search
top

OC Fail in California

Now they are looking to ban open carry of rifles.

32 Responses to “OC Fail in California”

  1. jtbolt says:

    Well, at least they won’t need a lead ammo ban if they prevent people from hunting.

  2. TS says:

    Anytime they do something for handguns, the rifles will be next (if they can get it). It is a basic truism of gun control.

  3. David says:

    You mean all those attention whoring “education” attempts did nothing good for gun owners.

    • Harold says:

      Ummm, you are aware that the ban on open carry of handguns has put California in an untenable legal position WRT to their may issue CCW regime?

      And exactly what is lost by provoking the idiots in Sacramento to do unconstitutional things? It’s not like unloaded open carry was terribly useful before the state’s legislators acted.

  4. MicroBalrog says:

    Who cares about open carry if I can’t actually open-carry?

  5. Flight-ER-Doc says:

    Unintended consequences: When ALL the gun laws in the PRC get ruled unconstitutional by the USSC.

  6. mike says:

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA … GASP … HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA … GASP … HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

    Oh, man. I’m glad I got that in before the open carry attention whores composed themselves long enough to reply about how having an open carry rally at a coffee shop is a really good and if anyone disagrees, they obviously hate freedom. Maybe they should organize OC rallies at coffee shops around the country in solidarity. I’m sure Mikey Bloomberg would love that!

    • MicroBalrog says:

      So what you suggest is nobody should ever open-carry lest this piss the antis off so they’ll ban open-carry?

      • mike says:

        I think it’s pretty clear that NOBODY is suggesting that. What the OC attention whores don’t seem to get, though, is that going out of your way to upset people by having OC rallies in coffee shops, playgrounds, etc, will likely have negative consequences.

        You pretend as though it was just one or two OCers walking down the street minding their own business. Nope, these idiots continue to bring the on themselves.

        • MicroBalrog says:

          Yet somehow none of this occurred in other states where OC protests were held.

          The CA legislature bears the moral responsibility for this.

          • mike says:

            If you shove guns in peoples’ faces at Starbucks while screaming “It’s legal and there’s nothing you can do about it!” – guess what they’ll do something about it anyway. There’s fantasy land, where these attention whores live, and there’s the real world where actions have very predictable consequences. The only people who couldn’t accurately predict the outcome of their attention whoring were the attention whores themselves.

            And unless the CA legislature strapped guns on and shoved them in the faces of people just trying to enjoy a cup of coffee, I don’t see how any of this falls on them. They’re responsible to their constituents – you know, all the outraged people who called asking why it’s legal for people to strap guns on and rally at Starbucks.

            • MicroBalrog says:

              Do you genuinely think that the CA legislature had no choice in the matter? I see no open-carry bans passed as a result of open-carry activism elsewhere.

              • Sebastian says:

                The blame lies with the California Legislature, ultimately, for ignoring their oath and passing an law that unconstitutionally burdens the right to keep and bear arms.

                That said, the actions of the California Legislature were entirely predictable. If you go try to poke mama bear’s cub with a stick, and mama bear mauls your face off, it might still be the bear’s fault, but running after her cubs with a stick might not have been the most prudent course of a action.

                The only saving grace in all this, is that it makes the inevitable court case against California easier. But that’s largely hypothetical. It might just mean more loss of rights for California gun owners. And for what?

                • Alpheus says:

                  “And for what?” is a question that can very easily be asked, when we face a risk to freedom. While it is important to ask that question, and be mindful of it, we cannot use that question to paralize our efforts to establish our rights.

                  I seem to recall a skirmish, a few years ago, in some colonies; the leaders of that skirmish risked execution as traitors, and their uprisings could have resulted in their government buckling down on efforts to control them…”and for what?” is a question that could easily be asked of them….particularly because, even though their skirmish succeeded in obtaining independence, the political environment those colonies continue to endorse doesn’t look too promising for the continuing of freedom–and it hasn’t for decades now.

                  But I, for one, am glad that those rabble-rousers had a go at trying to establish freedom, even if they ultimately fail. They at least had a good run, for a while!

                  I do not have the book on me, otherwise I’d look up the quote…but Jeff Snyder, in his book “Nation of Cowards”, has an essay that is critical of all the decades where the NRA wouldn’t push court cases to challenge various gun laws as unconstitutional. He basically said that, if you don’t fight for your rights, can you really say they exist?

                  While the essays written in that book were all pre-Heller, and am glad that Heller turned out the way it did, taking Heller to court, even then, was a risk, and even with Heller, there is likely enough language in there that ultimately gun rights may still get the short end of the stick. It’s a risk that needs to be taken, though.

                  While yes, it’s true that California is trying to buckle down on gun owners…but the fact remains that this buckling down opens the door for future lawsuits to be successful. And even if these efforts fail, what else is a gun owner to do? Probably vote with their feet, and move to a different colony, where the experiment failed a bit less than in other colonies.

                  • mike says:

                    Wow. Comparing people OCing guns in coffee shops to the founding fathers is ridiculous. So ridiculous it’s either laughable or sad, I’m not sure which. True patriots hold rallies in Starbucks to convince people to ban guns. Ok, sure.

                    • Alpheus says:

                      Yeah, I guess it’s kindof funny or sad for me to do so, because Founding Fathers would never dress up as Indians and dump tea into a harbor, to protest growing regulation of the colonies, and then protest the resulting heavy-handed “Intolerable Acts” passed upon them; nor would they resist the Crown’s army when it came to confiscate their weapons.

                      I can’t see any parallels whatsoever.

                  • Sebastian says:

                    There was not any result that was going to come from upping the ante to rifles other than having the open carrying of rifles get banned. There was no other possibility in the set of possibilities.

                    There’s a big difference between fighting for your freedom, and just blindly charging into a machine gun nest for no possible gain at all.

                    • Alpheus says:

                      It depends on what the end-game is. If your goal is to push the legislature so far, that the Court has no recourse but to recognize your rights, then that may be what’s happening here.

                      If the Open Carriers are stupid for getting OC rifles banned, then the California Legislature is just as stupid, for going about banning them. If the Legislature were to just ignore these protesters, eventually they’d lose steam…but as it is, they are making a “Right to Keep and Bear is Infringed” case stronger and stronger.

            • Alpheus says:

              Mike, shoving guns in people’s faces is not legal, and strapping a pistol on your hip–an empty one, at that–and even wearing T-shirts, and carrying banners, and even organizing in places where rallies can be held, having speeches about how all this is legal, and even more needs to be, certainly is not shouting in people’s faces. Indeed, I doubt enough people really see enough of these protests that they would think “Oh, no, we need to ban these things!”

              If you have evidence–either eye witnesses, or better yet, audio and video–that OC Activists were behaving in a disorderly, likely illegal manner, then post such evidence on the web. Otherwise, stop slandering these people–because it is slander, for if these people are like other typical pro-liberty rights activists, they are very clean and orderly (like “Dan’s Bake Sale”, or Glenn Beck’s rallies, or even the Tea Party Rallies).

              And the funny thing is, even if gun owners were 100% orderly, responsible, and dignified, we should keep in mind that California Legislators are attention whores who will use the tiniest incident to have pants-crapping foam-at-the-mouth hysteria, and then use that hysteria to shove rights-violating laws into people’s faces while screaming “We’re Legislators and there’s nothing you can do about it!” — guess what, they’ll do something about it anyway. There’s fantasy land, where these legislators live, and then there’s the real world where actions have unpredictable consequences–although this action has enough of a predictable consequence, where these laws will likely be taken to the Supreme Court. Once there, who knows what will happen? (But then, who knew what would happen at Heller, or at McDonald? I remember, before Heller was decided, there was talk that Montana, Idaho, and maybe Utah would leave the Union.)

              And unless the OC Carry really strapped guns on and shoved them in the faces of people just trying to enjoy a cup of coffee–which would probably be obscene as well as illegal, because I, for one, don’t know how you can do that, while you have a gun strapped to you, and not have it be obscene–I don’t see how any of this falls on them. They have the right to keep and bear arms, and if that right can only be exercised by carrying their weapons unloaded, and in the open, what other option is left for exercising their rights?

              And why the heck aren’t California Legislators explaining to their constituents that they cannot pass laws like this, because they took an oath to support the Constitution, and such laws are in direct violation of said Constitution?

              And finally, what proof do you even have, that there was all this outrage, and that this outrage wasn’t ginned up by forces outside of California (such as the Brady Campaign, where if they have any influence left, it can probably be found in a Starbuck’s in California somewhere).

              I’m sorry if you don’t like how I’m putting things, but to a certain extent, your attitude seems to be “We’re gun owners. If someone asks us to go sit in the back of the bus, we should go sit there. We don’t want to rock the boat!” It’s not exactly something that I can see being conducive to supporting our rights–any of them.

              • mike says:

                Wow.

                • Alpheus says:

                  Well? Do you have evidence that the Open Carriers were acting any more disorderly than any other rally held for gun rights? What about the recent one in Albany, New York, for example? Or should those protestors have stayed home, too, fearful that standing up to call for their rights to be respected may result in further oppression?

                  This isn’t just about gun rights; and when this Open Carry movement had started, I think I was on the fence like Sebastian is–they have a right to do it, but the results are predictable–but the more I think about it, the more I’m on the side of the Open Carry movement, at least in California. I wouldn’t try to start such a movement in Utah, where it’s almost legal, because such a movement would be meaningless, but in California, you don’t have any other option but to push.

                  Even so, there’s a lot to push against, ranging from the right to keep and bear arms, to the right of a five-year-old to open a lemonade stand without a permit. If we want our liberty back, we’re going to have to start pushing! And if we push, we had better expect the Powers That Be to push back, because they aren’t going to like it when their Authority is disrespected.

                  Thus, the more I see posts like yours, coming down hard on people trying to push for liberty, the more strongly I feel defensive for them.

                  Live free or die! Death is not the worst of evils.

                  • Sebastian says:

                    What about the recent one in Albany, New York, for example? Or should those protestors have stayed home, too, fearful that standing up to call for their rights to be respected may result in further oppression?

                    Let me try a different analogy, because using my previous machine gun analogy, it doesn’t really convey the fact that everyone’s oxe gets gored even if a small minority of folks use an unwise tactic in the wrong place.

                    OC, loaded OC, was legal in California in unincorporated areas prior to the OC activists poking the bear, and when the bear got angry, he mauled everyone. Carrying a loaded firearm openly in California is now just completely unlawful, even for those living or hiking in unincorporated areas.

                    No one is arguing that we don’t fight. What we’re arguing for is to fight smart. Engaging in OC activism in California is not smart, and the resulting loss of freedom for everyone was predictable.

                    • Alpheus says:

                      I can’t remember far enough back to remember if the initial banning of all OC was predictable; in this sense, I kindof wish I had a better feeling for all that is going on in California. But to the extent that any further action is predictable, it’s very well possible that the California Legislature is susceptible to being pushed too far, and like Mayor Daley in Chicago, their Legislature is likely putting their Gun Ban Culture in as much danger, as the Gun Rights Culture is currently in, if not more–both in California and in the United States as a whole.

                      I don’t envy being a California Gun Owner involved in politics!

                  • mike says:

                    Honestly, I stopped reading once I realized you’re a fanatic. I don’t mean that as an ad hominem, but as an observation. Maybe OC is a religion to you in the same way that global warming is to others. Good for you, but few people enjoy being lectured by fanatics. If this is how you try to convert others, maybe it’s time for some introspection.

                    As to whatever you’re going on about, you lost me. Channel changed.

                    • Alpheus says:

                      What’s so fanatic about asking “What’s so fanatic about the Open Carry movement”? All I really asked is, “What makes California Open Carriers so different from protesters elsewhere?”

              • Sebastian says:

                I don’t think it’s so much “If someone asks us to go sit in the back of the bus, we should go sit there.” so much as some gun owners asking other gun owners to pick their battles and tactics more carefully.

                If the Supreme Court said Open Carry were constitutionally protected, I’d be completely in favor of using OC as a tactic to try to convince legislatures to change the laws on concealed carry, or using OC just because it’s your right, and people have to learn to live with it.

                But we aren’t there yet. Don’t charge the machine gun nest until we figure out how to flank it and take it out. But it seems a lot of gun owners want to be heroes and charge the machine gun nest anyway.

                • Alpheus says:

                  I would agree that tactics should certainly be considered, and that’s the one place where I’m willing to consider that California OC may be wrong…but then, from what I can see of California (not being there myself), they don’t have much maneuvering room left. Indeed, if the video someone linked to earlier in time, if not in thread, is an indication, this may very well be what the California Open Carriers intended; they may be pushing California’s hand until it gets to the Supreme Court.

                  While it’s true that we don’t know what will happen there, it’s also true that we didn’t know what would happen there when they got Heller, and later MacDonald.

                  I think what’s getting my goat, more than anything, is Mike’s attitude of “Those Open Carriers are so stoopid!” but he doesn’t seem to provide a better alternative for Californians…and I don’t quite see what they should do, either. Wait for National Reciprocal Carry, perhaps, and then get Utah licenses–assuming Utah continues to grant licenses to out-of-state residents by then? (Of course, I’m still waiting for Constitutional Carry to get to Utah…and it’s difficult to say how long we’ll have to wait for National Reciprocity, in general.) But then, if that happens, wouldn’t all this OC controversy be moot anyway?

                  Part of the strategy ought to be to normalize guns in culture, but if they are restricted enough, that becomes very difficult, if not impossible.

                  There may be other options for California, but I don’t see them; it’s for this reason, primarily, that I don’t think we should come down as hard on Californians for Carry as Mike tends to do.

                  Overall, this is something we ought to give lots of thought to, and then find actions we can take–because these United States shouldn’t be the only places where Liberty is respected. But how to you even “normalize” in a place like Great Britain, where even their Olympic Pistol Team has to practice off-shore? (For all the good it does them, in “preventing” even gun violence.)

  7. George Jackson says:

    Hmmm… I grew up in Southern California. Back in the early 50’s when I was a teenager most of my friends owned a gun or two, usually .22 rifles. Heck, the high school I attended had a .22 rifle range under the seating for the football stadium, The ROTC used it for weapons qualification. Anyway, back then at
    age 16 I would belt on my .38 colt revolver and walk down the street to a sporting goods store that had a basement pistol range and nobody gave it much thought. Times have changed and some of that change has not been an improvement.

  8. George Jackson says:

    Grins… Maybe the solution to this problem is if a person has a law degree don’t vote for them. That would probably thin things out quite a bit.

  9. Chas says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “It’s progress! That’s why we call ourselves ‘progressives’! We’re making progress towards a Marxist, totalitarian state! Eventually we’ll ban open carry of Republicans, conservatives and libertarians! Ha! Ha!”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Golden State Is Doomed | Daily Pundit - [...] Golden State Is Doomed Posted on May 4, 2012 1:30 pm by Bill Quick…
top