83 days until long gun open carry only CA option.

[Born2Lose]

For a featureless build your best bet is probably to do what the Israelis do when open carrying their M-16s. Tape or somehow couple the ends of 30 round (if you can do it on shorter ones, then feel free to do that too) mags so it forms a right angle. Stick the unloaded mag in the rifle and the loaded mag should parallel the barrel.

Here's an image which shows what I'm talking about. That's how I'd do it. I imagine the Israeli's carry both mags full, but most open carry M-16 images I've seen have the mags in that configuration.

What is the benefit of doing it this way versus the tried and true verticle mag coupler?

 

[bigtoe416]

What is the benefit of doing it this way versus the tried and true verticle mag coupler?

Good question. I have no idea.

 

[coolusername2007]

My question is, how are people feeling about it possibly being used in this way? I know, in an ideal world all rights would be up front with no battles. However, that's obviously not how it's happening. I can see some saying it's ok to use it this way as long as it doesn't take forever. I can see some saying screw CC and that only OC matters, just as some who CC say the same about OC. Living where I do, I can claim to say I know how you feel, but it isn't the same and we both know it. So do you think it should be, or is ok to be, used as a way to change CC issue and then come back to get OC legal again or should the first challenge be to get back OC?

Personally my feelings are mixed. On one hand turning lemons into lemonade, so to speak, is always a good thing. So using this bad law to advance any 2A efforts is smart thinking. But I'm also of the opinion, and am on the record stating so, that they have taken the long, difficult road and have not adequately gone after the low hanging fruit. Never before, to my knowledge, has any 2A organization successfully argued and won in court the "right" to permitted concealed carry, which is what they are doing. And while hopeful, I'm just not optimistic about their odds. Frankly, I think they would be more successful going for the original, historical method of bear...open carry. But as I'm sure they would say...what do I know.

 

[FMCDH]

Personally my feelings are mixed. On one hand turning lemons into lemonade, so to speak, is always a good thing. So using this bad law to advance any 2A efforts is smart thinking. But I'm also of the opinion, and am on the record stating so, that they have taken the long, difficult road and have not adequately gone after the low hanging fruit. Never before, to my knowledge, has any 2A organization successfully argued and won in court the "right" to permitted concealed carry, which is what they are doing. And while hopeful, I'm just not optimistic about their odds. Frankly, I think they would be more successful going for the original, historical method of bear...open carry. But as I'm sure they would say...what do I know.

I guess activists in TPROK just need to ask themselves, what would they be willing to settle for at this point, since chances are they are likely to get only one or the other in the near future.

1. Loaded CC on a "Shall Issue" permit system that allows them to not worry about GFSZ anymore.

OR

2. The messed up joke of UOC, that requires you take a lock box and your GPS with you everywhere.

I wont even propose that Loaded OC is a consideration given that the state legislature will likely only give up the exact minimum they have to if they lose in court and are told they have to pick 'shall issue' or the old system of UOC.

At this point in time, I'm willing to bet there are far more CC advocates in Cali then there are die-hard UOC advocates.

 

[MAC702]

What is the benefit of doing it this way versus the tried and true verticle mag coupler?

Honestly, I'm thinking he was waiting for an excuse to post the pic and its more aesthetic features.

 

[coolusername2007]

I guess activists in TPROK just need to ask themselves, what would they be willing to settle for at this point, since chances are they are likely to get only one or the other in the near future.

1. Loaded CC on a "Shall Issue" permit system that allows them to not worry about GFSZ anymore.

OR

2. The messed up joke of UOC, that requires you take a lock box and your GPS with you everywhere.

I wont even propose that Loaded OC is a consideration given that the state legislature will likely only give up the exact minimum they have to if they lose in court and are told they have to pick 'shall issue' or the old system of UOC.

At this point in time, I'm willing to bet there are far more CC advocates in Cali then there are die-hard UOC advocates.

Yup. And that's why they took the long hard road instead of LOC. Plus, from what I've gathered, they believe that obtaining LOC first will nail the CCW coffin shut for good, but getting CCW's first still gives them an avenue for LOC later.

ETA: Of course I disagree. You force the legislature into shall issue because they absolutely loathe the sight of guns in public. So by restoring LOC and shutting them down via rights based litigation, you very quickly and easily get them to acquiesce to shall issue CCW permits...for the children.

 

[Difdi]

Officer: What's in the bag?

You: A camera. =-) Buh bye.

Lying to the police can cause issues. But if you have one of these in your bag, you aren't lying:

http://tinyurl.com/67rybz9

They're pretty low quality cameras, but take surprisingly decent pictures for something that cheap. I've got one that I use for protest rallies and the like, where a camera might be damaged (or seized and damaged). Having one in your bag makes the camera statement true, just not completely true...and you could fit 3 or 4 of them in the volume occupied by your average 1911 magazine.

 

[FMCDH]

Yup. And that's why they took the long hard road instead of LOC. Plus, from what I've gathered, they believe that obtaining LOC first will nail the CCW coffin shut for good, but getting CCW's first still gives them an avenue for LOC later.

ETA: Of course I disagree. You force the legislature into shall issue because they absolutely loathe the sight of guns in public. So by restoring LOC and shutting them down via rights based litigation, you very quickly and easily get them to acquiesce to shall issue CCW permits...for the children.

I disagree that the legislature can be maneuvered for those reasons.

I think you underestimate the legislatures want to control the CCW system.

Visible guns they can control with location restrictions, harassment, and making sure the press continues to villainies the act of OC, thereby severely cutting down on the amount of people who will be willing to attempt it. Not to mention it looks better to the sheep if they are able to prevent "those people" from carrying loaded. UOC never was a real problem and the legislature knows it, but they also know that there will never really be a serious percentage of the public willing to UOC under the above conditions.

CC makes "those people" mobile, unseen, un-harassed, and LOADED. It also opens the door for the public to see the same effect nearly every other state in the union has seen when CC legislation is passed, falling crime due citizens being the deterrent instead of just the state. Can you think of something that a nanny state would hate more?

They would also lose the elitism aspect of the current system. :shocker:

I think the last thing they want to do is give up their discretionary control of the CCW system. See also...
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...se-to-OC-Ban&p=1628788&viewfull=1#post1628788

 

[coolusername2007]

I disagree that the legislature can be maneuvered for those reasons.

I think you underestimate the legislatures want to control the CCW system.

Visible guns they can control with location restrictions, harassment, and making sure the press continues to villainies the act of OC, thereby severely cutting down on the amount of people who will be willing to attempt it. Not to mention it looks better to the sheep if they are able to prevent "those people" from carrying loaded. UOC never was a real problem and the legislature knows it, but they also know that there will never really be a serious percentage of the public willing to UOC under the above conditions.

CC makes "those people" mobile, unseen, un-harassed, and LOADED. It also opens the door for the public to see the same effect nearly every other state in the union has seen when CC legislation is passed, falling crime due citizens being the deterrent instead of just the state. Can you think of something that a nanny state would hate more?

They would also lose the elitism aspect of the current system. :shocker:

I think the last thing they want to do is give up their discretionary control of the CCW system. See also...
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...se-to-OC-Ban&p=1628788&viewfull=1#post1628788

I think they can be maneuvered that way, but only if the LOC right is fully restored. Location restrictions aren't any more constitutional than UOC restrictions are, but since we have them they'd have to be challenged and removed also. The CA legislature is full of nannies who hate the speech about guns as much as the sight of them. If they were neutered by way of LOC being restored to the unfettered right that it should be, they would absolutely open the doors to CCW legislatively (while still trying to control it mind you) just to get our guns out of sight. Why? Because that would be the only way they could find out who the LOC'ers are...by encouraging LOC'ers to go get their CCW permit. And they just love their lists and databases don't they.

Regardless, they will continue to create unconstitutional laws against the RKBA for as long as they can get away with it.

We do agree on the basics though, they want to control everything - UOC, LOC, CCW, registrations, etc. And the last thing they want is crime to significantly drop without massive government agencies, departments, budgets, etc. behind it all. But in the end, at least here in CA, they would lie about that also, take the credit, and spend more of what they don't have anyway.

 

[EXTREMEOPS1]

Is that classed as....

View attachment 7107

It's lockable and better than not having one.

I have one for my S&W .40.

a murse (Manpurse) or a manbag? Don't think I'll be carrying one of those......guess it'll have to be the 870 remmy or AR15 come January 2012.....thanks Governor Brown for that option..they both strike even more terror into the anti's than my pistols ever did (which no one used to notice ) but they notice the shotty or the AR every time !