• 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.

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

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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."
 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

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

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
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.
 

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
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".
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.

:D
 

ditto_95

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
5
Location
, ,
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
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:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
This is a great report . . .

Except for the MOST IMPORTANT part of this story that ALL the media seem to be conveniently omitting...

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...
 

Attachments

  • guns1.jpg
    guns1.jpg
    31.5 KB · Views: 97
Last edited:
Top