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

[Bikenut]

Another wall of text... at least some of it is in color...

Originally Posted by Bikenut


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?

I am not misrepresenting anything. Are you not advocating that people not behave in a manner you stated was "thoughtless machoism"? And who gets to decide what is, and what isn't, "thoughtless machoism"? You?

Originally Posted by Bikenut

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?

I'm not confused at all. I'm saying that it isn't up to you, or anyone else, to decide what constitutes a good time to push the envelope. Just because you might not like it because it may cause a furor doesn't mean someone else should not push.

Originally Posted by Bikenut

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?

Nice try to diminish my position by implying that because I do not agree with your position I am so unsafe with a firearm I'll likely blow of some off my body parts. Shall we refrain from using any Alinsky tactics? We are talking about you wanting other people to adhere to your standard of what is "reasonable", "appropriate", when it comes to what is an "acceptable" manner to further gun rights. And yes, it appears to me you are arguing in favor of other folks doing it in a manner that doesn't offend the public instead of "thoughtless machoism".

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 uzzi 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 defensive 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.

We agree on the above three paragraphs with the exception that I do not believe there should be any limit on what weaponry a citizen can have.

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.

And this is where we differ. What you might consider "scaring away others" someone else might consider a good object lesson. But to advocate not engaging in object lessons unless it fits some paradigm of "reasonableness", "appropriateness", and "acceptability", is advocating restricting the right to bear arms according to either public opinion... or your own personal opinion.

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.

And I wrote of what has happened in Michigan because of the efforts of those who pushed the envelope. Some of which I am proud to have been a part of.

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.

While letter writing, lobbying, campaigning, media efforts, roadside cleanups, picnics, whatever, all can be effective there is still nothing like actually exercising the right to put that right in the spotlight. To say that folks should NOT exercise the right just because it might offend is to say that in order to protect the right to bear arms folks should not bear arms in ways that offend .... public opinion. That, at least to me, is bass ackward thinking.

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

My goal is to regain the freedom to exercise the right to bear arms. The point of contention is how to go about it. I think that all forms of advocacy are valid while it is apparent you think along the lines of "just because you can doesn't mean you should".

Originally Posted by Bikenut

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.

Sorry but I think you used that incident for shock value but it backfired. The Black Panther incident had very little to do with the right to bear arms and a lot to do with racial intimidation. And bringing that incident into this conversation was, at least in my opinion, a rather obvious attempt to gain points using the race card. I'll grant that was the most imaginative use of the race card I've seen in quite a while.. but it still fails.

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.

My thoughts are quite simple. Throwing a volatile incident like the Black Panther incident into the discussion is really reaching to find justification for your argument of "just because you can doesn't mean you should"...

Originally Posted by Bikenut

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.

Why do you think this conversation doesn't have anything to do with what you like? Aren't we talking about how you don't like folks to push the envelope because you consider those who engage in "thoughtless machoism" to hinder the fight for the right to bear arms?

Originally Posted by Bikenut

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.

Let me repeat myself..........
Why do you think this conversation doesn't have anything to do with what you like? Aren't we talking about how you don't like folks to push the envelope because you consider those who engage in "thoughtless machoism" to hinder the fight for the right to bear arms?

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.

I guess trying to imply earlier in your post that because I do not agree with your position I am so unsafe with a firearm I'll likely blow of some of my body parts wasn't enough so now you veer off into my training level. Again... shall we refrain from using any Alinsky tactics? We aren't talking about how much anyone trains or even how they train. We are talking about how you think folks should only further the right to bear arms in ways you consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable". Or would you like to extend your standards to how other folks train also?

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?

Once again.... if you want to limit how you exercise the right to bear arms to what you consider "reasonable", "appropriate" and "acceptable" according to your findings after spending time considering the social, political, and legal ramifications (translation... public opinion) then feel free. But to advocate that others do the same because that is the best way to further the right to bear arms is to suggest that furthering the right to bear arms should only be done in ways that doesn't offend public opinion.

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?

And my point is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, should be deciding what is the best way to achieve that ... for other people. If you, or I, or someone else, does not believe that long gun open carry is the best way to further gun rights... then we should not do it. Not because long gun open carry may or may not further gun rights but because it would go against our beliefs. Can long gun open carry further gun rights? Of course it can.. and has. Will it always? Nope... just like open carry of a sidearm can and has... but doesn't always.

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.

And if the goal is to convince others to follow the idea of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" then just be totally open about what is going on.

Charles

Some of my response is contained within that wall of text (that I added to) in blue....

I am being totally open about what is going on in this conversation. We really are not talking about the right to bear arms.... we are talking about a difference in belief in how furthering gun rights should be done. Some folks think in order to protect/further gun rights then IF anyone actually dares to exercise the right to bear arms it should only be done in a manner calculated to not offend public opinion so the public won't take away that right... and some folks (me for one) believe that limiting how they exercise the right to bear arms by calculating not to offend public opinion really means public opinion already took away their right.

Who needs laws that restrict the bearing of arms if folks don't bear arms for fear offending public opinion will create laws that restrict the bearing of arms? Isn't the end result the same?

And I firmly believe the best way to illustrate that there is a right to bear arms is to .... bear arms.

 

[teddyearp]

Another wall of text... at least some of it is in color...


Some of my response is contained within that wall of text (that I added to) in blue....

I am being totally open about what is going on in this conversation. We really are not talking about the right to bear arms.... we are talking about a difference in belief in how furthering gun rights should be done. Some folks think in order to protect/further gun rights then IF anyone actually dares to exercise the right to bear arms it should only be done in a manner calculated to not offend public opinion so the public won't take away that right... and some folks (me for one) believe that limiting how they exercise the right to bear arms by calculating not to offend public opinion really means public opinion already took away their right.

Who needs laws that restrict the bearing of arms if folks don't bear arms for fear offending public opinion will create laws that restrict the bearing of arms? Isn't the end result the same?

And I firmly believe the best way to illustrate that there is a right to bear arms is to .... bear arms.

Eeek!

 

[utbagpiper]

Who needs laws that restrict the bearing of arms if folks don't bear arms for fear offending public opinion will create laws that restrict the bearing of arms? Isn't the end result the same?

And I firmly believe the best way to illustrate that there is a right to bear arms is to .... bear arms.

I'm sorry, but it is clear you are incapable of understanding analogies and believe that repeated emphatic assertion counts as reasoned debate or discussion. You also continue to grossly misrepresent my position. Whether this is a deliberate tactic, or an honest inability to comprehend, matters not at this point.

I did not accuse you of being unsafe with a gun and anyone with a reading comprehension higher than 5th grade would see that. I made an analogy. You've attempted to dismiss it by either feigning the belief it was a personal attack, or by actually believing it was a personal attack, which belief could only be sustained by substandard reading comprehension and/or critical thinking skills.

Believe what you like, but I had ZERO thought of racism when I posted about the Black Panthers. It is, in my mind, one of the most well known cases of what can happen when someone pushes the envelope too far. There are more recent, cases in Utah without any racial component at all, and where the conduct and results were less extreme. But being less well known, are less suitable for discussion on a national board. But regardless, you clearly don't want to (or are incapable of) deal with the possibility that there are examples of extreme exercise of a right leading to blowback. So again, you dismiss the example as entirely irrelevant.

I can respect WalkingWolf's position of "I'll do what I want because it is what I want to do."

Your position of "The best way to change public opinion is to not care about public opinion," is so irrational on its face that I'm shocked anyone actually believes it.

But when businesses that were once neutral come out and publicly ask gun owners not to carry guns, or heaven forbid another State follows California in enacting more restrictions on RKBA, please don't delude yourself into thinking it was because not enough gun owners chose to follow your path of thoughtless exercise of rights without any "respect to the opinions of mankind."

A friend once told me that nearly every disagreement in politics among folks who should agree but don't, could be explained by two simple statements:

1-People/voters are stupid/ignorant (as some have already pointed out).

What cannot be explained by #1 can be explained by #2

2-"Yah. But that is different." (IE, a gross inability to understand valid analogies.)

(He ignored honest differences of opinion in fundamental principles.)

If you ever wish to move away from repeated, emphatic assertion, into a rational discussion of cause and effect with real discussion of historic evidence and analogous situations, let me know. Until then, Best of luck to you. I sincerely wish you the very best of success even if I'm not at all convinced your choice of tactics is well calculated to get you there.

Charles

 

[J_dazzle23]

I don't understand why this topic is SO hard for some to grasp.

maybe this is why politicians can manipulate the masses, because they understand public opinion better than others.

Legally, do what you want. You should be able to.

Legally, I can wear a purple suit right off of prince's closet rack and nobody has a right to tell me otherwise. But it's not going to keep people from thinking I look like a dumb@ss.

Like it or not, in a civilized society there are social MORES that exist, and many times these will not go away overnight.

It is amazing to me that someone can come in here and suggest that we be aware of public opinion and make a smart choice on our own, show a handful of illustrations on why this might be helpful to the RKBA, and be pigeonholed into looking like someone who wants to infringe on others rights (as far as I can see).

all charles is saying is it deserves a discussion on changing the norms and mores regarding guns in this nation with tact and thoughtfulness, and not brashness. He isn't suggesting this should be required. He is only suggesting to give it some thought.

 

[Bikenut]

For those who want others to give some thought to the idea that when it comes to rights just because you can doesn't mean you should because it might not fit into what is acceptable to society and therefor just might not further gun rights....

A young man carried openly carried a gun other than a sidearm into a one of the Capitol Area District Libraries in Michigan. Subsequently the library sought to ban all gun carry through a court injunction. Even though the organization Michigan Open Carry had nothing to do with that incident it was named in that injunction. This incident ended up at the Michigan Supreme Court level where the Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court decision that an "authority"... such as a library authority...(and the decision includes all authorities like a downtown development authority... or a transit authority) does not have the power to enact any rules or policies that restrict the bearing of arms more than existing State law does.

A chronological account can be found here:

http://www.michiganopencarry.org/cadl

Please note that there weren't any problems with carrying a gun in the library until mid December 2010.. and if the link is followed the reason why will become clear.

The Appeals Court decision is here:

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/...121025_c304582(65)_rptr_140o-304582-final.pdf

Now....

The young man didn't have an attorney on call... he did not have lots of money... what he did do was to exercise his right to bear arms in a manner that many at the time referred to with much more dismissiveness, anger, and insults than just the term "thoughtless machoism". But had he bought into the idea that "just because I can doesn't mean I should" that important court ruling would never have come about.

My point is that if folks buy into the idea of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" and let that restrict how, what, when, where, or why, they bear arms furthering the right to bear arms will suffer because without folks exercising their right to bear arms, even in ways other people don't like... perhaps in spite of what other people don't like... less progress will be made.

Oh... all the media coverage of that incident ended up educating the folks in Michigan that it is legal to bear arms in ways some might consider "thoughtless machoism".

In the interest of full disclosure... I am not that young man but I, and all those who bear arms in Michigan, owe him a debt of gratitude.

 

[J_dazzle23]

For those who want others to give some thought to the idea that when it comes to rights just because you can doesn't mean you should because it might not fit into what is acceptable to society and therefor just might not further gun rights....

A young man carried openly carried a gun other than a sidearm into a one of the Capitol Area District Libraries in Michigan. Subsequently the library sought to ban all gun carry through a court injunction. Even though the organization Michigan Open Carry had nothing to do with that incident it was named in that injunction. This incident ended up at the Michigan Supreme Court level where the Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court decision that an "authority"... such as a library authority...(and the decision includes all authorities like a downtown development authority... or a transit authority) does not have the power to enact any rules or policies that restrict the bearing of arms more than existing State law does.

A chronological account can be found here:

http://www.michiganopencarry.org/cadl

Please note that there weren't any problems with carrying a gun in the library until mid December 2010.. and if the link is followed the reason why will become clear.

The Appeals Court decision is here:

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/...121025_c304582(65)_rptr_140o-304582-final.pdf

Now....

The young man didn't have an attorney on call... he did not have lots of money... what he did do was to exercise his right to bear arms in a manner that many at the time referred to with much more dismissiveness, anger, and insults than just the term "thoughtless machoism". But had he bought into the idea that "just because I can doesn't mean I should" that important court ruling would never have come about.

My point is that if folks buy into the idea of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" and let that restrict how, what, when, where, or why, they bear arms furthering the right to bear arms will suffer because without folks exercising their right to bear arms, even in ways other people don't like... perhaps in spite of what other people don't like... less progress will be made.

Oh... all the media coverage of that incident ended up educating the folks in Michigan that it is legal to bear arms in ways some might consider "thoughtless machoism".

In the interest of full disclosure... I am not that young man but I, and all those who bear arms in Michigan, owe him a debt of gratitude.

i, for one, am not suggesting that what happened in Michigan may not at times have a good ending.

What I am suggesting, is that if someone is reading this thread that lives in a relatively low crime area decides it's a good idea to one point sling a bushmaster with double 5.7's on his hips walking through the local shopping mall at noon on a sunday, looking like he is geared up for the walking dead, don't be surprised when people look at you like you're wearing a ski parka and uggs in pheonix in july.

For every 1 person you "educate" you might have 5 people that decide they will fall on the other side of the fence. In addition, I think it's safe to say most media coverage isn't going to be leaning to the right on the issue.

Like it or not, it MAY NOT always play out like the example you have presented in michigan.

If you are curious what public opinion ends up as when someone does something WAY too far past social norms, just hit up one of these (not short) gun carry (sorry grapeshot!) Videos on YouTube and scroll through the comments.

Remember, these people are voting too.

I'm NOT trying to say you are universally wrong on what you are suggesting. But I am saying it's something that deserves careful consideration as to what the end result will be.

I'm a fan of baby steps. Like charles mentioned, we have a world-class example that's been playing out with gay rights RIGHT NOW. Gosh, we ought to call up the LGBT and get a blueprint from them. They are taking marriage equality in state after state in a landslide. And it wasn't from throwing their R - rated gay rights parade down the Isle at macys in Provo, utah.

I WANT guys like you that are willing to push the envelope. I consider myself that person as well. and this post is not suggesting limiting anyone else's RKBA. It's just suggesting that we....self regulate our behavior for the betterment of keeping our God given rights, no matter what we choose to do.

 

[utbagpiper]

The young man didn't have an attorney on call... he did not have lots of money... what he did do was to exercise his right to bear arms in a manner that many at the time referred to with much more dismissiveness, anger, and insults than just the term "thoughtless machoism". But had he bought into the idea that "just because I can doesn't mean I should" that important court ruling would never have come about.

My point is that if folks buy into the idea of "just because you can doesn't mean you should" and let that restrict how, what, when, where, or why, they bear arms furthering the right to bear arms will suffer because without folks exercising their right to bear arms, even in ways other people don't like... perhaps in spite of what other people don't like... less progress will be made.

Glad it worked out so well. I'm of the opinion that luck and wishful thinking make for lousy plans, even if they do work out sometimes.

Or in other words, just because you managed to get the plane off the ground last time it was 25% over maximum weight doesn't mean you should count on having the same results next time. It might be a few degrees hotter tomorrow or the winds might not be quite so favorable.

What makes that one experience any more valid or worth considering than the experience of the Black Panthers in '67 California?

Or what happened in Utah? Why are you so unwilling to consider incidents on both sides of the results spectrum as you consider on what course to plot?

Let me tell you a story or two of my own. We had made tremendous progress in Utah over the last 20 years. We have reached the point where OCing handguns is pretty well accepted in most cases, and most cities, institutions, and entities accept the legality of it. OCers rarely have any problems. I, myself had a lovely visit one day ab out 5 years ago with a few of my city's finest one when they were under the mistaken impression I had the slightest obligation to cover up my gun while attending the July 4th festivities. No law suits or injunctions to cite. But after a very cordial visit with a couple of officers, a duty sergeant, and the Lt, while looking over their code book, the conclusion on their part was that the department needed to provide some additional training to their officers. I'm not aware of anyone being hassled over OCing a handgun in my city since, though admittedly I may have missed something.

However, the University of Utah was fighting that, intimidating people, and claiming a gun had to be concealed if carried on campus. They managed to get an opinion (flawed in my opinion) from the AG's office to that effect. They knew they couldn't charge anyone with a gun crime because there is no crime specified. But they figured they could bootstrap into a disorderly conduct charge, an interfering with a school activity charge, or one of several other, ill-defined, vague, catch-all charges. This is the same school that fought tooth and nail over allowing any carrying on campus at all and finally lost a court case in the Utah Supreme court on that issue (after winning in a lower court which exposed a statutory weakness we fixed before the case reached the State Supreme Court).

