Previous Post
Next Post

Open Carry in Arizona

At a press conference on Monday, Dr. Peter N. Steinmetz, the physician who was arrested at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport while openly carrying a rifle, issued the following statement [paragraphs added]:

“I consider myself to be a freedom activist, a man of peace and a responsible American citizen. I fully respect the rule of law and have complied with it my entire life. I am also an educated and responsible gun owner who has earned the legal right to have a concealed weapons permit . . .

I have received extensive training in the safe handling of firearms as well as the substantial legal responsibilities that accompany firearms ownership. I enthusiastically support the rights of my fellow Americans to peacefully and responsibly keep and bear arms. I also strongly oppose the irresponsible use of firearms by anyone. I take my constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of all people very seriously, and I believe those rights need to be exercised and protected or they will be lost.

I am a peaceful political activist, and my purpose in walking around the airport with my AR-15 rifle was entirely political in nature. Put simply, I decided to make the point that a peaceful citizen can openly and responsibly carry a firearm – including an AR-15 – for the protection of themselves and their community. I wanted to help educate the public and employees at the airport on this point by allowing them to observe a peaceful person responsibly carrying an AR-15 while doing things that people normally do there, like waiting and drinking a coffee.

I chose to make this lawful political demonstration at the airport because there are few places in our society where the contrast between our liberties and their erosion is so stark. On the one side of a line on the floor, in the shopping area, we are relatively free, and can safely keep and bear arms. On the other side of that line we have the TSA, a large federal bureaucracy which completely disarms people and subjects them to gross invasions of their privacy, simply because those people want to travel somewhere. As I was making this political statement, I was careful not to disturb or endanger anyone.

Indeed, I was never aware of any person being disturbed in any way. At all times I was extremely careful to ensure my firearm was never pointed at anyone. In addition to carefully handling my firearm, the safety was engaged at all times. I have no plans to repeat this demonstration as I believe I have now made the important point that peaceful and responsible people can safely be trusted to handle firearms, even AR-15’s, even at the airport. There is never anything to fear from peaceful responsible gun owners. That is all I have to say.”

This answers many questions that have been asked over the last few days since the security video emerged and disorderly conduct charges against him were dropped. The right to peaceably protest is one of the most cherished rights of the American people, as is the right to keep and bear arms. Open carry demonstrations are some of the most peaceful in America. There haven’t been any smashed windows, thrown stones, gasoline bombs, or blocked streets as people have so commonly seen at other demonstrations.

Bystanders are generally supportive. Open carriers have reported that they receive dozens of thumbs up for each negative comment. It appears that Dr. Steinmetz’s protest was every bit as peaceful.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Gun Watch

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. As a long time firearms instructor, I tell my students that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

    That applies in particular to carrying rifles in public for no reason other than activism.


    • This is civil rights 2.0 and we are fighting a just as entrenched and bigoted notion, as the civil rights protests regarding racism in the 50s and 60s.

      If you want to sit at the back of the bus fine, just don’t impede those that choose not to is all I would ask.

    • If you can’t even carry one for activism, protected legal protest for the 1st and 2nd amendment, then we have no rights at all.

    • This guy reminds me of the rosa park type… Sort of sounds like you are advocating not rocking the boxcar while we are quietly walking up the ramp. or can you add to your point?

    • ” for no reason other than activism.”

      You make it sound as if activism were just something trivial – activism in itself is a STRONG reason to do anything!

      As it’s been pointed out before: if it weren’t for activists, we would still have segregation and blatant racial discrimination.

    • If you are going to MAKE a statement with a long gun attach a go-pro to it to PROVE you did not point it at someone ,,,, then again BE SURE you don’t point it at some one,,,,

    • @John Boch
      “As a long time firearms instructor,…” translates to “I will be your brain regarding all matters related to firearms. Because I have a certificate that allows to teach you stand and shoot in a particular prescribed way, I’m also qualified to make decisions about how you live your life with firearms. Such as, how and when you can open carry and if and when you should protest in a particular way. I AM a firearms instructor.”

      I’m tired of this bullshit. I hear it at the morning breakfast spot and read it a million places on the webs. “You should do this, I’m a firearms instructor.” Unless I’m in your class or directly talking to you about shooting paper in a class, please STFU. You are not and never were qualified to tell an American how to exercise his or her rights. As an instructor, your only concern is to tell your students what’s legal and not legal in their state or area and teach gun safety and how to shoot paper. That’s it.

      Personally. (as a ditch digger and trash collector i’m really just giving my opinion here) I’m glad that people protest in this way. It means I don’t have to. Maybe I should, but I don’t want to. I don’t have the time. If he wants to be that guy then great. He can be my hero for a day. He’s keeps 2A issues on our minds and I’ll think of him when I go to vote.

    • I also teach an advanced, personal protection and tactical pistol course. The first 6 hours of the course deals with the inevitable, “what if” scenarios which more adequately typify an encounter.

      I think gun enthusiasts and the fury of angry responses to government attempts to disarm have given the wrong impression to the many who are only now becoming acquainted with the concept of concealed carry and protection by firearm, generally.

      In those early 6 hours, my focus is not only on whether pulling a gun is sensible in any or all situations, but what kinds of responses may in fact be more feasible.

      Additionally, I stress the value of anonymity and the element of surprise that only a well concealed firearm can present.

      Lastly, as you already said, just because you have a right doesn’t mandate acting on it. Carrying an AR 15 into an Airport – for any purpose but especially in the midst of a hyper sensitized cultural environment for the expressed purpose of “making a point” is likely to yield a result not intended, as happened in this case.

      It also makes it just a little harder to defend the whole community of gun owners – in exactly the same way, a few egregious acts by LEO have the same tendency to color an entire community of LEO.

      Common sense and good judgment generally are prerequisite to a good defense and certainly in the defense of one’s character.

      • Uh huh. And I’m sure that much like you, John B, there were many black folks worried and bothered by that uppity negro, Rosa Parks, sitting at the front of a bus. And imagine how damaging to the civil rights movement it was when coloreds peacefully sat at the same diner counter as white folk! Besides, that was actually illegal…whereas what this guy did was not.

        I’m quite glad to see open carry activists peacefully protesting the illegal, immoral, and idiotically restrictive firearms laws.

      • What happened in this case was PRECISELY what was intended, he made his point, it was accepted, and the charges were dropped. How is it you say there were unintended consequences? And, as previously mentioned, I can make up my own mind about how far to go in a protest, you are NOT an instructor in that.

    • If someone gets their affairs in order and wants to walk the path of an activist, more power to them, but its not something for John Doe to do because his friends invited him along.

      Its a sad day and age but activism is more or less required to get any meaningful change.

