Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Christian Science Monitor reports on the the "re-normalization" of gun carry in th

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    This is a great report and shows recognition of theopen carry movement by not just the Secret Service, police, and mainstream America and its mediA, but also by the traditional pro-gun lobby and commentators, some of whom used to always criticize open carry as COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, going to "backfire" and cause us to lose out rights we have gained - in actuallity, the movement has worked like drano in most or all instances - . . . SO FAR.

    But now we are getting to the finer, and frankly harderpoints of open carry philosophy, strategy, tactics, and activism- e.g., what and when is too far or too much, what is less effective, what is more effective, etc.

    I really like the part about how the law professor noting that anti-gun forces' overreaction to the "presence of guns near the president is part of an effort to undermine these gains . . . an attempt to somehow reverse the normalization of guns."

    ---

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0819/p02s01-ussc.html
    Did rifle-toting Obama protester help or hurt gun rights?
    New laws are allowing more Americans to carry guns in public. But are gun-carrying protesters going too far?

    Patrik Jonsson[/b] | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
    from the August 18, 2009 edition

    Atlanta - The appearance of weapons near the president at a speech and a healthcare town hall has been cast as either a danger to the president and public debate or a sign of that gun ownership is gradually losing its stigma.

    A man in a shirt and tie carried a shoulder-slung rifle near President Obama's entourage in Phoenix Tuesday. Since carrying a gun is legal in Arizona, police did not take action against him or any other gun-carrying protesters.

    Last week, however, a man was arrested near the presidential town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., for not having the proper permits for a gun. Another man wore a gun in a leg holster.

    To many liberals, such displays are a worrisome sign that the president's opponents are trying to intimidate public discourse. "Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement, and end up stifling debate," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in a statement issued Tuesday.

    But many gun-rights experts see another trend at work: the "re-normalization" of gun ownership in the United States. So-called "must-issue" laws, which mandate that anyone who meets the requirements for a gun permit must be issued one, are spreading to more states. Congress has broadened the rights of gun owners recently, for example allowing guns in federal parks. And the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller last year emboldened gun owners, experts say. It confirmed that the constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" is not a state right, as some gun-control advocates had argued, but an individual right.

    The recent furor over the presence of guns near the president is part of an effort to undermine these gains, says Brandon Denning, a law professor at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Ala. It "is an attempt to somehow reverse the normalization of guns," he says.

    In actuality, the spread of laws that allow permit-holders to carry their weapons openly throughout much of the central, Southwestern, and Southern United States has gradually made the sight of people carrying guns less jarring, says Dave Kopel, a gun-rights expert at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

    Yet the decision by the crisply dressed man in Phoenix to carry a rifle to an anti-Obama rally seemed to be intended as a provocative statement of Second Amendment rights, says Mr. Kopel.

    "This is really a form of expressive speech, and I think the fact that the Secret Service ... hasn't gotten particularly upset shows good judgement on their part," he says.

    Still, the man didn't necessarily do the Second Amendment cause any favors, Kopel says.

    "While I think it's really paranoid for some of the media to falsely characterize this as people trying to threaten the president, I think it shows bad judgement to carry [guns] near a presidential speech," he says. Protesters are "trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights, but they're doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause."

  2. #2
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    Great article.

    Ted Kopel... what would you have said to Rosa Parks?

    Edited to correct the spelling of Ted Kopel's last name
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    Excellent point. Those kids in Little Rock, AR should have just gone to their own school. Just because the courts said they can go to a white school doesn't mean they should have.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Fair article, well written. Open carry is my way of life now. Wish he would have mentioned Washington since we are considered a liberal state and the open carry movement is very strong here.

    Personally, I would carry only if I normally already do so, and probably not a long arm but I don't condemn those who tactfully and respectful do so like the sharp, well mannered, polite gentleman in Arizona. Who am I to trample on the way he wants to exercise his 1st amendment right.

    I do believe that open carry can be a 1st amendment issue. I also think open carry has done more to than any other political organization to normalize guns, and make people more receptive.
    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)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    In actuality, the spread of laws that allow permit-holders to carry their weapons openly throughout much of the central, Southwestern, and Southern United States has gradually made the sight of people carrying guns less jarring, says Dave Kopel, a gun-rights expert at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

    Yet the decision by the crisply dressed man in Phoenix to carry a rifle to an anti-Obama rally seemed to be intended as a provocative statement of Second Amendment rights, says Mr. Kopel.

    "This is really a form of expressive speech, and I think the fact that the Secret Service ... hasn't gotten particularly upset shows good judgement on their part," he says.

    Still, the man didn't necessarily do the Second Amendment cause any favors, Kopel says.

    "While I think it's really paranoid for some of the media to falsely characterize this as people trying to threaten the president, I think it shows bad judgement to carry [guns] near a presidential speech," he says. Protesters are "trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights, but they're doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause."
    I just lost a lot of respect for Dave Kopel.

  6. #6
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Decent article. It presents the Open Carry movement as legal, just, and gaining strength. Mr. Kopel's opinion of OCing long rifles at a presidential event didn't do the 2A any good is just that, his opinion. I think it shows that OCing in general, and the specific case of OCing a semi-automatic rifle at a presidential ralley, have moved beyond the "OMG, he has a gun, why is he allowed to do this, he should be arrested" (unless you watch MSNBC) to the more nuanced "sure it's legal, sure its a right, but is this particular action the best course of action for making apolitical point in this particular forum".

    I fully support the gentleman who carried the AR-15, I fully support all who chose to exercise their 2A Right. I feel that as gov't becomes more "At the People, By the Politicians" it is important to let them know WE THE PEOLPLE are ultimately in the end, in charge. But I can understand Kopel's question in terms of those who are trying to make a politcal statement, is this the right statement at the right time and the right place. It is a question any political activist must ask. I say the answer is and was "yes".

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    JoeSparky wrote:
    Great article.

    Ted Kopel... what would you have said to Rosa Parks?

    Edited to correct the spelling of Ted Kopel's last name
    Now you need to fix the first name: it's Dave Kopel. Ted Koppel (with two p's) is the journalist and former host of Nightline on ABC.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    In actuality, the spread of laws that allow permit-holders to carry their weapons openly throughout much of the central, Southwestern, and Southern United States has gradually made the sight of people carrying guns less jarring, says Dave Kopel, a gun-rights expert at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

    Yet the decision by the crisply dressed man in Phoenix to carry a rifle to an anti-Obama rally seemed to be intended as a provocative statement of Second Amendment rights, says Mr. Kopel.

    "This is really a form of expressive speech, and I think the fact that the Secret Service ... hasn't gotten particularly upset shows good judgement on their part," he says.

    Still, the man didn't necessarily do the Second Amendment cause any favors, Kopel says.

    "While I think it's really paranoid for some of the media to falsely characterize this as people trying to threaten the president, I think it shows bad judgement to carry [guns] near a presidential speech," he says. Protesters are "trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights, but they're doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause."
    I just lost a lot of respect for Dave Kopel.
    I have also. The right doesn't end just because one of ouremployees is in town.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    In actuality, the spread of laws that allow permit-holders to carry their weapons openly throughout much of the central, Southwestern, and Southern United States has gradually made the sight of people carrying guns less jarring, says Dave Kopel, a gun-rights expert at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.
    Case in point, today I walked in the front door of one of my favorite restaurants and approached the register. As usual, they're a touch thin-staffed, so no one is usuall at the register until someone arrives. A young lady, perhaps 27, sitting at a table immediately behind the register spied my firearm and her eyes grew wide as her mouth dropped open. It was wasnt' exaggerated in the least. Rather, it was merely genuine surprise and concern. Thankfully, the manager popped through the kitchen door and say, "Hey! How're you doing this week? Anything new?"

    By this time, one of the people at the table had seen the expression on the face of the young lady, asked, "What's the matter," and I saw two or three of her company of eight look in my direction. However, the friendly exchange between the manager and I put them at ease, and after paying, I proceeded to select my food.

    I saw them steal a couple of glances at me as I went through the line and sat down, but when I pulled out my book and began reading while enjoying lunch, it finally dawned on them that "mwag" and "threat to the general puplic" are not synonomous terms.

    When they left about fifteen minutes later, I saw them all pile into a van with Michigan plates, so no wonder!

    Oh, well. I was hoping I was helping to put one of the locals at ease, but if it instead helped get the word out to other states with stricter gun laws than Colorado, I'm happy for that, as well!

    But boy, I can see why Kopel used the term "jarring!" A few locals (less than 1 in 10) have had looks of concern when they observe my OC firearm, but nothing like this. She was definately "jarred" to see a citizen openly-carrying a firearm.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    probably thought she was in the wild west.

  11. #11
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    When they left about fifteen minutes later, I saw them all pile into a van with Michigan plates, so no wonder!

    Oh, well. I was hoping I was helping to put one of the locals at ease, but if it instead helped get the word out to other states with stricter gun laws than Colorado, I'm happy for that, as well!
    Actually, awareness of OC in Michigan has been relatively high and growing for the past several years. Michigan is among the most active of the states in the OC movement, and our media exposure has been consistent and frequent with everything from public picnics to successfully taking on local units of government for preemption violations. OC here in Michigan draws hardly any concern from Michiganders in public. If I were you, I would hesitate to draw any conclusions about the general comfort level of Michigan residents with OC from one Michigan resident.

    As for "stricter gun laws":

    First, let's start with the states' constitutions:
    Michigan Article I, Section 6: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."
    Colorado Article II Section 13: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

    As you will note, Michigan's is much plainer and does not contain language to the detriment of "constitutional" concealed carry, as Colorado's explicitly does. In order to move to "constitutional carry" (unlicensed open or concealed carry), you in Colorado have an additional major hurdle in your constitution that we in Michigan do not. Your gun law is more strict, starting at the top.

    Second, and another major factor on gun laws, is preemption:
    Michigan: Total and unequivocal state preemption of firearms regulation over lower levels of government. Period.
    Colorado: Localities may prohibit the open carrying of firearms in a building or specific area within their jurisdiction.
    Apparently, you can't OC in places like Denver, but I can OC all over Michigan.

    Gun laws stricter in Michigan? I don't think so.
    Last edited by DanM; 10-19-2010 at 10:00 AM.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  12. #12
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    This is a great report . . .
    Except for the MOST IMPORTANT part of this story that ALL the media seem to be conveniently omitting...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    A man in a shirt and tie carried a shoulder-slung rifle near President Obama's entourage in Phoenix Tuesday... Yet the decision by the crisply dressed man in Phoenix to carry a rifle to an anti-Obama rally seemed to be intended as a provocative statement of Second Amendment rights, says Mr. Kopel.

    The MOST important part of this story wasn't that some guy attended a rally near the President with an AR slung over his shoulder, or that he was "crisply dressed".

    The most important part of this story that ALL the media (even this above-mentioned article) seem to leave out is that this guy who cause all the hoopla by carrying a handgun and an AR at an Obama Rally was an AFRICAN-AMERICAN!!!

    The reason the media and the "political elite" HATE thsi story, and the TRUTH of it, is not so much that is shows a "normalization" of the carrying of arms. They hate this story because it shows the normalization of bearing arms for EVERYONE, not just "the right kinds of people".

    The "political elite" don't get too upset about rich white people carrying guns. What REALLY gets them scared is the thought of middle-class people with arms, or even (GASP--god forbid) people who are not white with guns. THAT is what really scares them. The entire "anti-gun" really has nothing to do with guns. IT is about CONTROL, and specifically about controlling the "wrong kinds of people" to keep them helpless, victimized, and unable to fend for themselves in an increasingly chaotic world.

    Not only do they lie about guns, crime, and the powers and abilities of law enforcement, but they are INTENTIONALLY creating racial division and fostering racist sentiments among the minority communities by omitting the fact that THE DUDE WAS BLACK!!!

    Wake up, America--you're being lied to every minute--by BOTH sides...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	guns1.jpg 
Views:	89 
Size:	31.5 KB 
ID:	4286  
    Last edited by Dreamer; 10-19-2010 at 02:20 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •