One can imagine such a place, where nearly everyone carries a gun and so carrying one yourself would just be “blending in,” but that’s so obviously fantastical I don’t think it merits serious consideration. In any conceivable reality, only a very small percentage of the population actually carries, and most of those do so concealed.
Seung-hui Cho hid his guns in a backpack until he was inside the school. Lanza and Holmes had both outfitted themselves in an obviously combative fashion and were armed with rifles, and drove close to the entrances where they began their assaults, minimizing the time they could be seen in public. Hawkins, apparently, concealed his rifle in a sweatshirt before he started shooting.
And again, I’m talking about the perception of people carrying holstered handguns, not rifles – I’d be concerned too, seeing a random guy walking about carrying an AR-15. Doubly so if he seemed to be acting in any unusual manner, and I’d be downright alarmed if the rifle was anywhere but slung on his back.
Nominally it does, yes. And that’s why I don’t advocate that everybody and their grandma go buy a handgun and start carrying it around. It’s a huge responsibility and burden that, for most people in most circumstances, is not justified by the small likelihood that a gun would be needed. But that’s not what the argument is about – I’m talking more about the perception of open carry as opposed to concealed carry, and how people evaluate perceived risks in their environment.
I absolutely agree with you here; walking around slung with a rifle just to make a point about open carry is not only impolite to an extreme, it’s counterproductive for anyone whose goal is greater acceptance of open carry.
The less populated, the less likely it is that a random discharge will hit someone. There’s no real cut off point. I will say that if some people, whether it be one or a thousand, chose to take part in some activity that involves guns out of range of anyone who doesn’t want to be involved, I have no objection at all.
“Well-trained” is another continuous variable for which any cut off point would be arbitrary. I suppose, if I had to define exactly what I want, it would be people who have had gun safety drilled into them to such an extent that they would never point it anywhere near someone they didn’t intend to shoot, never rest their finger on the trigger, use the safety appropriately, never leave their gun unattended for even a few seconds, etc. I don’t mean that they simply know the rules, I mean making them instinctive. I’d be happy to leave the specifics to the experts.
I should point out I’m not American and have no personal stake in this.
Can the Open Carriers additionally claim their actions fall under 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech rights? Guns are symbols, symbolic speech is protected.
Carve/Paint a Star & Crescent or Cross or Star of David on the stock to get religion into the discussion.
(I’m just shooting my mouth off)
The only way you could think that is if you literally can’t read or understand the plain text of the second amendment. It always amazes me looking from outside how Americans simultaneously boast about how good their constitution is, and then seek to ignore it as much as possible.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There’s no way to paint banning open carry as not infringing someone’s right to bear arms.
Felons can’t own firearms, and citizens can’t own fully automatic weapons except in limited circumstances that effectively make it impossible for your average Joe. Those are both in violation of the plain English of the 2nd amendment, so either our whole country is whack or, more likely, the 2nd amendment doesn’t exist in a vacuum where those 14 words are all that matters. The US Supreme Court has held that laws can’t prohibit (or effectively prohibit without explicitly doing so) citizens from acquiring, owning, and transporting basic, common weapons, like semi-automatic handguns. While there are some people who I’m sure would disagree, I don’t think the supreme court would find that one of the many states or localities that currently prohibit open carry (instead allowing concealed carry only) are making unreasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment in the name of public safety. Perhaps those laws will be successfully challenged at some point in the future, but at the moment I think my conclusion is 100% consistent with current US case law.
Or maybe I can’t read. Might be that too. :rolleyes:
Typically, revolutions glorify the right of the people to own and carry arms, in defiance of the oppressors. But then as decades go by and the revolution becomes the status quo, the successors of the original revolutionaries start to regret their predecessors’ largesse not only with arms but other freedoms as well- gotta keep lawnorder you know; and God forbid anyone should revolt against their government. The USA is not unique in this respect: the Mexican revolution ended with a constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms, but it’s been effectively interpreted out of existence (you can own a small caliber revolver, if you get the government’s permission).
Until finally incorporated by the Heller and McDonald decisions, the Second Amendment was “The Embarrassing Second Amendment”: the most glaringly violated provision of the Constitution- worse even than the formation of West Virginia despite the provision against breaking up states. The Federal and state governments weren’t going to champion a limitation of their power (see my previous post), it took a years-long grass roots movement to finally force the SCOTUS to take on the issue, which it had been ducking at least since Miller.
That can just as easily be turned around. It’s not like the people who oppose open-carry are opposed to all open carry; they’re just opposed to someone who isn’t wearing a government-issued uniform doing it.
