imported post
Open carry advocates think that if enough people start carrying guns openly that the public will get used to it. Unfortunately, there will never be enough gun owners willing to open carry to ever get most people used to this. The whole “movement” is not only an exercise in futility but actually counterproductive. When enough people get upset about this there will be a huge backlash and a wave of state laws to ban open carry.
Pure unadulterated BS. Michigan, Virginia and Washington all had this phase where it seemed that nobody in law enforcementknew OC was legal. It is exactly that; a phase; a transitional period between implementation and acceptance.Now, largely thanks to a few sacrifices on the part of those on this board, local police know it's legal, and dispatchers really are starting to ask "Well, is he waving it around or being threatening to other people?" before telling the officers to go lights and sirens for a MWAG.
I wonder what point it is they are trying to make. I know that they could conceal their gun but they choose not to. Why? Just to get in people’s face about it, or to show off that they can? At the very least I think it shows poor judgment and disrespect for your fellow citizens. Just because you have the right to do something, something you know will upset a lot of people, doesn’t mean that you should.
OK,just because it'stotallythe blogger'sright to bash open carry, something he knows will upset a lot of people, doesn't mean thathe should. The blogger's exactly right; there's legal and prudent, and the two sometimes do not coincide. However, he totally misses the point. OCers, even if they are trying to make a statement and raise public awareness, are by no means trying to antagonize. Show me an OCer whose sole reason is to get arrested so he can sue, and I'll show you an OCer who's working way too hard for his money (and who is not likely to succeed). Sometimesantagonizingcan't be helped; there are unfortunately a lot of people who are genuinely frightened of firearms and are either totally unwilling or mentally incapable of being reasoned with. However, the vast majority look at a person going about his business like any other person and see a normal, and the sight of a gun on their hip might cause an onlooker to raise an eyebrow, but not the hue and cry.
On top of that, "It may be legal but don't do it or they'll outlaw it" is a totally fallacious argument; unfortunately there's some truth behind it (Black Panthers parade in California), but there hasn't been a single State in which public awareness has grown regarding handgun OC that has changed the laws to crack down on it.Law enforcement hastried to interpret the laws to suit themselves, they've outright ignored it sometimes, but not a single State Legislature has said "We've had enough of these gun-huggers". First, it's political suicide in the current climate, and second, allowing citizens to arm themselves actually saves the State a chunk of change on law enforcement and legal costs.
Last week in Pennsylvania, the Lebanon County Sheriff revoked the concealed handgun permit of a woman who insisted on open carrying her gun to her daughter’s soccer games. This upset other parents and they complained to police. The irony is that what she was doing is legal and revoking her concealed handgun permit does nothing to prevent her from open carry. Problem not solved.
And who's fault? The Sheriff KNEW that revoking the CC permit would change absolutely nothing; he did it solely to spite her because an old buddy of his thought he was still on the judge's bench. The blogger's right; problem not solved. But who has the problem here? Obviously not the soccer mom; she OCed before and she'll continue to do so, now more often than not. Once again, government proves that, when it has to be seen doing something, it will take a bad idea, somehow rationalize it, put it into effect, then defend it as if it were God's Word.
It was a long hard fight to get 38 states to pass laws giving law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves as they go about their daily business. Before the concealed carry movement started there were only a handful of states that would issue permits to anyone interested in self-defense. In recent years a new movement has started up of people who insist on carrying their protection openly. But only 6 states prohibit or severely restrict open carry. Which begs the question, why have a movement for something that is already allowed almost everywhere?
Ask Dr. King. I mean, the 15th Amendment saying racecould not be a bar to voting rightshad been around almost 100 years, so why have a movement for something that was already allowed everywhere? It's the extreme, but gun carriers face a lot of harrassment even in states that explicitly recognize open carry as a right. OCers are arrested for any number of things just to get them off the streets. It isn't right; it's an injustice. Are we going to roll over and take it just because they're the police? No. They are the police, NOT the law, and the end result of this unpleasantness is, 9 times out of 10, that those hired to enforce the law are required to educate themselves on it, such that this unpleasantness does not happen again.
[line]
On top of all this, seriously, what is he complaining about? If he doesn't want to OC, fine. I don't particularly feel like owning a .50 caliber rifle, and would not be quick to defend civilian ownership from a practical standpoint, but I don't have to; there are others who can and will argue that point. My point is OC, which is easier for me; far more practical advantages. Compare it to anything else in whichthere are options. You want as many as possible. You will obviously pick just one any given time you make the choice, and will probably stick with that one choice, but if there's only one or two options it's not much of a choice. To put it back on him; with 44 out of 50 states allowing OC, the odds are decent he lives in an OC state. Why then didhe need concealed carry? Because he wanted that option. Our fight is no different from the fight for concealed carry; we want OC as an option, and more specifically, as a viable one that will not get us harrassed by misinformed and even power-tripping police officers.
