How Will HR822 Affect NY?

[Birch Knoll]

Hiding that arm like you are ashamed of it is not helping the cause. You are teaching no-one about the right to bear arms when you hide your carry like a criminal.

Well, that pretty much entirely misses the point of concealed carry. But go on...

When average unarmed Jane and Joe Citizen walk down the street and pay no more attention to a proper OC than they do to a LEO walking down the street, then we will have true acceptance.

Yes, that would be very nice. I don't see that happening in NY in the foreseeable future, though. Do you?

Does doing so make some people uncomfortable? Yes it does, but there is no constitutional "right" to be comfortable, there is a right to carry.

Sure. But frightened people vote for politicians who will protect them from those scary gun-toting maniacs. Those politicians appoint judges who probably wouldn't agree with you and I about gun rights.

I have nothing against open carry; sometimes it makes sense. More often, I think concealed carry makes far more sense. I think in-your-face open carry activism is often counterproductive, however. Just because it's legal doesn't it's smart.

we need that level of acceptance to OC so that we are not constantly fighting the antis.

Yes, we do. But I don't think generating Man With A Gun calls is a good way to get us there.

Oh, I must add a comment to your first comment. Wrong. The Constitution has always ment what it says. It is not a "working document"

Then you should more carefully read what I said. I said the law is not static. Of course the Constitution means now what it meant when it was written. But the law is always a work in progress; as you said, the Court finally applied what the Constitution said in the 2nd Amendment. Before Heller, the law had never recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms. Before McDonald, it never applied to the states. Now it does. The law is not static.

 

[jamesbeat]

Does doing so (open carry) make some people uncomfortable? Yes it does, but there is no constitutional "right" to be comfortable...

That has to be quote of the week.
There's a nut job that walks the streets near my home, shouting to himself and with rolled up, bleach soaked newspaper in each nostril.
I often hear people mutter that he should be locked up.
He sure makes me uncomfortable, but I don't believe he should be locked up or otherwise prevented from mingling with the public, as he does no harm.
He has every right to do as he pleases as long as he hurts nobody and breaks no laws. Whether or not he makes me or anyone else uncomfortable is none of my or their business.
They would be quite happy for this poor man to be imprisoned, just so they don't have to see or hear him.
They are probably the same idiots who don't want people like us to carry, because it would interfere with their personal comfort zone.

Of course, I'm certainly not suggesting that mental illness and OC have anything in common (quite the opposite in fact) but my point is that people have no right to dictate the behavior of others just so they don't have to be made to feel uncomfortable.

 

[brickeyee]

Concealed carry is available on a shall-issue, shall-issue-in-practice, or unrestricted basis in 41 states, by my count. That's a pretty high level of acceptance. Open carry makes people nervous; concealed carry is out of sight, out of mind.

And SCOTUS clearly said there will be limits.

The battle now is over what those limits will be.

The mere possession of guns makes some folks nervous.

I really doubt "makes people nervous" will be entertained as any type of standard in the courts.

 

[Birch Knoll]

I really doubt "makes people nervous" will be entertained as any type of standard in the courts.

Neither do I. But it will have an effect on who they vote into office, and what sort of laws those officeholders enact. As you said, the battle is over what those limits will be.