How to get massive media attention for the OC movement

[Dave_pro2a]

There's a surefire way to get massive media attention for the OC movement. I'm talking regional, national, internet (gizmodo, boing boing, digg, blogosphere, etc), and probably international news coverage too.

Now, I'm not saying this would show OC in a positive light -- but there is that saying, "there's no such thing as bad publicity."

Ok, here goes:

In WA it is legal to OC at the airport, that includes all areas immedeatly adjacent to the TSA security checkpoints. This would not be possible in many other states, but due to Washingtons preemptions.

Remember the National Opt Out protests, over the naked imaging machines and invasive touching of sexual organs, that recieved widespread media coverage. It would be easy to do a combination OC & TSA protest, right outside the security area at SeaTac Airport.

There's a lot of irony in how the TSA wants to protect 100 or so people in a plane, by making more than that number bunch up in a soft area of an airport where they could be the victims of a mass shooting, or a suicide bomber.

It would take sending out press releases before hand. Preparing pro OC and anti enchanced TSA screening flyers/pamphlets. Having good spokespersons on site, that are prepped and rehearsed. Getting high quality video for Youtube. Taking excellent still images of the event. Sending out press releases after the event with attached videos and pictures for media use. Etc.

AFAIK OC at the airport is now a settled issue, since the fall out of this fiasco http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...eaTac-Airport/page10&highlight=seatac+airport

I am fairly confident that with the right pictures, video, and press releases that it would get it on the national nightly news, and spread like wild fire on the internet. How do you get media attention for one cause? Co-opt (or link yourself to) a more popular cause.

Again, I'm not saying this is a good idea or a bad idea, just an interesting one.

 

[amlevin]

You're Absolutely Right

This is an absolutely surefire way to get attention. Unfortunately, the attention will come from the wrong places. After one of these "demonstrations" there would no doubt be a movement (possibly very successful) to outlaw firearms from ANY part of the Airport. If it is done at State Level, preemption will not be a problem.

Something in me says that the attention gained will be all wrong and will probably yield a "set back" rather than an "advancement" to the cause.

 

[Bill Starks]

Port rules:
http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/seatac/rulereg4-13-10.pdf


7. Commercial Photography/Film:
No person except representatives of the press (including television) on duty or during
official assignments shall take still, motion, or sound pictures for commercial purposes on
the Airport without permission of the Director.
8. (Paragraph 8 is currently blank)
9. Signs, Advertisements, and Written Matter:
a. No person - other than concessionaires, tenants or licensees with approved contracts,
in compliance with those contracts, and at their respective locations - shall post or
display any advertisements, signs, placards or other written matter or visual displays
(“signs”) on or around the Airport.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Port rules:
http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/seatac/rulereg4-13-10.pdf


7. Commercial Photography/Film:
No person except representatives of the press (including television) on duty or during
official assignments shall take still, motion, or sound pictures for commercial purposes on
the Airport without permission of the Director.
8. (Paragraph 8 is currently blank)
9. Signs, Advertisements, and Written Matter:
a. No person - other than concessionaires, tenants or licensees with approved contracts,
in compliance with those contracts, and at their respective locations - shall post or
display any advertisements, signs, placards or other written matter or visual displays
(“signs”) on or around the Airport.

Interesting.

#7 is irrelevent since it would be for a non-commercial purpose. No money changes hand, no consideration is accepted for use of the video or photos (i.e. they are taken by private citizens and are copyrighted as unrestricted creative commons).

In fact, the TSA printed policy does allow for both video and still photography, as illustrated by this incident http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/23/call-the-tsas-office.html

I've also taken pictures at the security checkpoint at Seatac, in clear view of TSA staff, and have not been hassled.

#9 during the Nov 24th the local news showed protesters handing out literature and holding signs outside Seatac airport. At least they made it seem like it was occuring at Seatac. And afaik they did not get hassled. If it's a potential problem, then skip the pamphlets. If you wanted to try for a loophole, hand out a CD or DVD containing relevant information about OC and the TSA policies (neither of which could really be considered a sign, written material, an advertisement, etc.). Better yet, hand out free thumbdrives because more people would accept it since it is useful beyond the data it contains (cheap, low capacity, bought in bulk direct from China).

And I suspect (just a WAG) that the rules you cite are all about not doing unlicensed commercial activities on port properties. They make a ton of money off selling advertising and renting retail space at the airport -- and they need to protect the revenue stream.

I don't believe they can suspend the 1st amendment, or political speech (case in point: Harikrishnans). So I doubt they can prevent someone from handing out a political flyer.

 

[FMCDH]

Yea....um...

Holding a protest inside of an airport is quite a bit different than on the steps of the capital building.

And yes, there IS such a thing as bad publicity when you have something to loose.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

This is an absolutely surefire way to get attention. Unfortunately, the attention will come from the wrong places. After one of these "demonstrations" there would no doubt be a movement (possibly very successful) to outlaw firearms from ANY part of the Airport. If it is done at State Level, preemption will not be a problem.

Something in me says that the attention gained will be all wrong and will probably yield a "set back" rather than an "advancement" to the cause.

Absolutly 100% correct. The same thought occured to me.

IMHO that is the exact same argument against OC activisim anywhere in the state.

You flip crap at enough mayors, police chiefs, and police officers -- and they will eventually lean hard on the state legislators to change preemption.

Frankly I'm shocked there hasn't already been a coordinated, statewide effort to change preemption. Up till now it's just been a mayor here, and a police chief there... but imho if activists simply continue as they have been then eventually there will be a political backlash.

And I never said it was a good idea, just that it would be effective at gaining media attention and attain meme status.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

This is an absolutely surefire way to get attention. Unfortunately, the attention will come from the wrong places. After one of these "demonstrations" there would no doubt be a movement (possibly very successful) to outlaw firearms from ANY part of the Airport. If it is done at State Level, preemption will not be a problem.

Something in me says that the attention gained will be all wrong and will probably yield a "set back" rather than an "advancement" to the cause.

Now that you mention it, regardless of any possible OC protest, I wouldn't be susprised if firearms on airport property gets outlawed at a Federal level. In fact the pessimist in me says that is an inevitability.

 

[kenshin]

Now that you mention it, regardless of any possible OC protest, I wouldn't be susprised if firearms on airport property gets outlawed at a Federal level. In fact the pessimist in me says that is an inevitability.

I doubt it would ever get banned on a federal or even state level. There are many isolated airports that bush pilots fly out of where it is not only a good idea but pretty much a necessity that you carry at least a pistol if not a rifle in case the plane goes down out in the boonies.

Not to mention, with the McDonald ruling an all out ban in a non-restricted area would be unconstitutional. Doesn't mean the Feds don't do unconstitutional things all the time, just an observation.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I doubt it would ever get banned on a federal or even state level. There are many isolated airports that bush pilots fly out of where it is not only a good idea but pretty much a necessity that you carry at least a pistol if not a rifle in case the plane goes down out in the boonies.

Not to mention, with the McDonald ruling an all out ban in a non-restricted area would be unconstitutional. Doesn't mean the Feds don't do unconstitutional things all the time, just an observation.

Commercial pilots can carry firearms, so bush pilots could be exempt.

As for McDonald, there is a lot of wiggle room in it, especially for national security reasons.

 

[devildoc5]

Commercial pilots can carry firearms, so bush pilots could be exempt.

As for McDonald, there is a lot of wiggle room in it, especially for national security reasons.

Didn't Hitler and Stalin use words almost EXACTLY like that to justify their disarming the civilians? As well as NUMEROUS other policies that would go against everything we believe(d) in Americas?

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Didn't Hitler and Stalin use words almost EXACTLY like that to justify their disarming the civilians? As well as NUMEROUS other policies that would go against everything we believe(d) in Americas?

I believe the new term is "reasonable restrictions."

 

[gogodawgs]

Count me out...

and here is why...

This website, the general OC movement (as per OCDO, John Pierce and Mike Stollenwork) pursue the following:

OpenCarry.org

A pro-gun Internet community focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life.

"A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost"

There is considerable difference between going to the airport (as many of us have) in doing what your regular business would be, say picking up or dropping of a family member, and going to the airport to protest and draw decidedly negative attention to the OC movement.

-----------------------------------------
In regards to what SCOTUS said in McDonald:

We made it clear in [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Heller [/FONT][/FONT]that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying
of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Id[/FONT][/FONT]., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. (pg. 39-40 Opinion of Alito)

SCOTUS believes and we will have to live with government regulation regarding firearms carry in sensitive government buildings. It is well within stare decis for the government to do so at the airport at this time.

 

[Coded-Dude]

1967 - Black panthers marched loaded, carrying openly at California's capitol to protest the Mulford Act.....the national attention it brought caused the bill to be passed banning LOC. Negative attention is definitely attention. However, it could potentially do the exact opposite of what you want.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

and here is why...

This website, the general OC movement (as per OCDO, John Pierce and Mike Stollenwork) pursue the following:



There is considerable difference between going to the airport (as many of us have) in doing what your regular business would be, say picking up or dropping of a family member, and going to the airport to protest and draw decidedly negative attention to the OC movement

Thanks Secret Moderator.

To play devil's advocate, according to your logic, coordinating a 'meet up' of OC at a starbucks where a forum member was recently harassed would also not be "regular business."

Or organizing a 'meet up' at a local park where a forum member was recently harassed would also not be part of "regular business."

The above scenerios (both of which occured on this forum) are "considerably different" that simply going for coffee, or to a park.

And imho, it is no stretch to define "daily American life" as encompassing all behavior that is legal, moral, and Constitutionally protected. That would include political activism.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

1967 - Black panthers marched loaded, carrying openly at California's capitol to protest the Mulford Act.....the national attention it brought caused the bill to be passed banning LOC. Negative attention is definitely attention. However, it could potentially do the exact opposite of what you want.

Yes, there could be a backlash. Which is why I didn't post "Hey let's do this awesome idea asap!"

And like I said earlier, imho even sticking to current tactics of confronting mayors, city planners, park managers, police chiefs and police officers will eventually cause a backlash.

It is unavoidable, as WA turns more and more blue, and experience even more Californication.

But yes, I totally concede that an political activity involving OC at the airport could accelerate that process. In some respects, there are actually good arguments to be made that accelerating the process would be beneficial in the long run.

 

[BigDave]

In this case a point of law is being overlooked.

RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

Having a demonstration or gathering as described in an Airport around the TSA Security Check Point would gain you a one way trip to jail or in front of a Judge.

GoGo on the issue of going about ones normal business is spot on and the way it should be kept.
When referring this to the picnics or gatherings in my view would be considered a normal family activity or gathering, far from showing up at an Airport in numbers.

Dave_Pro2a I am glad you were looking for input instead of jumping in feet first with out looking.

 

[gogodawgs]

Thanks Secret Moderator.

To play devil's advocate, according to your logic, coordinating a 'meet up' of OC at a starbucks where a forum member was recently harassed would also not be "regular business."

Or organizing a 'meet up' at a local park where a forum member was recently harassed would also not be part of "regular business."

The above scenerios (both of which occured on this forum) are "considerably different" that simply going for coffee, or to a park.

And imho, it is no stretch to define "daily American life" as encompassing all behavior that is legal, moral, and Constitutionally protected. That would include political activism.

A) I don't moderate anything except my own posts.
B) Neither a Starbucks or a Park are a sensitive government building.
C) It is part of my daily life to meet with friends for coffee or a park, see BigDave's explanation below. I go to the airport to fly, drop off a flyer or pick up a flyer.

In this case a point of law is being overlooked.



Having a demonstration or gathering as described in an Airport around the TSA Security Check Point would gain you a one way trip to jail or in front of a Judge.

GoGo on the issue of going about ones normal business is spot on and the way it should be kept.
When referring this to the picnics or gatherings in my view would be considered a normal family activity or gathering, far from showing up at an Airport in numbers.

Dave_Pro2a I am glad you were looking for input instead of jumping in feet first with out looking.

 

[Ruby]

Yes, there could be a backlash. Which is why I didn't post "Hey let's do this awesome idea asap!"

And like I said earlier, imho even sticking to current tactics of confronting mayors, city planners, park managers, police chiefs and police officers will eventually cause a backlash.

It is unavoidable, as WA turns more and more blue, and experience even more Californication.

But yes, I totally concede that an political activity involving OC at the airport could accelerate that process. In some respects, there are actually good arguments to be made that accelerating the process would be beneficial in the long run.

So, who's side are you on?!? Your idea is outrageous! Most of us here on this forum are doing our best to PROTECT our rights and peacefully co-exist with those who disagree with us and here you are suggesting we do something not only outrageous, but probably illegal as well. That stunt would really impress the antis; hell, if we tried real hard we might even get the state legislature to ban OC! We are engaged in a war to retain the rights we have and to win Constitutional Carry for the state of Washington. We have been in the news several times this year. A wise person chooses the battles they fight if they want to win the war and they don't waste their time stirring up s**t that will be of no benefit.

 

[amlevin]

The best way to Openly Carry is to do so while going about your normal business. Shop, run errands, have a meal, get a cup of coffee, meet with friends, etc. We will all know we "have arrived" when we do this and nobody notices or comments.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

In this case a point of law is being overlooked.



Having a demonstration or gathering as described in an Airport around the TSA Security Check Point would gain you a one way trip to jail or in front of a Judge.

Possibly, but that would drastically be open to interpretation.

If it's legal for 1 person to do it (walk near the security checkpoint while OCing), then logic stands to reason it is legal for 10 people to do it.

You can go into your bank while OCing. You can go into your bank with 10 friends who are all OCing. I serisouly doubt that to simply be present would meet any legal threshold of warrenting alarm. There would have to be something about your behavior or actions that manifest an intent to a reasonable person.

Could you be arrested? Yes. Could you be arrested anywhere in this state while OCing? Yes.

*IANAL