Does open carrying long guns really help persuade public opinions in a good way?

[Frank Ettin]

Several states have recently had OC passed. Please explain how the "activists" didn't have a hand in that?...

Nonsense. You demonstrate that OC demonstrations had anything to do with those expansions of existing open carry rights.

...Please explain why TX and FL(FL had it all but passed until the NRA/USF stepped in and blocked it) now have OC being debated in their legislatures?...

Open carry used to be legal in Florida. It was made illegal in the late 1980s after a "shall issue" concealed carry program was adopted (in 1987). Open carry became illegal in Florida in part because of the antics of irresponsible open carriers. (See this post 6 in a thread on another board regarding the history of the loss in Florida of the right to openly carry a gun.)

RKBA advocates in Texas have been trying for years to get open carry legalized. They haven't been successful thus far. Things looked good for an open carry bill for this year, but some ill conceived open carry demonstrations seem to have hurt the bill's chances.

1. As reported in The Texas Tribune (13th January):

   ...The behavior of open-carry advocates attempting to drum up votes for a measure by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, repealing handgun licensing requirements prompted one lawmaker to escort them from his office ...

   
   
2. As reported by CBSDFW (27th January):

   ...[Lt. Governor] Patrick now says open carry “doesn’t reach the level” of priority for the Republican-dominated Senate. Lawmakers have filed several bills on open carry, ranging from requiring a license to letting anyone carry a handgun in public....

   
   
3. As reported by the Texas Firearms Coalition (27th January):

   ...There can be little doubt that the months of negative publicity took its toll on the open-carry issue. However, hard work by NRA and TSRA lobbyists brought open-carry back from the junk pile and the political landscape in Austin was looking much better. Then, OCTC decided to make a big splash and invade a House Member’s office with demands, threats and a video recorder and once again the open-carry issue was cast in a negative light....

   
   
4. As reported in the Huston Chronicle on 13th January, Open Carry Texas had disavowed the confrontational tactics of some groups:

   ....Victoria Montgomery of Open Carry Texas told Beitbart the organization takes issue with the cop-watchers' vigilante style: "At Open Carry Texas, we have always placed an emphasis on public relations, and believe the 'in your face' style of fellow gun rights groups is not only ineffective but detrimental. OCT does not condone or support harassing police officers, and we certainly do not support anyone shadowing officers with guns."

   
   But whether that will save the Texas open carry bill remains to be seen.

...Now they are getting results and others are left to follow throwing rocks.

Phooey! Provide details, documentation and evidence that open carry protesters are responsible.

 

[hatt]

Phooey! Provide details, documentation and evidence that open carry protesters are responsible.

You provide the evidence they aren't. I'm going on the "well before they came along nothing was happening."

It's funny that your: "Things looked good for an open carry bill for this year, but some ill conceived open carry demonstrations seem to have hurt the bill's chances" rhetoric is almost identical to the stuff Marion Hammer was spewing in FL a few years ago. She was proven to be a liar in that matter.

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/05/response-to-rude-open-carry-blogger/#axzz3QTVbM35o

 

[hatt]

List them. What state and what years were these laws changed.

OK(2012?)and KS(2014) off the top of my head.

 

[JohnKSa]

You provide the evidence they aren't.

In a polite debate, the person who makes a claim bears the burden of proof to support the claims he/she makes. This prevents someone from making outlandish claims and then expecting others to do the research to prove his outlandish claims incorrect.

"Things looked good for an open carry bill for this year, but some ill conceived open carry demonstrations seem to have hurt the bill's chances" rhetoric is almost identical to the stuff Marion Hammer was spewing in FL a few years ago. She was proven to be a liar in that matter.

I don't know about Marion Hammer said or what happened in FL, but Frank is correct. I have been following the push for OC in TX and things were looking very good for passage of an OC bill this legislative session. The demonstrations and confrontational behavior of some OC activists have definitely resulted in a loss of support for an OC bill. It remains to be seen whether or not there's been enough damage done to prevent passage. I'm still optimistic that we may see some relaxation of handgun OC restrictions in TX before the end of the year.

She was proven to be a liar in that matter.

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/05/resp...#axzz3QTVbM35o

The article you quoted doesn't prove anything about Marion Hammer's veracity. It alleges that she lied about whether or not the bill was an open carry bill or not but does not provide proof of the allegation. It doesn't even allege that she was wrong about why the bill could not pass without being amended--namely because of the "bad behavior of a few open carry supporters--ill-mannered bullies carrying firearms openly scared the heck out of people."

