• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"Man with Shotgun at Daly City Mall was 'Open Carry' Supporter"

oc4ever

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
And so it begins......

And so it begins.......first the cuffs..... then the arrest....then the "un-arrest"......and eventually the lawsuits and legal (costly) education process for the LEO's if they don't tone down the excessive force used in these detentions........

Governor Brown and the liberals did not like less than a thousand active open carriers in this State with small handguns because it scared people and tied up LEO's....and oh course the liberal mantra...."let's think about the children"! Well good job California State Legislature, now you get really big in-your-face guns that nobody could miss!!! The LEO radio call responses will be with more officers than ever before. It is just a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt because of a misunderstood quick movement/ action by a OC'er or rookie LEO. Make sure if you are the one confronted by police, you MOVE REALLY SLOWLY and announce your intentions before movement.
 
Last edited:

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
I'll be in CA in a few days, thinking about doing some long gun open carry myself
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
And so it begins.......first the cuffs..... then the arrest....then the "un-arrest"......and eventually the lawsuits and legal (costly) education process for the LEO's if they don't tone down the excessive force used in these detentions........

Governor Brown and the liberals did not like less than a thousand active open carriers in this State with small handguns because it scared people and tied up LEO's....and oh course the liberal mantra...."let's think about the children"! Well good job California State Legislature, now you get really big in-your-face guns that nobody could miss!!! The LEO radio call responses will be with more officers than ever before. It is just a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt because of a misunderstood quick movement/ action by a OC'er or rookie LEO. Make sure if you are the one confronted by police, you MOVE REALLY SLOWLY and announce your intentions before movement.
Has it occured to anyone that we have been herded into an activity that would attract demonstrably more negative attention from passers by?... That would raise greater alarm and therefore a proportionately larger police response?

Why do you think our government would do that?

Here's a clue; it's not by accident, but by design.
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Has it occured to anyone that we have been herded into an activity that would attract demonstrably more negative attention from passers by?... That would raise greater alarm and therefore a proportionately larger police response?

Why do you think our government would do that?

Here's a clue; it's not by accident, but by design.
One long gun carry I did here brought a strong LEO response. The next one was cool calm, and collected with no LEO contact. The difference was, the second time I notified them in advance that I was hiking to the range with my rifle, and that I expected courtesy and respect. I got it.
work with your law enforcement agencies is my plea. Maybe you shouldn't "have to", but it will most assuredly earn you more goodwill than simple provocation. In time, you won't "have to" anymore.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81485-Urban-Rifle-Hike

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?82818-Urban-Rifle-Hike-II
 
Last edited:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
One long gun carry I did here brought a strong LEO response. The next one was cool calm, and collected with no LEO contact. The difference was, the second time I notified them in advance that I was hiking to the range with my rifle, and that I expected courtesy and respect. I got it.
work with your law enforcement agencies is my plea. Maybe you shouldn't "have to", but it will most assuredly earn you more goodwill than simple provocation. In time, you won't "have to" anymore.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81485-Urban-Rifle-Hike

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?82818-Urban-Rifle-Hike-II
There is a difference that you brought up between your activity and that of what we are talking about. Yours is a practical purpose of transporting your rifle to the gun range on foot. The circumstances cannot be equally transcribed to random appearances in various social venues like urban coffee shops, restaurants, malls, and Wal*mart. What I am asserting is that unchecked, the advocacy to transport long guns in these circumstances outside any practical use, is going to escalate the conflict to a legislative solution that will mandate that your walks to the range require you to transport in a secure locked case.

While communicating your intentions to law enforcement in advance may soften the encounter, the police still view this as a problem they must respond to. This means more meaningless goosechases and more effort, which police cheifs will still take notice of. (Something that I believe we were about to overcome with handguns, before AB144 had been fully fleshed out.)
 
Last edited:

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
There is a difference that you brought up between your activity and that of what we are talking about. Yours is a practical purpose of transporting your rifle to the gun range on foot. The circumstances cannot be equally transcribed to random appearances in various social venues like urban coffee shops, restaurants, malls, and Wal*mart. What I am asserting is that unchecked, the advocacy to transport long guns in these circumstances outside any practical use, is going to escalate the conflict to a legislative solution that will mandate that your walks to the range require you to transport in a secure locked case.
.)
I have been advocating for practical use, and against that which cannot be easily justified. In contrast, you have been advocating for handgun carry only, a practice that does not fit every person.

