Open carry "victory", $25K payday.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerkface11
Isn't giving up the same as losing?
Why do people equate being thoughtful with giving up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomrkba
...Either we double down and demand our right and risk losing it, or we play the political game and risk losing it...
Or we study and pursue strategies better calculated to preserve and expand our rights. We pay attention and think. We consider how our actions are perceived by others. We look for and make use of openings.

We have made progress in some States and in some courts by picking our battles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomrkba
...the demonization of gun owners continues nearly unopposed...
And gun owners continue to act in ways that invite demonization.
__________________


Open carry is the current obvious one, but I am not talking about that. OC wasn't on the antis' radar until very recently. The demonization of the law abiding gun owner has been going all out for awhile now. Michael Bane talks about this issue on his podcast; take a look (should be in the high 200's for the episode numbers, maybe 275-325).
 
Last edited:
I'm the hysterical Sheeple...
...and I vote.


Never forget that simple fact.
Lose the Sheeple, lose the right.

Seeing regular Joe private citizen open carrying a holstered handgun while going about his (or her) day wins them, slowly but surely.

Hiding guns and gun ownership and pretending like having a gun is a baaad thing does not help.
 
Evidence?

Years of personal experience and years of talking and listening to all kinds of people about the issue.

Also good sense, and general life experience to know that people tend to grow accustomed to things that they are familiar with, while also fearing change, the unexpected, and the unusual.
 
Warp said:
Evidence?

Years of personal experience and years of talking and listening to all kinds of people about the issue.

Also good sense, and general life experience to know that people tend to grow accustomed to things that they are familiar with, while also fearing change, the unexpected, and the unusual.
In other words, you don't have any actual evidence.

On the other hand, it has happened in the past that if people do something that's legal but they do it in a way that enough other people find obnoxious, the activity might not stay legal for long.

  • In the late 1960s in California, the Black Panthers openly carrying guns resulted in the open carry of loaded guns being made illegal. And a few years ago, demonstrations involving the open carrying or unloaded guns resulted in that being made illegal.

  • See this post 6 regarding the history of the loss in Florida of the right to openly carry in this thread on another forum.

  • Over the years, in many communities, we have seen many zoning and other laws adopted restricting how you can use your own property. In some places you may not work on your car in your own driveway in view of the public street. In some places you must get design approval of remodeling or landscaping visible to the public. In some communities, you may not park or store large vehicles like boats on trailers or RVs on your property so as to be visible to the public. These sorts of restrictions have in large part been the result of strong enough public sentiment that some things previously lawfully done by private parties on their own land were unseemly or unattractive.
 
On the other hand, it has happened in the past that if people do something that's legal but they do it in a way that enough other people find obnoxious, the activity might not stay legal for long.

I'm of the opinion that "we shouldn't do it because doing it will make it illegal" means we've made it defacto illegal. When would we exercise that right if we never do for fear of losing it.
 
Or we study and pursue strategies better calculated to preserve and expand our rights. We pay attention and think. We consider how our actions are perceived by others. We look for and make use of openings.

The anti-gun groups have been very successful....maybe we should start using their tactics....but then we would have to stop being considerate and polite and we can't do that.
 
If one group acts badly, sarcastically suggesting that another should - isn't really smart. It's just another tantrum or failed attempt to be clever.
 
The anti-gun groups have been very successful....maybe we should start using their tactics....but then we would have to stop being considerate and polite and we can't do that.
The pendulum of public opinion has been swinging back in our direction for a while now, but some on our side seem bound and determined to stop it by over the top behavior. How many of us think what those guys did at Chipotle was a good move for the 2A? OC is legal here, and I'm glad it is, but not because I ever plan to practice it with an AR at the local quickee mart.

As for the original thread topic, I think it was stupid that the police arrested him, but I can hardly imagine a more tone deaf move on his part given the time and the location. Wearing a fur coat into the woods during deer season isn't illegal, and if someone shot you it would be their fault, but some of the blame would rest on the guy making the poor wardrobe choice.

My take on this particular example is that there were plenty of bad decisions all around.
 
In other words, you don't have any actual evidence.

On the other hand, it has happened in the past that if people do something that's legal but they do it in a way that enough other people find obnoxious, the activity might not stay legal for long.

  • In the late 1960s in California, the Black Panthers openly carrying guns resulted in the open carry of loaded guns being made illegal. And a few years ago, demonstrations involving the open carrying or unloaded guns resulted in that being made illegal.

  • See this post 6 regarding the history of the loss in Florida of the right to openly carry in this thread on another forum.

  • Over the years, in many communities, we have seen many zoning and other laws adopted restricting how you can use your own property. In some places you may not work on your car in your own driveway in view of the public street. In some places you must get design approval of remodeling or landscaping visible to the public. In some communities, you may not park or store large vehicles like boats on trailers or RVs on your property so as to be visible to the public. These sorts of restrictions have in large part been the result of strong enough public sentiment that some things previously lawfully done by private parties on their own land were unseemly or unattractive.

You need to go back and read my post again, and maybe try to understand the differences between what I stated, and those "examples"

Key phrase:

"Seeing regular Joe private citizen open carrying a holstered handgun while going about his (or her) day wins them, slowly but surely."
 
In the late 1960s in California, the Black Panthers openly carrying guns resulted in the open carry of loaded guns being made illegal. And a few years ago, demonstrations involving the open carrying or unloaded guns resulted in that being made illegal.

This is a bad example since California's constitution lacks the right to keep and bear arms. California citizens purchase, use and dispose of firearms at the whim of the legislature. All lawful carry in California may be revoked at any time.

Florida is also a bad example (http://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP01.pdf):

The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of
themselves and of the lawful authority of the stat shall not
be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may
be regulated by law.
Fla. Constitution Article I, Section 8.

In both cases, the state has the power to control how weapons are carried. Neither of your examples applies to the argument except as how public opinion swayed the legislature to change the law within the limits dictated by that state's constitution. However, other states have far stronger RKBA than Florida and California. Open carry cannot be banned in Virginia without a constitutional amendment; getting that through the legislature so the citizens can vote on it would be a very hard sell.

Contrary to your examples, in Virginia, open carry was declared to be a right. Concealed carry was declared to be a privilege. The Virginia open carry movement was started to get premption and stop jurisdictions like Arlington from violating the state constitution. The state legislature agreed that people should not be jailed because they crossed an invisible line. It was successful and the counties are now fully aware that they cannot interfere with open carry. We still have to remind them sometimes, but a letter is usually all it takes.
 
Last edited:
Exhibit A: An example of what I am talking about
Andrew-in-store.jpg



Exhibit B: What Mr Frank Ettin claims is comparable to the above:
black-panthers-1968-467.jpg


My opinion is that people are going to have a different reaction to the above, not the same.
 
I'm sorry people, but openly carying a firearm into a venue already sensitized to a nutjob mass killing is just plain stupid. Note the key word: "openly"

I question the man's judgement.
Which for a man with a gun -- legal or not -- is a serious question.
I'd rather have this guy in the theater while i'm watching a show than not. It would have made me feel better seeing a good guy with a gun, rather than scare me in any way.

Tired of nutjobs running around shooting innocents with impunity. Maybe this guy felt the same.
 
Totally irrelevant. (And I mean totally.) This was
one week after the Batman killings -- one week.

His judgement [carrying openly in a theater] in such
circumstance was impaired to the point of terminal
irresponsibility.
It is just as much a matter for law enforcement as wearing white after Labor Day.

Mike
 
It is just as much a matter for law enforcement as wearing white after Labor Day.

Mike

Yes.

Now, if the theater didn't want him there, they very well could have asked him to disarm, or to leave, and they could have had LE there 'just in case', or to issue a trespass warning so he can't come back (probably, varies by state perhaps)...you know, private property rights and the right to refuse service and all that...but that's it.
 
"They should at least shave off their mustaches and beards out of consideration of others that might be disturbed by the legally worn mustache and beard."
Granted, you don't see the toothbrush mustache/comb-over combo much anymore...

TCB
You have just made a point about the total arbitrariness and total unpredictability of what will become a symbol and what won't in any given situation. Certain breeds of dogs are considered rude in Israel to this day but there were two Israeli Prime Ministers with toothbrush mustaches. It was such a popular central European men's style in the early 20th Century and they saw no reason to change.
 
Just a few days ago some nut was running people over with his car in California. I bet today people are driving up and down that same street and aren't being hassled by the cops.
They should exercise good judgment and not drive any cars over that area, it's been less than a week. And if someone speeds, well, they're grounded.
 
When an anti-gun group stands up and proclaims within hours of a mass shooting that we must pass gun control laws you won't find a single other anti-gunner pulling on their shirt tails telling them to be quiet and be considerate and let the dust settle first. But one guy goes about his normal everyday routine of quietly carrying a handgun in a holster not "proclaiming" anything and a significant portion of the pro-gun side is pointing at him saying how wrong he is.

That is why the anti-gun groups have so much power - there are only one or two outcasts in the anti-gun realm (like Bloomberg is becomming) but on our side we look for reasons to proclaim our disagreement with anyone that doesn't just conceal it to cater to a small minority of the population that is going to be offended.
 
You love your meaningless red herrings, don't you?

Mr. Mapes was openly carrying a gun in a theater across town from, and a week after, the Aurora rampage. Clearly there's a difference.
In my opinion, not really. Proximity might heighten tension, but either way i'm snackin on popcorn and raisinets happier because I know a good guy has my back. Maybe many people don't feel that way, but that's the problem we face.
 
I agree with Warp in the difference in reactions shown by his two photos. However, the California legislature controls the purchase, use, and disposal of firearms in the state since there is no right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution. Therefore, the implication that activities similar to that of the Black Panthers will result in a revocation of the RKBA in all states is not correct. Most states will require a constitutional amendment rather than a simple law passed by a hysterical legislature. Such a thing could happen, but the politics behind a constitutional amendment are very different.
 
"Seeing regular Joe private citizen open carrying a holstered handgun while going about his (or her) day wins them, slowly but surely."

Based on newspaper editorials, TV commentators and various website commentaries, that statement is 180 degrees off course.

Whether or not open carry is or is not a big deal varies with the part of the country. Some areas, nobody cares much, one way or the other. But in those states which don't allow open carry, the overt "See here!" open-carry demonstrations antagonize enough of the voters such that the legislators tend to play safe and vote "Nay" on open-carry bills. It's all about noise level, and the squeaky wheels of the antis are louder.

Honey and vinegar: Open-carry demonstrations are vinegar. Q: Why do I believe this? A: A half-century of watching the behavior of the Texas legislature on many, many issues. :)
 
California is its own thing, for the most part.

Rather...screwed up too, if you ask me. But I guess they like it that way, because that's how they vote and that's what they created.
 
"Seeing regular Joe private citizen open carrying a holstered handgun while going about his (or her) day wins them, slowly but surely."

Based on newspaper editorials, TV commentators and various website commentaries, that statement is 180 degrees off course.

Whether or not open carry is or is not a big deal varies with the part of the country. Some areas, nobody cares much, one way or the other. But in those states which don't allow open carry, the overt "See here!" open-carry demonstrations antagonize enough of the voters such that the legislators tend to play safe and vote "Nay" on open-carry bills.

Honey and vinegar: Open-carry demonstrations are vinegar. Q: Why do I believe this? A: A half-century of watching the behavior of the Texas legislature on many, many issues. :)

*Face Palm*

Key phrase:

"Seeing regular Joe private citizen open carrying a holstered handgun while going about his (or her) day wins them, slowly but surely."

[Hint: The implication is that doing so is legal, of course, just like in the original story of this thread]

I am not talking about doing something illegal. I am not talking about organized demonstrations. I am talking about "regular Joe private citizen open carrying a holstered handgun while going about his (or her) day"

Why do you keep posting red herrings?
 
"Seeing regular Joe private citizen open carrying a holstered handgun while going about his (or her) day wins them, slowly but surely."

Based on newspaper editorials, TV commentators and various website commentaries, that statement is 180 degrees off course.

As I mentioned previously, the demonization of gun owners has been going on for a long time. Open carry is a very easy target because they can claim "fear" and never have to provide supporting evidence. :banghead: After all, were they to follow an open carry group, they wouldn't see people fleeing in panic. It has picked up in recent years and has crossed over from the "mythical bad gun owner" to "all gun owners". They paint us all as "possible domestic terrorists" and "people just waiting to go off." Again, this is nothing new and this attitude is prevalent in our schools.
 
Exhibit C:

erik_scott_web.jpg

http://www.erikbscott.com/
Erik Scott, Class of `94, shot to death outside a Las Vegas Costco because both Sheep & Sheepdogs "felt" threatened.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/i...tusibbggg66e6&topic=25380.msg493282#msg493282

Never underestimate the Sheeples' (and not a few Sheepdogs') tendancy to overreact to a perceived threat -- real or unreal, ...legal or illegal, ...sensical or nosensical.

And truth is no defense.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top