgun after January 1st 2012?




    * Leonard Embody carried an AK pistol modified to appear that it was a 'toy' with the muzzle painted orange expressly to create conflict with police.
    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
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post

    Yes, I know a Mini Draco is a stubby AK pistol (which would, in California require a bullet button to comply with our funny little assault weapons laws and at 17" overall length would not be considered a concealable weapon). [/B]




    * Leonard Embody carried an AK pistol modified to appear that it was a 'toy' with the muzzle painted orange expressly to create conflict with police.
    I believe it would still be considered a concealable weapon because I think the barrels are less than 16 inches long.

    (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol,"
    "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"
    shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a
    weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any
    explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less
    than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that
    has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be
    interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
    The real question I need an answer to is, Why would anyone favor openly carrying a long gun (or a military style pistol like the Mini Draco) when the law provides ample exemptions for nearly anyone willing to exploit them, to carry an exposed handgun after January 1st 2012?
    It provides some good exemptions, but many of them involve locked cases, which slows down making it ready, and others involve becoming part of a charitable organization, etc. The former is not a great alternative in my opinion, and the latter is just not very convenient, especially if you hardly spend time in California.

    My prediction is that the CA legislature bans long gun open carry in a year or two. I hope I'm wrong. I think the only reason they didn't go for it all in one swoop is that they knew they'd anger the fudds going for the shotguns and rifles, and handguns were a low hanging fruit. Divide and conquer.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 12-17-2011 at 12:44 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Kgfsz

    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Can you articulate a reason why it is necessary to 'push it' by carrying any long gun (let alone an AR platform rifle), when you could still carry an exposed handgun for self defense under one of more than two dozen exemptions to PC26350?
    Kali has her own gun free school zone (KGFSZ). I thought that KGFSZ only applied to handguns. Seems like a perfectly good reason to sling an AR to me.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Do you have some unsatisfied desire to create some form of Embodian* conflict with law enforcement officials? The reason why I ask, is that I want to specifically memorialize the moment I first indicated that these actions would be an epically horrendous opening to a political trainwreck involving the second amendment, predicated on the premise that one should do something completely irrational with a firearm simply because they assert that it is their right to do so.

    Yes, I know a Mini Draco is a stubby AK pistol (which would, in California require a bullet button to comply with our funny little assault weapons laws and at 17" overall length would not be considered a concealable weapon). The only worse idea anyone has ever concieved of, besides openly carrying this kind of weapon for the purposes of aggitating law enforcement, is to paint the tip of the muzzle orange. Are you supposing that if one doesn't paint the muzzle break orange on this kind of weapon that the fallout would somehow be better that previous attempts, by open carrying it at a LAPD gun buy back?

    Don't answer that... The real question I need an answer to is, Why would anyone favor openly carrying a long gun (or a military style pistol like the Mini Draco) when the law provides ample exemptions for nearly anyone willing to exploit them, to carry an exposed handgun after January 1st 2012?




    * Leonard Embody carried an AK pistol modified to appear that it was a 'toy' with the muzzle painted orange expressly to create conflict with police.
    1) Leonard is a man of actions, not words. He did nothing illegal, got a stupid law changed (Army/Navy pistol law) and irritated the hell out of the holier than thou 2APC Crowd. Any man that gets the quisling, you just don't understand, its not in our collective best interests crowds panties in a wad can't be all bad in my book.
    2) If you haven't figured out by now condition 3 many here actually take the site's motto "a right unexercised is a right lost" seriously.
    3) It is a pre-existing, god given right, and the beauty of such rights is that you do not have to explain them to anybody who asks why. Even if they wear a Captain America costume on their avitar.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Do you have some unsatisfied desire to create some form of Embodian* conflict with law enforcement officials? The reason why I ask, is that I want to specifically memorialize the moment I first indicated that these actions would be an epically horrendous opening to a political trainwreck involving the second amendment, predicated on the premise that one should do something completely irrational with a firearm simply because they assert that it is their right to do so.

    Yes, I know a Mini Draco is a stubby AK pistol (which would, in California require a bullet button to comply with our funny little assault weapons laws and at 17" overall length would not be considered a concealable weapon). The only worse idea anyone has ever concieved of, besides openly carrying this kind of weapon for the purposes of aggitating law enforcement, is to paint the tip of the muzzle orange. Are you supposing that if one doesn't paint the muzzle break orange on this kind of weapon that the fallout would somehow be better that previous attempts, by open carrying it at a LAPD gun buy back?

    Don't answer that... The real question I need an answer to is, Why would anyone favor openly carrying a long gun (or a military style pistol like the Mini Draco) when the law provides ample exemptions for nearly anyone willing to exploit them, to carry an exposed handgun after January 1st 2012?




    * Leonard Embody carried an AK pistol modified to appear that it was a 'toy' with the muzzle painted orange expressly to create conflict with police.
    If you're referring to the event I think you are, this happened in the great state of Tennessee. We don't have the most lax of gun laws, but they aren't the most stringent either. Granted, this did happen right outside of Nashville, a very liberal city.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  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
    Don't answer that... The real question I need an answer to is, Why would anyone favor openly carrying a long gun (or a military style pistol like the Mini Draco) when the law provides ample exemptions for nearly anyone willing to exploit them, to carry an exposed handgun after January 1st 2012?
    Well, for one, because some of us are riflemen, and not pistoliers. Not endorsing the OP's proposal, but man does not live by handgun alone

  14. #14
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    1) Leonard is a man of actions, not words. He did nothing illegal, got a stupid law changed (Army/Navy pistol law) and irritated the hell out of the holier than thou 2APC Crowd. Any man that gets the quisling, you just don't understand, its not in our collective best interests crowds panties in a wad can't be all bad in my book.
    2) If you haven't figured out by now condition 3 many here actually take the site's motto "a right unexercised is a right lost" seriously.
    3) It is a pre-existing, god given right, and the beauty of such rights is that you do not have to explain them to anybody who asks why. Even if they wear a Captain America costume on their avitar.
    Tell me how this 'man of actions' has advanced the cause of carrying an exposed weapon for self defense. I believe the object here, is the normalization of carrying an exposed handgun for practical self defense... that is the reason why most of us are here. This is why I came here in late 2005 and have been here ever since. I can tell you that carrying a AK pistol painted to resemble a toy does not help normalize the practice of open carry and does not comfortably acclimate the general public to the idea that gun owners are ordinary and rational people. It has succeeded in exactly the opposite. To persist in the delusion that this was a reasonable thing to do and to both anticipate and instigate police contact is entirely antithetical to our efforts to restore the practicality of bearing arms.

    I would rather be considered a man of self-control, principle and good judgement than a one who is unpredictable and known for wildly inappropriate and potentially dangerous actions. In keeping with that desire, I deem any response to your ad hominum jab meritless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felid`Maximus View Post
    I believe it would still be considered a concealable weapon because I think the barrels are less than 16 inches long.

    It provides some good exemptions, but many of them involve locked cases, which slows down making it ready, and others involve becoming part of a charitable organization, etc. The former is not a great alternative in my opinion, and the latter is just not very convenient, especially if you hardly spend time in California.

    My prediction is that the CA legislature bans long gun open carry in a year or two. I hope I'm wrong. I think the only reason they didn't go for it all in one swoop is that they knew they'd anger the fudds going for the shotguns and rifles, and handguns were a low hanging fruit. Divide and conquer.
    Then the Mini Draco is a 'handgun' and the subject of PC26350's ban on exposed unloaded handguns.

    The possibility of another ban on openly carried arms is strengthened by making a big show if AR and AK platform weapons- which seems to me, threshing out those who carry for show from those who carry for practical defense when you take into account that nearly everyone can either ferret out an exemption that applies to them to the UOC ban or they can carry a handgun LUCC.

    Such insistance that they make a display of themselves will only reinforce the perception that carrying any weapon is unusal or extraordinary behavior. (When we know it is not.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    Well, for one, because some of us are riflemen, and not pistoliers. Not endorsing the OP's proposal, but man does not live by handgun alone
    In the context of what I am saying, there is no reason for someone to switch from carrying an exposed handgun to a long arm after January 1st 2012 other than to flip the bird at Jerry Brown and the California legislature and tempt them to take that too. As I have pointed out, I believe it is better to insult them by using the law they intended to use against us, and continue carrying exposed handguns.
    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

    In the context of what I am saying, there is no reason for someone to switch from carrying an exposed handgun to a long arm after January 1st 2012 other than to flip the bird at Jerry Brown and the California legislature and tempt them to take that too. As I have pointed out, I believe it is better to insult them by using the law they intended to use against us, and continue carrying exposed handguns.
    Open carry was an exemption to the legislative actions that occurred in earleir years. How is that insult different from this other?

  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
    Open carry was an exemption to the legislative actions that occurred in earleir years. How is that insult different from this other?
    I might not have properly dissected your meaning here, but I believe this would be different in that the legislature would be in the position of renegging on a law that they just approved. This would demonstrate that they are utterly ineffectual either in silencing gun owners or creating a meaningful law. And by revisiting the law, I think there is a good chance that they would burn one of their protected constituents by meddling with it even more.
    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
    I might not have properly dissected your meaning here, but I believe this would be different in that the legislature would be in the position of renegging on a law that they just approved. This would demonstrate that they are utterly ineffectual either in silencing gun owners or creating a meaningful law. And by revisiting the law, I think there is a good chance that they would burn one of their protected constituents by meddling with it even more.
    The legislature succeeded quite well. Each and every time they passed a law to restrict guns, it was directed at the masses, not the few individuals that will dissect the law and find a tiny weakness that they can expolit, but at some risk of arrest and court costs. They dissuaded the masses from having a loaded gun, then a concealed one, and then an unloaded unconcealed one. They went after open carry because it was growing beyone a handful of dedicated citizens. Your new method requires too much thought for the masses, and I doubt seriously it will grow enough, or fast enough to cause them any grief. The rifle carry is still got some hope, if...people fight for it.
    As far as them meddling with the law and burning one of their protected class, I could point out the hot button issue of illegal immigrants in California who get away with driving without a license now, even though it's a crime. They just adopt "policies" that keep the protected class from harm in the face of laws that prohibit certain acts.

  18. #18
    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
    The legislature succeeded quite well. Each and every time they passed a law to restrict guns, it was directed at the masses, not the few individuals that will dissect the law and find a tiny weakness that they can expolit, but at some risk of arrest and court costs. They dissuaded the masses from having a loaded gun, then a concealed one, and then an unloaded unconcealed one. They went after open carry because it was growing beyone a handful of dedicated citizens. Your new method requires too much thought for the masses, and I doubt seriously it will grow enough, or fast enough to cause them any grief. The rifle carry is still got some hope, if...people fight for it.
    As far as them meddling with the law and burning one of their protected class, I could point out the hot button issue of illegal immigrants in California who get away with driving without a license now, even though it's a crime. They just adopt "policies" that keep the protected class from harm in the face of laws that prohibit certain acts.
    I am sensing that you are missing some of the historical roots of gun control. While the legislature has restricted everyone, each and every time new gun control has come about, it has been to specifically to disarm a minority. First, it was the Chinese and the Hispanics by the institution of concealed weapons laws in the 1920's, then it was the Black Panthers with loaded carry in 1967,... and now they are attacking doughy white men who congregate at Starbucks. (Of course, I am kidding in part.)

    The assertion that 'my new method' requires too much thought for the masses is an absurdity. Back when I began investigating lawful open carry in California, I was repeatedly rebuffed with the warnings that exposed carry of a handgun was already illegal and that any attempt would result in an arrest or worse, picking concrete out of my teeth for parading such audacity. To them, it was 'impossible'. It wasnt until I had outlined California's restrictions- making them into a Cliff's notes guide to avoid unlawful behavior that these skeptics began to turn. The catalyzing event came after being freed after a breif detention by police. While as yet, this 'new method' is simply a laymen's legal theory, the added step to being one of those exempted parties is only one more step to fulfill an obligation to obey the law.

    The added insulation of this strategy is that becoming one of the anti-gunners protected constituents is that when they institute a law, they do not have the latitude to selectively enforce the law as is done with illegal aliens cruising around with no license, insurance or current registration. By becoming one of their protected classes, the legislature must accept us under that umbrella of protection or eliminate the exemption for whichever of their golden geese we happen to be emulating. If they are forced to burn that exemption, in my view, we win. We win, because the legislature is hurting the people they wanted to protect and we win, because by going back to revisit AB144 they are admitting that the law is defective.

    I would prefer THAT, than a whole new prohibition on another variety of weapons.
    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

  19. #19
    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 am sensing that you are missing some of the historical roots of gun control. While the legislature has restricted everyone, each and every time new gun control has come about, it has been to specifically to disarm a minority. First, it was the Chinese and the Hispanics by the institution of concealed weapons laws in the 1920's, then it was the Black Panthers with loaded carry in 1967,... and now they are attacking doughy white men who congregate at Starbucks. (Of course, I am kidding in part.)

    The assertion that 'my new method' requires too much thought for the masses is an absurdity. Back when I began investigating lawful open carry in California, I was repeatedly rebuffed with the warnings that exposed carry of a handgun was already illegal and that any attempt would result in an arrest or worse, picking concrete out of my teeth for parading such audacity. To them, it was 'impossible'. It wasnt until I had outlined California's restrictions- making them into a Cliff's notes guide to avoid unlawful behavior that these skeptics began to turn. The catalyzing event came after being freed after a breif detention by police. While as yet, this 'new method' is simply a laymen's legal theory, the added step to being one of those exempted parties is only one more step to fulfill an obligation to obey the law.

    The added insulation of this strategy is that becoming one of the anti-gunners protected constituents is that when they institute a law, they do not have the latitude to selectively enforce the law as is done with illegal aliens cruising around with no license, insurance or current registration. By becoming one of their protected classes, the legislature must accept us under that umbrella of protection or eliminate the exemption for whichever of their golden geese we happen to be emulating. If they are forced to burn that exemption, in my view, we win. We win, because the legislature is hurting the people they wanted to protect and we win, because by going back to revisit AB144 they are admitting that the law is defective.

    I would prefer THAT, than a whole new prohibition on another variety of weapons.
    The more complicated it becomes, the less people will do it. Open carry already had numerous potential pitfalls to avoid, Now there are many more. I understand the optimist wants to say there are x amount of exemptions. But a pessimist and a realist would also see it another way. Open carry is still legal as before, but now there are more pitfalls to avoid. Lots of people have said they will or would, open carry rifles when the law takes effect. In contrast, very few have taken interest in the exemption strategy. I'm not going to say one is better than the other by virtue. I am going to take the path of least resistance though. I'd like to people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights; I have had difficulty getting people involved on simple matters; If they have to read, interpret, and adjust to all these new restrictions, they are just not going to show up, and then we lose involvement. You're strategy is not bad; It's just not a very saleable one to the marketplace.
    Maybe there was some racist or even nationalist concerns that drove the firearm restrictionists back in the day, but now it is simple control. The exposed unloaded carry threatened to spark some life in a culture that the restrictionists want to see die out. The less people carrying guns around where people can see them; the less people will know they have or had any right to do so.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Firemark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    The more complicated it becomes, the less people will do it. Open carry already had numerous potential pitfalls to avoid, Now there are many more. I understand the optimist wants to say there are x amount of exemptions. But a pessimist and a realist would also see it another way. Open carry is still legal as before, but now there are more pitfalls to avoid. Lots of people have said they will or would, open carry rifles when the law takes effect. In contrast, very few have taken interest in the exemption strategy. I'm not going to say one is better than the other by virtue. I am going to take the path of least resistance though. I'd like to people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights; I have had difficulty getting people involved on simple matters; If they have to read, interpret, and adjust to all these new restrictions, they are just not going to show up, and then we lose involvement. You're strategy is not bad; It's just not a very saleable one to the marketplace.
    Maybe there was some racist or even nationalist concerns that drove the firearm restrictionists back in the day, but now it is simple control. The exposed unloaded carry threatened to spark some life in a culture that the restrictionists want to see die out. The less people carrying guns around where people can see them; the less people will know they have or had any right to do so.
    I have to call you on this one Save our State,
    "The more complicated it becomes, the less people will do it."

