Previous Post
Next Post
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.


“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 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

Previous Post
Next Post


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

        • 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?

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

          • 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.

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

        • 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.

        • 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?

        • 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…

  2. 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.

      • 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.

        • 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

          • 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.

          • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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”.

        • @ 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?

          • 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?

        • 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.

          • “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?

        • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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….

        • 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.

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

        • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

        • ” 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

        • @ 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.

          • 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.

        • @ 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.

        • “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.

        • 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.

    • 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.

          • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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?

          • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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. 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

  5. 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.

    • 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!!

  6. 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.

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

      • Most are untrained, unskilled idiots.

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

        • 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.

          • 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?

        • 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.

          • 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.

    • 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….

      • 😉 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.

  7. 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.