Sooo, Carrying your unload AR15 isnt cool?

Save Our State said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Firemark said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Save Our State said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

camsoup said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Schlitz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

CA_fr_KS said:

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?

Click to expand...

If you review my post, I wasn't discouraging the exercise of 2nd amendment. I was proposing making it harder for the restrictionists to propagandize with what we did.
I've spent the past several years on the streets carrying a somewhat controversial message to the public. The "in your face" method doesn't work unless you can explain away every part of your action. I don't like that any better than you, but if we want the public's support (which is what it's going to take to turn the lobbying effort into lawmaking), we have to treat them like a customers in a business. Think of it interms of selling hot rod cars. Lots of people like the look, sound, and feel of a hot rod. You park one in a strategic place and you'll get a crowd with ooh's and ahhh's. If you race up and down the quiet neighborhood just because you can, you are going to get complaints. Marketing our product properly makes good sense.

Save Our State said:

If you review my post, I wasn't discouraging the exercise of 2nd amendment. I was proposing making it harder for the restrictionists to propagandize with what we did.
I've spent the past several years on the streets carrying a somewhat controversial message to the public. The "in your face" method doesn't work unless you can explain away every part of your action. I don't like that any better than you, but if we want the public's support (which is what it's going to take to turn the lobbying effort into lawmaking), we have to treat them like a customers in a business. Think of it interms of selling hot rod cars. Lots of people like the look, sound, and feel of a hot rod. You park one in a strategic place and you'll get a crowd with ooh's and ahhh's. If you race up and down the quiet neighborhood just because you can, you are going to get complaints. Marketing our product properly makes good sense.

Click to expand...

So, again, how do you propose we do this?

CA_fr_KS said:

So, again, how do you propose we do this?

Click to expand...

I am suggesting that when we go out with open carry, we do so with specifc exercise that is harder to attack. I posted my urban rifle hikes a while back, and used just a basic bolt action hunting rifle made in the 50's. It was quite exposed, and people could easily see that you can carry a firearm. The walk to the range is easily justified in today's health/ walk instead of drive/don't pollute world.
Now I'm not suggesting you do exactly as I did, but think of creative ways to comingle the exposed firearms back into the public view with an eye towards marketing. I know another guy that rides his horse instead of driving a car....I think he lost his license, but what a great mix that would be! Guns and horses on the way through town. It's culturally correct.
Another way is to organize a gun safety exhibition in your area, and this works even in the city. I remember taking my very first hunter safety class as a kid in the parking lot at sears..
I'm not proposing we do not use condition 3's strategy at all, but rather use all strategies, and pay specific attention to the marketing aspect and the willingness of people within our camp to actually do them.

Save Our State said:

I am suggesting that when we go out with open carry, we do so with specifc exercise that is harder to attack.

Click to expand...

This is a good political strategy. Although I haven't done one for a long time, in Nevada I have been doing handgun open carry litter pick-ups. The cops will be less likely to want to try and find an excuse to arrest you for no good reason, and the papers will paint you as crazy gun toting city/park cleaners rather than crazy gun toting evil right wing McVeigh militia terrorists. Will the California legislature still try to ban it? You bet. But I find it hard to believe that doing a thing such as litter pickup can cause any negative effect on gun rights, even if it is a long gun litter pickup.

Not that I'm in any way against people open carrying long guns merely for self-defense. Only, I think that when it is done intentionally for the purposes of demonstration, to get the most positive results, it is preferable to demonstrate in a way that appeals to the minds of the people.

I don't think calling for people to stand down on open carry will work. I think the California legislature is on course to ban it regardless of the actions of people here and furthermore, even if you tried to ask people to stand down, some people will do so anyway.

Another thought on this is organizing a youth gun safety/education/hunter related event where the youth, possibly scouts, are allowed to walk with the longuns in a sling, to teach them both basic safety and that they are not doing anything wrong when they practice an American cultural tradition.

Now the problem I do see is that many of our betheren are generally independent, and all this organizing stuff to interact with others is also complicated. But it does increase our power more than individual exercises, but there also needs ideas that just the one can do, so keep tendering suggestions

Who needs a Long Gun OC Ban when we're already banning it ourselves?

You know what turned California against open carrying handguns? PEOPLE OPEN CARRYING HANDGUNS! The argument that we shouldn't open carry long guns to keep the government from legislating open carrying is like arguing a woman shouldn't have an abortion so people won't legislate abortions. It's absurd!

