Thank you for posting this.
Larry Mantle interviewed UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler today over his position that from an anti-gun perspective, Open Carry is better than concealed carry.
In full disclosure, I have been nudging Professor Winkler in that direction for a couple of years now. He is a liberal, he speaks their language and the liberal judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals take notice of what he says.
Here is a link to the interview.
Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.
Thank you for posting this.
Last edited by DoomGoober; 03-12-2014 at 06:12 PM.
Wow, this Op-Ed proved a point I was trying to make 3 months ago on a different forum. I was posting in a relatively anti-OC forum of gun owners. In the process I posted this. 3 months ago.:
"I haven't had time to review this entire thread, but I don't believe this has been brought up yet. If it has, apologies for redundancy. I'm not advocating OC or CC. From a purely legal standpoint there is something that is often completely ignored in these debates. For some reason, no one seems to want to deal with this and it gets glossed over or ignored completely.
As recently as the Heller decision, the US Supreme Court has restated that concealed carry is NOT a protected right under the constitution. Now, I know that may open a can of worms here, but that is the finding of the Supreme Court. On page 54 of the decision Scalia wrote:
After that in Peterson v. Martinez, the 10th circuit court stated:Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
As yet, no further rulings from the Supreme Court have disagreed with the Peterson decision. Bottom line for now is that concealed carry is not a legally protected right where open carry is. I'm not arguing open carry vs concealed carry. I personally believe there are pros and cons to each and that there are mythical reasons both sides use to argue their way. But I have to wonder, if concealed carry is considered by the courts to be a privilege you will lose the battle to defend it from a legal perspective. (BTW, I don't exactly agree with the courts there, but from a purely legal perspective it doesn't really matter what I think does it?)We agree with the Fifth Circuit that in applying the two-step approach to Second Amendment claims, we consider at the first step “whether the law harmonizes with the historical traditions associated with the Second Amendment guarantee.” As the foregoing demonstrates, concealed carry bans have a lengthy history. Given…the Supreme Court’s admonition in Heller that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions,” we conclude that Peterson’s Second Amendment claim fails at step one of our two-step analysis: the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons.
So if that's the case, I fear that the rush to condemn open carry is a slippery slope. If both the anti-gun community and the pro-gun community agree to essentially ban open carry through a non-law based approach (ie ostracizing, humiliating, no-gun signs, etc.) what will happen when they have effectively rid the country of open carry through social pressures and then they start outlawing concealed carry by legal means? It is in the legal arena where they have the power to ban concealed carry according to court decisions. If open carry is socially unacceptable in all cases, then we could be left in a position of not being able to carry openly because it's socially unacceptable and not being able to carry concealed because it's legally not allowed. Is that what we really want?"
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)