Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100622/OPINION02/6220315
SNIP
Kierkus: Carrying firearms openly is right of Michigan citizens
June 22, 2010
I'd like to respond to the June 16 Times Herald editorial, "Exhibitionists may bring us tougher laws."
The author asks: "Is it legal for two men to walk ... with handguns strapped to their hips? Sure, it's probably legal. Not smart, but legal."
I will refrain from commenting on whether it's "smart" until later, but I want to emphasize it isn't "probably legal," it's definitely legal. This is no legal gray area:
Still, the editorial raises doubts: "Carrying a firearm openly is ... a legal gray area. No federal court has ever recognized open carry as a Second Amendment right ... No state law .... permits or prohibits open carry ... In 2002 ... Attorney General Jennifer Granholm ruled it is legal ..."
This entire line of reasoning is incorrect. In the United States, we don't need laws telling us what we can do. For something to be illegal, it clearly must be prohibited.
For instance, just as there is no law authorizing open carry, there also is no statute permitting kite flying. That doesn't mean kiting is a "legal gray area."
Furthermore, the author misunderstands the role of the attorney general: He or she doesn't make laws. Open carry is legal not because Attorney General Granholm issued an opinion, but because it was never outlawed by the Legislature.
. . .
I find this series of unsupported claims about how openly carried firearms invariably lead to crime and violence particularly troubling. I would challenge anyone to present Michigan examples where open carry has lead to "Western shootouts," or to armed thugs parading through the streets. I am quite certain they won't be able to.
Consequently, the answer to the question "Where does it lead?" is "No where dangerous." Open carry doesn't cause violent crime, nor does it render the police powerless. Research suggests it might make our state safer. The presence of armed, law-abiding individuals (citizens or police officers) tends to deter criminals.
The author concludes:
"Several years ago, when Michigan liberalized its concealed-weapons laws, Dan Lane warned of the folly of putting more guns on the streets ... there will be a public backlash before the average citizen accepts turning the clock back to the Wild West ... Michigan legislators may be compelled to enact more restrictive gun laws."
I don't know Sheriff Lane, but I can tell you his concerns were unfounded. Since Michigan "liberalized" carry laws, our crime rate has not skyrocketed and the fear of "Wild West shootouts" have not materialized.
I can't predict what legislators will do in response to misguided public pressure. I can say if they ban open carry, it will do nothing to reduce crime. It will deprive law-abiding Michigan residents of their rights to self-defense.
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100622/OPINION02/6220315
SNIP
Kierkus: Carrying firearms openly is right of Michigan citizens
June 22, 2010
I'd like to respond to the June 16 Times Herald editorial, "Exhibitionists may bring us tougher laws."
The author asks: "Is it legal for two men to walk ... with handguns strapped to their hips? Sure, it's probably legal. Not smart, but legal."
I will refrain from commenting on whether it's "smart" until later, but I want to emphasize it isn't "probably legal," it's definitely legal. This is no legal gray area:
Still, the editorial raises doubts: "Carrying a firearm openly is ... a legal gray area. No federal court has ever recognized open carry as a Second Amendment right ... No state law .... permits or prohibits open carry ... In 2002 ... Attorney General Jennifer Granholm ruled it is legal ..."
This entire line of reasoning is incorrect. In the United States, we don't need laws telling us what we can do. For something to be illegal, it clearly must be prohibited.
For instance, just as there is no law authorizing open carry, there also is no statute permitting kite flying. That doesn't mean kiting is a "legal gray area."
Furthermore, the author misunderstands the role of the attorney general: He or she doesn't make laws. Open carry is legal not because Attorney General Granholm issued an opinion, but because it was never outlawed by the Legislature.
. . .
I find this series of unsupported claims about how openly carried firearms invariably lead to crime and violence particularly troubling. I would challenge anyone to present Michigan examples where open carry has lead to "Western shootouts," or to armed thugs parading through the streets. I am quite certain they won't be able to.
Consequently, the answer to the question "Where does it lead?" is "No where dangerous." Open carry doesn't cause violent crime, nor does it render the police powerless. Research suggests it might make our state safer. The presence of armed, law-abiding individuals (citizens or police officers) tends to deter criminals.
The author concludes:
"Several years ago, when Michigan liberalized its concealed-weapons laws, Dan Lane warned of the folly of putting more guns on the streets ... there will be a public backlash before the average citizen accepts turning the clock back to the Wild West ... Michigan legislators may be compelled to enact more restrictive gun laws."
I don't know Sheriff Lane, but I can tell you his concerns were unfounded. Since Michigan "liberalized" carry laws, our crime rate has not skyrocketed and the fear of "Wild West shootouts" have not materialized.
I can't predict what legislators will do in response to misguided public pressure. I can say if they ban open carry, it will do nothing to reduce crime. It will deprive law-abiding Michigan residents of their rights to self-defense.
