Kate Shilling, Coalition Director of the Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater LA, reckons banning open carry wouldn’t violate Californians’ Constitutional rights. “Forbidding open carry does not limit your right to own or carry a gun,” Ms. Shilling writes in the Huffington Post. “It merely regulates the way in which you carry your gun when in a public place — the library, the coffeeshop on the corner, or yes, Huntington Beach.” And it’s OK to ban open carry because “When someone not in uniform carries a gun in public, they are in effect saying “I could kill you, if I chose.” Which in turn poses an immediate threat to my own freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom to congregate and freedom to be in public spaces. Even free speech advocates recognize that a serious, declared threat to kill someone goes beyond the limits of First Amendment protections.” Shilling then proceeds to tie herself in rhetorical knots . . .

Similarly, the inherent, present threat in an openly displayed weapon goes beyond the scope of protected Second Amendment rights. (OK, but still — why is this worse than carrying a concealed weapon?)

So open carry makes Ms. Shilling too nervous to exercise her right to free speech? Somehow that strikes me as highly implausible.

Like most people who view government regulation as a necessary non-evil to protect other people from themselves or other people, Ms. Shilling’s willing to put the pedal to the metal on the road to hell, paved as it is with good intentions. She has no time for the idea that law-abiding citizens openly carrying firearms could serve as a deterrent to violent crime.

At its heart, open carry promotes a culture of fear — a sense that we need to be afraid of each other, that we are all vigilantes. Banning open carry is a reminder that we live in community — that when it comes to violence, there is no “us” vs. “them.” That part of living together in democracy is subscribing to the same governing laws, and the freedom to know that we are all able to express ourselves without fear of deadly repercussions from either big government or self-appointed individuals. When someone can walk into a playground, a church, a school or a beach openly carrying a weapon, it strikes a blow not only against our constitutional rights, but also against the very core of our humanity.

Odd times two. Ms. Shilling acknowledges the “threat” of big government AND fails to see that open carry advocates view the practice as creating a sense of safety. That they consider  protecting yourself, your loved ones and your community with an openly displayed firearm as an expression of love, which lies at the very core of our humanity.

9 Responses to HuffPo Ed: Open Carry Is A Threat, Not A Promise

  1. If Ms. Shilling thinks that everyone with a gun is walking around touting their ability to “kill at will”, we had better start tackling people who walk around with lighters or matches. After all, they probably are arsons.

    She can take it a step further, and taze everybody who has more muscle mass than she does. Who knows what kind of thoughts are rolling through their heads! They’re probably walking around, thinking about who they’re going to beat up next!

  2. Well seeing as it is virtually impossible to get a concealed cary permit in the peoples republic of California. No banning open cary will not make it harder for people to carry their pistols for protection purposes will not violate the Second Amendment. Is she insane or just have no clue about the facts? Like the fact that people being allowed to own firearms actually reduces crime on ALL fronts. Oops did I just use logic? I’m sorry the facts confuse people like this.

  3. What an absolutely assinine, incoherent series of statements. The woman obviously has no common sense, critical thinking ability, or sense of reality. Banning open carry doesn't interfere with the Second Amendment? In what or who's reality does this make sense? A little tip for you, Ms. Shilling: the people whom openly carry have made a public statement, proclaiming that as LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS thay have nothing to hide and are not prone to criminal violations of law. Further restricting the RIGHT of the People to KEEP (as in: possess) and BEAR (as in: CARRY on one's person) an inanimate object, which possession and bearing is AFFIRMED (not granted) and GUARANTEED by the Constitution of the United States of America (my country; I don't know which one you live in) has not, cannot, and will most certainly NOT prevent the criminal misusue of firearms, period. Do you not find it at all odd that virtually all mass shootings in recent history were committed in areas where the LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN was/is PROHIBITED FROM CARRYING ARMS? "Gun control" as a crime-fighting tool has been proven beyond doubt to be nothing more than an abject failure. I would suggest long-term psychological treatment to overcome your unreasonable fear of inanimate objects and the law-abiding PEOPLE who choose to carry them. And, since when is the exercise of a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT dependent upon wearing a uniform? Worked out well with the Nazis and such, didn't it?

  4. "… a sense that we need to be afraid of each other, that we are all vigilantes. Banning open carry is a reminder that we live in community — that when it comes to violence, there is no “us” vs. “them.” That part of living together in democracy is subscribing to the same governing laws, and the freedom to know that we are all able to express ourselves without fear of deadly repercussions from either big government or self-appointed individuals…"

    This is not a "community"; this is America. Give her more slack, she'll soon start talking about masses. We are not vigilantes, we don't go out punishing those that commit crimes, we defend ourselves so crimes don't happen. We are not providing a sense of security. We provide actual security. Yes, when it comes to violence it is "us" vs. "them". I don't know if she feels that she belongs to "them", but that would explain her fear. And we are not a democracy, we are a Republic. It is not a tyranny of the majority, we're a nation of laws and those laws MUST conform to the Constitution, not to the direction the wind is blowing.

  5. It absolutely does interfere with the RKBA if there is not AT A MINIMUM a “Shall Issue” CHL law, which California most certainly does NOT have.

    Even Wisconsin courts, one of the only two states with no concealed carry, have requires that OPEN CARRY be available if concealed is not.

  6. I have a penis. Does that automatically make me a potential rapist. Could you classify it as a concealed weapon and require me to have “reasonable” restrictions put on me? I would rather see someones firearm than “wonder” if they have one. I don’t think any criminals are going to wear a firearm on their side it removes the element of surprise.

  7. Well, looks like I need to invest in “Depends Adult Diapers” as these anti’s are such scaredy pants over a person proven to be safer than a doctor by 14,000 to 31,000 times, that they appear prone to peeing themselves. Man we could get rich with that investment were we able to target the few and dwindling area’s of anti gun hoplophobia don’t ya think?

  8. It's obvious that this woman needs to do a ride along with local law enforcement. She will soon realize that criminals (those who would kill her) don't carry their weapons in holsters in the open. They don't carry their weapons concealed in a holster either. Also, in California, weapons carried in the open must be unloaded. Criminals ignore this law too. They carry their weapons loaded, as do most saine people.

  9. Firstly, we live in a Republic not a democracy. Secondly, it doesn't promote a culture of fear, it promotes rugged individualism, the fact dialing 911 and depending on police to be there in under 10 minutes to stop a murder is unrealistic. Thirdly, it is a notice to potential assaulters, “I could kill you, if I chose.” Thomas Jefferson would disagree with Shilling whith her quote "….openly displayed weapon goes beyond the scope of protected Second Amendment rights". Jefferson said "…..you should take your gun with you on your daily walks". We who open carry are not potential vigilantes. Shilling looks upon the average American as a possible criminal, true patriots look upon the average American as mostly a good person. Yet, we are ever aware of our surroundings and in knowing the fact a dangerous encounter can happen anywhere and at any time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *