Is handgun 'open carry' safer for me than 'concealed carry'?

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--I think there are places and times and circumstances where the OCing of a long gun is beyond question appropriate. I think are some circumstances where OCing a long gun is going to be pushing the current social limits such that society can reasonably be expected to adjust. And I also think there are some circumstances where OCing a long gun is so far beyond current social norms that to do so with any intent of normalizing guns is, at best, a fool's errand, and quite possibly counterproductive.

Nope. I don't think it should be illegal any more than I think it should be illegal to stand on a street corner yelling "F the government" all day long.

But I think there are circumstances where it is stupid, counterproductive, and imprudent to OC a long gun IF one's intent is to normalize the possession of guns. And I'm willing to stand up and say as much.

If one's intent is not to normalize the lawful possession of guns, but instead to act as some kind of agent provocateur to stir up fear and panic and backlash, well I'll have words to say about that as well.

--snipped--

I support the constitutional right to OC a long gun.

I really wish a few folks had chosen to be a bit more prudent in when and how they exercised that right relative to where social norms were. Rather than advancing the cause, they impeded it.

Social norms here said that OCing a handgun was getting accepted. OCing a handgun on campus and in certain, specific localities was still pushing boundaries. But OCing a long gun when, where, and how these folks did resulted in public and legislative backlash. Fortunately, we didn't get any bad laws. But we had to fight a lot harder to get less good laws than we otherwise could have.

At the end of the day, the public votes. And anyone familiar with the lasting effects of the Black Panthers carrying rifles into the California Statehouse in 1967 should consider on how bad backlash can be. Anyone not familiar with that history should go learn it quickly, lest he find himself needlessly repeating it somewhere else.

Charles

Forum Rule: (14) LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control and lack of trigger guard coverage, we cannot support long gun open carry.

Explaning why is, however, not a rule violation.

Oh and I did read the wall of text

 

[OC for ME]

Fair warning... wall of text below.... Either we have the freedom to exercise our right to bear arms or we have the privilege of being allowed to exercise that right but only in ways that other people, whether outright gun grabbers or those within the gun community itself, consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or ................... "acceptable".

Which one do you want?

I submit that some folks would like both, simultaneously, depending on who you are...politically speaking.

The answer is simplicity itself, yet made complicated, overly so, by many. If a dude is OCing a LG where OCing a LG is legal then the issue is not the OCer but the state. Some citizens disagree with that act, for whatever reason, and may use the state to remedy to situation. The state will typically, and gladly in many instances, work to discourage the OCer from OCing in a inappropriate manner.

Then there is the offended citizen's vote...

 

[jerome.uzzle.5]

I open carry all the time

 

[utbagpiper]

Most people will not read a wall of text

Yes people vote. All too often they vote on issues they have absolutely no clue about.

I do apologize for my verbosity. I'm well aware of my weakness in this area, but haven't yet figured out how to boil complex issues down to bumper-sticker soundbites.

The juxtaposition of the above two comments struck me. I'm as happy as anyone to rail on the lack of intelligence, knowledge, and principles of the average voter. Clearly, if even the most committed members of the pro-RKBA community won't read a page of reasonably decently paragraphed and formatted text, then nobody will. We have no choice but to rely on emotion.

And the most common emotion that a lot of folks have upon seeing something that is grossly beyond social norms, is fear. That is one of the most powerful emotions. We ought to be prudent about the circumstances under which we invoke it.

"I support (insert right) BUT~~

I support our rights BUT I'd like to secure them permanently, rather than losing them.

As an analogy. I certainly support my right to freedom of speech. BUT recognizing my weakness in written communications, most all of GOUtah!'s written communications are penned by someone else, a man who has a unique gift for powerful brevity. My talents are used primarily in spoken testimony before the Utah legislature and ideas and strategies on how to advance our agenda.

I certainly don't support any legal limits on my 1st amendment rights. BUT my goal is not to demonstrate an absolute exercise of my 1st amendment rights every time GOUtah! needs to convey information to our members. So I CHOSE to exercise my rights in a way that is calculated to best secure them long term: both 1st and 2nd amendment.

Put into another context, I could choose to exercise my 1st amendment rights by using vulgarities and personal attacks against legislators as I testify in favor of pro-RKBA legislation or against anti-RKBA legislation. BUT I've calculated that I am more likely to achieve my goals by choosing to avoid such conduct in favor of civil, professional discourse.

I support our rights, BUT....is not always the bad thing some portray it to be. BUT, we have move beyond bumper-sticker "logic" to recognize that.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Either we have the freedom to exercise our right to bear arms or we have the privilege of being allowed to exercise that right but only in ways that other people, whether outright gun grabbers or those within the gun community itself, consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and/or ................... "acceptable".

Which one do you want?

I want the right to bear arms. And I want it permanently.

The difference between theory and practice is that what looks great in theory sometimes fall flat in practice.

Perhaps you'd care to directly address the Black Panther event in 1967. They fully exercised their rights. Scared the crap out of a bunch of racist old white legislators. They were men, unafraid and uncaring of what others thought of them. They stuck it to the man and to the ignorant majority. They had their day of glory.