We were working a legislative fix to make clear that OCing a firearm was not a violation of Disorderly Conduct and other such statutes. It was nice and clean and broad. As written, it would have covered all OCing of guns including a long gun, without explicitly mentioning any type of firearm specifically. It looked to have a good chance to to pass the next session, though we knew we'd be fighting the totality of the University system, the usual gun grabbers, and our League of City and Towns which is a liberal lobbying group. Our legislature is only in session for 45 days every February and March. And this all kind of happened over the course of a summer.

Well wouldn't you know it but during the height of the Christmas shopping season that late fall, some fellow decided that he was going to express his right to bear arms by loitering around an urban mall's parking lot with a scary looking (black) gun strapped to his chest in a combat holster, exposed trigger and all. A handgun was in a thigh drop rig just for good measure, if I recall. He wasn't shopping, wasn't walking to a friend's house to show off his new purchase, just loitering about to be seen with his tacticool rig. He wasn't well versed enough to even know any details of Utah's gun statutes, much less any other statutes that might trip up a gun owner. One of these was our trespassing statute and wouldn't you know it, he had previously been trespassed from the very parking lot he chose to hang out in. He had just read on some blog that it was legal to OC a gun in Utah, including a long gun. So he did. And did so in a manner that any non-idealogue, "reasonable man" would have to admit was likely to cause alarm to the public, totality of circumstances considered. That is the crucial element to our DoC statute.

And long story short, he was cited for Disorderly Conduct by the city cops, charged by the county prosecutor, and when he realized what he was actually facing including some jail time and what a real defense was going to cost, he plead out to avoid facing the worst consequences. Fortunately this was in a court of non-record so no binding precedence was set. As often happens when any gun related story hits the news, I was contacted for a comment by the local media. It was immediately obvious to me that this issue spelled trouble for our efforts, but in public, to the media, I gave my best defense of his right to do what he was doing. In public, I won't throw any law-abiding gun owner under the bus, EVER (at the time of the interview we had no data that he had prior issues with the private property owner and focused only on his OCing of the long gun). In more private settings, I will implore my fellow gun owners to give some thought to what they do and how they do it.

Unfortunately, a whole slew of legislators who were all set to vote in favor of our DoC fix bill, suddenly started looking at it again and asking, "Would this bill make what that guy did completely legal? Would we be unable to get a DoC conviction even in a case like this?" "Well, yes," we said, "But you see this is very rare and nobody was actually hurt and we've got a lot of guys getting hassled just for their handguns being visible. And besides there are times when one needs to OC a long gun."

"I don't want anyone getting hassled for OCing a handgun, or even a long gun during a hunt or running to the gun shop, but I'm not (yet) prepared to tell my constituents we have to tolerate someone loitering in a parking lot looking like he is ready for combat in Afghanistan. Not in the wake of the latest school shooting," said almost every legislator we had lined up to vote for the thing. And so rather than getting a perfect fix put in that year with a modest, but winnable fight, we spent 4 years working to craft a fix as broad as we could go and still get passed. A couple of repeat performances by new rodney ramjets the next couple of years (minus any citations) kept making it very difficult. "What we really need is a knucklehead clause," said one mostly supportive legislator during one hearing.

And see, the media coverage didn't really help because there is some valid question about the extent to which the visible presence of a long gun might actually be legitimately considered in the totality of circumstances that constitute disorderly conduct or disrupting a school activity. Guns are not mentioned at all in that statute, but neither are most other conduct that might be DoC. Rather, the statute deals with the effects of noise, or public alarm. (Double check your own statutes to see if fixed are needed to prevent an anti-gun city or institution from getting creative.)

We finally managed to pass a partial fix, as I noted in a prior post.

If I were to look at this one bill, this 4 year battle, in isolation, I'd be wholly opposed to OCing or pushing the envelope at all. Couple it with the historical result of the Black Panthers and it would be case closed.

Because I've also seen the benefits of judiciously pushing the envelope, I believe in working to expand the envelope, thoughtfully, carefully.

I wish those who have seen, who choose to see only the positive results of pushing the envelope would open their eyes, broaden their horizons, and give serious thoughts to those cases where pushing the envelope has created some degree of blowback. There is no reason to step on the same landmine someone has already found. It is really poor decision making to look only at the possible good or possible bad. A prudent person weighs both potentials before making a decision. It is called a cost/benefit analysis, not a benefit/benefit analysis for a reason.

I've seen the courts in Utah issue bad decisions on RKBA. Legislative fixes were required. Even then, the positive decision was by the narrowest of margins and the majority was begrudging, not excited.

I hope the first case before the Supreme Court to define the extent of the 2nd amendment protections for possession of firearms outside the home deals with a purely defensive, holstered handgun rather than anything that looks, sounds, or feels at all like an offensive combat rifle. And not because I think the 2nd amendment actually makes any distinction. but because I think judges are human and prone to emotions. With a very slim 5-4 majorities on Heller and McDonald, I want to lay the precedence groundwork in the least emotionally charged case possible, before then applying that precedence to a case that might make a few more people, a little less comfortable.

I want OCing of long guns to be completely legal for my children, grandchildren, and the next 100 generations. I'm not sure asking the supreme court to allow me to carry a bazooka into their chambers is the case most likely to achieve my long term goal.

But what do I know? A couple of cases have worked out great in Michigan so anyone who is anything other than 100% gung ho for exercising rights at the very limits of what the law allows, social concerns be damned, is obviously just some kind of worthless gun grabber.

Charles

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

But what do I know? A couple of cases have worked out great in Michigan so anyone who is anything other than 100% gung ho for exercising rights at the very limits of what the law allows, social concerns be damned, is obviously just some kind of worthless gun grabber.

Charles

And anyone who doesn't go along with the idea that .. just because I can doesn't mean I should even if it is my right and it is legal because it might go against public opinion and make it more difficult for others as they work to further gun rights in their own favorite manner... is engaging in, to use your term, "thoughtless machoism".

But then... I understood that a few posts ago.

By the way.... and I'll stick to Michigan... It was when folks began to exercise the right to bear arms by actually openly carrying pistols (and went through the growing pains of arrests, law suits, and media sensationalism) where the public could see it that the legality of open carry became well known and is now largely accepted by the public. In short.... exposing the public to the right to bear arms by actually openly carrying an arm is what changed public opinion from ignorance and fear to acceptance.

And when open carry of a pistol started ... again in Michigan... there were plenty of nay sayers within the gun community who referred to the open carriers as "attention seekers", "wannabe Rambos", being "needlessly in your face", and many other derogatory terms similar to, again your term, "thoughtless machoism". And the phrase:

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

was bandied about. Until public opinion began to change in favor of OC of a pistol.

And guess what? Now I am hearing the very same kind of rhetoric... just about exercising the right to bear arms with a different kind of firearm.

The following is a general comment not directed at anyone in particular.....

What's next? A dress code for open carriers? An open carry behavior rule book? A study guide for what to carry when, how, where, and why? Somehow I suspect there are many within the gun community who would be eager to write that dress code, behavior rule book, and study guide. And they would be eager to diminish, demean, ridicule, and insult anyone who didn't adhere to those standards.

 

[FreeInAZ]

This whole conversation makes me cringe a bit. The very idea that doing one legal activity over another may get you arrested, beaten, shot etc... Is disturbing. Almost as much as those who seem to accept that idea.

When it becomes ok for those charged to "enforce law" to enforce opinions instead of laws, we are lost as a free people.

 

[WalkingWolf]

And anyone who doesn't go along with the idea that .. just because I can doesn't mean I should even if it is my right and it is legal because it might go against public opinion and make it more difficult for others as they work to further gun rights in their own favorite manner... is engaging in, to use your term, "thoughtless machoism".

But then... I understood that a few posts ago.

By the way.... and I'll stick to Michigan... It was when folks began to exercise the right to bear arms by actually openly carrying pistols (and went through the growing pains of arrests, law suits, and media sensationalism) where the public could see it that the legality of open carry became well known and is now largely accepted by the public. In short.... exposing the public to the right to bear arms by actually openly carrying an arm is what changed public opinion from ignorance and fear to acceptance.

And when open carry of a pistol started ... again in Michigan... there were plenty of nay sayers within the gun community who referred to the open carriers as "attention seekers", "wannabe Rambos", being "needlessly in your face", and many other derogatory terms similar to, again your term, "thoughtless machoism". And the phrase:

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

was bandied about. Until public opinion began to change in favor of OC of a pistol.

