Open Carry??

[KBCraig]

EDIT: Sorry KB, I didn't read your response first.

Looks like we were typing at the same time.

[pbandjelly]

I agree. If you are able to have open carry, but can still carry concealed, that's the best option.

TxI, thanks for the Cali law. ALL of my family has moved to Das Republik of Kali, and I wanted to know what options they have.

[wjmphoto]

Open carry simply lets criminals know who the victims are and are not! If you are a criminal are you going to try and rob the guy who is openly carrying a firearm or move on to the next guy who is not openly armed? Open carry does not equate to blood in the streets but it does equate to an open invitation to victimize those who do not choose to carry a weapon because they are readily discernable to the criminal. And yes, restricting a citizens right to carry does equate to blood in the street, the blood of unarmend victims who are disallowed by the government the right to defend themselves. That statement also does not in any way pander to the anti-gun lobby and is also proven by the events we have witnessed recently as well as the upsurge of crime in nations that do choose to take away their people's natural right of self-defense.

I don't think anyone is saying replace concealed carry with open carry which is the only way that criminals would know without a doubt that if they can't see the firearm their victim isn't armed. If people were allowed to open carry a firearm criminals would know who's armed, and then they would know that anyone else could be armed. All in all more deterrence for criminals.

With open carry anyone could be armed, just some you would know some you wouldn't.

I've no problem with a combo of concealed and open carry laws as long as both require a permit to be sure that only those who can pass a background check are allowed to do either. I would also prefer that the law simply state that a concealed carry permit allows you the choice of how you wish to carry so that one permit, class, and set of fees covers all options.

[anygunanywhere]

One of the main reasons that states do not opt for open carry is the deterence factor. If a state adopts open carry that makes it easy to pick out those who are carrying and those who are unarmed victims. It's kind of like the signs that they had in Jersey (I think) stating "This is a Gun Free Home" a few years back. Guess which houses got robbed and how fast those signs came down.

I am an open carry advocate, and I am not aware of any state that does not allow open carry because af any deterrence factor. I have read many arguments against open carry simiklar to your so called deterrence factor. Many individuals are against open carry because they imply that the BG will disarm you first. There have been no instances recorded that I can find of this happening.

You might want to visit opencarry.org and read up on the subject.

Sorry if I misunderstood your post. I asked for proof of your deterrence factor. Concealed carry does reduce crime, denying RKBA increases crime and increases the number of victims. My humble opinion of statements that are not based on proof or facts is what the antis use against us.

Anygun

[longtooth]

I too am an advocate of open carry. One liscense should do for both. Call it a "Liscense To Carry". LTC.

Best is to let the 2A stand as it reads.
If someone is a fellon & has one on, arrest them & send them back to Huntsville State Penitentiary instead of "housing them in Texas Dpt of Incorrection. Sarcasm intended.
LT

[jimlongley]

allowed to do either.

There's that word again. When we let the state allow us to exercise a right it becomes a privilege and the state can take it away.

Vermont style carry.

BTW, you can open carry in NY City, if you have the permit. And I have open carried in NY City and New Jersey, in my Navy dungarees, while on active duty, while on official duty.

[wjmphoto]

allowed to do either.

There's that word again. When we let the state allow us to exercise a right it becomes a privilege and the state can take it away.

Vermont style carry.

BTW, you can open carry in NY City, if you have the permit. And I have open carried in NY City and New Jersey, in my Navy dungarees, while on active duty, while on official duty.

While it is a right, it is not one that is open, nor should it be open, to everyone. Convicted felons should not have the right to carry open or concealed or even own a firearm. Spousal abusers should not be allowed to carry or own a weapon either. People with serious mental illness and those with drug and alcohol addictions should not be allowed to carry. The only way to insure that law abising citizens are the only ones that carry a gun legally is to require background checks, like Texas. Granted it will not stop criminals from carrying because they don't worry about following the law in the first place, but it helps. I have no problem with presenting a permit to an officer if requested to show that I am a law abiding citizens and have gone through the process. The question is why would anyone have a problem with this except those who would be denied a permit in the first place because of background or disqualifying factors?

Yes, owning a gun is a constitutionally guaranteed right, but so is voting and the state government has a right to disqualify people from voting based on felony convictions as well. All rights are not absolute and do not apply to all people. Using Vermont style carry is not necessarily feasible in other parts of the nation. The idea of let everyone carry and sort out the bad guys caarrying guns after the fact just does not work in larger and more densely populated cities and parts of the country that inherently have higher crime rates than Vermont ever had in the first place.

