| Author | Post |
|---|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1916 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 11:32 pm |
|
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3401784&postcount=
After Incorporation and for tactical reasons, after Sykes or Palmer are final, then I'll be happy to hold LOC events in San Francisco...
The reason this is a legal issue is that the right to carry arms in public is a right that only a minority support. Even in states where shall issue carry permits are the norm, not more than 5% of the population perform the simple steps to get one. Minorities can generally only turn to the courts for support.
The open carry movement is an excellent idea to desensitize the public to the law abiding carrying firearms but for now its only wise in states that have a right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions. The reason for that is that when the inevitable arrest or police harassment occurs, the OCer has leverage. Here in California the UOCer has been convicted, lest I need to remind you of that issue.
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation - Member, CRPA Board of Directors
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
To expand on Gene's theme, minorities do not fare well in democracies especially if two wolves and a lamb are voting on what to eat for dinner. Look at what homosexuals have had to deal with over the decades and yet even with their success promoting themselves in CA culture (and its taken DECADES), they still lost prop 8.
UOCers, and in fact all of CA's gun owning interests, are also a political minority (an extremely small minority). Certainly changing that minority status is a necessary and laudable goal. But societies change slowly. And in order to even have a chance to fully exercise our Rights in our lifetime we will require court protected minority status in CA.
There is nothing that UOC can accomplish in the next 7 months before RKBA Incorporation that can't be done after. And yet while waiting for constitutionally protected status the RKBA is particularly vulnerable to suffer further legislative defeat - a defeat which can and IS being incited and encouraged by our visibility. There are LE agencies and politicians working to squash UOC, who will not be swayed by any peacefully educational UOC activities
This is nothing less then a cost / benefits analysis. Is it worth it in the short term, a mere 7 months, to go into battle to reestablish our RKBA in Ca culture without ALL of the tools for a successful campaign? Waiting for incorporation is like waiting for NEEDED supplies and reinforcements before storming Normandy while planning for action.
Please stand down on UOC and redirect your valuable and skillful dedication to this most important cause to other forms of outreach to build up our teams in anticipation of coming future action.
Attached Image (viewed 1216 times):
 Last edited on Wed Jan 6th, 2010 07:30 pm by cato
|
expresstowal
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
| what is RKBA?
|
dirtykoala
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | Sunnyvale |
| Posts: | 515 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 11:57 pm |
|
cato, i know you have a great wealth of knowledge when it comes to UOC. Waiting for the 2nd to be incorporated before carrying is understandable, but at the same time could be just a 7 month delay. i get what you are saying, and i have slowed down my day-to-day UOC, but i cant sit back and hope for rights that may or may not come about, this stance has led us to the position we are in today. incorporation would be great, but it could also never happen.
to be honest, im a little upset that you are here on this opencarry forum telling people not to opencarry. it is almost troll-like. Just my feeling, please dont take offense to it.
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 12:04 am |
|
When I saw this thread, I thought...
"Not ANOTHER calguns copy-paste anti-UOC fest. Spam, spam, SPAM!"
|
chewy352
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 12:08 am |
|
| Personally I carry on a day to day basis to protect myself and my family. I have not and will not accept anybodies argument for me to weaken my defenses as my 2 year old sons life is at stake.
|
yelohamr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 12:20 am |
|
dirtykoala wrote: ...to be honest, im a little upset that you are here on this opencarry forum telling people not to opencarry. it is almost troll-like. Just my feeling, please dont take offense to it.
Are trolls a protected species? Is there a season and bag limit?
Inquiring minds want to know.
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1916 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 12:26 am |
|
dirtykoala wrote:
to be honest, im a little upset that you are here on this opencarry forum telling people not to opencarry.
I support Open Carry 110%, always have always will.
But what I am selling and will continue to sell is what I, and many others here and else where believe is the strategy that will get us what we want. UOC is politically weak and it can't be built up fast enough to preserve OC in the short term. LOC as the National Right is also not certain based on general constitutional jurisprudence practices of allowing states to choose how to regulate rights above the Fed Const. minimum protections. The framework of CA law as we go into litigation, now underway and in the planning stages, will dictate those arguments we make. I want OC preserved so that it will play a substantial future roll in cementing our rights.
I agree with Gene...
The open carry movement is an excellent idea to desensitize the public to the law abiding carrying firearms...
I want it preserved as an option for that reason as litigation moves forward and I want it to help establish an unregulated, untaxed OC Right in CA. We risk that by UOCing now.
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1916 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 12:27 am |
|
expresstowal wrote: what is RKBA?
short hand for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms - aka the 2A  Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 12:28 am by cato
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1916 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 12:44 am |
|
chewy352 wrote: Personally I carry on a day to day basis to protect myself and my family. I have not and will not accept anybodies argument for me to weaken my defenses as my 2 year old sons life is at stake.
And this is always the hardest argument to counter. After all, for what purpose do we profess to desire the peaceful carrying of arms? To protect life and all that is dear to us as sons, daughters, spouses and parents, and as loyal Americans!
However, absent L in the OC equation, a LUCC is nearly as effective (absent deterrence) without the negative down side of UOC bringing attention of your carrying to unscrupulous prosecutors and judges (insert Theseus' experience and 10 year firearm prohibition). Not to mention the violation of other rights and potential criminal liabilities that come from police stops that happen BEFORE we can "convince" them that it's not in their best interest to violate a fundamental constitutional right.
Again it's the liability/benefit discussion. You make that choice. I'm trying to present the bigger picture and give those who want to help preserve that picture other options to carry for SD in the mean time (LUCC - which personally I despise as I believe a free people carry openly - it's just that we are not free just yet)
Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 01:32 am by cato
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1916 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 12:58 am |
|
yelohamr wrote: Are trolls a protected species?
According to Mike' rule #.308 "trolls are a protected species with a post count of 1666+ and a join date of 2006 or earlier". Boy I just made it. 
Is there a season and bag limit?
Season is open and the weapons are wit, cunning, and logic...I'm still waiting for you to engage... Attached Image (viewed 1190 times):
 Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 12:59 am by cato
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1916 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 01:02 am |
|
dirtykoala wrote: rights that may or may not come about,
We'll know shortly my brother!  But if incorporation is a bust we are in for a world of hurt.  (There are contingency plans in the works)
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 01:14 am |
|
God forbid LUCC be recognized as a stopgap measure on the same page as the UOC warnings... in case we'd be forced to use our LUCC guns and get persecuted far above and beyond the letter and intent of the law, for being good Samaritans.
Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 01:17 am by N6ATF
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1916 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 01:26 am |
|
N6ATF wrote: God forbid LUCC be recognized as a stopgap measure on the same page as the UOC warnings... in case we'd be forced to use our LUCC guns and get persecuted far above and beyond the letter and intent of the law, for being good Samaritans.
I do share your natural dislike of LUCC but absent choices of no hassle UOC/LOC/CCW, it's better then having it in the safe (bitting my cheek while pushing that option). Legally it's pretty safe mostly because of the attention you don't get. Stick to justifyed uses only of course.
And if one has never read "how to own a gun and stay out of jail" it is a must read on self defense and possession case law in CA.
|
yelohamr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 01:44 am |
|
cato wrote: yelohamr wrote: Are trolls a protected species?
According to Mike' rule #.308 "trolls are a protected species with a post count of 1666+ and a join date of 2006 or earlier". Boy I just made it.
Is there a season and bag limit?
Season is open and the weapons are wit, cunning, and logic...I'm still waiting for you to engage...
Well we agree on something, now that you admit to being a troll.
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 01:50 am |
|
cato wrote: N6ATF wrote: God forbid LUCC be recognized as a stopgap measure on the same page as the UOC warnings... in case we'd be forced to use our LUCC guns and get persecuted far above and beyond the letter and intent of the law, for being good Samaritans.
I do share your natural dislike of LUCC but absent choices of no hassle UOC/LOC/CCW, it's better then having it in the safe (bitting my cheek while pushing that option). Legally it's pretty safe mostly because of the attention you don't get. Stick to justifyed uses only of course.
And if one has never read "how to own a gun and stay out of jail" it is a must read on self defense and possession case law in CA.
I dislike LUCC no more or less than UOC. No matter how you keep or bear a gun legally, you can be persecuted by these traitors. I would not be surprised if one of us is charged with 1st degree murder and unlawful loaded concealed or loaded exposed if we save lives by ending a criminal's while carrying in either unloaded mode.
Interestingly, Amazon doesn't have CA 2009 even on pre-order, just:
Amazon wrote:How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail: What You Need to Know About the Law If You Own a Gun or Are Thinking of Buying One : California Edition 2008 by John F. Machtinger and Amy Wetherbe (Paperback - Jan 2008)
2 new from $140.65 5 used from $140.65
(5)
Books: See all 10 items
Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 01:53 am by N6ATF
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1916 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 02:04 am |
|
N6ATF wrote: read "how to own a gun and stay out of jail" it is a must read on self defense and possession case law in CA.
You clicked on my link? Only 14 dollars there.
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 02:11 am |
|
cato wrote: N6ATF wrote: read "how to own a gun and stay out of jail" it is a must read on self defense and possession case law in CA.
You clicked on my link? Only 14 dollars there.
Yeah, just funny to see last year's edition at 10x the price.
|
demnogis
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 02:22 am |
|
I strongly encourage any new member to heed cato's warnings. For those not in the know he is a very seasoned veteran and irrefutably one of the most experienced uoc advocates in this forum.
CA's legislators are in drunk driving behind the wheel of a Lincoln Aggrevator. Most of them are in allegiance with the Sheeples' Demokracie of Feinstein an#d actively work on a full-time schedule to limit our rights. Without 2A incorporation if enough hoplophobes start complaining, legislation may come forth backed by anti-rights LEAs here.
I do not reccommend solo OC at this time. A single person carrying (for the time being) may appear as an irregularity and the risk of rights-violations is very high. A group however gathers some positive response and usually is just (e) checked and left alone. I suppose thats where cato and i disagree.
Every person must understand the amount of risk involved, in all respects. The risk to our absent right (skip 2 when counting to 10 in CA), the personal risk of rights violations, the risks of being wrongfully charged (and possibly convicted) and the risks associated with a possible life-ending tool.
Before ANYONE starts to carry, they should think long and hard about every aspect. I may not solo OC, but when I group OC i put on my PR hat and try my best to leave a good impression.
Long post short... Listen to cato, even though in the end, its your own personal decision.
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1916 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 02:29 am |
|
N6ATF wrote:
Yeah, just funny to see last year's edition at 10x the price.
It's a collectors item, but I'll let my '08 go for only half that! Going once, going twice, ...
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 02:35 am |
|
demnogis wrote: Every person must understand the amount of risk involved, in all respects. The risk to our absent right (skip 2 when counting to 10 in CA), the personal risk of rights violations, the risks of being wrongfully charged (and possibly convicted) and the risks associated with a possible life-ending tool.
Just 2? I thought 1 (assembly), 4 (searches and seizures), 5 (due process), and 6 (impartial jury) are also skipped as long as you own a gun here.
Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 02:36 am by N6ATF
|
Current time is 03:47 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