And how has that worked out for RKBA in California for the last 45 years?

Do you want to repeat history? Or do you want to get things right this time?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Forum Rule: (14) LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC:

Let me bring this back to a permitted topic then.

In Utah there is no law banning the open carrying of handguns. OC is generally well accepted. Utah law also creates a fairly high bar for a business open to the public to win a trespassing case. To be guilty, you have to materially interfere with business. "No Guns" signs on businesses carry no force of law in Utah.

I'm betting that a decent defense lawyer could win an acquittal for any well behaved group of OCers who decided to have an OC rally inside a private business. We could each go buy a cup of coffee, sit down and enjoy our beverages for a few minutes while completely filling the store with unwanted, unwelcome firearms. It would be perfectly legal. It is our RIGHT to do so.

Should we? If we decide not to that, are we somehow surrendering our rights?

Yes people vote. All too often they vote on issues they have absolutely no clue about. And hiding (not exercising) a right does nothing to give folks a clue....but when people exercise their rights despite public opinion the public begins to learn about that right ... and public opinion changes. That has been shown to be true by a relatively recent change in public opinion concerning the right to bear arms brought about by those who chose to openly carry sidearms..... despite public opinion.

Let me give an off topic, but illustrative counter-example.

A couple of years ago a group of people in Utah who favor open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens decided they needed to rally support. They would show just how many "undocumented workers" we had and how much we relied on them. They would come out of the shadows and force the public to deal with the issue. So they had a march. They got all the necessary permits for a parade. A couple of thousand people showed up and walked down a major street to our capital while chanting positive affirmations. To show they were from other nations and in need of immigration reform, a lot of them carried flags from their home-nations: a smattering throughout Latin American, but predominantly the Mexican flag. They were peaceful and law abiding. They received very favorable media coverage.

BUT, the march didn't have quite the desired effect. Indeed, quite the opposite. The voters didn't see sympathetic, hard-working people on whom they relied for services. Nope. The voters saw 2,000 mostly brown-skinned people, yelling in a foreign language about "the race" (la raza), marching under the flags of a foreign nation, and making demands. The voters saw an invading army. It scared a lot folks and outraged others.

Many who had been on the fence, turned solidly against any kind of "immigration 'reform'". Those who were already hostile had a lot of chances to say, "I told you so..." And even some who had been friendly, found it expedient to at least retreat into a closet for a bit.

Are the voters in SLC stupid? Racist? Mean spirited? Maybe. It doesn't really matter why they reacted as they did. The end result was that a lot of legislators got a lot of pressure and what had been a train picking up speed in Utah for various measures favorable to "undocumented workers" was all but derailed.

Since then, not a single march with foreign flags or "Yes we can" or "The Race" being chanted in Spanish. Instead, the leaders of that particular movement have worked carefully with a very sympathetic media to present individual portraits of heart-touching cases of children who can't go to college, or moms who need to support their kids.

I can assure you that nobody has lost the right to assemble and petition or to speak freely. If the illegal aliens and their supporters want to repeat their march tomorrow, NOBODY would risk getting arrested or even hassled. In fact, those on the opposite side would happily pay whatever fees are required for the permits in order to facilitate such a march tomorrow precisely because a repeat of that march, in the wake of Obama's amnesty, would likely drive a stake through the heart of whatever remains of public sympathy here in Utah.

You can push the social boundaries a bit and expect society to adjust. If you go charging past all social boundaries and scare too many people, too forcefully, society will not adjust you will get blowback.

As a second, off-topic but illustrative example of how to succeed, we might examine what has happened to social attitudes and resulting legal/judicial views towards homosexuals. A mere 45 years ago, homosexuality was a diagnosed mental illness. "Treatments" ranged from hormone therapy to aversion therapy (nausea-inducing drugs injected while watching homosexual porn) , to electro-shock and insulin-induced comas, to frontal lobotomies. Homosexual conduct was a crime, actively punished in some areas.

First, homosexuals worked to portray themselves as victims. They managed to get the mental health industry to remove homosexuality from their diagnoses and instead recognize it as a normal aspect of human sexuality. This was done in dull, dry, meetings outside public view. In the media, homosexuality stopped being portrayed as perverts and criminals. Then, it was portrayed in vague, safe, funny terms. Think of the Butler on "Soap". Then it was portrayed openly but still with humor as on "Will & Grace." Homosexuals were happy, funny, safe--if somewhat pitiable people. Ellen Degeneris came out a little too fast and too forcefully and it cost her her show and career for a while. Then homosexuality was portrayed as more serious and with those opposed to it as being mean-spirited. The tone of "Will & Grace" changed from light and funny to a bit more preachy. "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" portrayed how very useful homosexuals and their unique talents could be. Then we started to have homosexual characters who were no different than their heterosexual counterparts except maybe they were happier, better adjusted. And there were a lot. From staffing on major sitcoms and dramas you'd think fully 10 to 20% of the population were homosexual. Heterosexual characters became very comfortable with their homosexual side as we saw on "Boston Legal" with Danny Crane and his associate. Characters who had never had a sexual side "came out" (sometimes as a party shot) such as on Law and Order, and even NCIS.

