Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Oct 9, 2010.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-n ... treet-fair
Isn't that what "community leaders" tend to do? Sow discord and stir the pot until it really stinks? That and somehow manage to make a decent living without having to hold down a real job... Sweet!
Those who can, do. Those who can't, become "community leaders".
Two of my favorite "community leaders" and one of my favorite cartoons.
They were using their 1st amendment rights to bash the 2nd. What hypocrisy.
What if the Chief decided he didn't like their style of music and said the same thing? What do you think the public outcry would be?
I seriously hope no one here is shocked by this. Rights matter to people like these shrill idiots only when it suits their needs. They have no desire for equal rights.
Preach on brother, preach on!
I have said this many times, and I'll say it again. The issue in California is, in my opinion, made harder to fix because the problem is incorrectly framed by the media and by many open carriers there.
First, I think we can all agree that those of us who carry are far better informed about gun laws compared to those who don't. So, it is upon us to educate and eliminate negative preconceptions about the law.
The problem is that the media presents the issue as "these people choose to open carry." This is because to the average liberal, the choice Is between carrying vs not carrying. It doesn't even occur to a poorly educated anti that the law might allow OC but not CC. It is our job to educate them. The question many of these people are asking when they see an OC firearm is "why is this guy being so in my face about it?" For some OCers, the answer might be because that's how they want to carry. But for most people who carry in California, the answer is probably "because I am forced to." If liberals in California understood that legalizing CC would eliminate 90% of people who currently OC, they'd jump at it.
If our immediate goal in California is to get the state to issue permits, the OC movement should make the issue "I'm OCing because CC isn't legal, I would love to be given the choice on whether to conceal it or not. I would love to have the freedom to not be in your face about it if I choose to, but the state of California denies me this right. Since protecting myself and my loved ones isn't an option for me, the state has forced me to OC. So don't complain about me OCing if you don't give me the option to CC."
Instead of making the issue about the 2nd amendment, make the issue about freedom of choice. Just like SB-308 was passed because the theme wasn't gun rights, but rather about property rights, Californians need to frame the issue correctly if they want change for the better.
A permit system would be a step back for the rights of Californians. They would then have to submit fingerprints, money, time, to a back ground check, being listed in a database, etc. You people need to learn that a permit system is an infringement and is a bad idea.
I really don't see how going from May Issue to Shall Issue is a step back for Californians. I'm certainly not advocating that they change the current law regarding unloaded open carry, I'm only saying that going from May Issue to Shall Issue is a step forward.
Tennessee went from an unlicensed open carry state, to a may issue/UOC illegal, to a shall issue/UOC illegal.
Shall issue does not mean the State can't find a way to take the permit or license.
Georgia went from an unlicensed open carry state to a may issue licensed open carry state, to a shall issue licensed open carry state, to a shall issue licensed open and concealed carry state. Soon to be an unlicensed open carry state and maybe one day an unlicensed concealed carry state.
This doesn't invalidate anything I said. Also, as MP points out, not every state is messed up like Tennessee is.
Changing California from May Issue to Shall Issue, as long as they do not change the current law regarding unloaded open carry, IS a step forward. Nothing you have said changes that, and in my opinion that is best next step for attempting to move forward on gun rights in California.
It is a mistake for people to say, "the only option we have is to carry openly, but if you allow pass a law allowing us to conceal we won't carry openly."
The Legislature of Tennessee was glad to accomodate Tennesseans when they outlawed unlicensed carry in 1989. From Mal's chain of events it appears that GA accomodated Georgians. Both States went from UOC to permitted or licensed carry. That is a mistake and what usually happens. Instead of fighting for regulation, carriers should be fighting for less regulation. It took years to get a shall issue system in place in Tennessee after the old may issue.
as per one of the replies, here is the chief's email address: [email protected]
You can give him a piece of your mind.
Edit: I removed the text from the comments, I'm not sure it was allowed, but you can click the link at the top and scroll down, its worth the read I think.
Keep in mind you have to be careful when using the term UOC. In TN and GA it may mean Unlicensed Open Carry, but in California it means Unloaded Open Carry. This is why I keep typing it out, because you're sort of using it interchangably.
Given California's current state on firearm carry, going to Shall Issue is still a step forward.
UOC to me is unlicensed open carry and I have used it in that sense in this thread. Shall issue is just more government regulation and a bad idea. History has shown that with shall issue comes prohibition of unlicensed open carry (UOC).
California does not have Unlicensed Open Carry. California has Unlicensed Unloaded Open Carry. That's not the same thing. I would rather go to Shall Issue so Californians can carry a loaded gun rather than have an unloaded one just for show.