Do we continue with the same tactics for gun rights?

[ls2gto]

Which tactic should we continue to take? I myself have been advocating for a reserved or conservative mentality with this whole gun debate. I have been pushing others to be calculated and politically correct on how they approach gun issues and what our image is. I still mostly think that way, however, I'm noticing very little difference that its making. Or is it even making a difference at all?

I'm not sure what to do and which direction to take, or for that matter, which direction we, as a whole, should take in political tactics on gun issues. Is being calm and collected still the way to go? I would think it would be. It shows the liberals that we aren't crazy gun lunatics and we are normal human beings. However, is this calm and collected approach advocating for gun freedoms a double edged sword?

Do the liberals think that we will be push-over because we have shown too much restraint and we won't really do anything about the push for gun control? The reason I am even contemplating this is, because they are continuing to push more and more and they aren't giving up. Do we need to act crazy? Do they need to think that we will explode if they push us another inch? At that point would they consider putting a stop to the gun control crap? An analogy that came to my mind and suits this parts of the argument well...You continue to poke a possum with a stick, but you only poke a hornet's nest once.

In addition, is there a different tactic altogether that I'm not seeing that may work? Am I just way off all together? Am I alone on this thinking? I'm not trying to start a war on the forums. I'm just being honest and wanting to see how others think about this issue. I would ask that everyone that does post to be friendly to others if they don't have the same opinion. We are all friends here and share a common love for guns and our freedom.

Read More

 

[Misterbill]

People already doing "in-your-face" stuff with guns, and by and large it's done more harm than good.
I open carry a pistol fairly frequently. No muss, no fuss. And the few people that DO give OC pistol-carriers a hard time are not opinion makers. They're wackos.

On the other hand, if you're O/Cing an AR-15, loaded on a single point sling, you're just scaring the Hell out of people for no good purpose. (And you're likely to get cited and lose in court in WA based on precedent). It's a stupid damned stunt, and given the recent mass-shootings, I don't think it's unreasonable when people call the cops as you walk around town like you're on patrol in Fallujah.

You CAN do a lot of things. Stuff that intentionally scares people (with some valid reasons behind their fear), How does this help gun rights? Who was on the fence and sees some asshat walking around with his AR faring the cops to ask him what's going on suddenly thinks: "Hey, those gun rights guys have a point!" No one. Quite the opposite.

For all the hoopla and the non-stop efforts on the part of media and the usual suspects in government, only one state passed more gun control that wasn't working hard at doing it anyway, largely with the support of the majority of the population. (Colorado). and the politicians who passed it are looking at recall petitions and will certainly pay a price in 2014.

NY, NJ, Mass, CT, MD are all anti-gun pest-holes and have been for decades. Those states have done everything possible to make it difficult or impossible to own guns for decades. And it's largely with the support of their ultra-liberal urbanite yuppy population.

Nationally they couldn't even get mandatory background checks through the SENATE. And no way in HELL the house would have passed it anyway.

We are WINNING this fight. We have been for years. There have been more pro-gun laws passed this year than anti-gun, even in states which have been dragged there kicking and screaming by courts. The percentage of Americans that own guns SPECIFICALLY for self-defense is skyrocketing. the appetite for gun control simply isn't there outside of a few states.

We've been fighting this battle for 50+ years, depending on where you start counting, more like 80. And for the last 20 years, we've been winning overall.

So no, more confrontational acts, and CERTAINLY things that make otherwise non-partisan peole see gun owners as dangerous, would be incredibly foolish and play right into the hands of our opponents.

We have all the facts. Some people will never listen. They are a minority. Anyone who will take an honest look at the the data HAS to conclude that gun control isn't going to do anything but disarm the good guys. We don't need to cook up statistics, make exaggerations, argue based on emotion or any of the rest of that nonsense because the facts are IN, and they don't support gun control.

That wasn't the case even 20 years ago, but it is now. There is just no arguing with the National Academy of Science, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and NUMEROUS peer-reviewed, scholarly studies on the subject. The antis have none of this. All they have is: "OMG DED KIDZ!" and that's not enough for most Americans anymore.

 

[Stomper]

I have to agree with Misterbill's overall statement, with one caveat; overall, the political elite couldn't care less about the desires and opinions of the electorate except to the extent they get re-elected.

You keep those emails, letters, and phone calls going! It worked last time, and it may work next time. Exhaust ALL PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL means to make your dissent heard, THEN having failed all else, we can have a different conversation on tactics at that time... just sayin'.

 

[Father of four]

Do we continue with the same tactics for gun rights? How about regaining our Constitutional rights by repealing the CHL requirements?

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The CHL is a huge infringement on Our freedom. The CHL didn't always exist. <broken link removed>

 

[Father of four]

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. = Unlicensed concealed carry

 

[Father of four]

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. = Choice of having ammo in your firearm if you are open carrying.

(In Multnomah county you are banned from having your firearm or magazine loaded if you don't have the CHL permission.)

 

[Father of four]

Constitutional Carry is legal for law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun, firearm, or other weapon concealed with or without an applicable permit or license.


Interesting read...http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarry.htm

"Constitutional Carry
The right to discreetly bear arms
should not require government-issued permission slips

It's time for "Freedom To Carry" to replace "Right To Carry"

[BREAKING NEWS: Arizona enacts Freedom To Carry, 4/16/10]



by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
January 27, 2010

Will "Freedom To Carry" replace "Right To Carry"?
It's moving that way in Texas and elsewhere.

With state legislative sessions starting nationwide, the right to bear arms is front and center in people's minds and some state legislatures. Arizona has quickly moved a Constitutional Carry bill through both House and Senate committees, with broad support from the public, state organizations and the NRA. We'll know if it is enacted probably by April.

The so-called "right-to-carry permit" requires government interference, paperwork, applications, approvals, taxes called "fees," mandatory classes, written tests, shooting tests, plastic-coated permission slips, fingerprinting, photographs, entries into criminal databases and expiration dates for your "rights." That has definitely moved the right to bear arms significantly ahead. Is it time to go further and reach "Freedom To Carry"?

So-called "right to carry," even with all its baggage, has served us well, insofar as it has destroyed the myth that if good people have guns they'll run around indiscriminately killing each other. It quenched the paranoia that possession of a gun turns you into a homicidal maniac. It put to death the lie that an armed public will look like Dodge City. It ended the nonsense that a concealed weapon will entice you to shoot fellow motorists at stop lights. It wiped out the silliness that innocent armed people in restaurants will shoot slow waiters. Arizona enacted so-called guns in bars (actually, discreetly carried arms in liquor-licensed restaurants with no drinking allowed) in 2009, and all the waiters are still breathing. Right-to-carry showed up the anti-rights gun haters and their compliant media co-conspirators as a pack of lying, deceitful, terrified, irrational, egregious, elitist, hoplophobic enemies of civil rights.

Under Freedom To Carry, sometimes called Vermont carry or Alaska-style carry, basically, the government stays out of your face as you exercise your fundamental human and civil right to own and carry property. Arms, by the way, are the only enumerated objects in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that you are guaranteed the right to possess.

Alaska enacted Freedom To Carry in 2003 and alls well. Texas enacted Freedom To Carry "light" in 2007 as the Motorist Protection Act: there is no government interference with discreetly having a gun anywhere in your premises or your vehicle (including any sort of motor home), and from your premises to your vehicle, an excellent start (you still need a license while out and about on foot, so they're taking it one step at a time, so to speak). Having a firearm, if you're doing nothing wrong, is not a crime. And should not be a crime. What a concept. A woman should be able to put a handgun in her handbag and go about her day without fear of arrest. Montana enacted Freedom To Carry in 1991 for 99.4% of the state (outside city limits).

Under the infringement of so-called "reciprocity" schemes (an odious feature of "right-to-carry" plans), your human and civil rights as an American have been reduced to a list of government-approved states for licensees only, when you leave your home state. The 98% of the public that refuses to jump through the hoops, be taxed, get on the criminal database and get "rights" papers is left out in the cold when they travel under the current "reciprocity" model. Enormous police effort that could be going directly toward reducing crime is instead being diverted into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent.

The biggest argument against government-free Constitutional Carry is that it does away with the required training for a carry license. Training is good, we all agree. But are too many trainers now lined up at this government-made trough to feed? Are they afraid they won't be able to make money like regular entrepreneurs, if government doesn't force people to attend their classes? Do they fit the classic definition of a cartel, a business created and protected by government mandates, with the threat of arrest for anyone who operates outside the constraints?

There is also a fear that if people bear arms without the enforced classes, the dumb idiots will kill people out of stupidity -- sort of like the argument the anti-rights people make about guns in general. That's false of course, since less than 2% of the public gets a license and hence the required class -- but half the public has guns. The 50% of the people who have guns without the king's permission slips seem to get along just fine without being forced to take a class under penalty of arrest.

Here however is the silver lining of Constitutional Carry. With your rights restored, and training provided on a voluntary basis, trainers will be free to offer classes to the general public the way General Mills sells cereal. Everyone should have some. You want some of this? You can expect a burst of advertising and promotion for gun-safety and marksmanship classes once everyone is freed from government constraints. Family classes, discount days, coupons, two-fers, novice-to-advanced programs -- all the exposure you'd expect for any consumer product will start to emerge, as competition (not mandates) drive the market.

The departure of government from the firearms-training market leaves a vacuum that can and should be filled by ambitious entrepreneurs who see the potential. When people's rights are restored, their undertsanding of the need for competent instruction will bloom, and savvy marketers will help them along.

Instead of focusing on a tiny fraction of the public who bows for the permission slip, and leaving everyone else in darkness, we can finally move to school-based education. No student should be able to graduate without a healthy understanding of firearms, their social utility, and a demonstrated ability to safely discharge a firearm at a target. Use the Arizona high-school marksmanship bill as a basis, it's a sizzler: http://www.gunlaws.com/HighSchoolMarksmanship.htm

It is so totally American, and replacing the current state of TV-fueled gun ignorance with enlightenment and understanding, accidents will drop, safety will improve, national readiness will skyrocket, and the fear that there won't be enough training opportunities will fall apart as the stale BS it is.

If you do one thing this season, push for Constitutional Carry in your state. Draft a bill. Introduce a bill. Use our approach in Arizona and seek to simply repeal the unconstitutional obnoxious offensive ban against your civil rights. You're an American. You can do this.

Call -- don't write -- your local gun-rights chapter, even if you're not a member, you fool. Tell them you would support Freedom To Carry in your state. Tell them you would join (or donate) if they draft a Constitutional Carry law. Get this ball rolling.



____________



P.S. Some "government-authorized CCW instructors" are campaigning against Constitutional Carry. They've sent out mass emails urging people to defeat the Vermont-style Freedom-To-Carry bill now in the Arizona legislature.

They're making the same tired arguments anti-rights activists make about guns in general -- if everyone has a gun they'll shoot each other, you're not smart enough to handle a gun safely unless you're required to take mandatory classes (which they happen to teach), etc.

Of course, half the state has guns and they're just fine without the rigamarole and permits and government mandates. We knew when the permit system first passed in 1994 that we were creating a "gun-instructor lobby" that would be beholden to their government masters, and would come back to haunt us.

It's a shame and a disgrace when firearms instructors, who should be at the forefront of protecting our rights, standing four-square for freedom, instead lobby for government intrusion on your rights, which just happens to help fill their rice bowls. They've been compromised and co-opted by government elites who should never have been in this arena in the first place. A pox on them all.



Contact:
Alan Korwin
BLOOMFIELD PRESS
"We publish the gun laws."
4848 E. Cactus #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 FAX
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
[email protected]
Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog

Encourage politicians to pass more laws...
with expiration dates. "

 

[GOG]

As food for thought, I suggest reading the book "Unintended Consequences". It's scarce and overpriced in hard cover, but I'm pretty sure it's available for download. It's fiction, but an interesting look at similar circumstances that we face now.

 

[Father of four]

"Instead of focusing on a tiny fraction of the public who bows for the permission slip, and leaving everyone else in darkness, we can finally move to school-based education. No student should be able to graduate without a healthy understanding of firearms, their social utility, and a demonstrated ability to safely discharge a firearm at a target. Use the Arizona high-school marksmanship bill as a basis, it's a sizzler: http://www.gunlaws.com/HighSchoolMarksmanship.htm"

I disagree with that however.

 

[duane black]

People already doing "in-your-face" stuff with guns, and by and large it's done more harm than good.
I open carry a pistol fairly frequently. No muss, no fuss. And the few people that DO give OC pistol-carriers a hard time are not opinion makers. They're wackos.

On the other hand, if you're O/Cing an AR-15, loaded on a single point sling, you're just scaring the Hell out of people for no good purpose. (And you're likely to get cited and lose in court in WA based on precedent). It's a stupid damned stunt, and given the recent mass-shootings, I don't think it's unreasonable when people call the cops as you walk around town like you're on patrol in Fallujah.

You CAN do a lot of things. Stuff that intentionally scares people (with some valid reasons behind their fear), How does this help gun rights? Who was on the fence and sees some asshat walking around with his AR faring the cops to ask him what's going on suddenly thinks: "Hey, those gun rights guys have a point!" No one. Quite the opposite.

For all the hoopla and the non-stop efforts on the part of media and the usual suspects in government, only one state passed more gun control that wasn't working hard at doing it anyway, largely with the support of the majority of the population. (Colorado). and the politicians who passed it are looking at recall petitions and will certainly pay a price in 2014.

NY, NJ, Mass, CT, MD are all anti-gun pest-holes and have been for decades. Those states have done everything possible to make it difficult or impossible to own guns for decades. And it's largely with the support of their ultra-liberal urbanite yuppy population.

Nationally they couldn't even get mandatory background checks through the SENATE. And no way in HELL the house would have passed it anyway.

We are WINNING this fight. We have been for years. There have been more pro-gun laws passed this year than anti-gun, even in states which have been dragged there kicking and screaming by courts. The percentage of Americans that own guns SPECIFICALLY for self-defense is skyrocketing. the appetite for gun control simply isn't there outside of a few states.

We've been fighting this battle for 50+ years, depending on where you start counting, more like 80. And for the last 20 years, we've been winning overall.

So no, more confrontational acts, and CERTAINLY things that make otherwise non-partisan peole see gun owners as dangerous, would be incredibly foolish and play right into the hands of our opponents.

We have all the facts. Some people will never listen. They are a minority. Anyone who will take an honest look at the the data HAS to conclude that gun control isn't going to do anything but disarm the good guys. We don't need to cook up statistics, make exaggerations, argue based on emotion or any of the rest of that nonsense because the facts are IN, and they don't support gun control.

That wasn't the case even 20 years ago, but it is now. There is just no arguing with the National Academy of Science, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and NUMEROUS peer-reviewed, scholarly studies on the subject. The antis have none of this. All they have is: "OMG DED KIDZ!" and that's not enough for most Americans anymore.

Agree with Mister Bill on all points, I dont always.

I watched open carriers in another state systematically screw us over , even though a whole lot of us on calguns were very vocal to not act like retards and go out in public in places that were very openly hostile to gun owners.

They didnt listen, it was their RIGHT !

Mulford Act 1967 , signed by Ronald Reagan, prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms. Thanks asshat black panthers !

AB144, 2011, prohibits carry of unloaded handguns openly in public. Thanks asshat open carriers !

Did they learn ? Hell No ! We will carry carbines ! Hell Yeah !

AB1527, 2012, unloaded long guns, outside of a vehicle, must be enclosed in a case. Thanks asshat open carriers, again !

We told them, they didn't listen. Would have been much better for these folks to spend their energy in other ways, like fighting all the other BS restrictions placed by the state on our constitutionally protected civil rights.

BTW: I have no problems with the idea of open carry, just use your brain. Don't carry in places just to seek attention. Rural Skamania county, OK. The childrens museum in Portland, NO.

Seeking attention while carrying a gun is just DUMB.

Never go full retard.

 

[hermannr]

Agree with Mister Bill on all points, I dont always.

I watched open carriers in another state systematically screw us over , even though a whole lot of us on calguns were very vocal to not act like retards and go out in public in places that were very openly hostile to gun owners.

They didnt listen, it was their RIGHT !

Mulford Act 1967 , signed by Ronald Reagan, prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms. Thanks asshat black panthers !

AB144, 2011, prohibits carry of unloaded handguns openly in public. Thanks asshat open carriers !

Did they learn ? Hell No ! We will carry carbines ! Hell Yeah !

AB1527, 2012, unloaded long guns, outside of a vehicle, must be enclosed in a case. Thanks asshat open carriers, again !

We told them, they didn't listen. Would have been much better for these folks to spend their energy in other ways, like fighting all the other BS restrictions placed by the state on our constitutionally protected civil rights.

BTW: I have no problems with open carry, just use your brain. Rural Skamania county, OK. The childrens museum in Portland, NO.

Open Carry did not screw you over. Gun owners screwed themselves by not being politically active enough to stop things like the GCA68 and the Mulford act.. Some of the restrictions on carry in WA were in response to the same, but there was enough push-back it did not go that far, they did get the unloaded in a vehicle here though. Another example of not being politically active is the WA restrictions on NFA weapons.

Think about this. Ohio Supreme Court (Idaho too) ruled that Open carry as a constitutional RIGHT and could not be licensed or restricted. People started to regularly OC... The result? ID and OH have shall issue CC, but they also have unlicensed, unrestricted OC.

Open Carry has never "caused" any legislation. The lack of political response has allowed the antis to win.

I OC every day. I OC unless the weather dictates a coat. I have done so for 43 years, even longer if you consider when I was a teen and we carried our rifles and pistols out into the desert to go shooting. (Yep, I turned 21 before the GCA68) Read In re BRICKEY. if you want my attitude to CC.

 

[GOG]

I might as well have been asleep in my younger years and didn't pay attention. I would hazard that many of us were. Now we're playing catch-up. It's not too late, but the result of our passivity is why we're in this mess.

 

[duane black]

Open Carry did not screw you over. Gun owners screwed themselves by not being politically active enough to stop things like the GCA68 and the Mulford act.. Some of the restrictions on carry in WA were in response to the same, but there was enough push-back it did not go that far, they did get the unloaded in a vehicle here though. Another example of not being politically active is the WA restrictions on NFA weapons.

Think about this. Ohio Supreme Court (Idaho too) ruled that Open carry as a constitutional RIGHT and could not be licensed or restricted. People started to regularly OC... The result? ID and OH have shall issue CC, but they also have unlicensed, unrestricted OC.

Open Carry has never "caused" any legislation. The lack of political response has allowed the antis to win.

I OC every day. I OC unless the weather dictates a coat. I have done so for 43 years, even longer if you consider when I was a teen and we carried our rifles and pistols out into the desert to go shooting. (Yep, I turned 21 before the GCA68) Read In re BRICKEY. if you want my attitude to CC.

I agree with the premise of your post entirely. I wasn't alive in 1967, I often wonder how California would have turned out if we were as organized then as we are now. AB144 and AB1527 were specifically cause and effect due to several open carry high profile incidents in California, again, your point is not lost on me. Following this type of stuff as an activist was pretty much an obsession from 2006 until I left in 2012. Open carry wasn't on the radar from 1967 to 2011, when you guessed it, open carry activists put it on the radar.

I have nothing against your desire to carry a loaded handgun, openly. I support you entirely. Washington and Oregon are not California and as long as I live here I will fight to make sure that NEVER changes. I worry about things like I594, this is how it always begins. Death by a thousand cuts.


EDIT: I want to be very clear. My issue is with open carriers that are doing so specifically with the intent to warrant alarm, cause intimidation, and to make a " point " , in public places that they should reasonably believe would cause alarm, and negative attention. The guy with the AR15 in my neighborhood last month would be a great example. If you open carry and have not had the police called on you , I'm probably not referring to you. Please also keep in mind that my experience was in a political climate that few here have lived under, while being a gun enthusiast. The state legislature hated us, had a super majority, and could essentially do whatever the F they wanted. Open carrying might have got folks someplace in Ohio, in California it only set them back adding to the need for a ever increasing pile of money and 20 additional years to defeat.

 

[DMax]

It seems getting ready for the next gun attack is fine. However how about we go on the offensive and take a couple of laws we have rally any legislature we can get support and work to expand our gun freedom instead of waiting for the left to peel more and more away and we all hope that we can be satisfied with the outcome. That Hope BS is what has gotten us to this point.

 

[hermannr]

EDIT: I want to be very clear. My issue is with open carriers that are doing so specifically with the intent to warrant alarm, cause intimidation, and to make a " point " , in public places that they should reasonably believe would cause alarm, and negative attention. The guy with the AR15 in my neighborhood last month would be a great example. If you open carry and have not had the police called on you , I'm probably not referring to you. Please also keep in mind that my experience was in a political climate that few here have lived under, while being a gun enthusiast. The state legislature hated us, had a super majority, and could essentially do whatever the F they wanted. Open carrying might have got folks someplace in Ohio, in California it only set them back adding to the need for a ever increasing pile of money and 20 additional years to defeat.

The thing is, the way you get court rulings, is to go to court. If you want to get rid of the laws, but you are not willing to WORK hard enough to get rid of the legislature, the only option left is the courts. If you ALLOW them to stomp on your rights, without any protest, you have just given them up. Why does this batch of Anti's have control of the legislature? Because that those that think, and would vote, otherwise will not step up to the plate and run, or WORK for the election of someone that will consider the constitution valid.

 

[pchewn]

Since the concealed carry permission-slip is issued by the nanny STATE government (Oregon, for example), perhaps we should be using the OREGON STATE CONSTITUTION instead of the US Constitution to justify constitutional concealed carry:

Article 1, section 27 of Oregon Constitution:

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

In other words: The Feds have nothing to do with concealed carry, so why refer to the US Constitution? It is the state that is involved with concealed carry, so refer to the state constitution.

 

[Misterbill]

The thing is, the way you get court rulings, is to go to court. If you want to get rid of the laws, but you are not willing to WORK hard enough to get rid of the legislature, the only option left is the courts. If you ALLOW them to stomp on your rights, without any protest, you have just given them up. Why does this batch of Anti's have control of the legislature? Because that those that think, and would vote, otherwise will not step up to the plate and run, or WORK for the election of someone that will consider the constitution valid.

The legislature is FAR from being "in control" of the Antis. Not even close. Yes, we have our "usual suspects" (Sen. Kline among others), but it's far from being the raving gun-grab fest that the other west-coat states have.

they vote for gun control for ONE reason. The population of the Seattle metroplex dominates EVERY state-wide measure and THEY have a large contingent of antis.

The real work that needs to be done is by everyone who lives and works in that area to educate their friends, neighbors and co-workers on the issue AND THEN work to elect pro-gun-rights candidates. But if you're thinking Seattle is going to start electing conservatives, you're BADLY mis-reading the political landscape. The best you can hope for is to work within the State Democrat caucus to change people's minds on the issue of guns. This is possible. There are quite a lot of pro-gun Dems.

We're pretty powerless over here on the east-side. It's not OUR legislators voting for this stuff. It's up to the guys in the greater Seattle area.

 

[gunnoob75]

STOP. OBEYING.

 

[GunnyG]

Since the concealed carry permission-slip is issued by the nanny STATE government (Oregon, for example), perhaps we should be using the OREGON STATE CONSTITUTION instead of the US Constitution to justify constitutional concealed carry:

Article 1, section 27 of Oregon Constitution:



In other words: The Feds have nothing to do with concealed carry, so why refer to the US Constitution? It is the state that is involved with concealed carry, so refer to the state constitution.

I often do, citing the 44 constitutions that affirm an individual right, as cited in STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS by EUGENE VOLOKH: <broken link removed>

 

[SBC97281]

The biggest single thing any pro gun rights person can do to stop anti-gun legislation is to take non-shooters, new shooter, anti-gun folks, and just plain curious folks to the range. Put something fun to shoot in their hands with targets they can hit. Let them have fun. Every time I put a 20 round or larger magazine in a new shooters hand and say see how many you can put on the target now there is a smile! After a while they catch on. Patience is the key here and outreach.