Is Mainstream America Shifting Towards Open Carry?

Most Americans don’t think about gun rights. Why would they? They only have so much mental bandwidth. They’ve got to focus on paying the bills, getting the kids to, from and through school; finding time for friends and doing whatever it takes not to lose what they already have. I reckon it’s that latter priority that moves non-gun rights folk towards the pro-gun position. The knowledge that a firearm helps maintain their status quo. As for understanding or caring about the way firearms are regulated, meh. In the same way the presidential election is a popularity contest, the general public thinks about gun laws in very simple terms, if at all. Luckily for gun rights advocates, the nature of that understanding has suddenly reached a tipping point, and changed . . .

The political framework that created the most recent dark days of gun control: how do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals? This line of thinking was largely an urban phenomena; reflecting population density, gun ownership patterns (city folk were not gun owners by tradition) and crime rates. In particular, the gruesome cocaine wars in the 70′s—isolated from personal experience but televised heavily—did much to demonize guns.

The political framework that’s restoring the protection of our right to keep and bear arms: how do we make it easier for law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms? This line of thinking is, increasingly, an urban phenomena; reflecting a lack of faith in the government’s powers of personal protection, and the demystification and promulgation of all things gun via the internet.

No question, the Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald opened the door to the modern pro-gun trend. But the average American has no idea that either case exists (if they even know what the Supreme Court does). The shift from anti- to pro-gun is a more subtle transition. People who didn’t care one way or another about guns or gun rights—the uninformed voters who have the final say in most political matters—are starting to think, guns? Sure, why not?

The media too. Case in point: “Like it or not, open carry is coming” by Mike Jones at tulsaworld.com.

First of all, this is not a column condemning the open-carry bill that is making its way through the Legislature. I have no strong feelings about it either way.

A lot of states allow it and mass bloodshed hasn’t seem to have broken out in any of them. Neither, however, have I seen any statistics that prove that crime has dropped significantly in any of those states. Such information is difficult to process. Crime rates fluctuate for many reasons, including economics.

If I were voting, I would vote against open carry, simply because I don’t want to see my fellow Oklahomans walking around with guns strapped to their hips. On the other hand, open carry might be more comforting. Rather than concealed carry, where you don’t know who is packing, at least with open carry you know who has the gun and who to avoid – or stand close to.

In my younger years, I was against concealed carry and sometimes guns in general. I grew up with guns. I hunted quail, dove, rabbits and squirrels. We ate what we killed. I admit, when the concealed carry issue came up I was one of those people who said there could be mass confusion in McDonald’s if a bunch of civilians tried to stop a robbery or shooting. I believed that concealed carry would lead to more, not fewer, gun incidents.

I was wrong.

Jones’s transition from anti-gun to oh-go-on-then-carry-if-you-want-to doesn’t need a Bruce Krafft-ian factual deconstruction. The main takeaway: concealed carry is becoming a non-issue. Blood is not flowing in the streets from concealed carriers gone wild. So . . . nothing. Might as well let people—average folk—buy and carry guns.

It’s an important distinction. The increasing normalization of concealed carry isn’t about the [debatable] upside: lower crime rates and lives saved. It’s about the lack of a downside: no OK Corrals. The fact that the “debate” has moved from questions about concealed carry to a discussion about open carry reveals the pro-carry temper of the times—at least in states that have accepted armed citizens.

It’s no surprise that the same fantasy issues that bedeviled the concealed carry movement are now attached to open carry. Simply put, there are no new arguments to be made. Check out Jones’ take. He ignores open carry’s impact on deterrence, forgets that a drawn gun is a drawn gun is a drawn gun, and wonders about the dangers of open carry when an armed citizen unholsters his firearm.

Then, what does the legally armed citizen do? If his life is not in danger can he or she still intervene? If so, are they really qualified to shoot?

That brings up the courthouse episode. There were at least 10 uniformed officers involved in that shooting. A citizen going to the courthouse will not, can not, carry a gun into the building. So, it is likely that even an open carry citizen would not have his weapon.

But what if he was simply passing by headed to his office or her car? Shooting breaks out on the plaza. According to some open-carry proponents, the armed civilian would be able to subdue the shooter, avoiding further injury to the non-armed visitors.

What if the open-carry individual drew his or her weapon and then the uniformed officers arrived? That makes two suspect shooters on the plaza.

Open, concealed—what difference would that make in this situation? None, once the lead starts flying. The rules of engagement for armed civilians are clear. Qualifications? I say armed citizens don’t need no stinkin’ qualifications. But if Mr. Jones’s Google is broken, he can click here to learn that an OK concealed carry license holder must pass an approved training course.

As for the OMG, TWO SHOOTERS! problem, what are the odds that the cops will respond to a crime scene and shoot the good guy? This gun blogger scans press reports of defensive gun use (DGU) seven days a week. I’ve yet to encounter a single story of the cops mistaking the armed good guy for the bad guy, and then shooting the wrong person. Cops shooting cops, yes. Cops shooting concealed carry license holders? Not yet.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but a gun on your hip is a pretty good indication that you aren’t a bad guy. And even if the cops do shoot the wrong person, who’s fault is that? You could say it’s a shared responsibility between the good guy and the po-po. Or just the luck of the draw. Meanwhile, forbidding people to openly exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms to protect them from confused or incompetent police isn’t a very compelling argument against open carry, IMHO.

Most states have some form of an open carry law. Those states seem to be holding together well. Only six states and Washington, D.C., prohibit open carry.

I am not anti-gun. I simply don’t know if I’m ready to see sidearms displayed in public view by someone other than a law enforcement officer.

Oklahoma is going to pass this law, and Gov. Mary Fallin almost assuredly will sign it. All I can say is, “Let’s be careful out there.”

Which is all gun rights advocates want him to say, really. And that reminds me: once my divorce is finalized, I’m going to apply for a State permit (I have a city one) and start open carrying. As Rafiki said (on an unrelated matter), it is time.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

50 Responses to Is Mainstream America Shifting Towards Open Carry?

  1. avatarJohn Fritz says:

    A DeSantis Speed Scabbard. One of the best holsters out there.

  2. avatarspymyeyes says:

    Open or conceal carry, IMHO is just another ploy by anti-gun nuts.

    The 2nd amendment says “right to bear arms” it does say HOW you can bear arms, just that you can. So, being mostly laywers (yeck) they have nit-picked every little detail they can.

    The only thing left for them to try is to “retroactively” add or delete laws, a disturbing trend that is becoming more popular at the state level.

    If I want to carry my rifle on a sling or a shotgun in my hands, it is my right to do so. Even living in a small city, I encounter people that are totally ignorant of their rights and look at me and say, hey buddy, why are you walking around with a rifle/shotgun on you?!? He must be a wacko and about to kill everyone! Quick, call the po-po!!!

    That has not stopped me from walking my dogs armed. After 3 false events the cops now know me and don’t go all SWAT for the reported “man walking his dog armed” calls.

    Everytime they hassel me I tell them to put themselves in my shoes before they judge me a “wacko” because it is the ONLY way I can defend myself after my battle with cancer, and living in a gang infested hood I have a NEED to show it.

    With a few comments about the crime and gangs in my hood and how the po-po seem to be too busy to address that issue ever, they leave me alone with just a few more nasty looks.

    • avatarPascal says:

      “The only thing left for them to try is to “retroactively” add or delete laws, a disturbing trend that is becoming more popular at the state level.”

      Never underestimate the anti-gun crowd, in NJ and in at least one other state they are trying to put “sin” taxes on guns & ammo. The next thing they will do is tax the you know what out of anything gun related.

      • avatarBLAMMO says:

        And the NY State Assembly just added, to the 2012 budget bill, the language from their microstamping bill, even though the State Senate shelved their microstamping bill last year. It’s a circumvention of the Senate. Like burying something in an omnibus spending bill. If the Senate passes the budget, microstamping becomes law. A de facto ban on semi-auto pistols in NYS.

        http://www.nysrpa.org/

  3. avatarRyan Finn says:

    Since I started as an instructor I find myself OCing more and more. When working I’m typically wearing our “uniform” shirt tucked into some sort of cargo pants (per our policy) with my Sig and an extra mag on my belt. I never bother to try and conceal when I run out to get more supplies or grab some lunch. Granted I live in MT, but I have yet to see anyone bat an eye at me or even remotely have any negative interaction win the public. Most people who engage me in conversation tend to comment that they like my gun or ask what I do for a living which always leads to a great opportunity to drop a business card ;)

    Again, I live in a pretty gun friendly state and all my evidence is anecdotal, but I agree that open carry seems to slowly becoming much more accepted.

