'Open Carry' of guns - logical direction of gun lobby's campaign

[villager]

<snip>

such incidents are only the opening salvoes in a campaign to make open carrying of guns in public accepted behavior everywhere in our country. There's even an organization whose raison d'etre is promotion of open carry (see http://opencarry.org/). These are the shock troops of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away. We're going to see more of them and we'll be seeing increasing incidents of open carry, not just at big events for publicity, but at grocery stores, at concerts, on the street, in places of worship.

The most important point, though, is that such open carrying of guns is a logical step in the gun lobby's campaign to arm everyone everywhere. For, an armed society is one that will make the gun lobby's patrons in the gun industry rich.

Remember, the NRA and its colleagues are the same people who almost succeeded last month in gaining federal legislation to force our state to allow out-of-state holders of permits to carry concealed guns, including assault guns, to do so in New Jersey. And, these are the same people who support the carrying of concealed guns in bars and restaurants, even churches, and have opposed requiring all purchasers of guns to pass background checks.

Fact is - the gun lobby will stop at nothing to encourage gun sales. Nothing.

So, unless you, your friends, family members, neighbors, co-workers and etc. want the America desired by the gun lobby and portrayed effectively by its open carry shock troops, it's time to consider the consequences of allowing the NRA and its cohorts the sort of power they've accumulated in Washington. This is serious.

<snip>

http://blog.nj.com/njv_bryan_miller/2009/08/open_carry_of_guns_logical_dir.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Pure hyperbole...and from New Jersey no less

No laws have been changed about open carry recently. Gun sales are a minuscule in terms dollars and employment. NRA does not represent gun manufacturers either. The author is being quite properly slammed in the comments

[villager]

2. I guess you're right -- we should only trust gun commentaries from places like Texas and Alabama

n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Or those from someone not well known as an anti-rights bigot

[villager]

10. translation: "Disagreeing with me on this issue means you're a bigot!"

The usual hyperbolic, my-way-or-the-highway view, I see....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Not all, he has a long term record of wanting to restrict and eliminate personal firearms which

makes him one opposed to our Constitutional rights and an anti-gun bigot

[villager]

16. Translation: Disagreeing with me *long-term* really makes you a "bigot!"

One might say you have your own innate set of biases on this issue, yes?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. No, intense irrational fears make him a bigot.

[villager]

24. so now disagreeing with you is "irrational?"

n/t

[iverglas]

81. and the disgusting noise just goes on and on

Keep it up.

Growing numbers of PEOPLE who have been victims of actual bigotry will be disgusted by this shit: dishonest demagoguery from people who think their audience is stupid and easily deceived.

It doesn't always find only the audience it's looking for. Intelligent, honest people hear it and see it for what it is.

[Gman2]

3. The natural progression will be hundreds at town halls.

I agree that the thrust is towards their hardon ideas of the wild west. The fearful core of the conservative, craves the false safety of a gun. I think that a few guys should disarm the freaks. Tie them up, and call the police. Then leave. A few of these incidents, will put the lie to guns providing protection. I, for one, will not act polite to someone just cuz they have a gun. And how do you tell someone who is packin heat that that is YOUR parkingspot? Can they point to their heat threateningly? If I get in their face, can they blow me away? This trend is insane. I want to beat the shit outta the first freaks. I might.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. You're recommending unarmed people attempt to restrain and disarm people with guns?

Oh, that's a GREAT idea.

You will, of course, be the first to step up and put this idea into practice.

You are, aren't you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Actually, its sort of a people power thing. I expect it would work well in the US

[rrneck]

26. +1 Direct expressions of opprobrium work. nt

[caseymoz]

I think you're lost in your own social hypothesis.

Which is about to be demonstrated as being tragically wrong.

Openly carrying guns at political rallies must be one of the stupidest, most reckless things I can ever imagine, and its a symptom that the American Right has once and for all lost its mind; either that, or it finally hates America enough to spark assassinations, insurrections, and a civil war. Even in the Wild West, towns had ordinances that required people check their guns when they entered. At that time, in that dangerous environment, it was common sense. Nobody would have thought of challenging it or taking it to the Supreme Court.

