California... hmph... the exception to the rule.... Common sense eludes them.
If small groups of people in California acted openly Gay in coffee houses as an attempt to get Gay rights... well, they'd have 'em. (and they do. Well, most of 'em, anyway).
Unfortunately, the reverse came true for those open carrying, in an attempt to get rights ALREADY GUARANTEED by the Federal Constitution.
I champion the good intentions of those who open carry for only the reason that they are trying to get the people to realize it is a God given, Constitutionally guaranteed, RIGHT. In this country... or anywhere for that matter... You have the right to defend yourself.
I do cringe every time I see gaggles of OCers, in fear of "the California effect." But I understand what they are trying to do. And, after all, the same tactic has worked for Prohibition, for Suffrage, for Civil rights, For Gay rights, for women's rights.
Why doesn't it work for Gun rights?
I have a bit of a theory... but it's in formative stages.
Those protests that worked were for "oppressed minorities." The victims of drinking (and the desire for an income tax). Women couldn't vote, at that time women were in the minority. Civil rights for blacks... another minority. Gay rights... another minority.
Now. Gun owners. Also a minority.... but at 47% of the population... hardly an ill represented minority. Oppressed? Hardly (at least in the eyes of the rest of the population). Who's going to "oppress" a man with a gun?
Maybe this is what they think
47% of the population (based on some figures) already have guns.... What they seem to want is their cake, and eat it, too.
Look, the constitution guarantees that you can have your guns... We just wanna make sure that bad guys can't have 'em... and how are we supposed to tell the good guys from the bad guys if any old body can carry a gun on their hip?
And how do we keep the bad guys from getting 'em if we don't make the good guys jump through a few hoops... a few to get 'em... a few more to carry 'em... a few more in some states (proposed, or fact? I am not sure) to get permits to carry in "restricted areas."
We all know this is fallacious logic... Criminals get guns and carry 'em anywhere they want, without jumpin' through a single hoop. They carry them regardless of special rules, special taxes (which they don't pay anyway), laws, or general opinion... Heck, they carry and use them at funerals... no decorum whatsoever...
So, the general public sees the gun the way prohibitionists saw liquor. If liquor was unavailable... no more women would get beat, no more children would be homeless and hungry. But all prohibition did was make the criminals richer... and fill the coffers of the treasury with a new income tax to replace the 33% of tax revenue that had come from liquor sales...
We already pay federal taxes on guns and ammo.... if you outlaw them, you will only give the government reason to find somewhere else to get the money...