• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

KPCC Public Radio - Would an open-carry gun law be better than more concealed weapons

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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.
 

mobiushky

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
830
Location
Alaska (ex-Colorado)
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:
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.
After that in Peterson v. Martinez, the 10th circuit court stated:
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.
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?)

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?"
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Wow, this Op-Ed proved a point I was trying to make 3 months ago on a different forum.<snip> 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've been accused of being rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, so, I guess I'll keep OCing when and where "legal." ;)
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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:

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?)

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?"

Ah the twisted web they weave when they argue for state permission slips as a right.
 
Top