    This reasoning was used by the establishment in 1967 with the Mulford Act, and people bought it for about 40 years. Open Carry of firearms disappeared overnight....Then Open Carry advocacy came along a few years ago and said
    "OK so you made it difficult basically stupid and ridiculous but not illegal, so we are gonna carry again and play this game."

    And now the establishment does the same tactic again,
    "Lets make it even more harder and more difficult basically nearly impossible to Open Carry", but they still left an opening for certain classes of people. They did this at the behest and request of LE chiefs and sheriffs so they can squash any idea of armed soverign citizenry, and exert there control over the citizenry by maintaining a police state.

    This is the same type of controlling tactic used by King George, remember the Stamp Tax, the Tea Tax. Little bites and steps to control and restrict.. Remember our response? ...
    "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

    If we start arguing amongst ourselves about which type of carry,and stop pushing back against the establishment, then we will fall right back into just suffering thru it. Im not advocating throwing off such government, but im saying dont take the easy way, the safe way, the path of least resistance. If we do then we become those mindless souls that just do what we are told, sheeple amongst the flock again.

    I think the more complicated it becomes the more reasonable people will see it for what it is.
    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!!

  21. #21
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Firemark View Post
    If we start arguing amongst ourselves about which type of carry,and stop pushing back against the establishment, then we will fall right back into just suffering thru it. Im not advocating throwing off such government, but im saying dont take the easy way, the safe way, the path of least resistance. If we do then we become those mindless souls that just do what we are told, sheeple amongst the flock again.

    I think the more complicated it becomes the more reasonable people will see it for what it is.
    Seeing it for what it is isn't the problem; most know that the government is trying to cripple the citizen's ability to use guns As I see it, they do it in steps of course, and each time it gets farther out of sight, and less practical. I've noticed that alot of folks that "see it for what it is" are also the type that don't do well with legal "mumbo-jumbo" as I have heard it referenced many times. They understand the second amendment, but haven't taken any time to read the many court rulings, historical references, and how the court arrived at their decisions. Our state legislature just added to the mumbo-jumbo, and my opinion is that rather than learn all the new complexities of carrying a sidearm, they will most likely be more inclined to carry a longgun. It's simpler.
    I'm not saying his plan is flawed, however I do have some experience trying to get people motivated and active. It don't take much to have them turn away from it. I'd like to keep them active, and my position is that we keep offering them the simple agenda.
    I'll say that I'm not always right, but that is my opinion

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    Seeing it for what it is isn't the problem; most know that the government is trying to cripple the citizen's ability to use guns As I see it, they do it in steps of course, and each time it gets farther out of sight, and less practical. I've noticed that alot of folks that "see it for what it is" are also the type that don't do well with legal "mumbo-jumbo" as I have heard it referenced many times. They understand the second amendment, but haven't taken any time to read the many court rulings, historical references, and how the court arrived at their decisions. Our state legislature just added to the mumbo-jumbo, and my opinion is that rather than learn all the new complexities of carrying a sidearm, they will most likely be more inclined to carry a longgun. It's simpler.
    I'm not saying his plan is flawed, however I do have some experience trying to get people motivated and active. It don't take much to have them turn away from it. I'd like to keep them active, and my position is that we keep offering them the simple agenda.
    I'll say that I'm not always right, but that is my opinion
    What happens when long gun carry is made illegal, we will be in the same boat as with handgun carry now? Most likely a law with some exemptions for certain "classes" and everyone else is a criminal if they do it.... at that point what is your plan?