OK(2012?)and KS(2014) off the top of my head.

No one's saying that there haven't states that have legalized OC. What evidence is there to support the idea that in the states you listed, OC demonstrations played a constructive role in getting OC laws passed?

 

[TennJed]

OK(2012?)and KS(2014) off the top of my head.

So what is the timeline of protester using long arms in demonstrations in these states?

Why is open carry of long arms still not legal in Oklahoma?

ETA kansas has always allowed open carry, in 2014 they passes a law preventing cities from banning open carry of HOLSTERED guns.

Your 2 examples are actually going against your argument.

That is the problem with you open carry of rifle guys, you talk like you are helping the cause so much, but do not bother to learn any facts or look at any results.

 

[hatt]

In a polite debate, the person who makes a claim bears the burden of proof to support the claims he/she makes. This prevents someone from making outlandish claims and then expecting others to do the research to prove his outlandish claims incorrect.

Frank made the claim. Go back and look at the posts.

"worthless, useless and counter productive" while the circumstantial(all we have and likely to ever have) evidence supports them making a positive difference.

 

[hatt]

So what is the timeline of protester using long arms in demonstrations in these states?

Why is open carry of long arms still not legal in Oklahoma?

ETA kansas has always allowed open carry, in 2014 they passes a law preventing cities from banning open carry of HOLSTERED guns.

Your 2 examples are actually going against your argument.

That is the problem with you open carry of rifle guys, you talk like you are helping the cause so much, but do not bother to learn any facts or look at any results.

Still wins. The long arm OCers aren't really fighting for long arm OC. They're carrying long arms because they're legal to carry in TX. Everyone forgets that. Attack first.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Phooey! Provide details, documentation and evidence that open carry protesters are responsible.

You provide the evidence they aren't....

Nope, it's your claim so it's your burden of proof. Also, it's not possible to prove a negative.

Frank made the claim. Go back and look at the posts.

"worthless, useless and counter productive"

As far as that goes, I did provide evidence. See post 101. Furthermore, we have the example of California -- the loss of loaded open in 1968 carry because of the antics of the Black Panthers and the more recent loss of even unloaded open carry.

You twice made a specific claim:

• Post 97 (emphasis added):

  OC is gaining ground. ...Before the OC protesters OC wasn't on the table. Now it's on the table and winning....

  
  
• Post 98:

  This is why the OC protesters are so far ahead of so many of you guys on gun Rights. If they did it your way the subject would have never even come up. Now they are getting results...

So as JohnKSa wrote:

....What evidence is there to support the idea that in the states you listed, OC demonstrations played a constructive role in getting OC laws passed?

....The long arm OCers aren't really fighting for long arm OC. They're carrying long arms because they're legal to carry in TX. Everyone forgets that....

No one forgets that. We're just pointing out that they're doing a pretty poor job of it.

 

[JohnKSa]

Frank made the claim. Go back and look at the posts.

"worthless, useless and counter productive"

In post #87 of this thread you made the claim that OC of long guns is a protest and that it's more effective than contributing to the NRA. Frank's post (the one you quoted above) is a response to that one.

I'm pretty sure most on this site would rather have dinner with Sarah Brady vs some working guy "bearing arms."

This is a favorite debate tactic of people debating from a position that is difficult to support with logic and evidence. They try to invalidate/dismiss everything that those they are debating with have to say wholesale by attempting to "poison the well" rather than addressing the claims and arguments made. If a person's comments and concerns don't stand on their own, they can be dismissed with logic or countered with the proper arguments. It's only when that can't be done that some find it necessary to try to turn away from the actual debate and attempt to focus on the persons they're debating with--making claims that the anyone who opposes them must be anti-gun, etc.

It's simply (and very obviously) not true in this case. If I were anti-gun, I'd be egging on the nuts in TX who have nearly sunk the chances of pro-OC legislation with their ill-advised demonstrations. In just a few months they managed to produce more negative local media coverage of firearms in TX than I've seen in years. It's precisely because I am NOT anti-gun that I want them to be more prudent in their actions so that they don't hurt they cause that I support and that they claim to be supporting.

 

[hatt]

What are you doing to support OC?

 

[TennJed]

Voting. Donating money.

And most importantly, speaking out against those that are hurting the cause the most. People like we are discussing in this thread.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

What are you doing to support OC?

Nothing, OC isn't on my primary goal sheet and I have other things that need tending to.

OC to me is like the use of sirens/lights by first responders:
I'm glad cops, medics, firemen can all use their sirens when they need it for a reason, but what I don't want is a bunch of yahoos in squad vehicles blasting down the road at 110 with lights and sirens blaring on their way to day-to-day activites.

 

[JohnKSa]

What are you doing to support OC?

Same things I've been doing since 1995 when TX began reworking their firearms laws. We've made incremental gains in TX firearms rights in most legislative sessions during that period.

Do you see what you're doing? You make claims and then won't support them. You get called on it and try to turn the tables. When that doesn't work, you call those who disgree with you anti-gun and start focusing on those who disagree with you instead of focusing on the actual topic of the thread. Does that sound like something someone would do if they had evidence and logic on their side?

 

[hatt]

The article you quoted doesn't prove anything about Marion Hammer's veracity. It alleges that she lied about whether or not the bill was an open carry bill or not but does not provide proof of the allegation. It doesn't even allege that she was wrong about why the bill could not pass without being amended--namely because of the "bad behavior of a few open carry supporters--ill-mannered bullies carrying firearms openly scared the heck out of people."

Go to comments. There is audio of her calling into a radio show.

 

[JohnKSa]

Go to comments. There is audio of her calling into a radio show.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the audio really does prove that she had said that the bill was about open carry (That's what the comment claims). There's still nothing that proves (or even alleges without proof) that she was wrong about why the bill could not pass without being amended--namely because of the "bad behavior of a few open carry supporters--ill-mannered bullies carrying firearms openly scared the heck out of people." That, of course, is the primary focus of Frank's comments and the primary focus of this thread in general

Ok, I listened to the entire audio link in the comments. In it, Hammer talks about the bill being designed to prevent prosecution of permit holders who accidentally unconceal or who intentionally unconceal by taking off a cover garment (the example she gives is someone who takes off their cover garment/jacket due to the heat). She also indicates that it is intended to allow campus carry by permit holders and also that it contains a vehicle storage provision. Any time she mentioned anything about open carry it was clearly predicated on the idea that it protected permit holders only which is consistent with what the article states.

What she says appears to be entirely consistent with the contents of the letter from the FL senator's office that is quoted a few posts down from the one with the audio link. Furthermore, no statement she makes in the video directly contradicts anything in the article as far as I can tell. If someone really wanted to, I can see how they could twist what she said to try to make it seem like a contradiction, but taken in context there isn't really any obvious contradiction.

 

[TennJed]

Same things I've been doing since 1995 when TX began reworking their firearms laws. We've made incremental gains in TX firearms rights in most legislative sessions during that period.

Do you see what you're doing? You make claims and then won't support them. You get called on it and try to turn the tables. When that doesn't work, you call those who disgree with you anti-gun and start focusing on those who disagree with you instead of focusing on the actual topic of the thread. Does that sound like something someone would do if they had evidence and logic on their side?

Well said

 

[hatt]

Same things I've been doing since 1995 when TX began reworking their firearms laws. We've made incremental gains in TX firearms rights in most legislative sessions during that period.

Do you see what you're doing? You make claims and then won't support them. You get called on it and try to turn the tables. When that doesn't work, you call those who disgree with you anti-gun and start focusing on those who disagree with you instead of focusing on the actual topic of the thread. Does that sound like something someone would do if they had evidence and logic on their side?

Not doing anything different than you. You think they're hurting the effort, I think they're helping it. I can show where OC has made progress. Did the protesters help, maybe maybe not. You can only blame OC protesters for OC currently being illegal. When OC has been illegal for 140 years. Of course you guys can show some politician saying something. But he also said he was going to fight for OC during the campaign but now...meh. You can trust them but I'll pass.

 

[hatt]

For the sake of argument, let's say that the audio really does prove that she had said that the bill was about open carry (That's what the comment claims). There's still nothing that proves (or even alleges without proof) that she was wrong about why the bill could not pass without being amended--namely because of the "bad behavior of a few open carry supporters--ill-mannered bullies carrying firearms openly scared the heck out of people." That, of course, is the primary focus of Frank's comments and the primary focus of this thread in general

You go out of your way to defend her nonsense. And remember. In FL it was bloggers being mean. Not dudes with AKs at Taco Bell. Maybe we should start another thread about mean OC bloggers and their negative impact.

Pretty clear the big gun lobbies aren't so big on others butting in on their turf. And if FL would have passed OC in 11 the NRA/USF wouldn't have been able to use it as a fundraising tool the next year.

 

[JohnKSa]

You go out of your way to defend her nonsense. And remember. In FL it was bloggers being mean. Not dudes with AKs at Taco Bell. Maybe we should start another thread about mean OC bloggers and their negative impact.