We then saw homosexuals engaging in overt romantic or sexual activity...but always and only attractive women. Think of the lesbian kisses on "Grey's Anatomy". It became downright chic for women to kiss other women. Beautiful women kissed each other at major awards ceremonies. But try to think of any network programming--not pay only channels, but over the air network shows--that depict any male-on-male sexual affection. Bigoted, small-minded, phobic, or whatever, the general population still reacts largely negatively to the idea of male-on-male penetrative sexual intercourse. So the public is never, ever shown that nor anything that might bring it to mind. At least not yet. I think the day will come, very soon, when the public will lose its aversion to that and it will be safe to portray male homosexual conduct to exactly the same degree that heterosexual or female homosexual activity can be portrayed in any given environment.

I don't care what side of the homosexual-rights issue anyone comes down on. An objective analysis shows an amazingly brilliant marketing and messaging strategy that has yielded results unimaginable 30 years ago. And it is hard to imagine how the current situation could have possibly been brought about any sooner. It was 1972 when the Supreme Court dismissed the Baker legal challenge against State laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples "for want of a substantial federal question." There has been no constitutional amendment dealing with this issue in the intervening 42 years. Baker is still binding precedence. But look at the shift in federal court rulings on this topic. It's been a rough 30 years for a lot of homosexuals. But it is probably safe to say that their victories are permanent; the current and future generations will reap the benefits of the hard work, sacrifice, and patience of those who spent the 70s, 80s, and 90s NOT being as open with their sexuality as perhaps their "rights" fully entitled them.

Anyone who doesn't understand the massive effect that public opinion--as expressed through State laws and social mores--has on federal court rulings is either grossly uninformed or deluding himself.

And anyone who thinks that simply exposing the public to the most extreme behavior possible under a given right will automatically result in the public adopting a more positive attitude has taken an important principle and simplified it to the point of destruction.

I won't claim to know what the legal and social environment is in other areas. There may be places where having an unwanted OC rally (or "buycott") in some business is actually going to be highly productive. Maybe there are places where conduct off topic for this board is only pushing the social envelope a little bit and so can reasonably be expected to result in increased social tolerance and acceptance. But here in my neighborhood, as of today, there remains a few elements of RKBA that we can best secure long-term by not rubbing into people's noses too much today.

We revere those who spent 8 hard years winning the Revolutionary War and then 10 more years forging a nation with a Bill of Rights. We remember and honor as "The Greatest Generation" those who spent 4 years winning WWII. We think of ourselves as Patriots, fighting our fight in our day as our forbears did in their day. Yet some count it as cowardly or even treasonous to suggest we fight our battles so as to secure a permanent victory rather than a short-lived triumph? Let's fight smart. And if that means we elect not to fully exercise our rights for a brief period so as to secure lasting victory, let that be part of our sacrifice for future generations. Let's be like the Founding Fathers who "had a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" and knew how to win a lasting victory. Let's not be the hot-headed and shortsighted California Black Panthers of 1967.

And I'll again apologize for not being able to compress this down into a 5 second, emotional sound-bite suitable for the average voter. I hope we have a much higher attention level and cognitive ability on this board.

Charles

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-And if that means we elect not to fully exercise our rights for a brief period so as to secure lasting victory, let that be part of our sacrifice for future generations. Let's be like the Founding Fathers who "had a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" and knew how to win a lasting victory. Let's not be the hot-headed and shortsighted California Black Panthers of 1967.-snip-

Charles

Your reply was presented in inspiring language and possibly with hopes that soul stirring wording will take away from the main theme of (and here is the bumper sticker you were looking for):

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should".

I don't know about other States but I can tell you that in Michigan hardly anyone knew that it was legal to open carry a pistol ... with or without a license.... until about 8 years ago when a very few courageous souls decided to do exactly what you say shouldn't be done.... they just up and open carried and shocked the public. Of course some got arrested... and beat the rap and then sued..and the media went nuts trying to sensationalize the whole thing. Yet the result was... those arrested sued and won and the police were retrained. The media ended up educating the public that open carry was legal.

None of that would have happened if folks had believed that "just because you can doesn't mean you should" and not pushed the envelope.

Bottom line is quite simple. If you don't want to push the envelope.... don't. But presenting a message that pushing the envelope is a bad thing while advocating that all gun rights supporters pull the same way isn't saying that gun owners should unite... it is saying that gun owners should unite .... your way.

Here is some language that might be inspiring...

What do letter writers and lobbyist put on the line when they advocate for gun rights? A stamp and some paper? A bit of gas money and some time spent addressing legislators?

What do those who push the open carry envelope put on the line when they actually exercise the right to bear arms? Their freedom as they risk arrest and their finances as they risk legal fees and lawyer bills. And why do they do that? I can only answer for myself.... I do it because I believe I should... just because I can.