What's more powerful than government censorship? Self-censorship out of FEAR of government censorship. The same holds for the 2nd Amendment. Once we stop exercising a right out of fear the government will stop us from exercising that right, we've already lost. In fact, we've lost WORSE because the government isn't "officially" regulating anything -- we're being regulated by our own fears.

OPEN CARRY YOUR LONG GUN IF YOU WANT TO. Just be a good ambassador, just like open carrying a handgun. Good luck!

In general, 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.

mjones said:

In general, 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.

Click to expand...

While we await the proper moment, the culture is being sqaushed. My fear is that what interest in the movement we have now, will be snuffed out while we await a decades long battle in courts where we have no participation.

mjones said:

In general, 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.

Click to expand...

Save Our State said:

While we await the proper moment, the culture is being sqaushed. My fear is that what interest in the movement we have now, will be snuffed out while we await a decades long battle in courts where we have no participation.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, mjones is only partly correct... it isnt so much timing as it is the conditions under which we are being subjected to.

Specifically;

1) California jurisprudence does not yet recognize the indivdual right to either keep or bear arms. Until the courts are bound by favorable precident, the 2nd amendment has already been snuffed out.
2) California gunowner's have been under seige since Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act in 1967- and the winds of change only have been blowing in our direction a short time in California. Most gun rights advocates (particularly when it comes to those who open carry) have either been taking cues from what advances they see nationally (or in other states) or have been been so enthusiastic that they have charged so far across the front lines of where our current fight is, that they do not recognize that they have stumbled into enemy territory without sufficient cover, artillery, air support, or supply lines to sustain their efforts over the long term.

So, back to the issue of rekindling the culture of exposed arms. We must ask ourselves if getting kicked out of a restaurant or trespassed in a mall or putting videos of your confrontations on Youtube will soften or harden the perception of California gunowners. We must examine our objectives in carrying exposed arms and recognize when we are not achieving the effect we desire. It is not enough to do something for the sake of repossesing a right lost.

I believe the primary objective to being armed is to provide for your defense. The secondary objective is to demonstrate that there are reasonable and responsible people who carry firearms that are not police or criminals. Everything else outside this paradigm is what draws the consternation of pro and anti gunners alike. So, if there is an exemption to descretely carry a common holstered handgun- would that not be more reasonable than to carry a long gun for the express purpose of being seen, or creating a scene? Are there times and places where it would be more responsible to carry for your individual defense purposes, than to socialize in a public place to display your weapons? If this is such an important right to exersize as a group, it is reasonable to assume that this would also be true as individuals, isnt it?

I am probably drifting away from my intended response- but my point is that it is our position on the battlefield that dictates the appropriateness of our activities, not necessarily the timing.

The problem with AB144 exemptions is they make it much harder to be an attention whore. Which is why urban long gun OC will prosper until it too gets banned.

Oooh Donny......

donny said:

The problem with AB144 exemptions is they make it much harder to be an attention whore. Which is why urban long gun OC will prosper until it too gets banned.

Click to expand...

"You makes I Larf" UOC's get way more attention carrying AR's or Shotguns than they ever got carrying a handgun...all of which I carry alternatively and to date have had no interaction from the local PD ...although I have had some strange looks while attaching my shotgun to my tactical sling in the local parking lot of a big box store...... but as its going to be the only method of protection come January 1st get used to seeing these LGOC in a parking lot near you as they are not going away.....yet.

Again,
one hundred and sixteen (116) distinct exemptions, AB144 does not really stop to many from UOC'ing a handgun.

READ THE LAW, KNOW THE LAW

It's a crying shame that the PRK has not joined the rest of the United States and allowed not only it's criminals but also it's law abiding citizens to have a right to self defense. I am not sure what exemptions to the new law would allow you to carry a plastic club made by glock (or one of different materials or manufacturer, etc). If I were to open carry a long gun in the PRK it would be an AR, or similar semi auto with detachable magazines to allow it to be loaded and used more quickly than my bolt action hunting rifles with integral magazines.

I do have to wonder with the PRK's restrictive stance on the evil assault rifle, what is the definition of an AR in the PRK? My personal AR has a couple evil gun features that are disapproved of there, in addition to this I only own 30 round magazines.

I have to agree that carrying an unloaded AR15 isn"t cool, but I feel that way about carrying any unloaded gun.

Iopencarry said:

Again,
one hundred and sixteen (116) distinct exemptions, AB144 does not really stop to many from UOC'ing a handgun.

READ THE LAW, KNOW THE LAW

Click to expand...

do you have a link ? i havent read the law yet but i am very curious about these exemptions