  4. avatarpair-o-dee says:

    You can find some historical references to concealed carry as an indication of criminal intent, back in the day, and legislated efforts to block that. Take that, you highwaymen and footpads!

  5. avatarJim22 says:

    There are distinct disadvantages to open carry. First is the likelihood that you will be pestered by about every third policeman you encounter. They have no reason to arrest you but will stop you and question you. Who needs that?

    Second is the freak-out factor. I, for one, don’t need someone yelling, “He’s got a gun!”. Some people do that.

    I think concealed carry is a better way to go.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      True. Hats off to those willing to bear the risk to defend our constitutional rights.

    • avatarPatrick Carrube says:

      Perhaps it’s because of where I live (Arizona), but I have yet to have a single cop, sheriff, or Border Patrol agent stop and question me about carrying a weapon, and I’ve probably had dozens of “encounters” where they could have asked me so…

      Actually, this isn’t entirely true – a coworker and I stopped into the local Chinese Buffett and a Border Patrol guy asked me how I liked the XDm. I told him it was the best gun I’ve shot and wouldn’t trade it for the world. He says he loves his issued HK and has a compact one for personal carry. We both made a joke about how my coworker spent $700 on a Kahr with a terrible trigger and then went on to enjoy our lunch (not together).

    • avatarJason says:

      It’s probably a hassle at first, but eventually people just get used to it. I’m in Arizona where we originally had no CCW because it was assumed that only dishonest folks would want to carry concealed. If you were a good guy you wore your gun out in the open. I carried openly for years, simply because there was no legal alternative. We now have CCW (without a license, even) but you still see people carrying openly from time to time. I spotted a guy in Prescott just this weekend. I carry openly myself if I’m in the mood to strap on my satin nickel BBQ gun with the tooled El Paso Saddlery holster and the fancy Nill grips. You get some questions about it from recent California imports, but it’s just another opportunity to desensitize them to gun culture.

      “Why are you carrying a gun?” “Well, ma’am, because a whole cop is too heavy.”

  6. avatarMr. Lion says:

    Baby steps, but I’ll take ‘em.

  7. avatarBruce W. Krafft says:

    Damn you Robert! I’m halfway through my open vs. concealed carry piece and I hop over to TTAG for a reference and see that you’ve beaten me to the punch!

  8. avatarChas says:

    I fully support the right to open carry; I just choose not to simply because I don’t want the attention. I like flying under the radar.

  9. avatarDrewR55 says:

    As an Oklahoman I would like to point out that little will change if/when we pass HB 2522. Most of us will still carry concealed except for special circumstances. And for those of us who will open carry having this law on the books will further the normalization of guns in our state. We needed to make some changes to the Self-Defense Act especially in regards to the accidental displaying of a firearm. Allowing us to open carry or to carry partially concealed will solve this problem.

  10. avatarOldLawman says:

    After 15 years as an LEO (half of which in uniform, the other half in detectives), and now more than 16 years of carrying concealed, I am firmly in favor of concealed only, from a practical, not constitutional basis.
    Most, if not all civilians who carry have had no training or experience in weapons retention – heck, even cops who have still don’t practice it enough and struggle for their guns.
    I’d rather be seen as a typical suburban-looking old guy, who has a choice tactically whether to be involved or not, depending on the whole situation.

    Obviously, my opinion, and YMMV.

    • avatarrosignol says:

      While I do see open carry as a good way to desensitize non-gun-owners to the presence of firearms, I prefer to carry concealed. A lot of badguys are opportunists with poor impulse control who make bad decisions.

      Dangling an opportunity to transcend their previous mistakes in front of them seems like a bad idea.

  11. avatarDrewR55 says:

    As an Oklahoman I would like to point out that little will change if/when we pass HB 2522. Most of us will still carry concealed except for special circumstances. And for those of us who will open carry having this law on the books will further the normalization of guns in our state. After all, firearms were already normal enough here in the Sooner State.

    We needed to make some changes to the Self-Defense Act, especially in regards to the accidental displaying of a firearm. Allowing us to open carry or to carry partially concealed will solve this problem.

  12. avatarRopingdown says:

    Slightly off topic: The WaPo ran an editorial today with a reasonably nice tone to it about the 3rd Circ Ct of Appeal (MD) holding: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-of-protection/2012/03/09/gIQApH6t5R_story.html?hpid=z7

  13. avatarBen Eli says:

    Don’t forget about Campus Carry!

