CTD Decides to publish an article on open carry

Should We be Confronting Law Enforcement Over Open Carry?
"Recently it seems the floodgates have opened. A new day means a new video where civilians and law enforcement are clashing over open carry. I have mixed feelings over these encounters. I am completely in the corner of citizens exercising their Constitutional rights to the fullest. After all, that is why they are called rights and not privileges."

http://cdn2.cheaperthandirt.com/blo...er-fad-or-future-keymod-rail-system-blog-post

There was no discussion capability's on the page, I think it is a great conversation. I must say that it seems there is a bit of a "bias" here, but I am not certain it is intentional. The author states "Other states such as Nebraska, Ohio, Texas, North Carolina and Utah have laws that require any permit holder to immediately provide their permit and photo ID whenever they have an “official encounter” with a law enforcement officer." The laws he cites pertain to old fashioned conceal carry, as the laws are tied to the permit. He most certainly in not suggesting that because you carrying openly, that you somehow are subject to the laws as a concealed carrier, Right?

Also the title seems to be defunct at best. I have never seen a open carry situation where the OC'er initiated contact with the Police.

I read the first half and then gave up on him. The author is making no distinction between openly carrying rifles for political statements and those who openly carry a sidearm in the course of their everyday lives, as usual.

If all would recognize the second Amendment as it was meant, walking with a legal open carried firearm on ones hip would not distress anyone. The LEOs would not feel antagonized, the concerned general public would be considerable more at ease if knowing it was a common placed activity.

It is decades of brain washing, chipping away and bastardizing of the Second Amendment by anti gun persons and the willingness to accept the destruction of a constitutional right that has led some LEOs feeling they are being antagonized and citizens being scared by the sight of a legal firearm.

If the Second Amendment was followed by all as intended every aspect of his BS article can be tossed in the wastebasket. A few examples, “What if you walked into a gun free zone accidentally?” If all followed the Second Amendment there is no such thing as a gun free zone.

“For instance, even when lawfully carrying and in a state with gun-friendly laws, there may be a law on the books requiring you to provide ID anytime you have an “official encounter” with a law enforcement officer.” Following the Second Amendment I believe there would be no need for such law.

“While state law cannot supersede your Constitutional rights, you could easily misapply the law and end up a felon.” If all followed the Second Amendment and legally carrying how can gun laws be misapply for one to end up as a felon?

“I normally try to maintain a high level of alertness and seeing a half-dozen people coming my way with ARs slung and pistols on their hips would seem out-of-place. Until I was absolutely sure of their motives”
Pure BS!!! Right out of the anti gun scare tacit book.

”Ginning up controversy by taunting the police and flaunting weapons rather than simply exercising their rights.” This situation doses not exist if all followed the Second Amendment as written. A person ginning up controversy by doing something legal, how does that happen?

I can see it now. Two motor officers seeing a vehicle coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, clearly looking both ways and proceeding safely. The two officers say, look at that SOB ginning up controversy, taunting us by flagrantly making a legal stop.

28kfps said:

I can see it now. Two motor officers seeing a vehicle coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, clearly looking both ways and proceeding safely. The two officers say, look at that SOB ginning up controversy, taunting us by flagrantly making a legal stop.

Click to expand...

I genuinely LOL'd at that.

Good job, sir! :lol:

That is an excellent analogy because the "normal" guy behind him who is planning to do a "California stop" and is being hindered by the full legal stop in front of him is probably thinking: "What an @hole!"