Texas Mall That Banned Guns Over Open Carry Losing Tenants

In Israel, no one complains about the open carry of rifles

Parkdale mall in Beaumont, Texas banned guns from their establishment after one of their renters open carried a rifle slung over his back to his firearms business in the mall, and someone complained. Police arrested him for “disorderly conduct”. The mall said that they have always been anti-gun, but they never bothered to post the legally required signs before. There may be a reason for that “lapse” . . .

Remote Control Hobbies is the second business to leave. That follows Golden Triangle Tactical, the shop Derek Poe was headed toward when he was arrested for open carrying a rifle.

From 12newsnow.com:

“We had to second think if we were going to stay. We made the decision we’re going to leave because of the stance on concealed guns,” Owner Cherilyn Mitchell said. “Now everyone is saying they’re going to boycott the mall. I’ve gone from 150 tickets a day to two. Here it is on a Sunday and I have no traffic.”

Texas is one of a few states that doesn’t allow open carry of handguns, a relic left over from reconstruction and the capetbagger government.

The Texas constitution, adopted after the Reconstruction government was voted out of office, protects the bearing of arms, but allows the legislature to regulate the “wearing” of arms. Thus long guns escaped the leftover reconstruction gun ban and may be legally open carried in Texas.

As part of the movement to restore Second Amendment rights around the nation, residents of Texas have organized and are holding “open carry” rallies all over the state. In response, Greg Abbott, the favorite to be the next Texas governor has said the time has come to restore the right to openly carry sidearms as well as long guns.

Not all gun writers agree. Bob Owens of bearingarms.com has written that the open carry of long guns is a failed tactic:

From New Mexico, to Utah, to Wisconsin, and now this incident in Texas (and in other places too numerous to mention), long gun open carry has resulted in rules and laws being passed that constrict where gun owners can legally carry guns.

Is this not the exact opposite of what long gun open carriers claim they are trying to do? When your tactics are failing, it is time to discard those tactics.

None of the cases that Mr. Owens cites has resulted in passage of a statute. In each case, legislation has been proposed that has almost no chance of passage. Similar attempts were made to criminalize the open carry of holstered handguns. In an earlier post, Mr. Owens had more harsh words for open carry:

This sort of calculated obnoxious behavior caused Starbucks to issue a letter asking people to stop open carrying in their stores, giving gun control groups a small victory.

I disagree with Mr. Owens.  There is nothing obnoxious about openly carrying long guns in public. It is a simple, obvious assertion of Second Amendment rights. If rights are not exercised, they are lost. Open carry of long guns was first restricted in Texas by Union troops during reconstruction.  Then the Reconstruction government changed the Texas Constitution to make the practice legal.   Open carry of long guns was first restricted in California with successful Alynski tactics on the part of the Black Panthers.

California is one of the few states that doesn’t have a right to keep and bear arms provision in its state constitution.   This was because of a desire of the legislators to retain the power to disarm Hispanics and Chinese, a purpose that was directly stated as the reason for the early need for concealed carry licenses. When the legislation restricting open carry was being debated in the California legislature, a number of Black Panthers appeared at the legislature with openly carried, loaded, long guns, pushing the legislation over the top and insuring its passage.

Open carry has been successfully used to reform restrictive laws in Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and likely other states that I do not immediately recall.  As recently as the 1950’s, it was considered normal for people to openly carry shotguns and rifles in New York City.  The only reason that there is any “alarm” at the open carry of long guns today, is the partially successful brainwashing of two generations of Americans into believing that only government agents should be allowed to have arms.  Put a uniform on the long gun open carriers, and “alarm” fades to nothing.

The fact that criminals almost never open carry, and that open carry is a form of political speech, protected by both the First and Second Amendments, is what is needed to counter those who equate a uniform with safety.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

comments

  1. avatar Hkfan says:

    Lol at linking the closing of a hobby store in the year 2014 to open carry rules. And lol at your misleading “tenants” title.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      What’s misleading about tenants? Stores in malls pay rent to the mall. They’re referred to as tenants. Is there something I’m missing?

      1. avatar Hkfan says:

        A hobby store and the store owned by the open carrier isn’t what is implied by the title.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          The guy that owned the store decided to leave, and the hobby store also decided to leave. That’s two tenants leaving over the mall’s weapons policy. What’s the problem here?

        2. avatar Hkfan says:

          Stores are not flocking away from the mall. Nobody, other than the open carry idiot, is leaving because of the open carry restrictions.

        3. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Are you being intentionally obtuse? The only thing that is required to use the plural ‘tenants’ is for there to be more than one. There are two. The hobby store is leaving because they dislike the concealed carry policy. Nowhere above does it indicate that they are leaving over the open carry policy specifically. The headline doesn’t say “Texas Mall Losing Tenants Over Open Carry” does it? Your reading comprehension could use some work.

        4. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          agree with Matt – peole need to read the comments in the news story link . . . patrons will go elsewhere

        5. avatar Steve says:

          You’re clearly missing a lot of info , hkfan, as again, the hobby store is also leaving over the restriction, and the owner of the store has said so, to news outlets, herself. She has seen a drastic decrease in customers since the 30.06 sign was put in.

        6. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

          So hkfan is upset because the story isn’t consistent with what he assumed when he read the headline, and is instead completely consistent with the headline itself?

        7. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I, uh, yeah, I guess so. I never did completely figure it out.

        8. avatar William Burke says:

          Shocking, isn’t it?

        9. avatar ReManG says:

          Eh, he is an hkfan after all…. Only certain people should own those after all.. So presupposing ones misread onto the comments section is par for that course…

        10. avatar William Burke says:

          😉

    2. avatar PW in KY says:

      Hkfan, because headlines suck and we hate them

      1. avatar Jim H says:

        comment of the post, right there. love it.

  2. avatar BDub says:

    I have to agree in the main, though I do believe that some “Open Carry” demonstrators are obnoxious.

    Regarding the photo – are they not allowed to open carry while loaded in Israel? If not, that seems more like a pledging sorority by having to lug around a piece of furniture.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      So you would agree to a law banning obnoxiousness? Dig yourself, baby.

      1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

        I didn’t see him advocating a law. I have talked to OC’ers out in public and some can be quite obnoxious, even if you support what they are doing. Those types are out looking for an argument and are willing to argue over anything. Tell these few that you agree with them, you get chastised about not OC’ing, tell them you’re concealed carrying and get a big argument over how you’re not a “true” 2A supporter. The “No True Scotsman” theory is strong in their over-the-top indignation. Do I think “there should be a law”? NO. But not wanting a law doesn’t make some of these guys any less obnoxious.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          It’s their right to be “obnoxious”; get the hell over it.

        2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          I am “over it”. Reading comprehension is your friend.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          WB:

          It is your right to be obnoxious but since we are waging a war for public opinion being a dick turns people off. We want fence sitters or the don’t cares to see us as normal folks. The obnoxious open carrier turns these people into antis

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          If they’re so upset by open carry, they’re ALREADY antis. You are not the arbiter of anyone’s rights but your own. If you are distressed by open carry, I have some organizations I can refer you to.

