Irresponsible Open Carry Activism Jeopardizes The RKBA

[JimPage]

I fully support the OP and Tom Servo on this one. Wanna be jerk? Dont endanger my reputation when you do it!!!!!!!!!

 

[NJgunowner]

I think what the OP is missing here is that if the police involved followed the law in the first place, there wouldn't be a confrontation. As the courts like to say, ignorance of the law is not a protection from the law. This applies to cops as well as the rest of us.

 

[JerryM]

I'm with the OP. The "In your face" attitude does more harm than good. If you want to O the do it, but don't walk around looking for a confrontation with the police.

If you want to make a comparison with the 1st A then go around the police yelling "FIRE" and see if that improves your 1st A rights.

Jerry

 

[aarondhgraham]

People said the same thing about Rosa Parks,,,

People said the same thing about Rosa Parks,,,
About how she was hurting the civil rights cause by being so blatant.

I've been thinking about this for a day now,,,
And I am somewhat torn in my thoughts.

Yes, the people who arm up and go looking for confrontation,,,
Are mostly idiots and hurting the RKBA cause.

Not so much for their confrontational actions,,,
But the stupid way in which they implement them.

What they are doing isn't necessarily the problem,,,
It's how stupidly they are doing it that is the problem.

If a person who was very knowledgable about gun laws,,,
Someone say with the stature of Massad Ayoob,,,
If he were to stage a similar scenario,,,
Would it go over as badly as most?

Rosa Parks was not a spur of the moment decision,,,
Her actions were planned and scripted well in advance of the act.

What if Massad Ayoob planned and scripted a well thought out scenario,,,
The recorded confrontation could have a very positive effect,,,
It could show the prejudices of some LEO's towards RKBA.

I'm not convinced that the confrontations themselves are a bad thing,,,
I will completely agree that the ill-planned ones paint us all in a bad light.

Aarond

.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

For a police view: http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Sa...ns-Police-contacts-with-open-carry-advocates/

I agree with Rob, BTW.

Aaron - why don't you do it, instead of Massad - who is a police officer anyway.

If you know history - you may know that the open carry of long arms by African-Amercian activists had the so-called conservatives all a twitter. Laws were passed.

 

[Tom Servo]

One social consequence of OC is that as people see it, they become accustomed to it. Another can be that POs get used to it.

Another consequence is that my bank banned all carry following an incident with a guy who chose to make his point about the 2nd Amendment on a busy Friday. Gee, thanks for that.

People said the same thing about Rosa Parks,,,

I've said it before: the Rosa Parks comparisons are distasteful and inaccurate. Blacks were denied equal treatment in many areas of life for no other reason than the way they were born. They had no control over that factor. They couldn't stop being black.

There's a big difference between that and someone simply being indiscreet in how they choose to perform a certain action.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Indeed. One social consequence of OC is that as people see it, they become accustomed to it. Another can be that POs get used to it...

Another is that enough people say to themselves, "A nut job with a gun; there ought to be a law." that we wind up with a law we don't much like.

...OC has not been prohibited by law in Ohio going back at least two decades. ...It took people pressing the point to start to change the culture so that Ohioans don't end up with a felony conviction for exercising a right in ordinary circumstances....

Two decades is pushing it. I think the 2003 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537 had more to do with it.

 

[aarondhgraham]

Hello Tom Servo,,,

I certainly did not mean to be distasteful in my reference to Rosa Parks,,,
I used Rosa Parks as a comparator to show how a well thought out and planned demonstration can work wonders for a cause.

My intent was to show her actions as successful in the long run because they were not some person trying to make a hasty statement or provoke an ill planned confrontation.

I will not do it (make a plan to confront) because I am not a proponent of open carry,,,
Those who are could certainly be more effective than the people in that video.

I have stated several times that I am glad that my state (Oklahoma) has legalized open carry,,,
But I doubt very seriously if I will ever take advantage of the new law.

Oklahoma is going to be an interesting place come November 1st,,,
I sincerely hope the situation is handled calmly and sanely.

Aarond

.

 

[Tom Servo]

I certainly did not mean to be distasteful in my reference to Rosa Parks

No, but I know many open carry advocates who do. As a friend once pointed out, "there's a difference between a woman fighting oppression and a fat white dude strutting around with a gun."

I also once had an advocate yell, actually yell, at me that he wasn't going to hide in the attic like Helen Keller when the Nazis came.

The problem with the "movement" is that it really does attract folks from the fringe, and there's little way of controlling the more extreme elements. Case in point: JT Ready and his actions at last year's Occupy rallies.

 

[NJgunowner]

For a police view: http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...rry-advocates/

I have to say the first video was pretty awesome, the cop owned those kids. It's nice to see someone who understands the law and applies it correctly.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I certainly did not mean to be distasteful in my reference to Rosa Parks,,,
I used Rosa Parks as a comparator to show how a well thought out and planned demonstration can work wonders for a cause....

And you weren't. In fact, you were right on the money when you wrote:

...Rosa Parks was not a spur of the moment decision,,,
Her actions were planned and scripted well in advance of the act....

A lot of the time when this sort of subject comes up, someone brings up Rosa Parks. Perhaps it should be a corollary to Godwin's Law. In any case, it's apparent that the folks (not you) who bring Mrs. Parks up have no knowledge of the full history of that event.

On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks was the third African-American since March of that year to be arrested for violating the Montgomery bus segregation law. That night, Jo Ann Robinson, head of the Women's Political Council, printed and circulated a flyer throughout Montgomery's black community starting the call for a boycott of Montgomery's city buses.

Martin Luther King, Jr., as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association and pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, together with other Black community leaders, then organized the boycott of the Montgomery bus system. That boycott reduced Black ridership (the bulk of the bus system's paying customers) of Montgomery city buses by some 90% until December of 1956 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bus segregation laws of Montgomery, Alabama were unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)).

Mrs. Parks actions and arrest were part of a well orchestrated, well organized, program leading to a successful conclusion.

 

[Jim March]

On this whole subject of "baiting the police"...sorry but...sometimes that's required.

The number one area where this is happening involves cameras, not guns. As one example is this incident (and yeah, both links are about the same case):

http://www.pixiq.com/article/man-arrested-for-videotaping-cops-in-florida

http://www.pixiq.com/article/tampa-cop-watch-activist-wins-20000-settlement

That website ("Photography Is Not A Crime") has shown several videos wherein the cops went far over the line - threatening unarmed cameramen with drawn guns. The single worst was in Miami - and we have the video only because the handcuffed cameraman managed to slip the micro-SD memory card out of his cellphone (crushed by a police boot) while handcuffed and get it into his mouth(!).

As to the police site noting that some of the OC people are using left-wing-sourced tactics that veer into "Occupy" territory, I have a message for him:

We had at least six guns in camp at OccupyTucson that I know of (and Tucson PD knew of at least two, mine included) and gee, in stark contrast to Oakland California, NYC and the like we had zero instances of police violence.

 

[Caboclo]

I would like to address 2 points from first-hand, personal experience.

First, having OC'd a fair bit in 3 different states, the public response was almost entirely positive. As someone pointed out, there are probably those who disapprove, but don't say anything. I'm Ok with that; the passive anti's realize that they can't have everything their way, and probably don't even vote. From the perspective of impending legislation, I'm not afraid of them.

Second, I'm curious what exactly Rob means by "activism". I could go either way on that one, depending on the exact definition. Picking fights with cops seems like an all around bad idea to me. Organized, peaceful, political protests seem like a good idea to me. But my take on the term is neither of those. Again, my decision to OC derived directly from my personal experiences, as follows: I had a great childhood, but neither guns nor politics featured greatly in my family. Throughout my adult years, I was pretty much oblivious to firearms in general. I remember hearing about CCW laws in the news once or twice, but I was still quite surprised when I learned that my nephew, a big-city leo, carried off-duty. When I decided to buy my first gun, it was a spur-of-the-moment decision, just because I wanted a new toy. At that time I had no intention of carrying either concealed or open. However, I was aware that there were some laws on the subject, and that guns are intrinsically dangerous, so I proceeded to educate myself in all aspects of my new hobby. Six months later I suddenly looked around and noticed that I had become passionate about self-defense and gun rights. Therefore, my approach to OC as "activism" is to educate the public who are pro-gun but don't know it yet, to inform them that they are allowed to carry and that they will be in good company when they do.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It's a funny thing, but it is in fact reality, that if enough people do something that's legal but they do it in a way that enough other people find obnoxious, the activity probably won't stay legal for long.

Either that, or an alternative will become legal.

Until a few years ago, the state of Ohio did not have any provision for concealed carry. But the Ohio Supreme Court had (correctly) ruled several years ago that under the Ohio constitution, the RKBA is guaranteed and that, therefore, if the legislature chose to "regulate" carry by not allowing concealed carry, then open carry must necessarily be legal.

So "activists" began staging open carry days around that state. Some people did find them obnoxious, others found them frightening, and still others found them enlightening. The end result was that the legislature realized the folly of its ways, and enacted concealed carry legislation as an expedient way of making all the open carriers go away.

Most of them have, indeed, obtained permits and now carry concealed. However, open carry remains legal in Ohio (as it is in Pennsylvania) without a permit, and a percentage of those who carry regularly do so openly, by choice.

Choosing to open carry in order to make a point is not always or necessarily bad.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Until a few years ago, the state of Ohio did not have any provision for concealed carry. But the Ohio Supreme Court had (correctly) ruled several years ago that under the Ohio constitution, the RKBA is guaranteed and that, therefore, if the legislature chose to "regulate" carry by not allowing concealed carry, then open carry must necessarily be legal.

So "activists" began staging open carry days around that state. Some people did find them obnoxious, others found them frightening, and still others found them enlightening. The end result was that the legislature realized the folly of its ways, and enacted concealed carry legislation as an expedient way of making all the open carriers go away.
...

Choosing to open carry in order to make a point is not always or necessarily bad.

But as usual, the devil is in the details. All that worked in Ohio because the RKBA advocates had the foundation of the favorable Ohio Supreme Court ruling (which was in 2003,BTW).




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[zukiphile]

...OC has not been prohibited by law in Ohio going back at least two decades. ...It took people pressing the point to start to change the culture so that Ohioans don't end up with a felony conviction for exercising a right in ordinary circumstances....

Two decades is pushing it. I think the 2003 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in Klein v. Leis, 99 Ohio St.3d 537 had more to do with it.

The court in Klein did confirm that OC was legal under the then existing statutory scheme. In recognising this it upheld Ohio's effective ban on concealed carry. However there was not a general statutory prohibition on OC prior to the decision in Klein. It was a matter of police policy to charge and prosecute OC as concealed carry.

People in Ohio marched for the purpose of confirming that right and confronting a police culture that too often viewed a person armed as a problem. Subsequent to those demonstrations, a concealed carry law passed.

It isn't an inexorable result of activism that you will get laws we dislike.

EDITED TO ADD -Frank Ettin, Aquila Blanca appears to have the sequence of events correct. The OC marches worked politically because there was significant political will to challenge police conduct judicially, and the heavy hand of police organisations politically.

Remember that the decision in Klein affirmed the constitutionality of concealed carry prohibitions. It isn't obvious that such a decision would be an unambiguous aid to concealed carry advocates.

As a friend once pointed out, "there's a difference between a woman fighting oppression and a fat white dude strutting around with a gun."

Indeed, there are many differences, but they aren't pertinent where Parks' name is invoked as an example of pressing for recognition of a right.

The problem with the "movement" is that it really does attract folks from the fringe, and there's little way of controlling the more extreme elements.