I’d be a lot more persuaded of your point if the people who were opposed to open carry were also exhibiting a great deal of concern about police militarization, no-knock raids, and the ways that aggressive policing of nonviolent crime already creates the kind of violent escalations that people fear will happen if random citizens carry a .45 into Denny’s. I’m not seeing that, though. I’m sure not seeing anyone advocating for police to go without guns, like police in the UK.
ISTM that they just have a different “good guy” of choice: it’s fine for Officer Freindly to tote his sidearm around because he can be trusted (after all, he has a badge), but they get nervous when anyone else does. The open-carry advocates, on the other hand seem inclined to question the premise that cops, as a group, are inherently more or less trustworthy than the average law-abiding citizen.
Since Ferguson, a lot of people HAVE been showing a lot of concern for the over militarization of police forces. However, one of the arguments police officials often make in defense of their militarization is the proliferation of so many guns. They attribute that to no-knock raids, as well.
Long post swallowed by the hamsters here. Summary:
Open carry of pistols is fine and shouldn’t be the subject of attention by law enforcement. If you are open carrying a fucking rifle in public then the police aren’t doing their jobs if they don’t at least stop and question you.
You are quoting a sentence fragment. The full sentence reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is entirely reasonable to maintain that the amendment refers to militias and furthermore espouses strict regulation. What it prohibits according to this view would be to have one set of regulations for Republicans and another for Democrats or to favor one religion over another, etc. Precedent would be the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
This is NOT the interpretation that holds in the US. I am not claiming here that it is even the best interpretation. I am just disputing your claim that regulation of arms are prohibited on the basis of a clear reading of the 2nd amendment, slam and dunk. That is not the case.
When I see a guy toting a pair of Tec-9s, I don’t automatically assume he’s an average law-abiding citizen. That’s just me.
In fact, anybody out of uniform and packing heat at the local Chipotle may as well be walking around with a sandwich board reading, “I am abnormal, probably paranoid, most likely terrible at risk assessment.” To my way of thinking he is approximately as trustworthy as a fellow citizen carrying a broadsword and wearing a Napoleon hat. Admittedly, I can imagine exceptions. If somebody likes shooting at targets or Bambi, I say fine. If they want to fire cannons in the desert, rock on. Heck, they can even have intricate conversations with themselves on the bus: it’s just that I wouldn’t characterize such behavior as typical.
I respond to each category of behavior as appropriate.
For those of you who feel that it’s prudent to be afraid of someone carrying a gun–are you afraid of a random person driving a big, heavy hunk of metal? Do you cringe every time a car approaches, wondering if it might be driven by a suicidal maniac who wants to go out in a blaze of glory?
I’m guessing not. And I’m also guessing that it’s because cars are so common. If I’m right, then you agree with the open-carry movement’s logic–you just apply it to cars instead of guns.
Furthermore, open carriers are NOT paranoid. It is no more paranoid to carry a gun than it is to have a fire extinguisher in the house. The chance that you’ll need either one on any given day is vanishingly small. Indeed, you may go your whole life without ever needing either one. BUT–if you do need one, you’re apt to really need it, and fast.
As the saying goes, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
I don’t even think it is a reasonable reading. If the amendment had said that the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then you might be on to something. But they didn’t say that; they said “the people.”
One might think so, but the schizoid attitude of the left on arms and police was summed up nicely in this essay written by a leftist critic of gun control (bolding mine):
In every document mentioning the militia contemporary with the Second Amendment, the word is used to refer to the populace at large, the People. For a good specific example read the full text of The Federalist #29. In it, Hamilton uses the term “militia” as synonymous with “the great body of the yeomanry”. He even uses the exact phrase “well-regulated militia”, while specifically refuting the idea that every citizen with a firearm must be under government supervision.
Not so far as I’ve seen, but I’m open to being persuaded otherwise.
There are somewhere between several dozen members and a couple hundred members of congress quite safely designated as “liberal.” If these are indeed “major issues” for them, we’d expect to see them acting on it; could you point out some of the legislation they’ve proposed on these issues over, say the last twenty years? Or the prominent place these issues played in their platforms and campaigns?
Let me be clear here: I’m not interested in “well they care more than conservatives.” Both liberals and conservatives had a spasm of interest in police militarization after Ferguson (which is already now fading), but AFAICT outside of that these are, at best blog-post-once-every-six-months kind of topics for both Team Red and Team Blue, not things they actually care about enough to act on.