        5. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I do feel that people should exercise some discretion. I never liked the Starbucks thing, to be honest. Or at least, not after it turned into idiots standing around with ARs slung across their chests.

          When it was handguns, it made sense. Buncha gun guys going out for coffee, maybe before heading to the range. You holster your handgun before you leave the house, possibly in your fancy leather dress holster, and then you go about your day, heeled. It would actually take effort to divest yourself of your handgun in that situation, and then, if you had a lace-through holster, you’d be walking around with an empty holster flapping at your side. It wouldn’t make sense.

          Carrying an AR into Starbucks just to drink coffee, on the other hand, is nonsensical, unless you walked from home with your rifle slung. You certainly don’t have it on your person in the car, so that means you had to get out of the car, retrieve and sling the rifle, and then walk inside. It’s simply not a logical course of action.

          I’m using those examples because neither of them apply in this case, necessarily. We don’t know why he was carrying the rifle through the mall slung and uncased, but it’s not unreasonable to assume that since he operates a gun store, and it’s legal, that it was a perfectly logical course of action for him. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, maybe his standard practice would have been to carry it in a case, but in this circumstance he didn’t have a spare case handy, so since it was legal, he simply slung it and walked in. The other option would have been to walk in, unlock the store, turn off the alarm and turn on the lights, find a case, and then lock up the store to walk back out and get the rifle. In that situation, I’d have done exactly what he did, and just carried the damn thing inside.

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          WB:

          I supsect that you don’t do well in personal interactions so I get why you don’t understand that a person can form an opinion based on behavior. I can walk through Tysons Corner Mall with an AR slung over my shoulder and 90% of the people wouldn’t notice nor the would they care if I did. However, if they saw me being a dick to security they would draw the conclusion that dangerous dicks open carry and become antis. On the other hand if they see an open carrier acting like an intelligent law abiding citizen in his interactions with other people they might conclude that gun owners are normal people and it good that there are such people around. I prefer to present the second type of behavior than the first. But that’s just me your choice be different.

        7. avatar William Burke says:

          Thank you for demonstrating your insufficient knowledge regarding my “personal interactions”. HOW DARE YOU speculate about my “personal interactions”, you pissant?

          Note: “pissant” is a French term, pronounced “pe-SANT”, meaning, “soiled cracker”.

        8. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          @ WB said: “Thank you for demonstrating your insufficient knowledge regarding my “personal interactions”. HOW DARE YOU speculate about my “personal interactions”, you pissant?”

          It’s not speculation. It’s a theory based on observations. For example, BDUb makes a simple statement regarding his observations of some OC’ers. You respond with a quazi-hostile comment. I respond to you with an observation that you put words in his mouth (specifically that he wanted a law) and that I concurred with BDub’s observation by some of my own observations and in your reply you again inserted words that were nowhere in my post. You didn’t refute my observation. In fact you seemed to agree with OC’ers being obnoxious (as you said, it is their right). Which I agree with, but my point (as was BDub’s, Matt’s, and tdiivna’s) was that some OC’ers aren’t winning any fence-sitters. BDub (nor I) wasn’t referring to this particular mall OC’er or his actions.

          If you are so easily agitated by people that are in general agreement of a subject that you become argumentative and resort to name-calling, it is not a giant leap to theorize that you use the same approach with personal interactions. Now, can you respond in a manner that would deconstruct my above statement without adding to the stated examples?

        9. avatar William Burke says:

          Yes, I can. Your assertion that “Those types are out looking for an argument and are willing to argue over anything” is unfounded, and speculative on your part. For the first part, they are entitled to argue with those that would annul their rights.

          For the second part, “willing to argue over anything” is hyperbole on your part. I’m pretty certain they don’t argue about most things, only their rights. They don’t argue about cornflakes, cheeseburgers or chess. At least I doubt they do.

          Where do you want to take this next?

        10. avatar tdiinva says:

          WB:

          I come to this conclusion based on your screw ’em if they don’t like it attitude to all people. I am will to screw the gun grabbers but I take the position that those who don’t oppose me are my friends.

          You also not a gentleman and Culpepper Militia would not have you.

        11. avatar William Burke says:

          “I take the position that those who don’t oppose me are my friends.”

          They probably are your friends. I never aimed to be one.

          “You also not a gentleman and Culpepper Militia would not have you.”

          If you aim to pick a fight with me, go ahead. I’m not interested in it.

          It’s “Culpeper”; and you are not the arbiter of that. I could say, “You are not a gentleman, and Virginia would not have you.” See how ignorant that sounds?

        12. avatar Kyle says:

          William Burke, you are wrong to assert that people who are upset by open carry are already antis. I was originally shocked by it. I was one of your brainwashed folks who did believe in the RKBA, but was not really eating and sleeping the movement, and thus had no idea about open carry or even that it was legal. To the extent it could be legal, I assumed it would be with regards to hand guns. The idea of open-carrying a rifle or shotgun absolutely stunned me.

          So yes, this is a public opinion war, and it is of prime importance that gun owners who open carry appear as reasonable individuals, not as a-holes.

        13. avatar William Burke says:

          If open carrying is not “reasonable”, I suggest you find another place that makes you feel more at ease.
          Rights are not about “making nice”. It’s clear to me you don’t understand the meaning of the Bill of Rights. You need to figure this out. I am never going to change my stand on citizen’s rights. You are entitled to be “shocked” by people who stand up for their enumerated rights.” You are entitled to relinquish your rights. But don’t expect me to take that low-information stroll alongside of you.

        14. avatar William Burke says:

          You are free to be as “shocked” as you care to by people who will not compromise their enumerated rights. I understand these rights; you clearly do not. You should feel free to seek other associations that suit your comfort level.

          I know my rights, and there will be nothing you could say to affect my position on this. I refuse to attenuate my rights to suit your comfort level.

        15. avatar Kyle says:

          I am no longer stunned by it. But others still are. Those others are the ones who play a role in whether things like open carry are made illegal or not. If made illegal, then what is your recourse? It likely will only be made illegal in more liberal places, which means you can forget about getting the process reversed. That leaves your only recourse the courts, which may or may not side with you.

          So like it or not, this is a public opinion war and it is important that people don’t get the wrong impression from gun rights people. Your attitude of, “You are free to be stunned/shocked/offended” does no good to the movement if it gets restrictive laws passed that cannot be overturned and which are upheld by the courts.

          Not compromising on rights is fine, but if the way in which one goes about doing it could get those rights restricted permanently, then you have to go about it in a smart fashion.

        16. avatar William Burke says:

          HOW the EFF is someone suppose to carry an AR-15 to his shop CONCEALED?

          This forum has degenerated into foolishness and appeasement.

          You DO know what “appeasement” means, don’t you? You seem to be a fan of it….

        17. avatar Kyle says:

          I never said appease or carry concealed, I said be SMART about how you go about doing it. Smart means come across as normal to people unfamiliar with open carry, be friendly, open, answer questions in an educated fashion, etc…do not try to come across as intimidating to anyone.

        18. avatar William Burke says:

          SO… cops and the Military carry guns. They commit murder and atrocities, often enough. What would seem “normal” about behaving like them?

        19. avatar benny says:

          I’ve gotten into it with Mr. Burke A few times on here. I’ve realized that while he is very aggressive on certain subjects, he is still VERY MUCH on our side. I agree to disagree, respectfully.

        20. avatar Kyle says:

          Where did I say act like cops or military? I said just be smart about how you open-carry so as not to give a bad impression to fence sitters. I don’t know about military committing atrocities, but cops who engage in shootings of innocents oftentimes are not behaving like professional law enforcement, they are behaving recklessly. A cop or a soldier is supposed to behave professionally, and so should an arms-bearing citizen.

        21. avatar William Burke says:

          Tell me about these “professional citizens”. A citizen has no burden upon him, if he peacefully carries. Every case we have put under the microscope, the citizen was acting within his rights.

          You are placing the burden upon those who need to bear no such burden.

          You people are like unto a disease upon liberty.

          You people are like a disease upon the practice of liberty.

          If you want to start the “perfect” 2A group, buy some angel wings for them to wear in public. They can probably buy some surplus ones from their local PD. They always have more than enough.

        22. avatar Kyle says:

          ” A citizen has no burden upon him, if he peacefully carries.”

          Actually, yes he does. Now, he SHOULDN’T, but in reality, he does. And that is because of all the fence-sitters who, if given the wrong impression, can end up getting restrictive legislation passed. Your thought process that open carriers have no burden to show they are normal, reasonable people only applies if there is no public relations war being waged, which unfortunately there is.

          It’s like if you are accused of a crime, and at trial. On paper, the jury will regard you as innocent until proven guilty. In practice, however, it depends on the individuals sitting on the jury.

        23. avatar janklow says:

          you know, i get the absolutist position on open carry… but this seems like an excessive amount of vitriol to be directing at what are almost certainly people on your side of the gun rights fight.

          plus, you know, raging about the inability to find a “perfect” 2A group while upset that posters don’t match one’s viewpoints 100% seems a little off.

        24. avatar William Burke says:

          This is what I find so disturbing. Whose side are they on, really? Because I see so much here that seems not very different from the antis’ position.

          Either you believe in the RKBA, period, or you do not.

        25. avatar Kyle says:

          Not being very different from the antis’ position, IMO, would be people who say that no one should open-carry because it can attract negative attention. That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is just that in exercising one’s RKBA, because the fence-sitters can be responsible for whether restrictive gun laws get passed or not, it is imperative that gun rights people exercise their RKBA smartly so as to win over the fence-sitters.

        26. avatar William Burke says:

          I’m ordering a halo and some angel wings for the next time I OC. So I can leave a nicey-nice impression.
          Seriously? We are supposed to play like we’re SAINTS for some a-holes who want to take our guns, no matter how much we dance for them?

          Pard, this country ain’t big enough for me and appeasement monkeys like you, and I’m not moving.

        27. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          @ WB said: “Yes, I can. Your assertion that “Those types are out looking for an argument and are willing to argue over anything” is unfounded, and speculative on your part. For the first part, they are entitled to argue with those that would annul their rights.”

          And again a theory based on observations/interactions. When you approach people and ask them what they’re carrying to try and strike up a friendly conversation and they are immediately on the attack, they most definitely seem to be looking for an argument. Kind of like you trying to make this into a rights argument when not one person has advocated stripping these people of their rights.

          WB said: For the second part, “willing to argue over anything” is hyperbole on your part. I’m pretty certain they don’t argue about most things, only their rights. They don’t argue about cornflakes, cheeseburgers or chess. At least I doubt they do.

          It was meant as hyperbole. Glad you caught it. Maybe you can re-read the whole thread starting from BDub to break down how your anal chaffing started.

          @ WB said: Where do you want to take this next?

          Don’t care, but where ever it goes, I’m sure you’ll continue to take it personally.

        28. avatar William Burke says:

          Please realize that no matter how often you state your position as a “reasonable compromise” (where have I heard that one before?), you will always be in the small minority here. This is not a place where craven appeasement monkeys thrive.

          But go ahead, knock yourself out.

        29. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          @ benny said: “I’ve gotten into it with Mr. Burke A few times on here. I’ve realized that while he is very aggressive on certain subjects, he is still VERY MUCH on our side. I agree to disagree, respectfully.”

          I realize that Burke is on our side benny, but I don’t think he realizes we’re on his.

        30. avatar William Burke says:

          I remain unconvinced.

        31. avatar Kyle says:

          “Seriously? We are supposed to play like we’re SAINTS for some a-holes who want to take our guns, no matter how much we dance for them?

          Pard, this country ain’t big enough for me and appeasement monkeys like you, and I’m not moving.”

          Nope. We are not supposed to play like saints for the a-holes who want to take our guns no matter what. We do, however, need to be professional to make sure that the FENCE-SITTERS, the people who haven’t made up their minds on the issue and could go either way, see our point-of-view and thus side with us instead of siding with the antis.

          That is not appeasement. Appeasement means giving concessions to the crocodile in the hopes that it will not eat you. With the antis, that is no good. For the fence-sitters, appeasement is not what is being called for. What is being called for is to intelligently exercise one’s RKBA (such as open carry) to get them onto our side.

          When black people exercised their rights during the Civil Rights movement, the ones that did it peacefully were not engaging in appeasement. But their doing it peacefully went a lot further in convincing people to side with them then the antics of those who advocated violence.

        32. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          WB said: Please realize that no matter how often you state your position as a “reasonable compromise”

          Still putting words in people’s mouths in order to manufacture your perceived outrage.

          WB said: “(where have I heard that one before?),”

          You heard it from yourself as your the only one currently stating it.

          WB said: “you will always be in the small minority here.”

          Whatever keeps you from having to admit you were hostile to someone for no reason I guess. Your whole thread of arguments are based on formal fallacies. You’re actually arguing with your own manufactured posts, which is very amusing.

          WB said: “This is not a place where craven appeasement monkeys thrive.
          But go ahead, knock yourself out.”

          Then why do you try to keep appeasing yourself?

          WB said: “I remain unconvinced.”

          As was anticipated.

  3. Mr. Bob Owens would probably had people like Rosa Parks, and even Harriett Tubman ‘set aside their tactics’ since they were ‘failing’ at the time. History has shown the he, and people like him, are gravely mistaken.

    1. avatar Hkfan says:

      Yes, blacks forced to sit in the back of the bus = you can’t carry your AR on your back to The GAP. Truly the modern day civil rights issue.

      1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        Is self-defense NOT a civil right, in your mind?

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          What mind?

        2. avatar Hkfan says:

          Carrying your AR in the mall to provoke people is not a self defense issue. Carrying a CCW is.