And I believe the right to bear arms should never be held hostage by the negative opinions... or the fears... of others.

In the interest of full disclosure... I am not one of the courageous original few who started the open carry movement in Michigan but I, and many others, owe a debt of gratitude to them.

 

[Grapeshot]

snipped--
And I believe the right to bear arms should never be held hostage by the negative opinions... or the fears... of others.

In the interest of full disclosure... I am not one of the courageous original few who started the open carry movement in Michigan but I, and many others, owe a debt of gratitude to them.

+1 - in for the win.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Presented in inspiring language and with hopes that soul stirring wording will take away from the main theme of (and here is the bumper sticker you were looking for):

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should".

I don't know about other States but I can tell you that in Michigan hardly anyone knew that it was legal to open carry a pistol ... with or without a license.... until about 8 years ago when a very few courageous souls decided to do exactly what you say shouldn't be done.... they just up and open carried and shocked the public. Of course some got arrested... and beat the rap and then sued..and the media went nuts trying to sensationalize the whole thing. Yet the result was... those arrested sued and won and the police were retrained. The media ended up educating the public that open carry was legal.

None of that would have happened if folks had believed that "just because you can doesn't mean you should" and not pushed the envelope.

Bottom line is quite simple. If you don't want to push the envelope.... don't. But presenting a message that pushing the envelope is a bad thing while advocating that all gun rights supporters pull the same way isn't saying that gun owners should unite... it is saying that gun owners should unite .... your way.

Here is some language that might be inspiring...

What do letter writers and lobbyist put on the line when they advocate for gun rights? A stamp and some paper? A bit of gas money and some time spent addressing legislators?

What do those who push the open carry envelope put on the line when they actually exercise the right to bear arms? Their freedom as they risk arrest and their finances as they risk legal fees and lawyer bills. And why do they do that? I can only answer for myself.... I do it because I believe I should... just because I can.

And I believe the right to bear arms should never be held hostage by the negative opinions... or the fears... of others.

In the interest of full disclosure... I am not one of the courageous original few who started the open carry movement in Michigan but I, and many others, owe a debt of gratitude to them.

I agree with both sides of this debate, tbh.

I believe that in order to keep rights, sometimes it is needed to push the envelope.

At the same time, unfortunately, our enumerated right could, and has very often been swayed by the court of public opinion. While I hate this, this is reality.

Obviously, not carrying openly is certainly not the answer. But if we expect to change the political climate around firearms in this country, I believe that if you choose to open carry, that you should show TACT. DO be informed on gun laws. DO work on being well spoken enough that when questioned by fence sitters, you can express why this is such an important right to protect. DO NOT do anything that while may be a protected right, would hurt the public opinion of RKBA. We each individually get to decide what that is, and it may vary by where you live. I've lived in places where you would have to OC a LAW rocket to raise an eyebrow. I've also lived where an openly carried glock 19 gets the cops called. (Not that that's a reason not to carry, quite the opposite)

All I'm getting at, is we have graduate degrees available and entire companies made up of marketing professionals and statisticians with the goal of swaying public opinion of whatever their clients may be. It's an obvious reality that how we carry a firearm and more importantly, how we ACT with in public while carrying makes and huge impact on the public opinion of such.

We each get to decide what that may be. I think charles' point is to think carefully about the constitutionally protected action you take, and if possible, coincide this action with what will further gun rights, not restrict them.

 

[utbagpiper]

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should".

Just about the over-simplified and thus less than accurate bumper sticker I should have expected. Let me fix it just a bit.

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should in every possible case".

I note that you are still ignoring and avoiding the California Black Panthers exercise of their rights in '67 and the resulting 45 years of problems for RKBA. Why? Doesn't fit your paradigm of never giving a rip what anyone thinks and things turn out ok?

I don't know about other States but I can tell you that in Michigan hardly anyone knew that it was legal to open carry a pistol ... with or without a license.... until about 8 years ago when a very few courageous souls decided to do exactly what you say shouldn't be done.... they just up and open carried and shocked the public. Of course some got arrested... and beat the rap and then sued..and the media went nuts trying to sensationalize the whole thing. Yet the result was... those arrested sued and won and the police were retrained. The media ended up educating the public that open carry was legal.

None of that would have happened if folks had believed that "just because you can doesn't mean you should" and not pushed the envelope.

For all my typing, I have to wonder if you really don't understand my position, or if you are deliberately mis-representing it for some reason. Do you only see in binary?

I've repeated said the envelope should be pushed. Our disagreement is merely a matter of degrees.

I believe we are most likely to have success if we push the envelope a little at a time. You seem to suggest (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that anything that is legal should be done whenever and wherever someone wants to and that will result in improved RKBA.

I'm not familiar with Michigan so I don't know whether the OCers there pushed the envelope a little bit or a lot. Perhaps you can help me understand the situation better so I can have an informed opinion.

Did they OC holstered handguns, while comporting themselves as decent, upstanding citizens, and being compliant with police officers? Did they do so in public locations while dressed reasonably well? Did they think far enough ahead to have a defense attorney lined up and some means to fund his services?

Or did they exercise their rights to dress like gangstas with baggy pants while OCing in a waistband or otherwise without a holster? Did they exercise their rights to speak profanely and disrespectfully toward police officers? Did they OC scary looking rifles in combat slings across their chest with exposed triggers? Did they choose a spot as close to a school as possible? Did they go out and OC the day after a school shooting? Did they wait to get arrested to then try to find an attorney only to find out they couldn't afford one and so faced the choice of either copping a plea or risk jail time?

Did the exercise ALL of their rights they could without any forethought? Or were they mealy-mouthed, uncommitted cowards like I am in that they chose to exercise only a portion of their rights so as to advance their goals more fully?

How did things really go down in Michigan. Because I'm betting it much more a case in support of my position than in support of the position that we should rush headlong into exercising our rights in the most visible and scary way possible without any thought at all to how the public will react. But do fill me in, please.

Bottom line is quite simple. If you don't want to push the envelope.... don't. But presenting a message that pushing the envelope is a bad thing while advocating that all gun rights supporters pull the same way isn't saying that gun owners should unite... it is saying that gun owners should unite .... your way.

And taking offense because I share our experiences in Utah is saying that all gun owners should do things YOUR way without regard to local differences.

Anytime you want to compare the state of your gun laws to mine I'll happily do so. I'll even compare progress made over the almost 20 years I've been actively involved.

Hint, in Utah it is perfectly legal for me to carry into a K-12 public school or a college classroom, my city council meeting, and any meeting of my State legislature. Public school teachers, employees at public colleges, and most other public employees cannot be denied their RKBA while at work. I can carry into a bar and even imbibe if I like so long as I don't get drunk. "No gun" signs on businesses carry no force of law. With rare exception, private employers cannot take any action an against an employee who has a gun in his car even if he parks in the company parking lot.

What I'm doing, WORKS in Utah. And it has worked rather quickly.

If something else works better in your State, peace. But don't ever presume to tell me that I'm flat out wrong on this matter.

Here is some language that might be inspiring...

What do letter writers and lobbyist put on the line when they advocate for gun rights? A stamp and some paper? A bit of gas money and some time spent addressing legislators?

What do those who push the open carry envelope put on the line when they actually exercise the right to bear arms? Their freedom as they risk arrest and their finances as they risk legal fees and lawyer bills. And why do they do that? I can only answer for myself.... I do it because I believe I should... just because I can.

And I believe the right to bear arms should never be held hostage by the negative opinions... or the fears... of others.

In the interest of full disclosure... I am not one of the courageous original few who started the open carry movement in Michigan but I, and many others, owe a debt of gratitude to them.

If I may borrow from Patton:

The purpose of war is not to die for your country. It is to make the other guy die for his country.

Intelligent OC serves a valuable purpose. Thoughtless OC can be very detrimental as California stands a prime example. Being a martyr needlessly is not noble, it is stupid. We carry guns to avoid being physical martyrs, why would anyone rush out to be a legal or political martyr if a little thought and prudence can avoid that while advancing rights every bit as well or even better?

The guy who OCs foolishly may risk a lot more than just his own liberty and money. Like the gun owner who leaves his guns unsecured when his circumstances dictate he should lock them up and helps facilitate the next mass shooting or tragedy that makes the liberal media dance, foolishness can hurt us all. I am stridently opposed to any "safe storage" laws or gun owner liability above and beyond existing, generic, negligence statutes. I have a RIGHT to leave my guns laying loaded, on my kitchen table 24/7 if I so choose.

Now, are you going to tell me that I should exercise that right just because I can? That if I don't, I've surrendered that right and might as well have lost it entirely?

Or will you concede that such is generally not the prudent course to take?

Even the best thought out OC does not, of itself change laws. Without the letters, phone calls, the get out the vote efforts, and the lobbying/advocating, the best you can do is get the public to accept what is already on the books.

We've made our books a lot better here while increasing public acceptance for what is there.

Life isn't binary and anyone who views it in black and white terms is probably missing some things.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

We each get to decide what that may be. I think charles' point is to think carefully about the constitutionally protected action you take, and if possible, coincide this action with what will further gun rights, not restrict them.

EXACTLY.

Thank you.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

+1 - in for the win.

Until you address the '67 Cali Black Panther incident and the 45 year (and counting) aftermath, you're a little premature in declaring any victory over my assertion that a little prudence in how we exercise our rights is better than thoughtless machoism.

But whatever makes you feel good, I guess.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

... Put into another context, I could choose to exercise my 1st amendment rights by using vulgarities and personal attacks against legislators as I testify in favor of pro-RKBA legislation or against anti-RKBA legislation. BUT I've calculated that I am more likely to achieve my goals by choosing to avoid such conduct in favor of civil, professional discourse.

Charles

Vulgarity, if used, may be a criminal offense in some states. As such your 1A is reasonable restricted...the ole yelling fire in a movie theater spiel.