Think about it: if everybody is armed, it means a death is a little more than just a push button away. People are supposed to gather safely under those circumstances? We are now in an age where people will show up at work and murder all their co-workers, yet, we're supposed to go to a political event where emotions are running high (and many people have lost their jobs) while everybody is armed?

What kind of effect does it have on public debate when somebody on one side shows up openly armed? You talk about a chilling effect. Is the other side supposed to match them gun-for-gun just to feel that they can discourage the other side from killing them enough long to have their say? How does that effect public safety there in general?

And where's the protection from knowing that some people aren't going to come around armed and drunk or armed. Many criminal shootings occur when people are armed, under the influence, and have a misunderstanding with their judgment clouded and death just a push-button away.

No, this is just a bad, deluded idea at its very start. Either that, or it is sophistry aimed at inciting violence. Depending on the person who makes it, it could be one, the other, or both.

The best, most trained minds can't make this a good idea.

[Gman2]

12. I would like to. I prolly wont.

I think I would like to be the motive for them to drop the fake electric machinegun cowboy stance. There are going to be citizens killed soon. When we overreact, and call for severe controls, they will go off on us. En masse. This is not a maybe, but a logical extension. Many of those gun toters, would murder americans right now, to gain politically.You can read their ideas by the thousands.

[NewMoonTherian]

59. Innocent people with guns*

It's similar to a lynchmob, with the caveat that in this case, you know the victim hasn't committed a crime.

[rrneck]

17. More hyperbole.

I want to beat the shit outta the first freaks. I might.

That'll probably get you shot.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. You are advocating assault, battery, and theft.

I think that a few guys should disarm the freaks. Tie them up, and call the police. Then leave. A few of these incidents, will put the lie to guns providing protection..... I want to beat the shit outta the first freaks.

.



You wouldn't happen to know anything about this, would you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6348510

Just asking....

[bjobotts]

41. Yeah, I keep seeing all those Iraqis with machine guns jumping up and down shooting in the air

[bjobotts]

42. Ignoring that those bullets gotta come down somewhere.Pickup trucks loaded with smiling goons with g

[bjobotts]

43. Only good for intimidation not for discussion.Gun owners always support it till they get killed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. You are advocating assault and battery of people because you disagree with them. Pathetic.

[HALO141]

82. "I want to beat the shit outta the first freaks. I might. "

Now that just might get the air let out of you.

[rrneck]

4. Much ado about nothing.

Carrying a firearm is a pain in the ass. There will never be anything approaching universal carry described by the OP.

[villager]

5. well, "rneck," glad you've decided the incidents at the Town Halls are "much ado about nothing!"

We'll pass your assessment right along to the Secret Service!

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. The Secret Service already decided that idjit in NH wasn't a threat

You can explain to them that you know their business better than they do....

[ShortnFiery]

15. The Secret Service was tamping down the rhetoric. EVERY ONE of them would like

to increase the "security perimeter" or "ban" guns from political rallies.

Hell, even in the OLDEN DAYS ... in our Wild Wild West, often the citizens were require to CHECK their side arms in with the Sheriff's office before the arrival of large cattle drives in town.

Also, today just try to "open carry" a firearm into ANY Federal Building and see what happens? :wow: :nuke:

I'd bet good money that those in The Secret Service are working behind the scenes to, at a minimum, increase the perimeter for those crazed wing-nuts who insist on bringing their firearms.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Nonsense, the perimeters are already as large as the Secret Service finds appropriate

The Secret Service already has all the authority it needs in terms of security zones. Nobody is limiting them. The goobers with guns are outside the secured perimeter for POTUS.

I won't take your money...it just wouldn't be fair, but a donation to the Pink Pistols is in order.

