Sooo, Carrying your unload AR15 isnt cool?

eraseallhope · Dec 16, 2011

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

Save Our State · Dec 16, 2011

eraseallhope said:
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.

Ca Patriot · Dec 16, 2011

I say go for it !!! The anti-crowd was trying to ban guns long before open carry. There is nothing law abiding gun owners can do help our image and convert the anti-gun crowd. So open carrying a long gun isnt going to make matters worse.

The way I see it is CA bans open carry of long guns due to someone open carrying an AR then gun owners didnt really lose anything because hardly anyone open carrys anyway.

I never understood the logic of Cal Guns when they told people to NOT open carry because it might get banned. I mean, if no one open carries then who cares if it gets banned ?

A good statement is made when people flex their rights and show the authority that we are armed.

I will be completely honest and say I love open carries video taping their encounters with police and making police look like fools and morons (in addition to violators of the consitution).

Full disclosure I must say that I moved out of California and I now live in a free state so I dont care what CA does with their gun laws anymore.

RetiredOC · Dec 16, 2011

Save Our State said:
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.

mjones · Dec 16, 2011

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.

Save Our State · Dec 16, 2011

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.

I don't believe you understood what I was trying to convey there

ConditionThree · Dec 17, 2011

eraseallhope said:
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?

mjones said:
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.

Save Our State said:
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.

eraseallhope · Dec 17, 2011

ConditionThree said:
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?

ConditionThree · Dec 17, 2011

eraseallhope said:
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.

Felid`Maximus · Dec 17, 2011

ConditionThree said:
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.

Thundar · Dec 17, 2011

Kgfsz

ConditionThree said:
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.

Thundar · Dec 17, 2011

ConditionThree said:
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.

SovereignAxe · Dec 17, 2011

ConditionThree said:
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.

Save Our State · Dec 17, 2011

ConditionThree said:
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

ConditionThree · Dec 18, 2011

Thundar said:
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.

Felid`Maximus said:
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.)

Save Our State said:
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.

Save Our State · Dec 18, 2011

ConditionThree said:
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?

ConditionThree · Dec 18, 2011

Save Our State said:
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.

Save Our State · Dec 18, 2011

ConditionThree said:
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.

ConditionThree · Dec 18, 2011

Save Our State said:
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.

Save Our State · Dec 18, 2011

ConditionThree said:
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.

Sooo, Carrying your unload AR15 isnt cool?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Regular Member

State Pioneer

Regular Member