  2. I’m sure some “scared” person called up the police and made up that story that he pointed it at them.
    Glad the charges were dropped. He is exactly right when he says “those rights need to be exercised and protected or they will be lost.”

    • No, the police saw him and asked the lady if she felt the least bit threatened. They wanted to arrest him, they were just fishing for an excuse. Too bad for them the police state recording everything backfired on them this time. I’m sure they’ll remember to turn off backup next time.

  3. This attitude of arrest first and ask questions later by the typical cop in the U.S. is disgusting. They totally abuse their power and make frivolous or wrongful arrests just because they can and it looks good on their tally sheet.

    Even with the charges dropped, he now has a lifetime arrest record even if it gets expunges. Expungement does not work, his mugshot will forever be accessible on the internet on foreign servers.

    • Yes, because gun grabbers would be completely satisfied and finally leave our rights alone if we only carried concealed handguns in public. Or not.

        • “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it.” – You know who. There is no reasoning with a group dedicated to eradicating you. Just ask Israel.

        • B,

          You understand. I wish many more people would understand.

          I have said it on this forum before and I will say it again. Gun grabbers fully support sending government agents to ruin our lives for the “crime” of not supporting their idea of utopia on Earth. The only thing that will appease those people is our ruination. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better.

    • I am far from the PC police, but you may want to reconsider the use of the phrase “full retard.” I know a few parents of down syndrome kids who would punch someone in the face for using that term. And if their pastor used the term, it may just drive them from that church.

      • I don’t get why people are offended by that term. Sure, it can be offensive when used in a negative way, but so can nearly any term. Just like saying someone is black is not offensive unless you are spitting out the word like it tastes bad in your mouth. I know my grandma will say that someone is a retard, and not mean any ill will with the statement.

    • Paul,

      In all seriousness please tell us some examples or situations outside the home where you adamantly support the right to carry firearms openly.

      As a thought starter, I’ll throw out my recent hike at a popular and remote tourist location that has black bears, wolves, and cougars as potential four legged predators. (Moose were also possible which have a reputation for stampeding people.) And given the popular and remote aspects of the location, human predators were possible as well. So I choose to carry a .44 Magnum revolver with an 8+ inch barrel. Because that revolver is huge, it is impossible to conceal while maintaining quick and ready access. Therefore I carried it openly with a modified shoulder holster which means that it was plainly visible to any of the tourists walking toward me. Was that okay in your mind?

      When do you support openly carried handguns? When do you support openly carried long guns?

      • If only CC, or only OC, is lawful, be prepared for some obnoxious little twerp to see your OC obscured momentarily by your coat blowing over it, and arresting you, trying to remove your ability to carry at all because it was concealed. The same in reverse, when reaching for your wallet momentarily exposes your CC. Plain common sense (without quotes) says all should insist on BOTH OC and CC. I have no argument with having licensing for CC, though I see no advantage to anyone, as long as OC is either included or unlicensed. Because I want to have access to BOTH, to be free of the threat of a jackass/bully. In TX, OC of a handgun is illegal because of people like Paul, skeered bout dem nasty guns, hide ’em away. Don’t make people nervous. BS. OC of long guns is unrestricted, therefore OC long guns to illustrate how silly the law against OC of handguns is, until that law is gone.

    • Apparently ‘be respectful of others’ is not one of the commandments, eh Paulie? The doc wasn’t doing anything illegal and he wasn’t harming / endangering anyone. Perhaps I wouldn’t carry a rifle to an airport, but again, what he did was not illegal there. I’d much rather see armed citizens at the airport than put my trust in the untrained / obese TSA workers which I see so often at airports in case something were to happen.

  4. Hopefully one day we will not have to hide behind political speech and the first amendment and instead just assert the 2nd amendment rights as reason enough. Not saying the Doctor was hiding behind that but having to justify a legaly recognised right by poltical speech upsets me. The second amendment should be granted the same status as we give the first in this country.

  5. I applaud the doctor. The retribution countersuit will be strong with this one. I don’t consider the behavior we’ve seen to be irresponsible, and I respect even more the eloquently-written letter.

    • Yep. That first paragraph is a keeper. If there was one tip to take away, for all the youthful Youtuber OC types, if would be to commut that to memory, and explain same, sincerely, when approached. And dont be a d1ck.

    • Yep. That first paragraph is a keeper. If there was one tip to take away, for all the youthful Youtuber OC types, it would be to commit that to memory, and explain same, sincerely, when approached.

  6. I don’t know exactly what the ladies told the officer to get him arrested, except that the gun had been pointed at them. Apparently this was proved false by the video.
    It would seem that he has grounds for a civil suit against the two ladies??

  7. I have no plans to repeat this demonstration as I believe I have now made the important point that peaceful and responsible people can safely be trusted to handle firearms, even AR-15′s, even at the airport.

    Let me translate:
    “I realize how stupid this was, but I’m too proud to admit that, so instead I’ll just that my airport rifle OCing was soooo successful that I don’t need to do it again. Or something.”

    Well, whatever he pretends the reason is, at least he’s knocking it the hell off. Maybe he can do other legal but stupid things now, like wearing a bikini to get a cup of coffee at that same airport. He has every right to do so, and I have it on good authority that if he doesn’t exercise that right, he could very well lose it. What’s the point of having rights if we don’t use them, right? Especially the controversial ones. Right?

    Dr. Steinmetz, please post your bikini pics here after you educate the airport-goers that it’s legal for a middle-aged man to wear a bikini at the airport, and that they have nothing to be afraid of. Please hurry so we don’t lose that right! We’re counting on you!

    Rosa Parks ain’t got nothin’ on Dr. Peter N. Steinmetz.

    • Cojoe,

      I’ll be the first to admit that many people exercise their rights in a way that I find at best highly unusual and at worst disturbing. Regardless, I never condemn anyone for exercising their rights in a way that I find “unusual”, “irresponsible”, “disturbing”, “stupid”, or “unsettling”. That is the essence of liberty. As long as his exercise of his rights does not directly interfere with my life, everything is fine.

      We have to abandon this destructive idea that some mob, whether a majority or an influential minority, can define or limit how a particular group or class of people can exercise their rights. That thinking has enabled all manor of genocide throughout world history.

    • The good doctor is perfectly free to exercise his rights in any way he wants. The question is whether the way the doctor chose to exercise his 2A rights is more likely to threaten my (and your) ability to exercise them for purposes other than purported political activism or more likely to increase such ability. I happen to think stunts like the doctor’s are more likely to threaten my ability to exercise my 2A rights for defense, sporting, and recreational purposes than they are to improve that ability.

      Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus because she wasn’t allowed to sit where ever she wanted and should have been allowed to do so. The doctor (and most everyone else in Arizona) is allowed to open carry already. That’s the difference between attention-whoring and political activism.

      • Two things… 1) The fact that he was arrested tells us that government still doesn’t get shall not be infringed. 2) As a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, there will always be a need for rifle carry in public places. It is necessary.

      • So after AAs won the right the right to sit at the front of the bus then any continue activity of sitting up front would be cosidered attention whoring in your book?

      • I suppose you believe that open carrying a rifle to grab a coffee at the airport Starbucks is?

        Well I guess this clown doesn’t want to live in a free state anymore since he said he’s not going to attention whore with his rifle at the airport anymore.

        • Partially Incorrect. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the carry of rifles will always be necessary in public places. Private property such as Starbucks is debatable but the public areas of the airport are not. If the People are not routinely bearing militia useful arms in public, the deterrent and defensive value of the 2A is crippled and the first clause moot.

        • A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the carry of rifles will always be necessary in public places.

          Hey, Joe in Ohio – I think a well-trained militia would sure as hell be taught that you don’t open carry a rifle to get coffee at the airport Starbucks. A bumbling, poorly-regulated militia, on the other hand, might be inclined to open carry a rifle to get coffee at the airport Starbucks, or Chipotle, or Target, etc

          Words have meaning. So let’s get these open carry clowns well-regulated, shall we?

          1. Open carry your rifles wisely. If you really think you need to OC a rifle to get coffee at the airport Starbucks, then the smart citizen will go to a different Starbucks. The attention whore will attention whore.
          2. Other things that are common sense would be listed here as more examples of people lacking common sense are found. This End Toward Enemy kind of stuff, etc. For the idiots that would do things like OC a rifle at an airport Starbucks.
          3. $$$

        • @cojoe — Words do have meaning, but their meanings aren’t what you think they are. Oh, and you miss us with the whole “needs” argument. There doesn’t have to be a “need” to partake in an activity that already is (or should be) legal. Nobody has to justify it to anybody else. Not to you, to other citizens, to Starbucks patrons, nobody. That’s what our opposition uses.

          You’re not our opposition, are you? Could’ve fooled me, anyway.

          Engaging in strong political speech, regardless of whatever feeble (non)arguments you proffer, isn’t “attention whoring”. That’s what our opposition does.

          The only idiots here are you and everyone else who’s trying (and failing) to paint him as anything under the Sun other than a law-abiding political activist.

          P.S.: Just to remind you, if you don’t like name-calling then don’t engage in it first. Which you damned-well DID.

        • @cojoe

          Yes, words have meaning but “regulated” doesn’t mean what you think it means in the context of the second CIVIL right. Regulated doesn’t mean controlled, it means well equipped. So in your statement your wanting these OC guys/gals to have better equipment, more ammo and bigger, more effective arms. Good for you so do I. Make a bigger, better statement!

        • You either have the right or you do not. Happens he does. Where does your mouth get into the discussion? IOW, you appear to be an attention whore.

    • “Well, whatever he pretends the reason is, at least he’s knocking it the hell off. Maybe he can do other legal but stupid things now, like wearing a bikini to get a cup of coffee at that same airport. He has every right to do so, and I have it on good authority that if he doesn’t exercise that right, he could very well lose it. What’s the point of having rights if we don’t use them, right? Especially the controversial ones. Right?

      Dr. Steinmetz, please post your bikini pics here after you educate the airport-goers that it’s legal for a middle-aged man to wear a bikini at the airport, and that they have nothing to be afraid of. Please hurry so we don’t lose that right! We’re counting on you!

      Rosa Parks ain’t got nothin’ on Dr. Peter N. Steinmetz.”

      Allow me to translate: “I don’t have any real argument, but he was doing something that I don’t like, so I’m going to read straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook and persecute him for it. After all, making fun of people that not only did absolutely nothing wrong and were absolutely in the right is sooooo good at drawing people to my side of an argument.”

      Emphasis mine.

      Maybe you could do something at least half-way decent and intelligent — for once — by sparing us of your cantankerous, banal, and infantile caterwauling over legal expressions of strong political speech.

      Thanks in advance, creep.

      • So when you called me a creep and called my writing cantankerous, banal, and infantile, were you doing that because you didn’t have any “real argument” and were reading out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook, or is that your version of a “real argument”? Just curious.

        And no, I don’t approve. Just like I don’t approve of fat people walking around in tights. I don’t want it outlawed, but damn right I’m going to mock it – especially since these OCing idiots do nothing but energize our otherwise energyless opposition. What they’re doing is helping to bridge the enthusiasm gap – which is our strongest asset. Folks on our side get worked up and go and vote for (and against) people based on their gun views. Antis generally can’t be bothered – UNLESS these OCing morons plaster themselves all over the evening news and our enemy says “Someone should do something about that!”

        That’s what these idiots do. They mobilize the enemy. Whether what they’re doing is legal or not, at the end of the day it’s unnecessary and certainly unhelpful. I think the list of people who said “Well, I saw a guy with an AR-15 at the airport Starbucks and now I think guns are cool” is much smaller than the list of people who said “Well, I saw a guy with an AR-15 at the airport Starbucks and there should be a law!” There are politicians lines up to make whatever anti-gun laws people want. Maybe we shouldn’t be going out of our way to prompt people to call those politicians, eh?

        Unhelpful attention-whoring idiots. Who hurt gun rights. And yet they have cheerleaders. Great.

        • I think the list of people who said “Well, I saw a guy with an AR-15 at the airport Starbucks and now I think guns are cool” is much smaller than the list of people who said “Well, I saw a guy with an AR-15 at the airport Starbucks and there should be a law!”

          I’ll assume that you don’t open carry (handguns and long guns) because if you did then you would likely see for yourself that the first reaction you gave is the most common one encountered! So many people come up to me and others at open carry walks that didn’t know that it could be done. They are pleased at this new-to-them Liberty. Often, we see a couple of those same people at our subsequent walks. The number of people who express their displeasure are very few. Most people give thumbs up. Some walk with us right there even though they are unarmed. Many people, peace officers included, honk horns and tell us things like, “Right on!” The only really strong negative reactions we encounter are from the old media and from anti-2A individuals and nay-sayers online.

        • @ cojoe — I was pointing out that you didn’t have any real argument here, and you quite clearly don’t. Thanks for only managing to prove it further by trying (and failing) to deflect and project. Clearly, using Saul Alinsky’s plays are your tactic.

          You also clearly do not and probably refuse to understand that our opposition has remained “energyless” even with these political demonstrations, and it’s they who have to literally falsely accuse us of wrong-doing to even make us look remotely guilty. Besides that, you also refuse to understand the inescapable and all-consuming fact that our opposition will demonize us for even being alive. You’re only helping them do that.

