What problem does open carry solve?

[stealthyeliminator]

It's been argued that open carry simply doesn't solve any problems, and therefore, there is no compelling reason to pursue its legalization.

My response follows...

I think we all feel deep down in our hearts how wrong the statement is that “open carry doesn’t solve any problems,” but let’s spend a moment just trying to articulate what the most significant problem is that the legalization of open carry works to solve, for the record.

The foundation for open carry, or probably nearly any liberty, is ultimately the axiom that everyone is created equal. From this axiom we derive the principle of non-aggression, or the non-aggression principle.

Aggression is the initiation of violence. For example, assault, murder, robbery, and sexual assault are all acts of aggression, and because we can know that these acts are injustices against others, we have codified prohibitions against them into our laws. Using force to stop acts of aggression is not, nor is using force to bring violators to justice, an act of aggression, but they are justifiable responses to acts of aggression.

It is well established that it is not a legitimate claim that the act of merely possessing a firearm is an act of aggression to anyone else in the same sphere, and therefore a coercive response to that mere possession would in fact be aggression - the initiation of force.

Per the axiom that we’re all created equal, and the resulting non-aggression principle, it is easy to see how a coercive response to open carry, which includes legal prohibition, is unjustified.

On the other hand, we’ve heard much testimony proclaiming that such initiation of force is perfectly justifiable. They believe that they have the right to, by proxy, use force against another person in their sphere for no other reason than because that person is possessing a handgun and that person did not purchase special equipment or take extra steps to conceal that handgun.

Thus we arrive at the root of the problem, ladies and gentlemen. The problem is that while some believe we’re all equal, some believe that they are more equal than others. Restoring liberty by law is part of the solution to that problem. It establishes liberty in one of the cornerstones of our societies (which is law,) and sets a standard of respecting other members of that society, per the non-aggression principle.

----

I invite everyone to critique, rebut, agree, affirm, elaborate, add to, or otherwise respond.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I cannot but wholeheartedly agree.
But power is so deliciously alluring.
Who would not take the opportunity to fulfill the base desire of domination over others through whatever means if it were achievable?
Precious few I think.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

It solve the problem having to worry if your jacket hides the gun.

 

[utbagpiper]

I'm afraid the entire premise of "solving a problem" is misplaced when it comes to fundamental, enumerated rights.

Given something that is neither fundamental nor enumerated we can see how silly the premise is.

What "problem" is solved by owning a high performance sports/muscle car or motorcycle that can easily exceed the highest posted speed limit in this nation by more than double? Yet we would not accept a ban on owning such cars/bikes, nor even driving/riding them on public roads so long as they are operated within the bounds of traffic code.

I no more need to justify peacefully OCing (or CCing or CCCing) my firearm, than I need to justify owning that firearm in the first place, nor to justify owning the make/model of vehicle I choose to own.

I have a constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms. What else is needed?

And this is true whether one accept the NAP as gospel truth or not; whether one understands what constitutes "initiation of force" exactly the same way as someone else does. I suppose that under some other government/social paradigm than we have in this nation we'd have to have the discussion of whether RKBA, OC, or other forms of possession are individual rights or not. But we shouldn't need to in this nation. We had that debate about 250 years ago and codified RKBA in our highest governing document.

Charles

 

[skidmark]

I remain unaware of any problem that OC is supposed to solve. There being no problem, I wonder at the notion of legalizing it -

except in those jurisdictions that have , for any of various reasons, seen fit to restrict open carrying by criminalizing it.

What problem I do see is that the "reasons" given for criminalizing open carry are not based on the existence of any problem. Rather, they seem to be based on some (irrational) emotional condition.

While perhaps semantics, I see the issue as removing a meaningless restriction on the manner of exercising a right. This is, IMHO, more in line with the efforts to decriminalize concealed carry.

stay safe.

 

[MAC702]

It's been argued that open carry simply doesn't solve any problems, and therefore, there is no compelling reason to pursue its legalization...

Which starts with the presumption that it was proper and/or Constitutional to outlaw it in the first place.

 

[deepdiver]

I think Skidmark hits the highpoint here and the matter that immediately jumped out at me. This is not a matter of "legalizing open carry" but rather a matter of decriminalizing a constitutionally protected right.

A problem has nothing to do with it. Emotional legislators acted to infringe this right and criminalize it and we want it decriminalized. Legalizing something insinuates that the state has the right to regulate it. They don't, or shouldn't so it is not a legalizing issue. Unfortunately, to gain the necessary preemption to hamstring petty local tyrants from infringement sometimes specific legalization is necessary to clarify the matter.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I think you guys are missing the fundamental perspective shift. The problem is the belief of those who wish to prohibit open carry, because the premise for their belief is inequality. Abolishment of the prohibition is part of the solution, as it institutionalizes liberty in our law, in contradiction to the identified problem. ETA but I appreciate the feedback

 

[nobama]

I dont understand it being able to solve a problem. The only problem it solves is maybe the problem of being threatened by a BG, but CC does that too. I have asked in another forum where the CC only zealots always like to brag that they dont OC, is, please tell me what CC does for the 2A? Im still waiting on an answer. So, OC isnt suppose to solve anymore problems than CC.

 

[nobama]

I guess the question to ask the "anti-OC" folks is ,"what problems does CC solve"?

 

[WalkingWolf]

I guess the question to ask the "anti-OC" folks is ,"what problems does CC solve"?

Those who CC have the same advantage the criminal does that CC's. The criminal can carry in gun free zones without anyone knowing, and of course that tactical advantage...

 

[utbagpiper]

I guess the question to ask the "anti-OC" folks is ,"what problems does CC solve"?

Those who CC have the same advantage the criminal does that CC's. The criminal can carry in gun free zones without anyone knowing, and of course that tactical advantage...

And yet again I take issue with my lawful, private conduct being equated with criminal behavior.

Fundamentally, this is no different than what the gun-grabbers do when they equate our defensive ownership or use of firearms with criminally offensive misuse of firearms.

I am pro-OC. I am also pro-CC and pro-CCC. So long as the gun is carried in a peaceable and safe manner (ie, triggers properly covered, firearm not covering anyone, etc), whether it is carried visibly or discreetly is the business of the carrier.

As Firearms Instructor pointed out, the benefit of NOT criminalizing the exact mode of carry is that it doesn't make me a criminal based on whether or not a little fabric covers my firearm.

In cold or wet weather, CC or CCC has the same convenience as does OC in warmer weather: ease and comfort of carry without having to dress around the gun. Kind of a pain to have to get an oversized belt to fit around the winter coat or rain jacket just to OC.

Depending on what activity in which one is engaged, CC may have the advantage of protecting the firearm. Putting a coat or rain jacket on over the firearm protects it from the elements. Having the gun inside my ski suit reduces the odds of filling the barrel with snow when I crash while skiing, or with mud while riding the motorcycles or ATVs. A small gun tucked into my pocket allows me to be armed without the inconvenience of a gun on my hip while working on the cars, doing yard work, etc.

On the flip side, I very much enjoy not needing to wear a cover garment while going about my shopping, my voting, or my commercial recreation during the warmer/drier months. OCing while attending political or government events/meetings is a form of expression in addition to a means of effective self-defense. By the time November rolls around each year, the prior year's "I Voted" sticker that is dutifully placed on my OWB holster for my 1911 is pretty worn.

We can and should support OC, without ever attacking or undermining CC or CCC. I have every bit as much constitutional right to CC or CCC as I do to OC. No supporter of OC should ever equate lawful possession of a gun with criminal conduct. That a few professed pro-RKBA folks are anti-OC is not an excuse for pro-RKBA persons who support OC to turn around and repeat their stupidity in reverse by being anti-CC in the slightest regard.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You can take issue with it all you want. Yet the very basis of CC permits by most legislatures is that hiding it is something criminals do.....

OP I see were you are going with that. Appealing to a specific mindset is often a good way to break through their preconceived and wrong notions.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

It's been noted to me that it might help to provide context to the question..

During the most recent committee hearing for OC bill in Texas, there were a number of antis who recited a fill-in-your-name, pre-written testimony which included a statement along the lines of "open carry doesn't solve any of our current problems" or whatever. So, that's the context. In the context of giving a counter-testimony, my rebuttal would essentially be that, yes, open carry does solve a problem, and the problem is them trying to rule others without legitimate authority to do so, and the solution, in part, is establishing liberty in law, via the open carry legislation that they're testifying against. eta: but I was trying to say it a bit more elegantly than that.

Sorry, I definitely should have provided context in the OP!

ETA for the record I agree with the sentiments like, it doesn't need to solve a problem, etc. etc. But in the context, I was basically trying to propose a concise and jeering rebuttal to the testimony that it doesn't solve a problem and therefore shouldn't be pursued.

 

[utbagpiper]

You can take issue with it all you want. Yet the very basis of CC permits by most legislatures is that hiding it is something criminals do.....

I believe the basis of requiring permits to buy or own guns is exactly the same....those are things criminals do.

Notice that with very rare and esoteric exceptions, one cannot legally carry a firearm into a federally defined school zone without a permit. Are we to presume that carrying a gun into a school zone, or even a school itself is particularly criminal conduct?

Again, one can take strong issue with needing a permit to carry (concealed or otherwise) in certain jurisdictions, just as one takes strong exception to needing a permit to buy or own a gun in certain jurisdictions without opposing the peaceful, safe method of carrying nor the purchase or ownership of firearms.

Permits are not the same as CCing; the two should not be conflated; and especially not by those who like to be so precise in word meaning as you do. While that has always been true in theory, with a half dozen States now recognizing Constitutional Carry, it is also true in practice.

Continued associations between CC/CCC and criminal conduct belies a bigotry that is self-damaging to the larger RKBA effort/community and thus damaging to OC rights as well.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

In the context of giving a counter-testimony, my rebuttal would essentially be that, yes, open carry does solve a problem, and the problem is them trying to rule others without legitimate authority to do so, and the solution, in part, is establishing liberty in law, via the open carry legislation that they're testifying against. eta: but I was trying to say it a bit more elegantly than that.

