Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

[Abraham]

I don't believe they're all sincere.

I think some are just exhibitionist, emotionally disturbed individuals jumping at a chance to indulge themselves...

[ShootDontTalk]

I don't believe the "They will get used to it" line that people are pushing. I grew up in a couple of small towns where you could go to school with a gun in the rack in your truck. People just didn't carry into stores or restaurants ever. There was just no need and it didn't happen. A kid on his bike would prop his .22 inside door or by the counter inside a store when he went to go get candy or whatever. The idea that anyone would ever walk up to the counter of dairy queen with a rifle slung is misleading at best. They always would of thought you had issues and the cops would be talking to you. If there is a reason then people still don't give you a second look now. It is when you are doing something that there is no reason for that people start wondering what the heck you might be up to.

Every time I hear this I am more and more concerned. That you own and carry a firearm is not connected in any way, shape, or form with your "need" to own and carry one. It is based on your Constitutional "right" to own and carry. There is a vast gap between what you "need" and what is your Constitutional right.

All the restrictions we have on the when and where, or even the existence, of owning and carrying are legal infringements on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. All the permissions of law concerning firearms are infringements of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I think each of us need to carefully read the 2nd Amendment every day and decide to what extent "shall not be infringed" will be tolerated. I suppose some of you think I am some kind of "OCT" firebrand nut who carries an AR into WalMart. I assure you I am not such a person. Why? Because I believe my good judgement prevents me from doing so. Therefore I have no desire to. I don't feel I have a "need" to. But never let it be said that I don't have the right, under the 2nd Amendment, to do so. I am in a Catch 22 of sorts. To say that I have the right, but don't exercise it to the extent others do, does not qualify me to decide if others have the right.

Whenever I look at those who protest differently than I, I always remember the old saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your RIGHT to say it." I suppose since we the people are the government, the only way to control how others exercise their Constitutional rights is to enact infringements under force of law. How far are we willing to go?

[EEllis]

I don't believe the "They will get used to it" line that people are pushing. I grew up in a couple of small towns where you could go to school with a gun in the rack in your truck. People just didn't carry into stores or restaurants ever. There was just no need and it didn't happen. A kid on his bike would prop his .22 inside door or by the counter inside a store when he went to go get candy or whatever. The idea that anyone would ever walk up to the counter of dairy queen with a rifle slung is misleading at best. They always would of thought you had issues and the cops would be talking to you. If there is a reason then people still don't give you a second look now. It is when you are doing something that there is no reason for that people start wondering what the heck you might be up to.

Every time I hear this I am more and more concerned. That you own and carry a firearm is not connected in any way, shape, or form with your "need" to own and carry one. It is based on your Constitutional "right" to own and carry. There is a vast gap between what you "need" and what is your Constitutional right.

All the restrictions we have on the when and where, or even the existence, of owning and carrying are legal infringements on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. All the permissions of law concerning firearms are infringements of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I think each of us need to carefully read the 2nd Amendment every day and decide to what extent "shall not be infringed" will be tolerated. I suppose some of you think I am some kind of "OCT" firebrand nut who carries an AR into WalMart. I assure you I am not such a person. Why? Because I believe my good judgement prevents me from doing so. Therefore I have no desire to. I don't feel I have a "need" to. But never let it be said that I don't have the right, under the 2nd Amendment, to do so. I am in a Catch 22 of sorts. To say that I have the right, but don't exercise it to the extent others do, does not qualify me to decide if others have the right.

Whenever I look at those who protest differently than I, I always remember the old saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your RIGHT to say it." I suppose since we the people are the government, the only way to control how others exercise their Constitutional rights is to enact infringements under force of law. How far are we willing to go?

You are making an argument about something totally separate. It's a different issue. The OC demonstrators think by walking around with guns people will become used to it. They won't because they are carrying guns when no one would except for their "protest". It will never become mainstream and accepted because there isn't the slightest reason to do so beyond making a point. So there is the 2nd issue and then just if their methods are even slightly effective. I don't believe they are. Also I'm a huge firearm supporter and gun rights guy but this 2A crap is wearing thin with me. The 2nd doesn't say you can go anywhere and do everything with a rifle on your back and people are prohibited from being concerned. Limited what you can buy, own, and keep. Restrictions on movement and punitive taxes are 2nd A issues, not going to the movies with an AK.

[ShootDontTalk]

Also I'm a huge firearm supporter and gun rights guy but this 2A crap is wearing thin with me. The 2nd doesn't say you can go anywhere and do everything with a rifle on your back and people are prohibited from being concerned. Limited what you can buy, own, and keep. Restrictions on movement and punitive taxes are 2nd A issues, not going to the movies with an AK.

