All gone quiet in Socal...

Ca Patriot said:

As a photographer I know first hand that almost every city in So Cal requires a permit to film or photograph. Some cities codes dont make a distinction between commerical or private. They also require HUGE insurance policies.
In my experience if you keep it low key and dont have much equipment most cities dont mind. LA City, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and Hollywood are the worst.

Click to expand...

So, why aren't the police arresting all the hundreds (maybe thousands) of open carriers who video the cops.
Every store owner who installs a surveilence system covering their parking lot has a photographers license?
I suggest that once you leave your house, you have no expectation of privacy.

Gundude said:

Do you need a permit to film anywhere?
Is there a law requiring insurance?
With all the video surveilance going on in this country, I doubt you need anyones permission to record in public.

Click to expand...

For the purposes of this topic-
No, a permit is NOT required to record video.
No, insurance is NOT required either.
Correct, there is no expectation of privacy in public.
If anyone tells you different it is just smoke and mirrors.

Lawful Aim said:

For the purposes of this topic-
No, a permit is NOT required to record video.
No, insurance is NOT required either.
Correct, there is no expectation of privacy in public.
If anyone tells you different it is just smoke and mirrors.

Click to expand...

That's not entirely true Lawful Aim

Some public properties require advance notice for filming if it is for a commercial purpose. And...they can require a permit and insurance. For example, any citizen can videotape on the grounds of Sutter's Fort. But if you go there as a commercial event, and by commercial I mean even a non-profit, they can require permit, or advance notice and even insurance.
Out on the street, the same can apply. Do it as a citizen alone, and you are usually ok. Do it as a group under a organization, and you may be required to post insurance and get a permit.
I'd also caution people about recording in public with sound without notifying people that they are being recorded. Eavesdropping laws still apply. Photo and other visual imaging is different, but recording conversations can be illegal without the notification that you are doing so.

Save Our State said:

That's not entirely true Lawful Aim

Some public properties require advance notice for filming if it is for a commercial purpose. And...they can require a permit and insurance. For example, any citizen can videotape on the grounds of Sutter's Fort. But if you go there as a commercial event, and by commercial I mean even a non-profit, they can require permit, or advance notice and even insurance.
Out on the street, the same can apply. Do it as a citizen alone, and you are usually ok. Do it as a group under a organization, and you may be required to post insurance and get a permit.
I'd also caution people about recording in public with sound without notifying people that they are being recorded. Eavesdropping laws still apply. Photo and other visual imaging is different, but recording conversations can be illegal without the notification that you are doing so.

Click to expand...

Citation?

Nevermind, let me get that for you.

632 (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine ...
...(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any
communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate
that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the
parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or
administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other
circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably
expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

Click to expand...

So, if you are running around with a video (or audio) recorder in a public venue, can it be reasonably argued that those around you who see you video recording might expect that their communication may be overheard and recorded? The answer is very clearly a yes. So what this warning really should be about is those circumstances where recording is being done surrepititiously.

In other words, openly carry your recording equipment.

ConditionThree said:

Citation?

Nevermind, let me get that for you.




So, if you are running around with a video (or audio) recorder in a public venue, can it be reasonably argued that those around you who see you video recording might expect that their communication may be overheard and recorded? The answer is very clearly a yes. So what this warning really should be about is those circumstances where recording is being done surrepititiously.

In other words, openly carry your recording equipment.

Click to expand...

Yes, and many have talked about using recording devices that are not easily seen. I've been in situations where my camera was pointed away, but still recording, and at least two people objected on that basis, that they thought they were not being recorded. My point is still valid. Exercise caution when recording conversations

and yet I see videos on tv programs where certain people who have not given consent have their faces obscured especially children. I would say since the DA's and LE have it in for us they will try and exploit any and all means to stop us by finding any obscure law that has even a remote possibility to stick... and once again they just have to charge you. It will cost you to show up in court and argue or hire a lawyer to argue for you....

They couldnt get the occupyers to disperse, public opinion was on the protestors side, but then they found little BS laws like pitching a tent in a public space or sanitary "issues". anything that had just enough teeth to get a foothold and then they strong armed them out of there.

The problem we face is we dont have strong public opinion on our side, we had a glaring huge hole in 12031E but now that has been shorn up and I guarantee you some FNG junior wanna be DA is being tasked with ideas to come up with to shut down open carry by whatever law can be used as leverage against us.

The devil is in the details.

or maybe a private non profit militia group that benefits the local neighborhood

ConditionThree said:

This is not exclusive to non-profits and retired LEO. There are exemptions for licensed hunters, television and video productions, entertainment events, and others. I have pointed out that if you have a YouTube Channel and create videodocumentaries that you are exempted. This is something that many open carry advocates already do- which virtually changes nothing for them.



