UOC Without Calguns

[mjones]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

I have been offered a forum on that groups board where OC can get its own little home, and I have accepted.

I have a website that I have been trying to build to assist us in our quest. Although OCDO is, as discussed, the main method of communication and it does a pretty good job of providing information, it is diluted with all the posts and such.

I propose that we construct that site as a portal for information. A quick, concise site that allows us to collaborate better as a group, inform the public, and provide a singular place where out chapter can spread its own word.

ocrights.org We can use the one site for all chapters or each chapter can have its own custom site. . .that is to be determined at a later date.

My personal take is that we already have all the information resources we need at our fingertips.

CA sub forum at OCDO = non hostile environment to discuss OC in CA

A new OC subforum at CalGuns.net would be nice, but at this time I don't see any added benefit due to the overwhelming hostility of many posters there. In time, as the CalGuns Foundation endoreses OC, I think the tenor of post at CalGuns.net will change very quickly and I think our numbers will swell dramaticly.

I like the idea of a concise information portal with regard to CA specific OC information. I think that is currently satisfiedby http://www.californiaopencarry.org/Is there a deficiencey there which needs to be addressed?

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

At the same time, I was pretty pissed when Kestryll came in thumping his chest at me when I was the one trying to keep it civil and merely responded to the negative. I had to step away for a second.

SOP. Don't ban the rude, blast those who attempt to counter them.

The official or unofficial position on OC means nothing if the SOP is to favor antis over pros 99.9% of the time and throw the rules of the forum re: civility out the window.

 

[Kestryll]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

At the same time, I was pretty pissed when Kestryll came in thumping his chest at me when I was the one trying to keep it civil and merely responded to the negative. I had to step away for a second.

'Chest thumping'? No.

Chest thumping implies bluster and posturing.
I meant what I said and I will not put up with ultimatums and threats to harm or undo all the efforts and gains that have been made over the last four years plus in my 'house'.

I also made it clear that discussion and discourse was welcome for all as long as the posturing and blustering was left at the door.

That is why this was clearly stated in my post:

These are basic criteria designed to allow real discussion and not just posturing and blustering and they apply to ALL involved in a discussion.

You will also note that although I've been online all morning I've not responded to that thread.
Why?
Because the interaction has been topical, civil and if not productive at times at least not destructive.

You are complaining about feeling 'cut out' but at the same time decrying that which you feel cut out of as 'bad' or 'the enemy' and addressing it as such.
How much cooperation can you expect with an approach like that?

I don't expect anyone to come in hat in hand playing Oliver Twist but I can tell you for certain that coming in on the other end of the spectrum is not going to end well, it never does.

The choice is simple and it applies across the board, not just to proponents of 'OC', 'AWs', CCWs or what have you, but to all.

Come in swinging and looking for a fight, and probably get one.
Or come in talking and LISTENING and probably achieve something.

There's not much to it other than that.

 

[Kestryll]

imported post

mjones wrote:

A new OC subforum at CalGuns.net would be nice, but at this time I don't see any added benefit due to the overwhelming hostility of many posters there.

Just to clarify on this.

If there were to be an OC subforum on Calguns it would be in the same Category as the CCW, Ladies, Military and LEO forums. That being the Specialty Forums.

Each of those has it's own special rules over and above the regular rules of the Forum to prevent them from being turned in to a bashfest.

DISCUSSION of OC would be allowed, if it went beyond that warnings would be issued and if the same person became problematic a second time they would simply lose access to that forum.
Just like cop bashing in the LEO forum will cost you access to the LEO forum.

The rules are stricter in that Category and the penalties swifter and more severe but the discussion is more targeted and the debate more civil.

 

[coolusername2007]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

I have been offered a forum on that groups board where OC can get its own little home, and I have accepted.

I'm perfectly happy continuing to use OCDO for all of our open carry communications. I don't see the need for the OC forum on calguns, but if they want it, that's their prerogative.

 

[demnogis]

imported post

Theseus, I appreciate your input and admire your desire to be a "leader" for UOC here in CA...

But, I think this thread should be deleted/closed.

There should be no disconnect between the pro-2A Californians that wish to UOC and those who are active on Calguns.net. CGF is not anti-OC (as the sentiment feels at CGN), they are experiencing what we cannot see - the invisible hand behind the anti-2A legislation in our state, when there is really no 2nd Amendment [incorporated].

IMHO this is widening the already-growing gap. Those in charge at CGF want to work us towards getting LOC back, they're using shall-issue as the stepping stone (post-Nordyke reincorporation). After Sykes will come the fight for "... and bear arms", which gives us LOC.

I understand a lot of people (myself included) are upset with the common "gimmie my CCW!, I don't want to OC so screw it!" attitude there. The most vocal there are the ones who prefer the privilege over the right. Keep in mind CGN has over 50k members and a small, small majority of that are the ones breying about UOC being the demise of the cause.

Long story short, ignore the whiners on that board, work with the leaders. I have a feeling that will get us going in the right direction quicker than getting into arguments with the "ccw-only" crowd.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

Theseus wrote:

I have been offered a forum on that groups board where OC can get its own little home, and I have accepted.

I'm perfectly happy continuing to use OCDO for all of our open carry communications. I don't see the need for the OC forum on calguns, but if they want it, that's their prerogative.

The forum was not to be on Calguns or to replace OCDO. It is a nother board and the purpose of the forum would be to help educate and guide them here.

And Kestryll, just as you see what I said as a threat, I see your actions as chest thumping.

It seemed to me that what you said and the way you said it was trying to use your position to influence the discussion. The fact that it could have been done privately with a PM but not only added more reason to suspect chest thumping.

I will think and discuss of it no more as it seems that we were both under misinterpretations and that this issue has been cleared.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

mjones wrote:

Theseus wrote:

I have been offered a forum on that groups board where OC can get its own little home, and I have accepted.

I have a website that I have been trying to build to assist us in our quest. Although OCDO is, as discussed, the main method of communication and it does a pretty good job of providing information, it is diluted with all the posts and such.

I propose that we construct that site as a portal for information. A quick, concise site that allows us to collaborate better as a group, inform the public, and provide a singular place where out chapter can spread its own word.

ocrights.org We can use the one site for all chapters or each chapter can have its own custom site. . .that is to be determined at a later date.

My personal take is that we already have all the information resources we need at our fingertips.

CA sub forum at OCDO = non hostile environment to discuss OC in CA

A new OC subforum at CalGuns.net would be nice, but at this time I don't see any added benefit due to the overwhelming hostility of many posters there. In time, as the CalGuns Foundation endoreses OC, I think the tenor of post at CalGuns.net will change very quickly and I think our numbers will swell dramaticly.

I like the idea of a concise information portal with regard to CA specific OC information. I think that is currently satisfiedby http://www.californiaopencarry.org/Is there a deficiencey there which needs to be addressed?

It isn't the website so much as what it offers.

I would stay with only using OCDO if it provided us fully the tools we need to properly organize, communicate and distribute effectively.

californiaopencarry.org is a great sight for just the information, OCDO is great for the forums and such. OCRights.org (intended as the site for the California chapter) would be the groups communications platform by which we could post easy and quick access to our publications, provide for more streamlined and effective communications, and such.

For example:

We would still use OCDO to discuss events, talk about holsters and such. . . When we actually have an event worked out, such as time, date, place, event purpose, etc. we would post it on the chapters calendar.

When we publish a pamphlet, press release for the chapter, it is posted there and referenced here.

Mike and John have their hands full doing this site and I think it only right to try and not burden them with this unless they want it.

 

[coolusername2007]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

It isn't the website so much as what it offers.

I would stay with only using OCDO if it provided us fully the tools we need to properly organize, communicate and distribute effectively.

californiaopencarry.org is a great sight for just the information, OCDO is great for the forums and such. OCRights.org (intended as the site for the California chapter) would be the groups communications platform by which we could post easy and quick access to our publications, provide for more streamlined and effective communications, and such.

For example:

We would still use OCDO to discuss events, talk about holsters and such. . . When we actually have an event worked out, such as time, date, place, event purpose, etc. we would post it on the chapters calendar.

When we publish a pamphlet, press release for the chapter, it is posted there and referenced here.

Mike and John have their hands full doing this site and I think it only right to try and not burden them with this unless they want it.

If we decide to create an organization with leadership, funding, liasons, etc. then I have no problem with ocrights.org.

As an aside, who do I contact to get my brochure on californiaopencarry.org?

 

[demnogis]

imported post

That's the idea, coolusername2007. Don't worry, there's a whole list of people on the "to be contacted soon" list. Pullnshoot has something really interesting going on as well, so we're seeing how that's going.

coolusername2007 wrote:

Theseus wrote:

It isn't the website so much as what it offers.

I would stay with only using OCDO if it provided us fully the tools we need to properly organize, communicate and distribute effectively.

californiaopencarry.org is a great sight for just the information, OCDO is great for the forums and such. OCRights.org (intended as the site for the California chapter) would be the groups communications platform by which we could post easy and quick access to our publications, provide for more streamlined and effective communications, and such.

For example:

We would still use OCDO to discuss events, talk about holsters and such. . . When we actually have an event worked out, such as time, date, place, event purpose, etc. we would post it on the chapters calendar.

When we publish a pamphlet, press release for the chapter, it is posted there and referenced here.

Mike and John have their hands full doing this site and I think it only right to try and not burden them with this unless they want it.

If we decide to create an organization with leadership, funding, liasons, etc. then I have no problem with ocrights.org.

As an aside, who do I contact to get my brochure on californiaopencarry.org?

 

[TatankaGap]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

Now, about getting organized, we should decide if we want one larger chapter that included LA, OC, Riverside and SB or each county has a chapter.

ocrights.org We can use the one site for all chapters or each chapter can have its own custom site. . .that is to be determined at a later date.

Theseus thank you for all you're doing on OC ~ :dude:

I suggest at least dividing chapters between those that are urban (no shooting, no LOC) and rural (shooting allowed, LOC ok); I also like the idea of county chapters; I also think the people on the ground should self-organize into whatever chapters suit them - maybe SD and Riverside each needs/wants its own but maybe LA, OC and SB and group together as LA region?

Seems like Sacto and North Bay/North Central Valley is a grouping and Bay Area is a grouping -

recommend one site for all chapters and possibly a chapter page of links for chapters that make their own pages and maintain them - ?

carry on!

 

[camsoup]

imported post

Kestryll wrote:

I meant what I said and I will not put up with ultimatums and threats to harm or undo all the efforts and gains that have been made over the last four years plus in my 'house'

How was it that you gained so much over the last 4 years??

Did you sit on your ass and do nothing because someone asked you to?

Or were the huge efforts you mentioned actually getting people involved in an activity, uniting together for a good cause, changing the minds of those who oppose you, collecting good reliable useful information to back your cause and ultimately getting what it was you wanted?


Calguns and everyone who worked to change the perception and prove the legalities of OLLs in this state should be commented. Yet now you want us to all sit down and not be activists because it isn't what you want to support at this time?

 

[camsoup]

imported post

demnogis wrote:

the invisible hand behind the anti-2A legislation in our state, when there is really no 2nd Amendment [incorporated].

IMHO this is widening the already-growing gap. Those in charge at CGF want to work us towards getting LOC back, they're using shall-issue as the stepping stone (post-Nordyke reincorporation). After Sykes will come the fight for "... and bear arms", which gives us LOC.

I understand a lot of people (myself included) are upset with the common "gimmie my CCW!, I don't want to OC so screw it!" attitude there. The most vocal there are the ones who prefer the privilege over the right. Keep in mind CGN has over 50k members and a small, small majority of that are the ones breying about UOC being the demise of the cause.

Long story short, ignore the whiners on that board, work with the leaders. I have a feeling that will get us going in the right direction quicker than getting into arguments with the "ccw-only" crowd.

The thing that bothers me, is that so often I hear the argument to not UOC is because the 2nd is incorporated yet. All we have is a privelege, not a right.

Let me remind everyone that when Calguns pursued and won its fight for OLL's, the CA safe handgun list, and everything else they have helped further in CA as far as the PKBA that the second wasn't incorporated then. No one spoke up and asked them to sit idly by and stop being activists. Everytime they exercised their privilege by taking an OLL to the range they were risking a case where bad case law could arise.


From what I have personally seen, it is quite clear that the next goal for CGN is to get shall issue CCW, I have heard the argument that if we get LOC first, why would the state need shall issue CCW. and LOC is set to be "thown under the bus" to achieve the goals of obtaining shall issue CCW.

Now if we get Shall issue CCW, and anyone that qualifiys and pays a fee can CCW, why would the right to LOC need to exist?

Should we now ask CGN to stop the fight for shall issue CCW because it may hurt our chances of getting LOC??

 

[TatankaGap]

imported post

camsoup wrote:

Now if we get Shall issue CCW, and anyone that qualifiys and pays a fee can CCW, why would the right to LOC need to exist?

Should we now ask CGN to stop the fight for shall issue CCW because it may hurt our chances of getting LOC??

IMHO, as someone who moved out of CA to shall issue states, once you have shall issue CCW, the entire gun culture changes. Shall issue CCW breeds familiarity with responsible gun ownership and use - and makes LOC easier to achieve due to overall increased comfort level with gun ownership, carrying and use by the public.

When you go into the sheriff in a shall issue state, no one asks you why you want a permit, why you want to carry, etc. - they're not allowed. The only thing they do is take your prints, run your background check and if you're clean, and the computer says so or not, then they issue you the permit and you get it within 30-60 days.

Yes, most people in shall issue states conceal carry but that seems to be a matter of personal preference and although there is a definite preference in shall issue states for people to conceal carry and they advise not to open carry because 'it scares the public' or invites guaranteed police interaction - it's not like that attitude has hampered WA open carry people -

I would not want to interfere with any efforts that have a solid chance of getting shall issue adopted in CA -

 

[Decoligny]

imported post

camsoup wrote:

Now if we get Shall issue CCW, and anyone that qualifiys and pays a fee can CCW, why would the right to LOC need to exist?

Because any right that you need to pay a fee or a tax to exercise is not a right, it is a PRIVILEDGE, and I for one am not inclined to exercise my 2nd Amendment priviledge.

What about those individuals who NEED every penny of their paycheck in order to feed, cloth, and housetheir family? Should they be denied the RIGHT to carry just because they can't afford to paythe Government for a permission slip? I don't think so.

There are only really 2 free states in the entire nation. Alaska and Vermont. They allow a free individual the right to carry either concealed or openly without the requirement to pay for permission.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

camsoup wrote:

The thing that bothers me, is that so often I hear the argument to not UOC is because the 2nd is incorporated yet. All we have is a privelege, not a right.

Let me remind everyone that when Calguns pursued and won its fight for OLL's, the CA safe handgun list, and everything else they have helped further in CA as far as the PKBA that the second wasn't incorporated then. No one spoke up and asked them to sit idly by and stop being activists. Everytime they exercised their privilege by taking an OLL to the range they were risking a case where bad case law could arise.


From what I have personally seen, it is quite clear that the next goal for CGN is to get shall issue CCW, I have heard the argument that if we get LOC first, why would the state need shall issue CCW. and LOC is set to be "thown under the bus" to achieve the goals of obtaining shall issue CCW.

Now if we get Shall issue CCW, and anyone that qualifiys and pays a fee can CCW, why would the right to LOC need to exist?

Should we now ask CGN to stop the fight for shall issue CCW because it may hurt our chances of getting LOC??

The CA safe handgun list fight has not yet been won.

And unless the fight for shall issue CCW achieves a removal of the implication of shall issue/shall extort money to gain the privilege, it is pointless for all but the well-off few.

 

[camsoup]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

camsoup wrote:

Now if we get Shall issue CCW, and anyone that qualifiys and pays a fee can CCW, why would the right to LOC need to exist?

Because any right that you need to pay a fee or a tax to exercise is not a right, it is a PRIVILEDGE, and I for one am not inclined to exercise my 2nd Amendment priviledge.

What about those individuals who NEED every penny of their paycheck in order to feed, cloth, and housetheir family? Should they be denied the RIGHT to carry just because they can't afford to paythe Government for a permission slip? I don't think so.

There are only really 2 free states in the entire nation. Alaska and Vermont. They allow a free individual the right to carry either concealed or openly without the requirement to pay for permission.

I understand why the right is needed. I wasn't disputing that it isn't needed, I was attempting to make a point against the argument that if we get LOU they wont give them Shall issue CCW. Didn't do a very good job at it though, lol

I have said it here before, and will say it again. I am for the RIGHT to bare arms, even if this was a shall issue state I would not pay my fee to have the privilege of carrying.

Here in Tehama county it is very easy to get a CCW, yet I don't have nor will I go down and get one.


N6ATF wrote:

The CA safe handgun list fight has not yet been won.

And unless the fight for shall issue CCW achieves a removal of the implication of shall issue/shall extort money to gain the privilege, it is pointless for all but the well-off few.

I was referring to the NRF's or "Non Rosterable Firearms"....CGN basically found a way of making the CA safe gun list null and void. You can have the frame (the only part considered a firearm per the definition of the safe gun list, the serialized portion) of any pistol shipped to and sent through an FFL, the slide and other parts are sent to you, you then assemble the firearm at home and there is no need for it to be on the safe list if done in this fashion.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

imported post

camsoup wrote:

The thing that bothers me, is that so often I hear the argument to not UOC is because the 2nd is incorporated yet. All we have is a privelege, not a right.

Let me remind everyone that when Calguns pursued and won its fight for OLL's, the CA safe handgun list, and everything else they have helped further in CA as far as the PKBA that the second wasn't incorporated then. No one spoke up and asked them to sit idly by and stop being activists. Everytime they exercised their privilege by taking an OLL to the range they were risking a case where bad case law could arise.

You make excellent points!

They do not apply the same standard to us as they do to themselves!

I don't like their philosophy, "Allgun-owners are equal, but somegun-ownersare more equal than others."

 

[Theseus]

imported post

camsoup wrote:

Let me remind everyone that when Calguns pursued and won its fight for OLL's, the CA safe handgun list, and everything else they have helped further in CA as far as the PKBA that the second wasn't incorporated then. No one spoke up and asked them to sit idly by and stop being activists. Everytime they exercised their privilege by taking an OLL to the range they were risking a case where bad case law could arise.

I saw your later post, so I won't work with it all. . . But this line is not entirely correct.

OLL's don't require a permission slip and therefore they were not exercising their priviledge. . .

And, to also be fair with OLL's, they were in a position that no matter the move, they would have won something and not lost everything.

As a movement, OC in California can not get us anything positive, yet.

There will be a time when it can, but that will take work, patience, and possibly the willingness to compromise not on the end goal, but on some of the tactics used.

At best the only thing OC can do right now is maybe inform a few more people than did last time. At worst, people will get arrested, more legislation is passed to make OC impossible/near impossible and therefor uneffective as a tool to incite change.

And don't mistake the statements and my recent willingness to compromise to mean that I will accept anything less than an end to 12030 and 626.9.

You can take me for my not only my words, but my actions. I ambeing charged because of my dedication to the cause. I face up to 1 year in jail, $1,000 fine, andlose my gun rights for 10 yearsdue to being dedicated to the cause.

There have been chances to simply accept my fate, bargain to a disorderly conduct and walked away. . . .that would have been good for me, but not the cause. Unless I lose at trial level and win at appeals they can do it to anyone they want.

But none of what happens to me, one individual is as bad as the loss of open carry for the state.

 

[KylaGWolf]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

As some here in California know, Calguns has been on the forefront in regaining our "Right to keep and bear arms".

Many of us are members of both groups and have seen the divisiveness, disdain and what low regard they seem to hold for us.

I recently tried to see if we could reach some agreement that would benefit both our groups. It seems that a fair majority of them seem extremely disinterested in working with us.

Tell me what you think. Can a compromise be made?

Theseus Yes I do believe that there can be comprimise. What is funny is that there those on Calguns that are talking to several of us here in San Diego about open carry. I also know that you were told that thread was closed due to others slamming you not that they didn't want to work with Open carry.

I will say this though the whole name calling on both sides of the issue needs to stop we should all be working together to get 2A reform passed. The infighting between those that open carry and those that do not is not going to accomplish anything. Even Wildhawker had said he was willing to work with an open discussion forum on the matter. As I said the other thread was closed was the comments by some that was not productive to finding a middle ground for both sides. Heck if you want I will open another thread about UOC. Also the fact there is an offical open carry group here in San Diego. Which I will make sure to post more details on when the meetings will be. The group here in San Diego is going to be just more than open carry in your face type of stuff. We are also planning to work to help change laws.....so something like Calguns will be. Although this would not be a state wide group I am sure that we can all work together to help each others groups too.