To each their own, but I'd wager such testimony is going to be lost on about 99% of legislators and public....as evidenced by the reaction here among those who generally agree with you that OC should be legal.

A simple appeal to enumerated constitutional rights and bringing statutes into closer conformity with those rights is well understood.

In a place as warm as Texas, an appeal to the practical challenges of having to dress around a gun when so often the weather calls for shorts and a T-shirt, would also likely work well.

If your goal is to advance RKBA, pick the arguments that will work best in each situation.

If you goal is to advance an anarchists/libertarian view of government using RKBA as the vehicle.....

Charles

 

[hovercat]

The problem is in the original question. You start with a false premise, so anything you say to defend can easily be attacked.
Texas is not granting a new right under law. They are removing restrictions upon an existing right. The question should be, "What harm will removing the restriction on OC of handguns cause."
Opponents have thought much on how to phrase the argument, to put every advantage to their side.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You can take issue with it all you want. Yet the very basis of CC permits by most legislatures is that hiding it is something criminals do.....

OP I see were you are going with that. Appealing to a specific mindset is often a good way to break through their preconceived and wrong notions.

Very few criminals carry a gun openly, the preferred method is hiding. Those with permits have the same advantages as a criminal does without a permit. People with permits break laws occaisonally, it is a fact. And they do so with a firearm, such as the case with Matthew Apperson. I personally know many CCers with permits who ignore signage, and before the change in the restaurant law they carried in establishments that served alcohol. They bragged about it.

I have issues/problems with the honesty of those who claim that all those with a permit never break laws. It is outright BS.

The simple fact is, that those with a permit, can break the law, and nobody would know. That is not the case with open carry.

 

[skidmark]

I think you guys are missing the fundamental perspective shift. The problem is the belief of those who wish to prohibit open carry, because the premise for their belief is inequality. Abolishment of the prohibition is part of the solution, as it institutionalizes liberty in our law, in contradiction to the identified problem. ETA but I appreciate the feedback

You seem to be the one pushing "perspective shift" yet come right back to what has been said - "legalizing" OC does not solve any problem. And certainly not the problem of some folks holding irrational beliefs and forcefully imposing them on others. "Abolishing" the conseuences of those irrational beliefs being forced on others does not solve either of the problems I see resulting from that enforcement: It does nothing to stop the irrational beliefs (there are days when I really wish I could go on a country-wide tour with a trunk full of aluminum clue bats). Worse, it does nothing to stop those people with irrational beliefs (including the uncontrollable need to force their irrational beliefs on others) from forcing their irrational beliefs on others in any but this tightly defined area.

stay safe.

 

[utbagpiper]

I have issues/problems with the honesty of those who claim that all those with a permit never break laws. It is outright BS.

How many on our side really make this claim of nobody with a permit ever ever breaking the law?

I hear it as a straw man from opponents of RKBA quite often. Notably, I'm reading it hear from one who seems to have trouble mentioning CC on this board without some attempt to connect it to criminal conduct.

In Utah, the rate of revoking permits to carry has held steady at about 2 per 1000 (0.2%) annually. This is on par (probably a bit better but exact numbers are hard to get) with the rate at which sworn police officers lose their certification, that teachers lose their licenses, or that doctors lose their licenses. It is well below the rate of criminal conduct for the general public.

The simple fact is, that those with a permit, can break the law, and nobody would know.

Assuming nobody saw the gun, assuming the off limits area wasn't using metal detectors, etc, etc, etc.

That is not the case with open carry.

This assumes that someone actual notices the OCd firearm AND knows the laws well enough to know what is or isn't off limits.

We all know that a report of "Well I OC in x location all the time and have never been stopped/arrested/kicked-out" is not an authoritative or reliable method of determining what either law or private policy is. I can speed every day on the way to work for years before finally getting a ticket.

Frankly, if you have that many off limits locations in your State, the problem is lack of respect for RKBA, not the manner in which some choose to carry. Legally off limits locations should be very rare, should include metal detectors to be really secure rather than relying on the honor system, and should be well marked.

And yes, gun owners should obey the law regardless.

But, for the love of RKBA, stop trying so danged hard to connect lawful CC or CCC with criminal conduct. There is nothing inherently wrong with carrying a gun in a discrete manner. It is a personal, honorable choice that is entirely legal in many jurisdictions. It should be respected as such, rather than associated with criminal behavior.

Fifteen to 20 years ago, those opposed to RKBA argued that Utahns who wanted to carry a gun in public should OC so everyone would know who to avoid, to shun. That failed to defeat the liberalization of our concealed carry laws. Today, those same opponents of RKBA argue that guns should have to be kept concealed lest people become alarmed. It has become clear that OCers are not deterred by the rare social pressure that gun grabbers can bring. So now it is just back to whatever they can do to make lawful possession of a firearm less convenient, less common. It pains me to see self-proclaimed proponents of RKBA attacking either OC or CC/CCC as somehow untoward. You properly express great disgust against those who attack OC. Why do you join them in their methods by attacking CC/CCC by so often connecting it to criminal conduct?

Charles