Henigan claims Heller created the second amendment

I know some are older on here, and some have been involved in the issue longer than I may have been, but there definitely is a part of me that agrees with RDak - or as they say, "its not so much the age as it is the mileage."

Tom I agree that more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar, but the truth is the older I get the more direct and less diplomatic I feel. The only thing that saves me from being rudely direct and honest with people at times is that - I've been there, done that - meaning I've had that argument or debate before and I don't feel like wasting my time doing it again - so sometimes I do keep my mouth shut - sometimes.

So, I am glad that there are good patient ambassadors out there like Tom. But I would argue that the take no enemies camp is important too. I think of it like the NRA, SAF, JPFO and so on. You have the moderate voice of the NRA, a voice that is needed to be the largest umbrella of gun owners not just RKBA activists, but also individuals who are mostly just hunters or sport shooters. Yet there is a need for the more aggressive organizations like the JPFO - that cut to the chase and yell "shall not be infringed" from the roof tops. In the end they complement each other, those on the extreme edge make the NRA seem moderate by comparison. A version of good cop, bad cop if you will. Some are spiritual or ideological leaders and others are practical builders. Consider the NRA - dragged kicking and screaming by Gura and Levy into Heller - or Gura going for a home run with PoI in McDonald and the NRA going strictly with DP and their case and then McDonald. Both are important. In my state the NRA affiliate state rifle association was loath at times to push aggressive legislation - but upstart local organizations pushed ahead on issues anyway. The state association got to be moderate pal to skittish legislators and the locals got things fired up. Just like with Open Carry advocates and the NRA and CCW groups - Open Carry is a lightning rod, they start debates, the NRA sits in the background with CCW ready to reap benefits - and in the end the whole carry movement goes forward. Open Carry argues to normalize people carrying loaded guns openly so it becomes normalized - while NRA pushes shall issue CCW. In the end public awareness is raised and people are confronted with the issue of RKBA and forced to think about it - and more people carry and get CCW and CCW laws are liberalized. And sometimes even open carry wins. Just like for every prudent Craig Boddington or Massad Ayoob we need an Elmer Keith or Jeff Cooper.

Me, the older I get, the more salt and vinegar I like.
 
Tom Servo:
Please don't take offense, but couching it in those terms is exactly why some people are leery of the gun culture.

Too many people in our camp are very quick to fume and castigate when someone questions the wisdom, legality or practicality of what we do. Perhaps that energy would be better spent changing hearts and minds than reacting with vitriol.

The idea of punishing people who act out of ignorance isn't the way to do that. It's harder, but more rewarding in the long run, to take the time to convince the skeptics.
Click to expand...

I don't take offense, Tom. We're here to debate, so let the debating continue. You make relevent points.

I don't think the people who are winnable, yet might be leery of the gun culture, are the ones who immediately call 911 when they see someone open carrying or suspect someone is carrying concealed. Thus, they would not be my target for small fines when the cops are called to the scene.

I do whatever I can to convince the skeptics, but I don't think they are the problem when it comes to yelling for the authorities at the mere sight of a gun in public, carried by a non uniformed individual. I would be after people like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Hennighan, etc. Those are people who will never be convinced and who, I'm guessing, would see nothing wrong with calling the cops when they've cited a handgun in public, being carried by a non uniformed individual.

They are wrong headed and they suck up valuable police time in solving real crimes or catching people running red lights, etc. (I almost go hit by one of those maniacs a few months ago with my kids in the car. Good thing I look both ways even on green. They are a real menace to public safety.)

I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree with you. However, I don't like to hear stories of people calling the cops to harrass law abiding citizens for being law abiding citizens. I'd like to see some way to make them (the folks who make the calls) rethink what they are really doing when they call the police and why. That's my beef. We can debate about the best way to go about it. Maybe a fine isn't the best way, but it's a good opening point to debate how we can be more effective in protecting the rights of the law abiding gun owner from undue harrassment from the authorities, just because some person who is scared of guns calls the authorities for no real good reason.
 
USAFNoDak said:
However, I don't like to hear stories of people calling the cops to harrass law abiding citizens for being law abiding citizens. I'd like to see some way to make them (the folks who make the calls) rethink what they are really doing when they call the police and why.
Click to expand...

I don't have any statistics or sources for this but I am willing to bet big that most folk who call 911 when they see OC are not wanting to "harass" a law abiding gun owner. I believe they are not used to seeing someone carrying around a gun in public and so they are frightened. With the incidences of mass killings and spree murderers that keep being broadcast by the media I think their fear is explainable.

We had a dim-witted kook here in Nashville who walked about a suburban nature park in military style cammies with an AK-47 handgun configuration slung over his shoulder scaring the heck out of the bird watchers. Park Rangers were called and he was released after questioning. Later, the idiot walked down the middle of Belle Meade Boulevard (ritzy part of town) carrying a pistol openly in his hand. Police were called and later this numbskull sued the police and park rangers for "violating his civil rights".

Fortunately, his CCW was been suspended by the state and I hope permanently.

Tom is completely right in his ideas that trying to "punish" folk for being afraid of firearms could backfire and only bring us more gun control attempts that the courts MAY NOT overturn.

Better IMHO to teach and encourage tolerance than get militant and try to ram it down their throats.

While Heller, McDonald and other cases have and will indeed secure more lost rights for gun owners I submit we will NEVER see any gun, anywhere, anyone as law and that the fed, states and local authorities will still have some descretion in regulating guns. I think being good citizens will secure more tolerance in those cases where descretion is exercised rather than militant activity that could backfire into more regulation.

Remember, many movements and strategies can be undone by overplaying one's hand.
 
Last edited:
TG:
I don't have any statistics or sources for this but I am willing to bet big that most folk who call 911 when they see OC are not wanting to "harass" a law abiding gun owner. I believe they are not used to seeing someone carrying around a gun in public and so they are frightened. With the incidences of mass killings and spree murderers that keep being broadcast by the media I think their fear is explainable.

We had a dim-witted kook here in Nashville who walked about a suburban nature park in military style cammies with an AK-47 handgun configuration slung over his shoulder scaring the heck out of the bird watchers. Park Rangers were called and he was released after questioning. Later, the idiot walked down the middle of Belle Meade Boulevard (ritzy part of town) carrying a pistol openly in his hand. Police were called and later this numbskull sued the police and park rangers for "violating his civil rights".
Click to expand...

I'm not hard core in calling for the anti gunners to be punished, I'm mostly expressing a frustration level with them making life uncomfortable for other law abiding people, just because they feel uncomfortable.

Your anecdote is certainly one which calls for caution. I don't disagree. However, there was also an instance in Virginia, I believe, where several guys were in a restaurant OPEN CARRYING which was the only way to LEGALLY CARRY in an establishment which served alcohol, IIRC. Some one got upset with them, not because they were acting threatening or anything. As a matter of fact, if I recall the story, they had been there for quite some time before some imbecile got upset and decided to contact the police. It gets pretty tough when laws are written, law abiding citizens follow the law as they were written, yet still get hassled by authorities because some nincompoop "FEELS" uncomfortable around guns. The guns were in holsters. I think those gun owners rights were violated much more so than the dummy who called the cops. It riles me to read stories like that, just as much as it upsets me to read stories like yours. Which one is more common? I don't honestly know.

So, the question remains, what recourse do the law abiding gun owners have when they are singled out by anti gunners and the anti gunners call the authorities on them. It's almost slander to a degree. False police reporting? False accusations? What should be done? Nothing? Like health care reform, we can't just do nothing. ;)
 
However, there was also an instance in Virginia, I believe, where several guys were in a restaurant OPEN CARRYING which was the only way to LEGALLY CARRY in an establishment which served alcohol, IIRC. Some one got upset with them, not because they were acting threatening or anything. As a matter of fact, if I recall the story, they had been there for quite some time before some imbecile got upset and decided to contact the police.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the open carry movement claims they do so with the intent of educating people. I'd think they'd take a situation like that to educate both the person calling the police and the responding officers, if necessary.

Furthermore, what good would it do to bring charges against the person calling? What if they just didn't know any better? Does punishing make them feel any better about our cause, or will it just fuel more resentment?

How do we know if we're punishing malice, or just ignorance? How does that make us better than them?

Here in Georgia, we have quite a few transplants from places like New York and New Jersey. Those people can be forgiven for thinking something's amiss when they see non-uniformed folks carrying.

Frankly, if someone wants to open carry, they should expect to be the center of attention. Many of them do it for exactly that reason. Well, if they're going to put themselves in that role, then their responsibility is to act as reasonable, temperate ambassadors of the gun culture.

To do otherwise (and I've seen this happen) is to reinforce the "militant" stereotype many people have regarding gun owners.

We're still fighting a war of public perception, and the opinion of the panicky soccer mom at table four matters.

Fortunately, his CCW was been suspended by the state and I hope permanently.
Click to expand...
I'm the last one to defend Mr. Embody's actions. I really am. But I can't help but wonder if the state made an unethical, and potentially dangerous, mistake in that case.

The question may justify a thread of its own...
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo:
Frankly, if someone wants to open carry, they should expect to be the center of attention. Many of them do it for exactly that reason. Well, if they're going to put themselves in that role, then their responsibility is to act as reasonable, temperate ambassadors of the gun culture.
Click to expand...

I believe the gentlemen in Virginia were acting reasonable. As a matter of fact, as I recall, they were sitting by themselves, minding their own business. They weren't doing anything to call unnecessary attention to themselves, other than openly carrying.

Maybe punishing the caller is not going to be useful. If not, then what should be done about a situation similar to Virginia where a citizen or group of citizens is carrying a firearm in a legal manner, and some nitwit gets his undies in a bundle about it. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the "caller" is ignorant of the law(s) and calls for the authorities, what should be the remedy to reduce or attempt to prevent such calls in the future. Let's debate that, not whether open carrying in public is wrong or too agressive for the gun culture. I say it's wrong and too agressive for people to call the authorities when people are open carrying and obeying the laws while doing so.
 
Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the "caller" is ignorant of the law(s) and calls for the authorities, what should be the remedy to reduce or attempt to prevent such calls in the future.
Click to expand...
There are remedies, but they require some proactive steps.

First off, IIRC, Virginia is an unlicensed open carry state. Folks there should have been in touch with local law enforcement to educate them on the laws. People should be taking a few minutes with the local chief of police to sit down and explain that the mere presence of a gun does not constitute crime or threat. The chief can then instruct his officers accordingly.

People are doing this, right? Please tell me I'm not the only one.

Cops have better things to do than respond to nuisance "man with a gun" calls, and the 911 operators can defuse many such situations by asking the caller whether or not the person with the gun is doing anything odd besides simply being in possession of a gun. If the caller states that there is no present threat, the operator can quickly explain that the person's behavior is legal.

I say it's wrong and too agressive for people to call the authorities when people are open carrying and obeying the laws while doing so.
Click to expand...
I've been made, and I was once hassled about it. It was a quick and minor inconvenience. It'll happen; it comes with the territory. When did the gun culture suddenly become the Sensitivity Squad? ;)

Like I said, if it happens (and it will), use it as an opportunity to educate. It may be a chance to make a person comfortable being around folks with guns. You may even gain an ally out of it.

The worst-case scenario is to say, "well, I'm sorry you feel that way" and go about your business. On one occasion, the officer told the guy that for me.
 
USAFNoDak said:
So, the question remains, what recourse do the law abiding gun owners have when they are singled out by anti gunners and the anti gunners call the authorities on them.
Click to expand...