[bjobotts]

44. It's the supporters that will get shot. Innocents in the streets who just disagree.

[bjobotts]

45. Sooner or later it won't be individuals carrying but gangs.Guns will attract them

[bjobotts]

46. Gangs then small armies of 2-300 swarming everywhere.Worse than Nazis

[bjobotts]

47. It's not that they don't like Obama.They just don't like YOU

[bjobotts]

48. Put up with one or two and soon you'll have hundreds.A place to wear our guns-cool

[pipoman]

56. Dude

enough of the responding to your own posts...keerist..:wtf:

[rrneck]

11. From the link in the OP.

The most important point, though, is that such open carrying of guns is a logical step in the gun lobby's campaign to arm everyone everywhere

Some bonehead carried a gun where he would be seen in a place where it was legal to do so. He tested the law, the Secret Service, the Obama administration and everybody else at the event. Nothing happened. That's not to say nothing ever will, but the editorial that you cited overstates his case.

Nobody wants to "arm everyone". "Everyone" will never be armed. It's just too much trouble.

[villager]

13. I think the point is that the gun lobbyists -- like the NRA -- are in fact trying to insinuate guns

...into every nook and cranny of American life -- landscape and psyche -- even where they currently might not be otherwise seen. Or more to the point, feared.

Not everyone will be armed. But the NRA and its cohorts definitely want to make the open flashing-of-a-gun-ain't- I-something? as legal and widespread as they possibly can....

The gun brandishing at the town halls is no accident....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. The guns are already there and thanks to the fears created by the anti gun bigots

people are getting more vociferous about defending their constitutional rights. Its giving the Brady Bunch, Daley, Bloomie, Fenty, and others fits, which many of us find well deserved and long overdue.

Private gun ownership is a progressive value.

[villager]

21. "People are getting more vociferous..."

Well, that's one way of describing what your fellow travelers on this issue are up to at the Town Halls...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Fellow travelers? Hardly

[billh58]

35. I believe that there are

more "anti-bigot" bigots than there are "anti-gun" bigots. Calling for responsible gun ownership is much different than calling for a prohibition on gun ownership.

Did the Founders really mean for Americans to openly threaten and "protect" themselves from each other? Or, were they attempting to give us a Right to be used carefully and responsibly for the common good (the security of a free State) of ALL Americans?

[X_Digger]

49. They often 'open carried'..

.. they saw concealed carry as being more nefarious.

[rrneck]

23. I'm reluctant

to attribute the appearance of open carry at at these events to one source. The NRA as an organization, to the best of my understanding, is a proponent of firearms ownership, RKBA and all that. It's a lobby group focused on one issue just like lots of others.

Republicans have owned the guns issue for a long time. They can use a firearm as a convenient symbol for a whole range of issues fitting their agenda, most of which are related to their concept of personal responsibility and freedom from adequate health care, consumer rights, workers rights and, well, you know the rest.

The Republican party has been severely marginalized of late. The use of a firearm as one symbol of their ideals will be equally marginalized and, in fact, that has been the case. From what I have seen that idiot has been recognized as an idiot far and wide. Wasn't it Chris Matthews that tore his ass up on national television?

The only thing that will prompt a noticeable number people to carry a firearm will be a significant increase in crime and public disorder.

[villager]

25. while I agree with many of the observations in this last post, rrneck, the NRA is *not* just a

...neutral lobbying organization, promoting "good gunning" in a manner akin to "good driving" or something.

They have a specific, rightwing ideology that doesn't stop at the 2nd amendment, as a look at their recent convention -- its speaker line-up, the rhetoric that came from it -- attests...

They have made themselves a symbol for that kind of incendiary behavior -- and whatever incidents result from it -- and so stand in as the main prism for this kind of rightwing "acting out..."

[rrneck]

27. Sounds like you've been watching them

more closely than I have. I got my first direct mail from them last winter. I used it to build a fire. I'd like to get a closer look if you have a link or two handy.

If they are all that right wing they will have to adjust their politics or go the way of the Dodo.

Uh oh, gotta go to work.

[TheWraith]

30. The NRA is a lot like PETA in some ways.

They have legitimate lobbying efforts on behalf of their members and their cause, and then they have the wacky, batshit crazy stuff said by their leadership.

[beevul]

53. Jeebus Villager.

"The gun brandishing at the town halls is no accident"

If you EVER want to have any credibility at all, as a gun controller, it starts with knowing AND using proper terminology.

Not doing so, is just one of the reasons that your side has lost as much ground as it has.

"Brandishing" a firearm is a CRIME.

Carrying a firearm in a holster, is NOT brandishing, and NOT a crime.


But hey, go on like you have been.


It only benefits MY side of the issue. Think about that, real hard.

[NewMoonTherian]

65. I'm not sure your anger...

or the article's is focused in the proper direction. The driving force behind the open carry movement is rank-and-file citizens, rather than the gun lobby. I donate, write letters and attend events in support of both open carry and national reciprocity, and I have friends interested in gun issues who don't affiliate themselves with any of the major organizations, and do the same thing.

Where the NRA, GOA and others do play a major part is in preventing passage of further restrictions, but again, the grassroots are where your real problem(from your perpective) originates. Without concerned, engaged individuals, the gun lobby is dead in the water.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. The Secret Service doesn't believe there is a threat.

[ManiacJoe]

67. Just trying to help...

> Carrying a firearm is a pain in the ass.

Then you are not doing it correctly. :evilgrin:

[Doctor_J]

28. What they refuse to accept is that

the people who bring guns to these meetings are terrorizing those who want to peaceably assemble. Their only two choices are

1. Carry weapons themselves,
2. Stay home

Say it slowly. the gun-wavers are terrorists

[TheWraith]

29. Say it slowly: Nobody is bringing guns to meetings.

A couple guys stand outside trying to get attention for themselves, and everybody shits a brick. This isn't a new phenomenon, it's happened for years. Ignore it.

[beevul]

54. Um...

"the gun-wavers are terrorists"

Which meeting was anyone "waiving a gun" at?


You do realise theres a difference between "waiving a gun" and carrying one in a holster, don't you?

[paulsby]

57. they only terrorize cowards

reasonable people do not fear people openly carrying.

WA state has legal open carry. i don't walk around here in fear. seattle has a (relatively) low violent crime rate. where i live (outside seattle) is much safer still. lots of guns, though

[PavePusher]

60. How Republican of you. n/t

[fedupinhouston]

64. You have a third choice...

Namely being to realize they are NOT a threat to you and they also want to peaceably assemble.

My guns are of no threat to you unless you do something stupid and become a threat to ME.

[Matt 6_5]

66. They were 'gun wavers' the same way a guy with his peepee in his underwear was a "weenie waver"

:eyes:

[Euromutt]

70. What's that line of Abe Lincoln's about the number of legs on a calf again?

The question being "How many legs does a calf have if you call the tail a leg?" The answer being "four, because you can call a tail a leg, but that doesn't make it a leg."

Similarly, you can call people who OC at demonstrations "terrorists," but that doesn't make them terrorists, because the word "terrorist" doesn't mean what you want you want it to mean. There's no single definition of "terrorism," and the issue has been clouded by the misuse of the term for political purposes, but generally it's agreed that there has to be actual violence involved, at least some of which must be directed at non-combatants.

In short, the fact that you intimidate or scare someone else does not make you a terrorist.

[winyanstaz]

31. Being raised in Wyoming where everyone carries a gun...

It doesnt bother me to see someone carrying a gun. At least I can see he is armed and can see what he is doing (if he reaches for it)
Its the guns hidden that I can't see that make me nervious.
For every open carry, there are dozens hidden.
I am also just as sure there are those that are carrying to make sure no one tries to harm Obama or anyone else.
In Wyoming when I was raised there, people were very polite to each other..because everyone was armed. You didnt see thugs etc getting away with things either cause they knew they would be run out of town by the Cops as well.

[oneshooter]

68. Personally I prefer concealed carry.

It doesn't make others nervous, and concealed means CONCEALED!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[billh58]

33. How long

will it be before the Aryan Nation, the KKK, and other hate groups begin to show up in large numbers carrying loaded pistols and rifles to public gatherings? It's their "right," don't ya know? This will be closely followed by those opposed to them also showing up at these gatherings armed and stupid. When we get to that point, the phenomenon of "road rage," will seem like a child's game. Can we ALL envision a USA where 80-100% of the population is armed 24/7? Would many of us still want a nation like that, or want to live here? Did the Founders really intend that we should be threatening each other, or did they mean the parts of the sentence that refer to a "well regulated militia," and "the security of a free State" to ensure the common good?

And please stop comparing responsible gun ownership with automobile ownership. Unlike guns, most vehicles are not designed for the sole purpose of killing. Almost all government agencies who employ law-enforcement officers conduct psychological testing, and administer extensive training before allowing anyone to carry a gun in public, or to exercise the "right" of using deadly force against a fellow citizen. Is it too much to ask that wannabe vigilantes be subject to similar requirements, and to identify themselves while in public, so that we ALL know they are at least half-way capable? From DC v. Heller:

The adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

At what point does one American's "right" to carry a loaded weapon in public, override another American's right to be reasonably safe and secure in the same arena? Is there no room for compromise, or is the 2nd Amendment more sacred than all of the other provisions of the Constitution?

Now, all of you RKBA proponents: shoot me with your best shot!...;-)

[Doctor_J]

34. Their aim is to intimidate (terrorize) the citizens who want

to have a conversation with their rep. And the reps themselves. They are terrorists. Some meetings have been canceled already. THis means that their terrorism is working.

As usual, we allow ourselves (liberals/Dems) to be pushed around, bullied, scared off, and beaten. It's been like this since Hate Radio came on the air 20 years, ago, and get worse by the day.

I am discouraged by all the talk of "they're hurting their own cause". Even the Good Germans weren't that gullible. The reason that I am trying to emigrate is that we as a group are too cowardly to fight back and the media (especially Hate Radio) are rallying these people to violence and we don't really have any way to answer. It's only a matter of time until they start executing us (actually they already have). Why don't we do something about it? :shrug:

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Liberals/Dems *have* been known to carry guns, you know.

I know the idea gives some people the vapors, but not all progress was achieved by singing "Kumbayah" and
marching with giant puppets:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245730&mesg_id=245970

The way I look at it is this: We can do several things in response.

1. Stay home and wring our hands.
2. Go to these town halls unarmed.
3. Go to these town halls legally armed.

Take your pick.

[billh58]

38. #4 -- I could

also go to these town hall meetings and exercise my legal right to be loud-mouthed, obnoxious, abusive, and show my total ignorance of the real issues.

If these highly-publicized town hall meetings were about gun-ownership, open-carry demonstrations may make a little more sense -- but they are not. Health care reform has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, or the right to "legally" carry a gun in public -- unless you are attempting to intimidate someone with the threat of deadly force.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. As SteveM pointed out, this also works to distract Dems away from health care reform

The energy spent decrying people legally carrying outside these events is not being used to get health care for all.

A win for the Pubbies and the NRA-ILA.

Fortunately, the Obama administration isn't taking the bait:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x248525

[billh58]

40. I, for one, am

not distracted by the idiots openly carrying guns to public events -- I am offended by their ignorance and lack of respect for others. That does not prevent me from actively advocating for "health care for all," and I can (even at my advanced age) do more than one thing at a time...;-)

[PavePusher]

61. So, now exercising Civil Rights in a legal, non-threatening manner...

is "ignorance and lack of respect".

Very Republican of you.

[billh58]

72. Please define

"non-threatening." What would be the purpose of carrying a loaded firearm to a crowded public gathering, other than to advertise that you are ready and willing to use deadly force if you deem it necessary? Why should total strangers carrying loaded weapons (for no apparent reason) be assumed to be "non-threatening," just because they have the "right" to carry a loaded weapon?

At this point, I normally get a response to the effect of, "but why would you trust a cop carrying a loaded weapon?" The simple answer is, that most police officers have been psychologically tested, and have undegone extensive classroom AND firearms training, so I can reasonably expect them to exercise good judgement in the use of deadly force. There are exceptions to everything, but just as in the stock market, I tend to play the odds.

Most of the gun owners that I know, and quite a few that I've recently met here on DU, agree that openly carrying a loaded weapon to a crowded public event -- especially a political event -- exhibits poor judgment, and questionable intelligence, even if it is "legal."

And, the "Very Republican" insult does not make much sense. Most Republicans and right-wingers relish flaunting their moral superiority, and "rights" in everyone's face. Seems to me that those who open-carry to public events just because it's "legal," and in order to prove a point, are adopting Republican tactics more so than those of us who are calling for moderation, respect, and common sense.

Here is an excerpt from the 2008 Democratic Party Platform concerning the 2nd Amendment:

Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we
will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that
the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in
Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense
laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background
check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of
terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we
can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children
safe.

I am a long-time Liberal Democrat who is in total agreement with this sensible policy and approach to protecting both the right to keep and bear arms, and the general safety of the American public.

[Euromutt]

79. What's with the scare quotes around "legal"?

In the states of New Hampshire, Arizona and quite a few others, open carry of firearms isn't "legal," it's just plain legal. As in, "there's no law against it." What are the scare quotes supposed to convey? Are we supposed to be believe that even though there's no law against it, it isn't really legal? That's not how things work under the rule of law; nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege and all that.

And when a particular activity is legal, you have a right to engage in that activity. Not a "right," a right. Which isn't to say there aren't thing you have a right to in spite of existing law--for example, I think same-sex couples in California (and elsewhere) have a right, not a "right," to be married before the law regardless of the passage of Prop 8. But that's not the issue here, since we're talking about matters which are not prohibited by statute.

For what it's worth, I am one of those gun owners who thinks that open carrying to a protest indicates poor judgment, especially since the events in question had no bearing on firearms regulation. When you take part in a political event, you're sending a political message. In this case, did they seriously mean to convey "we will resist health care reform by force of arms"? That would strike me as disproportionate, to say the least.

But even so, there's not much an immediate threat inherent in weapons borne openly. People with nefarious intentions typically don't advertise the fact that they're armed, hence the popularity of handguns in crime, and why short-barreled rifles and shotguns are restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Openly carried weapons (outside of war zones) tend to signal "I'm prepared to defend myself" much more strongly than they signal "I intend to attack you."

As for the Democratic party platform concerning firearms, well, all I can say is that in a two-party system, you can't expect every voter to agree with every item on the program. There is no "gun show loophole"; the ban on the manufacture and import of "assault weapons," nor its sunset, had negligible impact on violent crime; and that phrase "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne" is just so much horseshit, unless I missed the news that violent crime had ceased in Chicago, D.C., New York City, Boston and Baltimore. There's a reason I supported Richardson.

[billh58]

85. The "scare" quotes

were not intended as such, but to point out the difference between an act being "legal" vs. the exercise of "common sense."

As for the firearms platform of the Democratic Party, you are correct that reasonable people can disagree. Many of us disagree on the issue of open-carry, but not on the right to keep and bear arms -- in your home, or where it is legal. Your statement: Openly carried weapons (outside of war zones) tend to signal "I'm prepared to defend myself" much more strongly than they signal "I intend to attack you.", kind of makes my point. May I ask from whom, or what, are these people with chips on their shoulders "prepared to defend" themselves, especially at a Town Hall meeting with police and SS agents in plain sight? Why bring a gun to an idea fight? Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who is that paranoid might have other problems, and just may appear "threatening" to others?

Open-carry where I live, Hawaii, can only be permitted by the Chief of Police of each County, and current policy by all four of them does not permit CCW or open-carry (except by LEOs, as "required" by certain security personnel, or CCW in rare exceptional-need cases). The beauty of our country, is that I do not need to travel to those few states or localities where unrestricted, or unregulated, open-carry is legal (without the quotes), and therefore I really have no dog in your local fight. Should open-carry ever come to a vote as a federal nationwide policy, then it will become my fight -- but that is highly unlikely.

It would be interesting, however, to see some statistics on how many gun-owners actually engage in open-carry of loaded firearms in crowded public areas, where it is legal to do so. As many of us have stated in numerous posts, open-carry on private property, or in remote public areas, is totally acceptable to most reasonable people. Open-carry in a crowded public venue, at the very least, raises questions about the motives of the one carrying.

[HALO141]

83. Holy crap! So much fear!

"Why don't we do something about it?"

How 'bout this... Man up and get over it.

Too much paranoia to take your post seriously. Got one of those linky things to where "they" are "executing us?"

[beevul]

55. I'll take a shot at it.

"At what point does one American's "right" to carry a loaded weapon in public, override another American's right to be reasonably safe and secure in the same arena?"

The right to carry a loaded weapon in public, is not in conflict with the right to be reasonably safe and secure in the same arena.

Someone BRANDISHING a firearm, or FIRING one, IS.


Pretty simple, actually.

[billh58]

73. That's a common

response, and is logical on face value. "Brandishing," like so many English words, may have different meanings from it's dictionary, or "legal" meaning to different people. The argument could be made that while CCW is NOT "brandishing," open-carry may be, as the weapon is in plain view and easily accessible, and therefore is an "implied threat." I tend to view open-carry more as "flaunting." Then again, in the event of an "incident," it would depend on the behavior of the firearm-carrier, and the attitude of the local populace, wouldn't it?

Jury decisions differ from area to area, and nothing in the law relieves anyone of the responsibility for their own actions. Some communities view the wounding, or killing, of an innocent bystander during an act of self-defense as reckless endangering (at the very least), especially if retreat was an option.

Again, it is NOT the "legality" of open-carry (where legal) that is in question. The real question is the common sense of, and necessity for, carrying a loaded weapon to a crowded public gathering, where government-provided security is apparent. If the answer is, "to exercise a civil right for no other reason than to prove that I can," then I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. In actuality, however, openly carrying a loaded weapon in crowded public areas is not the "norm" anywhere in the civilized world -- even where it IS "legal."

Regardless of where this current "open-carry" fad ends up, I still maintain that there is a great opportunity in the armored vest industry. Kiosks at Town Hall meetings and outside bars?...;-)

[Euromutt]

80. You may be new to the question of what constitutes "brandishing"...

... but the courts of many jurisdictions have been over various aspects of this question for quite some time now. The judicial consensus in "open carry" states is that the act of openly carrying a firearm in a holster is not, in and of itself, behavior that (to use the wording of section 9.41.270 of the Revised Code of Washington, since I live in Washington) "manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons."

And yes, you can think of it as "flaunting" if that makes you happy, but the fact is, it's summer, and it can be a bit of a chore finding something that's not uncomfortably warm, but will still conceal a handgun. Most people only have so many Hawaiian shirts. So the temptation may be there to just dispense with the concealment and carry openly.

[billh58]

84. If you will re-read

my comment, you will note that I recognized both the "dictionary, and legal" definitions of "brandishing." My point was, however, the actual perception by other non-armed citizens of a total stranger with a pistol strapped to their leg, or a rifle slung over their shoulder. Especially, someone carrying a political sign which calls for violence ("The tree of liberty...").

The argument by most proponents of open-carry in a crowded public area, is that it is "non-threatening, patriotic, and perfectly legal." To me, and a majority of citizens (including responsible gun owners) an armed stranger carrying a loaded weapon to a crowded public gathering for no other reason than "it's legal" is neither displaying good judgment, nor common sense.

[JonQ]

74. Black panthers have been doing exactly that for years

I haven't heard anyone here complaining.

Also, they haven't been shooting anyone.

Of course if anyone of them does then the entire organization can be penalized, if it were part of an organized rally.

For some reason most of the murders in this country are *not* the result of people open carrying.

[beevul]

52. Oh no, paco!!

"Remember, the NRA and its colleagues are the same people who almost succeeded last month in gaining federal legislation to force our state to allow out-of-state holders of permits to carry concealed guns, including assault guns, to do so in New Jersey."


I bet they're all direct descendants of the same people that succeeded in forcing the acceptance of out-of-state holders of licenses to drive, including RED SPORTS CARS, in New Jersey. I do wonder, if they were campaining to "mobilize" everyone... :rofl:


Its called reciprocity, and its in the dictionary. Do look it up.


Panic much?

[paulsby]

78. i can legally carry in any state in the country

why? because i am a LEO in one state, and WE have reciprocity.

i believe NON-law enforcement should have the same universal right to carry as LEO's.

that's a policy preference. i am not sayin' it's gonna happen overnight.

[Euromutt]

58. This was posted for comic relief, right?

Oh man, that Bryan Miller guy never fails to crack me up. Not an original or plausible thought in his head. I hear that during his next public speaking engagement, Paul Helmke will drink a glass of water.

Really, even for a conspiracy theory, this is laughably weak. Between 35m and 50m households in the U.S. possess one or more firearms, and we're supposed to believe that none of them have their own reasons for possessing a firearm? That every single gun owner in America is a dupe of the sinister "gun lobby" that is motivated entirely by the desire to boost sales? Oh dear, oh dear, this is about on the same level of intellectual rigor as the notion that "Big Pharma" is suppressing the cure for cancer, or that the oil companies have for decades been covering up the existence of a car engine that will run on water.

There's this very human urge to want to be part of an exclusive in-group, that is privy to knowledge that muggles are too stubborn to accept or too dim to understand. Hey, we all want to feel special. And that's the urge that drives this tendency to subscribe to contrived and implausible notions: the idea that "we know something that 'they' don't know, or 'they' don't want us to know; we're so special." In Bryan Miller's case, he thinks he understands something that possibly eighty million Americans are unable or unwilling to comprehend; that makes him special.

Oh, and don't forget the "saving the world" factor. Tears For Fears had it wrong: the lines should have been "everybody wants to save the world." Saving the world is sexy. Imagine a world liberated from the need to run motor vehicles on a finite supply of fossil fuels! Or liberated from the scourges of cancer, or violent crime! Imagine how cool it would make you if you'd helped bring that about, by raising the public consciousness about how Big Oil is keeping that water-fueled engine secret, or Big Pharma is hiding the cure for cancer.

Or, indeed, how the sinister "the gun lobby will stop at nothing to encourage gun sales."

[SsevenN]

69. Fantastic post, Euromutt. NT

[Tim01]

62. IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!! nt

[benEzra]

63. Just for the record, an "assault gun" isn't what you think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gun

An "assault gun" is a howitzer mounted on a tank chassis.




You're thinking of the BS term "assault weapon," which is any non-automatic civilian firearm with any feature Sarah Brady doesn't like (protruding handgrip, threaded muzzle, adjustable stock, black plastic furniture, protruding magazine).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. I swear he was carrying one of those.

[JonQ]

75. What's the world coming to?

Next thing you know people will be attempting to utilize their first amendment rights in public. And then what?

There are even organizations dedicated to open free speech. No doubt compensating for small genitalia.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. I wish I could recommend posts.

[Euromutt]

77. It needs saying, though, that there's stupidity been going on on both sides of the issue

While I've been singularly unimpressed by all the anti-gun hysteria, with its standard predictions of blood in the streets and even (in some cases) assertions that the OCers are terrorists, and while I support the right to OC in the abstract (though I'm not keen on doing it myself), I do have to say that I think there's a time and place for open carry, and this wasn't it.

Let's face it, it's not very plausible that the chap in Phoenix with the M4gery slung over his shoulder makes a regular habit of toting that thing. So it's a fair assumption that he brought that for the protest only. I mean, it's one thing to OC to a protest if you make OC frequently in your everyday life, or if the protest relates to firearm legislation, but when it's a "town hall" about health care reform, well WTF do guns have to do with that? Or, for that matter, signs saying "It is time to water the tree of liberty"? Whatever you views on health care, I hardly think advocating a semi-socialized system of health care is an act of tyranny meriting an armed insurrection. At best, OCing at protests outside the "town halls" does make the OCers look like their priorities are rather heavily screwed up. (I mean, where the fuck were they when the Bush administration was crapping all over the Bill of Rights?)

So while I don't think the OCing at these protests presented any public safety hazard, and I don't see any reason to criminalize it, I do not think it was a smart thing to do.