Respectfully my friend, the 2nd Amendment does not say anything whatsoever about people being concerned. Please correct me if I misread what you wrote, but you cite restrictions on movement and punitive taxes as 2nd Amendment issues, then cite a restriction on movement (carrying an AK) into a movie as not being a 2nd Amendment issue. Come to think of it, nothing in the entire Constitution speaks to how people feel about the rights laid out. Constitutional rights are rights and are not subject to how we, or any American citizen, feels about them.

You are absolutely correct in this. The 2nd Amendment offers no restrictions, positive or negative, on what or where you can own or carry. It is silent on those issues. But we must deal with those two simple words "keep and bear." I believe those two words are at the heart of the issue.

Again, with all due respect, a lot of people have bled and died to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. I believe it is the greatest document ever penned by man and worthy of respect. Of course, you're free to disagree.

I did state, and have in several other threads, that I too disagree with the tactics of those who want to force the issue. I understand our frustration. I am frustrated too. I would hope we seek a real solution, not just another fire.

[rbwhatever1]

Well said ShootDontTalk....

[Abraham]

To answer the thread title: YES!

Poorly considered tactics scare and offend.

I'm a gun guy. Always (well if starting at age 7 counts as always...) have been.

I won't list my inventory in it's entirety, but I count among my firearms, two AR's.

If I see a bunch of knuckleheads with AR's or AK's or fill in the blank, entering a store or worse a mall, you bet I'm going to be scared and on high alert while taking cover.

If I find later this was the approach to highlight their OC cause I'm just going to be P.O.d.

Not a good way to create good will or a way to win me over.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I really haven't heard anyone claim they were carrying a rifle or shotgun into a store to exercise their constitutional right. Oh, perhaps there was one or two who said that on camera, but I really don't recall.

The overwhelming majority of people who are carrying long guns into stores in Texas are doing so to promote passage of open-carry of handguns, or so they claim. So the real question is "does this help or hinder passage of open-carry?" The clear answer is that it is hurting the cause, even though some will claim otherwise. The negative media coverage combined with pro-open-carry elected officials and their staff asking for such tactics to stop should be all the proof anyone needs. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason these in-your-face tactics haven't stopped is because of a division among open-carry supporters on the issue of licensed v. unlicensed open-carry.

Chas.

[MadMonkey]

I really haven't heard anyone claim they were carrying a rifle or shotgun into a store to exercise their constitutional right. Oh, perhaps there was one or two who said that on camera, but I really don't recall.

The overwhelming majority of people who are carrying long guns into stores in Texas are doing so to promote passage of open-carry of handguns, or so they claim. So the real question is "does this help or hinder passage of open-carry?" The clear answer is that it is hurting the cause, even though some will claim otherwise. The negative media coverage combined with pro-open-carry elected officials and their staff asking for such tactics to stop should be all the proof anyone needs. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason these in-your-face tactics haven't stopped is because of a division among open-carry supporters on the issue of licensed v. unlicensed open-carry.

Chas.

Those folks don't seem to understand that even if you're OC'ing a rifle around fellow gun people, the best case scenario is getting a neutral response. At worst, you're going to cause a panic.

I'm 100% for OC rights, but this is not the way to get support. They're looking for a reaction and an argument, and don't realize that they're doing EXACTLY the same thing that they rail on people like Westboro for doing.

[ShootDontTalk]

I really haven't heard anyone claim they were carrying a rifle or shotgun into a store to exercise their constitutional right. Oh, perhaps there was one or two who said that on camera, but I really don't recall.

The overwhelming majority of people who are carrying long guns into stores in Texas are doing so to promote passage of open-carry of handguns, or so they claim. So the real question is "does this help or hinder passage of open-carry?" The clear answer is that it is hurting the cause, even though some will claim otherwise. The negative media coverage combined with pro-open-carry elected officials and their staff asking for such tactics to stop should be all the proof anyone needs. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason these in-your-face tactics haven't stopped is because of a division among open-carry supporters on the issue of licensed v. unlicensed open-carry.

Chas.

I agree. Your last statement may have hit the nail on the head. There must be some reason behind the reluctance to seek a workable solution. Given the current political climate, unlicensed open carry will probably never gain any traction.

[OldGrumpy]

You betcha. Their current tactics are hurting everyone.

