UOC meet San Pedro Jan. 3rd

[N6ATF]

imported post

Who's to say, with all the other victims of LAPD's (continual after Rampart and the consent decree) pattern or practice of systematically violating 4A, that Mike can't be a co-plaintiff on the 1983 suit? Or a complainant of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and 241? I have an email into one of the U.S. v LAPD assistants attorney general regarding who is currently in charge, so we might just get these criminals with badges prosecuted.

 

[Nopal]

imported post

Mr. Cato, you are right.

However, in this case and with all respect due, it seems to me that the results of the follow-up meeting were very encouraging. I am not for lawsuits or anything like that, but should the LAPDinsist on choosingto treat OCers as criminals, at least there is video of officers admitting they're familiar withthe law but choose to violate if it makes their job "easier."

Now, since you're much more of an expert on legal matters than I could hope to be, is it possible that such an admission could help Mike's case? We may take it further, is it possible that it can help in a larger sense regarding the current fight for our 4th and 2nd ammendment rights?

 

[flintlock tom]

imported post

cato wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

...

...2nd A doesn't exist legally until McDonald is won...

I'm puzzled why you would think that a win for McDonald would mean that the state of California would start to recognize second amendment rights. Currently the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an integral and vested part of the state constitution. (Read article 3.) The legislature simply ignores it and continues to pass unconstitutional laws. What makes you think having the Supreme Court say that the state must recognize it is going to change anything?

 

[MudCamper]

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

cato wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

...

...2nd A doesn't exist legally until McDonald is won...

I'm puzzled why you would think that a win for McDonald would mean that the state of California would start to recognize second amendment rights. Currently the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an integral and vested part of the state constitution. (Read article 3.) The legislature simply ignores it and continues to pass unconstitutional laws. What makes you think having the Supreme Court say that the state must recognize it is going to change anything?

After we win McDonald, we will have 2A incorporation. This means that legally the 2A is applicable in California, which it currently is not. This changes EVERYTHING. How can you not see that? Right now you only have a belief in a 2A right. I believe in it too. But that does not make it true in the CA courts. After incorporation, the CA courts will be on our side. And in reality, it's the courts that make laws or rights hold up, not just our belief in them.

As for the legislature, yes, they will continue to try and pass laws that violate the 2A. But after incorporation, none of those laws will survive the injunctions immediately filed against them when they pass. And many existing laws will be challenged and defeated.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

cato wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

...

...2nd A doesn't exist legally until McDonald is won...

I'm puzzled why you would think that a win for McDonald would mean that the state of California would start to recognize second amendment rights. Currently the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an integral and vested part of the state constitution. (Read article 3.) The legislature simply ignores it and continues to pass unconstitutional laws. What makes you think having the Supreme Court say that the state must recognize it is going to change anything?

After we win McDonald, we will have 2A incorporation. This means that legally the 2A is applicable in California, which it currently is not. This changes EVERYTHING. How can you not see that? Right now you only have a belief in a 2A right. I believe in it too. But that does not make it true in the CA courts. After incorporation, the CA courts will be on our side. And in reality, it's the courts that make laws or rights hold up, not just our belief in them.

As for the legislature, yes, they will continue to try and pass laws that violate the 2A. But after incorporation, none of those laws will survive the injunctions immediately filed against them when they pass. And many existing laws will be challenged and defeated.

I don't think the CA courts will, more often than not. Fed courts, more likely.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1.  All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3  STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1.  The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.

In the CA courts, they consistently give the middle finger to these parts especially of their controlling document. That is why they should have never, and should never again, be used.

 

[Gundude]

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

cato wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

...

...2nd A doesn't exist legally until McDonald is won...

I'm puzzled why you would think that a win for McDonald would mean that the state of California would start to recognize second amendment rights. Currently the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an integral and vested part of the state constitution. (Read article 3.) The legislature simply ignores it and continues to pass unconstitutional laws. What makes you think having the Supreme Court say that the state must recognize it is going to change anything?

Is this what your mean....

ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.

 

[flintlock tom]

imported post

Mudcamper, please, read the state constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3

The 2nd amendment is ALREADY "incorporated" to the state of California. The courts and the legislature simply ignore it. Why should that change simply because more guys in black robes tell them they must obey their own constitution?
Do you really believe that when the California constitution says: "the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land" that it doesn't mean the Bill of Rights applies here?