        3. avatar Matt in FL says:

          How do you know he was doing it to provoke people? He was walking from his car to his place of business, a business that involved firearms. Why should he have to secrete the rifle in a case to avoid scaring the sheep when doing what he did was perfectly legal where he did it? I realize casing it would be exercising discretion, but at what point does enforcing discretion become infringement? The law says he can do it, everything beyond that is up to him.

        4. avatar Hkfan says:

          think I am done with this site. I can’t argue with illogical people who believe open carry idiots are equal to Rosa parks. I can’t. I honestly don’t know how to respond.

          For those out there that feel the same way, I invite you to SH and M4C, which is a far more rational place interested in furthering the sport and expanding firearms use to different demographics, and less interested in click bait views.

        5. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I still don’t understand your point of view on this. I’m not saying this guy is Rosa Parks, I’m saying that what he did was perfectly legal where he did it. Yes, putting the rifle in a case would have showed some discretion, but why should he have to?

          What if he built the rifle at home last night (or bought it), and didn’t have a case handy to carry it into his store. Should he have to walk all the way into the store, get a case, and walk all the way back to his car to get the rifle, just to appease the sheep? Or should he just be allowed to do what is perfectly legal without being hassled about it, and called an idiot by you?

          I agree with you that sometimes the way people act can be stupid, but it’s their right to do so, regardless of whether or not you think they’re good enough, or qualified, or whatever, isn’t it?

        6. avatar Matt in FL says:

          You edited.

          “…furthering the sport and expanding firearms use to different demographics…”

          Yeah, in my experience, they’re interested in expanding from the demographics of “people who are elitist and agree with us” to “people who will agree with us.” As long as you subscribe to the groupthink and toe the line, you’re in. If not, well… you get talked to like (and called) an idiot. Because those sites are the repository of all knowledge relating to guns, and anything that’s not written down there is wrong.

        7. avatar jwm says:

          Bye, HKfan. We were never good enough for you. I can’t understand why a shining light like you would hang around us backwards folk anyway. You should go to work for H&K. They’d like your attitude.

          It’s been real. See ya.

        8. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Oh, never fear. Based on timestamps his little temper tantrum lasted only a few minutes and he came back and posted more further down thread.

        9. avatar tdiinva says:

          Hkfan:

          What made Rosa Parks “Rosa Parks” was her demeanor. That is what a lot open carry advocates don’t quite get when they use the analogy. If Rosa dressed and acted like a whore when she exercised her rights she would not have been recognized as a person to be admired. As I said above, we need to present a good image when we open carry. It sounds like the guy for the store did ttat.

  4. avatar BTinAfghan says:

    Good for the people voting with their feet.

  5. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    I am sure the mall has plans to bring in plenty of other tenants that the market is demanding, esp. with the notion of unarmed rent-a-cops . . . hey, maybe some cash only businesses are just the touch that is needed to drive store traffic?

    /sarcasm off

  6. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Open carry is not obnoxious, but people can be (and often are) obnoxious while open carrying. That’s an important distinction and one that bears mentioning. Starbucks didn’t rebuke gun owners because of open carry but because of the way they were going about it.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      ^This

      It’s hard to get some folks to realize that….

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      If you think you can make everyone behave according to your personal standards, by all means have at it.
      Oh! You already have.

      The shop owner did nothing wrong. If we behave as the antis would have them behave, they’ve already won.

      Show me where in the Second Amendment it says we must comport ourselves so as not to rankle the Redcoats.

      That was POETRY!!

  7. avatar Hkfan says:

    You are aware those women are IDF, right? They aren’t some redneck who just bought his first Delton and doesn’t know what a charging handle is.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Oh, I see. You’re a proponent of the “Only Ones” concept.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        aka “government by the elite”.

    2. avatar CRZ says:

      So every American carrying a rifle is a clueless redneck, but every Israeli doing so is fully competent? Stereotype much?

      1. avatar Hkfan says:

        Most are untrained, unskilled idiots.

        If you have ever been to Israel and gotten to know some IDF soldiers you would understand the training.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Christ, you’re elitist.

        2. avatar Hkfan says:

          How much training does the average AR owner have? Every time am at the range, it seems I have to help some idiot figure out how to fire their new pos rifle because they left the safety on, or thought the bolt release is the mag release. Every time. I have zero faith in any of these people safely carrying an AR in public. Zero.

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          He was carrying a rifle to his gun store. What is it you are afraid he would do? SERIOUS QUESTION.

          Is it your belief a gun store owner was not familiar with his rifle?

        4. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Thankfully, laws aren’t based on what you, in your exalted and infallible status, have faith in.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          HKfan, I’ve helped countless newbs at the range who were having difficulties with their new guns. It’s called spreading your experience and knowledge. If you only want to be at a range with experts you should buy a private range.

        6. avatar William Burke says:

          This sort of thing is why I have such respect for you. If we had a load more people like you, we wouldn’t find ourselves in such a dire situation.

        7. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Aren’t you assuming that he really is an expert, as opposed to only THINKING he is an expert?

        8. avatar William Burke says:

          It would seem he thinks the Founding Fathers were trained by the IDF.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        God’s Chosen. I rest my case.

    3. avatar Shire-man says:

      Oh, I get it. “Hkfan”: because we suck and you hate us.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Give this Shire-man a cigar!

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        He has HKs, and we do not. He is one of the Elite. Bow down to your master, knaves!

    4. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

      FC? Is that you?

    5. avatar ReManG says:

      Kind of like “if you can’t afford an H&K, you shouldn’t have the right to own any firearms” attitude you display on other comments. Got it, we are the illogical and irrational ones, don’t look up when it rains, that is when the elite drown….

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        😉 Superb.

        I want every American to have the enjoyment of all his rights, not just certain, uncontroversial ones. If you all end up having that enjoyment, I feel good about it, regardless of what anyone thinks of me.

  8. avatar Shawn says:

    So, let me get this straight, Derek is an owner of a gun store in a mall in Texas. He was going to his store in the mall while openly carrying his rifle. Someone freaked and called the police and Derek got arrested. Again, really confused. A gun store in the mall, a man open carry to his store, and he got arrested for disorderly conduct and this is TEXAS. How can a mall be anti-gun and have a gun store in it. And people say liberal are libtards. This is beyond full retard.

    1. avatar Hkfan says:

      How about carry your rifle in a case, like any normal person does when taking it into a gun store or range.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Who defines normal? It’s legal, and he’s in the gun business. (Not that that second part matters. I could have just put a period after “legal.”)

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        “Normal”? As in, just like you?

      3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Because then it would be concealed and THAT is against the mall owners policy, stupid.

      4. avatar Notguiltfree says:

        Dick Metcalf, I’ve only read about you, but now you’ve given us insight into your heart. Not liking you much…….

      5. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

        Maybe he didn’t have a case. I bought a used rifle with no case, and you bet I OCed that sucker from the store to the trunk of my car. Maybe it wasn’t ideal, but it’s what happened. No biggie.