I'm sure that attornies are more apt to provide their services to paying clients. This should be one of those occasions that we should feel compelled to consolidate our resourses to protect each other.

Click to expand...

Maybe local UOCers should form a private non profit militia group that benefits the local neighborhood (UOC neighborhood watch) maybe we can all set up our own neighborhood watch within our own city limits oops mines an incorporated area and the discharge of firearms is illegal within the city limits. (How does that work?) Ooh I'll just carry my shotgun or AR while its still legal

EXTREMEOPS1 said:

or maybe a private non profit militia group that benefits the local neighborhood (UOC neighborhood watch) maybe we can all st up our own neighborhood watch within our own city limits oops mines incorporated and the discharge of firearms is illegal (How does that work?)[

Click to expand...

Uhm, wut?

ith all these exemptions

ConditionThree said:

Uhm, wut?

Click to expand...

Thought we should set up local UOC neighborhood watch groups sorry I wasn't clear but think the shotgun or AR carry is my only available protection I have in my incorporated city ho hum !!! Until its banned I'll carry on

EXTREMEOPS1 said:

Thought we should set up local UOC neighborhood watch groups sorry I wasn't clear but think the shotgun or AR carry is my only available protection I have in my incorporated city ho hum !!! Until its banned I'll carry on

Click to expand...

I probably shouldnt continue entertaining these invalid assertions with a reply, but the temptation is too great to pass up.

So, if shotguns and AR platform rifles are a reasonable tool of self-defense, why weren't they carried with abundance at the advent of the California open carry movement? And if they are the only 'available protection' one has in an incorporated city how is it that LUCC is not considered as an alternative again? Why is there such reluctance to even discuss exploring the plausibility of any of the handgun exemptions, in favor of making a display of long guns.

There is one answer to these questions. That is; those who endorse long gun open carry in urban areas want to send out the message of their complaint in the loudest and most obnoxious manner they can think of.

This message has absolutely nothing to do with promoting the second amendment as much as it is a demonstration of the first. Since the long guns are not loaded, ready in the event of a confrontation, they are only being transported and have little Constitutional protection. As we have all seen, transportation of unloaded firearms is something that government can regulate... doing so in the manner you are suggesting is almost certain to instigate more such prohibitions. This works very well for those legislators with designs of making it impossible for gun owners to do more than take their guns out of the safe to clean and admire them and put them back into their safe.

ConditionThree said:

There is one answer to these questions. That is; those who endorse long gun open carry in urban areas want to send out the message of their complaint in the loudest and most obnoxious manner they can think of.

This message has absolutely nothing to do with promoting the second amendment as much as it is a demonstration of the first..

Click to expand...

Really? I cannot help but feel offended.

ConditionThree said:

I probably shouldnt continue entertaining these invalid assertions with a reply, but the temptation is too great to pass up.

There is one answer to these questions. That is; those who endorse long gun open carry in urban areas want to send out the message of their complaint in the loudest and most obnoxious manner they can think of.

This message has absolutely nothing to do with promoting the second amendment as much as it is a demonstration of the first.

Click to expand...

I right there with you C3...The CA forum at OCDO is getting harder and harder fro me to stomach every day...Practically speaking its becoming 1a forum instead of a 2a forum.

Save Our State said:

Really? I cannot help but feel offended.

Click to expand...

Oh. So, now you are okay with AR platform rifles at Starbucks and Wal*Mart as the norm? (Because this is what we are talking about in this context.)

Alternative?

Condition Three, not to be argumentative or judge the wisdom of doing so, but if certain OC'ers carried handguns into" Walmarts and Starbuck's" loacated in cities during their daily lives in 2011, what do you suggest they carry now if they want a gun for protection? Under what exemption to the law as it exist today, 2012 do you think carrying any handgun into these two businesses located in a city would be legal? Practicing to march/parade for a non-profit group is not going to cut it as a exemption. All I care about is using a legitimate exemption that any LEO or D.A. can understand.

ConditionThree said:

Oh. So, now you are okay with AR platform rifles at Starbucks and Wal*Mart as the norm? (Because this is what we are talking about in this context.)

Click to expand...

That's a bit of a stretch from what you said. The shotgun was mentioned I believe. You see, the very mention of a 2A exercise other than exemption based handgun carry brings immediate browbeating. Not support for non...what?...black rifles?....
Soon, enough of the activists will have been driven from the ranks to relegate this effort to memories only

EXTREMEOPS1 said:

Maybe local UOCers should form a private non profit militia group that benefits the local neighborhood (UOC neighborhood watch) maybe we can all set up our own neighborhood watch within our own city limits oops mines an incorporated area and the discharge of firearms is illegal within the city limits. (How does that work?) Ooh I'll just carry my shotgun or AR while its still legal

Click to expand...