Let's face it, I disagree with the right of the government to deny due process to anyone, but a lot of people out there think that it is justified under certain circumstances. A lot of people see the 2nd amendment as inviolate and think it should be applied to everyone without restriction, but fail to agree that the 5th amendment applies to everyone and is just as inviolate. Personally, the right to a fair trial is an absolute requirement of a free nation. Once you have had your fair trial and have been convicted, your other rights as a citizen, like the right to own a firearm can and should be restricted as you have been proven to be incapable of living by the rules of society.

[Darwood]

Phoenix, AZ has unlicensed open carry and is a city of 4 million people. They seem to be doing fine so I don't buy it that large metropolitan areas can't handle unlicensed open carry.

[wjmphoto]

Phoenix, AZ has unlicensed open carry and is a city of 4 million people. They seem to be doing fine so I don't buy it that large metropolitan areas can't handle unlicensed open carry.

Using Arizona as an example is not the best choice. Arizona is currently the 3rd most dangerous state in the union behind Nevada and New Mexico (in that order). Vermont is the second safest behind North Dakota. Population density has a great deal to do with how safe a state or city is and statistics have historically proven this to be correct. The other consideration has nothing to do with population and everything to do with the cultural makeup of the state, city, county, etc.

Look at the 10 safest states in the Union:

North Dakota
Vermont
Maine
New Hampshire
Wyoming
South Dakota
Montana
Iowa
Wisconsin
West Virginia

Not densely populated in any sense of the word, no mega cities like LA, Dallas or Chicago, relatively low unemployment, and generally generic populations as far as demographics.

A quick look at the 10 most dangerous states and you will see exactly the opposite:

Nevada
New Mexico
Arizona
Maryland
Tennessee
South Carolina
Alaska
Florida
California
Louisiana

Here you have states with much more dense cities, concentrated areas of population, a lot of illegal immigrants, less generic populations, and a lot of unemployment and welfare recipients.

So what is the point? Who knows! LOL! Actually the point is that your assertion that open carry means a safe state does not hold up to the statistics. You have 2 open carry states that are at direct opposites of the spectrum as far as safety. That means that open carry cannot be a sole determinant of how safe or dangerous a state is and as such there have to be a great deal more factors involved such as demographics and population density and both have been proven as to be real factors in how safe an area is to live in.

This does not mean that we should not be granted our constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms and defend ourselves. To the contrary, it does indicate that Those who argue both sides need to look at the statistics again and realize that guns have little to do with crime and that we need to start looking for the real cause of such behavior and fix that rather than using the band aid approach of taking away guns and leaving the element of crime intact and our citizens defenseless.

Before setting a city such as Phoenix or the state of Arizona forth as a shining example of the effectiveness of open carry laws, please be sure to check how safe those places actually are and be sure to realize there are reasons that Arizona is less safe than Vermont even though both have open carry laws. All it takes is a quick look at the stats for the anti to say, "That's your best example? Arizona is among the most dangerous states to live if that's the best you've got then your argument has to be wrong!" The anti is just as wron in looking at a single stat and coming to an unjustified conclusion. Most of them want to blame guns because it is easier to place the blame for a problem on a thing rather than on people. It is so much easier to take a thing away than to fix the problems that are inherent in human beings so they choose the “easy way� as the solution and remain baffled when crime fails to drop.

(As for stats, they are from 2007 and from this link:
http://www.morganquitno.com/dang07.htm)

[KBCraig]

While it is a right, it is not one that is open, nor should it be open, to everyone. Convicted felons should not have the right to carry open or concealed or even own a firearm. Spousal abusers should not be allowed to carry or own a weapon either. People with serious mental illness and those with drug and alcohol addictions should not be allowed to carry.

Wow, that all sounds "reasonable". And you know that lots of "reasonable" people believe you shouldn't be allowed to carry or own a firearm, either, right?

The only way to insure that law abising citizens are the only ones that carry a gun legally is to require background checks, like Texas. Granted it will not stop criminals from carrying because they don't worry about following the law in the first place, but it helps.

Are you seriously saying, simultaneously, that criminals can't be stopped from carrying guns, but that we can ensure anyone carrying a gun is doing so legally by having a background check?

Don't take up debate for a hobby, okay?

[wjmphoto]

While it is a right, it is not one that is open, nor should it be open, to everyone. Convicted felons should not have the right to carry open or concealed or even own a firearm. Spousal abusers should not be allowed to carry or own a weapon either. People with serious mental illness and those with drug and alcohol addictions should not be allowed to carry.

Wow, that all sounds "reasonable". And you know that lots of "reasonable" people believe you shouldn't be allowed to carry or own a firearm, either, right?

Slippery slope arguement there. You can't equate preventing criminals, people with mental health issues, those proven to be a danger to others, and people with chemical dependancy issues from being allowed to own firearms with preventing law abiding citizens with no such defects from owning a weapon. But I guess you are happy tha Cho and people like him are able to own guns because that is what YOU are implying.

The only way to insure that law abising citizens are the only ones that carry a gun legally is to require background checks, like Texas. Granted it will not stop criminals from carrying because they don't worry about following the law in the first place, but it helps.

Are you seriously saying, simultaneously, that criminals can't be stopped from carrying guns, but that we can ensure anyone carrying a gun is doing so legally by having a background check?

Are you seriously arguing the point? Are you seriously going to imply that it is good governmental policy to allow convicted felons, people with mental health issues, and people who are in fact dangerous to others to walk in to a gun store and legally buy a firearm and then carry openly or concealed without any checks in place? Are you going to say with a straight face that requiring a background check is a bad thing in order for someone to get a permit to carry a gun?

If you expect to be taken seriously, you have to be able to make a logical and serious point as well as not distort another's point to try and prove yourself right through such distortion. I never implied that licensing guarantees that only legally licensed persons will be carry a firearm. I did say that the only way to make sure that law abiding citiznes are carrying legally is to have a system of licensing as opposed to simply allowing everyone to carry regardless of legal or mental health histories. There is a logical difference between the two that is easily discernable.

Don't take up debate for a hobby, okay?

Slippery slope and straw man arguments are certainly not a good starting point for your own debating career. You may want to read up on those logical fallacies yourself before you start poking a finger at others.

[seamusTX]

Slippery slope and straw man arguments are certainly not a good starting point for your own debating career.

In 38 years we have gone down the slippery slope from anyone being able to buy any revolver, semi-automatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun by U.S. mail, to making it onerously difficult in many places and totally illegal in some.

Is that not slippery enough?

You can't stop criminals and deranged people from obtaining weapons or carrying out evil deeds. It is impossible.

- Jim

[wjmphoto]

Slippery slope and straw man arguments are certainly not a good starting point for your own debating career.

In 38 years we have gone down the slippery slope from anyone being able to buy any revolver, semi-automatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun by U.S. mail, to making it onerously difficult in many places and totally illegal in some.

Is that not slippery enough?

You can't stop criminals and deranged people from obtaining weapons or carrying out evil deeds. It is impossible.

- Jim

That is true, but you can make it more difficult and stop them from doing it legally. My issue is with allowing criminals, junkies, alcoholics and seriously mentally ill persons to buy weapons legally without any safeguards intact. I have no problem with going through training and being required to show proficiency before carrying a weapon on my person. I have no problem with background checks to make sure that I am not a felon and do not have psychological issues that would make allowing me to carry a concealed weapon a bad idea. These are not restrictions that keep the average populace and vast majority of people from being able to own or carry weapon legally. These are safeguards that do not deny anyone their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Just as there are limits to free speech, there must also be limits that are meant to keep people who should not have weapons on them in the first place from owning them. (That is the thing that anti's don't comprehend, that normal law abiding citizens are guaranteed the right to own a firearm and it is their natural right to be able to defend themselves with them as well)

I don't argue the fact that municipalities and states that make posession of a firearm by normal law abiding citizens a crime are violating the second amendment. The simple fact remains that keeping a felon or mentally ill person from buying a firearm legally is vastly different from stopping all citizens from buying a firearm altogether. One does not rationally lead to or equate to the other.

[seamusTX]

The simple fact remains that keeping a felon or mentally ill person from buying a firearm legally is vastly different from stopping all citizens from buying a firearm altogether. One does not rationally lead to or equate to the other.

In every case, in the United States, we have seen a progression from an unrestricted RKBA to the present situation, where you cannot legally possess a handgun in our nation's capital and other cities. It is always one more "reasonable" step to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons.

The theory of gun control in the United Nations Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons conference is that all illegal weapons start out as legal weapons, and therefore legal weapons must be restricted as much as possible and preferably banned.

- Jim

[jimlongley]

While it is a right, it is not one that is open, nor should it be open, to everyone. Convicted felons should not have the right to carry open or concealed or even own a firearm. Spousal abusers should not be allowed to carry or own a weapon either. People with serious mental illness and those with drug and alcohol addictions should not be allowed to carry.

You're using the same null arguments that are the anti-gun nuts' favorites. Convicted felons already don't have the right, but that doesn't stop them, Spousal Abusers hardly give the fact that they are violating many laws a thought and, as evidenced by Cho's rampage, the laws don't seem to have much effect on drunks, druggies, or nut cases. Yes, it is a right which should be available to a subset of "everyone" but the definition and regulation of the subset is where the problem lie. My feeling, and I know others feel the same, is that the subset should be defined by elimination, not qualification, that is; remove the criminals, etc, and the rest of us will take care of ourselves. Don't license the law abiding.

The only way to insure that law abising citizens are the only ones that carry a gun legally is to require background checks, like Texas. Granted it will not stop criminals from carrying because they don't worry about following the law in the first place, but it helps.

I don't see how your first sentence and second sentence even fit in the same paragraph. How does a background check ensure that only law abiding citizens are carrying? Your second sentence denies this. And then, if criminals will, by definition, disobey that law, how does it help?

I have no problem with presenting a permit to an officer if requested to show that I am a law abiding citizens and have gone through the process. The question is why would anyone have a problem with this except those who would be denied a permit in the first place because of background or disqualifying factors?

As long as the process exists, I don't have a problem with it either, but it sure reminds me of "May I see your papers please?" In Vermont and Alaska you are presumed to be a law abiding citizen unless you prove otherwise (innocent until proven guilty?) and only then are you prohibited from carrying a gun, and if you are caught the penalties are commensurately high. I would rather the process did not exist. (more on that later.)

Yes, owning a gun is a constitutionally guaranteed right, but so is voting and the state government has a right to disqualify people from voting based on felony convictions as well. All rights are not absolute and do not apply to all people.

I would argue with that too. The Constitution, as written, sees those rights it protects, in combination with the Bill of Rights and other Amendments as absolute, inviolate, applying to everyone, all people. Of course the Constitution had to be amended to make everyone a little more global than the everyone that was first written into the document to begin with, but that amendment only made the set broader, including women, people of color, non-property owners , and others who had found themselves disenfranchised by legal wrangling and interpretive spin.

That there are those not competent to exercise their rights was recognized right from the start, and has been held to include felons and various others by interpretation and judicial fiat over the years. It's really kind of too bad that the founders did not do more to codify some of this stuff, I think they probably thought that not allowing people who displayed no ability or desire to properly exercise their rights was just common sense.

Using Vermont style carry is not necessarily feasible in other parts of the nation.

Sure it is, and it worked fine until people started insisting that governments should not "allow" people to have guns.

The idea of let everyone carry and sort out the bad guys caarrying guns after the fact just does not work in larger and more densely populated cities and parts of the country that inherently have higher crime rates than Vermont ever had in the first place.

I don't see how that's any different than what we have now, except that those of us who are preternaturally inclined to be law abiding will get the necessary license, that "allows" us to exercise a right, while the criminals will go ahead and carry regardless of the law. All the CHL "permission" does is give the government control over a right, turning it into a privilege, which they can modify as they see fit (as exemplified by regular changes to the CHL laws and rules)

BTW, having spent a great deal of time in Vermont, I can assure you that their big cities, although not quite as large as others, still have big city woes, and their rural areas are not any different than other rural areas except that they tend to be more vertical.

Let's face it, I disagree with the right of the government to deny due process to anyone, but a lot of people out there think that it is justified under certain circumstances.

And that does not make them right. The government only gets away with what we let it, and once we let them do something it's hard to make them stop. It's that old thing about not letting the camel's nose into the tent, the rest will inevitably follow.

A lot of people see the 2nd amendment as inviolate and think it should be applied to everyone without restriction, but fail to agree that the 5th amendment applies to everyone and is just as inviolate. Personally, the right to a fair trial is an absolute requirement of a free nation.

Which also doesn't make them right. The first eight amendments are pretty specific about the rights that pre-exist the document and are meant to be guarded by them. Each is pretty much, by the definition contained in each, inviolate right from the start, and the meanings have once again only really changed with spin and fiat.

BTW, don't you mean the Sixth. which guarantees the right to a fair trial, and not the Fifth, which guarantees due process in reaching the trial?

Once you have had your fair trial and have been convicted, your other rights as a citizen, like the right to own a firearm can and should be restricted as you have been proven to be incapable of living by the rules of society.

Pretty much my way of thinking, not quite the whole thing, see above, but close.

The dichotomy comes with how we prevent those criminals from doing more illegal things while not restricting the rights of the law abiding. Of course we could go back to branding, wearing scarlet letters, placing people on display when convicted so that everyone would know who they were and know that they were not supposed to be availing themselves of rights that they had, by their own actions, made themselves ineligible for.

We have tried permits for guns, and have pretty much demonstrated that that doesn't work, and permits for carry go right with that. We had a ten year experiment outlawing various guns and cosmetic features that failed miserably, and prior to that other prohibitions have similarly failed, including the initial capital Prohibition.

What we need to do is recognize that criminals will be criminals without regard for what society dictates, and punish them appropriately, and the rest of us should live without the government (actually other people) interfering by "allowing" us to exercise our rights.

[/philosophical]