Balanced Article on Open Carry in the NY Times


PDA






Speedo66
March 8, 2010, 08:05 AM
Just saw this, and it's pretty fairly written.

It includes Starbuck's reasoning on their open carry decision, and some positive comments about open carry by another business owner.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of open carry for some the reasons mentioned in the article. But I understand its use as pressure to gain concealed carry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/us/08guns.html?hp

If you enjoyed reading about "Balanced Article on Open Carry in the NY Times" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Shung
March 8, 2010, 09:41 AM
1st of April is a long way to go :p , you won't fool me..

ClayInTX
March 8, 2010, 09:54 AM
What I liked about the article, and was surprised by, is the NY times seemed unbiased in its reporting.

Texas does not allow open carry but I wish it did and hope it eventually will. However, I still wouldn’t open carry should it be allowed. The benefit of open carry, for me, is that I would still be legal if someone caught sight of my gun.

svaz
March 8, 2010, 09:59 AM
I support open carry. In some jurisdictions it's one's only option. However, I'd like to have (no CCW for me, yet) piece of mind without having to advertise or get State permission to exercise my right to be secure in my person from the GGs & the BGs.

As for the article - in the NYT? Wow. Just, wow.

Of course they couldn't have run the picture of the guy in the shirt & tie - it's got to be cammies, always cammies. Why does anyone show up to a protest/advocacy function in the single most stereotypical garb possible? Was he sporting a John Deere cap too? Maybe a CSA hubcap belt buckle to round out the ensemble?

I'm all for creature comforts, but, damn, dress for success already.

docnyt
March 8, 2010, 10:04 AM
deleted

Legionnaire
March 8, 2010, 10:10 AM
It is pretty balanced, although it does seem to highlight the dissent among 2A supporters. But the last paragraphs are a positive close, noting that open carry is really a "non-issue."

janedoedad
March 8, 2010, 10:19 AM
If enough people Open-Carry it WILL become a non-issue. That is what the goal is.

I OC and CC depending on mood and attire. While OC sometimes gets noticed, no one has said anything about it to me yet.

shockwave
March 8, 2010, 10:30 AM
Body of article for lazy browsers like me:

Very unwise. That's a serious copyright violation and NYT tends to take those seriously. No more than 3 paragraphs, max, is allowed under fair use. You expose this board to liability by reproducing content here in full without written permission. (Of course, if they gave you permission, let us know.)

Per some other comments, the NYT is very staid, very centrist and their op-ed board has a bunch of major conservatives on it.

docnyt
March 8, 2010, 10:42 AM
Very unwise. That's a serious copyright violation and NYT tends to take those seriously. No more than 3 paragraphs, max, is allowed under fair use. You expose this board to liability by reproducing content here in full without written permission. (Of course, if they gave you permission, let us know.)

Per some other comments, the NYT is very staid, very centrist and their op-ed board has a bunch of major conservatives on it.
OK I deleted my post. Too expensive for copyright permission to post on the forum. Apologies to all concerned for that brief (less than 1 hour)period it was online. I just thought it would be easier for THR members to read here rather than open a link.

shockwave
March 8, 2010, 11:37 AM
I just thought it would be easier for THR members to read here rather than open a link.

Hey - it's perfectly fine to post a key paragraph or two. That's fully legal. Then link to the original and it's all good. "Fair use" allows for that. But thanks for taking care of business - appreciated.

bhk
March 8, 2010, 11:51 AM
Yep, my wife used to write a small circulation newsletter for her office. She would often print portions of newspaper articles, with permission. Most sources gave permission for free, the NYT would charge $100.

cleardiddion
March 8, 2010, 12:05 PM
Never really thought I'd see a day where OC would come out in a well written from the NYT. Maybe times are really changing.

Mainsail
March 8, 2010, 12:30 PM
“I’m all for open-carry laws,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights advocacy organization in Washington State. “But I don’t think flaunting it is very productive for our cause. It just scares people.”

Kinda disappointing that a lawyer doesn't know that there aren't, in most states, open carry laws. It's the lack of a law barring open carry that makes it legal. Being that he and I are in the same state, I have to wonder if he's ever observed anyone scared by an openly carried firearm, because that's never been my experience. I saw maybe two people that expressed anger, but never fear. Regardless, I've lost a lot of respect for the man. Ancient biases die hard, and the idea that someone endorses firearms only if it’s done their way demonstrates little more than arrogant bigotry, that’s how the term “Fud” got started. No thanks Al.

”You have to wonder where their next frontier will be,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Will gun owners start trying to carry firearms openly into banks, on subways and buses, in schools?”
Banks - yes
Subways - don't have any but would
Buses - yes
Schools - currently illegal so no.

rm23
March 8, 2010, 12:37 PM
Mr. Higgins said the meet-ups were not meant to be confrontational. The hope, he said, is that if other restaurant or cafe patrons are uncomfortable with guns being displayed so conspicuously, pressure will increase on lawmakers to consider changing the law so that weapons can be carried more discreetly.

Is this guy serious? The only pressure on lawmakers will be to ban open carry and keep concealed carry out of reach. If all the antis stop seeing guns, they're just going to be paranoid.

Bobarino
March 8, 2010, 01:05 PM
Kinda disappointing that a lawyer doesn't know that there aren't, in most states, open carry laws.

43 states allow open carry in one form or another.

Bobby

Bobarino
March 8, 2010, 01:16 PM
oops! how'd that happen?

Maj.Striker
March 8, 2010, 02:17 PM
”You have to wonder where their next frontier will be,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Will gun owners start trying to carry firearms openly into banks, on subways and buses, in schools?”

So what if they do, Paul? What's wrong with that? He's asking the wrong questions...

svaz
March 8, 2010, 03:14 PM
I saw maybe two people that expressed anger, but never fear

And that's the part that cracks me up.

Some of these antis can get real irate on the street (esp. in front of cameras) and they rant on about how they are "terrified of guns or gun people" but let's seem them rant that way to gen-u-wine gangbangers - armed or not.

Hell no they wouldn't because they know, in their angel-pure little heart of hearts, that the guy OCing at Starbucks is not a threat, but that punk sporting the Crips tats will beat the living crap out of them, with fists, sticks, a stale bran muffin, or the Styrofoam cup of their double soy frapachino banana and broccoli latte.

I hate prima donnas, both for their hysterics and their spineless hypocrisies.

hnk45acp
March 8, 2010, 06:40 PM
I'd like to see some of these anti open carry protesters go to the bad side of town and rail against all the gang bangers that are carrying illegally. I guess it's easier to rant against the law abiding:barf:

damien
March 8, 2010, 09:38 PM
The open-carry movement is a wild card in gun rights advocacy and in some ways is to the N.R.A. and other mainstream gun rights advocacy groups what the Tea Party movement is to the Republican Party.

I think the NYTimes has given us an endorsement. :D

Mainsail
March 8, 2010, 10:03 PM
And that's the part that cracks me up.

Some of these antis can get real irate on the street (esp. in front of cameras) and they rant on about how they are "terrified of guns or gun people" but let's seem them rant that way to gen-u-wine gangbangers - armed or not.

That’s because it’s not about fear of firearms, but fear of liberty. Free speech is OK, as long as you’re saying what they want to hear. Freedom of religion is OK, as long as you believe in their god. These are the same people that will criticize you for not willingly allowing the police to search your car during a traffic stop, because you shouldn’t have anything to hide. Personal liberty is frightening to some, yes, even gun owners.

MudCamper
March 17, 2010, 04:53 PM
Mr. Higgins said the meet-ups were not meant to be confrontational. The hope, he said, is that if other restaurant or cafe patrons are uncomfortable with guns being displayed so conspicuously, pressure will increase on lawmakers to consider changing the law so that weapons can be carried more discreetly.

Is this guy serious? The only pressure on lawmakers will be to ban open carry and keep concealed carry out of reach. If all the antis stop seeing guns, they're just going to be paranoid.

I am the Paul Higgins quoted in the article. Ian (the journalist) was paraphrasing there from a lengthy discussion and got the message it bit wrong. Although I forgive that as overall I feel the article is quite positive to Open Carry, particularly for the New York Times.

You are in fact correct, that the CA legislatures response is the opposite of this, and that open carry is scarring them into attempting to pass even further restrictive and unconstitutional laws. However, if they do succeed in banning open carry, it won't keep concealed carry out of reach. Quite the opposite. Once we have 2A Incorporation, states will be forced to allow at least one form of carry, and if OC is banned then they must allow CCW. Of course, we all hope, and are working towards, both forms of carry.

Skillet
March 17, 2010, 07:22 PM
Here's the article


For years, being able to carry a concealed handgun has been a sacred right for many gun enthusiasts. In defending it, Charlton Heston, the actor and former president of the National Rifle Association, used to say that the flock is safer when the wolves cannot tell the difference between the lions and the lambs.
But a grass-roots effort among some gun rights advocates is shifting attention to a different goal: exercising the right to carry unconcealed weapons in the 38 or more states that have so-called open-carry laws allowing guns to be carried in public view with little or no restrictions. The movement is not only raising alarm among gun control proponents but also exposing rifts among gun rights advocates.
The call for gun owners to carry their guns openly in the normal course of business first drew broad attention last summer, when opponents of the Obama administration’s health care overhaul began appearing at town-hall-style meetings wearing sidearms. But in recent weeks, the practice has expanded as gun owners in California and other states that allow guns to be openly carried have tested the law by showing up at so-called meet-ups, in which gun owners appear at Starbucks, pizza parlors and other businesses openly bearing their weapons.

“Our point is to do the same thing that concealed carriers do,” said Mike Stollenwerk, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org, which serves as a national forum. “We’re just taking off our jackets.”

The goal, at least in part, is to make the case for liberalized concealed weapon laws by demonstrating how uncomfortable many people are with publicly displayed guns. The tactic has startled many business owners like Peet’s Coffee and Tea and California Pizza Kitchen, which forbid guns at their establishments. So far, Starbucks has resisted doing the same.
The open-carry movement is a wild card in gun rights advocacy and in some ways is to the N.R.A. and other mainstream gun rights advocacy groups what the Tea Party movement is to the Republican Party.
Newer, more driven by grass-roots and the Internet than the N.R.A., open-carry groups are also less centralized, less predictable and often more confrontational in their push for gun rights. In the last year, there have been at least 140 formal and informal meet-ups at coffee shops and restaurants in California alone, organizers say.
Some gun rights advocates see risks in the approach.

“I’m all for open-carry laws,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights advocacy organization in Washington State. “But I don’t think flaunting it is very productive for our cause. It just scares people.”

Robert Weisberg, a gun law expert and a criminal justice professor at Stanford University, described the open-carry activists as “a liability” for the N.R.A., in particular.
While the N.R.A. is almost always going to support the increased deregulation of guns, Professor Weisberg said, the organization keeps its distance from open-carry advocacy because it does not want to distract attention from its higher priority of promoting the right to carry concealed weapons.

“Add to this that the N.R.A. is a very disciplined, on-message organization,” he said, contrasting the N.R.A.’s approach with the free-wheeling nature of some open-carry advocates.

Asked to comment on the open-carry movement, Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the N.R.A., said the organization “supports the right of law abiding people to exercise their self-defense rights in accordance with state local and federal law.” He declined to comment further.
Gun control advocates have raised particular concerns about open-carry laws because under these laws in many states, gun owners are not required to have a permit or any sort of training or testing.
The first meet-ups by open-carry advocates started nearly a decade ago in Virginia, but they became popular more recently in California because the law there makes it difficult for people to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

“It is a discriminatory issue in California,” said Paul Higgins, 43, a software engineer who runs a Web forum called CaliforniaOpenCarry.org. “If you are politically connected, if you’re rich, if you’re a politician, if you’re a celebrity, you get a permit. Otherwise, you don’t.”

Mr. Higgins said the meet-ups were not meant to be confrontational. The hope, he said, is that if other restaurant or cafe patrons are uncomfortable with guns being displayed so conspicuously, pressure will increase on lawmakers to consider changing the law so that weapons can be carried more discreetly.
Mr. Stollenwerk, the co-founder of OpenCarry.org., who is a retired Army officer from Fairfax County, Va., said the meet-ups were also meant as chances for gun owners to exercise and advertise their rights in states that allow people to openly carry firearms. More than 27,000 members are registered for his group’s online discussion forum, he said.
Gun control advocates say the open-carry movement’s real aim is to push the envelope and to force companies to take a public stand on the issue.

”You have to wonder where their next frontier will be,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Will gun owners start trying to carry firearms openly into banks, on subways and buses, in schools?”

For Starbucks, the debate has become a headache.
After California gun owners began holding meet-ups in January at Starbucks, the Brady Campaign began sending out petitions to pressure the company to forbid weapons. Starbucks released a statement saying it would not turn gun carriers away from its cafes, and would instead continue to comply with local laws and statutes.
“The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores,” Starbuck officials said. They said the company did not want to be in the middle of the controversy.
Other businesses have taken a different tack — and are embracing the movement.

The East Coast Pizza Bar and Grill in Walnut Creek, Calif., about 25 miles east of San Francisco, invited gun owners to host open carry meet-ups. At least 70 people attended one last Sunday, many carrying firearms, said the owner, Jessie Grunner, 30. And over a dozen returned on Thursday night for more.

“Frankly, I wasn’t sure how I would feel in that type of situation, and it really turned out to be a total nonissue,” Ms. Grunner said.

“The families were great,” she said. “These were very gracious people.” The fact that customers wore sidearms, she said, “just faded into the background.”

This article seemed almost balanced towards the gun owner's side.
I can't believe i'm saying this, but good job NYT!

If you enjoyed reading about "Balanced Article on Open Carry in the NY Times" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!