Again, I am not sure that everyone who would do that is "anti-gun" but if they do it in a harassing manner (eg follow you around calling in complaints) then you could take action against them maybe thru civil means.

I would talk to the Chief LEO or my local political representative. Write letters to the editor etc. Raise awareness.

You can't nail them for a false report if all they say is "I see a man with a gun" because that is true. The police have to be careful because the minute they choose NOT to respond and something goes south then they burn for it.
 
The police have to be careful because the minute they choose NOT to respond and something goes south then they burn for it.
Click to expand...
But they don't burn, really. What's wrong with dispatcher asking a few questions of the caller, such as: Is he threatening anybody? Is he pointing the gun at anyone? Does he seem angry? What is he doing right now? What is he saying? If there is clearly no issue other than an individual lawfully carrying a firearm then there is no reason to dispatch whatsoever.

This is where we are ultimately going if bearing is upheld in future cases, and it is exactly what is done in loaded-open-carry states like Vermont, and Arizona. If we really want to learn what works in the area of policing open carry of guns, why not turn to the folks that do it every day. LE in these pro-carry states are aghast at the way citizens are treated in CA, and other similar places.

As most of us know by now, LE has no duty to protect, but they do have a duty not to violate civil rights.

If an officer proned-out an individual for no other reason than the fact that he/she is lawfully carrying a weapon, they WOULD get burned for it, and they should.

This is what is done in many jurisdictions. So, if LE DOES respond and observes the subject of the call gassing up his car, or mowing the lawn or dropping off dry cleaning, or walking the dog, and no evidence of any threat or a crime exists, or even disorderly conduct, that should be the end of it. If it's CA, the responding officer may elect to do a loaded check, because in that state, for now, the pistol must be unloaded. But THAT'S IT.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with dispatcher asking a few questions of the caller, such as: Is he threatening anybody? Is he pointing the gun at anyone? Does he seem angry? What is he doing right now? What is he saying? If there is clearly no issue other than an individual lawfully carrying a firearm then there is no reason to dispatch whatsoever.
Click to expand...
And this reply should be in the 911 call response manual in every open carry jurisdiction! Under "MAN WITH A GUN" section... subsection (page 2) holstered firearm...

For a method of civil disobedience, folks could... NAY... SHOULD call 911 to report every uniformed officer open carrying in public. They are no different than us! Many are not as mentally stable as most gun toters and MOST leos do not fire near the rounds down range in practice as we do.

Brent
 
maestro pistolero said:
But they don't burn, really.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We read and hear in the media all the time about dispatchers who say dumb things (all these calls are recorded) to folks calling in when there is a real emergency. If a 911 blew off a call reporting someone was openly displaying a gun and then that person killed a mess of people I think the public would eat them alive. Sure they can ask questions and I think they should but my point is that if they decide not to respond and it goes bad they will get a lot of heat from the public.

Anyway, off topic but I am not a supporter of OC. I don't think it helps gun owners secure more freedom. It is not a tactic I would use to make the case for gun rights but that is just my opinion.

I will tell you that when I tried to fight the opting out of a TN law in my community about CCW in city parks (TN law allowed them to opt out) the kook I mentioned earlier was brought up by the soccer moms and they ended up banning guns in city parks. Guess OC didn't work that time?
 
For a method of civil disobedience, folks could... NAY... SHOULD call 911 to report every uniformed officer open carrying in public. They are no different than us!
Click to expand...
What good would that do? I'm pretty sure that would be considered filing a false report, not to mention engendering all sorts of ill will among local law enforcement.

If it was in my area, I'd turn the people making such calls it in to law enforcement. It's a waste of everyone's time and tax money, and it diverts the police from responding to real calls.

I mean, really...is it so hard to go about it the way I suggested? Or is it that it's just not glamorous enough?
 
For one thing, 911 calls are supposed to be limited to "emergencies". 4 or 5 guys sitting in a restaurant in Virginia, or anyplace else where it's legal to carry a gun, openly or concealed, are not indicative of an "emergency". Now, to be fair, I don't recall if that particular case was called into 911 or just the local authorities number. Where I live, we are covered by the county sheriffs office, acting as our police force. I carry their number on my cell phone as a "quick call" button.

911 should not be used unless the person with the gun is acting in a wierd, aggressive, or threatening way. It definitely should not be used in the case of 4 or 5 guys enjoying a burger in a restaurant while otherwise minding their own business.

If I see some guy walking through my cul-de-sac with a shootin' iron strapped onto his hip, but the gun is in the holster and he appears to be out for a walk, I'd probably wave and say, "Nice evening for a walk".

However, if I see some guy walking through my cul-de-sac with a shootin' iron in hand, and acting a little bit out of the ordinary, I'd call the local sheriff's office and let them know what I'm observing. I might also get in my house if I'm outside and observe what's happening.
 
Tom S,
that would be considered filing a false report
Click to expand...
So is a person legally open carrying a side arm in a holster.

Before you say that the caller may not know it is legal... Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it..."
Brent
 
hogdogs said:
Before you say that the caller may not know it is legal... Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it..."
Click to expand...

Brent, calling 911 and telling the operator that you see a man walking around with a gun in open view is neither a false report nor against the law.

If you guys think that localities are going to charge folks for calling in "man with a gun" to 911 you are kidding yourselves. Ain't gonna happen.

This is a problem (if it really is one) that we would solve with education and not by trying to "punish" those who make us mad because guns scare them.
 
Last edited:
Brent, calling 911 and telling the operator that you see a man walking around with a gun in open view is neither a false report nor against the law.

If you guys think that localities are going to charge folks for calling in "man with a gun" to 911 you are kidding yourselves. Ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...
So reporting a guy in blue shirt and trousers packing a gun wouldn't be filing a false report either:D
Brent
 
In theory, the open carry movement is to educate people about what is legal and what isn't. In states and areas where loaded open carry is permissible, the first step is to ensure call takers & dispatchers ask the right questions.

Police will publicly state that they "have to respond" to a man with a gun call. That's not entirely true. Done properly, a call might go something like this;

911: This is 911, what is your emergency?
Caller: There's a guy walking around with a gun here.
911: A man with a gun?
Caller: That's right, he's carrying a gun.
911: Where are you calling from sir?
Caller: I'm at ..uh..933 Park Street, downtown.
911: Alright, can you describe the man for me?
Caller: Yeah, he's white, short dark hair, maybe 30 to 35, blue shirt and khaki pants.

911: And what's he doing? Is he threatening anyone?
Caller: Uh..no. But he has a GUN!
911: I got that. Where's the gun? In his hand?
Caller: No. No. It... it's on his right side.
911: Is it in a holster?
Caller: Yeah. A black holster.
911: Is he threatening or arguing with anyone?

Caller: No. He's standing outside the Hobby Shop drinking coffee.
911: So he's not endangering anyone right now, correct?
Caller: But HE HAS A GUN! It's right out in the open!
911: I understand that, sir. But that's not illegal.
Caller: WHAT?
911: Just wearing a gun openly isn't illegal.

Caller: Are you ****ing me?
911: No sir. It's not illegal to wear a gun openly in this state.
Caller: But what about this guy with the gun?
911: What about him? Is he acting strangely or something?
Caller: No, not that. Are you telling me wearing a gun in public isn't a crime?

911: That's exactly correct sir.
Caller: This is nuts! This state is crazy!
911: Sir, are you from California?
Caller: Uh, yeah, why?
911: Nothing sir. Have a nice day
*click*
 
he went off several times about the Court had "created" an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Which is tough to argue, since any basis to the idea of this not being a personal right (National Guard or the whole 'militia only argument') came up years after the 2nd amendment

But tough or not, they'll argue it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top