p.publius
Regular Member
I am writing this after a very genial repartee with a respected forum member, Grapeshot.
My thoughts are thus:
Many open carry advocates draw unwarranted (not unwanted) attention to themselves inorder to make a point. The point being that the second amendment means that everyone can own and carry a gun.
My last interaction with another respected forum member, Skidmark, was at the Virginia TEA Party Patriots convention in Richmond.
The TEA Party and OC'ers Have the same end in mind. That is they want the federal, state and local government to follow the Constitution, as they see that it was intended to be followed. Please don't think that I have a different interpretation than the TEA Party or OC'ers do. Their's is the strictest interpretation while other's have a more flexible (read: squishy) view of what the Constitution intends.
With that being said, I would like to say that while I am 100% second amendment, meaning that any restriction in the ability to own, use, carry, transport or display is an unconstitutional infringement, I do not find it encouraging or productive to have open carry advocates be aggressive or overly confrontational. There is a fine line between a “Second Amendment Advocate” and a “Gun-Nut.”
I do not agree that the LEO in this video did every thing by the “Book,” nor did the videographer. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84583-LEO-Encouter-CA-by-the-book It is my belief that he intended to provoke a response from the police. The best thing in the video is when the officer offered the gun to the person making the video and allowing him to reholster it, the citizen told the officer that he, the citizen, prefered that the officer reholster it.
Here is another video where the stop went poorly, because of the confrontational nature of the citizen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI He, the citizen, is calm and polite but clearly his intent is not to be allowed to continue on his way. His intent is to “educate” the LEO(s) who responded and to be seen as a powerful figure in the pro-second amendment movement. If he had merely asked if he was suspected of a crime when the officer asked for ID, then offered his ID he would have been allowed to leave. If he wanted to make a stink, he should have then sued the state and the Manchester PD (that was ol' stoney face behind him), which I think would have been more effective and drawn more attention to the lack of respect for the second amendment in New Hampshire that this silly video. Of course the clown waving his hand in front of the Manchester PD patrolman should have arrested for interfering IMO.
I carry concealed because I feel that it is not my place to inure the public to open carry. I carry concealed because I feel that drawing attention to myself only makes my life harder and also makes my life and my family's life less safe. Do I think that “Open Carry” is wrong? No, far from being wrong I think it is the ultimate testimony to one's love of freedom, and if done for that reason (and for self-defense), the OC'er has my undying respect. There are many ways to get the point across that the possession of a gun is not only safe but lawful then to provoke a response from LEO greater than necessary.
Do I open carry? Yes. When? Going to and from a range that allows drawing from the holster. Do I stop in between the house and the range? Yup! Have I ever been stopped and questioned by LEO? Not yet. Questioned by citizens? Yes. Most time my response is “This is like the gun I stood watch with in the Navy. I just had a blast target practicing with it!” No one asked anything after that.
All that being said, I have no issue with Open Carry. I have issue with those who chose to escalate any response beyond that which is necessary to satisfy the “is the citizen lawfully armed” question.
When we get into the “Why should the question of being lawfully armed come up?” and “What can we do about that?”, we can have a much more productive discussion.
Robert aka NH_Yankee aka p.publius
My thoughts are thus:
Many open carry advocates draw unwarranted (not unwanted) attention to themselves inorder to make a point. The point being that the second amendment means that everyone can own and carry a gun.
My last interaction with another respected forum member, Skidmark, was at the Virginia TEA Party Patriots convention in Richmond.
The TEA Party and OC'ers Have the same end in mind. That is they want the federal, state and local government to follow the Constitution, as they see that it was intended to be followed. Please don't think that I have a different interpretation than the TEA Party or OC'ers do. Their's is the strictest interpretation while other's have a more flexible (read: squishy) view of what the Constitution intends.
With that being said, I would like to say that while I am 100% second amendment, meaning that any restriction in the ability to own, use, carry, transport or display is an unconstitutional infringement, I do not find it encouraging or productive to have open carry advocates be aggressive or overly confrontational. There is a fine line between a “Second Amendment Advocate” and a “Gun-Nut.”
I do not agree that the LEO in this video did every thing by the “Book,” nor did the videographer. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84583-LEO-Encouter-CA-by-the-book It is my belief that he intended to provoke a response from the police. The best thing in the video is when the officer offered the gun to the person making the video and allowing him to reholster it, the citizen told the officer that he, the citizen, prefered that the officer reholster it.
Here is another video where the stop went poorly, because of the confrontational nature of the citizen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI He, the citizen, is calm and polite but clearly his intent is not to be allowed to continue on his way. His intent is to “educate” the LEO(s) who responded and to be seen as a powerful figure in the pro-second amendment movement. If he had merely asked if he was suspected of a crime when the officer asked for ID, then offered his ID he would have been allowed to leave. If he wanted to make a stink, he should have then sued the state and the Manchester PD (that was ol' stoney face behind him), which I think would have been more effective and drawn more attention to the lack of respect for the second amendment in New Hampshire that this silly video. Of course the clown waving his hand in front of the Manchester PD patrolman should have arrested for interfering IMO.
I carry concealed because I feel that it is not my place to inure the public to open carry. I carry concealed because I feel that drawing attention to myself only makes my life harder and also makes my life and my family's life less safe. Do I think that “Open Carry” is wrong? No, far from being wrong I think it is the ultimate testimony to one's love of freedom, and if done for that reason (and for self-defense), the OC'er has my undying respect. There are many ways to get the point across that the possession of a gun is not only safe but lawful then to provoke a response from LEO greater than necessary.
Do I open carry? Yes. When? Going to and from a range that allows drawing from the holster. Do I stop in between the house and the range? Yup! Have I ever been stopped and questioned by LEO? Not yet. Questioned by citizens? Yes. Most time my response is “This is like the gun I stood watch with in the Navy. I just had a blast target practicing with it!” No one asked anything after that.
All that being said, I have no issue with Open Carry. I have issue with those who chose to escalate any response beyond that which is necessary to satisfy the “is the citizen lawfully armed” question.
When we get into the “Why should the question of being lawfully armed come up?” and “What can we do about that?”, we can have a much more productive discussion.
Robert aka NH_Yankee aka p.publius
Last edited: