[Devils Advocate]
And what do you suggest happens when the open carrier refuses to talk to the police or even stop walking?
At least in my state, you are required to show your carry permit on request by the police.
If I’m not mistaken, doesn’t Mn issue a “permit to carry a pistol”? or does it include long guns? I was responding to a post about openly carrying a rifle.
Here in Wisconsin open carry of pistols & rifles is legal. It was ruled protected under the state constitution by the state supreme court. Ironically that ruling came during a case involve concealed carry (back when that was illegal).
State law also prohibits charging someone with disorderly conduct for open carry.
Now the scenario: fellow is walking down a public sidewalk openly carrying a shotgun minding his own business. 911 calls prompt police response. Upon being approached he refuses to talk to police.
What would the likes of jtgain have them do? An FI stop may land an officer in a legal trick bag. How is a Terry stop justified when no obvious crime is being committed.
Police agencies across this state have been repeatedly successfully sued for detaining or even arresting open carriers.
The view I expressed upthread is roughly comparable to that of Justice John Paul Stevens. It isn’t fringe stuff.
My view, not that it matters, is that I accept Heller.
So what? There’s nothing in the 2nd amendment that implies that regulating firearms is unconstitutional according to the view I expressed upthread. Just because you can have private militias, doesn’t mean they should necessarily be able to get their hands on chemical weapons without proper training or screening. That’s nutcase stuff.
Then you get into the question of whether regulation includes “regulate out of existence”. The Second Amendment came about because of the proposed Constitution would give the federal government joint authority with the states to set standards for the militia and to summon it to arms in specified circumstances. It was feared that under that authority, potentially a federal tyranny could issue “stand down forever and turn in your guns” as a standing order. That’s why the amendment ended up including that part about “well-regulated”: so that an actual, practiced-with-using-guns citizenry would be there, not a paper militia that would exist only in theory. This wasn’t just speculation- the Framers were heavily influenced by the tumultuous history of 17th century England, and the lesson they took away from those interesting times was later phrased by Mao Zedong as “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”.
As for the “nerve gas, anthrax and nukes” argument, it’s hard to say since things like that couldn’t have been anticipated in the 18th century. A case could be made that the Contract Clause of the Constitution (Article One, Section Ten, 3rd clause) gives the federal government a monopoly on what we would now call “strategic weapons systems” intended to project military power against foreign nations. Certainly the states can be forbidden to have their own weapons of mass destruction, and presumably citizens as well.
We are way off topic. My intent was to establish that banning open carry of semi-automatic rifles at Chipotle isn’t slam-dunk contradicted by the 2nd amendment: there are a range of plausible legal theories. Also I wanted to transcribe the full sentence of the 2nd amendment, which honestly needs to be done during these constitutional discussions. Speaking personally I’ve read Amendment 2 many times and can’t make heads or tails of it.
If I had a dollar for every time a gun advocate pulls out the tired, old, car analogy…
Cars are NOT specifically made for taking lives. People have a need to use vehicles in their everyday lives. There is NO similar use for guns and no similar rationale for the average person to have one. Not even close
You need your guns because everyone else has them. Cops need their excessive combat equipment because so many people have guns. You really CAN’T argue against one but not the other. When the person you’re making your argument against can use the exact same argument as you, that’s called circular reasoning.
I am a gun owner and I don’t agree with the car analogy. Cars don’t expel projectiles that can kill/maim from hundreds of yards away.
I am a gun owner and live in an urban setting. If I see people open carrying, or otherwise know someone is concealed carrying, then I don’t have much reassurance as to their training or skills.
Has anyone taken the Florida CCW class? From what I understand it’s 2.5 hours, including range time where you have 25 rounds to hit paper from 15 feet away. And that qualifies one to carry concealed in Florida and 30+ states?
I’m not comforted much.
That said, oh how I wish I could carry concealed in my home state of California!!
Your constitution says otherwise. It says the average person should have one, or at least be trained to use one, for when they are part of the militia.
There’s other major differences between owning a car and a gun in America. Only the latter is a right, for example. Owning and using a car is a privilege the state can restrict as it sees fit, owning a gun is a fundamental right recognised by the constitution. I tend to think that the framers would have included the right to self-defence in there too, if it wasn’t so plainly self-evident. (And it’s really not great living somewhere that right isn’t recognised, like I do).
Now, you may disagree with it being this way, but the answer is to change the constitution (it was changed to recognise that right in the first place), not to ignore it or water it down.
Oh, and directly on topic for the thread, no-one’s ever been harmed by seeing a gun.
Are you saying they give you 25 rounds to hit a paper target ONCE from 15 feet away?
Funny.
IMHO, if an officer sees a person carrying a rifle in a populated area, he has a reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. He may detain and disarm that person until he has dispelled that suspicion. Oh, it’s just an open carry advocate making a political point? On your way, then.
Yeah well if you were a cop who did that you wouldn’t have your job for long.
Really? What gives him that suspicion? It can’t be carrying the weapon, if that’s legal. Someone trying to enter a private place with a weapon after being told they’re not welcome, you’d have a point.
What crime do you believe someone, in an open carry state, could be committing by carrying a weapon?
Nonsense. The constitution says nothing about “should”. NOT EVEN for militia.
The right is NOT absolute. The constitution doesn’t use the word “gun” anywhere. It uses the word “arm”. An automatic rifle is an “arm”, yet automatic rifles are banned for most Americans. So to use your point, the second amendment is ALREADY watered down. If it’s proper to restrict certain “arms”, it is no less proper to restrict the USE of certains arms such as openly carrying them in the street. At least in certain areas.
Ummm… That’s kind of my point: if you’re going to accept the “it’s dangerous out there” rationale for arming police engaged in everyday routine policing in low-crime areas, then you have to accept it for ordinary citizens as well. If you reject that argument for citizens, you should reject it for police as well. I’m in the first camp. And you?
Of course, just because one has the right to do something doesn’t make it good or wise, or that we can’t treat different levels of armament differently. So, for example, I personally have no problem people, police or not, carrying a holstered pistol; I think think people, police or not, walking around with an AR-15 are being assholes. Non-police doing it are within their rights, though, and as with most civil liberties, defending the principle means defending assholes. Similarly, most of us who are concerned about police militarization are not saying that no police anywhere ever need heavy weapons; just that heavy weapons are being deployed in ways that are unwise and poor policy.
That “opinion” would more than likely land you in civil court and the unemployment line, especially here. Legal precedent is against you.