[double bogey]

Have not seen this here.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/10/california-gov-enacts-ban-on-open-handgun-carrying/?test=latestnews

[jackpot]

Wow, thats sad. Not surprising, but sad for California.

[plexreticle]

So does this go for public land for target shooting?

What do they define as a public place?

[AlexanderA]

I think we owe this to the activists who were "making a statement" with the open carrying of unloaded guns. (What other purpose could there be for carrying unloaded guns?) The result was the opposite of what they intended. They should have been a little more discreet, given the general anti-gun atmosphere in California.

[Shovelhead]

Insted of blaming 'open carry' gun owners (they were only using their legal right to carry under the silly Cali laws), blame Gov. "Moonbeam" for taking away the rights of law abiding firearm owners.

Open carry is a right still enjoyed in many states.... Virginia is one of them.

[Smokin Gator]

Until this new law it was legal to open carry an unloaded handgun with ammo on your belt. I would not want to open carry even with a loaded firearm. But, what most of the people in Ca. who were legally open carrying were trying to do was to demonstrate that they wanted to be able to legally defend themselves. Those who couldn't get a CCW permit had unloaded open carry as their only legal option. They were showing that they wanted to follow the law. The hope was that other people would prefer not to see guns carried exposed and there would be more people in favor of allowing concealed carry. It obviously didn't work, but that was the reasoning. Mark

[armoredman]

And there is a lawsuit going through where the judge spouted the people don't need CCW because they can carry open unloaded...now that will be refought.

[Manco]

Well, now that all of the "loopholes" have been closed, I guess we won't be seeing any shootings or armed robberies involving guns in California anymore. :rolleyes:

On a more serious note, the former availability of unloaded open carry in California had been a key factor in recent (post-Heller/McDonald) court decisions that denied Californians shall-issue concealed carry. :scrutiny: The new law would appear to make those decisions obsolete just as they're being appealed, which is good news for concealed carry in this state.

[WoofersInc]

I think we owe this to the activists who were "making a statement" with the open carrying of unloaded guns. (What other purpose could there be for carrying unloaded guns?) The result was the opposite of what they intended. They should have been a little more discreet, given the general anti-gun atmosphere in California.


So it is the open carriers fault for doing something that is completely legel? Yeah... Let's not blame the people who are taking away a right from those same legal carriers.

California makes it very difficult, and in some areas, impossible to obtain a carry permit. This was the only way for people to protect themselves. Plus this can actually have some good results. There was a recent denial of concealed carry because open carry was allowed. With open carry now banned the arguement for concealed carry is substaintially stronger.

[hso]

The law is challengable since the open carry of empty guns was being used as a form of 1A.

[alsaqr]

AlexanderA made a good point. When politicians in CA get uneasy about some group or the other they pass anti-gun laws. The same thing happened in 1967 when the Black Panthers were openly carrying loaded guns. CA politicians passed the Mulford Act banning the carrying of loaded guns: Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Time_Line_of_California_Firearms_Laws


Open carry is illegal in OK also. OK had a long tradition of open carry until our concealed carry law was passed.

[9mmepiphany]

While I thought the Open Carry advocates were making the wrong statement at a time when more counties were issuing CCWs in CA, I can see this as a plus for the CCW advocates.

Unlike other states, CA CCWs are issued by each county, even though they are valid throughout the state. What the economic bubble has offered is a reduction in LEO on the street, which has only strengthened the argument for Shall Issue in various counties. The courts only valid legal point to counter that argument was the existence of Unloaded Open Carry. With the signing of this bill into law, the anti-CCW courts have much less to base their argument on.

[627PCFan]

That state is amazing. Time to open carry some long guns

[Dnaltrop]

Need to drop to the most primitive weapon if you're going to do it as a protest... that way when it gets banned you make the banner look as silly as possible.

Break out the Fire-spears and arquebus!

[Alex23]

It will be challenged. The 'Shall Issue (to Celebrities and Luminaries only)' law will be challenged as well.

The law probably has popular support, but CA's attitude to guns is unconstitutional period.

[AlexanderA]

Open carry is a right still enjoyed in many states.... Virginia is one of them.

Yes, and I'd like to keep it that way -- I want open carry to be available under circumstances when I need it. Around here, in Northern Virginia, an urban/suburban area, people that are open carrying "to make a statement" or "to desensitize the public" or whatever their reasoning happens to be, are ruining it for the rest of us. This is not the way to win friends around here. The next thing you know, there will be a hue and cry for laws to outlaw open carrying. (This is the kind of bandwagon the soccer moms love to jump on.)

[armoredman]

Saw an open carrier this morning at the Dollar store, nobody said a thing, nobody made a fuss, nobody cared. it's normal and unremarked upon in AZ. I will say that his holster setup was terrible, clip on leather rig leaning so far forward and out it was obvious he wasn't wearing a belt. Ouch. Woulda broken my wrist trying to make a draw from that angle.
Cali is lost unless the courts force it back. I just hope that when we get the next wave of Calirefugees they realize we don't want ANY Cali laws here, not one, we're good, thanks.

[exavid]

I was born in California (a long time ago) but my mother had the good sense to leave before I was six months old so maybe I didn't catch whatever it is they have. I did live four years on Edwards AFB (my dad was a lifer) but spent most of that time within the borders of the base. I don't think living on a federal reservation actually would infect me with Californiaitis. Those folks down there are in a real mess and I doubt it's going to get much better soon. I just hope too many refugees don't migrate North and try to bring their idea of civilization to Oregon. Open carry isn't a big deal here but then most anyone with a handgun has a CCW around these parts anyway since the state is pretty gun friendly though there have been attempts in recent years to change that.

[Frank Ettin]

So it is the open carriers fault for doing something that is completely legel? ...That kind of thing has gone on for many years in many contexts. If enough people do something that's legal but they do it in a way that enough other people find obnoxious, the activity might not stay legal for long.

[1] See this post 6 (http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?46-Open-Carry-in-Florida&p=201#post201) regarding the history of the loss in Florida of the right to openly carry in this thread on another forum.

[2] There are plenty of examples of rights being lost because enough folks didn't like the ways in which they were being exercised. Over the years, in many communities, we have seen many zoning and other laws adopted restricting how you can use your own property. In some places you may not work on your car in your own driveway in view of the public street. In some places you must get design approval of remodeling or landscaping visible to the public. In some communities, you may not park or store large vehicles like boats on trailers or RVs on your property so as to be visible to the public. These sorts of restrictions have in large part been the result of strong enough public sentiment that some things previously lawfully done by private parties on their own land were unseemly or unattractive.

[9mmepiphany]

I agree with fiddletown's post. While perfectly legal, when it becomes irritating/alarming enough, people will take steps to make it illegal.

That is how CA lost our right to Open Carry in 1967. An unpopular group read the law, understood it and practiced it (lawfully)...but it scared folks so much that it united the populous, the LE, the legislature and the pro-gun Governor to outlaw it

[exavid]

So does that mean if you excersize a right it becomes illegal but if you don't you can? It's kinda like lane splitting on a motorcycle. It's not illegal in ********** because it doesn't bother anyone because they're used to it. So how do you ever get it legal in another state? You can carry openly if people are used to it but you can't carry openly because it makes people nervous because they aren't used to it? Seems dumb to me to blame people who are doing what's legal for losiong the right to do what they were doing.

[Frank Ettin]

So does that mean if you excersize a right it becomes illegal but if you don't you can? ...Seems dumb to me to blame people who are doing what's legal for losiong the right to do what they were doing. Whether or not it seems dumb to you, it indeed has happened. And it's happened not just with guns, but with other things and activities as well. It is reality.

[elano]

Stop blaming law abiding citizens. We all know this was the works of the anti-gun crowd.

[helitack32f1]

Yes, it is the work of the anti-gun crowd and I have no doubt they fed off the brilliant citizens who thought it was a smart idea to have well publicized open carry days at Starbucks and things like that. They did it here in Washington as well and my instant thought was "***?" No one would have even considered a ban had it not been publicized by these so called activists and I even pondered the possibility those demonstrations were originated by anti-gunners. Whoever originated it, the result was the same, open carry is now banned in CA.

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I've never understood why people don't like open carry, you just have a tool to defend yourself on your belt in plain view minding your own business, its not like we pull them out to get ahead in line or if someone cuts us off in traffic or won't leave the park bench that we want to sit at. This level of stupidity amazes me. A cop carrying openly isn't a problem even if the cop hates the thing and by the skin of his teeth, manages to get through qualifications yet someone who is usually a good shot (considering the kind of people that open carry, that is usually a safe assumption) causes uproar because its out of the ordinary. The level of perversity that is allowed and promoted on our streets such as gay pride is perfectly fine and doing drugs is becoming more and more acceptable while someone choosing a certain way to carry his self defense which is visible is the worst thing ever. How many criminals dress in an appropriate manner and being well groom with a gun in plain view scary?

These kind of people both confuse and tick me off, it's all pure ignorance. Someone should definatly sue on the grounds of it violating the First Amendment along with the Second. Its the right to bear arms, that means to be able to carry it and it certainly doesn't mean to keep one with a cable lock through it at home.

[hermannr]

Yes, and I'd like to keep it that way -- I want open carry to be available under circumstances when I need it. Around here, in Northern Virginia, an urban/suburban area, people that are open carrying "to make a statement" or "to desensitize the public" or whatever their reasoning happens to be, are ruining it for the rest of us. This is not the way to win friends around here. The next thing you know, there will be a hue and cry for laws to outlaw open carrying. (This is the kind of bandwagon the soccer moms love to jump on.)
Alaxander, you have a very narrow view of things. You sound just like the anti's.

OC is, and has been legal in WA (basically an extremely liberal state) since (and before) it's becoming a state. Same for ID (a very conserative state) and a lot of other states. We have no problem with people trying to restrict our right to OC, They did somewhat restrict our unlicensed CC in 1961 though, compliments of the Black Panthers,

Back to the new California law. Scuttlebutt is Gov Brown signing the bill actually helps the law suits. OC is no longer an option for people in incorporated areas, so with the lack of CC as an option....

[Quiet]

In CA...
Open carry of a loaded firearm in public places was banned in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan.

What was left was the unloaded open carry of firearms in non-restricted areas.

The new law that Governor Jerry Brown signed, bans the unloaded open carry of handguns in public places.
You can still open carry an unloaded long gun in non-restricted areas and open carry a loaded firearm in areas where you can legally discharge a firearm.

In a recent court case, a judge ruled that CA's "may issue" CCW system was legal because non-prohibited persons could open carry an unloaded handgun as an alternative to being granted a CA LTC permit.

Now that unloaded open carry has been banned, it removes that reasoning from preventing "shall isse" CCW reform in CA.

[Zoogster]

plexreticle said:
What do they define as a public place?


California case law has determined that nearly anything not fenced in or physically closed off to the public is a public place.

This includes your typical front yard, porch, and driveway in a suburbs.
This includes private property not fenced or otherwise blocked to public access.

A 'public place' is most public and private places outdoors.





I want to see the exact wording of this new legislation.
Where does it apply? PC12031 (Mulford Act) for example applies in incorporated areas and prohibited areas of unincorporated areas (most unincorporated areas), and defines a prohibited area as including anywhere with a restriction against discharge of a firearm. This then means county, local, or any other ordinance or any other restriction against discharge turns broad areas into prohibited unincorporated areas too.
(Which for example makes many remote locations in the wilderness prohibited areas because the county has an ordinance against discharge outside of hunting. However still leaves a few areas outside of the scope of the law, PC12031 does not simply just prohibit the activity within the state.)

Does this new legislation share any such terminology regarding incorporated and unincorporated areas?
Does it apply to everywhere in general or share PC12031 terminology?
I sure hope 'public place' is not the only defining definition in the legislation...

[hatt]

You anti-gun gun folk should pat yourself on the back. Since gun owners won't support gun owners why would anyone else. Same thing happened in 94. Good job.

[azmjs]

Being cute doesn't cut it everywhere.

I hope the "carry around an unloaded gun" protesters are happy at what they've accomplished for the rest of us, but I doubt they even understand the connection.

[Frank Ettin]

You anti-gun gun folk should pat yourself on the back. Since gun owners won't support gun owners why would anyone else....Hogwash. There is no reason I, or anyone else, should support tactics that some people misguidedly suppose would promote the RKBA if I, or anyone else, has concluded that such tactics would have an overall negative effect.

[Quiet]

Does it apply to everywhere in general or share PC12031 terminology?

Not sure.
Because, as of 01-01-2012, all the CA "dangerous weapons" penal codes are being "updated*" with new penal code numbers.

*updated, may or may not include different definitions. Was supposedly done to clean up voided penal codes and clarify defintions.
I'm waiting until they get officially released to see what changed.

[conw]

There's a disconnect between what those protesters think "should" happen, and what does happen in reality. Not to mention the fact that some of the posters on this very thread could use some 101-level education in public relations.

In public relations, particularly when you are trying to "make a point," perception is reality. This does not mean what you think should be true is somehow true.

[exavid]

I just can't accept the 'hide in the closet and they won't notice us' type mentality. So if open carry is legal you shouldn't do it because it will draw attention to you doing it? I guess it doesn't really make a difference if a law is passed preventing it in the first place.
I wonder how long it would take to make carrying a baseball bat in public illegal in CA if folks decided to carry those now that they can't carry a firearm openly? A right denied is not a right but a privilege.

[hatt]

Hogwash. There is no reason I, or anyone else, should support tactics that some people misguidedly suppose would promote the RKBA if I, or anyone else, has concluded that such tactics would have an overall negative effect.
Maybe you're just wrong. Maybe you don't support RKBA like you think you do. It funny you use "right to keep and bear arms" but then blast people who bear arms. You guys should change your slogan to "right to keep arms in secret." In the interest of being accurate.

[azmjs]

Maybe you're just wrong. Maybe you don't support RKBA like you think you do. It funny you use "right to keep and bear arms" but then blast people who bear arms. You guys should change your slogan to "right to keep arms in secret." In the interest of being accurate.

And maybe, back in the real world, people with dumb ideas on how to be cute should learn to take advice from their less short-sighted peers.

[hatt]

And maybe, back in the real world, people with dumb ideas on how to be cute should learn to take advice from their less short-sighted peers.
In the real World, most people are oblivious to the open carry issue. That leaves the minority "activists." You have activists who support the concept of the 2nd. And then you have the people who don't, like Sarah Brady. I don't care to be on the same side as Sarah when it comes to any issue involving gun Rights. Maybe that's dumb, but I doubt it.

[Frank Ettin]

Hogwash. There is no reason I, or anyone else, should support tactics that some people misguidedly suppose would promote the RKBA if I, or anyone else, has concluded that such tactics would have an overall negative effect.
Maybe you're just wrong. Maybe you don't support RKBA like you think you do. It funny you use "right to keep and bear arms" but then blast people who bear arms. You guys should change your slogan to "right to keep arms in secret." In the interest of being accurate. And maybe, in the interest of being accurate, you should trouble yourself to find out something about me.

[1] I'm a Benefactor Life Member of the NRA; a Life Member, Founders Club Member and Trailblazer Member of the Whittington Center; and a life member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association.

[2] I'm an NRA certified instructor in Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home and Shotgun.

[3] I teach monthly NRA Basic Handgun Classes with a group of instructors. None of us make any money for doing so, and our class fees only cover our expenses.

[4] As a coach and instructor I have, without compensation, in the last ten years brought hundreds of people into shooting.

[5] I've have concealed weapons permits from Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Florida and Oregon. I carry a gun whenever and wherever I legally can.

But I will not support unloaded open carry activism because it has been demonstrably harmful to our fight for the RKBA. It has antagonized a large swath of the uncommitted body politic; and we'd be better off with those people on our side, or at least neutral.

[Bobson]

Wow, I didn't even realize Schwarzenegger wasn't the Governor anymore. When did he leave office?

Also, I just saw that California is a "May Issue" state. Is this restriction really that bad? I mean... I don't agree with it, fully. I just don't really feel strongly one way or another, as far as Open-Carry. I advocate Concealed-Carry 100% of the time.

[hatt]

Wow, I didn't even realize Schwarzenegger wasn't the Governor anymore. When did he leave office?

Also, I just saw that California is a "May Issue" state. Is this restriction really that bad? I mean... I don't agree with it, fully. I just don't really feel strongly one way or another, as far as Open-Carry. I advocate Concealed-Carry 100% of the time.
No, it's not that bad if you're connected with the big shots and can get one. For everyone else, it's as bad as an outright ban. From what I hear Cali ranges from virtual shall issue in some areas to virtual no issue in the big cities.

[NavyLCDR]

I think we owe this to the activists who were "making a statement" with the open carrying of unloaded guns. (What other purpose could there be for carrying unloaded guns?) The result was the opposite of what they intended. They should have been a little more discreet, given the general anti-gun atmosphere in California.

And Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus, right?

[Ben86]

That's sad. Not that having to carry an unloaded gun really counts in my book as a right to open carry. If it were a full open carry right you could carry a gun loaded like your supposed to.

Apparently Brown is exactly what the people of California wanted, leftist agenda and all he still got elected recently, so I don't feel much pity.

I think the gun owning portion of California should concentrate on becoming a "shall issue" state more than on open carry. Open carry is a distant goal. Shall issue CC is what you should set your sites on.

[Zoogster]

Not sure.
Because, as of 01-01-2012, all the CA "dangerous weapons" penal codes are being "updated*" with new penal code numbers.

*updated, may or may not include different definitions. Was supposedly done to clean up voided penal codes and clarify defintions.
I'm waiting until they get officially released to see what changed.

Scary stuff. So they are just broadly rewriting that section of the penal code? A code with case law that interconnects numerous sections?
Doesn't that interfere with the judicial process?

It is a code rich with history you can cite from decades ago, from wanting to disarm asian and latino immigrants (PC 12025) to the black panthers (PC12031).
Oh it goes on and on, you can tie specific codes to dates of wanting to disarm workers (no protesting while armed with a weapon) during the Cold War and anti-communist efforts.
To various cultural weapons in PC12020 when those cultures were immigrating or poor and using certain means of protection other than firearms.

It is such a rich heritage to hide away with new random numbers.
While new definitions seem outright crooked considering they are individually adjusted per judicial rulings.


I liked being able to find out for example that clubs and similar items became a felony under PC12020 at the same time concealed carry (Constitutional Carry as it is called some places now) went from being a legal right for all to requiring a license (PC12025) in the 1920s for example as certain groups like the KKK were working to keep certain groups disarmed.
With new numbers I could still find one or the other out, but connecting them together would be hard.
We should preserve our history!

[NavyLCDR]

I think the gun owning portion of California should concentrate on becoming a "shall issue" state more than on open carry. Open carry is a distant goal. Shall issue CC is what you should set your sites on.

One of the roadblocks to forcing California to be shall issue was that the courts maintained that Californians' rights to carry a firearm were not being violated because "open carry" (not really, because the gun is unloaded) was an option available to anyone not prohibited from possessing a firearm with no permit required.

Now that excuse is no longer valid and the courts will be forced to come up with another lame excuse. I don't understand why any concealed carry proponent is upset at all with any open carry "activist". These new laws will, in the long run, help the fight for gun rights.

[Frank Ettin]

And Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus, right? A lousy analogy.

When Rosa Parks shook things up, her actions were lauded in editorials in major newspapers. Her cause was celebrated from pulpits in houses of worship across the country. There were demonstrations of support on college campus.

The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s was the culmination of 100+ years of abolitionist and civil rights activity. It had broad and deep support in the Eastern Intellectual, Media and Economic establishments and on college campuses around the country. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country. And acts of civil disobedience were celebrated in the major media outlets.

[Zoogster]

Bobson said:

Also, I just saw that California is a "May Issue" state. Is this restriction really that bad?

It goes by county in California. The majority of counties with a sizable population do not issue them to common people.
The vast majority of the population in California live in those counties that do not issue.
This means most of the population cannot legally carry a firearm.
Huge expanses of California like the desert and both the eastern half and northern third of the state are sparsely populated. On a map these are most of the 'shall issue or likely to issue' parts of the state.
You can get a permit of your residence is in the places that typically have almost no jobs.
Even some of the sparsely populated areas are anti-gun. Take Imperial County for example, the one that borders Arizona and Mexico. They do not issue permits and it is mainly empty desert out there, with an entire county population smaller than a small-medium city on the coast. That is where they filmed the desert world and sand dunes in the first Star Wars to give you an example of the landscape.

Many counties in California are also huge compared to east coast and many other state standards. With some of the largest in the country.
So moving to live in one while working in another that has most of the jobs is not an easy task. Near the Bay Area the counties are the smallest so it can be easier there. In Southern California you are typically looking at impossible commutes.

[Bobson]

Weird. Idk what it is with anti-gun people. There's absolutely zero logic behind banning handguns. Anyone who wants to carry one can still do so with very little chance of being caught, even if its illegal. The scum of the Earth will still do it and use their guns for crimes. Why prevent good people from protecting themselves?

Its like they aren't even thinking about what bans actually do. Either that or they're just plain stupid.

[NavyLCDR]

A lousy analogy.

When Rosa Parks shook things up, her actions were lauded in editorials in major newspapers. Her cause was celebrated from pulpits in houses of worship across the country. There were demonstrations of support on college campus.

The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s was the culmination of 100+ years of abolitionist and civil rights activity. It had broad and deep support in the Eastern Intellectual, Media and Economic establishments and on college campuses around the country. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country. And acts of civil disobedience were celebrated in the major media outlets.

So, rights should only be fought for/exercised when there is large support for them? If we don't have the support of the majority, then I guess we need to throw our hands in the air and our guns in the scrap pile, because that is what the popular opinion is, right?

[Frank Ettin]

So, rights should only be fought for/exercised when there is large support for them? If we don't have the support of the majority, then I guess we need to throw our hands in the air and our guns in the scrap pile, because that is what the popular opinion is, right? Of course that's not right. But tactics need to be suitable and well calculated to be successful under the particular circumstances that obtain.

Every cause is a little different. Every situation is a little different. The political and cultural landscape changes. Just because something works for one issue doesn't mean the same method will work for another.

[9mmepiphany]

I just saw that California is a "May Issue" state. Is this restriction really that bad?
Actually it isn't...because while it allowed allows some counties to be Non-Issue, it also allows other counties to be Shall Issue. It also allows separate counties to be influenced individually through either elections or lawsuits.

Part of the ire raised by the UOC advocates is that this comes at a time when we are making large strides in forcing more counties into becoming Shall Issue ones...a large recent win was Sacramento, which had previously been a defacto non-issue county.

This recent bill may be a blessing is disguise as it does remove an excuse to limit CCW in the state

[Librarian]

Re: renumbering
We should preserve our history!I'm sympathetic - I have a lot of the numbers memorized - but it's far too late to complain.

I don't think the new numbering is any better. But the new numbers start with 16000 - see http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/ for a fairly easy to use set.

Note that a number of the sections are duplicated: one of each pair refers to old numbering, one to new. I expect the old-reference versions to go away in January.

And I have to go through the Calguns Foundation Wiki (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page) and update the PC references ....

[NavyLCDR]

Of course that's not right. But tactics need to be suitable and well calculated to be successful under the particular circumstances that obtain.

Every cause is a little different. Every situation is a little different. The political and cultural landscape changes. Just because something works for one issue doesn't mean the same method will work for another.

In this case the tactic chosen may have been highly successful. California government was walking an extremely thin Constitutional line. Pushing the government further over that line only increases the likelihood their laws will be declared unconstitutional. Big win for every gun owner, not just the open carry side.

And who cares if unloaded open carry is banned if you dare not open carry anyway for fear of the government? Which is better, banned by written statute or banned by fear of politicians? Written statute can be fought in court, fear of politicians can't.

[exavid]

Just one question fiddletown since you have so many qualifications and CCW permits from so many states, why don't you have a California permit in your list?

[jerkface11]

I like the suggestion that they shouldn't have exercised their right because it might encourage someone to take it away.

[Bobson]

Just a quick thought on this. I don't want to encourage anyone to break the law, but then again, I'm grateful to be living in a very low-crime part of northern Phoenix.

If I lived in a high-crime area though (Los Angeles, for example), I'm not entirely sure that a lack of a CCW permit would prevent me from carrying at least some sort of defensive tool, maybe even including a small-frame handgun. Like I said, I don't want to encourage anyone to break the law, but what are some thoughts on this?