      6. avatar Cyrano says:

        Open carry was not illegal, so he did. He didn’t skulk around like it was a nuclear bomb nor should he. The only reason I carry my guns around in cases when I buy or sell them is because its the law, otherwise its a big pain in the butt. I add a scope or another accessory and sudenly I have to go measuring for another case to fit that gun. I spent 15 minutes in Bass pro one time with a measuring tape so I could find a case for my scope with see under rings. Only one of their cases fit the gun. I used to have a more cavalier attitude about gun display when I only lived in the rural countryside because no one thought twice about open carry but when I moved to town I was given a fast lessen on how to secret around my collection so as not to disturb the neighbors. I realized after several years in the city I was being taught “gun guilt”. I have since moved out of gun guilt central and back to exercising my rights again with joy. HKFan needs to realize he has some real “gun guilt”. Watch out it can be contagious. We don’t fault car enthusiasts for having a garage full of cars and driving their muscle cars to the mall on a Sunday, nor should we fault a gun enthusiast a safe full of guns and the rights to display his pride and joy in a safe legal manner.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          “when I moved to town I was given a fast lessen on how to secret around my collection so as not to disturb the neighbors.”

          Sorry, but people like that don’t deserve to be called “neighbors”, in the larger sense. A good neighbor is a “Johnson”, aka, a person who does right by people. Not some busybody douche next door, or across the street. cf: ARLINGTON ROAD, the film starring Jeff Bridges, Tim Robbins and Joan Cusack. The tricky thing is which one is the nosy neighbor. Great movie.

  9. avatar Mediocrates says:

    I agree. I don’t understand why it even needs to be a “tactic”, rather than just the natural expression of our 2A rights.

  10. avatar Jim Barrett says:

    Not sure why we keep putting up the map from opencarry.org. It’s wrong and anyone who relies on it may find themselves in hot water. MA is not an open carry legal state

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      My understanding is that it’s not illegal to open carry with a Class A LTC, but that doesn’t mean you won’t get hassled. That map is based on the legality of the situation, not the reality. If people are allowing their rights to be trampled by those who don’t understand the law, that doesn’t mean the map is wrong, it means the authorities are.

      1. avatar Jim Barrett says:

        Okay, you are not violating a gun law by open carrying, however, if anyone sees it and feels threatened (and summons a police officer), you can and likely will be charged with Criminal Assault. This even extends to you walking across your own property with a visible weapon. If a neighbor sees you and complains, same result. So, my point still stands – the map should consider the entire legal landscape, not just the gun law specifically.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I can’t disagree with that. I’ve always found opencarry.org’s site to be a little thin, anyway. At least in the case of Florida, you’re better off visiting the floridacarry.org site.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Is MA in some sort of contest with NY, NJ, MD, DC, and CA to see who can be douchiest the fastest?

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      It’s a great map for a lawyer who wants clients. It’s technically true in the narrowest sense of the word, but completely useless and invalid in practicality.

      “Texas is one of a few states that doesn’t allow open carry of handguns” is the kind of absurd conclusion that can be drawn from such a thing. Right, because according to that map NJ and MD are open carry states… surrrre….

  11. avatar SteveInCO says:

    One should be able to carry whatever, and in whatever manner, he or she deems appropriate.

    Personally, and on a day to day basis, that’s a handgun and I may or may not put a jacket or coat on over it depending on the weather. A long gun carry is more often than not a political statement, and thus not for me most of the time–but if you want to lug a .50 BMG around, more power to you.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      My Virginia permit is not good in Colorado so I open carry 100% of the time when I am visiting my son in Larimer County. He lives two doors down from a cop. He just waves when I walk by.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Of course needing that permit in the first place violates the principle I enunciated (I did see what you wrote downthread about the history BTW–not sure what to think of it–other than if that’s what the constitution means, the constitution needs to change in a more gun friendly direction). It’s just a good thing you aren’t visiting the City and Cesspit of Denver, where the Right to Bear Arms is *denied* totally–even in the form of a CHP “privilege”–to people whose home state doesn’t have reciprocity with Colorado, since Denver forbids open carry.

  12. avatar William Burke says:

    2012: DHS Allowed Muslim Brotherhood to travel throughout America, Without Security Checks (Nary a Patdown!):

    http://visiontoamerica.com/16655/dhs-gave-muslim-brotherhood-vip-treatment-no-tsa-pat-downs/

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Because they only pat down Americans, and would soil themselves if they found a real bomb. Don’t get me started.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        And because this has nothing to do with “terrorism”, but CONTROLLING Americans. And because there hasn’t been a real terrorist attack on American soil since the first attack on the World Trade Center.

        You remember: the “blind sheikh”? Even then, he was being run by the FBI.

  13. avatar Pulatso says:

    I would call Florida more rural open carry. You can open carry to and from hunting and while fishing.

  14. avatar Aubrey says:

    MA does not permit open carry of firearms, permit or not- that map may be a bit dodgy.

    1. I had at least one person claiming to be from Massachusetts say that he open carried there and it was not a problem.

      He said the recent court opinion where the concealed carry permit holder carried to a doctors office, told the doctor that he was armed, ended up having his permit pulled, then reinstated by the court, reinforced the option of open carry.

      It has been a couple of months since I read it. It might even have been on TTAG.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Gotta ask: Was he a cop of some sort?

  15. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

    I can’t respond directly to HKfan, but. M4C? THE CHART!!! If an ar-15 isn’t on the chart, it’s a giant hunk of crap.

    M4c. That explains a lot.

    Good riddance m8.

    1. avatar Hkfan says:

      That chart I believe you are referring to was originally created at ARFCOM. All that chart accomplishes is simplify the buying process by identifying which ARs meet milspec. Those that are so grossly out of spec probably do deserve the title of junk

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        He’s right. The chart originated at arfcom. And it can be a valuable tool as a guide. The problem is people treat it as all-inclusive, and that anything not on the chart is crap, and that’s simply not true. It may have been true when the chart was created, but last time I looked, it was seriously out of date.

        1. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

          Exactly.

      2. avatar jerry says:

        So I guess you were just blowing smoke when you said you were done with this site?

  16. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    Two tenants gone and a lot of customers shopping elsewhere. Good. Drive their anti-American a$$es out of business, then a real American can pickup the property for pennies on the dollar.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Naah, some PRC businessman will buy it, open it up again, and make another fortune.

  17. avatar Old Man says:

    On the map of the State’s they have Mississippi as a licensed open carry state. i am a Mississippi enhanced permit ceritified firearms instructor. I am not aware of any license need to open carry. if I am wrong please give the Statue.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Opencarry.org has this to say:

      Mississippi is an open carry state and the state constitution appears to guarantee this right. Further, localities are generally preempted under state law from enacting local gun control ordnances that might restrict open carry. However, Miss. Code §§ 97-37-1 & § 45-9-101 operate together to ban carriage of a handgun “concealed in whole or in part” unless the carrier is inside a motor vehicle or possesses a License to Carry a Concealed Pistol or Revolver. As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part, a License to Carry a Concealed Pistol or Revolver is required to openly carry a handgun in a holster in Mississippi.