Save Our State said:

That's a bit of a stretch from what you said. The shotgun was mentioned I believe. You see, the very mention of a 2A exercise other than exemption based handgun carry brings immediate browbeating. Not support for non...what?...black rifles?....
Soon, enough of the activists will have been driven from the ranks to relegate this effort to memories only

Click to expand...

Bolded for emphasis. I will also add that they are not walking to the range with any practical intent.

oc4ever said:

Condition Three, not to be argumentative or judge the wisdom of doing so, but if certain OC'ers carried handguns into" Walmarts and Starbuck's" loacated in cities during their daily lives in 2011, what do you suggest they carry now if they want a gun for protection? Under what exemption to the law as it exist today, 2012 do you think carrying any handgun into these two businesses located in a city would be legal? Practicing to march/parade for a non-profit group is not going to cut it as a exemption. All I care about is using a legitimate exemption that any LEO or D.A. can understand.

Click to expand...

If they were accustomed to carrying a handgun into Starbucks and Wal*Mart before 26350 made it to the law books, they should continue to transport handguns for self-defense in compliance to the law into the new year. Because there are options to transport handguns that are not prohibited by the law, the insistance on carrying long guns in their place is superfluous, if only to make a statement or protest.

I am not a recognized non-profit. I am not practicing for or participating in a parade. I am not yet a licensed hunter on my way to, or from a hunting expedition. I am not yet a video producer or an authorized participant in a video production. I am not yet licensed to carry a handgun. I have not yet held or been an authorized participant in an 'entertainment event'. But I do have my handgun with me most everyplace I go and in compliance with the law. It doesn't send a message, but I have access to it if I need it. At some point, I will be exploiting the other exemptions... and 'stacking' them.

Circumstances demand that we adapt. Being unable or too stiff-necked to change to these circumstances threatens our survival or ability to continue. But we must be more cunning than our advesaries in the legislature and not do what it is they expect us to do.

me to .....

Save Our State said:

Really? I cannot help but feel offended.

Click to expand...

With the advent of AB144 now in force the option of carrying a handgun in a glorified manbag is not on my list of things to do. The option of carrying shotguns or AR rifles was always there, but the most practical method of self defense was always the handgun. The ongoing litigation may or may not reinstate our right to UOC handguns, however if due to the former handgun UOCs now carrying Long guns the lawmakers ban that option that would force the issuance of CCW as all methods of defense has been removed. We are a "may issue " instead of a "shall issue" state I feel that Long gun carry is far superior as a self defense option than the "manbag carry option" that is being touted as the new handgun carry option . Personally my shotgun can be loaded and made ready faster than any "manbag carry" option . Lets hope the ex handgun UOCs and newly formed Long gun carriers can all get along and help get us to a viable option of carrying a firearm for self defense sooner rather than later. As I have an Az CCW I'd be interested to see how the CCW reciprocacy laws pan out for the Californians once that mess is all cleared up.

Okay, be offended.

EXTREMEOPS1 said:

With the advent of AB144 now in force the option of carrying a handgun in a glorified manbag is not on my list of things to do. The option of carrying shotguns or AR rifles was always there, but the most practical method of self defense was always the handgun. The ongoing litigation may or may not reinstate our right to UOC handguns, however if due to the former handgun UOCs now carrying Long guns the lawmakers ban that option that would force the issuance of CCW as all methods of defense has been removed. We are a "may issue " instead of a "shall issue" state I feel that Long gun carry is far superior as a self defense option than the "manbag carry option" that is being touted as the new handgun carry option . Personally my shotgun can be loaded and made ready faster than any "manbag carry" option . Lets hope the ex handgun UOCs and newly formed Long gun carriers can all get along and help get us to a viable option of carrying a firearm for self defense sooner rather than later. As I have an Az CCW I'd be interested to see how the CCW reciprocacy laws pan out for the Californians once that mess is all cleared up.

Click to expand...

While transporting a handgun in a 'glorified manbag' is not for you, your unwillingness to consider it, and about a dozen other options besides carrying an unloaded shotgun or AR pattern rifle to the grocery store has some predictable and measurable consequences. Not the least of which, is burning bridges among the second amendment bretheren and organizations that have the resources to propel change in California. The responsibility of getting along is not linear- it goes both ways.

The notion that lawmakers would be forced to accept CCW/LTC reform if they prohibit long gun open carry originates from the same place the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and unicorns come from. When confronted with handgun UOC, the issuing agencies didnt roll over and begin issuing CCW/LTC in an abrupt change of heart. Instead, they teamed up with the legislators and made a new law. How do you think the dimensions of the firearm are going to change the dynamic without jurisprudence affirming 'bear' in the state of California? If you do not have the 'right' to holster an unloaded handgun, what makes you think you have the 'right' to sling an AR in those same places? The fact is, at present you don't have any such right (and in part, it is the condition the weapon is in, that makes it less than constitutionally inviolate.) 'Transportation' and 'bear' are mutually exclusive.

Ultimately, I believe you will have to revisit the exemptions to 26350, perhaps before the end of the next legislative session. I also think that the exploitation of the exemptions will have the benefit of being sucessfully demonstrated between now and then.

A response to C3s comments

ConditionThree said:

While transporting a handgun in a 'glorified manbag' is not for you, your unwillingness to consider it, Yep I'm afraid manbags are for carrying tampons and lipstick not guns and about a dozen other options Do these include unloaded handguns not in manbags? besides carrying an unloaded shotgun You had recommended my carrying the shotgun as opposed to the AR previously and on your advice I opt for the shotgun daily with my AR secured in my truck or AR pattern rifle to the grocery store has some predictable and measurable consequences. To date no consequences (no police drawing down on me, no arrests, no PD interaction at all ...guess I'm more stealthy than I thought) other than the great unarmed being shocked that I have a shotgun on a tactical sling while going about my daily business...(must admit only a handful of citizens have approached me and asked questions but while handgun carrying). I had hundreds of contacts mostly complementary whilst OUC handguns the odd anti hated me and all that guns stand for ... but you can't please all the people all of the time I guess Not the least of which, is burning bridges among the second amendment bretheren and organizations that have the resources to propel change in California. The responsibility of getting along is not linear- it goes both ways. Well as "Rome wasn't built in a day" I'll keep carrying my (il)legally mandated weapons until the 'second amendment bretheren and organizations that have the resources to propel change in California' The notion that lawmakers would be forced to accept CCW/LTC reform if they prohibit long gun open carry originates from the same place the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and unicorns come from. So I guess the the 2nd amendment is really a superfluous right considering that the Easter bunny, tooth fairy and unicorns reside in the same area When confronted with handgun UOC, the issuing agencies didnt roll over and begin issuing CCW/LTC in an abrupt change of heart. Because we still had the option of self defense with Long guns Instead, they teamed up with the legislators and made a new law. How do you think the dimensions of the firearm are going to change the dynamic without jurisprudence affirming 'bear' in the state of California? If you do not have the 'right' to holster an unloaded handgun, what makes you think you have the 'right' to sling an AR in those same places? Until the 2nd amendment is removed from the constitution "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" gives me the rightThe fact is, at present you don't have any such right (and in part, it is the condition the weapon is in, that makes it less than constitutionally inviolate.) 'Transportation' and 'bear' are mutually exclusive.Ultimately, I believe you will have to revisit the exemptions to 26350, perhaps before the end of the next legislative session. I also think that the exploitation of the exemptions will have the benefit of being sucessfully demonstrated between now and then.

Click to expand...

I agree in part to working with these exemptions (sorry I dissed your "glorified manbag") but you'd be dead on the floor by the time you have unlocked, loaded, made ready in your defense. I hope you never have to protect yourself or your family while "manbagging" your weapon. I'll stick with my weapon of choice (till banned) in the event of having to defend myself or my family. Maybe my Az CCW/LTC will come into play when the reciprocity laws are passed. I have never understood why private citizens aren't allowed to loaded open carry in all states as its good enough for your local PD.

EXTREMEOPS1 said:

I agree in part to working with these exemptions (sorry I dissed your "glorified manbag") but you'd be dead on the floor by the time you have unlocked, loaded, made ready in your defense. I hope you never have to protect yourself or your family while "manbagging" your weapon. I'll stick with my weapon of choice (till banned) in the event of having to defend myself or my family. Maybe my Az CCW/LTC will come into play when the reciprocity laws are passed. I have never understood why private citizens aren't allowed to loaded open carry in all states as its good enough for your local PD.

Click to expand...

Its becoming clear that you either do not wish to have, or do not have the capacity to have a mature respectful exchange.

I have attempted to open your eyes that our actions have lasting consequences, that these consequences largely are legislative in origin and that an unloaded firearm is not as constitutionally protected as one that is ready for use in a confrontation.

If you believe that the second amendment endows you with immunity from all variety of regulation, why then, do you heed any of the prohibitions? Why is your shotgun and AR unloaded? Why do you abide by magazine capacity restrictions? Why does your AR comply with California restrictions? Why aren't you carrying a loaded handgun outside a school? If you are a free man, then why aren't you exercizing your right to carry a loaded gun or your choosing whereever you please?

Now, since you are already abiding by and accept established law restricting firearms- then is it as reasonable to exersize some restraint and continue carrying exposed handguns utilizing an exemption that the legislators provided, instead of provoking additional legislation?