Veritas
Regular Member
imported post
I have an idea... and it's totally open to debate (hence it being posted for discussion).
I have to believe anyone active in the open carry movement BELIEVES in our Constitutional freedom to keep and bear arms WITHOUT infringement. I believe that the open carry movement was born from this principle; and that the idea is to increase awareness of our 2A rights by demonstrating them.
So far, so good.
However, I think we are in a unique position to use these demonstrations to twist the arms of legislators into changing CPL laws. My idea is to strike a compromise based on the notion that a CPL gives us privileges in situations where our rights may otherwise be affected.
Follow me here...
If I own a business, and an gun owner walks in open carrying; I can ask him to leave. That's my right. As the gun owner, you have no right to override me. As a CPL holder, you can avoid the whole situation by concealing.
We're staring to see this happening in stores across the country already. As the issue of 2A rights continue to proliferate, especially through the practice of open carry, we're finding that more and more stores are saying "No". While it's not plausible, it is possible, that stores from coast to coast simply put up "no firearms" signs; effectively stopping open carry right in its tracks. In the end, we would have accomplished nothing more than requiring citizens to acquire CPL's in order to carry.
For sake of argument, I know that the OC movement is designed to prevent this... and I have paid homage to the fact that it's not likely to happen. But in reality, it COULD happen.
This being said, having a CPL could end up becoming a detriment. For instance, CPL's place restrictions on where you CAN'T conceal... meaning that we HAVE to open carry if we want to be armed. If these institutions (movie theaters, bars, schools, etc, etc) place "no firearms" signs because the open carry movement has generated enough buzz, then we have effectively demonstrated ourselves right out of the right to carry in these places.
My proposal is to spend some time lobbying legislaters to take another look at CPL restrictions. Specifically, my proposal is to campaign for the abandonment of CPL restrictions. Logically, they make no sense anyway. Consider the fact that you can't conceal in a movie theater, but you can open carry. Turn your CPL card over and read all the places that you CAN'T conceal... then ask yourself is it legal to OPEN carry there. There answer, in all cases, is "Yes". So do these CPL restriction really accomplish anything? In my eyes the answer is unequivicobly "No".
In essense, having a CPL only allows you to open carry in these places. But shouldn't we, as staunch 2A supporters, be calling for the admission of firearms to be carried with us wherever we go WITHOUT State permission?
I'm not happy about having to spend $300 and wait 6 weeks for the State to grant me permission to carry my pistol with me to the grocery store (because they sell liquor). Call me crazy, but I think I'm born with this right; so long as the store owner/manager is okay with it.
In this veign, I believe that all CPL restrictions should be unsumarily lifted. I believe that a CPL should grant unabated, yet specific, privilidges. Chief among them should be the privilidge to conceal in places that would otherwise not allow firearms. For instance, if I owned a business and put a "no firearms" sign on my door... then you should be prohibited from open carrying (as the law stands currently), but you should NOT be prohibited from concealed carrying. If, at any time, I see your pistol... then I should be able to revoke your CPL privilidge to enter my establishment by asking you to leave. If a situation comes up where you have to draw your firearm in defense of yourself or others, then I should be absolved of any and all liabilities as a result.
In short, I think a CPL should allow honest, law-abiding citizens (according to the background checks we must undergo to earn a CPL) the privilidhe of concealing weapons in areas that they would otherwise not be permitted. Out of sight, out of mind... no harm, no foul. And we maintain our abilities to protect ourselves and others.
Consider that police officers do not have to adhere to store signs that say "no firearms". So it's not a far stretch to imagine a world were "privilidged" people maintain certain abilities over others. But the difference between a police officer and a CPL holder, in this case, would be that the police officer is not required to hide their firearm upon entering.
To bring all this home, I propose that we run this by our respective State Reps. And as a matter or practice, to make honest efforts not to go out of our way to "shake things up for shock value" by open carrying. I'm not saying we should stop open carrying... don't miscontrue this. I'm simply saying that I think we should focus on bigger issues now and to not worry so much about trying to educate individual police departments. Let's start educating our LAWMAKERS.
As for stores that put up "no firearms" signs... I say, rather than boycotting them, we continue to do our business with them as usual; albeit we conceal (if you have a CPL, at least). But when concealing, I'd suggest making sure they KNOW we're armed and that we're concealing. Ask them if them knowing that we have a gun hidden in our waistband makes them feel any safer than if we had it on our hip. The idea here is to demonstrate how foolish the mentality is... that only a "visible" gun is "scary". The next time someone gets an email from a corporate fatcat that says "Our policy is to disallow firearms on our premises", then try responding with, "lthough I really don't see how I'm less "dangerous" with a concealed pistol versus one that's completely visible, I do appreciate the warning and will simply conceal from now on."
If, in any of these cases, the store STILL doesn't want firearms... concealed or otherwise, then I would challenge them further. "You don't want me to carry a legally concealed firearm? My question to you then is 'How are you going to know?' Are you planning on patting down every patron that walks through your doors?'" Again... the point here is to drive home the absurdity of their thoughts. In reality, there is no way in hell they are going to pat down all of their patrons... so they really cannot enforce concealed carry restrictions in their store. Now if they happen to ban YOU, specifically, because of your verbal ascertations... then, and only then, would I call for an outright boycott of their institution. To facilicate this, I'd propose gettiing with all of the other open carry movements, in all 50 States, and get one giant petition prepared in advance. I read somewhere that there are around 20,000 active members at any given point... that's enough to turn some heads at most stores. They don't have to know what State these folks are from.... names and phone numbers will suffice. Once the decision maker of one of these staunch stores gets a thick pack of paper dropped on their desk, 20,000 names long, they can randomly call (if they so desire) any number of them to verify that they are real people. At that point, we should delicately ask them which option they prefer: 1) All 20,000 people boycotting their stores, 2) To allow us to conceal carry in accordance with the law, or 3) To allow us to open carry in accordance with the law. And ask them, if they choose option 2, why they feel a hidden gun makes someone safer than an exposed gun. Perhaps ask them why they believe police officers open carry, rather than conceal carry, their pistols. Again, this should be done delicately and not in such a way that provokes debate. It should be thought-provoking; not insulting. If they still go with option 2, then let them know that while a majority of the 20,000 people will cease their boycott, that there are still some non-CPL holders on that list (perhaps even quantifying them with an actual number; say 5,000) that CANNOT shop in their store because they CANNOT legally conceal.
My proposition, in short, is to strike a compromise on the issue of open carry versus conceal carry. To remain staunchly supportive of open carry ONLY will only cause some anti's to remain staunchly opposed to 2A rights. But by compromising on the issue, we can, perhaps coax them to compromise as well.
I believe that this compromise will get us farther in our efforts to proliferate the true restoration of 2A rights.
Thoughts and discussion are welcome.
I have an idea... and it's totally open to debate (hence it being posted for discussion).
I have to believe anyone active in the open carry movement BELIEVES in our Constitutional freedom to keep and bear arms WITHOUT infringement. I believe that the open carry movement was born from this principle; and that the idea is to increase awareness of our 2A rights by demonstrating them.
So far, so good.
However, I think we are in a unique position to use these demonstrations to twist the arms of legislators into changing CPL laws. My idea is to strike a compromise based on the notion that a CPL gives us privileges in situations where our rights may otherwise be affected.
Follow me here...
If I own a business, and an gun owner walks in open carrying; I can ask him to leave. That's my right. As the gun owner, you have no right to override me. As a CPL holder, you can avoid the whole situation by concealing.
We're staring to see this happening in stores across the country already. As the issue of 2A rights continue to proliferate, especially through the practice of open carry, we're finding that more and more stores are saying "No". While it's not plausible, it is possible, that stores from coast to coast simply put up "no firearms" signs; effectively stopping open carry right in its tracks. In the end, we would have accomplished nothing more than requiring citizens to acquire CPL's in order to carry.
For sake of argument, I know that the OC movement is designed to prevent this... and I have paid homage to the fact that it's not likely to happen. But in reality, it COULD happen.
This being said, having a CPL could end up becoming a detriment. For instance, CPL's place restrictions on where you CAN'T conceal... meaning that we HAVE to open carry if we want to be armed. If these institutions (movie theaters, bars, schools, etc, etc) place "no firearms" signs because the open carry movement has generated enough buzz, then we have effectively demonstrated ourselves right out of the right to carry in these places.
My proposal is to spend some time lobbying legislaters to take another look at CPL restrictions. Specifically, my proposal is to campaign for the abandonment of CPL restrictions. Logically, they make no sense anyway. Consider the fact that you can't conceal in a movie theater, but you can open carry. Turn your CPL card over and read all the places that you CAN'T conceal... then ask yourself is it legal to OPEN carry there. There answer, in all cases, is "Yes". So do these CPL restriction really accomplish anything? In my eyes the answer is unequivicobly "No".
In essense, having a CPL only allows you to open carry in these places. But shouldn't we, as staunch 2A supporters, be calling for the admission of firearms to be carried with us wherever we go WITHOUT State permission?
I'm not happy about having to spend $300 and wait 6 weeks for the State to grant me permission to carry my pistol with me to the grocery store (because they sell liquor). Call me crazy, but I think I'm born with this right; so long as the store owner/manager is okay with it.
In this veign, I believe that all CPL restrictions should be unsumarily lifted. I believe that a CPL should grant unabated, yet specific, privilidges. Chief among them should be the privilidge to conceal in places that would otherwise not allow firearms. For instance, if I owned a business and put a "no firearms" sign on my door... then you should be prohibited from open carrying (as the law stands currently), but you should NOT be prohibited from concealed carrying. If, at any time, I see your pistol... then I should be able to revoke your CPL privilidge to enter my establishment by asking you to leave. If a situation comes up where you have to draw your firearm in defense of yourself or others, then I should be absolved of any and all liabilities as a result.
In short, I think a CPL should allow honest, law-abiding citizens (according to the background checks we must undergo to earn a CPL) the privilidhe of concealing weapons in areas that they would otherwise not be permitted. Out of sight, out of mind... no harm, no foul. And we maintain our abilities to protect ourselves and others.
Consider that police officers do not have to adhere to store signs that say "no firearms". So it's not a far stretch to imagine a world were "privilidged" people maintain certain abilities over others. But the difference between a police officer and a CPL holder, in this case, would be that the police officer is not required to hide their firearm upon entering.
To bring all this home, I propose that we run this by our respective State Reps. And as a matter or practice, to make honest efforts not to go out of our way to "shake things up for shock value" by open carrying. I'm not saying we should stop open carrying... don't miscontrue this. I'm simply saying that I think we should focus on bigger issues now and to not worry so much about trying to educate individual police departments. Let's start educating our LAWMAKERS.
As for stores that put up "no firearms" signs... I say, rather than boycotting them, we continue to do our business with them as usual; albeit we conceal (if you have a CPL, at least). But when concealing, I'd suggest making sure they KNOW we're armed and that we're concealing. Ask them if them knowing that we have a gun hidden in our waistband makes them feel any safer than if we had it on our hip. The idea here is to demonstrate how foolish the mentality is... that only a "visible" gun is "scary". The next time someone gets an email from a corporate fatcat that says "Our policy is to disallow firearms on our premises", then try responding with, "lthough I really don't see how I'm less "dangerous" with a concealed pistol versus one that's completely visible, I do appreciate the warning and will simply conceal from now on."
If, in any of these cases, the store STILL doesn't want firearms... concealed or otherwise, then I would challenge them further. "You don't want me to carry a legally concealed firearm? My question to you then is 'How are you going to know?' Are you planning on patting down every patron that walks through your doors?'" Again... the point here is to drive home the absurdity of their thoughts. In reality, there is no way in hell they are going to pat down all of their patrons... so they really cannot enforce concealed carry restrictions in their store. Now if they happen to ban YOU, specifically, because of your verbal ascertations... then, and only then, would I call for an outright boycott of their institution. To facilicate this, I'd propose gettiing with all of the other open carry movements, in all 50 States, and get one giant petition prepared in advance. I read somewhere that there are around 20,000 active members at any given point... that's enough to turn some heads at most stores. They don't have to know what State these folks are from.... names and phone numbers will suffice. Once the decision maker of one of these staunch stores gets a thick pack of paper dropped on their desk, 20,000 names long, they can randomly call (if they so desire) any number of them to verify that they are real people. At that point, we should delicately ask them which option they prefer: 1) All 20,000 people boycotting their stores, 2) To allow us to conceal carry in accordance with the law, or 3) To allow us to open carry in accordance with the law. And ask them, if they choose option 2, why they feel a hidden gun makes someone safer than an exposed gun. Perhaps ask them why they believe police officers open carry, rather than conceal carry, their pistols. Again, this should be done delicately and not in such a way that provokes debate. It should be thought-provoking; not insulting. If they still go with option 2, then let them know that while a majority of the 20,000 people will cease their boycott, that there are still some non-CPL holders on that list (perhaps even quantifying them with an actual number; say 5,000) that CANNOT shop in their store because they CANNOT legally conceal.
My proposition, in short, is to strike a compromise on the issue of open carry versus conceal carry. To remain staunchly supportive of open carry ONLY will only cause some anti's to remain staunchly opposed to 2A rights. But by compromising on the issue, we can, perhaps coax them to compromise as well.
I believe that this compromise will get us farther in our efforts to proliferate the true restoration of 2A rights.
Thoughts and discussion are welcome.