USAF Terrorism Office: Steer Clear of Open Carry Demo

Oregon open carry advocate causes a change in school policy (courtesy katu.com)

A TTAG reader gave us a heads-up on an email from the Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland Anti-Terrorism Office warning personnel about the [next] open carry demonstration planned for Alamo Plaza, San Antonio on October 19. That would be the same USAF ATO that prohibited airmen from non-official travel to or through Mexico at the start of this year. It looks like Uncle Sam equates open carry advocates as dangerous dudes. As do The People of the Gun . . .

After an open carry demo triggered a change in policy at Hillsboro, Oregon public schools, yet another backlash began. Mike at pagunblog.com writes:

If someone came up with a clean bill outlawing all OC, I’d call up my reps and beg them to vote for it. These children can’t seem to be trusted carrying guns openly in public without making the rest of us look like nutjobs . . . There are just too many idiots out there trying to “help” [undermine my gun rights]. Hey, I’ve had enough – time to look out for #1. I’m happy to throw these clowns under the bus so that they can’t do Bloomberg any more favors.

On the other side of the coin, I’ve been saying that open carry advocates may make us uncomfortable, but it is their right to do so. Those who oppose them—Starbucks, for example—are our antagonists. Period. The Yankee Marshall’s on the same page:

Your thoughts?

comments

  1. avatar ST says:

    We face that most dreadful of choices:the selection of the least damaging of two evils.Do we willingly support a ban on open carry,thus supporting the antis agenda?

    Or do we permit the greater evil of letting immature fools grant the impression to the average voter that all gun owners are head cases ? I’m of the stance that we need to break some eggs to make an omelette.

    Bye bye open carry. If this crap starts happening in my neck of the woods, I WILL implore my rep to support its being outlawed.Better for us all that Mr Schmuckatelli be compelled to hide his gat then ,in the name of civil rights, we permit him to flaunt his Tapcoed AK on Main Street and create dozens of antis in the process .

    1. avatar Stokes lawyer says:

      I agree with the sentiment, but banning open carry has unintended consequences…I.e. You get arrested when your ccw pokes out from under your shirt and is therefore illegally openly carried.

      1. avatar ST says:

        I’d rather be inconvenienced by ensuing my gun is covered then be denied the legal recognition to carry period on account of rabid public backlash .

        When a man walks across frozen ice,he should not jump on it as if it were a trampoline.This isn’t about the Constitution-it’s about making sure we dont give the antis rope with which to hang us .

        1. avatar freakshowSMVM says:

          So its better to just hang ourselves in order to keep them from doing it?

        2. avatar That Guy says:

          That sounds great until you live in a state like Mass where I fear everyday I will get my license revoked for a garment mishap….. I carry a PPS (not large by anyones standards) I’m wearing a T-shirt and long polo all summer to carry IWB and its still not perfect.

      2. avatar Jay in Florida says:

        That may be true where you are.
        Here in Florida if your weapon shows and it was unintentional.
        No harm no foul.

        1. avatar JaredFromTampa says:

          Indeed, this is true. Just the other day, my wife’s temperamental German car decided it didn’t want to work anymore. While waiting 2 hours for a tow, 6 different HCSO deputies stopped to ask if everything was ok and if we needed help. While I was bent over looking at the engine one of the deputies that stopped asked what I was carrying, shocked that my piece was exposed I sheepishly told him that it was a G26. We had a nice talk about Glocks and 2a issues (he carries a G21). He never even asked to see my CHL.

    2. avatar Charlie Kilo says:

      Great idea! Let’s also ban public free speech, you know, the free speech about 2A rights or violations of the 4A or 5A. Some of that free speech might stir up some anti-whateverA feelings. /sarc

      On the other side, it might kick up a conversation about those rights. The uneducated might learn the difference between different firearms or why the government shouldn’t infringe on 2A/4A/5A/etcA. If people act responsibly while carrying whatever firearms (long gun or pistol), there’s no reason why anyone would get the impression that all firearm owners are headcases.

    3. avatar Jeff says:

      So you would ask your rep to make it illegal for someone who ISN’T demonstrating – e.g. someone simply carrying on or around their rural property? Way to take the long view.

      1. avatar ST says:

        Even in California,you’re legally permitted to open carry on your own (fenced in) property.

        Here’s the core dilemma:we can agree that yokels toting AKS just for shock value are bad for the cause.But the only practical way to stop them definitely is via the law,period-and I say that fully cogniscant of the downsides.

        We cant very well say “can you pretty please NOT anger your neighbors?Signed, the All Powerful Armed Intelligensia”.

        1. avatar Tomy Ironmane says:

          Why CAN’T we ask them nicely?

          All your solution does is give some unscrupulous bastard in the DA’s office a bigger hammer to hit people with. If you perhaps talk to demonstrators, you might be able to help them see that they are making people like you “look bad” or perhaps the sight of two people having a reasoned thoughtful debate while armed might help others see you and them as not a bunch of raving sociopathic whack jobs like the lefties say you are?

      2. avatar Steve says:

        The anti’s are always talking about “compromise.” Personally, I’d trade open carry for nationwide CC reciprocity.

        1. avatar Hobbez says:

          The instant that you decide its ok to trade anything for anything with the gun grabbers is the instant they win

        2. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

          I’m with you Hobbez, here we are arguing amongst ourselves about what form of carry is ‘ok’. Remember when the hunters were ‘ok’ with banning certain ‘non-hunting’ firearms? See where that got us? It has taken decades to dig out of that compromise. The biggest tool in the gun-grabber’s playbook is the old “divide and conquer” play. If we allow them to run that play successfully, we’re snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Hell for all we know, some of these arguments on this message board my be secret anti’s stirring up the pot.

    4. avatar Cliff H says:

      I get it, open carry confrontations make you uncomfortable because you perceive them as being the catalyst for the civilian disarmament people to enact more anti-gun laws. So your solution is to encourage the civilian disarmament people enact more anti-gun laws. Huh?
      Why is this such a difficult concept for so many on both sides of this issue?
      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” [Emphasis mine.]
      It’s simple. the right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right that no level of government has the authority to repeal or modify. I’m sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but there it is. Now, instead of resolving your issue of fear of losing your CCW rights, which like mine almost surely involve obeying one or more state laws that are on there face unconstitutional, you advocate allowing the state, or the federal government, to pass another unconstitutional law to prohibit open carry.
      PLEASE – if you are willing to agree that they have the authority to pass a no open carry law then you are willing to agree that the Second Amendment has no legal standing and they can infringe your right to keep and bear arms to any degree they can get away with. You have by this action entirely surrendered any valid argument you may have had against any firearm law any government authority decides to enact.
      You cannot resolve this issue by surrendering to the opposition because they will rightly view that as a complete carte blanche to infringe on the RKBA until you and all the rest of us are completely disarmed.
      The only effective way to resolve the problem of grandstanding open carriers is to confront them as brothers in arms and convince them to be a little more discreet. Carrying of scary black rifles or shotguns or scoped rifles that the uninitiated automatically assume are offensive weapons only creates fear, distrust and confrontation with authority, you are absolutely right on that point, but rather than promoting the prohibition of this activity where it is currently, at least technically, legal, we need to encourage these protesters to open carry holstered pistols. The same authorities who might have challenged them before will still rain authoritarian excess down upon them and they will get their confrontation video, but they, and we, will not come off as gun-toting nut cases. When pistols are accepted as commonplace and legal, THEN they can consider open carry of long guns.
      I really think we need to start this frog in a lukewarm pot. Encouraging moderation and self-restraint is the reasonable course. They are our brothers in arms and they truly believe they are doing this for us. If we think they are not we need to press that point, not ridicule or otherwise beat them up over their actions.

      1. avatar Allen C says:

        Totally in agreement with Cliff H on this matter!

      2. avatar David says:

        You have made some very valid points in your post. However, in many states, like Texas, open carry of pistols (modern handguns as defined by state and federal laws) is not legal. We are therefore left with our only legal means of open carry being long guns which aren’t restricted. The mindset behind open carry isn’t to “SHOCK” anyone, rather to remind people that it wasn’t all that long ago when Americans openly carried firearms in public and it was considered commonplace. Those who consider us
        “nutjobs” should also ask themselves if Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and the very men who signed the Constitution were also nutjobs for standing up against the flow and fighting for the RIGHTS that we deserve.

    5. avatar Kane says:

      I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

      And in any case, I understand basic English.

      Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

      synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct;

  2. avatar Fug says:

    Carrying a long gun in public just because you can is for assholes. Discretion. Common sense. You can easily OC a handgun without being provocative and the two should not be equated.

    You may as well be on a “slut walk.” Dressing like a tramp and carrying a long gun openly should both be legal but that doesn’t mean you should do either on a regular basis.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      So … If you know where such a dual-purpose event is taking place, please let us know.

      For, ah, purely informational purposes, of course.

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        Informational?

        Scantily-clad women marching around with rifles would be hugely entertaining- because the liberals heads’ would be exploding as they tried to decide if they wanted to encourage female empowerment (or whatever the hell the point of slutwalking is) or discourage open carry.

        1. avatar Jay1987 says:

          This is an idea i can get behind bring on the bikini babes with hardware

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          Perhaps someone can get the PETA broads (only the attractive ones) to carry at their next shock event.

      2. avatar Randall Meadows says:

        FOR SCIENCE!

    2. avatar CrazedJava says:

      I tend to agree. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

      You have all these people arguing about gun owners being responsible law abiding citizens who just want to be able to defend themselves, enjoy shooting sports, and/or hunt. Most of them do a pretty good job of it.

      Then you have the whackjobs who seem intent on completely undermining the message while screaming “The 2nd Amendment says I can do this!!!”

      Great, the antis will totally get on board now. Well done. (I could only cap that sarcasm with a slow golf clap if it was possible through text)

      I’m more interested in defending my ability to own whatever gun I want using whatever magazines I want that worrying about open carry. Their behavior may yet force a compromise I’d rather not do, but they aren’t helping the cause one bit.

      On the other hand, am I the only one who is bothered by our government acting like gun rights advocates and tea partiers are bigger threats than known muslim radicals that the KGB warns us about?

    3. avatar Charlie Kilo says:

      Just because you can have a bumpfire stock or 60rd magazines, doesn’t mean you should. Just because you have the freedom to speak freely, doesn’t mean you should.

      Come on people, “we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately (BF)”.

      1. avatar Andrew says:

        Its true, Bob Farago’s quote still rings true, even to this day.

        OHHH, YOU meant the OTHER “BF”. Right. Gotcha.

    4. avatar Steve Durnan says:

      Many states don’t allow open carry of handguns. A few won’t allow them to be loaded. And know that much of the Starbucks hoopla was in CA where they were carrying unloaded handguns. And it still was found to be offensive to the anti gun folks.

      They’re also equally appalled if and when they learn that you’re carrying concealed. They want all guns out of the hands of the citizens. By accepting part of their premise the concealed carry folks are also supporting a huge portion of what the anti’s want.

      First they came for……. and I did nothing.

  3. avatar J in Ga says:

    Agreed with you ST and Fug. Would like these jackwagons to not ruin the good will a lot of “People of the Gun” have earned over the past few years.

  4. avatar thatoneguy says:

    Man, I hope those people never come to Colorado springs. Between the residents, Ft. Carson, and Peterson AFB personnel this place is an open carry field day. Heck, my CCW isn’t recognized in CO but with open carry being all gravy and what not I haven’t even bothered with a CO CCW.

  5. avatar Charlie says:

    You would support the use of violence to fund the stripping of freedom of your fellow citizen? Because they give a bad image? You have fallen for the lefts antagonistic dichotomy of us vs them. And even worse, you’re blaming those people exercising their natural right of self defense!

    how about showing some integrity. If you compromise your principals for convenience, you cannot call yourself principled.

    1. avatar ST says:

      The only one stripping our freedoms away are the Schmuckatellis carrying long arms into public places for shock value.

      If we are to call ourselves gun owners of integrity, we need to identify and unflinchingly oppose ANY irresponsible use of arms -such as these open carry stunts. It’s akin to the case last year of a Honda forum reporting one of their members to the police for street racing-if our so called “brethren” cross the bounds of decency and good order,we need to stand against such insolent behavior with a quickness.If we don’t,we implicitly are approving of their actions to our lasting doom.

      1. avatar Wyatt says:

        OC’ers are insolent because they don’t believe in your idea of the RKBA? This is as tame as you can get with it slung over your back.

        Grabbers won’t stop at OC – they’re just the easy target to pick on, like drug users, pedophiles, and “terrorists”.

        1. avatar Brian says:

          Right, but “hey look at me and my rifle” OCers give the antis a boogeyman to point to and tell Joe and Jane undecided “this is what all gun owners are like, we need to restrict this.”

          Maybe banning OC isn’t the right call, but the “make a huge deal that you have a gun” crowd should calm the hell down and realize they aren’t helping matters.

        2. avatar Jay1987 says:

          No but a man with a rifle slung on his back is a bit of a shocking sight to people made uncomfortable by fire arms or those whipped into a fear frenzy by msnbc and cnn espousing the evils of gun where as a guy like me with an old beat up Taurus 38 in a leather holster hangin off his belt looks like he’s watched too many westerns.

        3. avatar dwb says:

          thr RKBA is not (yet) secure, like free speech. Provoke a backlash, it spoils it for the rest. Dont give me crap about civil disobedience either, most of us have jobs, families, and cannot afford it. Plus, there is a difference between lawful open carry and calling attention to yourself for attentions sake. There is open carry, then there is Camera Carry. Once the RKBA is secured and courts regognize it, Camera Carry all you want.

        4. avatar Steve says:

          Paraphrasing what someone said in a comment on a previous post on this topic (can’t remember who, sorry), “open carrying AR’s in public is akin to yelling ‘n*gger’ in public.” Sure, you CAN do it, but don’t expect people to line up behind you in support of your cause. Just because something is (and should remain) legal doesn’t make it right. There are MUCH better ways to convey our message.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        “It’s akin to the case last year of a Honda forum reporting one of their members to the police for street racing.”

        It has no correlation. Unless I am grossly mistaken what the open carriers are doing in almost every case is NOT illegal and they do it and record it in order to prove the overstepping of authority by law enforcement and the over-reaction of the public to what is a lawful activity. Their efforts, while over the top, are intended to be educational. Street racing, with a Honda or any other vehicle, is NOT legal. The only equivalent would be if the open carriers were actually firing their weapons in public.

        The solution is moderation and common sense through discussion of the issue amongst ourselves, NOT advocating official prohibition.

  6. avatar Jay1987 says:

    I open carry a pistol when I’m at home or out and about as it is legal in ky so long as its visible but the guys with a railed out tacticool rifle are a few fries short of a happy meal my pistol by and large goes un noticed hanging on my belt but something as big as a rifle just screams look at me and I’m a nut job can we please stop lumping guys like me in with them???

    1. avatar Steve Durnan says:

      Again, look where this is happening. It’s in states where they can’t open carry handguns. Yet it is legal and lawful there to carry long guns.

      And that it was the unloaded handguns in CA at Starbucks that started this recent meet and greet type event at Starbucks. See the anti’s saw the handguns, not caring if they’re even loaded and made a big stink. Supporting this ban of OC, where legal, makes you not that much better then the true anti’s.

      I’m in a blue state (Delaware) but OC of all guns is legal because there is no law prohibiting it. Much of these long gun videos are in Texas where OC of handguns is illegal. Yet Texas always claiming they’re the bastion of gun rights. Oh, the irony. That a Yankee, Democratic controlled, north eastern state has more rights to carry guns then TEXAS. Same for my neighbors in PA.

  7. avatar Totenglocke says:

    If someone came up with a clean bill outlawing all OC, I’d call up my reps and beg them to vote for it.

    I’m calling you Elmer from now on. Who needs gun grabbers when Fudd’s are so eager to ban guns?

    1. avatar ST says:

      Would you rather a group of offended sheeple decide to name the terms?

      This behavior is not about the RKBA any more then calling a man’s wife a whore is about the First Amendment.Either we correct the matter ourselves as gun owners by making it clear these nutcases have nothing to do with the good folk who carry to defend themselves -or we let the opposition do it for us.

      1. avatar Wyatt says:

        I don’t know that you can really support the RKBA if you don’t support it fully, warts and all.

        If you think the 2A stands if you just carve out the ability to OC, I don’t see why banning other things that can make the public nervous (semi-automatics, AR15’s, AK’s, anything in black, suppressors, standard cap. mags) isn’t just as valid.

        To truly support the RKBA, you can’t support this kind of infringement. It’s not okay just because you’re a gun owner, too.

        1. avatar ST says:

          So if I support the 1st Amendment,I must cheer on the Westboro Baptist Church as they heckle the funerals of fallen US Military Members then?

          After all,supporting a civil right means supporting the warts too,right?

        2. avatar Wyatt says:

          Maybe not cheer them on, ST, but recognize that they’re exercising the same rights that you and I possess.

          I don’t find those rights squishy or subject to loose interpretation. I think of them as above any petty disagreement over politics or what constitutes proper decorum in public.

        3. avatar Charlie Kilo says:

          Yeah ST, with rights and freedoms comes things that you may not like. I may not like what WBC does or says, but I will defend their right to do so, even with my life. That’s part of the oath I swore.

        4. avatar Cliff H says:

          “So if I support the 1st Amendment, I must cheer on the Westboro Baptist Church…”

          No, cheering them on is not required. However, the freedom of speech may or not be as absolute as the RKBA in that laws against slander and libel do not allow you to utter or publish defamatory lies.

          But you really cannot pick and choose which Amendment you will support or which portions of which Amendment. They are The Bill of Rights. They were enacted specifically to enumerate specific natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights that the government had no authority to repeal or modify. Nor are you allowed to try to modify them for me or anyone else, even the open carriers that make you so uncomfortable. We, as People of the Gun, need to discuss his with the OC guys and come to an agreement as to the proper course of action. Surrendering the issue to adjudication by the civilian disarmament crowd will bite you in the ass, guaranteed.

      2. avatar Pat says:

        Put ST as our leader,the head of this problem. I like that thinking. We MUST take care of our own. Then F Starbucks ..We love TTAG

      3. avatar Totenglocke says:

        “This behavior is not about the RKBA any more then calling a man’s wife a whore is about the First Amendment.”

        Wow, and the Fudd hate keeps on coming. Open carrying a gun is not even close to that, and it’s a lousy example because that would be covered under the First Amendment. With your attitude, I’m sure you support Feinstein’s bill to require a permit to exercise freedom of speech.

      4. avatar Steve Durnan says:

        So tell me, what is the 2A about? Is it free from government involvement? Or having the states permission? Because where you need permission you have no RIGHTS. That means your concealed carry isn’t a right but a privilege. So by definition OC is the right to bear arms since it doesn’t require the states permission. Except in a few states that just recently added this ‘right’ when it too is a privilege since it too requires a license.

    2. avatar Blue says:

      I would vote against any Rep or State Senator that voted AGAINST O.C. or any other gun ban legislation. I would also actively campaign against them.

  8. avatar stateisevil says:

    If open carry of a holstered handgun is widely accepted, then we have won long term victory for gun rights. Texas neocons have confined the right to bear arms to long gun open carry. The neocon legislature is free to recognize the right to openly carry a handgun. There have been bills the last two sessions, but they have refused to act.

  9. avatar dwb says:

    Just because i think your an a-hole for standing on the corner and shouting racial epithets, does not mean I’m anti free speech.

    Right now gun rights are held together with Elmers glue and toothpaste. We do not need di-heads with rifles walking through Congressional halls, because they can. We have moms demanding staffers be fired for oops leaving their gun in the toilet.

    Discretion is the better part of valor. Start with open carry of revolvers or 1911s

    1. avatar Charlie Kilo says:

      What do you think has been going on for the last 15 years or so? Open carry has been moving along just fine, with CC also growing in states across the US.

      1. avatar dwb says:

        this is purely for shock value, and is not helpful.

        1. avatar Charlie Kilo says:

          You know, in the 1950-1960’s and prior, there were firearms classes taught in public schools to small children. We weren’t a bunch of PC Nancys when it came to things like rights. Shock value or not, it’s their right to carry whatever firearm they feel fit to carry. This simple 2A argument has been causing so much infighting within our community and the answer is simple. I hear so much of this “It’s not needed” or “It’s shocking”. Frankly, who are we to chide our own about “need” or who are we to care what hoplophobes “think” or “feel” about RKBA. You are either for the RKBA or you are for it only under certain conditions and situations, you know, with restrictions. How can this simple fact elude so many pro-2A individuals. We’ve quietly been going about our business and we’ve been too afraid to rock the boat with regards to hoplophobes and it’s gotten us relatively nowhere. This policy of appeasement with the anti’s has simply given them incremental footholds. I say we sack up, pull together, and go all in.

        2. avatar Michele says:

          I disagree that open carrying rifles and other long guns is purely for shock value. The main accomplishment of OC is educating law enforcement and the public about guns in general, bringing them into contact with the real thing when all they see is what the mainstream media and entertainment industry allow them to see (if they are not pursuing the subject on their own by visiting gun stores and ranges). Although it may seem as though these men are just out to get their pictures taken, what they are doing is very important. They are disseminating information that the public and law enforcement have been distanced from because of the Holder goal of “brainwashing” the public about the evils of guns. We need to think beyond our own discomfort and look forward at what an OC ban would truly accomplish. It would not benefit legal gun owners in the long-run, and would be a huge feather in the caps of gun control propagandists.

  10. avatar stateisevil says:

    The gun guy who wants OC banned is foolish and frightening, on many levels. However, he must be ignorant that courts throughout our history, even as late as this year at both federal and state level, have declared that open carry is the basic right to bear arms and can never be licensed.

  11. “If someone came up with a clean bill outlawing all OC, I’d call up my reps and beg them to vote for it. These children can’t seem to be trusted carrying guns openly in public without making the rest of us look like nutjobs . . . There are just too many idiots out there trying to “help” [undermine my gun rights]. Hey, I’ve had enough – time to look out for #1. I’m happy to throw these clowns under the bus so that they can’t do Bloomberg any more favors.”

    More anti-2a rhetoric from a purported “pro-gun” blog.

    1. avatar Wyatt says:

      Reporting what others are saying doesn’t mean you endorse what they’re saying.

      It’s pretty obvious TTAG isn’t anti-gun, although the commenters run the gamut.