          If you’ve ever taken the time to actually read what they say, you’d know that. Just go look at the posts highlighting all of the tacit death threats from MDA and CAGV. Go on, I dare you.

          Yes, that is what idiots like them do. And again, you’re only helping them. Whether you think something is “unnecessary” or “unhelpful” is irrelevant because 1.) you’re categorically wrong anyway and 2.) nothing you think changes that. The list of people who support open-carry is far and away longer than the list of people who scream “There ought to be a law!” and you would know this had you actually taken the time to realize just how many states allow it in most places. You’ve no grounds to make those assertions. At all. Politicians are going to make all the anti-gun laws they want regardless of what do (or don’t do), and if you want to be such a coward as to not want to rock the boat and allow challenges to our rights to go completely unanswered then that’s on you.

          Unhelpful dogmatic idiots like you are who hurt gun rights. And, thankfully, you don’t have any cheerleaders. Good. You don’t need nor deserve any.

          P.S.: And, by the way, if you want to have any room to complain about name-calling, then don’t do it first. Which you damned-well DID.

        • P.S.: And, by the way, if you want to have any room to complain about name-calling, then don’t do it first. Which you damned-well DID.

          Excedrine, I wasn’t complaining. I was calling you out on your hypocrisy. You didn’t even realize that you were being a hypocrite until I pointed it out. Think about that. You’re so blinded by your hatred that you can’t see that the very things you complain about, you are guilty of. But I guess you think it’s ok when you do it because you think your viewpoint is righteous. Well, guess what – everyone on every side of this issue thinks their viewpoint is righteous. We can’t all be right. But we’re not all obliviously hypocritical about it.

          Now why don’t you pretend that you knew you were being hypocritical, but you didn’t care because you were right and I was wrong or my opinion didn’t matter, or whatever other excuse you have. Kinda like the good doctor just happened to realize that his OC rifle campaign could be concluded because it had coincidentally reached its goals immediately after he was arrested. Pride just gets in the way.

        • @ cojoe — Except that you were complaining. And you only highlighted your own hypocrisy while failing to point it out in anything I’ve said. Maybe that’s because there just isn’t any. Yeah, that’s it. You, on the other hand, apparently don’t even care that you’re guilty of the same hypocrisy that you’re only trying to project back onto me after I pointed yours out to you. I only reserve hatred for those that deserve it, and among those that deserve it (and the most) are those that would deny our civil rights. While you don’t, you’re only aiding those that do by falsely painting people as something they’re not simply for doing something that you don’t like, or are doing something in a way that you don’t like. Not only are you being hypocritical about this, but you’re being hypocritical about this because you’re covering for a blatant lie that I proved that you told.

          You need to think about that.

          Pride has absolutely nothing to do with this, either, and unless and until you can actually articulate just how it does you can go ahead and stow that (non)argument where the Sun doesn’t shine, too. No, we can’t all be right about this, which is precisely why you’re still wrong and will continue to be wrong. Not to mention hypocritical.

        • “…otherwise energyless opposition.”

          1934 Gun Control Act
          1968 National Firearms Act
          1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (banning full-autos henceforth made)
          1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban
          Thousands of state and local prohibitions.
          etc., etc.

          Is that the “otherwise energyless opposition” you’re talking about?

  8. I think we need to be looking to the gay lobby for cues on this one.

    OC of long guns = gay pride parades. It scares the fence-sitters and does nothing to advance our rights on other fronts. The optics are terrible. (Need evidence of this? Call Target or Starbucks.) We need to find ways to help people understand that we are peaceable and nonthreatening. This isn’t it.

    Pointing out how many people are licensed for CCW is awesome. Pointing out how many states are now Vermont carry without blood in the streets is awesome. Tasteful carry of holstered sidearms **in the right places** is awesome.

    We are winning. Let’s not foul this up.

    Rosa Parks didn’t pick her seat in a vacuum. She was backed by a well-organized group that had very clear short and long-term objectives. Let’s take note.

    • To add to what I think is John M.’s point, gay rights have not seen their recent expansion because of flamboyant parades. They rights have been won by well-organized, well-funded political activism and strategic litigation. The rights have been expanded despite the parades, not because of them.

      Also, as I said above, Rosa Parks didn’t already have her rights when she took her stand. The Rosa Parks analogy doesn’t work here. If open carry was illegal in Arizona, I would support the doctor. But it’s legal. The doctor is just grandstanding, not protesting or advocating.

      • Except the doctor wasn’t grandstanding and was protesting and advocating. If you actually knew anything about history, which you have only quite clearly demonstrated here that you don’t, then you’d know for a fact that demonstrations were absolutely integral to the expansion of civil rights. It’s hilarious that you even mention Rosa Parks out of your willful ignorance, because it was ONLY the subsequent boycott of the city buses that she rode that finally forced the hand of the local government to finally desegregate them.

        Do you have anything to back up your demonstrably false assertions or are you just going to continue being obtuse, ignorant, and obstinate?

        • If you can identify “a demonstrably false assertion” that I made, I’ll be glad to back it up.

        • The demonstrably false assertion that the Doctor was “grandstanding”. This instead of, y’know, actually advocating and protesting (which you falsely claim he wasn’t doing) — which are exactly the only things he was actually doing there. I’m not holding my breath for you to be able to back that up, either, because you can’t and you and I both damned-well know it.

      • The right to keep and bear arms is unique from all of the others enumerated in the Bill of Rights in that it is necessary to the security of a free state. That is why it shall not be infringed. It only serves government’s purposes in the long run to allow the individual right to keep and bear arms to be infringed. Supporting any gun control from an individual perspective is myopic and self-defeating.

        The fact that he was arrested at all indicates that more open carrying of long guns needs to happen. If it were still hit and miss for Rosa Parks to get harassed or arrested then more work would have to be done. Same deal for OC.

    • If it’s licensed then it isn’t being exercised as a right. It is being exercised as a privilege. If we were to focus solely on licensed carry then the privilege would eventually replace the right entirely.

      • John,

        I’m on your team here. I want less restriction on gun ownership/possession. Much, much less. I doubt we differ much on desired outcomes. I’m quibbling with the method for how to achieve that. I don’t think that one lone guy at the airport with an AR moves us in the direction you think it does. Step out of the echo chamber for a few minutes. There are people who are on the fence regarding gun laws. Talk to some of them to see what they think about this. I assure you, seeing people wandering around “normal” places with rifles doesn’t make them feel comfortable.

        I get that Shannon Watts is paid to feel uncomfortable by the guns in my safe. She’s not going to get moved much by anything any of us do, at PHX Sky Harbor Airport or elsewhere. Shannon isn’t the type of person we should be worrying about. There are legions of people who are currently letting us win this fight because they don’t care very much about it. If we keep pulling stunts like this, then they will care, and it won’t be in the way you want them to care.

        • If we don’t continue to exercise the right to openly bear arms then that right will disappear. Frankly, I’d rather an outright ban occur than this, “it’s a right but…” nonsense. At least when government bans something, the People know what hour it is.

          Let me clarify; I don’t care what the antis do. I really, really, really, really, really, really, don’t give a shit. I am free and will remain so even if it makes me a criminal under tyrannical law. I’m not alone.

    • We need to find ways to help people understand that we are peaceable and nonthreatening. This isn’t it.

      What makes you think so? There may be zillions of people out there who think they are only safe because of laws preventing people from having guns, much less actually CARRYING them out in the open. TX is big on that, allowing CC only so as not to frighten the sheep. Actions like this are intended to inform people that they are literally surrounded by guns every day they leave the house, and have been for many years. Thus allowing them to discover that “peaceable and nonthreatening” does not require “disarmed”. When a man can do this and not even be reported to the police, it will no longer be necessary. Until then, it IS.

  9. Thanks Dean, great reporting, and especially filling out more background on OCTC on your blog at GunWatch. Thats a great resource.

    That picture of folks in a group, with the flag flying walking along the road reminds me of the event at the Alamo. Very effective imagery, and an example of how to do OC demos well, IMHO.

  10. The tiny, but very vocal, minority of gun owners that support OC are eventually going to lose. Stunts like the Dr’s are only accelerating the process. You can’t even convince most gun people it’s a good idea, let alone the millions sitting on the fence. I don’t think we’ll have to endure too many more ARs at the airport Starbucks in the future.

    • You mean the large and very vocal majority of gun owner that support open carry that aren’t going to lose? This isn’t just some stupid stunt and I can guaran-damn-tee you that you couldn’t even begin to construe just why it would be, either. Most gun people are already convinced that it’s a good idea, though the fence-sitters are another story (and it’s not yours). It’s funny that you even speak of Starbucks from your willful ignorance: Starbucks not only did not out-right ban guns from their stores — and no they did not — but they also didn’t even their (non)ban.

      • Starbucks is where this Dr. carried out his “protest”. And it is a tiny fraction of gun owners that actively support the idea of OC. Most of us grew out of the “trying to get attention” stage in our teens.

        • And? They still don’t ban guns or open-carry in their stores in that state. It’s actually a majority of gun owners that support open-carry. Most of us grew out of the whole “let’s fry so-and-so because he’s doing something that some of us don’t like” stage in high school, too. Did you?

        • You have an almost unique ability to miss the point in anyone else’s post. You’re blinded by hatred and a simplistic world view. Best of luck with that.

        • WTF makes you think so? It appears that the “point” in most of your drivel is to insult other people, because you have no argument. Just where do you get your unfounded assertion that most POTG oppose OC? Because that is completely ridiculous, “shall not be infringed” does not have “as long a you keep them out of sight of the weenies” appended to it.

        • @ lizzrd — Even though I’m not the one basking in utter willful ignorance and complete historical illiteracy as to how rights are preserved with demonstrations — not despite them. The only ones full of hatred here are you and the rest of your jolly misfits in the Anti-OC Clown Patrol. Civil rights are pretty simple, Einstein: we all have them and it is literally our civic dutyand ours alone — to preserve them. Good luck wallowing in your own clear and pervasive prejudice.

    • Open carry in some form, whether licensed, unlicensed, handguns, long guns, whatever, is already legal in the majority of states. People can and do debate whether open carry is tactically prudent from self-defense standpoint. However, when so many states with such a large percentage of the national population allow some kind of open carry, it seems untenable to assert that none but a tiny percentage of firearm owners support the underlying right to open carry.

      • Sorry, I was speaking of gun owners who actively support OC. I should have made the distinction. Like most gun owners – and most people in general – I’d like to see as few laws on the books as possible. But even in the 44 states where OC is legal in one form or another, only a tiny percentage of gun owners do so. I don’t want to see anyone thrown in jail just for being an attention whore, but like most gun owners, I realize the silliness of the concept and the damage it can do in the long run.

        • “I don’t want to see anyone thrown in jail just for being an attention whore,”

          Complete and total logic fail.

          You ASSUME people OC to be ‘attention whores.’ That does not make it true.

          And even if it IS true in a SPECIFIC instance, SO WHAT?

          What psychopathology drives your impulse to so define other people’s behavior or to request or dictate motivations? Do you not understand what the term “right” even means?

          That you are even talking/complaining about “why” someone chooses to Open Carry blatantly demonstrates that you do not, in fact, understand that term.

        • I’m perfectly aware of what the term “right” means to me. I’m also positive that it differs from your definition. Given that, I don’t think we’re going to make much progress in persuading one another that they’re wrong.

          And yeah, OC in public places is all about attention, whether the stated excuse is “education”, “deterrence”, or “camaraderie”.

        • “And yeah, OC in public places is all about attention,”

          Wow, that’s closed minded.

          Albert Einstein quote, slightly paraphrased: Beware of thinking you KNOW something, as that closes your mind and you cease all understanding.

          There are many reasons to OC in public places, and none of them are any of your business (to criticize or comment upon) if the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, indeed, a right.

          I’m beginning to think the anti-OC crowd is the new FUDD bunch.

        • Funny thing is, when you ask people for their support for a cause – which is what the OC “protesters” are doing – the reasons why they want to do so become very relevant. So far, I haven’t heard a single good reason to support it.

        • “So far, I haven’t heard a single good reason to support it.”

          That may be because you have a VERY narrow definition of “good reason.”

          Plenty of people support OC and your assertions that OC support is a minority view is unfounded.

          Handgun OC gaining ground in Texas by all reports, so negativism against activists is likewise unfounded.

          But hey, believe whatever fantasies about OC you want. Just do us all a favor and don’t spout off those fantasies as “fact” unless you have actual data to back it up.

        • @ lizzrd — Just because very few gun owners choose to open-carry does not autoatically mean that very few support it. This position is completely untennable in light of the vey fact that you highlighted: it is legal in 44 tates, which must mean it has popular majority support. Otherwise, that would have changed long ago. New Flash: it hasn’t. Which means you’re wrong. Again. Still. More.

          The only thing that you actually realize (or damned-well should by now anyway) is how utterally and completely wrong you really well and truly are.

          Well, the funny thing is is that your definition of what a right is is also very clearly wrong, just like literally everything else you’ve said here (which I have in fact proven whether you acknowledge that fact or not). And, uh, no open-carry is not all about attention. Once and again, you couldn’t even begin to articulate as to exactly how or why that is beyond your own personal misgivings about it. Which, I reiterate, are irrelevant because you’re still wrong. Again. Still. More.

          So, with all that being said (and sans reproach by you or anyone else in the Anti-OC Clown Patrol for that matter), what you’ve actually not heard is one single reason not to support it.

  11. I’m not clear on what activism he’s engaged in. Isn’t open carry already legal in Arizona? And without a license, at that. Activists OC long guns in some other states, where legal, but toward the purpose of legalizing open carry of handguns. Arizona already has that, though.

    Regardless, firearm activism is best carried out in a more organized fashion, such as with larger groups, ideally under the aegis of an organized group. There should be t-shirts, signage, literature, a website for further information, advance notice to the police, invitations to the media, and a designated articulate spokesperson to answer questions. Maybe even guest speakers.

    One lone jackwagon doing his own impromptu thing attracts the wrong type of attention and forfeits control of the message to others. Maybe it’s damaging, or not, but it’s hardly helpful. We need to focus our activism on productive and coordinated efforts, not lone wolf distractions.

    • Nobody’s “forfeiting control of the message” to anybody. The legion of greasy creeps in the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex are going to belittle, villainize, and marginalize us regardless of what we do. The difference is that we are right, are in the right, and must be falsely accused of doing no-no’s in order to even remotely appear guilty of anything. It is incidents like this that are helpful. To us. Not them.

      • Really? This doctor’s antics and arrest made national, even international news. It was the topic of repeated email blasts from antis. Millions of people heard the initial incomplete/inaccurate version of events, with nothing thereafter to counter it, let alone to preempt it.

        Of those, how many are now aware that the charges were dropped? How many have read the good doctor’s statement? Hmmm? Go take your own poll and find out for yourself. Spoiler alert: it won’t be many.

        Then come back and try to regale us with a telling of the tale, emphasizing with evidence his oh so masterful management of his message. He pulled his stunt and let the antis write the history because he went alone and did zero prep work. He forfeited. I only hope he practices medicine with greater competence than he does activism.

        • “Really? This doctor’s antics and arrest made national, even international news. It was the topic of repeated email blasts from antis. Millions of people heard the initial incomplete/inaccurate version of events, with nothing thereafter to counter it, let alone to preempt it.”

          Your theory is wrong because it depends on those people who know little about the situation to be affected in some meaningful way. They are not. There are also a considerable number that get the message that open carry at the airport was legal, but this doctor made the mistake of pointing his gun at some people, which, even though false, still gets out the message that open carry was legal. But mostly that “public opinion” theory of how the political world works is simply false, at least for issues where there is an organized, dedicated activist group, such as exists in second amendment supporters.

          The idea that “fence sitters” will become activists because of old media propaganda on an issue such as this is false, if you assume that most of them will become activists against the second amendment. The history of the last 30 years shows that it works the other way. This will actually bring many more activists in support of the second amendment than it will on the other side.

          If the anti-armed population groups cannot gain activists with something like Sandy Hook, and they did not, they certainly will not gain them from this incident.

          But the pro-second amendment side will.

        • That reply was so overflowing with fail, that I was embarrassed for you as I read it. First, it isn’t my “theory”, rather just an observation of the events, and they are not disputed. He went alone with no organization or advance planning of his message, yes or no? He was arrested, yes/no? Headlines around the world screamed “Open carry doc arrested at airport, suspended from job!”, or substantially similar, yes or no? Charges were dropped days later, with little fanfare, less coverage, and deep in the copy mention of the reason why, yes or no? He released his little explanatory statement even later to even less broad coverage. Go google the hits and sites on each development’s coverage if you don’t believe me.

          Next, you just started flailing: Media messages don’t influence fence sitters. Then, yes they do because now everyone knows OC is legal. Then, no they don’t because Sandy Hook changed nothing. It’s dizzying watch you spin like that.

          What people came away with, is that OC, even if legal, with get you arrested and suspended from your job. You get to pay a lawyer. You get humiliated in the media. You probably would get fired, if you were a regular guy and not a famous scientist. Your all’s well that ends well fable doesn’t hold water. People rightly conclude that OC is at best a paper principle. In practice, it will cost you plenty. So it’s essentially illegal, at least at the airport.

          As for Sandy Hook, that’s the most shameful comparison I’ve seen in some time. A killer on a rampage doesn’t necessarily move people to support a given countermeasure to prevent that in the future. Reasonable people will differ on such things. That’s an entirely different matter from that of assessing what conclusions people draw about the current state of firearms law and practice, based on what this guy did. Again, the greater number of eyeballs saw tge world come down on him, than did see him exonerated. Even the latter group saw the hassle he endured and could reasonably be expected to conclude it isn’t worth it to exercise this right. At which point, it becomes an atrophied, paper right. All of this because he went alone with no plan.

        • “What people came away with, is that OC, even if legal, with get you arrested and suspended from your job.”

          Most probably won’t read about the six figure settlement with the Airport Authority he will agree to, either. You can be sure, however, that the police that work there will hear from their bosses that they better have damn strong grounds for arresting an OCer, and they damn well better have solid evidence. Word will spread in the LEO community that in AZ OC is legal and if you bust someone just for OCing your department is going to get its ass sued off.

          And that, my friend, is a win for us.

        • Jonathan-Houston:

          You simply ignore the thrust of my reply, which is that the way this affects the political world is not the way that you think it does.

          Momentary coverage such as this does not have a significant effect in turning fence-sitters into activists against the second amendment. If anything it creates more activists for the second amendment, as those who are interested explore the issue.

          I mention the example of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook, because it is a far more significant message, and was hounded into the public as a negative associated with rifle ownership much more than this event ever will be. Yet, as the coverage died down, the support for stricter controls on guns had *dropped* not risen.

          So, what I am saying is that your understanding of how these events affect politics is not what the old media has preached to us for decades. It is different. It is part of the picture that has been well documented, that the greater the negative coverage against the NRA, the more members they get.

          It is counter-intuitive, and a little hard to wrap your head around. I thought the way you do, until I started studying what actually happened in the last 50 years or so, to public opinion.

          The best easy way to understand it is Professor Brian Anse Patrick’s book, “Rise of the Anti-Media”, which I have referenced before.

        • PeterZ:

          We do not know if the Doctor will get a large settlement or not. It may happen, but there are certainly lots of powerful people and interests that do not want to see that happen.

          As Jonathan – Houston noted, the Doctor could have done this a good deal better. I can think of quite a few ways it could have been improved. There are a lot of lessons here for everyone.

          Of course, with a little more planning, the Doctor would likely never have been arrested, and this would not have made much news.

        • Jonathan, I think Dean is on to something here, as I’d have assumed same as you, a couple years ago.

          But there is a great sea-change underway now, and its not just awareness of 2A rights. A big part of it is the realization just how corrupt the “old media” has become, on purpose.

          My sense is that most Americans still believe in basic, decency, fairness, and instinctively root for the little guy, whether you call yourself Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

          But you touch a deep sense of outrage, when you lie to US, and the realization its been happening, in colusion especially with this Progressive POTUS, is still building, like a tsunami, and seasoned objective PR pros and newspapermen see the water draining from the shallows, and are moving to higher ground, quietly.

          Others, in denial, because they just can’t imagine anything but that they are smarter, ie The Elite Who Know Whats Best For Us Little People, continue on, and as more evidence of same emerges, the wave of outrage will come crashing ashore…

        • As in my other comment. 87 articles dealt with the initial arrest. 152 dealt with the political statement, and most of the original 87 followed up with the political statement/activism story. So based on those numbers, the number of people seeing the more positive message would have exceeded the negative message by 74%.

  12. Anyone who compares this douchebag to Rosa Parks doesn’t know much about Rosa Parks, or the incredible sacrifices she and her husband made as a result of a single act of civil disobedience.

    Doing something that’s completely legal, yet stupid, is not civil disobedience.

    I believe the first amendment protects our right to say what we want. But saying stupid things doesn’t secure that right.

    I believe the second amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. But doing stupid things with guns doesn’t secure that right, either.

    • Except he wasn’t saying anything “stupid”, and he wasn’t even doing anything “stupid”, either. He was exercising his rights exactly as he should be able to, and was falsely accused of wrong-doing by those who simply don’t like what he was doing.

      That’s it.

      If you don’t exercise your rights, you lose them. End of.

      Big -1.

      • They’re all necessary to the security of a free state. Just because an amendment doesn’t use those words, doesn’t mean it’s not necessary to preserve freedom. The founders certainly thought the second amendment was important, but it is second after all (right after one that protects your ability to think and speak freely).

        • The statement was italicized because it was a quote. The 2A states explicitly that it is necessary to the security of a free state. I agree that the others are implicitly necessary but only in one did they apparently believe it important enough to state it explicitly. I take it at face value that the words mean what they do and that the order of mention isn’t as important as what the words actually mean. 😉

  13. I’m pretty sure Dr. Who is anti gun. I’m sure it works for you when you’re that smart and have a time machine at your disposal.

    • I wouldn’t necessarily call him anti-gun. I mean, he carries a Webley revolver (and uses it more than once). It seems that he’s staunchly anti-violence as much as he can be.

    • Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart might have something to say about that. “Corporal Benson, chap with the wings. Five rounds rapid fire!”

  14. The Dr. states that he carries his AR to protect himself and other citizens, yet if he had to use his AR at the airport collateral damage could be devastating. I garner we all know that .556 will often go right through a human.
    To me, open carry of an AR is for a war zone, a post-apocalyptic world, or the Zombie Apocalypse.
    I’m 2A all the way, my friends. I just believe we need to carry the right tool for the job.

    Hope for the best, train for the worst.

    • If 5.56 x 45 mm ammunition is so likely to overpenetrate and cause collateral damage, then why does almost every deputy, police officer, and federal alphabet soup agent carry a rifle chambered in 5.56 x 45 mm ??????

      More to the point, I have not heard about 5.56 x 45 mm tending to overpenetrate and be dangerous to bystanders. Could it happen? Sure … any bullet could overpenetrate. Is it a major concern? Not in my book.

  15. If OC is legal in AZ, then that ‘s fine. Let the man be. I personally don’t think these protest tactics will do much for gun rights, but time will tell.

    Politics aside, I have always had tactical reservations about OC. Even where OC is legal, most people in a public place won’t be OC’ing (Most people won’t carry concealed weapons either; it’s not for everybody). So if I was a predator (which I am not; I’m on the other side) planning a commercial robbery or mass shooting, OC might make my “job” a little easier.

    Before I do the deed, I might conduct some pre-incident surveillance. One of the goals would be to look for armed citizens. When the time comes, I would first eliminate these armed citizens before concerning myself with those that pose less of a threat. Remember, human predators–like predators elsewhere in the animal kingdom–are not looking for a fair fight. They are looking for easy victims. Anyone who looks like they could be a threat (OC’er, people in uniforms, etc) will be targeted first.

    This is why I believe that concealed carry is tactically superior. Yes, OC does make some people uncomfortable and I don’t enjoy making others uncomfortable. But, the primary reasons I would not OC (unless it is on the job) are: 1.) I lose the element of surprise and 2.) I become an obvious target for predators.

    I’d appreciate some feedback on this, as I am pretty new to TTAG. Thanks.

    • Call Security!,

      There are pros and cons to both concealed and open carry. You stated the major advantage of concealed carry: the element of surprise and reducing your chances of being the first target. You also overlooked the major advantage of open carry: deterrence and never having to defend yourself in the first place. Remember, many thugs want an easy target and an armed person is not an easy target.

      There are additional advantages to open carry: everyone can carry full size handguns. (Most people cannot successfully conceal full size handguns.) And you can carry a full size handgun in the most comfortable manner possible.

      In case you are not aware, full size handguns produce greater muzzle velocity, reduce felt recoil (because of their increased weight) which enables faster follow-up shots, and are more accurate (because of their longer sight radius).

      And the final advantage of open carry: you can carry rifles which are always superior to handguns in combat.

      • Thank you. Fair point on deterrence. Naturally I had that in mind, as it’s an obvious OC advantage. I guess I got involved in my critique of OC and didn’t think to mention it. Good catch. My only concern here is that action is always faster than reaction. If a criminal is confident in his ability to draw quickly, he or she (ok, probably he in these cases) he may decide to take advantage of this fact.

        • Usually, I can deploy a firearm faster from an openly carried method than I can from a concealed one. This is probably typical of many people. I see a lot of concealed carriers who print significantly, so they have the disadvantages of concealed carry against them without the advantages of open carry. They might be slower on the draw than if they were open carrying. Generally, I would think that drawing from open carry would be faster than from concealed carry against the rarer criminal you are discussing. I think that if the criminal is to the point of action and is not deterred by open carry then the extra time drawing from concealed carry would put the law abiding citizen at greater risk than open carry would in the first place. In other words, if the person was targeted regardless of carry method then open carry might give a time advantage to that person.

        • Also, I believe that public perception of a mixture of concealed carriers and open carriers being present at any point in time is a good deterrent as well. For every person carrying openly, how many are carrying concealed? The brighter criminal would be wise to consider that if they attack this person open carrying, how many are concealed carrying in the vicinity. The open carriers remind criminals that people are armed there and the concealed carriers remind the criminals that they can’t be sure who is and who isn’t anywhere. Constitutional carry adds to this beneficial deterrent.