Pretty clear the big gun lobbies aren't so big on others butting in on their turf. And if FL would have passed OC in 11 the NRA/USF wouldn't have been able to use it as a fundraising tool the next year.

What I went out of my way to do was to thoroughly examine and assess the information in the link you provided to support your position.

I think that perhaps you should read the entire Hammer article, all the comments (including the quoted letter from the FL Senator's office) and then listen to the entire contents of the audio link.

What I know about the FL situation is only what I read and heard in the link you provided, but somehow it appears that my assessment is very different from yours.

1. Her comment in the article about who caused the problem pinpointed "overzealous, rude, ill-mannered, open carry supporters calling legislative offices and bullying, demanding, and threatening", not bloggers.

2. Her comments in the audio interview were consistent with her comments in the video and with the contents of the quoted letter from the FL Senator's office.

3. There's nothing that proves that her assessment of why the bill lost support in the FL legislature was incorrect.

Maybe we should start another thread about mean OC bloggers and their negative impact.

I know you're being sarcastic, but it is true that this is a battle of perception and that means it's important to understand how actions/words affect perception. The goal is to make progress and that means that we want to be perceived positively by those whose support we want/need.

That means that actions/words that result in us (and our cause) being perceived negatively by those whose support we want and need are counter to our goal. Nobody here wants that to happen.

 

[Snejdarek]

I'll throw Czech perspective into this forum.

We have concealed carry only. The only possibility to carry openly is within a shooting range (or competition grounds, like triatlon), during hunt or some war reenactments or liberation day processions.

So on one hand people never see the guns other people carry for self defense, be it a pistol IWB or an SBR in backpack (typically private security of bank transports or seriously paranoid individuals). Meanwhile they see WW2 guns on people in period uniform during liberation day celebrations or cheer skiers with rifles on a triatlon competition. I think that this is one of the reasons why we don't have any vocal antis in my country. I am sure that would change if gun owners carried their VZ.58s openly to the parks on Sunday afternoons.

 

[tomrkba]

OK, so here is what I see in this thread that seems to be the crux of the problem:

The majority of Americans have become so placid that they believe the government must tell them what their rights are and how to express them. We have completely forgotten that an unconstitutional law is no law at all and we do not need a court to tell us so. We have blindly fallen into the habit of letting government employees tell us what to do since that is the more comfortable route. This became clear to me when one poster said that losing OC in California was a loss; he did not recognize that the right to keep and bear arms does not exist in that state.

The corollary to this is exerting social pressure upon anyone who does anything outside of what is considered normal. Open carry is considered "abnormal" and therefore must be socially squashed. Whether it's tattoos or piercings, saying something "incorrect", or similar, the majority of Americans pass judgement upon that person rather than simply letting them be. Instead, we get the insanity of "man spreading", "triggers" and so forth. These ideas may one day be rendered in law. One of the "mottos" I encountered in West Texas was "It's not my business" and people tended to turn a blind eye toward behavior they do not like. This attitude would serve America well in this day and age.

We get the government we deserve. It seems to me that we do not deserve the right to keep and bear arms since we don't know what a right is, let the government define those rights in ways that clearly violate the Constitution and don't allow others to freely express it in their way.

 

[Oldschool shooter]

While I would defend their rights, and here in Michigan we have open carry, some folks just can't help but succumb to the "look at me!" syndrome. I can't think of ant instances where "in your face" activism has endeared a cause to people that are somewhat neutral on an issue. Some folks around here OC holstered sidearms, nobody gives them much of a second glance, bubbas gather in an organizes rally walking around town with AKs and ARs and people view them as being on the fringe and extreme, in much the same way they would view the KKK, or a Militia group. Agree or not, in today's politically correct world, perception becomes reality, and this negative perception hurts the cause.

 

[tomrkba]

Then I guess it takes some bravery to do it since most gun owners are apparently content to do what they're told.

 

[JRWhit]

Take a look at the tally. If you can't gain support for it here of all places, then it may be time to reconsider.

A large portion of people couldn't tell you who is vice president right now. They aren't worried about other stuff either.

And a majority of those who are so ill informed are driven by image.
O.C. leaves them with this image.


Thats very sad, and why we need to do something more like this,

 

[tomrkba]

Take a look at the tally. If you can't gain support for it here of all places, then it may be time to reconsider.

Agreed. All this means is that the right to keep and bear arms will be converted into a privilege and gun owners will be fine with that so long as they have the appearance of liberty.

Imagine what it would be like if every gun owner open carried daily. The conversation between ourselves and with the government would be very different.