      1. avatar Shwiggie says:

        That has been superceded as of last year. No license is required for open carry in MS.

      2. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

        “… a handgun in a holster is concealed in part, a License to Carry a Concealed Pistol or Revolver is required to openly carry a handgun in a holster …”

        Do they ever think before they pass these laws? This would almost require that you carry openly in your hand which many would consider “brandishing”. I hope the changes in the Miss. open carry law addresses this.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Sounds like an opportunity for someone to make transparent holsters.

      3. avatar peirsonb says:

        One of the few things in my memory that Jennifer Granholm did right for Michigan…..carrying in a holster is not concealed.

    2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Agreed. In fact, the law as clarified last year specifically allowing open carry.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        I see, so I guess the info I quoted above from opencarry.org is out of date. Good to know.

        1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

          They don’t always update it quickly. It is probably best to find a state-based OC group to verify whatever the current law is.

  18. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Photo caption….”Mags, mags !!! Girls, who the f*^$ has the mags !!!”

  19. avatar Shwiggie says:

    *someone beat me to it*

  20. avatar Sbolla says:

    The article seems to imply that the Black Panther Party intentionally open carried at the California Legislature so that they would pass laws against open carry. I believe that is incorrect. I believe the legislature felt that since the black panther party was using the current law to teach black citizens their right to open carry was something that the legislature did not want. They thought it better to criminalize open carry to keep people in the black community from being legally armed. I doubt that the law would not have changed whether the black panther party members showed up or not. The legislators already knew that the black panthers were arming themselves. Perhaps the reality that they could show up at the capital with said weapons scared the legislators enough to definitively agree to take the high road of keeping these black people from carrying weapons.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      I never heard of ANY sector of the Black Panther Party that was anti-2A.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Disagree. What the article says is that the protest at the Capitol was the “icing on the cake’ that assured passage of the law. Which it did. The protest by the Panthers caused a hue uproar 9aong the legislators.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        However, Black Panthers should enjoy the same rights as everybody else.

        I think it’s worthwhile to point out, however, that these latter-day Black Panthers have very little in common with the goals of the Black Panther Party of the sixties and early seventies, who were genuine radicals, and were engaged in real self-defense. These new guys don’t seem cut of the same cloth as the originals, and I distrust them.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Maybe we send a few of them to your place to talk guns, OK? Like the fine young man in Philadelphia who was poll-watching.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          Only if you come, too. I want them to keep an eye on you. 😉

  21. avatar FoRealz? says:

    Question: carry permits.

    How did that come about?

    I’m assuming that at some point in history in the US no permit was required for a man to keep and bear arms. How did it come about that in almost all 50 states we got setup with a system whereby a permit is required?

    What’s the history on that?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Two reasons: 1) an early effort at crime control in various states, all predicated on the assumption that only dishonest men would carry their guns concealed. Concealed carry was banned and upheld by the highest courts in several states. Read Heller for the history. 2.) Institutionalized racism after the Civil War. The intent was to prevent blacks (and in California Hispanics and Chinese) from possessing weapons. Combine 1) and 2) and you have a need for permitting to allow the carrying of firearms so as to continue to permit lawful carrying for hunting, security, etc.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      If you go back to the 19th Century concealed carry was prohibited in most places because “no honest man has need to conceal his weapon.” The Constitution says “keep and bear arms” which meant at the time to possess/own and openly display, i.e., open carry. I am an originalist. I think by practice and language that the ban on open carry is unconstitutional but the state may restrict concealed carry. I know that is not a popular position here.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        I don’t know how I feel about that. Logically, it does make perfect sense, but since they didn’t define “bear” as specifically openly carry within the document, how do you make that argument? Further, if you base it on “what was common at the time” and assume that to them, bear meant openly carry, then don’t you run into the “common at the time” argument about what types of arms they were talking about? By that I mean the argument that “when they referred to keep and bear arms, they were only referring to the arms they had at the time,” aka the “musket argument.” Help me out, here. I want to agree with you, but I’m having trouble.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that open carry is constitutionally protected in Virginia by Article I paragraph 13 which is almost identical to wording of the Second Amendment, because in 18th Century “to bear” when referring to firearms meant the open display or carrying of arms. That is a pretty solid indication of what right the Founders were protecting.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          I agree. What sort of person could reasonably maintain it doesn’t mean what it means. The language leaves no room for ambiguity.

        3. avatar Cliff H says:

          Matt, there are a lot of things the 2A does not state specifically and I believe it was their intention to limit specificity in order to maximize exercise of the right and minimize government infringement.

          The definition of “bear” (verb; transitive)
          1. To support or sustain; to hold up.
          2. To support and remove or carry; to convey.

          I could not find any definition of “bear” as a verb that included the idea of concealed or not concealed. It would seem to me that the intention was the right to have your arms on your person and therefore ready and available for use. Any action by government to define the manner in which you must carry or not carry your arms (weapons) would therefore be an obvious infringement of your Second Amendment rights.

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          You just won’t listen to “reason”, will you? 😉

      2. avatar Michael B. says:

        You’re correct, tdiinva, but the problem is that the legal situation has changed. Before the Civil War, states were in charge of most of their affairs and could restrict the rights of their citizens as long as they didn’t run afoul of their own constitutions.

        I’m sure you are aware that with the end of the Civil War, the adoption of the 14th amendment, and “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights against the states the legal landscape changed significantly.

        I would be content in letting MA and the banner states go their own way if my state could go in the opposite direction without interference from the federal government, but it doesn’t work that way anymore. The banners want to screw us over and take away our rights everywhere. Furthermore, the second amendment itself does not say anything about the method of carry. It simply says that infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is forbidden. I have to conclude, based on that, that bans on open and concealed carry are likely unconstitutional.

        At the current time states may have the power to restrict open or concealed carry in various ways but, IMO, they are running afoul of the constitution.

      3. avatar William Burke says:

        It’s certainly not popular with me.

        Live free or die.

    3. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      I may not be the best source on this but:
      Seems to me that concealed carry was outlawed because of criminals carrying weapons concealed. Then concealed carry permits were enacted because Private Investigators, Security Personnel, etc. needed to carry discretely. Everyone else was expected to open carry. Over time, concealed carry has become more the norm as if we have to hide our dirty little secret and open carry is looked upon like a leper.

    4. avatar Shire-man says:

      For the most part carry permits are rooted in trying to keep somebody else from being able to carry as in Mexicans, blacks, newly freed slaves, poor people, the Chinese etc….

      Nothing turns a soccer mom into the next Stalin like paranoid delusions of cocaine raging negroes armed with affordable guns roving the streets in packs.

      But make sure if you have enough money or know the right people you can still get a gun because we need to protect the privileged class from these animals dontch’a know so we get the great permit.

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        That’s some of it, but I think the country’s culture simply changed. I think fewer people had hysterical reactions to guns and people openly carrying them back in the day because they were a part of life many were familiar with. They’re a tool, nothing more nothing less. Rational people know and understand this.