  14. avatarTom says:

    I think you can open carry in Indiana, but few people do so. I think I saw one guy open carrying in Wal-Mart.

  15. avatarRob Eide says:

    I live in Mn and have openly carried since 2008. I have only been harrassed twice in the last 4 years. Believe it or not, both times were at the Cabelas in Rogers,Mn. Both times while in the firearms area(buying powder). Second time I made them get the store manager.He told me I might be “scaring customers”. Politely I said “so what.” I explained to him their company policy is CCW friendly and he should read their front door sign. I have not had a problem since.Still kinda funny being that they are probably Mn’s largest firearms seller.

  16. avatarKevin says:

    “As for the OMG, TWO SHOOTERS! problem, what are the odds that the cops will respond to a crime scene and shoot the good guy? This gun blogger scans press reports of defensive gun use (DGU) seven days a week. I’ve yet to encounter a single story of the cops mistaking the armed good guy for the bad guy, and then shooting the wrong person. Cops shooting cops, yes. Cops shooting concealed carry license holders? Not yet.”

    Well, let me help you out. …

    http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyId=3503

  17. avatarSlab Rankle says:

    I have a peculiar theory about this issue that I can’t prove in any way but tickles my fancy none the less. It goes as follows:

    The political left and right have made an under the table bargain that each side will have one big agenda item all their own way. For the left it’s abortion, and for the right its RKBA.

    We’ll still hear plenty of noise about both issues, but we’ve now reached a kind of status quo, which I believe will last a long time. The judiciary, as always, is the wild card that could wreck this little quid pro quo.

    • avatarNCG says:

      I doubt there was even any sort of “deal,” (why bother, everyone knows the score) but I think you’re right on target hear. Both parties use hot button issues to distract us while they generally allow corporations and rich folks to run amok. Ultimately, I suspect that those people who advance the agenda of economic inequality (neo-fuedalism) don’t want us little people to be armed, but they won’t play that card quite yet.

      • avatarSlab Rankle says:

        Actually, I think corporations and rich folk are the most heavily regulated of all in our society, even if they do know how to game the system. It is the little people, as you call them, that run amok and destroy tens of thousands of lives every year with street crime, and it is those whom most are arming themselves against. I assure you, no one (except maybe those Occupy cretins) is arming against Walmart, Goldman Sachs, or Microsoft.

        What do you think is worse, having to bail out a bank, or getting raped and murdered? I do agree with you about one thing, though. Most of the upper crust, being liberals, definitely don’t want us to be armed!

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          You really think the upper crust are liberals? The really, really upper crust? Really?

          As for most heavily regulated, maybe on paper. I knew an accountant who used to work for the large accounts division for the IRS and she eventually left because she couldn’t take it anymore. Basically, the largest corporations never paid their taxes. Oh, eventually they might, but they would keep filing more and more paperwork, and inundate the staff at the IRS with work and keep dragging things out for years and years. Finally after wasting thousands upon thousands of labor hours, they might eventually pay what they owe. Maybe. And they do that continuously for every single tax year. It was just so transparently cynical that she couldn’t stomach it after a while.

        • avatarSlab Rankle says:

          Do you know who Lloyd Blankfein is? He’s a lifelong Democrat. How about Warren Buffet? The same. How about Jamie Dimon? The same.

          I know there’s a very pervasive myth that Wall Street is all Republican, but it’s the biggest lie ever. Wall Street is almost exclusively a Democrat club. Look it up yourself if you don’t believe me.

          In fairness to you, though, you asked if they where liberals, and I answered that they are Democrats. Close, but not exactly the same thing in all cases. These people are certainly capitalists where their own money is concerned. Crony capitalists! Make someone else pay for their losses. That’s a very liberal philosophy, like making someone else pay for their illegitimate baby. The middle class has to do both.

  18. avatarMark N. says:

    As a backlash to the open carry movement, the California Legislature in its infinite wisdom banned open carry of (unloaded) handguns in urban areas by a law that went into effect January 1, 2012.( I’m not sure it made a whole lot of difference, as it was already illegal to openly carry a loaded firearm.) But I will tell you that the open carry movement raised a huge rucuss by openly carrying in oublic places in SanDiego, LA and the BAy Area, leading to multiple MWG calls to the police and huge armed response, despite the fact that unloaded open carry was perfectly legal. Thus, for practical purposes before the new law, you couldn’t carry openly any way. The culture is against it.

