NRA and open carry

[WalkingWolf]

Yep, I clicked on his profile only to discover he is a prolific spammer. Unfortunately, I cannot find any way to block him.


Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

Not that I support or respect eye, he lost any respect after making a internet threat(cowardly). But I did not see anything on the Buckeye site that indicated they were against open carry, but I did find that they link open carry with a privilege card. And this the biggest problem with these so called 2A organizations.

From their site:

4. Nothing in Ohio’s concealed carry law requires a license holder to carry their firearm strictly concealed. Rather, Ohio’s concealed carry law is mostly a series of exceptions to the existing criminal statutes. For instance, see Revised Code § 2923.12(C)(2). The main statute, § 2923.12(A)(2), prohibits carrying a concealed handgun, and section (C)(2) simply states that the main statute does not apply to someone with a Concealed Handgun License. While some states do require strict concealment by their license holders, Ohio has not taken this approach. Further, there is nothing in Ohio’s concealed carry law that requires a license holder to forfeit their constitutional and statutory right to bear arms in order to obtain a Concealed Handgun License. Thus, a person who has been issued a Concealed Handgun License may still openly carry a firearm if they chose to do so, provided all other laws are observed.

 

[California Right To Carry]

Not that I support or respect eye, he lost any respect after making a internet threat(cowardly). But I did not see anything on the Buckeye site that indicated they were against open carry, but I did find that they link open carry with a privilege card. And this the biggest problem with these so called 2A organizations.

From their site:

4. Nothing in Ohio’s concealed carry law requires a license holder to carry their firearm strictly concealed. Rather, Ohio’s concealed carry law is mostly a series of exceptions to the existing criminal statutes. For instance, see Revised Code § 2923.12(C)(2). The main statute, § 2923.12(A)(2), prohibits carrying a concealed handgun, and section (C)(2) simply states that the main statute does not apply to someone with a Concealed Handgun License. While some states do require strict concealment by their license holders, Ohio has not taken this approach. Further, there is nothing in Ohio’s concealed carry law that requires a license holder to forfeit their constitutional and statutory right to bear arms in order to obtain a Concealed Handgun License. Thus, a person who has been issued a Concealed Handgun License may still openly carry a firearm if they chose to do so, provided all other laws are observed.

I couldn't find anything in support of Open Carry on their website, but their amicus briefs filed in opposition to Open Carry were easy enough to find. I also noted that they seem to be a shill group for the NRA. This appears near the top of their home page:

"We need 88 more people to join the NRA now to move into 1st place! Will you help us make history?"
"Just a few short weeks ago, we told you that we were in 2nd place for NRA recruiters in the club category and were about 300 members behind the leader. Today, the NRA told us that we had gained a lot of ground and are now just 88 members away from becoming the top NRA recruiter in America."

They also have a "Join the NRA and Save $10" link on their homepage. I wonder if they have disclosed that the NRA gives them money to recruit members?

In any event, the NRA opposes Open Carry and Buckeye Firearms opposes Open Carry, regardless of what they might tell their memberships.

I wish every NRA member would read the the NRA briefs in their two concealed carry lawsuits out of California where the NRA argues that California can ban Open Carry and listen to their attorney's oral arguments as an amicus where they make the same argument.

Here is a link to the NRA/CRPA opening brief in their appeal of Peruta v. San Diego. You will note that the brief is from the NRA lawyer's own website (Chuck Michel). "PC 12031" is California's 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry which has since been renumbered in part to PC 25850. The unloaded Open Carry bans had not yet been enacted. "PC 626.9" is California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995. Note how the NRA "warns" the court that if they do not get their concealed carry permits then that would result in the overturning of California's Loaded Open Carry ban (a ban which the NRA supported in 1967) and the overturning of California's gun free school zones. The NRA says that would be "Drastic."

So, not only does the NRA oppose Open Carry, the NRA supports gun free school zones. Something it neglects to tell its members.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

 

[solus]

i wouldn't worry bout eye, his modus operandi....he'll just huff and gruff like he always does both here and as he used to do on his own discontinued forum and then put you on ignore and move on...

something to look forward to... eagerly look forward to actually...being put on ignore and hope and cross your fingers he moves on...

it is even more interesting if you challenge him to present a cite...lol

he steadfastly refuses to cite anything of his opinions yet jumps up and down when he believes someone else should cite. like i said you are fortunate...you are close to being put on his ignore list...lucky you.

btw, quite interesting to follow this thread as it presents information i was unaware of...tip of the hat to ya...

being one who is capable of critical thought, i am appreciative of the opportunity to consider all the facts and make up my own mind...http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...gainst-Buckeye-Firearms&p=2020140#post2020140

fyi...

ipse

 

[California Right To Carry]

i wouldn't worry bout eye, his modus operandi....he'll just huff and gruff like he always does both here and as he used to do on his own discontinued forum and then put you on ignore and move on...

something to look forward to... eagerly look forward to actually...being put on ignore and hope and cross your fingers he moves on...

it is even more interesting if you challenge him to present a cite...lol

he steadfastly refuses to cite anything of his opinions yet jumps up and down when he believes someone else should cite. like i said you are fortunate...you are close to being put on his ignore list...lucky you.

btw, quite interesting to follow this thread as it presents information i was unaware of...tip of the hat to ya...

being one who is capable of critical thought, i am appreciative of the opportunity to consider all the facts and make up my own mind...http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...gainst-Buckeye-Firearms&p=2020140#post2020140

fyi...

ipse

Is there some "ignore" button or link I can use to block his spamming?

FYI, you might want to check out my website, there is a ton of data including links to oral arguments here. Second Amendment cases to watch here. Status of my California Open Carry lawsuit here. And 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions here.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

 

[RT48]

but I did find that they link open carry with a privilege card.
From their site:

4. Nothing in Ohio’s concealed carry law requires a license holder to carry their firearm strictly concealed. Rather, Ohio’s concealed carry law is mostly a series of exceptions to the existing criminal statutes. For instance, see Revised Code § 2923.12(C)(2). The main statute, § 2923.12(A)(2), prohibits carrying a concealed handgun, and section (C)(2) simply states that the main statute does not apply to someone with a Concealed Handgun License. While some states do require strict concealment by their license holders, Ohio has not taken this approach. Further, there is nothing in Ohio’s concealed carry law that requires a license holder to forfeit their constitutional and statutory right to bear arms in order to obtain a Concealed Handgun License. Thus, a person who has been issued a Concealed Handgun License may still openly carry a firearm if they chose to do so, provided all other laws are observed.

I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of the paragraph you quoted. Nowhere in that paragraph does it say that BFA thinks that OC should only be allowed for licensees. Multiple times in forums I have seen newbies ask if they are restricted to concealed carry because they have a license, or they ask if they will be arrested for "brandishing" if their gun becomes inadvertently unconcealed. That paragraph merely explains the nuances of Ohio law and reassures licensees that they have not given up their right to OC by obtaining a CHL.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of the paragraph you quoted. Nowhere in that paragraph does it say that BFA thinks that OC should only be allowed for licensees. Multiple times in forums I have seen newbies ask if they are restricted to concealed carry because they have a license, or they ask if they will be arrested for "brandishing" if their gun becomes inadvertently unconcealed. That paragraph merely explains the nuances of Ohio law and reassures licensees that they have not given up their right to OC by obtaining a CHL.

NO where in the quote did buckeye firearms mention unlicensed open carry, they clearly linked it to a privilege card! They are not against OC, but they are clearly against unlicensed open carry!

 

[RT48]

NO where in the quote did buckeye firearms mention unlicensed open carry, they clearly linked it to a privilege card! They are not against OC, but they are clearly against unlicensed open carry!

Because that isn't the purpose of that particular paragraph. It's purpose is to clarify for licensees that they still have the right to OC.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Because that isn't the purpose of that particular paragraph. It's purpose is to clarify for licensees that they still have the right to OC.

There was no need to even state that, considering that unlicensed open carry is legal in Ohio. It gives the clear impression that one needs a permission card. They are not stupid, THAT IS THE MESSAGE THEY TRIED TO CONVEY.

 

[RT48]

There was no need to even state that, considering that unlicensed open carry is legal in Ohio. It gives the clear impression that one needs a permission card. They are not stupid, THAT IS THE MESSAGE THEY TRIED TO CONVEY.

Did you see my previous post where I said lots of newbies ask in forums if they can still OC now that they have a license? Others ask if they will be arrested if their gun is inadvertently uncovered? Yes, that paragraph is necessary.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Did you see my previous post where I said lots of newbies ask in forums if they can still OC now that they have a license? Others ask if they will be arrested if their gun is inadvertently uncovered? Yes, that paragraph is necessary.

THEIR post was in relation to a case that was NOT CONCEALED CARRY related. If you are a member and have a problem with the perception that they clearly intended take it up with them.

 

[color of law]

I couldn't find anything in support of Open Carry on their website, but their amicus briefs filed in opposition to Open Carry were easy enough to find. I also noted that they seem to be a shill group for the NRA. This appears near the top of their home page:

"We need 88 more people to join the NRA now to move into 1st place! Will you help us make history?"
"Just a few short weeks ago, we told you that we were in 2nd place for NRA recruiters in the club category and were about 300 members behind the leader. Today, the NRA told us that we had gained a lot of ground and are now just 88 members away from becoming the top NRA recruiter in America."

They also have a "Join the NRA and Save $10" link on their homepage. I wonder if they have disclosed that the NRA gives them money to recruit members?

In any event, the NRA opposes Open Carry and Buckeye Firearms opposes Open Carry, regardless of what they might tell their memberships.

I wish every NRA member would read the the NRA briefs in their two concealed carry lawsuits out of California where the NRA argues that California can ban Open Carry and listen to their attorney's oral arguments as an amicus where they make the same argument.

Here is a link to the NRA/CRPA opening brief in their appeal of Peruta v. San Diego. You will note that the brief is from the NRA lawyer's own website (Chuck Michel). "PC 12031" is California's 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry which has since been renumbered in part to PC 25850. The unloaded Open Carry bans had not yet been enacted. "PC 626.9" is California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995. Note how the NRA "warns" the court that if they do not get their concealed carry permits then that would result in the overturning of California's Loaded Open Carry ban (a ban which the NRA supported in 1967) and the overturning of California's gun free school zones. The NRA says that would be "Drastic."

So, not only does the NRA oppose Open Carry, the NRA supports gun free school zones. Something it neglects to tell its members.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

You are taking the footnote out of context.

The brief clearly makes the point that the open carrying a loaded gun is a constitutional right.

Apparently your reading comprehension is somewhat limited.

This thread deserves to be locked.

 

[JustaShooter]

You are taking the footnote out of context.

The brief clearly makes the point that the open carrying a loaded gun is a constitutional right.

Apparently your reading comprehension is somewhat limited.

This thread deserves to be locked.

I couldn't agree more, on all counts.

 

[JustaShooter]

I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of the paragraph you quoted. Nowhere in that paragraph does it say that BFA thinks that OC should only be allowed for licensees. Multiple times in forums I have seen newbies ask if they are restricted to concealed carry because they have a license, or they ask if they will be arrested for "brandishing" if their gun becomes inadvertently unconcealed. That paragraph merely explains the nuances of Ohio law and reassures licensees that they have not given up their right to OC by obtaining a CHL.

You've got it spot-on from what I can see.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Funny, not ONE mention of UNLICENSED open carry. Hmmmmmmmm:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Chuck!]

Not that I support or respect eye, he lost any respect after making a internet threat(cowardly). But I did not see anything on the Buckeye site that indicated they were against open carry, but I did find that they link open carry with a privilege card. And this the biggest problem with these so called 2A organizations.

From their site:

4. Nothing in Ohio’s concealed carry law requires a license holder to carry their firearm strictly concealed. Rather, Ohio’s concealed carry law is mostly a series of exceptions to the existing criminal statutes. For instance, see Revised Code § 2923.12(C)(2). The main statute, § 2923.12(A)(2), prohibits carrying a concealed handgun, and section (C)(2) simply states that the main statute does not apply to someone with a Concealed Handgun License. While some states do require strict concealment by their license holders, Ohio has not taken this approach. Further, there is nothing in Ohio’s concealed carry law that requires a license holder to forfeit their constitutional and statutory right to bear arms in order to obtain a Concealed Handgun License. Thus, a person who has been issued a Concealed Handgun License may still openly carry a firearm if they chose to do so, provided all other laws are observed.

What does the word "still" in the last sentence mean to you?

 

[WalkingWolf]

What does the word "still" in the last sentence mean to you?

It means you either did not read the whole sentence or you made a dishonest post intended to ignore the whole sentence.

 

[Chuck!]

You guys are going to a lot of trouble to NOT link BFA saying what you claim they are saying.

Insults about intelligence and web sleuthing aside, why not just post the link?

 

[WalkingWolf]

You guys are going to a lot of trouble to NOT link BFA saying what you claim they are saying.

Insults about intelligence and web sleuthing aside, why not just post the link?

I posted their EXACT words, if you want to link it, just do it. Considering you could only read one word out of a paragraph you should not be making comments about intelligence.

 

[HPmatt]

Your comment shows that you really haven't a clue as to how the court system works. There are only three laws currently at issue in my case, the 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban and the two recently enacted bans on unloaded Open Carry. Everything else is fantasy on your part.

Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

Thank G-d no one thinks I am a cantankerous argue with everyone about everything atty. Just wanted to point out that there are all sorts of interests happy w the status quo - economic, political, regional - and your litigation upsets things. Not being an atty I am not sure if you're winning the case w/b good for OC or not, but wd take it as prima facie good for OC in CA. Wd let others more versed in specialized legal niceties to argue points to/fro ad infinitum...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JustaShooter]

You guys are going to a lot of trouble to NOT link BFA saying what you claim they are saying.

Insults about intelligence and web sleuthing aside, why not just post the link?

I posted their EXACT words, if you want to link it, just do it. Considering you could only read one word out of a paragraph you should not be making comments about intelligence.

A discerning reader would note that Chuck was not replying to you, but was commenting on California Right To Carry's reluctance to, and responses about, linking to the information in question.