 

[MudCamper]

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

Mudcamper, please, read the state constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3

The 2nd amendment is ALREADY "incorporated" to the state of California. The courts and the legislature simply ignore it. Why should that change simply because more guys in black robes tell them they must obey their own constitution?
Do you really believe that when the California constitution says: "the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land" that it doesn't mean the Bill of Rights applies here?

N6ATF is more correct here. The Federal Courts will force California into compliance. And for that we need 2A incorporation.

 

[OPS MARINE]

imported post

I know factually that all cops are like that, but it seemed to me that they weren't at ALL looking at the common sense aspect of the entire thing. Never really saying what went out over the call, disregarding the brainpower of the calltaker, etc. They just wanted to bully the OCers there into seeing it their way. Fine, if someone calls...fine if the cops show up. Observe and THINK before you go approaching people in such a negative way. It is very difficult to backtrack once you've violated someone in such a manner.

Perhaps another method would be to walk in and check the demeanor of the person or people you want to (e) check. Speak to them in a polite manner, and not surround or try literally outgunning them, making them feel like criminals. If there is a person there who shouldn't be, you will see it in his face.

Those particular LEOs were a**holes, and that was not cool.

 

[Decoligny]

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

Mudcamper, please, read the state constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3

The 2nd amendment is ALREADY "incorporated" to the state of California. The courts and the legislature simply ignore it. Why should that change simply because more guys in black robes tell them they must obey their own constitution?
Do you really believe that when the California constitution says: "the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land" that it doesn't mean the Bill of Rights applies here?

N6ATF is more correct here. The Federal Courts will force California into compliance. And for that we need 2A incorporation.

By the current interpretation of the 2A (only applies to the Feds), the CA Constitution says, "The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we will therefore recognize that the Feds cannot infringe upon the 2A, butour state governmentcan!"

That is the crux of the McDonald case.

In CA's case, it does indeed recognize that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. They also recognize that as currently interpreted by all the previous court rulings, the 2A applies only to the Feds. When the McDonald case is decided and it is ruled that the 2A applies to the state and local governments, then, and only then, will the CA Constitution as written actually protect the RKBA.

 

[coolusername2007]

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

cato wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

...

...2nd A doesn't exist legally until McDonald is won...

I'm puzzled why you would think that a win for McDonald would mean that the state of California would start to recognize second amendment rights. Currently the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an integral and vested part of the state constitution. (Read article 3.) The legislature simply ignores it and continues to pass unconstitutional laws. What makes you think having the Supreme Court say that the state must recognize it is going to change anything?

After we win McDonald, we will have 2A incorporation. This means that legally the 2A is applicable in California, which it currently is not. This changes EVERYTHING. How can you not see that? Right now you only have a belief in a 2A right. I believe in it too. But that does not make it true in the CA courts. After incorporation, the CA courts will be on our side. And in reality, it's the courts that make laws or rights hold up, not just our belief in them.

As for the legislature, yes, they will continue to try and pass laws that violate the 2A. But after incorporation, none of those laws will survive the injunctions immediately filed against them when they pass. And many existing laws will be challenged and defeated.

EVERYTHING WILL NOT CHANGE post 2A incorporation, practically speaking from street level. The 4th Amendment is incorporated and has been for some time now, yet Mikestill had his 4A rights violated, as did everyone else this past weekend. Sure they got the UOC memo, then dismissed a moment later.

According to the LEO's own statements, McDonald won't matter one bit, because they aren't saying anything about McDonald or anyone's 2A rights. They are saying "we need to know who you are, and if you are on probation, or a felon, or mentally ill." Someone please tell me how McDonald will change that? Please tell me how McDonald will keep the cuffs off when a UOC'er is encountered? Please tell me how McDonald will keep a UOC'er out of jail when he/she refuses to identify oneself? Or, for that matter, in a post 2A incorporated PRK, a LOC'er? Does anyone actually believe post 2A a LOC'er won't be as or moreharassed, violated, or charged on petty issues than UOC'ers are right now? Because if you do, you're in for a rude awakening. Perhaps the only real difference will be thatCGF might take your case.

Cato is right, Mike needs to get a good 4A attorney...maybe CGF can direct him to a good one if they haven't already.

Notice to all UOC'ers...if you get arrested DO NOT call CGF...if you didn't know this, now you do. Gene has made it clear for sometime now that CGF will not defendUOC'ers 4A rights. Oddly enough, call the ACLU instead, try to busy uptheir lawyers with our gun related 4A cases so they don't have time to do any harm elsewhere.

 

[Gundude]

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

MudCamper wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

cato wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

...

...2nd A doesn't exist legally until McDonald is won...

I'm puzzled why you would think that a win for McDonald would mean that the state of California would start to recognize second amendment rights. Currently the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an integral and vested part of the state constitution. (Read article 3.) The legislature simply ignores it and continues to pass unconstitutional laws. What makes you think having the Supreme Court say that the state must recognize it is going to change anything?

After we win McDonald, we will have 2A incorporation. This means that legally the 2A is applicable in California, which it currently is not. This changes EVERYTHING. How can you not see that? Right now you only have a belief in a 2A right. I believe in it too. But that does not make it true in the CA courts. After incorporation, the CA courts will be on our side. And in reality, it's the courts that make laws or rights hold up, not just our belief in them.

As for the legislature, yes, they will continue to try and pass laws that violate the 2A. But after incorporation, none of those laws will survive the injunctions immediately filed against them when they pass. And many existing laws will be challenged and defeated.

EVERYTHING WILL NOT CHANGE post 2A incorporation, practically speaking from street level. The 4th Amendment is incorporated and has been for some time now, yet Mikestill had his 4A rights violated, as did everyone else this past weekend. Sure they got the UOC memo, then dismissed a moment later.

According to the LEO's own statements, McDonald won't matter one bit, because they aren't saying anything about McDonald or anyone's 2A rights. They are saying "we need to know who you are, and if you are on probation, or a felon, or mentally ill." Someone please tell me how McDonald will change that? Please tell me how McDonald will keep the cuffs off when a UOC'er is encountered? Please tell me how McDonald will keep a UOC'er out of jail when he/she refuses to identify oneself? Or, for that matter, in a post 2A incorporated PRK, a LOC'er? Does anyone actually believe post 2A a LOC'er won't be as or moreharassed, violated, or charged on petty issues than UOC'ers are right now? Because if you do, you're in for a rude awakening. Perhaps the only real difference will be thatCGF might take your case.

Cato is right, Mike needs to get a good 4A attorney...maybe CGF can direct him to a good one if they haven't already.

Notice to all UOC'ers...if you get arrested DO NOT call CGF...if you didn't know this, now you do. Gene has made it clear for sometime now that CGF will not defendUOC'ers 4A rights. Oddly enough, call the ACLU instead, try to busy uptheir lawyers with our gun related 4A cases so they don't have time to do any harm elsewhere.

IMO, after incoporation, LOC will be legal, and when the 911 operator gets a MWAG call, they will tell the person its legal. The LEO'S won't bother with those calls, because there will be no chance of an arrest. As it stands now, there is a possibility of an arrest so they are hard core on it. There will be restrictions on school property and Gov buildings. I'm thinking it will be similar to Nev or Az.

I hear comments that the LEO's and legislators don't think we should return to the days of the wild west. They have been watching too much TV. In those days, honorable men wore their firearm in plain sight. Only sneaks and bad guys carried concealed. Also, the gun related crimes per population were way lower than they are today.

 

[Rusty]

imported post

Why will LOC be legal after 2A incorporation?


from DC vs. Heller we saw:

That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (“[G]overnment may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech . . . .”). Indeed, the right to keep and bear
arms—which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment—was subject to restrictions at common law. We take these to be the sort of reasonable regulations contemplated by the drafters of the Second Amendment. For instance, it is presumably reasonable
“to prohibit the carrying of weapons when under the influence of intoxicating drink, or to a church, polling place, or public assembly, or in a manner calculated to inspire terror . . . .” State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921). And as we have noted, the United States Supreme Court has observed that prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend the Second Amendment. Robertson, 165 U.S. at 281-82. Similarly, the Court also appears to have held that convicted felons may be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller, 307 U.S. at 178). These regulations promote the government’s interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition. Just as importantly, however, they do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised.

What if California were to argue that a reasonable restriction is to not allow people to walk around with a loaded weapon? That this was a public safety concern, and they were well within their rights to regulate firearms in this non-obtrusive way?

 

[bigtoe416]

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

EVERYTHING WILL NOT CHANGE post 2A incorporation, practically speaking from street level. The 4th Amendment is incorporated and has been for some time now, yet Mikestill had his 4A rights violated, as did everyone else this past weekend. Sure they got the UOC memo, then dismissed a moment later.

According to the LEO's own statements, McDonald won't matter one bit, because they aren't saying anything about McDonald or anyone's 2A rights. They are saying "we need to know who you are, and if you are on probation, or a felon, or mentally ill." Someone please tell me how McDonald will change that? Please tell me how McDonald will keep the cuffs off when a UOC'er is encountered? Please tell me how McDonald will keep a UOC'er out of jail when he/she refuses to identify oneself? Or, for that matter, in a post 2A incorporated PRK, a LOC'er? Does anyone actually believe post 2A a LOC'er won't be as or moreharassed, violated, or charged on petty issues than UOC'ers are right now? Because if you do, you're in for a rude awakening. Perhaps the only real difference will be thatCGF might take your case.

Cato is right, Mike needs to get a good 4A attorney...maybe CGF can direct him to a good one if they haven't already.

Notice to all UOC'ers...if you get arrested DO NOT call CGF...if you didn't know this, now you do. Gene has made it clear for sometime now that CGF will not defendUOC'ers 4A rights. Oddly enough, call the ACLU instead, try to busy uptheir lawyers with our gun related 4A cases so they don't have time to do any harm elsewhere.

+1 to everything except for the part about the ACLU doing harm elsewhere.

I was talking to my fiancee about this after the Livermore meet. For me, the rights violations we face today are fourth amendment violations.

There are second amendment violations from our legislature like prohibition of loaded carry, may issue ccw permits, and various location restrictions (the school zone thing being the most egregious). But by and large, the policitians are the ones screwing our second amendment rights.

It's mainly the police that are screwing our fourth amendment rights. Unlawful detainments and unlawful searches are accepted practice amongst a large subset of police officers. The legislature has violated our fourth amendment rights with 12031(e), but the police are also doing their part by playing along with what everybody knows will be found to be unconstitutional.

Gundude wrote:

IMO, after incoporation, LOC will be legal, and when the 911 operator gets a MWAG call, they will tell the person its legal. The LEO'S won't bother with those calls, because there will be no chance of an arrest. As it stands now, there is a possibility of an arrest so they are hard core on it.

I find this hard to believe. Today UOC is legal, and LOC is legal with a CCW, and when the 911 operator gets a call about a MWAG they don't ask if there is a magazine in the well. They don't ask anything which may give them a better understanding of the situation. They just send over the rights violation brigade to do their thing.

I think after incorporation we'll continue to have cops come and ask to see IDs and see what they can dig up. When 12031 gets tossed as unconstitutional, we'll see a drop in the harassment levels because we'll be able to ignore the cops completely and they'll just get to walk away after huffing and puffing.

Prior to 12031 getting erased, I think lawsuits are the only thing which will prompt police officers to change their behavior. I bet open carrying in New Mexico is a lot easier after the recent win over there. There's some guy in the south who is on opencarry.org who successfully sued police officers twice, he bought himself a nice looking motorcycle with the proceeds. I bet open carrying in his state is much easier too.

But here in Cali, we're still at our lawsuit count of zero. So what do we have to work with? Overzealous police officer who aren't thinking about consequences of violating people's rights. When they see a gun, they feel like they can stomp all over our rights and nobody will do a thing. So far, they've been 100% correct.

 

[MudCamper]

imported post

OK. 2A Incorporation will give us the RKBA in CA, but it won't be a magic talisman that instantly grants such. It will enable us to block bad legislation, and it will enable us to overturn bad law in the courts, laws like 12031, and 626.9. But it will take time. A lot of time. The legal process is very slow.

CGF will be fighting easy fights at first, like the "safe" handgun roster. CCW reform will be next. And depending on how it plays out, we may eventually end up with unrestricted LOC. I say, may, because if you listen to what Alan Gura has to say on the subject, he thinks the states will have to grant some form of "Bearing" arms, but this doesn't mean they will have to grant them all. It may end up being ruled constitutional to deny one of the carry methods (open or concealed) as long as they allow the other. This is why CGF is leary of UOC now. If it gets banned before incorporation, we may never get it back, and end up like Texas, with CC only.

 

[A ECNALG]

imported post

As long as you have not recorded anything more since you "erased," I may be able to recover the data with my"Photorecovery for Digital Media."

 

[Army]

imported post

And here's the oh-so-dangerous crew!

 

[Mike Hawk]

imported post

Army wrote:

And here's the oh-so-dangerous crew!

OMG who ARE those nutjobs!? :shock:

 

[ConditionThree]

imported post

Army wrote:

And here's the oh-so-dangerous crew!

Nice shirt...

 

[chewy352]

imported post

WTF Army your big head is hiding my face lol.