        As “civilization” and the ranks of its many schemers, organizers, controllers, and collectivists swelled and grew emboldened at the height of the first progressive movement, they decided guns were dangerous, disorderly, and uncivilized. They needed to be regulated to keep just anyone from getting them. What ended up happening in places like NYC was that only people with the right connections could legally own and carry them.

        Progressives wanted government (as long as they were in charge) to regulate/control everything for our own good. They didn’t care about constitutional arguments, they just wanted things their way and used governments they controlled as weapons against liberty and things they didn’t like. Alcohol, guns, tobacco, different forms of sex, various minorities, socialists, babies that weren’t the right color or “ideal” (research the eugenics movement in America), etc. etc.

        Basically they were evil busybodies and their public campaigns against those things were sometimes successful and sometimes not. Their long campaign against guns was actually kind of successful because as time passed people relied more on police, crime wasn’t a huge problem, and less and less city slickers even exposed to them.

        Eventually it got to the point in many areas where seeing someone in public with a gun that wasn’t wearing a uniform (or in hunter orange) was considered odd and dangerous.

        You can thank the sensationalist media and the banners for that.

        When the pushback began in the 80s concealed carry was the logical first step because the gun rights crowd didn’t want to freak out everyone who thought guns were evil, dangerous taboo objects.

        The gun rights movement has been enormously successful in normalizing guns again throughout most of the country but there’s still a lot of work to be done.

        Teach a newbie how to responsibly handle firearms and shoot and you do your part in restoring sanity in at least one aspect of our nation.

    5. avatar William Burke says:

      I am pretty convince this sort of crap originated with Reconstruction. That was really the first time we saw these sort of gun restrictions. Particularly African Americans.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        The nation had just concluded an expensive and unconstitutional “civil” war and the North had come out victorious. What was the concern then of imposing further unconstitutional laws on the southern states and/or the emancipated negroes? If the law suited your purpose and there was no force adequate or interested enough to dispute it, there could be no downside, unconstitutional or not, and after the South was trounced, who would oppose the out-of control federal government or even state laws that seemed to give power to the ruling classes and deny the RKBA from the hated negroes and low-lifes?

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Yep. That’s pretty much it. To the victor goes the spoils. Even if the whole kettle gets spoiled in the process. Sometimes I think victory is a kind of curse. In this instance, it sure seems to have been.

  22. avatar Mark N. says:

    “None of the cases that Mr. Owens cites has resulted in passage of a statute. In each case, legislation has been proposed that has almost no chance of passage. Similar attempts were made to criminalize the open carry of holstered handguns.”

    Literally true, Dean, but completely ignores the reality in California. You correctly note that the open carrying of firearms by the Black Panthers back in 1968 propelled the passage of an “open loaded” carry ban (signed by Governor Reagan) (which left it legal to open carry unloaded firearms), but ignores that peaceful open carriers at the Boardwalk in San Diego, and in various Starbucks around the state, resulted most directly in the passage of, first, an “open unloaded” carry ban for handguns two years ago, and an open unloaded carry ban for long guns last year. Despite the fact that it is now illegal to carry a firearm in any urban area without a CCW, and that in large urban areas obtaining a CCW is an essential impossibility, challenges to the “may issue” laws in the state failed at the court level and have been sitting in front of the Ninth Circuit for the last two years without resolution.

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      Correct about CA, and this supports Bob Owen’s excellent observation about tactics. Tactics are the actions you take which take into account the situation on the ground, in order to move step by step toward a strategic objective.

      You dont insist on the same tactic in each situation. If something is not working, you take note and adjust.

      OFWGs insisting on open carry in Starbucks got handgun OC banned, and I recall quite clearly the large number of voices, that I’d characterize as the majority on various gun sites, urging caution on doing same on long guns –

      and despite the obvious tactical fail, it only took a few nitwits with ARs in a couple of poorly organized and managed (but well covered by liberal media) events to give the Democrats their excuse to act on banning open carry long-guns.

      I remember one YouTube featuring a young knucklehead haranguing a mom with stroller by the beach rollercoaster, while SDPD stood by tensely- it was a classic OCD performance worthy of Burkes grandstanding here on TTAG.

      Name callling, and increasingly hysterical defense of their insistence on being right no matter what is just juvenile at best, and egomaniacal trollery at worst.

      We are all on the same side here, on the larger 2A issue- lets try to be gentlemen and respectfully agree to disagree and argue on facts.

      I’m sure there are some on the left laughing to see TTAG descending into a circular firing line on something like this.

      Remember- ” a clean well lighted space” …

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        One more time: either you believe wholeheartedly in the RKBA, or you do not. There’s a whole group here that seemingly would rather argue over gun niceties than support the Second Amendment.

        SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It doesn’t say, “unless you make some pantywaists nervous.” SHALL NOT.

        You may NOT. They may NOT. I may NOT. Get the picture?

  23. avatar Rocky says:

    Just for the record, the name of the mall is ‘Parkdale’, not ‘Parksdale’.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Text amended. Thanks.

  24. avatar BlackBayouArmament says:

    To all. I live 15 min from Beaumont so I know about this incident quite well. This store wasn’t allowed to sell guns, only weapon accessories. The owner routinely carried his personal rifle from his truck to his store. He used the rifle to display some of the accessories for purchase. It just so happened that one day someone felt the had to say something about it and he gets canned.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Thanks for the info.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Why did he open carry an AR-15 to his store? BECAUSE ZOMBIES! That’s my answer, and I’m stickin’ to it.

      1. avatar BlackBayouArmament says:

        Because he has a right to do so.

  25. avatar Yoel Grauberg says:

    Those IDF babes are carrying unloaded rifles. Israel is tough to purchase or carry guns, if you do your research it sucks to get a legal firearm in Israel. You have to be active in the IDF, or be in the West Bank settlements to get a permit. Heavily regulated. Lots of scrutiny. Tons of red tape. Ammunition is regulated. Kind of the model for the Democrats.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yeah but that doesn’t fit with the narrative of Israel being a magical free place where everyone can defend themselves, so hush.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      “West Bank settlements”, i.e., “land stolen at gunpoint and tankpoint.”

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        No, actually, the spoils of war. The Kingdom of Jordan decided to attack Israel in 1967 even though Israel told King Hussein that they had no beef with him. Jordan did not allow the PLO to operate from Jordan. He attacked anyway and lost. Hussein admitted that it was big mistake. Three years later Israel saved his throne during Black September uprising. Hussein killed more Palestinians putting down the revolt then Israel ever has.