You get this with free speech and non-establishment advocacy too. I suppose it would be more comfortable to argue the merits of a wide zone of carry freedom if only PLUs were involved and we limited actions to letters to the editor from our offices. Yet, life always seems messier.

You might not feel comfortable at the sight of advocacy from the weirdo in camo trousers, bandana for a hat and an obtuse manner, but the OC right isn't a right if he can't exercise it too.

 

[zincwarrior]

The average American supports the RKBA which is why we have seen a steady return of rights in most places. However, the pendulum of public opinion can very quickly swing the other way and self serving politicians will once again seek ways to deny our freedoms.
__________________

I don't believe that actually, not in the OC context. It should be remembered that, before the current limitations on firearms, it was common for municapilities to ban carry or display of firearms. At least thats what Hollywood tells me.

Having said that, I think OC is just fine if its SASS arms and appropriate gear, including spurs that jingle jangle jingle.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As a friend once pointed out, "there's a difference between a woman fighting oppression and a fat white dude strutting around with a gun."

...Indeed, there are many differences, but they aren't pertinent where Parks' name is invoked as an example of pressing for recognition of a right...

They are indeed pertinent when Mrs. Parks is invoked as an example of successful activism. The differences are pertinent because they illustrate how the details make a difference between effective activism based on public demonstrations and ineffective or counter productive activism based on public demonstrations.

The details, timing, legal background, charismatic leadership and public attitude all matter a great deal. I've alluded to that in post 36 with reference to Ohio. There the demonstrations could work because the legislature's hand was effectively forced by an Ohio Supreme Court ruling. While as you note:

...the decision in Klein affirmed the constitutionality of concealed carry prohibitions. It isn't obvious that such a decision would be an unambiguous aid to concealed carry advocates...

that decision also unequivocally affirmed the legality of open carry.

Some of the details of Rosa Parks' success were discussed in post 31. As far as the invocation of Rosa Parks goes: different times, different causes, different social, political and legal climates.

When Rosa Parks shook things up, her actions won wide support in editorials in major newspapers, from pulpits in houses of worship across the country and on college campus.

The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s was the culmination of 100+ years of abolitionist and civil rights activity. It had broad and deep support. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country.

During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, civil disobedience, as favorably reported by the mainstream media, and as favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helped generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.

How has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates? Where have there been any great outpourings of sympathy for the plight of gun owners, especially from non-gun owners -- as whites showed sympathy for the plight of non-whites during the days of the Civil Rights Movement? Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post lauding the courage of gun owners in their resistance to the oppression of anti-gun prejudice? Who has heard a pro-gun rights sermon in his church? Where are the pro-gun rights rallies on college campuses? Where are non-gun owners joining with gun owners in pro-gun rights demonstrations, just as whites joined with non-whites in marches and demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement? Where are our charismatic leaders inspiring the nation?

 

[Chuckusaret]

I have OC'd while fishing and hunting without a problem for many years until someone in St. Pete used the OC while fishing excuse on St. Pete pier but had no intention of fishing. Now each time we attempt to launch the boat while OC'ing we are confronted by a police officer. IMO we should let the courts settle the matter because each and every time that there is a so called "Open Carry Walk" in my area they receive mostly negative press. I just returned from Phoenix, Tucson and Marana Az., an open carry state, and in the three weeks I was there I only saw two maybe three people OC'ing in public. I don't support the flagrant violation of any laws whether they are unconstitional or not. There is a legal route that can be taken to have them overturned/repealed.

 

[Strafer Gott]

Rant on. Standby 3, 2, 1 ...

So why do OC gun advocates show up at political rallies and events organized by media demagogues with the spoken intention of intimidating politicians with the so-called 2nd amendment solution? Don't tell me it didn't happen. It was on national tv. Oh that's right, it's just one of the uncontrollable splinter groups, led by some clown kicked off the clown show for not being funny anymore. Sure puts the banana in " Banana Republic" for me.

Rant Off