The NEXT volly to fire.......CARRY

While I don't agree with the shouting there was a point in what little I read (I skip shouts). California's commissars would ban anything more deadly than a rubber spork if they thought that they could get away with it. Since our votes don't count for a lot more than Cuban votes our commissars are pretty cocky about what they think they can get away with. Add to that the sad fact that about half of the state's elected sheriffs depend on graft and patronage derived from sole control of who gets permits as a way to finance their campaigns, and the media's propaganda campaigns and there is no, zip, zero chance of getting CCW reform through conventional means in California.

That only leaves two back door methods.

  1. Sue for open carry rights as reaffirmed by the Heller decision, and leave our commissars the simple choice of allowing open carry or substituting a shall issue concealed carry law. If backed into such a corner shall-issue would be easier for them to swallow.
  2. Suing under the 14th Amendment to eliminate the existence of an exempted class. Off duty and retired LEOs and other favored groups exempted by law. The unions would rebel at the prospect of their retirees having to give up carry and would force through shall-issue. The public employees' unions own our commissars and caving into their demands would be about just about automatic. Note that this is not an attack on LEOs.

Expect both really soon.

I think you'll find at least 9 other states where suing for open carry will bring about concealed carry. Taking an I got mine and to heck with everybody else position is what got us all into this mess to begin with so let's see a little mutual support here.
 
when you start telling everyone they should have M16's on everyones shoulder walking down the street
Click to expand...

Exaggerate much?

This is a fight the open carry people will never win. IF you think it is achievable you are delusional.
Click to expand...

Except we DID win it in Ohio, on constitutional grounds in court.

And the Heller court is now supporting exactly the same line of argument, or at least hinting at it, at the Federal level.

Delusional? Like hell.
 
Here in Wisconsin open carry is legal, but concealed carry is not.

The state cannot prohibit both forms of carry, as the right to keep and bear arms means that there is a right to carry.

In the real world, though, open carry will usually result in an arrest for disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace.

WI is not going to get concealed carry anytime soon, unless a solid case goes before the state supreme court. That's not likely to happen, as the governor knows that another good CCW case before the court may very well result in the court declaring the state's ban unconstitutional. Earlier this year we had a good CCW case, but it was dismissed at the circuit court level (I think the governor and the Milwaukee county DA didn't want the case to go any further).

So, the best alternative is to push for open carry, and to reach a point where those who are carrying are not being arrested for DC or DTP. If we can reach that point, those who opposed concealed carry previously may just want the guns out of sight.
 
Gatorhugger, I think you're being a bit obtuse. Perhaps it's just because you live in a state like Florida where the "Shall Issue" CCW law was repioneered and the Castle Doctrine has been enacted. Florida's fight has been fought and largely won, if you had a direct hand in the victories, thanks and congratulations.

Some other states have a harder road to travel just to own a handgun, nevermind to carry one. You can't measure those states with Florida's ruler or with your own narrow vision. You could be helping them and you're not. You fight with the army you have, not the one you want.

p.s. Some of us Northerners live in states where shall issue was earlier than the 80's, what kept ya?
 
Point take 5 wire and others.
I cannot be of the mindset "I have mine so I don't care."

If a state can sue for open carry as a backdoor to getting concealed, go for it. Terrific. Anything that can achieve concealed carry for all law abiding citizens I am all for. (Gonna be a PR nightmare to go that route though.)

However if the agenda is for open carry for real, and I think some nutcases really want this, they really want to strap on the desanti belt and the glock before going to captain d's, that will never happen in a metro city.

And it seems to me, I am hearing two different stories and agendas. One group saying it's all just a legal ploy, the other saying no, we really want open carry. Which is it? Cause choice two is not smart.
 
Legal open carry is useful even when not actively used. In a legal open carry state like AZ, if your shirt rides up and exposes your rig, there's no legal repercussions. In TX for example, that can get your CCW yanked at a minimum, and can even lead to minor criminal charges.

Setting THAT aside, sometimes you flat-out need to pack but don't have CCW yet. Would you rather have no legal carry available, or the open carry option?
 
Legal open carry AND CCW would be the optimum for the reasons set out above. I believe CCW does more to effect crime as the potential criminal doesn't have the ability to discern who is armed or better stated doesn't have the ability to discern who ISN'T armed and that provides a strong deterrent.

AZ, as stated, has open carry without any permitting required and CCW as 'shall issue' and there is no sense of the gun packin' cowboy some here feel uncomfortable with. There are plenty of people open carrying and nobody gets uptight.

Interesting that the recent California Supreme Court decision on gay marrige has the homosexuals rapidly moving to have that decision mean IMMEDIATE issue of marriage licenses without hesitation AND that those licenses be honored by all other states. Let that be juxtaposed with the Supreme Court of the UNITED STATES finding that makes their infringement of carry-especially in gay friendly San Francisco- and insist that carry permits for either open or CCW begin to be issued the same day. Is it a standard or is it not? Let the vetting of what is Constitutional begin.....

Gun owners should be at the courthouse with the first wave of gay fiancé's insisting that THEIR rights also be recognized....
 
The problem is that CA gun owners are in the closet and those of alternate romantic inclinations rule the state's politics, whereas everywhere else it's the other way around.
 
Those of "alternate romantic inclinations" are in California often because they were seriously abused (sometimes to the point of death threats) elsewhere.

Look, California's laws have been designed for YEARS to drive gun owners out of the state. That was the plan, based on how gun owners usually don't vote Dem.

However, when the AZ legislature floats a "defense of marriage" bill with the express purpose of driving gay Democrats over the border to California, that is just as evil.

We end up with gun owners heading east on I10 while gays go west. What are they supposed to do, wave at each other on the way by?

BOTH plans stink. Both are examples of "Peoplemandering": rigging elections by chasing away "the wrong type" of voter. It's evil and it needs to be condemned no matter who does it, for whatever ideology.
 
I'm wondering why you promote CC but think OC is some sort of lunatic fringe movement? I noticed the point about firearms making people nervous, and I agree that they do make some people nervous. I believe that is because most people never see anyone but LEOs carry legally. OC seems odd BECAUSE it has been restricted, not restricted because it is odd.

I have no desire to flaunt a firearm, but I would like both CC and OC. You don't need to worry about breaking the law because your pistol is showing. There are situations where it would be easier to OC or have a semi-exposed pistol. However, in most places that is either illegal or asking for trouble.

Maybe I am an extremist, but I want the freedom to choose. I doubt that OC has a negative effect on society, and see no reason why it should be banned.
 
Maybe I am an extremist, but I want the freedom to choose. I doubt that OC has a negative effect on society, and see no reason why it should be banned.
Click to expand...
Freedom is a good thing. I love freedom. But there are some freedoms that make others uncomfortable. I personally wouldn't have any problem living in a state that allowed open carry or public nudism (I'm very libertarian), but I suspect that you might have a problem with watching a freedom loving 90 year old couple walking down the street wearing nothing but gunbelts and flip flops. :eek:

That's why society compromises with concealed carry and isolated nude beaches. So that extremists don't impose their preferences on others. ;)
 
Ehhhh...that concept can be taken too far.

If you're offended that blacks are sharing the same public facilities as you, is that a good reason to restrict your rights? I think not. But that's how America operated for MOST of it's history.

I think the OC situation is more analogous to that than a nude beach. Self defense is a basic human right - pushing public acceptance of that right isn't wrong.
 
"But there are some freedoms that make others uncomfortable."

There are suburbs of Milwaukee where white people get uncomfortable if they see a black person.

I prefer concealed carry, but I don't want to eliminate the right to carry openly. There are times for both.

While carrying openly, I've had tourists scramble to get their kids in the car and drive off. Or people keeping a wary distance. I even had some German tourists videotaping me. It gets to be ridiculous.

However, where open carry is common, people tend to have a more favorable view of guns and gun ownership. I tend to think that seeing "normal" people carrying guns positively reinforces the image we want to portray.
 
Gatorhugger

Thank you for sharing your perception of how the vast majority of the population views guns. However, the vast majority of the population is uninformed about firearms beyond the negative stereotypes they are exposed to by the media.

Many gun owners are interested in educating the population so that "a normal society" is not defined by hysteria at the sight of a gun. The population should understand the uses of guns and the motivations for people to have guns rather than making ridiculous pop-psychology assumptions about getting a "short and stubby just thinking about everybody walking around openly armed." To the extent people are nervous about guns, they need exposure to the realities of guns.

Finally, many gun owners are not interested in having "progressive concealed carry laws." Rather, they are interested in re-establishing the vigor of a fundamental right that has been too-long suppressed or denied. Some people just get feisty that way about their rights.
 
I think some of us are getting way ahead of ourselves here.
I keep re-reading Heller trying to find where it somehow addresses the issue of carry or concealed carry.
It just doesn't.
It makes it pretty clear that there was one issue before the court, the right of Mr. Heller to get a license for a handgun so that he could possess it in his home. That was the remedy granted, and the only remedy granted in the case. Scalia hints that he may have written a broader decision, but then states that this is the only issue before him.
I wish I could find more, but it just isn't there.
As far as carry in some jurisdictions go, some interesting questions get raised.
I firmly believe that qualified, properly trained individuals have the right to carry.
I think about the basic safety rules for use of a gun.
I have been in midtown Manhattan a few times. Once, while there, I seriously looked around and thought about whether there was any possible safe direction to point a gun.
Until you have been there, it doesn't really sink in.
There isn't one.
It's about the only place I would seriously think about carrying a .25 or a .32, Make sure I was incredibly accurate, and pray for adequate penetration. I doubt I would use anything bigger, Cause anything coming out the other side is gonna hit somebody.
It really gives me pause.
Are there places carry should be banned?
This isn't meant to provoke flames, just some thought.
 
That is my opinion and the one the majority of people have since there are only a couple of states with open carry. Sorry, most gun owners don't want open carry. It just will not go over, and if it's being lobbied for then it's a waste of dollars.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are currently 44 states that allow open carry either with, or without a permit, so I think its hard to say it's overly "radical" or it "will not go over" or that "most gun owners dont want it". If that were true, I'd think it would be 44 states that dont allow open carry, not the other way around.

I open carry frequently here, in the city (2nd largest city in the state, with ~250,000 people) and it doesnt seem to bother anyone at all. No one has even said a word, given me a "look", nor have the cops ever been called.I see no reason I sould have to cary a smaller, less comfortable, harder to shoot (for me) gun, in an uncomfortable IWB holster, or covered up by clothes that make it slower and harder to get to if needed, or that make me too hot in the summer, just because some poeple think its "radical" or isnt the way they want the country or our society to "look".

If people want to conceal thier guns, more power to them.I do it all the time when the weather is cool enough that I'm wearing a jacket anyway. But when the weather is warm, I prefer open carry, and see no reason I should have to carry a gun I dont want to carry, or wear clothes I dont want to wear, or be physically uncomfortable, just because someone thinks I look "radical" or that I'm messing up how they think society should "look".



I personally wouldn't have any problem living in a state that allowed open carry or public nudism (I'm very libertarian), but I suspect that you might have a problem with watching a freedom loving 90 year old couple walking down the street wearing nothing but gunbelts and flip flops.
Click to expand...

Actually, public nudity is legal here, and I havent seen a single naked 90 year old.Kinda like OC, just cause it's legal, doesnt mean anyone HAS to do it, thus, many (or even most) will choose not to, so it just isnt really a problem like people feel.
we have public nudity, OC, carry is allowed in bars and schools (and everywhere else except courtrooms actually, thats the 1 and only place we cant carry), and yet in inspite of what people claim will happen if those things are allowed, our streets are not red with blood, people arent fleeing from the sight of open carry in panic, and old ladies are keeping thier shirts on.Go figure.We must be doin' it wrong, or something.:D;)

Try looking here for more info on open carry laws by state, with a map verifying my claim of 44 states allowing open carry:
http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html
 
I have a Concealed carry permit. I am going to go against the grain and say I don't really want open carry.
Click to expand...

....and against the rights of every US citizen. By throwing "open carry" rights under the bus, you will be setting up the same fate for concealed carry rights.
 
First I'd like to say that I also reside in California. I'm all for skipping to the end of this fight to enjoy what I hope will be the fruits of our efforts, but incorporation is next. Without incorporation, my state will continue taking away my rights. Our politicians have proved time and again that they are NOT interested in what the majority of people living here want. Until the 2nd is incorporated there is no reason (in their mind) to change the system. And our 9th Circuit has shown little interest in allowing REASON to effect thier decisions. How many times have their rulings been overturned? I have no doubt that they will continue this trend and SCOTUS wil have the final say based on Heller.

After incorporation, I'd love to see "may issue" become "shall issue". I personally would not open carry, but who am I to say that others may not. We seem to be, at least, pointing in the right direction. Lets start moving in that direction.

Living in Ca. I have, so far, tried to stay within the law. With the current Bills in our Assembly, I will probably abandon my efforts. So now it's a race. Will I be taken away in Handcuffs before Heller does some good around here?

Joe
 
DMMikey:

Support for concealed carry bans isn't just in Heller, it's in the worst possible place: in the "held:" section right at the beginning.

Look again.
 
I think in the quest to OC, a lot of well meaning, I guess, gun folks are going to kill the goose.
We have managed to get CC passed, and continue to get passed in state by state.
To some that isn't enough. So some people that don't want to be bothered with paying for a license have started "sit ins" and other stunts to point out laws in various states are "loopy" when it comes to OC. For instance you can openly carry in CO, but not in Denver. So even the states that don't specifically prohibit OC, normally have various rules, the most common being that businesses can prohibit it.
Which they will do if this zealousness continues.

Either the lawmakers will respond to police concerns and close up OC like in tx and fl, or every business and organization will effectively close it up.
And once they start posting the "NO GUNS' signs everywhere, then you have killed CC as well.
Thanks for nothing. This "I am under Gods's law and if me a bobbie jean want to bowl with our Glocks, mans law won't stop me" is not going to work.
It works now, in various states, because it was never pushed.

Now the Jim march's and opencarry.org's are pushing it, cops and citizens are getting alarmed, expect crackdowns. It will happen.
And it may very well destroy the concealed carry laws we have worked so hard to get passed. Thanks Jim, and everyone else not willing to pay the small price to get licensed. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top