  12. I don’t get it, all the cops I know open carry all the time, nobody seems to have an issue with THAT.

    1. avatar Wyatt says:

      They’re “trained”.

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        “They’re trained”…. especially in NYC. I hear the NYPD has set a goal of a 2:1 innocent bystander shot to perpetrator shot ratio. Everyone’s gotta have a goal I guess.

        1. avatar Jay1987 says:

          Hmm I heard they were shooting for 12:1 to help ease the over crowding and illegal immigration issues.

        2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          @ Jay1987: But then who would they have left to “stop and frisk”? 🙂

        3. avatar Jay1987 says:

          Blacks… and legal immigrants with funny names i learned that from watchin SVU the other night

      2. avatar Blue says:

        Really, how come NYC PD hit 11 people taking down a perp at the Empire state building last year or 2 or 3 people taking down a perp that wasn’t even a perp at Times square a couple of weeks ago? How about the LEO that shout up the paper ladies truck mistaking them for a 6′ 6″ bald black guy (Dohrner)?

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      People get pretty freaked out when I open carry an AR – but that’s only when I’m looking for a felony suspect. Otherwise, I OC a .40 cal pistol in a sturdy retention holster.

      I don’t see the OC in Starbucks or Wal Mart of an AR to be helpful. It flips people out, and makes gun advocates look like nutcases. I am a gun rights advocate, but I believe such behavior turns the majority of people against gun owners. Therefore, I don’t condone it. However, I would not support a ban of OC.

  13. avatar ST says:

    I’m going to share a revealing conversation I had with a friend last year.Im a vet finishing his degree at a four year university,and on this day the topic was gun control.I asked said friend why she hated guns.The response :a high school student brought over by her pal pulled out a revolver ,pointed it at her head,and clicked the trigger.The imbecile did something more damaging then assault her peace of mind-that unnamed cretin has created a lifelong opponent to our rights. There’s not a word I or Rob Leatham or Jessie Duff can say to erase the impact of an adverse & emotionally searing experience regarding guns,no matter how responsible we are individually.

    How many antis have these clowns created?
    Well never know immediately.While we stand around with our hands tied claiming these people have a Constitutional right to misbehave in public, the average bystander getting her mail and checking her coffee sees another reason to trust CNN .Too much of that nonsense,and we end up with a US version of the English Snowdrop Campaign.

    I’d rather live under an OC ban, then to see an army of trendy and emotionally disturbed sheeple petitioning Congress for another Assault Weapons Ban.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Sounds like BS to me.

      Did she react by wetting herself or like a free woman and knock his head with a large object?

      1. avatar Blue says:

        I agree. She should have fed it too him like it had chocolate grips, barrel first down his damn throat.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      ST,

      Your friend’s response to her experience and the collective response of the rest of the civilian disarmament proponents is quite literally hysteria. I am not going to give up my rights in some attempt to quell the hysterical response of people.

      If your friend and many others are hysterical about abortion (either for or against), does that mean I cannot exercise my right to free speech to change public policy? After all, those people are hysterical about abortion and cannot stand to hear about it.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      “I’d rather live under an OC ban, then to see an army of trendy and emotionally disturbed sheeple petitioning Congress for another Assault Weapons Ban.”

      It’s getting a little monotonous, but you keep repeating yourself so I’ll say this once again: If you are willing to agree to an OC ban then you had better prepare yourself to live under a complete ban, because the civilian disarmament people aren’t interested in stopping just because YOU are now satisfied. It is not up to you or to them to bargain away any of my rights. So you are willing to give up the open carry portion of your Second Amendment rights hoping that your CC rights will be safe?

      “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin

  14. avatar Anmut says:

    Hey Farago – you just jumped from AI to absolute moron in my book.

    “If someone came up with a clean bill outlawing all OC, I’d call up my reps and beg them to vote for it. These children can’t seem to be trusted carrying guns openly in public without making the rest of us look like nutjobs . . . ”

    That’s awesome! Soon you’ll have an opinion on what makes us look bad in the guns we choose to own too! Right?! Because those black guns make us look bad too! Don’t forget the HIGH CAPACITY CLIPS – and the shoulder thing that goes up!

    You and Feinstein are going to have to collaborate more on writing this awesome blog!

    1. avatar stateisevil says:

      It wasn’t RF. He was quoting some uninformed gun blogger.

    2. avatar ST says:

      If the Open Crazies keep this up,Feinstein will be the least of our worries. The British Handgun Ban came about because ordinary citizens petitioned the English Government to ban every handgun including .22s ,even when their own GOVERNMENT Comission recommended that .22 pistols be exempt.Guess what, the Snowdrop Group got their wish.

      Why do I mention that story here?Because those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

    3. avatar Charles5 says:

      You know what I can’t stand? People who can’t read.

  15. Read carefully. I didn’t write that.

    1. avatar Wyatt says:

      You’re assuming we read the entire summaries, let alone the entire articles before commenting.

    2. avatar Anmut says:

      My apologizes Robert.

    3. avatar Ing says:

      I dunno about anyone else, but it isn’t set off like a block quote — I had to look twice to make sure I knew where the quote began and ended.

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Attention anyone who objects to open carry of long guns:

    Members of the public who object to long guns are not comfortable because the person with the long gun could misuse it.

    Guess what? That is the same exact reason that civilian disarmament proponents object to us having handguns, anywhere in public, whether concealed or openly visible.

    If you argue against open carry of any guns, you are legitimizing the argument of civilian disarmament proponents. That is a horrible strategy. Then it becomes a giant shouting match to see just how “uncomfortable” someone has to be, or how many people have to be uncomfortable, to infringe the right.

    We cannot give any credence to the push that “discomfort” is sufficient cause to infringe a right.

    More importantly, do you really think that prohibiting open carry is going to satisfy gun grabbers? Hint: NO!!! Gun grabbers will not be satisfied until they achieve civilian disarmament. Throwing open carriers under the bus will not appease disarmament proponents. Actually, it will embolden them. Look at California. They banned open a carry a long time ago. And there is effectively no concealed carry in the population centers on the coast. Were the grabbers satisfied with that? Of course not … hence the recent litany of more and more firearm restrictions, taxes. etc.

    1. avatar Wyatt says:

      A good thing to remember: the groups that want to control (and disarm) everyone play the long game. Not next year, or 10 years, but generations long. Compare the 1913, or 1963 landscape to today. 2063 could very easily be without any civilian gun ownership.

      Don’t sacrifice things like OC in the hopes of your personal vision of gun ownership surviving just a little bit longer. Any ground lost is likely to be never returned, and would simply be another victory in a string of encroachments on our liberties.

      1. avatar Blue says:

        This is why I keep telling people that every time we have a “battle” like this past April or all these state level battles, it isn’t over just because we prevail. The bastards will always be back.

    2. avatar Charlie Kilo says:

      Finally! Someone else gets it! Bravo sir/maam, bravo!

    3. avatar tfunk says:

      Well said

    4. avatar Cliff H says:

      If you argue against open carry of any guns, you are legitimizing the argument of civilian disarmament proponents. That is a horrible strategy. ”

      Absolutely correct. We should NEVER argue against open carry of long guns. The correct strategy should be to discuss effective tactics. We should talk about what we want to accomplish and what the best steps towards that goal should be. If we them can agree that incrementalism, for our side for a change, dictates a gradual increase in the open carry of firearms, like starting with pistols and graduating at some point to long guns, that would be exemplary. There are dissenters in every group who will go ahead and do what they think is best, but if we mostly agree on the strategy then we can stop bickering and move towards that goal together. It should not even be necessary to talk about “throwing under the bus”.

    5. avatar Hobbez says:

      Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that allows a citizen to be free of “feeling uncomfortable”

  17. avatar johnnyappleseed says:

    for fvck’s sake – don’t you all realize that to all my liberal friends, there is no difference on the scaryometer between a longarm slung on the shoulder, and a .38 revolver ccw?

    if you give them open carry, they will assume you’ve offered it all, and will take it all.

  18. avatar MadMedic says:

    I just recently began open carrying. I’m keeping it simple to test the waters, and only doing so under very specific circumstances. Those circumstances revolve around my carrying a .22 revolver while going to and from my hunting lease. Stopping for gas and the LGS to and from my lease property so far hasn’t turned a head.. other than one of the clerks at the gun store asking what I had holstered out of professional curiosity.

    Now, I live in NC near some very anti gun communities (Cary, NC) that have been known to cause issues for open carrying individuals according to my research. I’m not looking to prove a point or start a fight, and since I don’t actually drive through those areas on my way to my property I have no intention of pushing the envelope by doing so in those areas. I’m keeping this experiment confined for now because I just find it easier to keep the weapon OWB while scouting and hunting and would rather not lock it in my car un attended on my other stops.

    That being said, I do find the experience fairly liberating. I’ve been carrying concealed for 10 years now, but the simple act of exercising my rights in the open appeal to me on a base level. But I’m not (nor do I ever intend to be) out there with a slung AK or AR hoping for a cop to stop me just so I can prove my superior intellect and moral high ground by having a stand off with an LEO. I’ll never get those that need to do so..

  19. avatar Ricanmd says:

    I think the open carry guys are doing two things:

    1: Desensitizing the sheeple to guns. Once the initial “Oh MY GOD IS THAT A GUN” fear gets calmed down then it will be just like loud orange crocs, nobody notices anymore. Israeli soldiers carry their rifles on and off duty everywhere and nobody gets their panties in a bunch.

    2: LEO may stop hassling people about it and making up new rules as they go along to hassle these guys.

    1. avatar sbk510 says:

      I’m with you on that. I hope that the cops explain to people who complain about open carry that it is legal.

  20. avatar Rob.G says:

    When discussing open carry, I think there’s a real difference between the open carry of handguns vs. long rifles, but they tend to get lumped together in the discussion, causing all open carry to be vilified.

    Many people are very wary of the open carry of long guns in public, including me. But speaking from years of personal experience, few bat an eye over the open carry of handguns for personal defense.

    I think it would be best for now to keep them separate in the open carry debate.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Rob,

      A long time ago, almost no one carried handguns openly, either. Do you honestly think it was widely accepted in your area when the first person started to carry openly?

      I’ll tell you what almost certainly happened. Lots of people were not comfortable with it initially. Over time more and more people did it and the people in your area gradually became comfortable with it. And these days, apparently, most people are fine with it in your area.

      Now what is different with long guns?

      1. avatar Steve says:

        The purpose of open carrying handguns is self-defense/deterrence.

        The purpose of open carrying long guns is… being an ass? making a political statement? exercising your right for the sake of exercising it? Getting thumbs up on youtube?

        Honestly, if I ever encounter someone open carrying an AR, I’m going to pull them aside and give them a verbal lashing they won’t soon forget. In private. Away from cameras and the public eye.

        I’ll stand beside open carriers to defend our constitutional rights. Unity is critical to our cause, but that doesn’t mean we can’t correct/admonish each other.

      2. avatar Rob.G says:

        Hi U.S.

        I hear what you’re saying and I totally respect it. We both know that a bullet is a bullet. Some are bigger than others, but they’re really all the same, regardless of what they’re fired out of.

        Still, I don’t open carry my long guns, especially the scary black ones, in public for the same reasons the police don’t. We don’t bring them out until bad things hit the fan. When the general public sees people, police or citizens, carrying the big guns, it’s generally believed that something bad has, or is about to, hit the fan. Bottom line is that it generally causes panic instead of a sense of security.

        Perhaps it’s just a matter of balance; bringing enough gun vs. too much gun for a cup of coffee or a cart of groceries. Does that make sense?

        Thank you again for your reply.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Rob,

          I like your explanation. For what it is worth, I have not carried a long gun openly unless I am at a shooting range, plinking on private or public property, or hunting.

          Of course we want as much sympathy and acceptance as possible from people who are not currently sympathetic to firearms ownership. And I hope each of us does our best to reach those people. That may very well mean keeping open carry of long guns on the down-low most of the time. In the end a long gun is still just a piece of metal and wood/plastic that someone can use properly for great benefit or misuse horribly for great destruction — just like an automobile. That being the background, all of must defend the right to carry openly.

          Just as we have a right to carry firearms openly, we also have a right to engage in civil discourse (free speech). By all means feel free to share your views and discourage people from carrying long guns openly. I hope you will still defend that right at the end of the day.

  21. avatar Charles5 says:

    Let me share another example of the balance between exercising rights and retaining those rights, as a parallel to this issue.

    For most of this country’s history, Christianity has been the bedrock of American values and ideals. Rather than fostering those values through influencing people with love and setting a Christ-like example, “Christians” insecure in their faith, feeling that their perfect little bubbles were threatened by secularism, went all militant with trying to control social norms and morality through legislation and general outspoken buffoonery. When the more mature Christian community and non-Christians alike called them out on their hysterics, the retort was “It is our Constitutional right to hold these views and to express them as we please.” And yes, yes it was and still is. But, over the past 100 years or so, the result has been a souring of society towards Christian ideals and values because of the over-the-top, in-your-face, it’s-my-freedom-and-right attitude of many of these so called “Christians” (I could go into great detail of why I think that many of these people don’t really believe what they preach; if they did, they wouldn’t act the way they have been). Accordingly, rather than gaining influence in society, the Church has lost a lot of ground and continues to do so at a rapid pace. More and more, restrictions are being placed on expressing religious views and even practicing them.

    Whether you can relate to Christianity or not, you should be able to see the obvious connection with gun rights. No, the gun rights movement as a whole isn’t trying to use legislation to force gun rights on those who do not wish to exercise them (i.e requiring everyone to own and carry a gun) as some Christians have done with legislating morality. However, things like open carry are being abused, which I equate more with freedom of expression, just like the Christians have abused freedom of expression. And look at where it is getting us. The problem is not with the message itself; it is how the message is presented. Yes, it may be your right to open carry a rifle in public or talk about Jesus on a street corner; but taking the attitude that those who don’t like it can get over it is missing the point of exercising those rights entirely. You have to understand human nature. Making an a$$ of yourself under the guise of exercising your rights is only going to threaten them more as their validity and usefulness is eroded in the public eye. No, I do not advocate changing any laws to restrict open carry. I believe in constitutional carry and no restrictions on gun ownership or religious expression. I also believe that as a matter of principle you should not judge an entire group based on the actions of a few. However, we have to be responsible with our rights if we don’t want to lose them to the less principled and easily flustered members of society that can’t disseminate the actions of the few from the rights of the whole.

    If gun owners continue stunts like this it WILL hurt our cause, regardless of how justified they are in exercising their rights, because our opposition is NOT discerning and is NOT capable of being objective. You and I might know that a guy walking down the street with a long gun slung over his shoulder isn’t hurting anyone. But the other side doesn’t see it that way and open carrying a rifle will NEVER, EVER normalize them to that, EVER. I’m not saying don’t exercise your rights, but ask yourself what your goal is and if your action will support your objective or detract from it. Remember, discretion is the better part of valor.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “… our opposition is NOT discerning and is NOT capable of being objective.”

      I agree Charles5. That is called hysteria. And that is why we will never reach them or convince them or appease them no matter what we do. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the track record in California or New York.

      Do you honestly think for one second that everything will turn around in California or New York if armed citizens promise (and mean it and everyone knows they mean it) to never carry any firearm openly ever again?

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      “You and I might know that a guy walking down the street with a long gun slung over his shoulder isn’t hurting anyone.”

      See, this is the crux of the problem. I carry concealed when I am in public. (I do not have the time or patience to deal with belligerent LEOs who might take issue with open carry.) If I see someone open carrying an AR or AK or shotgun in a place or at a time where there does not seem to be an apparent good reason for that, I will go to condition red immediately until I am certain he has no ill intent. That’s me, and I am pro 2A and pro open carry as a right. Therefore, I can certainly see why someone who is otherwise generally insecure around guns would freak out at this sight in public and why some, not all, LEOs would bring all their talents to bear to discourage it.

      We need, as a group, to come to agreement that carrying a long gun where it is not a needed nor appropriate tool should be discouraged, but not prohibited. Carry a pistol if you really think you need to make a statement without screaming from your YouTube soapbox.

      1. avatar Josh in NC says:

        I can’t agree with you on when and where it’s “needed” or “appropriate” because neither government nor myself has the responsibility to make you comfortable in a public place. On your or anyone else’s private property it would be fine. I don’t think you understand, or choose not to understand the definition of “inalienable right”. The legal definition of “inalienable right”: a right according natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred. Government enacting laws against open carry is the purest form of tyranny.

        “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks”.

        “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
        Thomas Jefferson

    3. avatar g says:

      +1

      Good analogy, one that is especially meaningful to me as a moderate Christian. Whenever my more conservative Christian friends start ranting about “THE GAYS” or “GODLESS AMERICA”, I always have to point out that having a negative attitude does nothing to personify the love of Christ for humanity, nor does it help make Christianity more open to those who need it most.

      We gun owners need to play the “long game” as well as anti-gun people. A ban on OC seems a bit extreme as OC a pistol seems fine to me. It’s the mall ninjas who OC their tacticool ARs everywhere they go that are abusing their freedom and giving anti-gunners “evidence” that gun owners are loose cannons and irresponsible. The gun community needs to regulate our own a little harder; maybe the NRA needs to release an internal news memo asking their members that unless you’re out hunting, or patrolling your ranch, keep that rifle in the trunk.

  22. avatar Meridia says:

    Ya’ll realize that SCOTUS is going to rule that open carry is the protected right, and not concealed carry, yes?

    Why do you think they rejected Kachalsky? Because it was a concealed carry case. This is why, if they take Woollard, it’s because MD doesn’t have open or concealed carry permits. Both in one, and you can’t do either without one.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      I sure wish I was as confident as you in predicting what SCOTUS might do! Obamacare?

  23. avatar tfunk says:

    Man, when there are so many gun owners deriding those who “might offend” the public it is really disheartening. Perhaps we shouldn’t own AR-15’s, as I know some people are scared of them. Maybe also not pistols capable of accepting magazines with more than the magical 10rds, hopefully soon reduced to 7 nationally once 10 seems like too many…then ideally 0 at some point in the future. Oh, and don’t forget any firearm of a caliber higher than .22, they are intimidating to some. Hmm…maybe we should all just go play golf.

    Open carry advocates are not the problem. The fact that we play the game the way anti-gunners would like us to is. I’m glad that many are finally waking up to how precarious a situation our rights are in.

  24. avatar Quantum Zen says:

    I throw my hat in with Wyatt, uncommon_sense, Charlie, et al., on this one. Rock on guys!

    But seriously, take a moment to think about this… Do any of you against the idea of how these open carry advocates are conducting themselves think they’ll stop or change their minds because fellow gun owners frown on their behavior? Sure, maybe a small minority of open carry advocates might cave to the peer pressure, but we all know the vast majority of them will not. Your efforts to get them to stop will not succeed. What WILL happen is we will have a divided house. And unfortunately, we can not afford to be divided with our rights under assault and being outnumbered in this type of climate. Do not give the gun grabbers more ammunition. We must all stand together. The open carry advocates will not cease, therefore we should give them our full support. As Ben Franklin said during the time of the Declaration of Independence, “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      More importantly Quantum Zen, as I have asked in reply to other posts, does anyone really think the civilian disarmament proponents will be satisfied if all armed citizens agree to never carry anything openly again? That didn’t work in California or New York. Why would it work in your state or nationally?

      1. avatar Quantum Zen says:

        You’re absolutely right, uncommon_sense. The gun grabbers will not stop until *all* legal guns are outlawed, period. We must make them fight for every single infringement.

    2. avatar Steve says:

      “The open carry advocates will not cease, therefore we should give them our full support.”

      I almost agree with this statement. I won’t “support” them, but I will defend them. I refuse to throw fellow gun rights advocates under the bus. I don’t agree with their methods, and I won’t encourage them, but I will stand beside them.

  25. avatar Andy says:

    Even though I am a ccw licensee,I have not been back to Starbucks since their request not to bring weapons into their places of business.I now do not miss them as I have found a local coffee establishment that has even better coffee,I have even changed some of my buddy gun carriers over to this establishment,they are also pleased.Also this establishment sees no wrong in us exercising our 2nd Amendment rights,I will never appear in another Starbucks,they have lost my business along with some of my buddies.There is always a way for big corporations to understand that maybe they’re way is not always right,hit them where it hurts – the bottom line!Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

  26. avatar disthunder says:

    Its interesting to see how this dichotomy has shaken out. I honestly must have been naive, I really had no idea.
    I’m afraid the damage is already being done here. No, I don’t object to open carry, but as a political statement, I see a lot more risk than reward in the ways its being applied. Open carry doesn’t have he world’s best track record in getting positive results. And sure, I enjoy my scary black rifles as much as the next guy, but to be frank, I dread the state the world must be in for me to carry it out in the open. Because for me, if the rifle out in public,in publicfront slinged up, it means the rule of law has failed, and I’m now so concerned for my well-being that I’m tooled up for a firelight. Because for me to abandon the “gray man” mentality that has served me well through years of concealed carry, then things have truly escalated, and there’s no such thing as “normal” or “public” any more. That mayhas
    other be true for everyone, but I just don’t see rifles as ambassadors; the are the tools that come out when diplomacy has failed.
    Well, I guess that makes me an Uncle Tom. Damn….

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      You can be my uncle, Tom.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      disthunder,

      While I choose not to carry long guns openly, we must defend the right in case we ever get to a point where we would be foolish not to carry them. And if we find ourselves in such a situation, the last thing I want to do is argue with the police over it — or worse face imprisonment over it.

      I know that many people poo-poo the notion that all of society could collapse necessitating openly carried rifles. But everybody seems to forget regional events such as the Los Angeles riots in 1993, devastated areas in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and lawlessness at border areas. These are actual events where long guns were integral to defending life and property. Need I remind you that there was no police and no 911 call center in operation in those situations? And the people who had their long guns on display (Korean shopkeepers in Los Angeles; impromptu, spontaneous neighborhood militias protecting their neighborhoods from looters after hurricane Katrina; people who enjoy outdoor recreation in Southern Arizona as well as the volunteer citizens who monitor the border) had them for personal protection, not a political statement.

      We need an unfettered right to carry long guns openly. We cannot let politicians tell us if it is “okay” during the next riot, storm, spillover of border violence, or whatever else we have not yet imagined.

  27. avatar Josh in NC says:

    I fail to see how individuals who say they support the 2nd amendment would advocate for the ban of open carry. The 2A doesn’t say “the right to keep and bear side arms”. I don’t think anyone could argue that a handgun would be better for personal protection than a well maintained “assault” rifle. I have yet to see an IWB rig for an AR-15 or shotgun. Regularly we say the more upstanding citizens that are armed the better and yet now we want to tell them when, where, and how they do it. It seems to me that we have started fight ourselves. Acting foolishly with a weapon is one thing, but carrying a weapon is not foolish. I do not walk the streets with my rifle, but I wouldn’t presume to tell someone else they can’t.

  28. avatar Smock Puppet, Gadfy, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package says:

    Why do you think Gays keep winning the Gay Agenda? Because they keep pounding at it, and not giving in to the slightest opposition. They’re less than 10% of the population but people just fall all over themselves trying to submit to everything they want.

    Guns need to be acceptable in polite society. The primary reason the freaking sheep keep having hissy fits over them is because they think if they can’t see them they aren’t going to hurt them.

    Yes, if this seems like an infantile game of “peekaboo” about how things do or don’t exist if you can’t see them, you’re right. That’s the level leftard minds operate on.

    We need to push and KEEP PUSHING relentlessly for our gun rights. We need to make it clear that further abrogations will not be tolerated, and that the existing ones need to be substantially reduced. It’s the only way to get ahead of this. You cannot be ‘reasonable’ about this. They will not be reasonable, there is only dominance. Sensible people need to grasp this — you cannot expect them to be sensible, they are those infantile little children who are scared by seeing something and not about to stop crying and bawling until it is no longer in sight… or until they finally figure out that their crying and bawling isn’t changing anything.

    So stop complying with their infantile behavior. Get in their faces about your gun rights. Be adamant. Be polite. Be determined. But above all, BE INFLEXIBLE.

  29. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Those who call for an end to open carry or proclaim that there is no need to open carry because we have concealed carry don’t understand the right to keep and bear arms.
    1) The right is not about hunting.
    2) The right is not about self defense.
    3) The right is not about reducing crime.
    4) The right ceases to be a right once it is licensed. At that point, it’s a privilege. With a privilege, the government can give and the government can take away. Privileges lack constitutional protections.

    Each individual has a natural right to hunt (feed themselves), defend themselves, reduce or stop criminal activities perpetrated upon themselves and their families, etc. However, the right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the Bill of Rights is all about “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. How can individuals effectively be functional in that potential capacity if they cannot openly carry long guns and handguns in public? If it remains or becomes such an odd sight to see in society, how then could the first part of the Second Amendment even make sense in this day and age? Individuals must carry them, practice with them, be comfortable with them on and about their persons in day to day settings to be properly ‘regulated’. The public must become desensitized to seeing these firearms on the average Joe and Jane in order for the Second Amendment to be relevant today. Those calling for the banning of open carry are actually anti-2A even if they don’t realize it. Hopefully, some of you will endeavor to understand the enormity and depth of the Second Amendment. Hopefully, some of you will see that it’s vital to our free nation to VIGOROUSLY support the true right to keep and bear arms. This is not a pure democracy… it’s NOT a popularity contest. The whole point in the Bill of Rights is to limit government irrespective of popular opinion. Unless we allow government to whittle away at the Bill of Rights; government can only legitimately alter those limits through constitutional amendments. Please, stop handing the government illegitimate power by espousing that some licensed privilege is somehow even remotely equivalent to our enumerated right. A privilege will never be a right. The Founders knew this and it’s obvious.

    Look, many of the pro-gun groups talk about reduced crime, ‘enforce laws already on the books’, etc and I cringe. I always have. Those are talking points used in an attempt at appeasement. I wholeheartedly believe that to be a losing strategy in the long run. The liberal agenda will not be stopped through appeasement. The liberal mind will not be reached through appeasement. The only way to stop the liberal agenda is to cause those with a liberal mindset to go ‘underground’ and ‘out of sight’ (much as they and some of our gun carrying brethren want to do with daily open carry). Undoubtedly, most liberal minds believe that they are in the mainstream; the norm of society. As long as they believe that, they will come out of the woodwork; vocal and as unbalanced as ever. Put ’em back in the political closet by normalizing open carry. That won’t be done by concealed carry… it just won’t. You want to support the individual right to keep and bear arms? Then, support open carry. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree with the people doing it or how they do it. Licensed concealed carry is NOT exercising the right to keep and bear arms no matter how one wishes to delude himself and no matter how many times he repeats it to others. It simple doesn’t meet the criteria for a protected right enumerated in our Constitution.

    In Ohio, we were able to rightfully carry openly or concealed without further permission. Over the years, people found it more convenient (read less hassle from law enforcement and the general public) to carry concealed. This worked for many years because, if arrested for carrying concealed, one would assert a ‘prudent man’ defense. Over time, that defense became harder and harder to substantiate before judges and juries that, having not seen Ohioans open carry in generations, had forgotten that we do have the right to keep and bear arms and that many Ohioans carried concealed. Not wanting to risk the court system any longer, some Ohioans sought laws to license concealed carry. They used ‘open carry walks’ in major Ohio cities to prod the Ohio legislature to enact concealed carry licensing laws. By 2004, Ohio had a concealed carry licensing system. The Supreme Court of Ohio has determined that open carry is a right so it cannot be licensed whereas concealed carry is a privilege that can be licensed by the State. Without the option of open carry, licensing of concealed carry would be contrary to the Ohio Constitution and the Constitution of the United States of America. In other words, no OC = no licensed CC. The Supreme Court of the United States will also ultimately rule in this fashion. Ohio, along with other states, has successfully split the right to keep and bear arms into an unlicensed right and a licensed privilege. Think about that… they infringed on half of the right to keep and bear arms. Now, people of the gun have home grown idiots that talk about banning open carry?!?! Are they really that stupid that they would give up the rights of each individual in order to quietly exercise a privilege? Please, rethink your anti-OC stance as it is actually an anti-RKBA stance.

  30. avatar BobH says:

    When Starbucks told former and retired police officers and anyone else for that matter that they cannot carry – concealed or open carry – in their stores, I dropped my family’s $4800 yearly Starbucks line item from my budget. It is the best decision I have ever made. I now feed my caffeine addiction with tea and an occasional trip to Dutch Brothers….and I have a lot of money left over. If I can cold turkey my Starbucks addiction for the sake of freedom, anyone on this site can do it.

  31. avatar Cubby123 says:

    I agree with Cliff H.,open carry is our constitutional right,that being said,discretion is a virtue .I am a Marketing Director at a gun range that offers full auto experience.We are in Nevada and we cater to tourist,bachelor parties Casino VIPs ,Etc.It’s real guns and it’s entertainment.We have an advertising booth a a Motorcycle event that is like Sturgis.I talk to cyclist all day,But I am open carrying Two Silver Plated ,engraved,Ivory handled Colt 45 Revolvers,pretty and deadly.I also carry high tech ammo in them.,George Patton would be proud .A California vendor came over and took a picture of them and said he would be arrested for that.I told him ,”look around” he saw that He was the only vender there NOT armed,everyone else was either concealed or unnoticeable open carry.,I was the only one showing off cause I wanted to draw attention to our booth.Our market at this event were motorcycle people,Guess if they are carrying or not.some open some not.Not all people conceal carry nor do they have to in our state.Like other open carry states it’s no big deal,but to states that don’t allow because they think your are 12 year old and will shoot your yields off or worse ,it is Shocking!.I will wear a different set tomorrow,remember not all guns are ugly and black some are pretty and silver but they are still guns, and I have the right and also it is my Privilege to wear them ,legally and constitutionally.If east coasters and west coasters don’t like that -too bad.that being said open carry demands tact and good judgment .Be aware of where you are ,are there kids there are you in some one’s face with it ,just because you can.You can open carry just like you can have children but it doesn’t mean you should!

  32. avatar benny says:

    WOW im glad I missed this sh!tstorm.
    No bans on OC. What do we hope to GAIN by taking steps BACKWARDS?
    We need to do something about the whole d-bag OC guy. Maybe a statement or even something worked out with the local news station?? ANYTHING at this point is better than deciding which foot to put in the bear trap.
    Seriously, if anyone has any ideas ill do my part to help if I can.

  33. avatar shawn says:

    I would rather conceal carry than open at any time. That is my choice but i am not going to tell anyone else what to do. That is how it should be for all things.

  34. avatar defensor fortisimo says:

    For the record, the memo doesn’t necessarily mean the brass considers oc a threat. The thing to remember about San Antonio is that on a weekend, parts of it such as the river walk are swarming with bmt graduates and tech school students all in their blues. As military members, there are rules in place about participating in political events while in uniform, the last thing they want is a bunch of kids running around the events in their blues making it look like the military chose a side. Me personally, I’d be happy to just get said kids to stop saying secfo, but that’s just me…

    Also worth noting is that if you go out into the operational air force you find similar instructions for other protests. Doesn’t matter if it is a OC event like this or just another hippie drum circle, the goal is to stay apolitical.

  35. avatar Jericho941 says:

    Starbucks isn’t an “antagonist” on this. If you want to carry a gun in public to desensitize said public to guns… do it on public property.

    Starbucks asked people to stop because attention whores with long guns were going about it on Starbucks’ PRIVATE property and scaring off customers.

    The attention whores took a good thing and ruined it for the rest of us. Simple as.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “The attention whores took a good thing and ruined it for the rest of us.”

      That’s a childish statement. We aren’t talking about goodies from Mommy. There isn’t a ‘good thing’ to ‘ruin’ for ‘all of us’. Before making such juvenile comments that reflect how you actually view rights as privileges to be dispensed by an organization, please think it through.

      Starbucks made a corporate decision to stand on the wrong side of a political issue about individual rights. As a private entity, they stood neutral before. They could have simply issued a statement to the effect of, “We appreciate patrons supporting Starbucks but we wish to be inclusive of those patrons that have a different view of firearms. As such, we would ask that our patrons refrain from armed Starbucks Appreciation Days.” That would’ve been direct, polite, and avoided a political stance. Instead, they bluntly said that they do NOT want firearms in their establishment. There’s a huge difference. Starbucks is a liberal minded corporation. They never were committed to the right to keep and bear arms. I respect Starbucks’ decision and will not enter their establishment nor will I purchase their products as they’ve made their stance clear on my right to keep and bear arms. If my firearm isn’t welcome then I’m not welcome. No good thing was ruined. lol

  36. avatar JImmyW says:

    We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

  37. avatar Rambeast says:

    Here lies the proof that the grabbers are winning. You see the division of “2a activists”. Just like the Fudds during the AWB in ’94, the gun owners that do not like OC demonstration are turning on their own.

    Keep it up guys and gals, they’ll have us disarmed in no time. When that day comes, you’ll have noone to blame but yourselves.

  38. avatar Shane says:

    What some of you fail to realize is banning OC will not appease grabbers. It will encourage them to continue to gnaw away at our rights.

    All of you anti-OC’s are moral equivalents of mini Neville Chamberlains.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “All of you anti-OC’s are moral equivalents of mini Neville Chamberlains.”

      Exactly!

      And for those of you who may not know history all that well, Chamberlain was the Prime Minister of the U.K. leading up to World War II and advocated to appease Nazi Germany’s aggression. We all know how well that worked out.

      If a gang of rapists broke down the door of your home and said they were only going to take one of your daughters and then leave your family alone, would you trust them and give up one of your daughters? Neither should we trust the people who want to take away one of our rights that could very well take away our lives.

  39. avatar OHgunner says:

    Open carry as a demonstration should be fully covered by the right to free speech because they are doing it as a political statement. period

  40. avatar Gordon says:

    You say “just OC a handgun, if you want to OC”. that is all well and good, except for places (like Texas) where OC of handguns is illegal. Then the only option is OC of long guns. The basic idea is; you don’t like to see people OCing with long guns, legalize OC of hand guns.

  41. avatar Keith Martin says:

    You can not sacrifice any portion of your rights without loosing them all! Stand your ground and fight for your freedoms, give in and all is lost!!!!

  42. avatar Rick E says:

    The problem we are running in to is that L.E. are not asking 911 callers if the person has the gun slung on the back or has it in their hands.
    To many people are so frightend of guns because of the media they call the cops at the sight of any firearms.

  43. avatar Doug says:

    Banning open carry is NOT the way to go for whatever reason. People HAVE to get use to it. Seeing a weapon is not the end of the world and does not point out a crazed loon.

    Everyone should spend a few months in Israel and you’ll get over it.

  44. avatar Mike Strait says:

    I’m not going to read all the posts, I just don’t have the time. But a LOT of these posts are suggesting we “trade” open carry for nationwide concealed carry. Why do you want to give away something that is yours for something else that is already yours. Wake up and step up. Open carry is your RIGHT everywhere within the borders of the United States of America, as is concealed carry. The Constitution is OUR guarantee that these RIGHTS cannot be infringed. The fact that you the liberal or rhino don’t care about these rights is of little consequence. They ARE our rights, given by God and protected by man. No man or court of man can infringe upon these rights. Stop trying to bargain away what nobody can take and stand up to take back what is already ours!

  45. avatar Steve says:

    These Chair Force a$$holes can kiss their ass. As long as they are off duty and OUT of uniform, they are free to do as they please, as long as their actions do not bring discredit upon the Chair Force. I spent 23 years in the US Army and being a service member does not mean you have to forfeit your Constitutional Rights. Your actions just cannot bring discredit upon the military,

    Does everyone see the Pandora’s box that a$$hole SOB in the White House has opened and forced upon those who serve our country?

  46. avatar screwtech02 says:

    With all this talk about “new” laws for, against CC/OC. Why not the blatenty obvious??? Start teaching kids about proper gun safety, and not to “fear” all weapons??? Seems like the past 20 yrs have done nothing in that catigory…. But, that would mean they would probably have to teach “actual” past history in schools, hell, maybe even have a manditory Constitution test like I had to pass 8th grade…. HATE to see that…..

  47. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Open carry is your Constitutional Right,so is conceal carry.The Constitution does not make a distinction! But politics does you must have a class before applying for a permit( not a bad thing) ,Where allowed by law,open carry does not require a class( I would say my personal opinion ,IF you do not already have a ccw,not a good thing). I say this cause I believe ALL citizens of the US should go through Firearms Training.Then decide if it is for you or not.

  48. avatar CA.Ben says:

    Or we could just make OC legal in all 50 states. The only reason that these idiots are walking around with AKs is because of the law. If we let them OC handguns like they want, then the protests will stop. Furthermore, the public will start seeing OC in a better light if they regularly see proudly displayed handguns that aren’t being used in crimes.

    And nobody is going to OC their AR if OCing their Glock is legal.

  49. avatar Doug Petri says:

    I do not want bans of any kind. Just use your head. If you are seeking a political statement, you may indeed get one. It may be the wrong one. I carry a gun(s), for personal protection. I attempt to be a good ambassador for our cause. I conceal carry as I want to be anonymous.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email