While communicating your intentions to law enforcement in advance may soften the encounter, the police still view this as a problem they must respond to. This means more meaningless goosechases and more effort, which police cheifs will still take notice of. (Something that I believe we were about to overcome with handguns, before AB144 had been fully fleshed out
There was no encounter to soften. My only encounter occurred prior to the event. Maybe that won't happen in every jurisdiction, or every single time; but that's no reason not to try.
There was no public humiliation for people to see. There was no affirmation that anyone with a gun is subject to handcuffing, or is automatically assumed to be bad or wrong. And most importantly, every last one of my exercised rights went unchallenged by authorities/law enforcement. Isn't that what we want over all?
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
I have been advocating for practical use, and against that which cannot be easily justified. In contrast, you have been advocating for handgun carry only, a practice that does not fit every person.

There was no encounter to soften. My only encounter occurred prior to the event. Maybe that won't happen in every jurisdiction, or every single time; but that's no reason not to try.
There was no public humiliation for people to see. There was no affirmation that anyone with a gun is subject to handcuffing, or is automatically assumed to be bad or wrong. And most importantly, every last one of my exercised rights went unchallenged by authorities/law enforcement. Isn't that what we want over all?
There is nothing more that I want, than to be able to carry a M4 carbine while walking downtown San Fransisco. But I recognize that the practice does not fit the circumstances we are enduring today. It can be argued that a handgun is a more reasonable alternative than a fantasy involving a slung M4 in California's hand-wringing anti-gun capital.

Does this make me a handgun only guy? Not at all- I actually own more rifles than handguns. What I promote is using the most common self-defense tool to demonstrate the most reasonable and rational use of 2A liberty.
 
Last edited:

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
There is nothing more that I want, than to be able to carry a M4 carbine while walking downtown San Fransisco. But I recognize that the practice does not fit the circumstances we are enduring today. It can be argued that a handgun is a more reasonable alternative than a fantasy involving a slung M4 in California's hand-wringing anti-gun capital.

Does this make me a handgun only guy? Not at all- I actually own more rifles than handguns. What I promote is using the most common self-defense tool to demonstrate the most reasonable and rational use of 2A liberty.
And the handgun is the one that has drawn the most ire of the legislature lately. It is also the one most often used in crime, the one most easily concealed by criminals, and the one with practically no other use than causing human misery. The rifle is at least an article associated with hunting, a demographic less disrespected than self defense in this state where the legislative powers are concerned anyway. We seem to disagree on which tool carries the least amount of disdain, and the most accepted use. I believe it's the rifle, and if the same care and advocacy is exercised in the open carrying of them as you are lobbying for in handguns, I think it is the one that should lead the way in our battle for rights and acceptance. Not souped up, hot rod looking rifles, but very basic ones for that purpose.
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
There is currently no more protected firearm than that of "handguns" "in common use" for "self-defense". ("
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.")

Assuming unloaded firearms will have the constitutional protection of something equivalent to or nearing transport (which can probably be regulated more than loaded & operational self-defense arms
borne on the person
), why would anyone think working not only against social norms, but across the grain of jurisprudence, is efficacious?

-Brandon
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,217
Location
USA
They are missing one important thing.

By being 'reactionary', the law and LEOs are TEACHING OC-ers and other gun owners to be SMART and INFORMED.

If they just let us have 2A and 4A rights, we'd be all uninformed of the law. NOW, even if they do stuff we are organized, informed and will take action. I say 'we', but I really mean you guys, younger, more active, willing and able. Tip of the hat from we ancient retired peeps. :)
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
There is currently no more protected firearm than that of "handguns" "in common use" for "self-defense". ("
It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon.")

Assuming unloaded firearms will have the constitutional protection of something equivalent to or nearing transport (which can probably be regulated more than loaded & operational self-defense arms
borne on the person
), why would anyone think working not only against social norms, but across the grain of jurisprudence, is efficacious?