    • “When the time comes, I would first eliminate these armed citizens before concerning myself with those that pose less of a threat.

      This assumes that OC-ers have zero situational awareness. That might not be a good guess for the violent attacker. It’s a roll of the dice.

      “Remember, human predators–like predators elsewhere in the animal kingdom–are not looking for a fair fight. They are looking for easy victims. Anyone who looks like they could be a threat (OC’er, people in uniforms, etc) will be targeted first.

      This is incorrect. Studies show that they will absolutely NOT target that threat first; they will AVOID that attack and seek victims elsewhere where they see no threat at all.

      The relevant term is “thin slicing” as it pertains to victim selection. William Aprill has talked about this sort of thing a lot. You may want to seek out some of his work / talks on this subject.

      Here’s one interview to get you started:


      Transcript of that same program:

      The idea that bad actors will select out OC-ers is a popular notion, but is not consistent with how they really process information when selecting victims.

      • Clarification: I certainly should not say what people WILL do or WILL NOT do…but rather something like “will likely do” is a better way to put it.

      • Thanks JR. If they are carrying openly, I hope they do have solid situational awareness. OC infers that you will “do something” in a situation where others are running for their lives, so you would have to have a different mindset than the average citizen who walks around with their head down playing with their smartphone. I appreciate the links. I’ll look at them, because I concede that my thinking on this topic could be way off.

        • “If they are carrying openly, I hope they do have solid situational awareness. “

          Everyone should have solid situational awareness…carrying or not, and without regard to mode of carry.

          One has to detect a threat before one can respond to it, whether that response is to run like the wind or whatever.

  16. I understand the tactical reservations on OCing. But it just doesn’t pass the smell test that a criminal would walk into a 7-11 with intent to rob while armed, see a cop, and walk out, but if he sees an armed citizen, he thinks “Free gun” and shoots him. I just don’t see many (any) articles where that has happened.

    • Precisely.

      And, there is at least one case where the armed robbers did not rob a place because they saw an OC-ing customer inside before entering (happened in Georgia).

      I chalk this particular assertion people make about OC as Geezer Science…”I heard someone say it, sounded ‘good,’ so I’ll repeat it as truth.”

  17. If the good doctor and activist were a blonde female model who did the same thing, would several men have complained (lied) that she pointed the gun at them? Would the policia have detained her? hmm.

  18. Call Security…you are thinking like a Sheepdog. In other words, your process is that you have no choice but to complete the task at the chosen location and at the appointed time.

    Criminals know they have multiple choices of locations and times that they can rob you. So they choose to rob your home when you are away. They give no thought to having to take you out, they simply avoid you, armed or not. Similarly, evil people choose locations that are by law going to be undefended, like various gun free zones. The evil and criminal among us do not make plans to have to kill armed civilians or agents of the state, they by and large decide to simply avoid them. Which means that the only thing you likely have to deal with while OCing is other people uncomfortability.

    • Right. William Aprill puts it this way. Their decision is simply “Go” or “No Go” and the default answer is ALWAYS “No Go” because they have time on their side. Unless they very quickly see indicators that slide it from “No Go” to “Go,” it’s off somewhere else to try again.

      There just is not evidence that violent actors specifically target OC-ers.

    • Lol, yeah I see what you mean. I’m beginning to notice the advantages and disadvantages of this style of thinking. I guess it has developed due to my background in protection work.

      The way you explain it makes perfect sense, based on my knowledge of criminological theory (especially those theories related to environmental crime control, such as routine activities theory, crime prevention through environmental design, etc). The fact that criminals wish to avoid surveillance (natural or electronic) is just obvious to me. And I said myself that predators are looking for EASY victims. Yet I made the leap and said that their response to someone OC’ing will be to take them out (rather than just avoiding them). Interesting. I mean, it could happen if they are “professionals”, but I think my error here is giving criminals more credit–for courage– than they really deserve.

      Thanks for helping me realize the contradictions in my thought process. This has been very educational.

      • Call Security!,

        Realistically, the only time that open carry is a significant liability is if an assassin (or assassins) intends to kill several people at some location. If that is the case and they have any brains at all, they will look for anyone that is armed and kill them first. In that scenario concealed carry would be a significant advantage unless the assassins happen to target you first anyways. Of course such events are exceedingly rare compared to violent thugs attacking someone.

        I recommend evaluating each situation and doing whatever seems most prudent. Remember, the only guarantees in life are taxes and death.

  19. Re: the photo

    It’s probably because I’m tired but I serious though she had some sort of RPG or LAW on her back at first. I just wondered what state she was in…

  20. STOP comparing OC to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s!! Not being allowed to carry your tacticool boomstick wherever and whenever you want does not compare to being legally discriminated against by virtue of your skin color. Also no one is murdering you when you try to vote, beating you to death with axe handles, leaving your body in a swamp, etc. As a gun owner and a Historian I am EMBARESSED every time I see someone compare gun owners ‘plight’ to the civil rights movement! Just stop!

    • “Also no one is murdering you when you try to vote, beating you to death with axe handles, leaving your body in a swamp, etc.”

      You left out the part where the POLICE will most certainly KILL you if you insist on carrying ANY firearm openly in Hawaii, California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

      So yeah, this is a civil rights movement akin to the 1950s and 1960s.

    • “Not being allowed to carry your tacticool boomstick wherever and whenever you want”

      But, but…the issues in ALL of the OC stories is that they are carrying where they ARE allowed to.

      So, I’m not sure what you are trying to say, here, because it seems that you are completely missing the MUCH LARGER point.

      The doctor was “allowed” to carry his rifle where he was. He was not arrested for OC of a rifle. He was FALSELY ARRESTED for doing something that DID NOT HAPPEN.

      So, does THAT pass muster as violation of a civil right? Does the Fourth Amendment mean anything?

  21. For people who are against open carry, you must live in a state where it is not a crime to print while carrying concealed. When ranting about how stupid people are for even considering it, maybe it’s because we want more freedoms. In Arkansas printing is illegal to print. Think about that before you call someone stupid.

  22. Translation of the statement from Dr. Selfie: It was all a political stunt.

    This guy gets my vote for the irresponsible gun owner of the month award.

  23. I support gun ownership.But the next clown I see open carrying im going to beat to death with a baseball bat.

    This doctor, had he been black would have been shot dead on the spot.
    And if you do not have the intellectual honestly to admit that to yourself thank you have no moral right to even own a gun.

  24. Given the discussion about the effects on the media of this demonstration, it is interesting to note that 87 articles covered the initial arrest (with varying degrees of accuracy). 152 articles covered the press statement and making a political statement about gun rights.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here