And guess what? Now I am hearing the very same kind of rhetoric... just about exercising the right to bear arms with a different kind of firearm.

The following is a general comment not directed at anyone in particular.....

What's next? A dress code for open carriers? An open carry behavior rule book? A study guide for what to carry when, how, where, and why? Somehow I suspect there are many within the gun community who would be eager to write that dress code, behavior rule book, and study guide. And they would be eager to diminish, demean, ridicule, and insult anyone who didn't adhere to those standards.

We heard the same clams of doom and gloom with LGOC in Texas. And guess what? The permit guys still have their permits, and soon OC of a modern handgun will be legal. The only people who will lose are those afraid of, or afraid of the loss of money will follow OC.

 

[Bikenut]

There is no rule book written by the non-existent leader of the non-existent movement. We each lead by our individual example but we all suffer the consequences, perhaps unintended, of each others actions.

I would suggest that the right to bear arms suffered the unintended consequences of being subjected to ever increasing restrictions until relatively recently because folks were afraid to actually exercise the right to bear arms for fear doing so would cause a backlash in public opinion. Hence the phrase "just because you can doesn't mean you should" became a way to express the fear that if someone actually dared to legally open carry it would offend public opinion so much the public would demand even more restrictions.

And because folks didn't open carry it enabled the antis to present their version of what is "unreasonable", "inappropriate", and "unacceptable" to the public while the gun community cowered behind..... just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Edited to add:

So there can also be unintended consequences to the inactions of others.

 

[hovercat]

After having read this entire thread, I would like to answer the original title question.
Yes.

 

[OC for ME]

If cops and bureaucrats followed the law this whole issue would be moot. Other than the crooks targeting you part. A great many words used to clearly indicate that it is the state and not the citizenry that needs educating. The MI Supremes did just that.

The question is wrongly focused on the citizen where it should be focused only on the state.

 

[utbagpiper]

If cops and bureaucrats followed the law this whole issue would be moot. Other than the crooks targeting you part. A great many words used to clearly indicate that it is the state and not the citizenry that needs educating. The MI Supremes did just that.

The question is wrongly focused on the citizen where it should be focused only on the state.

And if frogs had wings they'd not hit their butts when they jumped.

That the question and answer take into account the "state" (as well as the preferences of private property owners) may be unfortunate, but pretending those entities don't bear some consideration is to deal outside of reality.

While "educating" cops, bureaucrats, and fellow citizens is a noble endeavor, not everyone wants to do that all the time. Sometimes, some folks just want to grab a gallon of milk at the 24-hour quickie mart after working swing shift and get home with the least hassle and most safety possible.

It would be great if everyone were free to walk the shortest route between two points in their city. But some young men risk getting hassled if they cut through the wrong neighborhood, others risk getting beat to a pulp or killed, and young women risk all manner of sexual assault before getting killed if they make a wrong turn. These are very unfortunate realities, but realities they are.

Indeed, one of the primary reasons most of us choose to carry a gun is as the most effective defense against the realities of violent crime.

We will always have to work to defend and advance our rights. It makes sense to be fully aware of what currently reality is.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

And if frogs had wings they'd not hit their butts when they jumped.

That the question and answer take into account the "state" (as well as the preferences of private property owners) may be unfortunate, but pretending those entities don't bear some consideration is to deal outside of reality.

While "educating" cops, bureaucrats, and fellow citizens is a noble endeavor, not everyone wants to do that all the time. Sometimes, some folks just want to grab a gallon of milk at the 24-hour quickie mart after working swing shift and get home with the least hassle and most safety possible.

It would be great if everyone were free to walk the shortest route between two points in their city. But some young men risk getting hassled if they cut through the wrong neighborhood, others risk getting beat to a pulp or killed, and young women risk all manner of sexual assault before getting killed if they make a wrong turn. These are very unfortunate realities, but realities they are.

Indeed, one of the primary reasons most of us choose to carry a gun is as the most effective defense against the realities of violent crime.

We will always have to work to defend and advance our rights. It makes sense to be fully aware of what currently reality is.

Charles

What does any of the above have to do with LEOs who wrongly detain OCers where OC is legal. Who exactly do we need to defend our RKBA from? Not the citizenry, in my view. Our fellow citizen may instigate a LEO encounter, it is the LEO that perpetuates the encounter.

 

[utbagpiper]

What does any of the above have to do with LEOs who wrongly detain OCers where OC is legal. Who exactly do we need to defend our RKBA from? Not the citizenry, in my view. Our fellow citizen may instigate a LEO encounter, it is the LEO that perpetuates the encounter.

<Sigh.> Are such things really so hard to comprehend?

We ought to be aware and prepared for those unfortunate realities. Unfortunately, these realities may affect how "safe" (or convenient) OC is for someone based on where he is living and local attitudes including those of LEOs. While LEOs may instigate an encounter of their own volition, how often do you think they are around to notice OC vs how often do the respond to a citizen complaint?

Being aware of local attitudes is almost as important as being aware of the local laws. They are part of situational awareness.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

A properly trained and supervised LE professional should not be influenced by local attitudes. If a cop is influenced by local attitudes then that is on the cop and his supervisors. There are a great many cops who do not succumb to local attitudes and follow the law.

 

[utbagpiper]

A properly trained and supervised LE professional should not be influenced by local attitudes. If a cop is influenced by local attitudes then that is on the cop and his supervisors. There are a great many cops who do not succumb to local attitudes and follow the law.

All fine theories. But want to guess what it is that greatly influences training budgets and what things are considered important enough to get part of that training budget? Want to tell us how chiefs get appointed and sheriffs get elected and thus what things are priorities to them?

A couple of expensive lawsuits might force some changes regardless of local attitudes.

But short of that, there is a time and place for discussing fine theories, and there is a time to be acutely aware of cold, hard reality.

I mean, why stop with cops. A person, properly raised and educated with due respect for his fellow man and his rights would never engage in criminal violence against his fellow man. So why don't we just figure out how to properly "train" our fellow men so that there is no need to carry guns in the first place?

I'm all in favor of training cops just as I'm all in favor of raising law-abiding, peaceful persons who respect the rights of their fellows. Because I can't possibly achieve the latter with 100% success, I carry a gun so as to deal with the cold hard realities of life. Because I've yet to achieve perfection in the former, I think it prudent to be aware of the how cops and citizens are likely to respond to my firearm.

But you conduct your life in whatever way you see fit. Maybe living in a world of pure theory will work out ok for you. And if not, probably not a lot of skin off my nose anyway.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

It is not theory, in my little town anyway, top cops routinely cite the professionalism and training of their beat cops.

Send an e-mail to your local top cop and ask him why he tolerates unprofessional behavior by any of his beat cops. Give him some documented examples and see what happens. I did. No turn signals, talking on the phone while driving, other little things such as these. Minor stuff to be sure but it illustrates to the top cop, if he gives a rip that is, that setting the example makes his position more secure when dealing with difficult cop/citizen encounters...and that at least one citizen is watching and willing to hold he and his department to account, legally if required.

If your cop shop is getting out of hand call the state AG's office and file a complaint. My little town's cops are not the best, not nearly the worst, but they do have fairly good supervision.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by OC for ME

A properly trained and supervised LE professional should not be influenced by local attitudes. If a cop is influenced by local attitudes then that is on the cop and his supervisors. There are a great many cops who do not succumb to local attitudes and follow the law.

All fine theories. But want to guess what it is that greatly influences training budgets and what things are considered important enough to get part of that training budget? Want to tell us how chiefs get appointed and sheriffs get elected and thus what things are priorities to them?

A couple of expensive lawsuits might force some changes regardless of local attitudes.

But short of that, there is a time and place for discussing fine theories, and there is a time to be acutely aware of cold, hard reality.
-snip-

It was the several law suits involving police acting unprofessionally and illegally arresting open carriers in Michigan that prompted the Michigan State Police to generate this legal update:

http://michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

that was distributed to ALL police depts..

And those lawsuits, along with the retraining required in the settlements, caused a whole new method of police dealing with open carriers.

And whether some folks like it or not... it wasn't/isn't .... theory.... the cold hard reality is that those few folks who didn't believe the crap about "just because you can doesn't mean you should" are the ones who got all that changed by actually having the courage to exercise their right to bear arms .... in spite of those who said it would only cause more problems with the police and public opinion calling for even more restrictions.