-Brandon
Let me see if I understand this: You are saying that hunting and hunting related guns are far more unacceptable to the general public than handguns?

And you seem to be saying that this whole gun issue revolves around personal self defense?
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,748
Location
Oregon
Let me see if I understand this: You are saying that hunting and hunting related guns are far more unacceptable to the general public than handguns?

And you seem to be saying that this whole gun issue revolves around personal self defense?
Wildhawker was quoting the Heller opinion regarding handguns being the quintessential self-defense weapon. He was also saying that unloaded carrying of arms is not bearing of arms because a unloaded handgun cannot be used effectively until it is loaded. He suggested that unloaded carry wouldn't fall under 2nd amendment protection but under generic transportation/freedom to travel protection. He also said that carrying unloaded long guns would be perceived as the public as foolish and would not play as well in court given current case law.

Seems like you two are agreeing more than not.
 

Firemark

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
445
Location
San Diego
Couple of things I was thinking of in regards to this.

1967... Black men bring loaded weapons to the capitol, and scare the legislators, the media, and the LE....Knee jerk reaction right a law that knocks the legs out from that group so they cant do it again.... The issue, the law on its face is unconstituional but, no one challenges it at the time or in the intervening 40+ years. The reality an entire generation of California LE and civilians are brought up to believe that guns are evil and they must be stopped.

2011.. for a copule of years now, smart aleck, attituded youngsters parade around with handguns in the open in accordance with the law, (or loophole depending on your outlook) written 40+ years ago, who does this piss off and scare???? citizens? not so much, many encounters I experienced most people were asleep the small amount of others were fascination and approval very few scornful glances or sreaming fleeing people. Legislators and elected officials?? not so much either, until its brought to their attention.

LE and anti gun groups??? HELLS to the yes this pisses them off... The chief I spoke to was pissed they had to handle 100's and 100's of phone calls from anti gun people screaming for something to be done... But is that enough to get things done??? dont LE chiefs have people call and complain all the time? what made this instance different??? What about law abiding citizens carrying guns in public made the police chiefs and mayors and city councils and legislators so afraid????

POWER and MONEY.... those phone calls came from prominent powerful behind the scenes leaders of big government Dem/Liberal organizations that want CONTROL. Remember Gun Control is never about the gun its always about the control.

By demonstrating the slightest inkling of self reliance, we threatened the voting power base for the Democratic controlled CA government, and the money source for police departments funding. As well as the power base of Dem/Libs.

Here is the issue as I see it now, Open Carry pushed, and the government (democrats and police chiefs) pushed back harder. They want it to go back asleep for another 40+ years and continue strengthening the dependence of citizens on large government run police force and democratic liberal control legislation.. the fear mongers.

SO the question now is what happens if we UOC handguns using exemptions, or LGOC to avoid the new law????

The Power and Money will use the media to paint us into the image of crazy out of control whacko gun toting angry black men on the steps of the Capitol. Which wont be hard if we tote long guns, especially EBR's because that fits the terrorizing stories the media loves to portray. It worked ok with handguns but with Long guns the image and story will be a slam dunk on the 6 oclock news.

I personally saw senior LE officials lie to the TV news crews to spin the story they watned the public to see and hear, and purposely avoid news outlets that wanted to show the other side of the story. So while many of us think this is a battle of rights and laws on the streets, it is not... This battle is in the living rooms and on the tv of the 6 oclock news. the mainstream medias portrayl of what they want people to believe is going on...

If we want to succeed in changing the political landscape of this State, we need to attack the power base and money source of our opponents, This will call for a radically different approach then what has happend in the past few years...
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Let me see if I understand this: You are saying that hunting and hunting related guns are far more unacceptable to the general public than handguns?

And you seem to be saying that this whole gun issue revolves around personal self defense?
Actually, it isnt Brandon saying this, but our Supreme Court. This is a quote from Heller v D.C. wherein they ruled that the people do indeed have an individual right to keep and bear arms. The court here is recognizing that for whatever reason, Americans (generally) prefer handguns for the purposes of defense... which is the core of the right. The court does recognize hunting as part of the 2A, but the question they were asked to rule on was whether individuals had the right to 'keep' functional firearms in preparation for confrontation.

