It isn't just cowardice. It is a fact that concealed carry fails to give fair notice to the public that a person is armed even if the person does not have any criminal intent. Intent makes the weapon no less dangerous.
"The policy underlying the prohibition against concealed weapons is based on the protection of those persons who may come into contact with a weapon bearer. If a weapon is not concealed, one may take notice of the weapon and its owner and govern oneself accordingly, but no such opportunity for cautious behavior or self-preservation exists for one encountering the bearer of a concealed weapon. In light of this policy, the question whether a particular weapon was concealed should be considered from the point of view of one approaching the location of the weapon, and the intent of the defendant as to concealment should not be considered, since a defendant's innocent intent does not make a concealed weapon any more visible." People v. Mitchell, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1364 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. (2012) at 1371.
You'll note that this isn't "thinking by 19th and early 20th century courts" BS or otherwise.
It strikes me as the usual, anti-RKBA, anti-self-defense, hoplophobic thinking of far too many elites regardless of the year. It may well be binding precedence. But it is still utter BS. And bigoted, phobic BS to boot.
Exactly what danger does a peacefully possessed weapon pose that the general public need be aware of it? And what action are they to take? A syringe full of insulin can be just as deadly, and a whole lot quieter. Shall we require diabetics to advertise to the whole world that they are carrying needles and prescription drugs?
Going back to the old urban legends about boxers and martial artists having to "register their hands as deadly weapons", shall we require trained fighters to wear some insignia of their training so the public may take "notice of the weapon and its owner and govern [themselves] accordingly." I know, let's require everyone who any kind of weapon to wear a special gold star on their label. Homosexuals can be required to wear a pink triangle. Fortunately for the phobics and bigots, those of African and Asian descent can usually be identified as being different and dangerous merely by looking at them. Ditto for most who subscribe to unpopular Middle Eastern religious traditions. :disgusted:
Dangerous people those Jews, Gays, and Gun Carriers. Best make the public aware of their presence in all cases.
The California court is taking its lead from the most despicable of precedents when it comes for forcing peaceable men and women to ID themselves as being part of an unpopular minority in the name of the rest of the public being able to "take notice" of their presence.
Not a surprise. When we pushed State preemption against gun bans at Utah government colleges, the hoplophobes suggested that those who wanted to carry guns should at least be required to do so openly so everyone would know who to avoid. IOW, who should be socially shunned and "encouraged" not to exercise their rights to an effective self-defense. Unspoken, of course, was also so that professors would know who to give poor grades to.
If a man wishes to OC, or be "out of the closet" with his sexuality, wear his religion on his sleeve, or let the whole world know of his medical conditions, so be it. Short of engaging in public indecency, I respect a man's right to live his life as openly as he desires.
I very much support a
right to OC. I do not believe their is any legitimate
obligation to do so.
(I do believe we should obey laws while working to change those who find offensive.)
But since the SCOTUS has found a right to privacy within the penumbra of the Constitution, I think that ought to apply at least equally to the peaceful possession of firearms for self-defense.
Any suggestion that the public has some "right" to know whether I'm armed or not is just so much legalese cover for infringing our rights. As Clayton Cramer documents rather ably in his
"Racist Roots of Gun Control" essay, most limits on the public possession of carrying arms including concealed possession were directed entirely at slaves, freed slaves, and other "undesirable" minorities.
Recognizing and working within existing precedence is one thing. Upholding it as a worthy ideal is quite another.
Charles
