Attorney's view

Bob Warden wrote:

Both state and federal constitutions protect the separate rights to keep (possess)and bear (carry) arms.We agree on this first point.

Click to expand...

Neither source specifically protects a right tobear open, or tobear concealed.Therefore they are both pre-existing and both protected.

Click to expand...

A natural argument could be made that a government entity that allows one form of carry but not the other is in accord with the constitutional guarantees. Absolutely incorrect, as the arms are not specified long gun or hand gun they include the natural guarantee of both. The government does not guarantee rights, they can only infringe upon them.

Click to expand...

In other words, we cannot say with legal certainty that we have aright toOPEN carry. Only an attorney would come to this false conclusion. A natural pre-existing right from the Supreme Ruler of the Universe does not require legal permission.

Click to expand...

Pragmatically, I don't think pushing the open carry envelope achieves anything positive.Ask Arizonans who had 'Chris' open carry a pistol and AR to an Obama healthcare event last August and now have Constitutional Carry, both Open and Concealed. Didn't have a negative effect now did it?

Click to expand...

I don't think one's ability to defend self or others is significantly enhanced by open versus concealed carry. Although it is far easier to carry a larger caliber, eliminate unecesary clothing in the heat, draw faster and overcome physical handicaps that some people have.

Click to expand...

Perhaps even the opposite: an observant armed bad guy will seek to neutralize known threats. This has never happend, never, this is a poor argument.

Click to expand...

If you carry open, you are a known threat to the criminal. And they will leave, how many criminals commit crimes when cops are around?

Click to expand...

Concealed carry has the obvious added benefit of not inflaming anti-gunners. Political correctness run amok. Only irrational anti gunners are inflamed, most are just curious.

Click to expand...

And stop pretending you can change the minds of anti-gunners by openly carrying guns! No one has ever said that Bob, stop projecting.

Click to expand...

Whether the opinion is justified or not, people with strongly held beliefs and opinions very rarely change their minds. We end in agreement again.

To summarize, no clear right to open carry, and no productive reason to do so. Proven incorrect.

Click to expand...

Bob, when you first came on this web site I supported your efforts. After watching your methods I am much more tepid in that support. Many here do not support your engagement of this issue. I am still optomistic. With that being said, quickly my background. My college degree is related to Revolutionary and Constitutional Law History and Politics. While I am just a hack, there is ample evidence in primary documents supporting open and/or concealed carry without infringement.

Click to expand...

My post that inspired this thread was taken from the thread below, where you will find more info and my responses:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/43535-4.html

Click to expand...

Bob, I disagree with your assessment in a couple ways. Even in the Heller decision, it was indicated that concealed carry is something not constitutionally protected, as it is subject to restrictions and regulations. Additionally, as I pointed out in my post on the topic, "the constitutions of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and North Carolina all explicitly call out that the right to keep and bear arms does not protect the right to carry concealed weapons." That's 20% of the states, all which protect the right to keep and bear arms, but call out concealed carry as subject to state regulation. I agree that providing for either form would meet the definition of "keep and bear arms", however, I contend that the current state of jurisprudence widely recognizes the right as protecting the open carry of firearms, not the right to concealed carry.

Considering that states banning open carry require permission slips to concealed carry, I would say that, at present, no state that bans open carry supports the right to keep and bear arms. For you to follow your "natural argument", you'd need to show how the right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged within the status quo by states requiring paying fees in order to exercise said rights.

As for your pragmatic pessimism, I would argue that the crime you never have to fight back against defends you better than the one you must fight against. Your claim that an observant armed bad guy will neutralize known armed citizens that present a threat - do you have any evidence of that happening?

Additionally, as I showed earlier (with a link to the referenced research paper), "inflaming the anti-gunners" is the only way to desensitize them to emotional fear. You're right that people with strongly held opinions rarely change their minds, but when it happens, it's generally due to exposure to the very thing they hate and fear. By always hiding the fact you're a gun owner, you set yourself up to be portrayed as an "other" in legislative pushes. By being visible and positive within your community, it's much harder for such ridiculous rhetoric to ring true. If anything, I'd say you can never change the mind of anti-gunners by concealed carrying and arguing with logic, as their appeals are from emotion, and until that wall is torn down, they will be unable to separate the issue of their mental picture of the stereotypical gun owner and the reality of who we are as people.

To summarize my point: a more cogent argument could be made for the right to open carry over concealed carry, and there is research which suggests the practice to be productive, as well.

Click to expand...

Tawnos wrote:

Bob, I disagree with your assessment in a couple ways. Even in the Heller decision, it was indicated that concealed carry is something not constitutionally protected, as it is subject to restrictions and regulations. Additionally, as I pointed out in my post on the topic, "the constitutions of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and North Carolina all explicitly call out that the right to keep and bear arms does not protect the right to carry concealed weapons." That's 20% of the states, all which protect the right to keep and bear arms, but call out concealed carry as subject to state regulation. I agree that providing for either form would meet the definition of "keep and bear arms", however, I contend that the current state of jurisprudence widely recognizes the right as protecting the open carry of firearms, not the right to concealed carry.

Considering that states banning open carry require permission slips to concealed carry, I would say that, at present, no state that bans open carry supports the right to keep and bear arms. For you to follow your "natural argument", you'd need to show how the right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged within the status quo by states requiring paying fees in order to exercise said rights.

As for your pragmatic pessimism, I would argue that the crime you never have to fight back against defends you better than the one you must fight against. Your claim that an observant armed bad guy will neutralize known armed citizens that present a threat - do you have any evidence of that happening?

Additionally, as I showed earlier (with a link to the referenced research paper), "inflaming the anti-gunners" is the only way to desensitize them to emotional fear. You're right that people with strongly held opinions rarely change their minds, but when it happens, it's generally due to exposure to the very thing they hate and fear. By always hiding the fact you're a gun owner, you set yourself up to be portrayed as an "other" in legislative pushes. By being visible and positive within your community, it's much harder for such ridiculous rhetoric to ring true. If anything, I'd say you can never change the mind of anti-gunners by concealed carrying and arguing with logic, as their appeals are from emotion, and until that wall is torn down, they will be unable to separate the issue of their mental picture of the stereotypical gun owner and the reality of who we are as people.

To summarize my point: a more cogent argument could be made for the right to open carry over concealed carry, and there is research which suggests the practice to be productive, as well.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your well-reasoned thoughts on this. I don't think we disagree on much! Thanks for not being insulting like too manyin this forum.

Click to expand...

Bob Warden wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Bob, I disagree with your assessment in a couple ways. Even in the Heller decision, it was indicated that concealed carry is something not constitutionally protected, as it is subject to restrictions and regulations. Additionally, as I pointed out in my post on the topic, "the constitutions of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and North Carolina all explicitly call out that the right to keep and bear arms does not protect the right to carry concealed weapons." That's 20% of the states, all which protect the right to keep and bear arms, but call out concealed carry as subject to state regulation. I agree that providing for either form would meet the definition of "keep and bear arms", however, I contend that the current state of jurisprudence widely recognizes the right as protecting the open carry of firearms, not the right to concealed carry.

Considering that states banning open carry require permission slips to concealed carry, I would say that, at present, no state that bans open carry supports the right to keep and bear arms. For you to follow your "natural argument", you'd need to show how the right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged within the status quo by states requiring paying fees in order to exercise said rights.

As for your pragmatic pessimism, I would argue that the crime you never have to fight back against defends you better than the one you must fight against. Your claim that an observant armed bad guy will neutralize known armed citizens that present a threat - do you have any evidence of that happening?

Additionally, as I showed earlier (with a link to the referenced research paper), "inflaming the anti-gunners" is the only way to desensitize them to emotional fear. You're right that people with strongly held opinions rarely change their minds, but when it happens, it's generally due to exposure to the very thing they hate and fear. By always hiding the fact you're a gun owner, you set yourself up to be portrayed as an "other" in legislative pushes. By being visible and positive within your community, it's much harder for such ridiculous rhetoric to ring true. If anything, I'd say you can never change the mind of anti-gunners by concealed carrying and arguing with logic, as their appeals are from emotion, and until that wall is torn down, they will be unable to separate the issue of their mental picture of the stereotypical gun owner and the reality of who we are as people.

To summarize my point: a more cogent argument could be made for the right to open carry over concealed carry, and there is research which suggests the practice to be productive, as well.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your well-reasoned thoughts on this. I don't think we disagree on much! Thanks for not being insulting like too manyin this forum.

Click to expand...

Odd, I took almost the exact opposite stance to your post. I said the right to open carry is the one that is generally regarded as constitutionally protected, that open carry is better for self defense, and that it is a means to change hearts and minds. What part of that do you agree with (that is, what part of your initial post are you changing your opinion about?)

Click to expand...

As for changing hearts and minds, I think you're overly optimisitc, and I disagree. Hope that clears it up. and thanks again for staying on topic!

Click to expand...