UOC Without Calguns

[Sons of Liberty]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

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.

To be an activist, there must be a demonstration of that which you believe is right; but is not yet accepted by most.

If we are to be activists for UOC, we must demonstrate UOC. Otherwise, we might just as well keep 'em locked up in the house and quit participating on this forum. Because...what would be the point?

CalGuns and the NRA can promise you anything, but that doesn't mean that they can deliver. They are political; and who was the last politician you trusted? They say we are the problem for hostile legislation. But even if we all ceased to exist, this would not cause the hostile legislation to stop.

What we do is not popular, but it's legal...it serves a significant purpose...it isour right and duty as defenders of the constitution from any governmentthat ceases to serve, and oppresses its people into servitude; to bear these arms that some tell us to keep locked up in our homes.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said after he visited some in northern Californiathat were thrown in prison for being activists,

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?'

Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?'

Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?'

But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?'

And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him that it is right."

What I do is neither safe, nor politically correct, nor popular. But, I do this because my conscience tells me it's right.

 

[wildhawker]

imported post

SoL, there are many upcoming opportunities to make your voice heard (many of which are not yet public while some details are worked through). I am dedicated to using substantial resources to this end; don't underestimate how important and useful those resources are.

I'm missing something- are you trying to reach the public and convey a message that gun owners are not to be feared or are you simply venting your frustrations through your favored form of expressive conduct? Do you think Coke develops marketing campaigns based around somefeeling of justified superiority - or because they can- or might it be geared towards those who purchase soft drink products? I think it's time we move away from forcing a square peg in a round hole- if this is about securing gun rights for ourselves and our posterity, about creating a gun-friendly culture in California, then we must adapt our message to be most effective at persuading our audience and developing trust between the RKBA community and general public.

This is what we seek to achieve.

-Brandon Combs

Sons of Liberty wrote:

Theseus wrote:

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.

To be an activist, there must be a demonstration of that which you believe is right; but is not yet accepted by most.

If we are to be activists for UOC, we must demonstrate UOC. Otherwise, we might just as well keep 'em locked up in the house and quit participating on this forum. Because...what would be the point?

CalGuns and the NRA can promise you anything, but that doesn't mean that they can deliver. They are political; and who was the last politician you trusted? They say we are the problem for hostile legislation. But even if we all ceased to exist, this would not cause the hostile legislation to stop.

What we do is not popular, but it's legal...it serves a significant purpose...it isour right and duty as defenders of the constitution from any governmentthat ceases to serve, and oppresses its people into servitude; to bear these arms that some tell us to keep locked up in our homes.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said after he visited some in northern Californiathat were thrown in prison for being activists,

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?'

Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?'

Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?'

But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?'

And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him that it is right."

What I do is neither safe, nor politically correct, nor popular. But, I do this because my conscience tells me it's right.

 

[camsoup]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

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 privilege. . .

In hindsight, we can look at the OLL movement now, and see that what they were doing, or the guns they were building/using were/are legal. The notion that these guns were legal in this state at the time was not common knowledge. In the beginning almost all LEO, at either city,county, state level thought any AR or AK platform rifle was an AW in this state.

Before OLL's were accepted in this state as being legal, people were taking them to the range and exercising their privilege to do so (my little play on words of the fact that CG's says we shouldn't OC because it isnt our right to bear arms, only our privilege in this state).

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.

Folks were and did get arrested for having "Assualt weapons" bad case law could have come out of that, and the OLL movement as we know it of might never had existed. They couldn't ban weapons be series, but what if case law was passed to amend the law regarding bullet buttons, or redefined the definition of a pistol grip so as to include the U15 or monster man versions? Luckily the cards fell in the right direction and it has been proven and supported by good solid information that you can own an OLL in this state. We did not have the right to keep and bear arms in this state then, as we don't have it now. That did not stop anyone from using and ultimately educating LE that their OLL weapon was legal in this state. They knew they were legal, as we know OC is legal.

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.

In my eyes, OC is not so much different than the OLL battle that was fought a few years ago, both are legal per definition of the law, both did not have much support in the beginning, the general public is very un-educated about both topics. Even today some people I know that have been in gun show circles for years don't even know what an OLL, prince 50, or Bullet button is, and believe that any AR-15 platform rifle is an AW in this state.

I can only image what backlash might occur the first time someone uses a legal semi auto OLL weapon in a crime and the media gets a hold of it, without the RKBA in CA even OLL's are truly not safe at this time, any number of laws could be ammended or bad case law could arise. Do I expect every person who owns an OLL to stop using them because bad case law might arise? No.

We are not going to change the general publics view or gain support on OC unless we participate and actively OC, whether or not its LOC or UOC. The anti's want to close the "gun show loop hole". We dont have the right to keep and bear arms, does that mean we don't have the right to sell them at gun shows? How many pro-gun people or pro-gun websites have you heard ask the question "will you please stop having gun shows for now, we want to make sure its our right to have them before we even think about having one again"?



Theseus, I commend you for what you have done so far with the UOC movement in this state, you for one seem to be the only person to date actually charged with an OC related statute. My best wishes go out to you in the hopes of a good outcome of your trial, and if not hopefully you can smack it to them in the appeals process.

 

[wildhawker]

imported post

Camsoup, while I applaud your passion and dedication to principal your understanding of the OLL movement's legal and political underpinnings is not correct; as much as many see the OLL victory and wish torecreate a similar one- albeit with a "open carry" label-it is not to be. The securing of our open carry rights will take a different strategyin the courts, legislatureandinterfacing with thepeople of California.

Theperceived risk of owning a properly-configuredOLL today is grossly overstated.

 

[mjones]

imported post

wildhawker wrote:

Camsoup, while I applaud your passion and dedication to principal your understanding of the OLL movement's legal and political underpinnings is not correct; as much as many see the OLL victory and wish torecreate a similar one- albeit with a "open carry" label-it is not to be. The securing of our open carry rights will take a different strategyin the courts, legislatureandinterfacing with thepeople of California.

Theperceived risk of owning a properly-configuredOLL today is grossly overstated.

Welcome to OCDO wildhawker, its good to see you here.

However, much unlike other forums, here at OCDO you are obliged to cite evidence when you make a claim. At a minimum please explain with greater detail.

You state that Camsoup's understanding is incorrect, please offer the correction. Also, why is it not possible for Open Carry to follow the same 'template' for success?

 

[cato]

imported post

Ownership of OLLs enjoys "protection" since they're property. Ca. cannot justdeclare them illegal and arrest you the next day; an Ex post facto law. So if Ca were to take the "ban" route with OLLs they would once again need to do what they tried in '89 and with SB23 and have YET AGAIN another registration period which would let in 100s of thousands of fully functional AWs (they do not want to do that).

That massive effort to control (as they can't confiscate otherwise lawfully possessed OLLs)is a far cry from the easylegislative banning of OC or doing something else (which some of us do not talk about so as to not give hints). And once it's banned it will take years of litigation to get it back and we still need to deal with 12031.

The other "leg up" OLLexpansion had/has overOC is that it isgenerally a hiden activity except at gun shows and the range. It happens mostly at FFLs and behind closed doors.

Without a Right protected by the courts (AND THERE IS NO RIGHT IN CA AT THIS TIME WITH NORDYKE SUSPENDED PENDING EN BANC), UOC/OC "demonstrations" do not gain us anything"positive" except possible grief.

It doesn't matter if we "convert" thousandswith carry walks and brochures the ones that control the situation, the legislature and judges, hold all the cards until we get jurisprudence/case lawon our side.

If you haven't read them please read Alan Gura's (CGF) litigation against the state concerning carry. Open carry will have it's day. That day is not now much to my great personal disappointment.

The complaint:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/Sykes-v-McGinness-Complaint-2009-05-09.pdf

 

[coolusername2007]

imported post

cato wrote:

Without a Right protected by the courts (AND THERE IS NO RIGHT IN CA AT THIS TIME WITH NORDYKE SUSPENDED PENDING EN BANC), UOC/OC "demonstrations" do not gain us anything"positive" except possible grief.

It doesn't matter if we "convert" thousandswith carry walks and brochures the ones that control the situation, the legislature and judges, hold all the cards until we get jurisprudence/case lawon our side.

CA is still a representative repbulic, right? Yes, we have extreme leftist activist legislators, and judges intent on legislating from the bench, but last I checked the people are (technically) still in control. And I believe they are waking up and are more engaged than ever before in recent history. So I will politely disagree that educating thousands has no positive effects, especially now. When the politicians and judges are no longer acting on behalf of the citizenary that they are supposed to represent, your only option left is educating the public and getting them to take action.

 

[Captain_Awesome]

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

cato wrote:

Without a Right protected by the courts (AND THERE IS NO RIGHT IN CA AT THIS TIME WITH NORDYKE SUSPENDED PENDING EN BANC), UOC/OC "demonstrations" do not gain us anything"positive" except possible grief.

It doesn't matter if we "convert" thousandswith carry walks and brochures the ones that control the situation, the legislature and judges, hold all the cards until we get jurisprudence/case lawon our side.

CA is still a representative repbulic, right? Yes, we have extreme leftist activist legislators, and judges intent on legislating from the bench, but last I checked the people are (technically) still in control. And I believe they are waking up and are more engaged than ever before in recent history. So I will politely disagree that educating thousands has no positive effects, especially now. When the politicians and judges are no longer acting on behalf of the citizenary that they are supposed to represent, your only option left is educating the public and getting them to take action.

I agree completely. Like I've said before, I think our best way to make long term lasting changes in CA's gun laws, is to get the public more educated about guns. The more people understand, the more people there will be who oppose horrible legislation that may come up in the future. Also, when our representatives realize that there are so many gun owners out there, they will be much more hesitant to introduce or pass more anti gun laws.

I know this isn't exactly relevant or constructive, but a right doesn't cease to become a right because a government/courts refuse to acknowledge it, and we can't let our REPRESENTATIVES forget that.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." - The Declaration of Independence​

 

[wildhawker]

imported post

Cool,

Education is useful. We must remember that there is a difference between how we feel/what we say and the most effective messageto be received by the public. If something does not generate a positive outcome, it is not useful (although possibly to a minor degreeinasmuch it functions as a personal outlet - better than some alternatives, but I digress).100,000converts from slightly-anti to gun-neutral (or better yet, slightly friendly) will have a greater affect on CA policy than 100 converts fromslightly-anti or neutral to pro-gun. We aren't going to be able to get the majority of the population from slightly-anti topro-gun in one step; they are too far apartin the continuum and most humans are not capable of adapting that fast (further, the gun issue is not even on the rader of importance- economy, jobs, mortgage crisis, wars are much more relevant topics to the public at large right now).

I'll also share that getting the public to take action is, to a large degree, herding cats and pushing rope. It's unreasonable to expect that the public [as a whole] willgo from complacent to activist; we're working with fractions of percentage points.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Captain_Awesome wrote:

I agree completely. Like I've said before, I think our best way to make long term lasting changes in CA's gun laws, is to get the public more educated about guns. The more people understand, the more people there will be who oppose horrible legislation that may come up in the future. Also, when our representatives realize that there are so many gun owners out there, they will be much more hesitant to introduce or pass more anti gun laws.

I know this isn't exactly relevant or constructive, but a right doesn't cease to become a right because a government/courts refuse to acknowledge it, and we can't let our REPRESENTATIVES forget that.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." - The Declaration of Independence​

Your 'elected representatives know, but do not care... and the majority of their constitutuancy neither knows nor cares to know.

 

[Captain_Awesome]

imported post

They may know how many of us there are, as a statistic, but I very much doubt that they really understand that we exist, and how much this right means to us. I think there is a big difference between 'the gun owners who number xxx,xxx' and 'those gun owners who I keep seeing on every street I walk down, who I will be depriving of the most effective means of self protection.'

By actually being out there, and being visible, we can be real to them. Up till now we've been hiding in the shadows, slowly losing a little bit of our freedoms at a time, and I, for one, have had enough.

This is the reason for things like gay pride parades and rallies and whatnot. They are, quite literally, saying "we're here..." and you know the rest. They are making their presence known, and showing how many there are. You see a parade of any type, and you think "well, if there are this many just at the parade, how many of them stayed home?" Having more and more open carriers will demonstrate that this right/privilege means something to us.

Why do you think they get away with banning things like the .50 BMG cartridge and any firearms that fire it? Its fairly expensive to shoot, and therefore most people don't own one, much less use one on a regular basis. Same with armor piercing handgun ammunition. Not many people really have or use armor piercing handgun ammo, therefore they can easily ban it without any real repercussions. Almost any basic rifle cartridge can defeat all but a level 4 vest, yet they haven't outlawed rifles. Why? Because they know so many people own rifles and use them regularly.

I guess this is all just my opinion, but I honestly think OC (preferably LOC) is a better option 90% of the time than CC.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Suggestion: Write 'Open Carry Gun Owner' with a felt tip pen on every piece of paper money you get hold of. Keep doing that. Get several thousand peopleto keep doing that. Eventually.... ???

 

[Captain_Awesome]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Suggestion: Write 'Open Carry Gun Owner' with a felt tip pen on every piece of paper money you get hold of. Keep doing that. Get several thousand peopleto keep doing that. Eventually.... ???

I wanna say "interesting idea", but I'm horrible at detecting sarcasm, especially written.

 

[coolusername2007]

imported post

wildhawker wrote:

Cool,

Education is useful. We must remember that there is a difference between how we feel/what we say and the most effective messageto be received by the public. If something does not generate a positive outcome, it is not useful (although possibly to a minor degreeinasmuch it functions as a personal outlet - better than some alternatives, but I digress).100,000converts from slightly-anti to gun-neutral (or better yet, slightly friendly) will have a greater affect on CA policy than 100 converts fromslightly-anti or neutral to pro-gun. We aren't going to be able to get the majority of the population from slightly-anti topro-gun in one step; they are too far apartin the continuum and most humans are not capable of adapting that fast (further, the gun issue is not even on the rader of importance- economy, jobs, mortgage crisis, wars are much more relevant topics to the public at large right now).

I'll also share that getting the public to take action is, to a large degree, herding cats and pushing rope. It's unreasonable to expect that the public [as a whole] willgo from complacent to activist; we're working with fractions of percentage points.

I would argue we don't need 100,000 converts, we just need 100,000 current gun owner activists to stand up and be seen, not just heard. Besides that I would bet we could get 100,000 young men just by starting an effective college campaign. How many young men do you know don't get a huge kick out of holding, handling and shooting. Just like the military, young men are gung ho and will basically do what their told. So then all we have to do is get them to march with us and you've got 200K+ people marching in Sacramento. Actually, it could be quite easy to pull off. Road trip anyone?

 

[coolusername2007]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Suggestion: Write 'Open Carry Gun Owner' with a felt tip pen on every piece of paper money you get hold of. Keep doing that. Get several thousand peopleto keep doing that. Eventually.... ???

Ever heard of a little invention called a "printer"? We have the technology...nnnnnnnn...faster, nnnnnnn...better...nnnnnnnn....stronger...and nnnnnnn...with spell check!

 

[cato]

imported post

Captain_Awesome wrote:

This is the reason for things like gay pride parades and rallies and whatnot. They are, quite literally, saying "we're here..." and you know the rest. They are making their presence known, and showing how many there are. You see a parade of any type, and you think "well, if there are this many just at the parade, how many of them stayed home?"

They have been marching for decades and still prop. 8 passed.

It will also take decades for us to "change" public perception through persuasion on guns. Once it's a right, they will have to get used to it whether or not they are persuaded effectively.

While we are waiting for that protection, if we dare the legislature to "fix" the UOC problem, we will end up with further "Bear" restrictionsand ADD to the time we need to wait until we can exercise the federal right. Waiting for Nordyke, NRA/McDonald, or Sykes to establish the court protected right is wise tactics. Getting new restrictive legislation when we can't even tie it up with courtinjunctions (like prop 187) is shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[coolusername2007]

imported post

cato wrote:

Captain_Awesome wrote:

This is the reason for things like gay pride parades and rallies and whatnot. They are, quite literally, saying "we're here..." and you know the rest. They are making their presence known, and showing how many there are. You see a parade of any type, and you think "well, if there are this many just at the parade, how many of them stayed home?"

They have been marching for decades and still prop. 8 passed.

It will also take decades for us to "change" public perception through persuasion on guns. Once it's a right, they will have to get used to it whether or not they are persuaded effectively.

While we are waiting for that protection, if we dare the legislature to "fix" the UOC problem, we will end up with further "Bear" restrictionsand ADD to the time we need to wait until we can exercise the federal right. Waiting for Nordyke, NRA/McDonald, or Sykes to establish the court protected right is wise tactics. Getting new restrictive legislation when we can't even tie it up with courtinjunctions (like prop 187) is shooting ourselves in the foot.

I don'tbelieve that it will take "decades" for us to change public perception of guns, not by a longshot. If fact, I don't think that much work is required at all actually. I do believe that marching and so on and being seen is asimportant, if not more so, than being heard. Here's why...guns have been a central part of the American culture from the beginning. And that is as true in CA as it is anywhere else in this country. Further, many people in CA are transplants from other states, communities, and families where guns are a big part of life and leisure. Guns were not thrust upon the people as was the gay and lesbian movement was through the AIDS/HIV scare in the late '70s or early '80s (don't remember when for sure, but that's how I remember it, so if my history isn't completely accurate I don't care to hear it). But I do remember having to take several sex ed classes in middle school where all the fears were being put to rest and the life style was explained. So using the passage of Prop 8 is really a very poorcomparative measuring stick for the gun movement. And one could even argue itfurther demonstrates how moderate to conservative the CA electorate can be (depending upon your perspective - again don't want to hear it). However, the tactics of the GL movement are effective tactics nonetheless, its just going to take them more time. Further still, guns cross the political divides in ways the GL movement does not, even producing a pro-gun movement within the GL movement not to mention political affiliation, gender, race and so on. In my mind, the problem with CA isn't the people, the problem is the legislature being completely out of control and the electorate being completely unengaged. But that's changing very rapidly as we speak.

Further, and I'm no legal expert (obviously), but ifthrough Nordyke the 2nd is incorporated to the state, and if the SCOTUS takes and incorporates the 2nd to all the states, then I don't care what legislation CA has in place, it will be effectively rendered moot virtually immediately, would it not? Now if they incorporate the 2nd with grey language as toone's "bear" rights then perhaps the issue will continue to be muddied up. But, as least from my layman's perspective, the moment SCOTUS announces its decision, its done regardless of anycrappy infringinglaws that are out there.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

No, it wouldn't. Although it would be nice, we would have to address every single law in court, just like we do now. The difference? We can have more teeth in protecting individuals and seeking damages. . . Their abusing an OC'er can help pay for more rallies.

What I am saying is that regardless of what you "think" can happen, we don't really know. What I am sure of is that nothing we do in the next 10 months would help our cause, but there is a lot we can do to hurt it.

coolusername2007 wrote:

cato wrote:

Captain_Awesome wrote:

This is the reason for things like gay pride parades and rallies and whatnot. They are, quite literally, saying "we're here..." and you know the rest. They are making their presence known, and showing how many there are. You see a parade of any type, and you think "well, if there are this many just at the parade, how many of them stayed home?"

They have been marching for decades and still prop. 8 passed.

It will also take decades for us to "change" public perception through persuasion on guns. Once it's a right, they will have to get used to it whether or not they are persuaded effectively.

While we are waiting for that protection, if we dare the legislature to "fix" the UOC problem, we will end up with further "Bear" restrictionsand ADD to the time we need to wait until we can exercise the federal right. Waiting for Nordyke, NRA/McDonald, or Sykes to establish the court protected right is wise tactics. Getting new restrictive legislation when we can't even tie it up with courtinjunctions (like prop 187) is shooting ourselves in the foot.

I don'tbelieve that it will take "decades" for us to change public perception of guns, not by a longshot. If fact, I don't think that much work is required at all actually. I do believe that marching and so on and being seen is asimportant, if not more so, than being heard. Here's why...guns have been a central part of the American culture from the beginning. And that is as true in CA as it is anywhere else in this country. Further, many people in CA are transplants from other states, communities, and families where guns are a big part of life and leisure. Guns were not thrust upon the people as was the gay and lesbian movement was through the AIDS/HIV scare in the late '70s or early '80s (don't remember when for sure, but that's how I remember it, so if my history isn't completely accurate I don't care to hear it). But I do remember having to take several sex ed classes in middle school where all the fears were being put to rest and the life style was explained. So using the passage of Prop 8 is really a very poorcomparative measuring stick for the gun movement. And one could even argue itfurther demonstrates how moderate to conservative the CA electorate can be (depending upon your perspective - again don't want to hear it). However, the tactics of the GL movement are effective tactics nonetheless, its just going to take them more time. Further still, guns cross the political divides in ways the GL movement does not, even producing a pro-gun movement within the GL movement not to mention political affiliation, gender, race and so on. In my mind, the problem with CA isn't the people, the problem is the legislature being completely out of control and the electorate being completely unengaged. But that's changing very rapidly as we speak.

Further, and I'm no legal expert (obviously), but ifthrough Nordyke the 2nd is incorporated to the state, and if the SCOTUS takes and incorporates the 2nd to all the states, then I don't care what legislation CA has in place, it will be effectively rendered moot virtually immediately, would it not? Now if they incorporate the 2nd with grey language as toone's "bear" rights then perhaps the issue will continue to be muddied up. But, as least from my layman's perspective, the moment SCOTUS announces its decision, its done regardless of anycrappy infringinglaws that are out there.

 

[coolusername2007]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

No, it wouldn't. Although it would be nice, we would have to address every single law in court, just like we do now. The difference? We can have more teeth in protecting individuals and seeking damages. . . Their abusing an OC'er can help pay for more rallies.

What I am saying is that regardless of what you "think" can happen, we don't really know. What I am sure of is that nothing we do in the next 10 months would help our cause, but there is a lot we can do to hurt it.

Allow me to clarify my comments. If and when SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd, then the RKBA is affirmed. All state and local laws to the contrary are null and void. Now the devil is in the details, for sure. So for example, here in CA with UOC, yes unloadedwould have to be challenged, but not OC. Unless SCOTUS says the states can regulate and decide on the form of carry, ie conceal vs open(which I think is likely to bethe case), as well as specific gun ban (again Heller stated the right isn't unlimited just like the 1st).

But if SCOTUS affirms something, you don't have to continue the legal fight potentially right back to SCOTUS all over again. Again, I realize this is highly simplistic, again the devil is in the details, but once SCOTUS affirms it, its over.

TakeHeller for example, they aren't continuing the fight for RKBA, they are fighting over the regulations and licensing issues as well as specific gun bans (DC took CA's ban list as theirs).

 

[cato]

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

If and when SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd, then the RKBA is affirmed.All state and local laws to the contrary are null and void.

All RKBA stands for specifically in SCOTUS decisions at this time and even following incorporationis the "Heller right" to a LICENSE to possess/carry a LOADED FIREARM in YOU HOME for immediate SELF-DEFENSE. All the other nice things they said was DICTA (and the anti judges aren't bound by that).

We are going to have to fight for every morsel of RKBA inch by inch in the courts. Until struck down you and all gun owners will be liable to prosecution and loss of rightsfor all standing"bad" laws.

One would think that 4th A. jurisprudence is settled and that 12031 "e" would not stand muster. But someone needs to successfully challenge it first; hasn't happened in the 42 years since the Mullford Act passed.

Your understandingof Constitutional jurisprudence issues appears to be where Iwas when I only knew what I wished was so. Sadly bad laws will stand and good people will go to prison and loose their rights UNTIL the laws are struck down one by one.

We do not want additional laws passed now when we are just a few years away from being able to stop them before they become law (court injunctions).But now with no defined right and no incorporation we are only inviting a harder fight later (time and $$$$$). OC now sadly servers no long term purpose and in the short run risks inspiring the antis to action in CA.

Waiting until we have incorporation and case law is good legal and political tactics.