Let me bring this back to a permitted topic then.

In Utah there is no law banning the open carrying of handguns. OC is generally well accepted. Utah law also creates a fairly high bar for a business open to the public to win a trespassing case. To be guilty, you have to materially interfere with business. "No Guns" signs on businesses carry no force of law in Utah.

I'm betting that a decent defense lawyer could win an acquittal for any well behaved group of OCers who decided to have an OC rally inside a private business. We could each go buy a cup of coffee, sit down and enjoy our beverages for a few minutes while completely filling the store with unwanted, unwelcome firearms. It would be perfectly legal. It is our RIGHT to do so.

Should we? If we decide not to that, are we somehow surrendering our rights? ... Charles

Only posted Rule 14, with the underline, because you spoke generically regarding OCDOs mission statement. OCDO is very specific in its goals. If a property is posted no guns I do not enter...I do not request that they change their policy, I go elsewhere. The property owners right to control their property supplants my 2A right. Win-win for both of us, except for they losing my business part.

 

[OC for ME]

Vulgarity, if used, may be a criminal offense in some states. As such your 1A is reasonable restricted...the ole yelling fire in a movie theater spiel.

Only posted Rule 14, with the underline, because you spoke generically regarding OCDOs mission statement. OCDO is very specific in its goals. If a property is posted no guns I do not enter...I do not request that they change their policy, I go elsewhere. The property owners right to control their property supplants my 2A right. Win-win for both of us, except for they losing my business part.

The 67 BP "incident" in CA can only be remedied by those CA citizens who vote in CA. If the citizens of CA wanted their gun rights restored the gun rights would be restored in short order...relatively speaking.

Federal laws that arose out of that "incident" have little practical impact on us today.

 

[Bikenut]

To utbagpiper

There has been letter writing and lobbying efforts for decades. I'm not knocking those efforts .... I'm pointing out that actually exercising the right to bear arms in ways that you think are detrimental have, at least in Michigan, been successful in a very short period.

In the beginning folks in Michigan open carried holstered pistols. Some dressed nicely, some didn't. One of my friends wears jeans and dress shirts that he rips the sleeves off. And when dealing with police some were polite and soft spoken ... some weren't. Later on some carried long guns... got arrested... sued ... and won. The media again ended up educating the public that long gun open carry was legal. Obviously open carry in ways you are advocating against has successfully furthered gun rights.

As far as your changing what I said about your perspective boiling down to a bumper sticker of:

"just because you can doesn't mean you should"

to:

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should in every possible case".

If you were to change it to:

"Just because I can doesn't mean I should in every possible case" ....and only applied it to your personal life instead of wanting to apply it to the lives of others then that would be valid. But if you want others to apply it to their lives in order to fit what you consider a "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable", way to further gun rights then you are wanting other folks to do it your way. Please note the derogatory manner you used that I put in bold for emphasis in your quote below.....

Until you address the '67 Cali Black Panther incident and the 45 year (and counting) aftermath, you're a little premature in declaring any victory over my assertion that a little prudence in how we exercise our rights is better than thoughtless machoism.

But whatever makes you feel good, I guess.

So actually exercising the right to bear arms in ways you consider unreasonable, inappropriate, and (here is the crux of your arguments) unacceptable, is ..... and I quote: "thoughtless machoism"?

And... to address the idea that I want folks to do it my way.... nope... I want folks to do it any way they wish regardless of whether someone else might not like it, doesn't think it is effective, thinks it is counter productive, or thinks it is "thoughtless machoism"............. simply because they have the right to bear the arm they please in any manner they please comporting themselves in any manner they please while saying anything they please. This discussion we are having isn't about the right to bear arms... it is about using furthering the right to bear arms as a vehicle to get other folks to only bear the arms that are considered "reasonable", in a way that is considered "appropriate", while behaving in a manner considered "acceptable" .

And the Black Panthers thing in 1967... you are aware that the incident involved much much more than just the right to bear arms? Or did you choose that incident because it has racial overtones effectively using the race card in a very imaginative manner?

Until you address the '67 Cali Black Panther incident and the 45 year (and counting) aftermath, you're a little premature in declaring any victory over my assertion that a little prudence in how we exercise our rights is better than thoughtless machoism.-snip-

Do you think this is a contest between you and those who exercise their rights in ways you don't like? If that is your mindset the problem isn't those who carry the guns you don't like in ways you don't like for reasons you don't like and comport themselves in a manner you don't like. The problem is thinking that other folks who are supporting the right to bear arms are a problem instead of an asset just because they are doing it in ways you don't like.

Want something to tell those legislators in letters and presentations? Figure out a way to present open carry of all kinds in all ways for any reasons in a positive manner. And I mean in a positive manner instead of saying things similar to...

"If open carry of pistols were legal then there wouldn't be any of this upsetting long gun carry that scares folks."

And, the following is not being snarky but is sincere, you seem to be an experienced wordsmith so I'm sure you can figure out some way to present the right to bear arms in a positive, perhaps even inspiring, manner.

 

[utbagpiper]

Vulgarity, if used, may be a criminal offense in some states. As such your 1A is reasonable restricted...the ole yelling fire in a movie theater spiel.

If a property is posted no guns I do not enter...I do not request that they change their policy, I go elsewhere. The property owners right to control their property supplants my 2A right. Win-win for both of us, except for they losing my business part.

Respectfully, you've zeroed in on a couple of very specific instances that are not relevant to my larger case. You've dodged the issue by focusing on minutia.

What if vulgarity isn't illegal? What if I don't actually cross the line into illegal speech, but am simply as offensive as legally possible? So on and so forth. My point isn't to argue the minutia of what is or isn't legal, but to make the case that we all, frequently choose not to do everything that is legally or constitutionally permitted because we recognize that doing so is less effective than a more thoughtful approach.

There are very legal ways to be offensive in speech, dress, and conduct when testifying to legislators. Most of us recognize why it is beneficial not to exercise our rights in those ways and instead exercise our rights in ways more likely to sway opinions our direction. But for some reason, if I apply the same principle to how we carry our firearms, a few folks get really uptight and act as if I'm speaking heresy.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

There has been letter writing and lobbying efforts for decades. I'm not knocking those efforts .... I'm pointing out that actually exercising the right to bear arms in ways that you think are detrimental have, at least in Michigan, been successful in a very short period.

Why do you continue to mis-represent my position? Do you really not understand my position? Or are you being deliberately dishonest?

In the beginning folks in Michigan open carried holstered pistols. Some dressed nicely, some didn't. One of my friends wears jeans and dress shirts that he rips the sleeves off. And when dealing with police some were polite and soft spoken ... some weren't. Later on some carried long guns... got arrested... sued ... and won. The media again ended up educating the public that long gun open carry was legal. Obviously open carry in ways you are advocating against has successfully furthered gun rights.

It sounds like Michigan proceeded very similarly to what I've advocated of pushing limits a bit at a time. They STARTED with holstered handguns.

LATER they moved on to other methods of carry that pushed the envelope a bit.

That is exactly what I've advocated. Why are you confused on this point?

As far as your changing what I said about your perspective boiling down to a bumper sticker of:

"just because you can doesn't mean you should"

to:


If you were to change it to:

"Just because I can doesn't mean I should in every possible case" ....and only applied it to your personal life instead of wanting to apply it to the lives of others then that would be valid. But if you want others to apply it to their lives in order to fit what you consider a "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable", way to further gun rights then you are wanting other folks to do it your way. Please note the derogatory manner you used that I put in bold for emphasis in your quote below.....


So actually exercising the right to bear arms in ways you consider unreasonable, inappropriate, and (here is the crux of your arguments) unacceptable, is ..... and I quote: "thoughtless machoism"?

And... to address the idea that I want folks to do it my way.... nope... I want folks to do it any way they wish regardless of whether someone else might not like it, doesn't think it is effective, thinks it is counter productive, or thinks it is "thoughtless machoism"............. simply because they have the right to bear the arm they please in any manner they please comporting themselves in any manner they please while saying anything they please. This discussion we are having isn't about the right to bear arms... it is about using furthering the right to bear arms as a vehicle to get other folks to only bear the arms that are considered "reasonable", in a way that is considered "appropriate", while behaving in a manner considered "acceptable" .

It appears that you believe I want to control others. It seems you might not understand the difference between laws that force others to do something, and attempts to offer counsel, to peacefully persuade, to encourage, to help avoid needless pitfalls. If some people took the same hostility toward advice and counsel when it comes to firearms safety, as they do to advice and counsel regarding public activism, they'd have blown off their own body parts with NDs long ago. You have every right to handle your gun however you want, as long as you don't endanger others, right? So who is some trainer to tell you to keep your finger off the trigger, or to make sure the gun is unloaded before cleaning? Or how to most safely re-holster? You can do it however you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else. Obviously, that is a silly view to take of training or safety. So why is it unreasonable to consider on others' experience when it comes to public activism?

Just to clear things up, so far as my personal view goes:

A man, properly convicted of rape and murder, but having served his time and completed any reasonable parole requirements, ought to be perfectly free to walk down any street in this nation with a tommy gun over one shoulder, an anti-tank gun over the other, and a uzi across his chest, a sawed off shotgun under his coat, and a couple of handguns carried sans holsters in his waistband if that is what he wants to do. If a man cannot be trusted to do that, he has not been rehabilitated and should not be released from prison. Ditto for the craziest loon we've ever committed. If he is deemed well enough to release back into society and allowed to walk our streets unsupervised, we darn well better respect all of his rights...ALL of them. Obviously, any man who has never had mental health problems and never committed any crime must have his rights respected as well.

I believe the 2nd amendment covers every weapon up to somewhere between crew served weapons and WMDs. And I believe it protects our right to own and carry, in public, without needing any permit at all, open, concealed, in any peaceful manner.

I'd like to live in a society where someone walking around peacefully, visibly armed to the teeth, doesn't raise an eyebrow. I'd really like to live in a society where there is no need to go armed, but where nobody bats an eye if someone chooses to be heavily armed.

Never be confused about what my PERSONAL views are regarding what the constitution of the United States and most State Constitutions protect and what I think statutory law and judicial precedence ought to require of society.

But I'm 1 voter out of about 1 million+ here in Utah and some might consider my views extreme. I don't win by scaring away others, but by persuading them to my side.

I write not of my own preferences, but of my observations of effects various conduct has on political and social acceptance of ownership and public possession of firearms by private citizens.

If our goal is REALLY to advance social and political acceptance of the ownership and public possession of firearms by private citizens, then we ought to be evaluating from time-to-time how our efforts--including OCing, lobbying, campaigning, media efforts, etc--are working. If we don't evaluate how our actions are affecting our goal, we can't really say whether we are being effective or not.

If our goal is something else...perhaps we ought to talk about that.

And the Black Panthers thing in 1967... you are aware that the incident involved much much more than just the right to bear arms? Or did you choose that incident because it has racial overtones effectively using the race card in a very imaginative manner?

I used the incidence as the most well known example of how the thoughtless exercise of rights can lead to such social/legal blowback as to result in statutory loss of rights.

The racial aspects of it are certainly a major, unfortunate component. But they were a very strong reality at the time that should have been factored in. To the extent that race remains a factor today, it needs to be factored in. I'm vaguely aware of a black gentleman in Northern Virginia who OCs a handgun to advance the ability of black men to exercise their rights. He seems to have had some great success in his local areas. I have to assume he has factored in the racial aspects of his conduct and is accounting for or compensating for it in some way so as to avoid being killed by a racist cop.

Police and social mistreatment of blacks was certainly a major motivating factor for the decision to carry firearms into the capital. They were sending a message, "We're not going to take this lying down anymore."

But at the end of the day, there was significant blowback against RKBA.

In any case, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the '67 Black Panther incident and what we should learn from it. I'd love some evidence that you've given it any real thought at all rather than holding dogmatically to the view that every exercise of our RKBA is bound to lead to improved social and legal status for RKBA.

Do you think this is a contest between you and those who exercise their rights in ways you don't like? If that is your mindset the problem isn't those who carry the guns you don't like in ways you don't like for reasons you don't like and comport themselves in a manner you don't like. The problem is thinking that other folks who are supporting the right to bear arms are a problem instead of an asset just because they are doing it in ways you don't like.

Why do you think this has anything to do with what I personally like? If this post hasn't cleared that up yet, please re-read it.

Want something to tell those legislators in letters and presentations? Figure out a way to present open carry of all kinds in all ways for any reasons in a positive manner. And I mean in a positive manner instead of saying things similar to...

"If open carry of pistols were legal then there wouldn't be any of this upsetting long gun carry that scares folks."

And, the following is not being snarky but is sincere, you seem to be an experienced wordsmith so I'm sure you can figure out some way to present the right to bear arms in a positive, perhaps even inspiring, manner.

If those engaging in various conduct would give some thought to what they had to say, and had something more productive and positive than just "I'll exercise my rights however I want and the public's feelings be damned...." we'd make great progress. It isn't a competition. It should be cooperative. And since all politics is local, what works in one area may need adjustments in another. IOW, yet again, a little forethought.

How many hours do you spend training? How much devoted to making safety a matter of habit and muscle memory? How much time to running through scenarios of how to react if a need for defense arises? How much thought is given each morning to the best gun to carry and in what manner for the activities of the day? Nobody would suggest that any of this is anything but entirely prudent and proper.

So why the extreme sensitivity if someone suggest that a bit of time be spent considering on the social, political, and legal ramifications of our conduct?

If our intent is to advance the social and legal acceptance of private citizens being armed in the way individuals want to be armed, doesn't it make sense to give some thought to how best to achieve that?

Of course, if the goal is to just do whatever the crap we want without any regard or concern whatsoever to the outcome, that is your right. But if that is the intent, drop the high minded rhetoric about advancing this goal or that and just be totally open about what is going on.

Charles

 

[Bernymac]

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[WalkingWolf]

It is not a matter of if it is safer for someone else, it is a matter of what I want, and what is my rights. How a person carries legally is completely up to them, and the "I support the second amendment BUT" have no control. They can either pound sand or learn to control their own lives.

My advice to Butters is "Bugger Off"!

Disclaimer>>No wall of text was injured in the above post<<

 

[utbagpiper]

It is not a matter of if it is safer for someone else, it is a matter of what I want, and what is my rights. How a person carries legally is completely up to them, and the "I support the second amendment BUT" have no control. They can either pound sand or learn to control their own lives.

My advice to Butters is "Bugger Off"!

This I can respect even if I think it sometimes politically and socially imprudent.

I respect full honesty.

Just leave the pretense of "I'm advancing social acceptance of....even as I don't give a crap what society thinks of my conduct" out of it. That is where I will point out the obvious fallacy.

Charles