Question for Open Carry Proponents

[anygunanywhere]

Lets see Supreme Court rules unanimously that the RKBA is an individual right.

Liberty, with all due respect, the Heller decision has so far done nothing for our second amendment rights, nothing for the residents of DC, the DC mayor and council thugs have dug their heels in deeper and no court seems to want to sanction them severely.

I understand the point you made with your post. The Heller folks have put up a bloody good fight but so far all of their victories are on paper. Come to think about it, our 2A rights pretty much are mostly on paper.

Anygunanywhere

[Liberty]

Lets see Supreme Court rules unanimously that the RKBA is an individual right.

Liberty, with all due respect, the Heller decision has so far done nothing for our second amendment rights, nothing for the residents of DC, the DC mayor and council thugs have dug their heels in deeper and no court seems to want to sanction them severely.

I understand the point you made with your post. The Heller folks have put up a bloody good fight but so far all of their victories are on paper. Come to think about it, our 2A rights pretty much are mostly on paper.

Anygunanywhere

But its a huge undeniable admission that its not a collective right. Still i understand the direct effect was pretty minor, however I do believe that pandoras box has been opened and the Bradys aren't going to to be able to stuff this idea of the RKBA back into the box. This is just the beggining ... There are going to be more court cases and How much you want to bet we will only continue to make gains?

I moved to Texas 20 years ago from a state that openly bragged that it had the toughest gun laws in the nation. I happened to have had a handgun license at the time. I was shocked to find out that there was no means for me to legally carry in the State of Texas. Today I can legally carry in most states, in fact I've legally carried in a dozen states. That's a lot of progress from my perspective even though right now it is almost impossible to get a permit from my original home state.

[srothstein]

I do agree with the principle and I do not think anyone needs an RPG for personal defense or hunting. All of our freedoms have limitations. You can't exercise your first amendment rights by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and you can be arrested for using cetain profane words in public (it's from a thread in the off-topic discussion area). Why is the second amendment any different?

I see now that we have two very different basic philosophies. I do not agree with the principle. I also see it as different from your two examples (which are not correct) in that this hs solely to do with possession of an inanimate object. To make the analogy more accurate, we would have to be discussing the restrictions on the use of the weapon. We have those restrictions, in that you cannot point it at people without justification, you cannot shoot people, etc.

As for the two examples, I would love to see a law saying you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. What if there really is a fire? There is no such law. You may be held responsible for your actions, such as causing a riot. But it is not illegal to yell fire in the theater.

And you cannot be arrested for using profanity in public in Texas (not legally, at least). SCOTUS has ruled on this several times. Also note that the law (Penal Code 42.01 - Disorderly Conduct) does not forbid profanity in public. It forbids language that tends by its very utterance to provoke a breach of the peace. In other words, you cannot try to start a fight in public. This goes with the other part of disorderly conduct where it actually forbids fighting in public (in some cases) too.

Other than weapons and drugs, I bet you cannot find very many, if any, items that the mere possession of them is forbidden. And if you do, find which are protected rights written into teh Constitution.

[KBCraig]

I do agree with the principle and I do not think anyone needs an RPG for personal defense or hunting. All of our freedoms have limitations. You can't exercise your first amendment rights by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater...

Ah, my favorite red herring!

You most certainly can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. If the theater is on fire, doing so is a good idea (although I do suggest making your way to the exit first, to avoid being trampled).

What you can't do, is incite false alarm. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater when you know there is no fire, you can be held both criminally and civilly responsible for any damages you cause -- to anyone injured in the evacuation, to the theater owner for lost revenue and damages, etc.

Why is the second amendment any different?

Indeed, why is it? To avoid criminal shoutings (instead of shootings) in crowded theaters, why doesn't the government outlaw speech in public places? Or mandate gags in public gatherings? To avoid printed profanity, why don't we have to pass a background check before buying a computer, typewriter, or printer? Why are high speed, high-capacity printers legal for civilians to own? Why isn't a background check, $200 tax, and government registration required for PA systems that can achieve more than 100 DbA volume?

The obvious answer is that banning inanimate objects is silly. Punishing mis-use that harms others is perfectly legitimate.

Kevin

[tbranch]

I'll argue the point no more and will simply agree to disagree.

Tom

[waterpump1]

I just don't understand the fascination with open carry. I am not against it per se, but I can't see how we really gain anything, or how it helps us in the fight to preserve our gun related rights.

We all know that Joe Q. Public has a very short memory. This short memory helps us with concealed carry. As far as most of the non-carrying public is concerned, it's out of site, out of mind. In our current politically correct obsessed society open carry would risk turning a great number of people against us. We certainly aren't going to gain any more supporters of gun rights due to the ability to open carry, so why take that risk? Why rub thier nose in it, and awaken the sleeping unsympathetic masses?

It's not a tactical advantage against the bad guys to have your weapon in plain site. In fact, in some cases the worst type of criminals may take it as a challenge and a way to get their hands on additional weapons. Just because you have a pistol on your hip doesn't mean you are going to strike fear into BG's and will be immune to their evil doings. It doesn't works for LEO's, why would it work for the average untrained individual? I tend to think that open carry would decrease your odds of prevailing in a multiple BG situation. It would certainly move you to the top of their target list. I for one have no interest in being the person they concentrate their efforts on.

The advantage we have is concealed carry. BG's don't know you are carrying, and the element of surprise is your greatest edge, if you practice and train. I just can’t see what we gain except for a right that in most cases is better left unexercised.


I might be missing something, but it's just my .02.

[srothstein]

I'll argue the point no more and will simply agree to disagree.

Tom

Sounds reasonable to me.

[SlowDave]

I do agree with the principle and I do not think anyone needs an RPG for personal defense or hunting. All of our freedoms have limitations.

One thing I can't stand, personally, is this position: "You do not need a ..." IMHO, the discussion should never be framed as such. I don't have to prove a need, they have to prove a reason why my freedoms should be curtailed. I am probably between the two sides so far in this discussion. I am okay with certain restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA), but NEVER because I haven't shown a need for a certain area of that right. Only because we, collectively, as a democratic society, have decided that the risk of a certain right is not worth the potential damage and/or the liklihood thereof.

An ?interesting? parallel discussion is drunk driving (DWI, DUI, etc). In a perfect world, DWI would not be illegal, as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights. However, causing bodily injury or property damage through DWI would of course be prohibited/illegal. But we as a society have decided that the risk/likelihood of injury/prop damage from someone DWI'ing is unacceptably high. So, we "infringe" on the individual's "right" to DWI.

[It's not a right enumerated in the US Constitution, but I think there is high agreement that many of our rights are "natural rights," given by God (or your preferred provider of life) and indicated by the tradition of such rights throughout history in a multitude of societies. I'd put the RKBA in there as well.]

Regardless of the lack of a constitutional mention, I think we'd find pretty high agreement that there exists a "right to get drunk off your butt" as long as you're not infringing on someone else's rights, such as sitting (laying?) at home, and no one would expect to be arrested for that. But we do "infringe" on that right somewhat for drivers, feeling that the risk is too high, and makes infringement of that right reasonable. I am accepting of the same course of action/thought on the RKBA. And yes, I know that puts us in a gray area of what is reasonable, and susceptible to the political winds of the time... welcome to democracy.

But back to the original thought, I've never heard anyone having to "justify" the sales of alcohol against someone else who is arguing that "No one needs 180 proof whiskey." I don't have to prove the need, they have to prove some very strong argument of why we (US citizens) would be willing to give up or limit a right that people have fought and died for and that our country is based upon.

Thoughts?

[WildBill]

But back to the original thought, I've never heard anyone having to "justify" the sales of alcohol against someone else who is arguing that "No one needs 180 proof whiskey."
Thoughts?

As long as you don't need it in New York or in Texas on a Sunday.

[Seburiel]

Question of curiosity, for those in the know: Could you be prosecuted for carrying a longarm (breach of the peace, etc) and, does it's being loaded or not have any bearing on it?

Thanks
-s.

[bdickens]

In Texas there is no distinction in the law between a gun being loaded or unloaded. I find myself having to constantly go around with people about this.

[srothstein]

Seburiel,

Yes, you can be prosecuted for carrying a long gun in the open. THe law (Penal Code 42.01(a)(8)) specifically makes it ilelgal for anyone to carry any firearm in a manner calculated to alarm.

Of course, there is still some debate on what "calculated to alarm" means.

[Seburiel]

Question, then:
(hypothetically, as I simply can't afford one)I own a Beretta Storm carbine, which is a rather short riflecarbine in a pistol caliber. If I have it under my coat, and it's not readily noticable, I'm fine, right? (I understand that a CHL has nothing to do with rifles, I'm just curious if there are any case-rulings or statutes regarding carrying a rifle concealed).

Thanks for putting up with my inanity.
-s.

[srothstein]

You would be fine. It is not illegal to carry a long gun, except possibly in a manner calculated to alarm.

There is the caveat that it is illegal to carry any firearm in certain locations though, so be careful where. It is a fairly short list, so you can learn it and be careful.

[Longtooths]

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire (Attributed); originated in "The Friends of Voltaire", 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)

Sounds a whole lot different than, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will ridicule, make snide comments and genuinely demean your views."

It saddens me when gun folk are willing to turn on their own when it involves the advancement of our freedoms/rights. you would think they of all people would understand.