[Selcouth]

Open carry is a terrible idea it will give more ammo to the Bloomburg followers

So the states that have legal open carry are giving Bloomberg more ammo? How so?

[EEllis]

Also I'm a huge firearm supporter and gun rights guy but this 2A crap is wearing thin with me. The 2nd doesn't say you can go anywhere and do everything with a rifle on your back and people are prohibited from being concerned. Limited what you can buy, own, and keep. Restrictions on movement and punitive taxes are 2nd A issues, not going to the movies with an AK.

Respectfully my friend, the 2nd Amendment does not say anything whatsoever about people being concerned. Please correct me if I misread what you wrote, but you cite restrictions on movement and punitive taxes as 2nd Amendment issues, then cite a restriction on movement (carrying an AK) into a movie as not being a 2nd Amendment issue. Come to think of it, nothing in the entire Constitution speaks to how people feel about the rights laid out. Constitutional rights are rights and are not subject to how we, or any American citizen, feels about them.

You are absolutely correct in this. The 2nd Amendment offers no restrictions, positive or negative, on what or where you can own or carry. It is silent on those issues. But we must deal with those two simple words "keep and bear." I believe those two words are at the heart of the issue.

Again, with all due respect, a lot of people have bled and died to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. I believe it is the greatest document ever penned by man and worthy of respect. Of course, you're free to disagree.

I did state, and have in several other threads, that I too disagree with the tactics of those who want to force the issue. I understand our frustration. I am frustrated too. I would hope we seek a real solution, not just another fire.

I don't disagree with how great the constitution is but I just disagree with what it means. In my opinion it wasn't meant to do what you think. The Constitution and the 2nd A wasn't ever meant to be applied to states. That was a later afectation that I'm glad occurred but there is no way in heck that anyone would of agreed to a document that prohibited them from having any rules of any sort regarding firearms. They were concerned that, that among other things, the govt would seize guns not that someone couldn't show off their rifle or wander around town with their handgun out and obvious. While I'm pro CHL and even OC I don't think it is necessary a 2nd A issue. Plenty of towns had firearm restriction when the Constitution was adopted and it wasn't an issue in 1790's. James Madison Proposed a bill that, in an effort to prevent people from violating Virginia game law. "bear(s) a gun out of his enclosed ground unless whilst performing military duty" would face criminal penalties. (bill for the preservation of deer 1785). NJ had laws as far back as 1799 against the carrying of "offensive weaponry"(pistols). Under Common law, which is what everyone operated under at the time, law enforcement could and did disarm people "in terror of the peace". Other states could require you to take an oath to the govt or have your guns taken away. There were limits some places on the amount of powder you could posses, think ammo now, and if you had more you had to store it in public armories at your expense.

[EEllis]

I really haven't heard anyone claim they were carrying a rifle or shotgun into a store to exercise their constitutional right. Oh, perhaps there was one or two who said that on camera, but I really don't recall.

Your probably right for the most part. I was more referencing the trend to call stores that prohibit carry "anti- 2nd A" and the tendency for those OCing to say they are just exercising the 2nd A rights.

Mind you that whole point is off topic and I just mentioned it as a response, not trying to start a whole nother debate.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I really haven't heard anyone claim they were carrying a rifle or shotgun into a store to exercise their constitutional right. Oh, perhaps there was one or two who said that on camera, but I really don't recall.

The overwhelming majority of people who are carrying long guns into stores in Texas are doing so to promote passage of open-carry of handguns, or so they claim. So the real question is "does this help or hinder passage of open-carry?" The clear answer is that it is hurting the cause, even though some will claim otherwise. The negative media coverage combined with pro-open-carry elected officials and their staff asking for such tactics to stop should be all the proof anyone needs. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason these in-your-face tactics haven't stopped is because of a division among open-carry supporters on the issue of licensed v. unlicensed open-carry.

Chas.

Those folks don't seem to understand that even if you're OC'ing a rifle around fellow gun people, the best case scenario is getting a neutral response. At worst, you're going to cause a panic.

I'm 100% for OC rights, but this is not the way to get support. They're looking for a reaction and an argument, and don't realize that they're doing EXACTLY the same thing that they rail on people like Westboro for doing.

What hasn't been said is, if they do this on the wrong day, at the wrong store, someone's going to shoot them. There have been too many events in the last two years of mass shootings for this type of activity.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I can't go into detail, but if the current tactics continue, then open-carry will be DOA in the 2015 Texas Legislative Session. The legislative response is bad and getting worse and it's not because our friends in Austin are anti-gun as some will scream from the rooftops.

Chas.