    At some point, we all need to try to work within the system. Lets try using the exemptions that let us continue to UOC our handguns. I do agree with C3, working with the exemptions they have set is a slap in the face to them. They will have to respond to that. Either they will start deleting exemptions as they see fit....or maybe we can show the general public just how stupid these laws really are.

    Look at the "safe handgun" list for example...its basically a law that is now null and void for anyone that has a little common sense and knows the exemptions to get around it. Its pretty easy to buy any "off roster" handgun you want, and legally get it into the state. If everyone had just taken the "easy way" out and left it for what it was we wouldn't have the exemptions we have today and the ways of legally obtaining off roster handguns that are known to us now.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by camsoup View Post
    What happens when long gun carry is made illegal, we will be in the same boat as with handgun carry now? Most likely a law with some exemptions for certain "classes" and everyone else is a criminal if they do it.... at that point what is your plan?

    At some point, we all need to try to work within the system. Lets try using the exemptions that let us continue to UOC our handguns. I do agree with C3, working with the exemptions they have set is a slap in the face to them. They will have to respond to that. Either they will start deleting exemptions as they see fit....or maybe we can show the general public just how stupid these laws really are.

    Look at the "safe handgun" list for example...its basically a law that is now null and void for anyone that has a little common sense and knows the exemptions to get around it. Its pretty easy to buy any "off roster" handgun you want, and legally get it into the state. If everyone had just taken the "easy way" out and left it for what it was we wouldn't have the exemptions we have today and the ways of legally obtaining off roster handguns that are known to us now.
    Try the exemptions route if that's what you want. My point is, you are going to be a lot more alone in that than you were already with open carry before 144. I just think there might be more support for going with the longun. It's easier to explain, less complicated, etc.
    Now there is a war against long gun carry within the gun community, as if we already don't have enough from the anti-gunners and restrictionists. This original poster was interested in the long gun, and instead of tendering advice on how to make that less obnoxious and more helpful, there was an effort to direct them away from that.

    What happens when long gun carry is made illegal, we will be in the same boat as with handgun carry now? Most likely a law with some exemptions for certain "classes" and everyone else is a criminal if they do it.... at that point what is your plan?
    Well, I have one....and it's coming up soon. meant to address the 144 issue as well. Not perfect, but something. Will be posting that soon.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    With 27 exemptions to this law, you would be hard pressed NOT to fit into one of them.
    read the law, know the law, carry the law.
    Then

    Continue to open carry your handgun.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    I think that owning firearms in conjunction with being a civilian is going to contribute to the anti-gun crows propaganda effort. You should only own guns if you can demonstrate a plausible reason, like, being a gunsmith contractor to fix government firearms, teaching safety classes for government and police dept. employees.
    ^Sound familiar?

    I think the notion that we shouldn't exercise our rights just because they may try to take our rights is just silly and/or counter productive when it comes to protecting our rights. What's the point of having it if you can't use it? I'm on the same page as Ca Patriot.

    I agree with you 100% It doesn't make sense to restrict the practice of one's rights because the antis might take it away if we practice it.

    Here's an exercise for those who think such advise is a sound one. Say to yourself out loud " Its okay not to exercise my 2A rights for fear it might be taken away from me". Then replace 2A rights with "right to free speech", "right to travel", "right to practice one's faith", and all the other rights. Now you see it?

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •