TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote:

AndyC wrote:Here's how the antis took Washington with I-594:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/1 ... ton-state/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lessons can be learned from this.

Now comes the real test. Will people obey the law? If people refuse to obey the law, that could be the biggest win possible for gun rights.

Billionaires and the media got the law passed. Let’s see how well billionaires and the media can enforce the law. That is where we find out how well the will of the people can stand up against money and lies.

Despite the "popular" hue and cry to severely restrict modern sporting rifles in Connecticut in the wake of Sandy Hook, Connecticut owners of modern sporting rifles appear to be ignoring the ban en masse, which means that their police are going to have to arrest tens of thousands of people en masse to make the law stick. That's not going to happen.....which just goes to show that when the field of conscientious objectors is large enough, there is very little that authorities can do about it. As long as those individuals keep their individual noses clean, do not give police any reasons to search their homes, and do not give police any cause to arrest them on other charges, they will never be prosecuted for refusing to turn in their banned weapons. At some point, Connecticut's AWB will become just another one of those laws held in reserve to persecute citizens with when cops can't find any other reason to put them behind bars. And once they do that, I imagine that a competent lawyer could register a complaint based on violation of due process. "You KNOW who bought these guns, and where they live, but you do not arrest all of them, so why are you arresting me? I demand that you either release me and drop the charges, OR, that you round up everybody and charge all of us." The state of Connecticut is terrified that if they arrest someone, that person will demand that they arrest ALL of them..........so they arrest no one, and the law is toothless.

VoiceofReason wrote:How about someone like Charles or TAM writing a petition or letter expressing our disapproval of the tactics of OCT and set it up where you don’t have to even go to this board to read or sign it. If it flies then point it out to the media.

I am happy enough to write a letter like this, but I am just a nobody, and my signature at the bottom means nothing. For such a letter to have impact, it would have to be signed by prominent people whose names and/or positions as spokespersons for 2nd Amendment advocacy would be known to the media outlets where the letter would appear.

What would be REALLY helpful, although I don't know if it would be realistically feasible (Charles, if you have an opinion, I'd like to know what you think), would be if a majority of legislators who might otherwise be sympathetic to Open Carry would publicly threaten to vote against it if the knuckleheads don't back the heck off with their stupid tactics. A fairly simple statement like:

"I support open carry, but I will not vote in favor of unlicensed open carry if radical activists do not cease their open carry demonstrations—including but not limited to the harassment of police in the performance of their lawful duties by cop-watchers armed with openly carried long guns and openly carried black-powder handguns."

I am not politically astute enough to know if this is a good idea or not; but it seems like such a statement, signed by all legislators who are known to be normally pro-gun (including any pro-gun democrats) would have several results:

1. It would serve notice to the liberal media that these wackos do NOT have the support of the gun-community at large, and that they are NOT representative of the majority of us.
2. It would serve notice to the wackos that their insanity will not go unpunished, while at the same time serving notice that if they will just calm down and shut up, they just might get what they want.
3. It would serve notice to Law Enforcement that we have their backs, that we are concerned for their welfare, and that vocal support of the 2nd Amendment does not equate to being "anti-cop".

There may be other benefits I can't think of, and there may be downsides too.....which is why I am interested in Charles' opinion about this kind of tactic.

Charles, what do you think?

VoiceofReason wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:He also warns that so-called "universal background checks" is the only issue that we get totally crushed on in gun control-related public opinion polls.

Answering that issue so that it resonates with the general public is critical.

I'm not in favor of universal background checks, but with stunts like those pulled by OCT & OCT and their "cop watch" nonsense, it is harder and harder to argue against the universal background check. We need to clean our own house, or liberals will do it for us. The problem is, I don't see how we can do it.

Then we need to find a way to distance ourselves from them.

I agree.......but to an anti-gun media, that is hard to do. The only thing I can think of is perhaps to engage police in co-leading/co-teaching things like gun-safety seminars, or maybe getting local police to sponsor Johnny Appleseed events..... stuff like that, which will be A) news-worthy, and B) show the gun community as supportive of LEOs, rather than confrontational......and to do these things OFTEN.

AndyC wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:He also warns that so-called "universal background checks" is the only issue that we get totally crushed on in gun control-related public opinion polls.

Answering that issue so that it resonates with the general public is critical.

I'm not in favor of universal background checks, but with stunts like those pulled by OCT & OCT and their "cop watch" nonsense, it is harder and harder to argue against the universal background check. We need to clean our own house, or liberals will do it for us. The problem is, I don't see how we can do it.