Here is the editorial:
Packing heat: In the city, a big iron on your hip is a bad idea
Tribune Editorial
Utah law does not specifically prohibit someone from strapping a handgun on his belt and carrying it openly in public. Some gun-rights activists are driving home that point by packing in plain view.
This is a bad idea for a couple of reasons.
First, Utah law does prohibit most people from carrying a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle, on a public street or in a posted, prohibited area. Exceptions include law enforcement officers and people with concealed-carry permits.
Under the law, a gun is considered loaded when it has an unexpended cartridge or shell in the firing position, or when a single movement of the gun's action would cause it to fire.
So, we assume that someone can legally carry an unloaded pistol on his hip or a rifle on a street. But we wonder why anyone would do that out of bravado or to make a point about gun rights.
Because the purpose of carrying a weapon at the ready in a holster presumably is self-defense, that utililty is undermined by having it unloaded. Carrying a loaded concealed weapon and a permit would make more sense.
Besides, carrying a firearm openly in public at the wrong time and place could get you shot, either by someone intent on committing a crime or by a police officer who doesn't know who you are and what you intend. Though you know that the gun you are carrying is not loaded, in most cases someone
Advertisement
else can't tell that without examining the gun.
Second, packing in public scares other people. Unless they know you and are familiar with guns, most people will not be comfortable seated next to you in a restaurant if you are openly displaying a sidearm. Imagine the reaction of a clerk in a convenience store if you walk in late at night with a big iron on your hip. Even if you mean no harm, how is the clerk to know that?
As is often the case, context is everything. Many folks in rural areas wouldn't think twice about a hunter in camo and orange carrying a high-powered rifle into a store during deer season. But armed civilians on city streets or at Chez Maurice are something else.
We don't want to make life more difficult for hunters. But if Utah law is unclear about packing in plain sight, maybe the Utah Legislature should clarify it to prohibit the public display of firearms except in the field.
The existing law, together with a little common sense, is reasonable. But to make a dubious point, a few extremists could put an end to that.
Here is my response in my blog:
In today’s STAFF EDITORIAL the Salt lake Tribune argues that Open Carry of firearms is a bad idea for the following reasons:
1. Open Carry is not specifically called out as legal therefore Open Carry is a gray area legally.
2. Due to the law requiring that the gun be two mechanical actions away from firing, Open Carry is of therefore dubious value.
3. Open Carry is dangerous because the police or criminals may shoot you.
4. Open Carry may frighten the public.
5. Open Carry only makes sense for hunters.
Sleeping is not called out as specifically legal, does that make it a gray area legally? No, that, by definition makes it legal. The reason Open Carry is not specifically prohibited is because such a prohibition would be unconstitutional. The law requiring a gun to be two mechanical actions away from firing is a fairly recent local development and I would argue an infringement of the Second Amendment. Roll back this dubious law and the utility is restored to the firearm as well as the “shall not be infringed” clause. Additionally, not having a firearm at all is of far, far less utility than a firearm two actions away from firing.
Criminals do not carry openly so the police can breathe easy and somehow refrain from shooting anyone with a gun on their hip. Training and education for the police and the public seems to work well for Concealed Carry, why would Open Carry be any different? The worry should be for the criminal who has a concealed weapon and no regard for the law.
As far as frightening the public; Utahn’s are built of sterner stuff, I am confident that a gun in a holster in a “compromised state of utility” as mentioned earlier, poses little threat. The fear may come from ignorance, but the cure to ignorance is education, not acquiescence. Additionally, is the need for public safety now so high that the potential of “scaring” someone is grounds for restricting the Second Amendment? Especially since crime statistics do not support this irrational fear.
The point of open carry has nothing at all to do with hunting and I suspect that the majority of Utahn’s can find the intestinal fortitude to deal with the free exercise of the Second Amendment. This editorial along with its companion “news” piece published the day previous strikes me as clumsy apprentice journalism. Perhaps Second Amendment articles / editorials are an initiation ritual for young green journalists?
The Bill of Rights is a complex topic that deserves a considered and professional treatment, not off-hand ill-considered sensationalism. I find it contradictory for a newspaper, a medium that lives and dies by a broad interpretation of the First Amendment, to be so eager to narrow the interpretation of the Second Amendment. How disappointing.
Yes, the Trib has a comments section for this editorial.
Packing heat: In the city, a big iron on your hip is a bad idea
Tribune Editorial
Utah law does not specifically prohibit someone from strapping a handgun on his belt and carrying it openly in public. Some gun-rights activists are driving home that point by packing in plain view.
This is a bad idea for a couple of reasons.
First, Utah law does prohibit most people from carrying a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle, on a public street or in a posted, prohibited area. Exceptions include law enforcement officers and people with concealed-carry permits.
Under the law, a gun is considered loaded when it has an unexpended cartridge or shell in the firing position, or when a single movement of the gun's action would cause it to fire.
So, we assume that someone can legally carry an unloaded pistol on his hip or a rifle on a street. But we wonder why anyone would do that out of bravado or to make a point about gun rights.
Because the purpose of carrying a weapon at the ready in a holster presumably is self-defense, that utililty is undermined by having it unloaded. Carrying a loaded concealed weapon and a permit would make more sense.
Besides, carrying a firearm openly in public at the wrong time and place could get you shot, either by someone intent on committing a crime or by a police officer who doesn't know who you are and what you intend. Though you know that the gun you are carrying is not loaded, in most cases someone
Advertisement
else can't tell that without examining the gun.
Second, packing in public scares other people. Unless they know you and are familiar with guns, most people will not be comfortable seated next to you in a restaurant if you are openly displaying a sidearm. Imagine the reaction of a clerk in a convenience store if you walk in late at night with a big iron on your hip. Even if you mean no harm, how is the clerk to know that?
As is often the case, context is everything. Many folks in rural areas wouldn't think twice about a hunter in camo and orange carrying a high-powered rifle into a store during deer season. But armed civilians on city streets or at Chez Maurice are something else.
We don't want to make life more difficult for hunters. But if Utah law is unclear about packing in plain sight, maybe the Utah Legislature should clarify it to prohibit the public display of firearms except in the field.
The existing law, together with a little common sense, is reasonable. But to make a dubious point, a few extremists could put an end to that.
Here is my response in my blog:
In today’s STAFF EDITORIAL the Salt lake Tribune argues that Open Carry of firearms is a bad idea for the following reasons:
1. Open Carry is not specifically called out as legal therefore Open Carry is a gray area legally.
2. Due to the law requiring that the gun be two mechanical actions away from firing, Open Carry is of therefore dubious value.
3. Open Carry is dangerous because the police or criminals may shoot you.
4. Open Carry may frighten the public.
5. Open Carry only makes sense for hunters.
Sleeping is not called out as specifically legal, does that make it a gray area legally? No, that, by definition makes it legal. The reason Open Carry is not specifically prohibited is because such a prohibition would be unconstitutional. The law requiring a gun to be two mechanical actions away from firing is a fairly recent local development and I would argue an infringement of the Second Amendment. Roll back this dubious law and the utility is restored to the firearm as well as the “shall not be infringed” clause. Additionally, not having a firearm at all is of far, far less utility than a firearm two actions away from firing.
Criminals do not carry openly so the police can breathe easy and somehow refrain from shooting anyone with a gun on their hip. Training and education for the police and the public seems to work well for Concealed Carry, why would Open Carry be any different? The worry should be for the criminal who has a concealed weapon and no regard for the law.
As far as frightening the public; Utahn’s are built of sterner stuff, I am confident that a gun in a holster in a “compromised state of utility” as mentioned earlier, poses little threat. The fear may come from ignorance, but the cure to ignorance is education, not acquiescence. Additionally, is the need for public safety now so high that the potential of “scaring” someone is grounds for restricting the Second Amendment? Especially since crime statistics do not support this irrational fear.
The point of open carry has nothing at all to do with hunting and I suspect that the majority of Utahn’s can find the intestinal fortitude to deal with the free exercise of the Second Amendment. This editorial along with its companion “news” piece published the day previous strikes me as clumsy apprentice journalism. Perhaps Second Amendment articles / editorials are an initiation ritual for young green journalists?
The Bill of Rights is a complex topic that deserves a considered and professional treatment, not off-hand ill-considered sensationalism. I find it contradictory for a newspaper, a medium that lives and dies by a broad interpretation of the First Amendment, to be so eager to narrow the interpretation of the Second Amendment. How disappointing.
Yes, the Trib has a comments section for this editorial.