  19. avatarwill says:

    Don’t be lily livered. Guns are security my friend’s.

  20. avatarCraig Huddleston says:

    I shall Say that i support the open carry concept. I open carry everywhere my family and i go. Yes i have unintentionally ran a few people out of stores because i am armed. I really am not going to loose any sleep for that. It is my constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

  21. The California legislature banned the Open Carry of handguns last year. Long guns can still be openly carried but must be kept unloaded until one is in “grave, immediate danger.” A Federal lawsuit has been filed to overturn the ban on openly carrying a loaded handgun and long gun in California. http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org/

    • avatarMark N. says:

      You really mean that YOU filed a federal lawsuit in pro per. Recently, MOST of that lawsuit was dismissed by the trial court without leave to amend, principally on the basis that the state actors and entities you sued are specifically immune from suit in federal court under the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution. You should heed the old advice: he who represents himself has a fool for a client.

      Further, although you refuse to accept the argument, the fact is that the open carry ban means that the only way to carry legally in any urban area is with a CCW. And since all of us agree that there must be an effective way to exercise the right to bear arms, the ban means that the state/county authories must necessarily apply a “shall issue” system. Quite frankly, I would rather carry concealed to keep the liberal tofu crowd from calling the police every time they see a MWG! OMG! (I think you must concede it was this very reaction that led to the open carry ban.)

      • FLAME DELETED

        My lawsuit has not been dismissed.

        I realize that the “concealed carry or no carry” crowd doesn’t care about the facts but here are a few facts about the magistrate’s judge recommendation and report filed in my Open Carry lawsuit.

        Her opinion is that governors and police departments are immune from Federal Civil Rights lawsuits, not just as applied to my case but in all cases. The lawyer who reviewed my complaint before I filed it says the magistrate judge is an idiot. I imagine lawyers in the nearly 1,000 Federal lawsuits brought against the LAPD alone in the last ten years would agree. Awards in these cases have totaled over $136 million dollars.

        The District Court judge assigned to my case has found that police departments are liable if they have violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. It is his decision that counts, not the magistrate judge’s.

        The governor of North Carolina was just successfully sued a week before the magistrate judge filed her report. I have read federal lawsuits against California governors and other state officials that were written in pencil where the district court judge gave the plaintiff multiple opportunities to correct the deficiencies in the complaint.

        The magistrate judge “advises” that I would have to state exactly when and where I would have to violate the law in order to have standing against the remaining defendants. She based her conclusion on a non-binding district court decision from Hawaii.

        That decision was overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals less than a week after she filed her report and recommendation.

        Given that District Court judge Otero is unlikely to contradict his earlier decisions the likelihood of his accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is somewhere between none and nil.

        But if he does, I am more than happy to have an even earlier opportunity to take my case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. With over 100 years of US Supreme Court precedents on my side, not to mention the innumerable 9th Circuit Court decisions, I’m not too worried.

        FYI, the attorney representing Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris does not believe that his motion to dismiss will be granted. I pointed out that even if governor’s were immune from civil rights lawsuits brought against them in their official capacity for non-monetary damages, they are not immune from civil rights lawsuits seeking monetary damages in their personal capacity.

        He groaned when I told him this and he asked me please not to do that.

        As for concealed carry, the Heller decision holds a rather dim view of it. As has the California legislature and courts since 1853.

        You have your opinion, I have both the facts and over 100 years of case law supporting my lawsuit.

        Sorry Mark, no shall-issue CCW for you.

        http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

        • avatarMark N. says:

          I notice that you didn’t publish the magistrate’s decision on your web site. Wonder why? Are we really supposed to take your word for what the nature of the decision was? And yes, the governor is immune from civil rights actions under the 11th Amendment to the US Constitution. He does not act in an individual capacity when he signs a bill into law, only in an official capacity, so any suit against him in an indivisual capacity woud indeed be frivolous. The case in North Carolina was not a civil rights action under section 1983–it was an injunction action based upon Second Amendment rights, and the Governor of NC is the party that would issue any emergency declaration.
          And a hundred years of Supreme Court authority supporting your position? NOT! I have actually read those cases, and the only proposition that is properly drwn is that the State can disallow some forms of carry as long as it allows the exercise of the right. It just so happened in those cases, in that day and age, open carry was normal and only criminals carried concealed. Times have changed. In most parts of California it is impossible to open carry without drawing a large police presence. I don’t seeing that attitude changing any time soon.
          Since you are both not a lawyer and seriously underfunded, the probability of you having any success in the federal court is negligible. At least that’s my opinion. I already know that you don’t listen to any one who doesn’t agree with you, so let’s leave it at that.

        • The link to the court docket is in the center of my webpage but given your complete inability to read and understand court decisions, it really doesn’t matter you couldn’t find it.

          All Federal Civil Rights lawsuits are brought under USC 1983, including the one against the governor of North Carolina. If you had even the slightest comprehension of what the legal standard for suing a governor under 9th Circuit case law is you would know that there is no Eleventh Amendment bar, the standard includes; what connection does the governor have to enforcement of the statute and is a there a direct link or causal links to the injury-in-fact.

          At the initial pleading stage, which is where my lawsuit is at, all that is required is the allegation. No evidence is required at this stage of the proceedings.

          The attorney for Gov. Brown and AG Harris could not point to a single case in the Central District where a complaint against any state official has been dismissed on 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) grounds. There are two. One consisted of a complaint filed with but a single line asking for an infinite energy machine and the other asked for “a gazillion” dollars and transfer to the Russian Embassy.

          Brown and the Redondo Beach Police Department won’t be permanently dismissed from the lawsuit although I am half hoping that they are. Suing police departments is big business for trial attorneys and suing governors are the cottage industry of groups like the ACLU.

          I should have no shortage of attorneys willing to argue my appeal should the District Court judge adopt the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

          A pleasing consequence of my lawsuit is that has driven the “concealed carry or no carry” cultists, such as yourself, up the wall. I wish I could take credit for the inevitable loss of the two concealed carry lawsuits now on appeal before the 9th but the US Supreme Court already sealed their fate with the Heller and McDonald decisions.

          I’ll let you have the last word because it is obvious you don’t have a clue as to how the law works. You want concealed carry to become shall-issue, it isn’t going to happen.

        • avatarMark N. says:

          Actually, I am an attorney with 25 years of experience, and including a lot of work defending public entities from pro se idiots who think they know more about the law than the judge does. Your opinion does not count–only the judges does. I read the magistrate’s opinion, and I have little doubt that the judge will adopt it. It is thorough, well reasoned, and well annotated. You have no claim against the Governor, and you have no claim against Redondo Beach. You cannot sue the Governor in federal court on the grounds you have asserted–the court has no jurisdiction under the 11th Amendment. You might, if you are lucky, swing an action against the AG, but since you don’t plan on violating the law, that is a questionable conclusion. And given your history, the likelyhood of ANY attorney jumping on your bandwagon is slim to none.
          If you are talking about Byrd, Peruta, And Richards, I have read all of those trial court decisions. Every single last one of them relied on the fact that the state provided an alternative form of carry–open unloaded carry, which of course has now been outlawed. The only way to exercise the right to bear arms in urban areas where open carry is not excepted (rural counties and hunting) is by CCW; the exception on which these cases relied having been eliminated, their reversal is inevitable. Complete bans cannot withstand strict scrutiny or even intermediate scrutiny under a standard that requires the state to actually prove–not merely claim–that the interst in public safety is indeed served by banning firearms. Mr Birdt established in his discovery that neither LA City nor LA County have any autority supporting their position that “more guns equals more crime.” And when those reversals come down (which may be quite a while if the Nointh Circuit has its way), the state will have to choose–”shall issue” or open carry. I fail to see any politician in any urban area of this state being able to sell the latter; out of sight means out of mind.

        • Anyone can claim to be anyone when hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. You might have well claimed to be an astronaut and you might have been more convincing.

          Real attorneys, including a law school professor or of the opinion that my case won’t be dismissed. There comments on the report and recommendation range from she is confused to she is an idiot.

          Anyone who thinks her report has any value is a confused idiot.

          And since you fail to cite any precedents supporting the smoke you are blowing the rest of us can conclude you are just some internet troll. I, on the other hand, wrote a 20 page objection citing cases showing why the magistrate judges report should be rejected and that doesn’t count the three memorandi of legal citations and facts which also support my position.