        Even the larger issue of the establishment of Israel is matter of the spoils of war. The Arabs of Palestine supported Nazi Germany during World War II. Their leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, fled to Berlin where he made propaganda broadcasts for the Nazis and helped recruit Muslim for the SS in the Balkans. The Grand Mufti and some of the worst Nazi war criminals fled to Egypt after the war. Given the historical ties of the Jewish people to the region it was only fitting to take land away from Hitler’s allies and give it to the displaced Jews of Europe. I don’t see anyone demanding that Poland and Russia give back East Prussia, the home of some of my ancestors, that they seized as spoils of their victory over the Nazis. The Palestinians weren’t even considered a separate nationality until the KGB created the PLO in 1964.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          What idiocy. I have to go now. I’ll email you later, in your home in the Sudetenland.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        The Sudetenland is part of The Czech Republic and is nowhere near East Prussia. Explain the idiocy. where did I get my facts wrong? I mean such a superior intellect you ought to be able to correct me.
        Whenever I see someone run away from an argument where he doesn’t have command of the facts I think of a whiny little girl like Shannon Watts.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Do you think I would have mentioned the Sudentenland if I didn’t know what it was? Get an effing GRIP, man.

        2. avatar Paelorian says:

          tdiinva, you’re mostly right and William Burke is a fool. You explain yourself and carefully lay out your argument in an attempt to educate, Burke simply calls you an idiot and claims he’s right without posting his arguments for judgement. I’m sure his arguments are weak, and he’s too cowardly or lazy to state his case. There’s no value in his crass generalizations and and dismissive vitriol.

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          You have a chip on your shoulder about me. No problem. I think you take the issue to others without confronting me directly; no problem.

          I never called him an idiot. He is NOT an idiot. I can prove it.. I have the notes here somewhere…
          I used the word “idiocy”, which refers to an idea or theory. People’s statements can be idiotic, while they are not idiots.

          You’re coming on aggro on me, and I’ve never heard of you before. Are you tdiinva’s boyfriend, or what?
          Meanwhile, I never posted a single letter to you, and you call me “fool”.

          Am I moving too fast for you? Need time to catch up?

          It goes both ways. You cannot call me a “fool” (which I admit, I may be), and simultaneously claim I said something about tdiinva that I did not say.

          But hey, I love ya anyway.

        4. avatar William Burke says:

          And this: I never said doodley about East Prussia; I think you must be quoting someone from another blog, because I didn’t say it, and it never appeared here.

          You’re a Taurus, aren’t you? Most troublesome folks on the planet….

        5. avatar Paelorian says:

          Too late to edit, sorry. I wanted to take out “mostly right”, and add that while I would dispute tdiinva’s history (Israel was not founded because of spite towards Axis sympathizers, the KGB did not found the PLO, etc.) , I respect him for laying out his ideas and not simply making attacks and accusations.

  26. avatar WI Patriot says:

    The only way to get the leftists/liberals attention is to hit where it hurts them the most, in the pocketbook, they don’t understand constitutional rights(unless it applies directly to them), they don’t understand civil rights(again, unless it applies directly to them), what they do understand is $$$, just ask Heir Bloomberg…

  27. avatar TC says:

    Where do the IDF ladies keep their ammo
    ?

    1. In magazines. Probably in a pouch on the sling. The one on the left has a mag banded to the rifle pistol grip.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      You can’t go there without the Magic Word.

  28. avatar IdahoPete says:

    Schadenfreude.

  29. avatar lolinski says:

    You do know that Israel has shitty gun laws? As in your average person has almost no chance of obtaining one (legally).

  30. avatar Charlie says:

    That’s a nice brace of rifles! 😀

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Rifles?

  31. avatar Grumpy in Kali says:

    So a renter on someone else’s property who didn’t have permission to open carry a firearm outside of his leased space got himself into trouble?

    Dang. What’s next? Will the sun rise in the east?

    Sooooo an idiot open carried in Texas and the only pic the moderator could come up with is a group of Israeli soldiers carrying while off-duty?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      I’m so glad you live in the very place where you belong.

  32. avatar Mark Krieg says:

    Broad shouldered gal in white top.

  33. avatar Raymond Howard says:

    I live in the Beaumont area and go to Parkdale mall frequently. I do think it was a little reckless of the guy to have openly carried the rifle in the mall, especially in these days. Something like would tend to only alarm people rather than make them think “oh that’s okay, it’s legal for him to carry that”. That being said, I have a CCL and carry all the time. I knew there would be some knee jerk response like posting the state legal sign and barring people from carrying concealed. I have all ideas that there have probably been quite a few people that have been legally carrying concealed in that mall for awhile. I know that I will visit that mall less because of their posting of the state legal sign. So from me at least, they will lose some business. However, I have noticed that stores at that mall that have doors that open to the parking lot have not posted the sign at their entrances, so a person can legally still carry concealed in them. The only place the signs are posted is at entrances that go directly into the mall.

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      He broke no law. Had he carried it in concealed then he would have been violating the property owner’s policy, still no law broken. The fact a gun store was in the mall tells me people been carrying weapons openly in the mall for some time, how else did customers get their guns into and out of the store?

      Still have not seen the screecher who started this sh*t, crying and pissing themselves in front of cameras to justify their filing of a false police report. Wonder why that is?

      1. avatar Raymond Howard says:

        You are right, he really didn’t break any laws. He could however have carried the rifle in, in a case and maybe even broken down and that wouldn’t have been a violation of any laws. Still I agree that he did nothing wrong, only a little reckless. In our day, anyone carrying any gun openly that isn’t on a range or in the woods is bound to at least raise a few eyebrows. I wish our country hadn’t come to such a point but it has. My Dad used to get on a city bus with his .22 rifle when he was a kid and no one would bat an eye. He told me of being in a western play at school and all the kids had real single actions strapped on. Those days are gone. Our society has become increasingly fearful and the news media coupled with the left doesn’t help matters. I think the guy could have used a little more discretion when walking into the mall with that rifle. I’ve met the guy. Very nice person, and he has a cool store. Too bad they’re going to leave.

        1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Again, he broke no law. Period. Full stop. He did nothing “reckless”. Crawling on your knees and kissing leftards a$$es is how we lose.

  34. avatar Lynne says:

    “This sort of calculated obnoxious behavior caused Starbucks to issue a letter asking people to stop open carrying in their stores, giving gun control groups a small victory.”

    Except that the obnoxious behaviour was not on the part of the citizens, but rather came from the Demanding Moms. They were the ones who picketed, boycotted, harassed customers. Lawfully-armed citizens came in & bought coffee, sat around & chatted with friends, just like any other customer.

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      Moms with Dementia are the ones who act obnoxious, and apparently it gets them anything they want. Hmmmm, time to take a page from THEIR playbook, since it is so successful for them, and gays, and Blacks.

  35. avatar marty says:

    from article-
    “There is nothing obnoxious about openly carrying long guns in public. It is a simple, obvious assertion of Second Amendment rights. If rights are not exercised, they are lost.”

    Most “normal gun enthusiasts” don’t parade around the “MALL” or the “burger joint”, with a rifle slung over the shoulder, unless maybe hiking into town after hunting.
    Whether in Texas or not, it Actually IS Obnoxious! It is an “IN YOUR FACE” Aggressive display.
    COPS DON”T EVEN, carry long arms around, unless they are presenting an aggressive ready position.
    Open – Carry a pistol. (but I can’t in Texas…..) so change the law!

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