Tranporting unloaded firearms of any type is likely less protected than those that are carrried loaded and ready for confrontation. In other words, a restriction on how a firearm is transported could be considered reasonable because it doesnt fill the objective of 'keeping' a weapon ready for immediate use.

Not loaded = not ready to use = not Constitutionally inviolate.

Until there is a ruling on 'bear', I think this is how it will be. So, Brandon's point here is that if long guns are less accepted by the public and highest court in the land agrees, how is long gun UOC (read transport-not 'bear') going to meet the core of the right AND diffuse the public's suspicion of those who openly display big guns (whatever their configuration)?
 

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
584
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
Cali tried to ban OC of handguns so people go to long guns. I look at it as the California govt. brought it on themselves. I worry that cops might over react but praise those doing it because without exercising a right it will be taken as Cali has been trying to do.
 

donny

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
115
Location
, ,
...It is just a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt because of a misunderstood quick movement/ action by a OC'er or rookie LEO. Make sure if you are the one confronted by police, you MOVE REALLY SLOWLY and announce your intentions before movement....
It's just a matter of time alright. A matter of time before they ban it just like they did with handguns. I for one will be as amused on that day as I was Jan 1.
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
Let me see if I understand this: You are saying that hunting and hunting related guns are far more unacceptable to the general public than handguns?

And you seem to be saying that this whole gun issue revolves around personal self defense?
To the former, I would say that the social norm for self-defense in public is overwhelmingly that of employing [loaded] handguns in some manner.

To the latter, no; the "whole gun issue" is quite complex and certain to require substantial jurisprudence before we can dispositively say what, exactly, our constitutional minimums really are. I often cite Heller as the basis of my argument that hunting is, to some degree, protected under the Second Amendment. Ergo, I believe that the Second Amendment goes much farther than 'self-defense in the home by means of an operable handgun'; however, to act as if we [Californians] have a practical right beyond that [at this time] is really nonsensical.


Wildhawker was quoting the Heller opinion regarding handguns being the quintessential self-defense weapon. He was also saying that unloaded carrying of arms is not bearing of arms because a unloaded handgun cannot be used effectively until it is loaded. He suggested that unloaded carry wouldn't fall under 2nd amendment protection but under generic transportation/freedom to travel protection. He also said that carrying unloaded long guns would be perceived as the public as foolish and would not play as well in court given current case law.

Seems like you two are agreeing more than not.
I wouldn't say that transport of firearms is not protected under the Second Amendment at all; however, I think it's likely that transport regulations will not face the level of constitutional scrutiny that, say, an outright ban on 'keep' or 'bear' would. I do agree that the right to travel will be a factor in Second Amendment issues. See, e.g., Peterson v. Defendant of the Week.

Actually, it isnt Brandon saying this, but our Supreme Court. This is a quote from Heller v D.C. wherein they ruled that the people do indeed have an individual right to keep and bear arms. The court here is recognizing that for whatever reason, Americans (generally) prefer handguns for the purposes of defense... which is the core of the right. The court does recognize hunting as part of the 2A, but the question they were asked to rule on was whether individuals had the right to 'keep' functional firearms in preparation for confrontation.

Tranporting unloaded firearms of any type is likely less protected than those that are carrried loaded and ready for confrontation. In other words, a restriction on how a firearm is transported could be considered reasonable because it doesnt fill the objective of 'keeping' a weapon ready for immediate use.

Not loaded = not ready to use = not Constitutionally inviolate.

Until there is a ruling on 'bear', I think this is how it will be. So, Brandon's point here is that if long guns are less accepted by the public and highest court in the land agrees, how is long gun UOC (read transport-not 'bear') going to meet the core of the right AND diffuse the public's suspicion of those who openly display big guns (whatever their configuration)?
This is exactly what I meant. Thanks to bigtoe416 and ConditionThree for the comments.

-Brandon
 

TyGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
775
Location
, ,
This is going on in Wisconsin right now too. The PDs are getting sued for unlawful detention and arrest. Slowly they are learning to follow the law.
 
Top