  22. avatarNCG says:

    I’m all for open carry, and I think it will further the cause of normalizing guns, as long as people do it responsibly, as I’m sure 99.9% will. I think a lot of people who are iffy about guns (not committed antis, mind you) – people who didn’t grow up around them, haven’t ever learned about them – are not so much afraid of guns as they are of angry rednecks. Is this fair? No, it is not. “Rednecks” (please give me a PC term here) are often discriminated against by the unarmed urban crowd. Guns are, for now, linked with far-right, sometimes racist, hateful politics. We see some of this on TTAG. I think nice, friendly, non-hateful people (and not cops, nobody likes cops, sorry) carrying guns could be a really good thing.

  23. avatarBob says:

    The whole open carry/conceal carry issue is a red herring and is only dividing the pro-gun community. And you know what? The Bradys LOVE to hear you guys go at each other’s throats over the issue and piss each other off to the point where the community is divided. The argument is bogus. Both techniques have their own advantages and disadvantages and a whole LOT of the opinions on BOTH sides are speculation at best.

    The 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Stop your sniping at each other and concentrate on the REAL enemy, which is the anti-rights cultists, their willing propagandists in the media and the elitist politicians. You can argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or which caliber is best once we get the infringed part straightened out.

    • The question isn’t which manner of carry is better. The problem is the US Supreme Court said that Open Carry is the constitutionally protected manner of carry in public and that states can ban concealed carry if they wish.

      So what does the NRA and SAF do? They bring Federal lawsuits seeking concealed carry and tell judges that the US Supreme Court didn’t really mean what it said in the Heller decision. They keep losing of course. Even in the recent victory in Maryland the Federal judge said he wasn’t ruling on whether or not restrictions on concealed carry are constitutional but since Maryland permits don’t specify the manner of carry…

      We have a narrow 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court and 3 of those 5 justices are getting up in years. We are one heart attack or retirement away from losing the majority. We need to win where we can before we lose the majority.

      Open Carry is the “easy” case to make before the Federal courts. It is the “concealed carry or no carry” cult that heads the NRA and SAF which is screwing it up for the rest of us. They are creating bad precedents which will make it harder to obtain concealed carry from the courts down the road.

      http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

      • avatarMark N. says:

        I disagree, I think that the sole reason we have not seen any case come down from the Ninth Circuit is because they have already figured out the natural consequence of open carry ban, and the circuit is loathe to be the first into the fray, hoping and hoping that some other court will decide the issue and the Supreme Court will take it up, relieving the court of its unenviable position and allowing it to delay even more. The recent Nordyke hearing demonstrated this proposition completely–the circuit will grasp at any straw to avoid an adjudication.

  24. avatarstainless1911 says:

    Concealed carry does nothing to promote and protect gun rights.

    Concealed carry in fact, is not only one of the greatest infringements against gun rights, next to the 1968 gun control act, the assault weapons ban, and the state of Kalifonria as a whole, but actually contributes to gun control as a whole, because the average person, the unarmed voter, never gets to see what responsible gun ownership looks like.

  25. avatarMatt Pavo says:

    I live in TN and having carried concealed or at least quasi-concealed(OWB holsters do make it easier to tell there is a gun under a shirt) I never really considered routine open carry. Then I went to Florida for vacation where open carry is not legal and let me tell you I suddenly became very concerned about wind gusts and the status of my shirt. I appreciate having the right to open carry even if I choose to go concealed if not for the fact that I don’t constantly have to check to see if some part of my gun is visible. IMO concealed carry only states make carrying a gun a more stressful situation than necessary for gun owners.

  26. avatarRobert C. Hall says:

    Any discussion of open carry has to start and end with *retention* as in holster, and as in training. The holster shown appears to sucketh on the hardware front, yet drew only one mention in the comments re the “Hey, that’s mine!” aspect of the post. Heck, even Tom Gresham on his radio show spends too much time talking about the tactical and political implications of OC vs CC with only a passing reference to keeping your OC piece locked in.

    I’d love some reviews of retention gear here. Meanwhile, check out opencarry.org for the socio-politico-tactical side of this option for arming oneself.

  27. avatarCarl W. Goss says:

    OK. I’ll correct you, someone open-carrying in a public place is a good indication that there is something wrong with that person. Don’t believe me? Think Adam Lanza. Think long and hard. In some states, specifically open-carry states, Lanza would have a perfect right to walk down the street carrying all the guns and ammo he could carry. And there’s nothing law enforcement in those states could do about it.

    Luckily, here in California we’ve banned open-carry. Which is why I’m glad I live here.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.