LA (and other places throughout the country) has a lot of gang activity, and many of those guys are carrying guns whether its legal or not, and they put their guns to use fairly frequently. Does the law stop you from being equipped to protect yourself and your family when you leave home? I hate to say it, but honestly, I think I would carry a gun anyway. If worst came to worst, I'd rather see myself in prison than see my wife and daughter get hurt because pencil-pushers in DC decided I don't have the right to defend myself outside my home.

Edit:

And I've said it before, so I'll say it again here. I don't carry any weapon at all, ever, except for a small 3" folding pocketknife. I'm just thinking, if I lived in an area that would make me feel that carrying a handgun was critical...

[SharpsDressedMan]

I think Californians are ready to go all the way. They should just put up a new law, and all the pro-gunners join in, and just BAN ALL GUNS. Make them all illegal. NRA ought to encourage it, as a social experiment. We could sit back and watch and see if California becomes a "peaceful & model state", since they technically would outlaw all guns for civilians; no recreational guns, no self defense with guns, nothing. I figure about 2-3 years, and the MAJORITY of that state will wake up and stick together, and re-institute a working 2nd amendment. I think tht is the ONLY thing that will ever derail the anti-gunners in CA: just "give it to them". Hey, it worked for alcohol, right?

[Bobson]

Not a bad idea.

Then again, I don't live in California, so I wouldn't have to put up with what's sure to be two or three years of Hell on Earth.

[SharpsDressedMan]

Yeah, me either. :D

[Panzercat]

You know, looking over across the boarder from here in AZ, it's like watching an episode of the twilight zone. And it's a good thing they banned open carry without ammunition, because I hear the bad guys do that ALL THE TIME. :banghead:

[lloveless]

I lived and worked for 19 weeks in southern california in 2009. The people I worked with were pro gun and had sign up lists in the hospital for people wanting to go to the range on a particular date. The politicians coddle their gang bangers. They surely don't want a law abiding citizen to harm one of them. Kinda makes you wonder if the politicians aren't bought off with drug money. If you carried unloaded openly, you would be stopped and checked by the police.
ll

[Frank Ettin]

Just one question fiddletown since you have so many qualifications and CCW permits from so many states, why don't you have a California permit in your list? Because, as noted, California is "may issue", and the sheriff of the county in which I live does not, in general, issue concealed weapons permits.

In this case the tactic chosen may have been highly successful. California government was walking an extremely thin Constitutional line....That doesn't make the tactic successful. That wasn't the intention.

[danez71]

In this case the tactic chosen may have been highly successful. California government was walking an extremely thin Constitutional line....

That doesn't make the tactic successful. That wasn't the intention.


There is a 8 page thread going on right now at Calguns asking/telling people to NOT to start staging Unloaded Open Carrry of Rifles demonstrations.


Reason.... the unintended consequences associated with UOC of handguns.

[ForumSurfer]

There is a 8 page thread going on right now at Calguns asking/telling people to NOT to start staging Unloaded Open Carrry of Rifles demonstrations.


Reason.... the unintended consequences associated with UOC of handguns.

IF I were participating in demonstrations and the results ended as they have...I can see no reason why I would push the matter with rifles.

Having said that, I am all for open carry.

I belong to grass roots organizations here.

I really wish the open carry laws in MY state were more specific.

However, I don't see where these demonstrations are having a positive impact in legislature.

[NavyLCDR]

IF I were participating in demonstrations and the results ended as they have...I can see no reason why I would push the matter with rifles.

Why not? Should the citizen not continue to fight against government tyranny due to the loss of a single battle? The more that the "activists" (who are nothing more than citizens engaged in lawful activity) push the government to action, either positively or negatively, the better for all of us. The state government of California is going to do nothing but go backwards. They have come very, very close already to the previous Washington D.C. handgun ban. The closer the California government gets to the that, the closer they come to a US Supreme Court slapdown. We need the US Supreme Court slapdown to come as soon as possible, therefore it is a good thing to push the California State government as far as we possibly can as quickly as we can.

Everybody in California, grab your M-4s, SKSs, whatever rifles you have, sling them over your shoulders and head to Starbucks for coffee!

[Frank Ettin]

...Should the citizen not continue to fight against government tyranny due to the loss of a single battle? The more that the "activists" (who are nothing more than citizens engaged in lawful activity) push the government to action, either positively or negatively, the better for all of us....i'm sorry to see that you have such a poor grasp of political reality.

...Everybody in California, grab your M-4s, SKSs, whatever rifles you have, sling them over your shoulders and head to Starbucks for coffee!... Easy for you to say. You're up in Washington State and have no skin in this game.

[Ben86]

Everybody in California, grab your M-4s, SKSs, whatever rifles you have, sling them over your shoulders and head to Starbucks for coffee!

I really don't think that will help. All it will do is fuel the "Rambo" stereotype the leftist politicians are relying on to pass anti-gun laws.

Californians should do something that actually helps their cause for CC. Write your congressmen, get others one your side, put together petitions. Show them the decrease in crime in other states that have adopted shall issue CC permits. Walking around right now, shoving rifles in peoples faces is just going to work against you. Do something constructive. Now is a good opportunity.

[helitack32f1]

I just can't accept the 'hide in the closet and they won't notice us' type mentality. So if open carry is legal you shouldn't do it because it will draw attention to you doing it? I guess it doesn't really make a difference if a law is passed preventing it in the first place.
I wonder how long it would take to make carrying a baseball bat in public illegal in CA if folks decided to carry those now that they can't carry a firearm openly? A right denied is not a right but a privilege.

No one is arguing that you shouldn't exercise your right to open carry an unloaded and useless gun, what people are saying is don't go out and create fuss and call attention to it by having open carry days at Starbucks or wherever and drawing attention to such actions in a state that is basically hostile to gun ownership in the first place. Whether you like it or not, if people were just going about their business, open carrying their unloaded guns, no one would have had a fuss about it most likely. However, a bunch of idiots thought getting themselves some attention was better than keeping the rights they have left in a state that has little problem taking them away.

Simply put, if they had not done their activist thing, people would still be able to carry their useless unloaded guns wherever they wanted. (for attention? Why else carry an unloaded gun in full view?)

[MagnumDweeb]

Isn't Alan Gura fighting some big case in New York about their May Issue CCW permits. Bet he's laughing, all the way to the bank, about California. I'm a recent personal injury attorney(yes I've been to trial) and while it wasn't easy to get up to speed and win, I wonder how long it would take getting up to speed with Constitutional Law. Of course after that I'd have to become a member of the California Bar(pass their Bar Exam), and have a war chest or at least a regular income while I fought through years of red tape. And then you have the issue of California possibly claiming Attorney's Fees(can they do that on Constitutional matters?).

It's a heck of a long uphill battle for anyone. But California lost another right to the criminals and politicians(apologies if I repeated myself), it happened, let's admit it, and move on. The next battle, the battle a lot of folks may want in California is statewide "Shall Issue" without crazy hoops and nonsense. Energies may best be focused there I would think.

[danez71]

Why not? Should the citizen not continue to fight against government tyranny due to the loss of a single battle?

Sure they should. But dont you think it would be better to use a different tactic other than the same one that failed?

Didnt Ben Franklin say something like 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. ?!?!?

The more that the "activists" (who are nothing more than citizens engaged in lawful activity) push the government to action, either positively or negatively, the better for all of us

No... I disagree. Getting negative results is not something I think is "better" for me or all of us.

[El Mariachi]

Just had a mass killing about 10 miles down the road from us, in Seal Beach. Beauty salon. On PCH. Eight out of nine deceased. Ex-husband, child custody dispute, guy surrendered while wearing body armor and having multiple firearms in his car......and may have also been an ex-cop.

Very, very ungood.....

[SharpsDressedMan]

Gosh, ex-cop? That means he was previously backgrounded, maybe polygraphed, psych tested, interviewed several times, and passed all those things at least once. And a person can STILL go bad. Huh.

[Frank Ettin]

Gosh, ex-cop? That means he was previously backgrounded, maybe polygraphed, psych tested, interviewed several times, and passed all those things at least once. And a person can STILL go bad. Huh. Yep, but that doesn't help us. The predictable "anti-" response could be along the lines of, "if someone that thoroughly vetted can go off, how can we be expected to trust average people with guns?"

We need to focus on the fact that these sorts of things are really quite rare and that mass murders have been committed without guns.

[NavyLCDR]

What difference does it make if you have a right to do something or not, if you can't exercise the right due to fear of government repercussion? Don't open carry, or we'll make it illegal! So what? Either way, the right does you no good at all. This way, at least the California political system is one step closer to getting a US Supreme Court smack-down. It allows a person to fight against the government's oppression in court. That's a win. Instead of simply cowering under the threats of the government, which has NO chance of getting overturned in the courts.

Exactly, may I ask, what harm was done? In one case, the right was taken away by threat of action. In the present case the right is taken away by legislative action. I would prefer the right to be taken away be legislative action because that is something tangible that can be fought.

Does anyone honestly think that the situation would have gotten any better by coddling the anti-gun political machine in California?

[Frank Ettin]

...Does anyone honestly think that the situation would have gotten any better by coddling the anti-gun political machine in California? It's not a question of "coddling the anti-gun political machine." It's a question of fighting smart and to win (rather than just making noise and looking tough).

[NavyLCDR]

It's not a question of "coddling the anti-gun political machine." It's a question of fighting smart and to win (rather than just making noise and looking tough).

Exactly HOW was anybody supposed to "fight smart and win?" The Federal courts had already ruled that California's may issue permit system was lawful because California allowed unloaded open carry without a permit. That battle was already lost. What was left to fight?

[Frank Ettin]

Exactly HOW was anybody supposed to "fight smart and win?" The Federal courts had already ruled that California's may issue permit system was lawful because California allowed unloaded open carry without a permit. That battle was already lost. What was left to fight?Wow! I'm afraid you're just too out of touch. First, those federal court rulings were only trial court rulings. We've only just begun in the courts. And there's always things to be done in the political arena.

[NavyLCDR]

Wow! I'm afraid you're just too out of touch. First, those federal court rulings were only trial court rulings. We've only just begun in the courts. And there's always things to be done in the political arena.

You should be ecstatic. Your fight just got much easier.

[Librarian]

Exactly HOW was anybody supposed to "fight smart and win?" The Federal courts had already ruled that California's may issue permit system was lawful because California allowed unloaded open carry without a permit. That battle was already lost. What was left to fight?
That was Peruta (http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/), and Prieto (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Richards_v._Prieto#Status), and both are being appealed to the 9th.

As to the effect of AB 144 on those cases, well, it's only Wednesday, three days after it was signed. Personally, I'm going to wait to see what the lawyers do.

[Frank Ettin]

You should be ecstatic. Your fight just got much easier. Don't be absurd. It's obvious you're out of your depth here, and your opinions on matters of RKBA tactics are simply not worth paying attention to.

[NavyLCDR]

Don't be absurd. It's obvious you're out of your depth here, and your opinions on matters of RKBA tactics are simply not worth paying attention to.

You seem to pay an awful lot of attention to them. You still have failed to explain how the newly passed ban has hurt the court cases one bit. Nobody was set back in their RKBA "cause" at all. The only result has been that now there is something more that is real and tangible that can be fought in court.

[Frank Ettin]

...Nobody was set back in their RKBA "cause" at all. The only result has been that now there is something more that is real and tangible that can be fought in court. We had something real and tangible to fight in court. AB144 was a distraction, and we were required to waste time, effort and resources dealing with it. We've gotten a fair amount of bad press and negative public perception from it as well. And the anti-gun forces have been able to make some political capital.

[TexasBill]

Starbucks and group demonstrations were not the point. But individual OC had become very risky in many parts of California, due to the way law enforcement officers were told to handle it by district attorneys (often in writing).

Maximum hostility seems to have been the rule: treating lawful open carry as probable cause; approaching the open carrier aggressively with drawn weapons; creating maximum public humiliation. I seem to recall one cop's statement that he would "prone out" an open carrier and basically do a SWAT exercise on the unfortunate person.

In other words, long before this new legislation was proposed, California law enforcement was using fear to discourage citizens from exercising their rights. But I guess this is okay? They shouldn't have been exercising them in the first place.

Rosa Parks endured arrest, booking and conviction; she lost her job and eventually had to leave Montgomery. What most people don't know is that Parks was actually sitting in the black section of the bus. She was not violating any law. The bus driver ran short of seats for whites and moved the sign that divided the bus, leaving her in the new whites-only section. That was when Parks decided she had had enough, refused to move and the bus driver had her arrested. In other words, Rosa Parks didn't violate the rules until the rules were arbitrarily changed.

California open carriers banded together to make police-initiated hostile confrontations more difficult. When they congregated at Starbucks, the coffee chain was pressured to deny them service, something the antis figured would be no problem. Starbucks declined to ban the open carriers, saying it would not become involved in a legal controversy. The sheer effrontery of Starbucks got the antis all bent out of shape; a "boycott Starbucks" campaign began; Starbucks, to it credit, held its corporate ground.

The open-carriers broke no laws. There was never a threat to public safety and the only disruption to public order was the repressive activities of government agencies. But in the last session of the California Assembly, former legislator Lori Saldana, a Democrat from San Diego, introduced Assembly Bill 1934 that would make open carry of an unloaded firearm illegal.

Saldana's bill never made it and she was forced out of office by term limits. So Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, a Democrat from La Cañada Flintridge in Los Angeles County, reintroduced the measure as Assembly Bill 144. This is the legislation that Governor Brown signed. Had it been Arnold Schwarzenegger, the outcome would likely have been the same; he signed new firearms restrictions during his term in office.

According to Portantino, "This law will safeguard families confronted by pistol-packing gun enthusiasts and will shield law enforcement personnel from tense situations where they don’t know if the gun is loaded or unloaded."

This was a law passed in response to exactly nothing except hysteria. There was, to my knowledge, never a case of a family "confronted by pistol-packing gun enthusiasts" and the only tension in the law enforcement situations was created, on purpose, by law enforcement. Existing California law already gave an LEO the authority to check if an openly carried firearm was loaded and no open carrier ever resisted the check.

And yet some here blame those who exercised their rights. By that standard, Rosa Parks really should have moved; Ezell Blair, Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, and David Richmond really should have left the Woolworth's lunch counter after being refused service in February 1960; Starbucks really should have caved in.

But how is one going to exercise the legal right to open carry, possibly the only way most Californians could legally carry a handgun? By it's vary nature, open carry is visible. Sort of like being black in South in the 1950s and 1960s. If citizens don't open carry because of intimidation, what good is the right?

I certainly hope this law will generate lots of legal challenges to any number of ridiculous California laws and court decisions.

[danez71]

The only result has been that now there is something more that is real and tangible that can be fought in court.

No. The only result was UOC was made illegal.

There isnt any courts that have decided to hear a case that hasnt been made yet.

Lets not get too far ahead of ourselves with pure speculation.

TexasBill said:
This was a law passed in response to exactly nothing except hysteria.

And he's right.

The image of gun owners has been further tarnished.

Voters vote on what the perceive to be good.

The demonstrators actions were not received well.

The demonstrators actions just lost the votes of the fence sitters.



I can not say "well done" to that.

If a lawyer can fix what the activits did to themselves.... then I'll say "well done" to the lawyer.



Side note: Without having lived there for a considerable amount of time hinders peoples ability to understand the social and political climate. Ca isnt DC... its not WI etc etc.

Tactics that may have worked in the 60's/70's doesnt mean they will work in 2011 and in the furture.

Even the military changes their tactics.

The military has even changed its tactics in regards to PERCEPTION.

[NavyLCDR]

So gun owners should only act in ways acceptable, or at least tolerable, to the anti-gun crowd?

[Frank Ettin]

...This was a law passed in response to exactly nothing except hysteria....Yest, that's true. And it is indeed sometimes the case that laws are passed in response to irrational fears of the body politic. But nonetheless, the law becomes the law, and we must all live with it.

And in this case, we (RKBA advocates) caused the hysteria, the hysteria was predictable, and UOC advocates were advised by more mainstream RKBA groups that their tactics were likely to cause and undesirable, hysterical public reaction.

...And yet some here blame those who exercised their rights. By that standard, Rosa Parks really should have moved; Ezell Blair, Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, and David Richmond really should have left the Woolworth's lunch counter after being refused service in February 1960;... I'm sorry that you don't get it, but the differences between the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s has been explained. The fact that one set of tactics may have been suitable for one cause under one set of circumstances does not mean those tactics are likely to be productive for another cause under other circumstances.

So gun owners should only act in ways acceptable, or at least tolerable, to the anti-gun crowd? Anyone desiring to achieve a political result should act in ways well calculated to achieve that result.

[NavyLCDR]

Anyone desiring to achieve a political result should act in ways well calculated to achieve that result.

Or maybe they were just citizens exercising what little rights their government had not stripped them of yet.

[Frank Ettin]

Or maybe they were just citizens exercising what little rights their government had not stripped them of yet. But in fact, in this case, they weren't. These were organized UOC demonstrations. The organizers intended to influence public opinion, and they so stated publicly. They thought they would have an overall positive effect on public opinion, but they were wrong.

[ForumSurfer]

So gun owners should only act in ways acceptable, or at least tolerable, to the anti-gun crowd?

No.

But let's look at the demonstrations objectively.

Looking through this post and many others on other forums, the demonstrations had a negative impact on many people who are pro-2a. Many people who were sitting on the fence viewed the demonstrations as over the top or with some other negative connotations.

If I am trying to rally people to a cause, I don't think I would do it by a means that alienates all but my most core supporters.

Now California has a new law for the grass roots people and their lawyers to fight. Now money has to be diverted to the new law AND the existing laws. I just think it is a step in the wrong direction and a waste of resources.

That being said, things aren't AS bad here an I don't have a dog in this fight.

Disclaimer:
I fully support open carry. I have open carried, and I'm pretty sure I will again. I have my ccw and I prefer to carry that way. I ama member of a couple of grass roots organizations and other organizations that help the 2a cause nationwide and in my state. I support them with donations for membership. Even though I do exercise my right to open carry from time to time, I would never do it in a mass open carry demonstration. If I was open carrying and bumped into one of these demonstrations accidentally, I would distance myself. I just haven't seen any positive impact from these demonstrations.

[ForumSurfer]

Or maybe they were just citizens exercising what little rights their government had not stripped them of yet.

But in fact, in this case, they weren't. These were organized UOC demonstrations. The organizers intended to influence public opinion, and they so stated publicly. They thought they would have an overall positive effect on public opinion, but they were wrong.

I find myself agreeing with fiddletown. They weren't just walking down the street exercising their right while going to the store. It was a demonstration, often with a stated agenda. The results aren't what they intended, but the results are what they are. I would think that a different method of supporting the cause is in order.

[lloveless]

I still think that it will play out well, because now they can further the concealed carry agenda of shall issue since there is now no other way to defend oneself from the criminal element.
ll

[NavyLCDR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2ySJOsDSH8

:D

Don't exercise your rights, boys, dontcha know the man will beat you down if you do! It's better to have a right that you can't exercise because the government will take it away, than to actually have the government take it away, right?

[splithoof]

At this point, one aspect should be covered: California does NOT have any "shall issue" counties, cities, etc. While it is true that some counties/cities/agencies are much more receptive to CCW issuance, NONE of them are REQUIRED to issue by law to the average citizen. ANY of them can still DENY a permit with no reason given, no return of fees, no explanation. That is the reality.

[splithoof]

I predict that open carry of rifles and shotguns will be banned here next. The legislator from La Canada will draft a near identical ordnance to cover it, most of us will scream and cry, then the current (or future) gov will sign it. The local L.E. will be glad to enforce it and send even more firearms to the furnace. The open carry folks make up such a small segment that they are easily looked upon as a fringe element that can be swept away with a few more laws. With recent incidents involving mass murder, their timing couldn't be worse.

[NavyLCDR]

I predict that open carry of rifles and shotguns will be banned here next. The legislator from La Canada will draft a near identical ordnance to cover it, most of us will scream and cry, then the current (or future) gov will sign it. The local L.E. will be glad to enforce it and send even more firearms to the furnace. The open carry folks make up such a small segment that they are easily looked upon as a fringe element that can be swept away with a few more laws.

I absolutely agree.

With recent incidents involving mass murder, their timing couldn't be worse.

I absolutely disagree. The more that government infringes upon rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the greater the chance of winning in court vice merely whining in court. In addition, should it not be the exact time for law abiding citizens to arm themselves when crime IS running rampant due to government's inability to do anything meaningful about it? If these people WAIT for the California government to tell them it's OK for them to open carry rifles, they will be waiting a long, long time.

[splithoof]

I believe that right now is NOT a good time because down here many legislative attempts are driven by high emotion, and timing is everything. Many (if not most) folks down here don't care about open carry, but they do get very upset when they see a news bite of a memorial to victims of some crazy nut with a gun, followed by a bunch of guys standing around some public place slinging rifles to try to make some point. I think it just won't help us.
Many urban and city folks in California are terrified by the sight of armed citizens because they are not used to it. They worry about one of the open carry guys going in and doing something stupid just like this last idiot did. They don't know the difference between who is good and who is not, they just see a gun and panic. Yes, crime is running rampant, but let's not scare the average citizen to the point they join the other side.

[NavyLCDR]

Other than a good court ruling, I don't think anything will help California.

[splithoof]

A good court ruling, positive gun-owner image, factual unbiased education, a more conservative legislature, and better behavior by California's gun owning public will help us more than any group of guys standing around a street corner scaring unknowing folks with their rifles.

[danez71]

I absolutely disagree.


Unfortunately... you're not a CA legislator. You're also not a CA voter.



Other than a good court ruling, I don't think anything will help California.


And here, IMO, lies the biggest problem.

Criticize and pass the buck for someone else to determine your future.

Why would anyone want to leave that up to paid lawyers who'll represent anyone or any cause that pays them and to a judge that is either appointed (wolf guarding the chicken coup) or voted in by the same people that voted for some of the same legislators that just took more of their rights?!?!?

The reason; people dont want to make the commitment.... They just want to complain. They just want to protest.

And look at what that got them.



People can say in hindsight things like "the more they infringe our rights the easier it will be for us to win in court".


But the fact that none of the people prostesting were saying before the protests "hey, lets scare everyone into taking more of our right so that we can win in court at a later date" is proof enough that their tactics failed.

[NavyLCDR]

And what would YOU suggest that people do, danez71?

[nigmalg]

I think I understand..

Clearly criminals started carrying openly. They must have been using this legal method of carry to get closer to their victims where they would commit awful acts of violence.

I mean California only banned this loophole because criminals were abusing it, right? They wouldn't possibly ban something that hurt nobody.

[9mmepiphany]

I think I understand..

Clearly criminals started carrying openly. They must have been using this legal method of carry to get closer to their victims where they would commit awful acts of violence.

I mean California only banned this loophole because criminals were abusing it, right? They wouldn't possibly ban something that hurt nobody.
I realize that you are referring to the most recent bill, but that was exactly the reasoning that we lost Open Carry in CA in 1967

For some reason, they didn't think the Black Panther Party members should be able to avail themselves of the 2nd Amendment rights to openly carry loaded guns for self-defense

[splithoof]

After watching that video, I can see him being shot by police. Try that in downtown Los Angeles, and he wouldn't get two steps before "sudden movements" earn him a lead ticket. If those folks cause open carry of rifles and shotguns to be banned, who knows how that might play out with hunters on public lands. Then what will they do? Open carry of boomerangs?

[exavid]

Hey splithoof - Good luck on that conservative legislature. In California.

[danez71]

And what would YOU suggest that people do, danez71?

1st, Id suggest NOT using the same tactics that have been proven to fail.

2nd, Id suggest realizing that assembling large, chanting, groups of armed people may not come across very well to the bulk of the people.

3rd, Id suggest advancing the cause will be better served by not alienating the public.

4th Id suggest, coming up with ways to convince the fence sitters because they have the swing votes.

5th Id suggest other 2A supporters from other states help rather than poke fun on the internet which serves no one, or the cause well.

[aeriedad]

1st, Id suggest NOT using the same tactics that have been proven to fail.

2nd, Id suggest realizing that assembling large, chanting, groups of armed people may not come across very well to the bulk of the people.

3rd, Id suggest advancing the cause will be better served by not alienating the public.

4th Id suggest, coming up with ways to convince the fence sitters because they have the swing votes.

5th Id suggest other 2A supporters from other states help rather than poke fun on the internet which serves no one, or the cause well.

None of your suggestions indicate a specific action to accomplish the goal of restoring RKBA to Californians. While I'm not sure Navy's suggested course of action will be very effective in that regard, I admire his bold stand on principle: Declining to exercise one's rights out of fear that Big Brother may take them away is not that different from not having those rights at all.

Your five so-called suggestions really just reflect your opposition to Navy's proposals. After reading your suggestions, one might conclude that it's better just to wait for the political climate to spontaneously reverse itself. While I don't support everything Navy has suggested, I agree with him that rights must always be guarded--and sometimes fought for. Inaction = Defeat.

I don't recall NavyLCDR proposing "assembling large, chanting, groups of armed people" in a way likely to intimidate the public, but if he did I would agree that would be a mistake.

Instead of saying, essentially, "You're wrong," maybe you could suggest the large assembly of armed people engage in friendly conversation with as many citizens as possible. Maybe produce some fliers and hand them out everywhere, explaining to folks in the park, at Starbucks, on city streets, grocery stores, shopping centers, etc. that lawful gun owners are no threat to any but the bad guys in our society.

This bare outline of a course of action answers the first four of your so-called suggestions. As for your fifth suggestion, I think I've just demonstrated that you also are not serving the cause very well by tearing apart NavyLCDR's bold proposals. I also don't agree with everything Navy has said on this topic, and too much "in-your-face" activism does turn people off to our cause, but that doesn't mean we should voluntarily relinquish our rights while we still have them. If you don't like someone's suggestions, dismissing them out of hand is less helpful than examining them for what value they may have and offering refinements where possible.

[NavyLCDR]

Instead of saying, essentially, "You're wrong," maybe you could suggest the large assembly of armed people engage in friendly conversation with as many citizens as possible. Maybe produce some fliers and hand them out everywhere, explaining to folks in the park, at Starbucks, on city streets, grocery stores, shopping centers, etc. that lawful gun owners are no threat to any but the bad guys in our society.

And that is EXACTLY what we have done in Washington state, usually in response to a violation of some gun carrier's rights by the police. We set up an OpenCarry.org banner in a park with an information table where we have a picnic, openly carrying our firearms, and at the table we talk to people and hand out flyers. We normally run about 80% positive/20% negative reactions.

[aeriedad]

^^ +1 NavyLCDR

[NavyLCDR]

^^ +1 NavyLCDR

Except in California we would be called open carry political activists solely responsible for the banning of unloaded open carry...

[Frank Ettin]

Except in California we would be called open carry political activists solely responsible for the banning of unloaded open carry... But that in fact was the result of their UOC demonstrations. Or do you contend that the enactment by the California Legislature of AB144 was completely independent of the activities of the open carry political activists here?

[aeriedad]

But that in fact was the result of their UOC demonstrations. Or do you contend that the enactment by the California Legislature of AB144 was completely independent of the activities of the open carry political activists here?

Right. The legislature responds to citizens' lawful exercise of their rights by changing the law. Think about that: Rights vs. Law.

I think this is EXACTLY why NavyLCDR contends that nothing but a favorable court ruling will reverse things in CA. Probably 70% of Californians don't care much about the issue one way or another. The rest either strongly support or strongly oppose RKBA, with most of the energy siding with the opposition. In any case, the legislature has been fubar'd a long time and probably will never again be friendly on RKBA issues. Winning in court is all that's left. While I agree that's not the strategy you want to start the game with, that's the state of things now...score TD, onside kick, Hail Mary...

I lived in CA for about five years in the late '80s and early 90's. Thought it was bad then, but I think it would seem a foreign country to me now.

[Frank Ettin]

Right. The legislature responds to citizens' lawful exercise of their rights by changing the law. Think about that: Rights vs. Law.It happens all the time and has been happening throughout history. People do legal things that other people find obnoxious, and if those other people have the political clout what was once legal becomes illegal.

...I think this is EXACTLY why NavyLCDR contends that nothing but a favorable court ruling will reverse things in CA... And those of us who have lived in California all our lives are grateful to you folks who don't live here and apparently have very little knowledge of how things are here, and who have no "skin in the game", telling us how to attend to our business.

[hatt]

Probably 70% of Californians don't care much about the issue one way or another. The rest either strongly support or strongly oppose RKBA,
Yep. And exposing that indifferent majority to armed citizens is a good thing for the future of gun Rights. Not a lot ever gets accomplished hiding in a closet.

[Frank Ettin]

Probably 70% of Californians don't care much about the issue one way or another. The rest either strongly support or strongly oppose RKBA,
Yep. And exposing that indifferent majority to armed citizens is a good thing for the future of gun Rights. Not a lot ever gets accomplished hiding in a closet. But in fact, historically it has not done so. Exposing the indifferent majority to armed citizens in a way obnoxious to the indifferent majority has actually resulted in a loss of gun rights.

It did so in Florida in 1987 (http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?46-Open-Carry-in-Florida&p=201#post201) when open carry was made illegal.

It did so in California in 1967 when openly carrying a loaded gun in public was made illegal.

It did so in California in 2011 when openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public was made illegal.

[NavyLCDR]

But that in fact was the result of their UOC demonstrations. Or do you contend that the enactment by the California Legislature of AB144 was completely independent of the activities of the open carry political activists here?

The poeple of California exercised their right in a manner in which the California Legislature did not approve of, so the California Legislature banned the exercise of that right by statute.

Prior to the statute being enacted, the right to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public in California was already de facto banned under the threat of legislative action. In simple terms, "If you do this legal activity we will pass a law against it!" Nothing could be done about that de facto ban in court because an unwritten threat by Government can very rarely ever be challenged in court. In fact, the very lack of a statute banning unloaded open carry was what kept the existing RTKBA court cases against the California may issue CCW system from succeeding.

Regarding the ban of unloaded open carry of handguns in California, the ONLY thing that has changed is now the ban is written in statute, whereas before it only existed as a threat. Once again, and I know it is impossible for you to see this, a right that a citizen cannot exercise under threat of government intervention is not a right. It is a police state.

Now the roadblock that previously existed in the RTKBA court cases against California (the ability to lawfully carry an unloaded handgun) has been removed by the California legislature.

[Frank Ettin]

The poeple of California exercised their right in a manner in which the California Legislature did not approve of, so the California Legislature banned the exercise of that right by statute.

Prior to the statute being enacted, the right to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public in California was already de facto banned under the threat of legislative action. In simple terms, "If you do this legal activity we will pass a law against it!" Nothing could be done about that de facto ban in court because an unwritten threat by Government can very rarely ever be challenged in court. In fact, the very lack of a statute banning unloaded open carry was what caused the existing RTKBA court cases against the California may issue CCW system from succeeding....What drivel.

[1] It's not a question of the California Legislature not approving something. It's a question of the Legislature responding to the perceived wishes of constituents.

[2] Unloaded open carry was not "de facto banned under the threat of legislative action." Folks did it from time to time. The issue arose only when political activists attempted to use it as a tactic to influence public opinion. Any legal activity is subject to the threat of legislative action if enough people find the activity obnoxious.

[3] As far as the court rulings suggesting the unloaded open carry was a suitable substitute for "shall issue" CCW, that's a fine example of the unloaded open carry folks being "hoist on their own petard." Unloaded open carry proponents were vociferously touting unloaded open carry as an effective means of carrying a gun for self defense and appropriate for that purpose as the only available option under California law.

In fact, the utility of unloaded open carry for self defense is highly questionable. Nonetheless, because the unloaded open carry folks were promoting it as a viable option, the court threw it in our face.

[aeriedad]

It happens all the time and has been happening throughout history. People do legal things that other people find obnoxious, and if those other people have the political clout what was once legal becomes illegal.

Oh. I thought RKBA was about rights, not just a matter of what is legal vs. illegal.

Once upon a time a number of Americans rose up in revolution against an empire because they wanted the right to representation in the political body that kept raising their taxes. They should have just realized they were talking about law instead of rights and avoided so much unpleasantness.

Some 85 years later a bunch of Americans decided ALL Americans had the right to be free, which resulted in more unpleasantness. Again, if the Union could have only understood that states had laws to permit slavery, think of all the unpleasantness they could have avoided.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I figure the obnoxiousness of an activity is not quite so relevant when it comes to rights. A lot of Americans found the activities of Martin Luther King pretty obnoxious. Can we reinstate segregation with a law, or would we need to repeal a few amendments first? Or maybe just the Civil Rights Act?

Why is the 2nd Amenment any different? I guess I just see it as a matter of rights, not merely law.

What happens in CA can have wide-ranging effects, which is why some non-residents speak up here. The 9th Circuit is not friendly on 2A issues, and one more change on SCOTUS will tip the balance there as well.

[hatt]

But in fact, historically it has not done so. Exposing the indifferent majority to armed citizens in a way obnoxious to the indifferent majority has actually resulted in a loss of gun rights.

It did so in Florida in 1987 (http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?46-Open-Carry-in-Florida&p=201#post201) when open carry was made illegal.

It did so in California in 1967 when openly carrying a loaded gun in public was made illegal.

It did so in California in 2011 when openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public was made illegal.
So you're saying there was some significant anti-open carry sentiment being expressed by citizens? Or was it the politicians acting on their own or at the request of small special interest groups?

[hatt]

In fact, the utility of unloaded open carry for self defense is highly questionable. Nonetheless, because the unloaded open carry folks were promoting it as a viable option, the court threw it in our face.
Which side are you playing? Now you're pointing out that the crazy open carry activists have actually gotten something meaningful done like getting the sole "viable option" taken away. Which could possibly lead to viable court challenges and sensible new rules being implemented.

[NavyLCDR]

So you're saying there was some significant anti-open carry sentiment being expressed by citizens? Or was it the politicians acting on their own or at the request of small special interest groups?

I think he answered your question in his post:

[1] It's not a question of the California Legislature not approving something. It's a question of the Legislature responding to the perceived wishes of constituents.

[Frank Ettin]

Oh. I thought RKBA was about rights, not just a matter of what is legal vs. illegal. ...In the real world, if what you claim is a right has been made illegal by a legislature, your calling it a right isn't going to do you any good unless you get a court to agree and toss out the law.

...Once upon a time a number of Americans rose up in revolution against an empire because they wanted the right to representation in the political body that kept raising their taxes. They should have just realized they were talking about law instead of rights and avoided so much unpleasantness.

Some 85 years later a bunch of Americans decided ALL Americans had the right to be free, which resulted in more unpleasantness. Again, if the Union could have only understood that states had laws to permit slavery, think of all the unpleasantness they could have avoided.... So are you now suggesting armed rebellion?

...Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I figure the obnoxiousness of an activity is not quite so relevant when it comes to rights. A lot of Americans found the activities of Martin Luther King pretty obnoxious. Can we reinstate segregation with a law, or would we need to repeal a few amendments first? Or maybe just the Civil Rights Act? ... The various sociological and political differences between the circumstances of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, and why the tactics that worked then aren't necessarily appropriate for our particular civil rights movement have been discussed. Among other things, we have nothing like the support of the mainstream media, the support on college campuses and the support from church pulpits across the nation that the Civil Rights Movement had. Nor do we have a leader with anything like the charisma of a MLK. These differences make a big difference in what tactics might prove effective, or counterproductive, for furthering the RKBA.

...What happens in CA can have wide-ranging effects, which is why some non-residents speak up here. The 9th Circuit is not friendly on 2A issues, and one more change on SCOTUS will tip the balance there as well. That would be fine if they know what they're talking about and have something meaningful to contribute.

[Frank Ettin]

So you're saying there was some significant anti-open carry sentiment being expressed by citizens? Or was it the politicians acting on their own or at the request of small special interest groups?
Sufficient anti-open carry sentiment that legislators have concluded that by supporting anti-open carry legislation they further their chances of staying in office.

[PolymathPioneer]

Necessitas legem non habet.

[Librarian]

An analogy - first acknowledging that all analogies are faulty to some degree.

California has very strong 'vehicles must yield to pedestrians' laws; there are regular 'stings', so to speak, where a police agent steps out into a crosswalk to test whether drivers will stop and yield the right of way; citations are issued to drivers who fail to yield.

'Unloaded Open Carry', when exercised by folks merely going about their business, is like stepping out into a crosswalk. You know you're right; the law is on your side; the drivers/folks around you know what they are supposed to do.

An 'open carry event' is more like stepping out into that crosswalk, even though you see the traffic coming and you know they do not have a safe distance to stop. The law is the same; the rights are still apportioned as before. But a bad result is predictable, if not certain.

I think a very significant difference between California and, say, Washington State (http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx) is this:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
California has no such protection to base a defense upon (since I'm not from Washington, I cannot say how useful it has been there).

I think it true that until we have a Federal decision or two that compels California to act as if it had that protection in its own constitution - that Macdonald v Chicago means something, and that 'something' is better defined - the California Legislature will continue to act in the ways it has become accustomed to in the last 50 years. Those are bad ways, ways violative of rights that are better protected in other jurisdictions.

[splithoof]

I like the analogy Librarian.

[danez71]

None of your suggestions indicate a specific action to accomplish the goal of restoring RKBA to Californians.

I don't recall NavyLCDR proposing "assembling large, chanting, groups of armed people" in a way likely to intimidate the public, but if he did I would agree that would be a mistake.


This bare outline of a course of action answers the first four of your so-called suggestions.

I didnt realize I was required to lay out a complete step by step guide.

I never accused NavyLCDR of proposing any such thing. I mearly pointed out that the majority of the public doesnt feel comfortable with that.

GREAT!!! See how easy that was! NOW TELL ME WHY didnt the chanting armed people come up with those ideas?!?!?



And that is EXACTLY what we have done in Washington state, usually in response to a violation of some gun carrier's rights by the police. We set up an OpenCarry.org banner in a park with an information table where we have a picnic, openly carrying our firearms, and at the table we talk to people and hand out flyers. We normally run about 80% positive/20% negative reactions.


Great! I applaud you.

But that isnt what they did in CA. They did the same thing, in the same state, that had similar negative results.


Probably 70% of Californians don't care much about the issue one way or another. The rest either strongly support or strongly oppose RKBA, with most of the energy siding with the opposition.


So please explain the logic in purposefully coming across in any negative way to that 70% ?


I lived in CA for about five years in the late '80s and early 90's.

I lived there from the 60's through most of the 2000's. Whats your point?


What happens in CA can have wide-ranging effects, which is why some non-residents speak up here. The 9th Circuit is not friendly on 2A issues, and one more change on SCOTUS will tip the balance there as well.

I agree about CA influence to the rest of the country.

But the PRIME example that proves your statement wrong as to why out of CA state people chime in is in this very thread.

Some people have nice, informative park gatherings to try to educate the 70% (your #) of the fence sitting public.

Those same people then support & encourage Californians to stage puplic protests while carrying weapons which has proven to have negative results.

So I disagree. Thats NOT why most out of CA state people speak up in these threads. They speak up to try to put down one state to make their state, and where they live, seem better.

If the out of state people wanted to help, they would quit promoting failed tactics.


I feel fiddletowns pain with the 'no skin in the game' and 'dont tell us how to tend to our business' comments.

[aeriedad]

In the real world, if what you claim is a right has been made illegal by a legislature, your calling it a right isn't going to do you any good unless you get a court to agree and toss out the law.

It's not a right because I claim it is, and if your legislature can take it away, then they can do anything they like. In the real world, a lot of people just move to states where their rights are recognized as such. I agree that your RKBA now depends on favorable court decisions since CA's citizens clearly prefer legislatures and executives so hostile to the 2nd Amendment. You are correct that calling it a right doesn't do any good as long as your government refuses to recognize it as such. Re-establishing RKBA in CA isn't going to happen in my lifetime, but developments there can still affect the rest of America.

So are you now suggesting armed rebellion?

Not at all. Both the American Revolution and the Civil War were debated--more or less peacefully--for decades. Legislative remedies were explored, but ultimately failed. Armed conflict was not the preferred solution, but proved to be necessary if freedom were to be achieved. Although the Civil Rights Movement succeeded without the same scale of open conflict, MLK and his followers were no less committed to their cause than George Washington or Abe Lincoln were committed to theirs. CA's options now seem to be along these lines:

1. Elect 2A-friendly legislature and executive
2. Win one or more important 2A court cases
3. Civil disobedience

If all of those efforts continue to fail long enough, you will have to choose between:

4. Armed rebellion
5. Learn to live without your RKBA

In this regard, your situation is not so different than Americans of the 1770s, 1860s or 1950s & '60s. Of course, since we ARE talking about arms here, and the state is powerful, I doubt option 4 has any chance of success. It would be no more appropriate today than it would have been for the Civil Rights Movement. I would also agree that civil disobedience is unlikely to be very productive, but not necessarily that it is entirely useless. Trying to be a "silent majority" can't work unless you are actually in the majority. You must do something to keep RKBA in public view. Of course you don't want to be too "in-your-face" about your activism, but you must make it clear that people's rights are being infringed. Hiding your guns seems mostly unproductive here.

That would be fine if they know what they're talking about and have something meaningful to contribute.

Great. Who is the arbiter on what is a meaningful contribution to the RKBA of our fellow Americans?

[9mmepiphany]

Who is the arbiter on what is a meaningful contribution to the RKBA of our fellow Americans?

I CA it would be the Californians...the folks who have the best understanding of what tactics will work in the state and who have the most to lose

[aeriedad]

I CA it would be the Californians...the folks who have the best understanding of what tactics will work in the state and who have the most to lose

I got tired of losing and live elsewhere now. Compared to about 46 other states, there's not much in the way of RKBA left for CA to lose.

[NavyLCDR]

Let's look at it this way, shall we? California enacted it's discretionary issue permit law in 1917. Since then there has been no positive movement in the California Legislature regarding firearms rights.

So, now we say that the open carry activists have failed? Can I ask exactly what has worked since 1917?

[danez71]

CA's options now seem to be along these lines:

1. Elect 2A-friendly legislature and executive
2. Win one or more important 2A court cases
3. Civil disobedience

.....

You must do something to keep RKBA in public view. Of course you don't want to be too "in-your-face" about your activism, but you must make it clear that people's rights are being infringed. Hiding your guns seems mostly unproductive here.

.......

Great. Who is the arbiter on what is a meaningful contribution to the RKBA of our fellow Americans?



Funny... or not so... That you listed civil disobedience 3rd BUT that is what is commonly promoted by out of CA state people.

......

I agree. But it was in the in your face tactic they used and were warned not to use because of the proven failure of said tactic. I also mostly agree with your statement that hiding your guns in "unproductive". However, what they did was counter productive.

......

Thats a great question that has no black/white answer. But I think it should be sufficient to say that those with the most intimate knowledge and has the most to gain or lose carries more weight than those that are far removed from the situation and get their information 2nd/3rd/4th hand.

But since it probably wont be sufficient, we can set up a poll and ask:
"Is condoning/promoting failed tactics a meaningful contribution to the RBKA?"

[Frank Ettin]

...Both the American Revolution and the Civil War were debated--more or less peacefully--for decades. Legislative remedies were explored, but ultimately failed. Armed conflict was not the preferred solution, but proved to be necessary if freedom were to be achieved. Although the Civil Rights Movement succeeded without the same scale of open conflict, MLK and his followers were no less committed to their cause than George Washington or Abe Lincoln were committed to theirs....Fine, but so what? What does any of that have to do with furthering the RKBA under the societal conditions that now obtain?

...CA's options now seem to be along these lines:

1. Elect 2A-friendly legislature and executive
2. Win one or more important 2A court cases
3. Civil disobedience...Very nice, but you misunderstand the purposes, uses and effects of civil disobedience.

During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, civil disobedience, as favorably reported by the mainstream media, and as favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helped generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.

How has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates? Where have there been any great outpourings of sympathy for the plight of gun owners, especially from non-gun owners -- as whites showed sympathy for the plight of non-whites during the days of the Civil Rights Movement? Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post lauding the courage of gun owners in their resistance to the oppression of anti-gun prejudice? Who has heard a pro-gun rights sermon in his church? Where are the pro-gun rights rallies on college campuses? Where are non-gun owners joining with gun owners in pro-gun rights demonstrations, just as whites joined with non-whites in marches and demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement?

So far, gun rights demonstrations have largely encouraged fear, anger and contempt from the mainstream media and the public at large. Such demonstrations have not helped elect pro-gun rights politicians, rather they have helped build support for anti-gun rights politicians.

Yes we want to help elect pro-2A legislators and executives. Civil disobedience will not further that goal. But building a positive public image for gun owners might. We need to be good ambassadors for gun owners and help build and image of gun owners as sober, rational, intelligent, responsible, and active participants in the affairs of our communities.

And we need to introduce new people to shooting.

[exavid]

From the Oregon State Constitution: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power [.]" [125] Although half the sentence is about controlling the military, Oregon courts have always construed the state constitution to protect the bearing of arms, including those suitable for militia purposes, as well as those unsuitable for the militia but useful for personal defense, such as black jacks and knives.
From both Arizona and Washington State Constitutions: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

So what does the California Constitution say on the matter?

[Frank Ettin]

...So what does the California Constitution say on the matter?Nothing helpful. There is no RKBA provision in the California Constitution.

[splithoof]

How hard would it be to get the California Constitution ammended to include some positive RKBA provision?

[Frank Ettin]

How hard would it be to get the California Constitution ammended to include some positive RKBA provision? Pretty much a non-starter at this point.

[1] Getting the petition signatures necessary to qualify it for the ballot would be very expensive and uncertain.

[2] There's a good chance there is not sufficient public support for such a proposition to win.

[3] A failure at the ballot box would reinforce the view that the people of the State of California are generally antagonistic to the RKBA.

[Warp]

How hard would it be to get the California Constitution ammended to include some positive RKBA provision?

Literally impossible.

[splithoof]

In that case (in which the above reasons seem very logical and relevant to our climate) I will stick with my earlier thought on post # 99.

[aeriedad]

Fine, but so what? What does any of that have to do with furthering the RKBA under the societal conditions that now obtain?

The American Revolution and Civil War are relevant because it demonstrates the lengths to which some were willing to go to secure freedom. They didn't jump into armed conflict carelessly, but ultimately nothing else was going to succeed. I refer to these here because think CA's RKBA unlikely to ever be restored.

Originally Posted by aeriedad
...CA's options now seem to be along these lines:

1. Elect 2A-friendly legislature and executive
2. Win one or more important 2A court cases
3. Civil disobedience
4. Armed rebellion
5. Learn to live without your RKBA

Option 1 has failed and is going to continue to fail.
Option 2 is the only peaceful hope for restoring CA's RKBA
Option 3 isn't working in the traditional sense, but if you want to succeed with options 1 & 2, you need something to provide the effect that civil disobedience had on the civil rights movement.
Option 4 must be avoided, probably forever, but at least until it's clear that nothing else will work.
Option 5 is the most likely outcome, and is a factor in why I live in SC now.

Very nice, but you misunderstand the purposes, uses and effects of civil disobedience.

I agree with you that activists must be conscious of their effect on public opinion and that their failure to do so on this issue hasn't produced the results they sought. However, if by practicing their rights they have brought down the wrath of government, you never really had the right to begin with. Re-establishing 2A rights wasn't going to happen without somehow bringing the issue to the public's attention. Maybe it seems like a setback to have UOC banned now, but since it IS banned by legislative action, you must see you never had the right in the first place. Just the privilege. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, she lost her job. That was a setback she could have avoided by giving up her seat, but then the issue would not have been raised.

Yes, it is a different political and social environment today, but it just seems wrong to voluntarily give up privileges that ought to be rights because Big Brother may step in and remove those privileges. If it's not an issue in the mind of the public, nothing can be improved. Sometimes setbacks are necessary before progress is possible.

During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, civil disobedience, as favorably reported by the mainstream media, and as favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helped generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.

All true, but nothing else is working either. Why give up rights voluntarily? If we're reduced to that, there really is not much hope.

How has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates? Where have there been any great outpourings of sympathy for the plight of gun owners, especially from non-gun owners -- as whites showed sympathy for the plight of non-whites during the days of the Civil Rights Movement? Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post lauding the courage of gun owners in their resistance to the oppression of anti-gun prejudice? Who has heard a pro-gun rights sermon in his church? Where are the pro-gun rights rallies on college campuses? Where are non-gun owners joining with gun owners in pro-gun rights demonstrations, just as whites joined with non-whites in marches and demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement?

Yep, I'm disappointed in these things too. It took time to build the public support for the Civil Rights Movement, and before that support ultimately propelled the movement to success, a lot of folks suffered a long time before their civil rights were restored.

So far, gun rights demonstrations have largely encouraged fear, anger and contempt from the mainstream media and the public at large. Such demonstrations have not helped elect pro-gun rights politicians, rather they have helped build support for anti-gun rights politicians.

True. Gun rights demonstrations should be more informative than demonstrative. If they can do that, they can keep the issue in the public's mind, and that should be the goal. The hard part is keeping the coverage positive, but it must be tried because no traction can be gained by staying silent.

Yes we want to help elect pro-2A legislators and executives. Civil disobedience will not further that goal. But building a positive public image for gun owners might. We need to be good ambassadors for gun owners and help build and image of gun owners as sober, rational, intelligent, responsible, and active participants in the affairs of our communities.

Also true. Electing pro-2A politicians in CA would be wonderful, but I don't see it happening. Your only real hope is probably in the courts. In the meantime, why should folks voluntarily give up their "rights" (aka, privileges)?

And we need to introduce new people to shooting.

Agreed. I've read your earlier post (#39) on this and commend you. I wish I had the resources to do all that. So far I'm an NRA Life Member, have taught my wife all five of my children to shoot, and I carry concealed whenever I can (no legal OC in SC except on private property, etc).

[aeriedad]

An analogy - first acknowledging that all analogies are faulty to some degree.

California has very strong 'vehicles must yield to pedestrians' laws; there are regular 'stings', so to speak, where a police agent steps out into a crosswalk to test whether drivers will stop and yield the right of way; citations are issued to drivers who fail to yield.

'Unloaded Open Carry', when exercised by folks merely going about their business, is like stepping out into a crosswalk. You know you're right; the law is on your side; the drivers/folks around you know what they are supposed to do.

An 'open carry event' is more like stepping out into that crosswalk, even though you see the traffic coming and you know they do not have a safe distance to stop. The law is the same; the rights are still apportioned as before. But a bad result is predictable, if not certain.

I appreciate this analogy, Librarian. I understand well the point and think it is valid. However, acknowledging your acknowledgment that analogies do have flaws, I think it is worthwhile to point out a flaw here:

The U.S. Constitution says nothing of a citizen's right to cross the street. If police behave as you say in testing CA's laws on pedestrian right of way, they are in fact enforcing statutes, not rights. (I agree with you this type of enforcement is something of an overreach by government and likely to result in something bad.)

The U.S. Constitution does say something about the right to keep and bear arms. Although some demonstrators have acted in ways reflecting badly on our cause, I think it's not quite fair to lay too much blame on them. They were, after all, exercising their rights. Call them out and correct them for irresponsible behavior where appropriate, but I'm not sure they're overreaching when the U.S. Constitution is on their side. If there is an overreach here, it's in the CA legislature.

[PorkchopLV]

I grew up in CA and hold a CA CCW but the problem I see is our voting base does not look at history "we" ( I use "WE" very loosely) reelected Jerry Brown since I was not alive the first time around, I can only go off the history books he implemented the original 15 day wait. I worked at a range in Fresno for a couple years, the biggest issues is education, the media spins everything to left field, everyone thinks CCWs are so hard to get and they are impossible in So Cal and the bay area but you go to Madera Can you own a gun? Yes, then here is a CCW the SO even offers a free CCW class, Fresno is just about that easy now also, my thought is if you want a CCW and your county will not issues you one, work to change the county or move to one that issues them. The problem I saw with the open carry guy in the bay area is (my opinion only) is was flaunting it to the local law enforcement, why not work a flyer up with the PC codes in it raise awareness in the community educate LE and the civilians, wearing a gun everywhere to show your right may work in other states but you have to work up to that people are scared of guns because of the media. wearing gun trying to educate them will not work it is like having someone who is pissed off try to tell you to vote their way the person receiving the message is going to be stand offish right out the gate. Just my ranting 2 cents. To my CA people it is bad but it could be worse, at least you do not live in Mass.

Disclaimer: I now split my residence between CA and NV because I want the freedom of the 2A and I am very impatient. I believe we should move Brown, Reid and their other friends to somewhere warm and far far away from the U.S. The cost would be worth it, I swear!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56EfRXisPh4

[Manco]

Guns scare most people these days. Making a big show of open carry can ONLY have negative consequences for us because other people don't care about our rights and just want to "feel safe" :rolleyes:--that's the bottom line, and the anti-gun politicians know it and they used it.

[Warp]

Guns scare most people these days.

In ****, perhaps so. Also perhaps in some of the smaller northeast states.

In the United States? Not so much.

[Frank Ettin]

The American Revolution and Civil War are relevant because it demonstrates the lengths to which some were willing to go to secure freedom....Still, so what?

Throughout history, many groups have struggled and sacrificed in the interests of many different causes. Some we might consider worthy, and some I hope we would not (for example, the Communists in Russia also struggled and sacrificed in the interests of their revolution). Some were successful and some less so (and remember that those on the losing sides struggled and sacrificed as well).

Our cause here is the RKBA. And our challenge is to find ways, in the current social, legal and political environment, not just to struggle and sacrifice, but to succeed. Struggle and sacrifice for the sake of struggle and sacrifice won't do anyone any good.

...I agree with you that activists must be conscious of their effect on public opinion and that their failure to do so on this issue hasn't produced the results they sought. However, if by practicing their rights they have brought down the wrath of government, you never really had the right to begin with....And this is a naive way to look at it. First, yes, we had the right, such as it was, to openly carry an unloaded handgun. But after 1 January 2012 we won't have that right because openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public will, in general, get us tossed into jail. (Perhaps we could regain the in court and thus stay out of jail, but that's another issue.)

Second, it's not a question of the "wrath of government." The "wrath of government" doesn't exist independently from the wishes of the body politic that elected "government." So our UOC advocates brought down the wrath of their neighbors, leading the government to action supported by their constituents.

And third, as pointed out by me several times, people doing legal things others find obnoxious can generally lead to those things becoming illegal if enough voters find them obnoxious.

...Although some demonstrators have acted in ways reflecting badly on our cause, I think it's not quite fair to lay too much blame on them. They were, after all, exercising their rights. Call them out and correct them for irresponsible behavior where appropriate,.... Of course it's fair to blame them. Some time back when these demonstrations started, the UOC activists were advised by representatives of the NRA, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Calguns Foundation, and other mainstream RKBA organizations that their tactics were likely to be counter productive.

...I'm an NRA Life Member, have taught my wife all five of my children to shoot, and I carry concealed whenever I can (no legal OC in SC except on private property, etc). That's all good. And remember that part of the challenge is to be a good ambassador for gun ownership, and that has nothing to do with carrying openly.

The point is for people you know who do not own guns, but who know you own guns, to think well of you -- especially in matters completely independent of guns. Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community for being honest and forthright in your business and personal relationships? Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community for taking good care of your family and your home? Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community for promptly paying your debts and fulfilling your responsibilities? Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community as someone of good and trustworthy character? Are you held in good repute by your co-workers and employer?

Those who have such attributes and who are known to be gun owners, serve the RKBA.

[danez71]

Originally Posted by aeriedad
...I agree with you that activists must be conscious of their effect on public opinion and that their failure to do so on this issue hasn't produced the results they sought. However, if by practicing their rights they have brought down the wrath of government, you never really had the right to begin with....


But you're wrong on that.

They did have that right. There were cases of people UOC that were improperly arrested - I say improperly arrested because the the law supported their UOC.

These cases were intermittent and scattered because most of the time UOC were not hassled.(Dont think for a minute every UOC was hassled by the police.)

So they did have the right but some less than informed LEO's made mistakes and arrested them. (whether intentional or not doesnt matter at this point)

What could have and should have happened is that they should have made more efforts to educate the public that govt was over stepping their bounds sometimes and if they didnt band together, the govt could/would keep doing it and take other rigths away such as the 1A etc.

They could have and should have gather up those cases AND rallied the support and unite WITH the fence sitters.... they would have a common enemy... the enemy thats over steps their bounds and tries to take their rights away.

But instead, they became the enemy because of their actions.

As Fiddletown noted, several noteworthy and influencial pro 2A groups warned them and accurately predicted the outcome.

They chose to fight dumb... and they got another dumb law.

Hopefully, they start choosing to fight smarter and not repeat history for the 3rd time in CA.


aeriedad, you and Navy asked what I would suggest. I originally generalized.

I just laid out ONE plan for you that didnt involve a already failed tactic.

In fact, its a tactic has has proven to succeed.

Find a common enemy to gain support is a tactic that Henry Kissenger used. I think Henry Kissengers legacy speaks enough about his success using these types of tactics and strategies.

[aeriedad]

That's all good. And remember that part of the challenge is to be a good ambassador for gun ownership, and that has nothing to do with carrying openly.

In a shall-issue state, most anyone responsible enough to carry concealed can obtain the permit. In South Carolina OC is prohibited in public, but I would choose to carry concealed anyway, even if we had constitutional carry. If, however, I could ONLY carry openly--as has been the law in CA, I would do so. In a may-issue state like CA, a lot of responsible people cannot legally carry unless practicing UOC. Saying that being "a good ambassador for gun ownership...has nothing to do with carrying openly" isn't quite accurate. Yes, being a good ambassador is more than important--it's vital--but in CA open carry was the only RKBA available to a lot of people. If demonstrators acted in ways contrary to good ambassadorship, they were wrong to do so. Now even fewer Californians will have a right to keep and bear arms, but if RKBA can be so easily stripped, then it never belonged to CA's citizens anyway.

The point is for people you know who do not own guns, but who know you own guns, to think well of you -- especially in matters completely independent of guns. Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community for being honest and forthright in your business and personal relationships? Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community for taking good care of your family and your home? Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community for promptly paying your debts and fulfilling your responsibilities? Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community as someone of good and trustworthy character? Are you held in good repute by your co-workers and employer?

Those who have such attributes and who are known to be gun owners, serve the RKBA.

Yeah, yeah I do all that.

When you and NavyLCDR went a few rounds on this topic on the first few pages of this thread, I initially sided with your position. Like many Americans, I prefer a polite society and am somewhat repelled by too much activism. I like to mind my own business and expect others to mind theirs. Anyway, I agreed with your arguments that the UOC demonstrators hurt their cause. I still think so. However, the more I think about the issue I realize it shouldn't be let go so easily. Soon all Californians not fortunate enough to be granted a CCW by the state will have no RKBA. Sure, it was taken away by the legislature stirred up by unwise demonstrators, but that just proves you never had the right anyway. A legislative restoration of your RKBA has about zero chance of taking place in your state, probably ever. I would stop just short of saying this with certainty, but it seems public opinion no longer matters here. A judicial remedy is all that remains.

While I will continue to be a good ambassador, I also try to be understanding of those misguided demonstrators whose RKBA has been so easily trampled. Maybe some of them are paying attention to our dissuasion here. At the very least, I thought a civil discussion of Rights vs. Law might be worthwhile to the members of THR. Ideas matter. Rights matter. Freedom matters. Maybe the ideas discussed here will help us all advance our cause.

[aeriedad]

aeriedad, you and Navy asked what I would suggest. I originally generalized.

I just laid out ONE plan for you that didnt involve a already failed tactic.

In fact, its a tactic has has proven to succeed.



Thank you. Could have done that the first time.

[Warp]

They could have and should have gather up those cases AND rallied the support and unite WITH the fence sitters.... they would have a common enemy... the enemy thats over steps their bounds and tries to take their rights away.

We're talking about California here.

You aren't going to convince them the 1A is in danger because you cannot carry a gun.

[NavyLCDR]

Deleted, posted in the wrong thread, DUH!

[Frank Ettin]

...but in CA open carry was the only RKBA available to a lot of people....Not really. It has never been a particularly practical way to go about armed in public.

Under California law, one passing within a 1,000 feet of a school with a handgun must have the gun locked up. For me to comply with that law and travel openly carrying my unloaded gun the from my home to our little town's downtown, I would have to make detours that would turn a 2 mile trip into a 5 or 6 mile trip. Going about one's business openly carrying an unloaded gun in an urban area would be even more problematic.

...Californians will have a right to keep and bear arms, but if RKBA can be so easily stripped, then it never belonged to CA's citizens anyway... Except you really don't have a clue what's going on here. We are making small inroads on a regular basis. More than half of the counties in California, in more rural areas, are virtually "shall issue" because the sheriffs are willing to accept personal defense as good cause for the issuance of a permit. More counties and towns are leaning in that direction.

Not long ago, with a new sheriff in Sacramento County, that county also became virtually "shall issue." And litigation in a number of recalcitrant counties is chipping away at some of the more egregious practices. And Governor Brown signed license to carry legislation that we wanted and that makes some minor, but strategically useful and important changes to the law.

As Gene Hoffman, Chairman of the Board of the Calguns Foundation, puts it, "We're playing chess, not checkers."

...Soon all Californians not fortunate enough to be granted a CCW by the state will have no RKBA....[1] Where do you come up with that? Again, you have no clue what's going on here.

[2] And, just to be clear, licenses to carry aren't issued by the State. The are issued by the sheriff of the county in which one lives or the chief of police of the city or town in which one lives (but they are valid statewide).

...Freedom matters....Yes, freedom matters. But history teaches that freedom is not won, extended or preserved by doing dumb things.

[Warp]

The forum seems to be glitching...or something.

It will not let me view page 7.

Edit: Now that I posted it will

[aeriedad]

Except you really don't have a clue what's going on here....

Yes, freedom matters. But history teaches that freedom is not won, extended or preserved by doing dumb things.

You know, when someone expresses some measure of agreement with your ideas, and you reply by continuing to make corrections and issue mild offenses, some people will find that a little obnoxious. May not be the best way to advance your cause. Just a recommendation, but a friendlier discussion of our differences can help everybody think through these issues more clearly.

[splithoof]

Does anyone know how the OC event turned out that was planned for today?

[Manco]

In ****, perhaps so. Also perhaps in some of the smaller northeast states.

In the United States? Not so much.

Most of what I read and see in the media by far (regarding firearms) comes from outside California, and the strong impression that I get is that the majority of Americans are afraid of guns (even more true when considering all people). That's why we ALL have to be mindful of and tactful toward public opinion, whether we're surfing in "****" :rolleyes: or picking peaches in some state that was unfortunate enough to have been named after a British king. To do otherwise is self-defeating.

If my impression is partly a result of media bias, then the same is true of California. The main difference in this state is in the makeup of the ruling class, and unfortunately most of the people who are somehow good at getting elected in this state oppose our Second Amendment rights. In analogy, imagine if the same happened to be true of the SCOTUS, with just ONE so-called "justice" on the other side--the Heller and McDonald cases would have had very different and absolutely disastrous results.

[Warp]

Most of what I read and see in the media by far (regarding firearms)

Please tell me you don't believe that the media gives an accurate representation.

[One78Shovel]

Yes, it is the work of the anti-gun crowd and I have no doubt they fed off the brilliant citizens who thought it was a smart idea to have well publicized open carry days at Starbucks and things like that. They did it here in Washington as well and my instant thought was "***?" No one would have even considered a ban had it not been publicized by these so called activists and I even pondered the possibility those demonstrations were originated by anti-gunners. Whoever originated it, the result was the same, open carry is now banned in CA.

We all know what happended when Rosa Parks sat down. She exercised her 'right' and that was that. Some things you have to fight for.

-178S

[One78Shovel]

It's not a question of "coddling the anti-gun political machine." It's a question of fighting smart and to win (rather than just making noise and looking tough).

The open carry events were in response to the bill. Kind of like the last act of defiance.

-178S

[Frank Ettin]

We all know what happended when Rosa Parks sat down. She exercised her 'right' and that was that. Some things you have to fight for.Actually, it appears that you don't know.

Indeed, everyone who keeps trying to draw parallels between the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s ans 1960s and current RKBA activities needs to go back to school and learn some history.

Different times, different causes, different social, political and legal climates.

When Rosa Parks shook things up, her actions won wide support in editorials in major newspapers, from pulpits in houses of worship across the country and on college campus.

The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s was the culmination of 100+ years of abolitionist and civil rights activity. It had broad and deep support. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country.

During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, civil disobedience, as favorably reported by the mainstream media, and as favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helped generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.

How has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates? Where have there been any great outpourings of sympathy for the plight of gun owners, especially from non-gun owners -- as whites showed sympathy for the plight of non-whites during the days of the Civil Rights Movement? Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post lauding the courage of gun owners in their resistance to the oppression of anti-gun prejudice? Who has heard a pro-gun rights sermon in his church? Where are the pro-gun rights rallies on college campuses? Where are non-gun owners joining with gun owners in pro-gun rights demonstrations, just as whites joined with non-whites in marches and demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement? Where are our charismatic leaders inspiring the nation?

So far, gun rights demonstrations have largely encouraged fear, anger and contempt from the mainstream media and the public at large. Such demonstrations have not helped elect pro-gun rights politicians, rather they have helped build support for anti-gun rights politicians.

The open carry events were in response to the bill. Kind of like the last act of defiance.And you are wrong.

UOC demonstrations began in late 2009 to early 2010. Because of those demonstrations, in April of 2010, AB 1934 was amended to ban UOC. That bill failed passage during the last half of the 2009 -2010 legislative session. We were able to stall the bill, and the session expired before final action could be taken.

The ban on UOC was reintroduced as AB 144 in this current 2011 -2012 legislative session. It was enacted and signed by the Governor.

So the first bill to ban UOC was introduced in response to the UOC demonstrations -- not the other way around.

[bergmen]

Under California law, one passing within a 1,000 feet of a school with a handgun must have the gun locked up.

Unless you have a CCW. You can even legally carry on school grounds with a valid CCW (as many teachers in rural counties do).

Dan

[Frank Ettin]

Unless you have a CCW. You can even legally carry on school grounds with a valid CCW (as many teachers in rural counties do).True, but if you read my comment in context, it's clear that we were discussing the person whose only option to carry is unloaded open carry:
...but in CA open carry was the only RKBA available to a lot of people....
Not really. It has never been a particularly practical way to go about armed in public.

Under California law, one passing within a 1,000 feet of a school with a handgun must have the gun locked up. For me to comply with that law and travel openly carrying my unloaded gun the from my home to our little town's downtown, I would have to make detours that would turn a 2 mile trip into a 5 or 6 mile trip. Going about one's business openly carrying an unloaded gun in an urban area would be even more problematic.

And in that same post, post 151, I also pointed out that many of the more rural counties in California are virtually "shall issue."

[One78Shovel]

Not really. It has never been a particularly practical way to go about armed in public.

.
So what is the 'practical' way for a California resident to carry when they live in what is effectively a non-issue (CCW) county?

One consequence with living in California is you have to deal with the liberal left and not upset the applecart. Well that's BS.

The liberal left has to respect the law and citizens rights to conduct their lives under the letter of the law. No picking and choosing what makes them feel 'comfortable'.

The only right I have to execute in the face of oppressive laws is to move out of state once conditions allow. Until then they can kiss my ---.

-178S

[Manco]

Please tell me you don't believe that the media gives an accurate representation.

I addressed that in my second paragraph above, and it should be pointed out that not all media consists of traditional (and biased) news reports--there are many types of media available today. I've also lived in a number of other states, and have noticed nothing that indicates anything contrary to my statement that most people are afraid of guns. The same is true in California, yet I have no difficulty finding substantial numbers of people here who believe in their RKBA.

The difference is that the majority of the legislature here is very proactive in restricting gun rights, and therefore should not be given ammunition by overzealous demonstrations that spook the "masses." This may not matter nearly as much in some states where the ruling class is more friendly to gun rights, but things can change over time for many reasons other than firearms, and therefore it is far wiser for gun owners to have positive public relations rather than negative.

[Frank Ettin]

So what is the 'practical' way for a California resident to carry when they live in what is effectively and non-issue county?There really isn't any, especially now that AB144 has become law. Progress is being made, but as is sometimes the case, it is slow and difficult. Stunts like the UOC demonstrations aren't helping.

One consequence with living in California is you have to deal with the liberal left ...Welcome to real life in the real world.

...The only right I have to execute in the face of oppressive laws is to move out of state once conditions allow....And I hope you do shortly. I don't think you can be any help to us in California.

[One78Shovel]

Yest, that's true. And it is indeed sometimes the case that laws are passed in response to irrational fears of the body politic. But nonetheless, the law becomes the law, and we must all live with it.


It's a law we have to live with when it's 'their' law? Yet they did not honor the UOC law? Yeah right....

Double standard.

-178S

[aeriedad]

And I hope you do shortly. I don't think you can be any help to us in California.

So if UOC supporters are viewed as obnoxious activists by the general public, you figure it gives you the right to be obnoxious toward those who disagree with you on how to regain their rights? If you get to be so obnoxious, why do you so judge others for their behavior?

[One78Shovel]

And I hope you do shortly. I don't think you can be any help to us in California.
I'm sure that's what was said to the ones that made the life boats on the Titanic.

-178S

[9mmepiphany]

It's a law we have to live with when it's 'their' law? Yet they did not honor the UOC law? Yeah right....

Double standard.

-178S
There is no double standard, they honored it when UOC was the law, just like they honored it when OC was the law...what they did was changed the law

[One78Shovel]

There is no double standard, they honored it when UOC was the law, just like they honored it when OC was the law...what they did was changed the law

Thanks 9mm, good point. I probably should define my use of the word 'honor' as it has multiple definitions.

Honor- high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor

Based on above defintion I think its safe to say Ca legislature did not honor the UOC law, thus changed it.

My other argument is why law abiding Californians should be expected to 'live with it' when Ca legislature could not do the exact same thing with the UOC law?

-178S

[Frank Ettin]

...Honor- high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor

Based on above defintion I think its safe to say Ca legislature did not honor the UOC law, thus changed it.... The legislature responded to the desires of people who elected them. That's what legislatures can be expected to do. And those desires were the predictable response to the UOC demonstrations.

...My other argument is why law abiding Californians should be expected to 'live with it' when Ca legislature could not do the exact same thing with the UOC law?"Law abiding" means living with and within the laws. Of course, if you wish to challenge the law, the courts are open for business. If you choose to ignore the law and are caught, you will need to deal with the consequences.

[Manco]

One consequence with living in California is you have to deal with the liberal left and not upset the applecart. Well that's BS.

It may be BS in theory, but it's also pragmatic--it's easier to defend one's rights when the general public isn't unnerved by how you use them.

The liberal left has to respect the law and citizens rights to conduct their lives under the letter of the law. No picking and choosing what makes them feel 'comfortable'.

Although I spoke of the "ruling class" that seems to stick around way too long, over the long run it is the people who ultimately decide what the laws are and what rights they feel "comfortable" with having. Fortunately the United States was founded by people who, for the most part, viewed the right to self-defense as important to maintain, but if there were strong enough public support for banning all firearms, then even that right could be taken away (i.e. the 2nd Amendment can be abolished by another Constitutional amendment :eek:). Most people simply don't care all that much these days, and I'd prefer to keep it that way rather than get them riled up--this goes for the whole country, not merely California.

[Librarian]

Based on above defintion I think its safe to say Ca legislature did not honor the UOC law, thus changed it.

My other argument is why law abiding Californians should be expected to 'live with it' when Ca legislature could not do the exact same thing with the UOC law?
Point of information: there never was a bit of positive law that enabled UOC.

PC 12025 prohibits concealed carry 'in public' - so one could carry UNconcealed, openly. (That is, in places like your own home, concealed carry is not forbidden.)

PC 12031 prohibits loaded carry 'in public' - so one could carry UNloaded.

I didn't follow the Mulford Act and what led up to it in 1967 - I was still in high school. But at a guess, I think the legislature thought they had stopped all unlicensed carry in at least urban areas. When they were shown to be mistaken about that, 40 years later, some legislators seized on it as yet another of their 'look, I'm doing something about gun violence' opportunities. As usual, there was no violence and they were doing nothing useful.